Y'all need to lay off my show--"Stargate Universe." (Just to clarify, a series that gets the "my show" moniker is one that I love so much I have to watch it live, or at least the same night it originally airs.)
Current shows that I consider to be mine include "Friday Night Lights," "Glee," "Chuck," "Sons of Anarchy," "Sanctuary" and, probably most of all, "Stargate Universe." I won't miss them. Not a chance.
Now, back to all the haters out there. I'd like to address all the negative comments I've read about my "SGU" since it launched earlier this fall. Admittedly, I'm a new devotee to the "Stargate" franchise. Yes, I watched "SG-1" and "Atlantis," but not religiously, like I have to watch "SGU." I enjoyed them, but felt they were light in the drama department. I like my sci-fi rough, scary and dangerous, and "Universe" delivers.
This brings me to the defense of my show, which won't even include how amazing the cast is, or how clever the writing is, or how awesome the music and the special effects are. But believe me; I think they're all outstanding.
"SGU" IS NOT "SG-1" OR "ATLANTIS"
"SGU" is not "SG-1" or "Atlantis," and I am thankful for that. If you're complaining because you want it to be similar to past series, then stick to reruns. And stop comparing the shows, because the creators of "SGU," Robert C. Cooper and Brad Wright, didn't set out to remake those two shows.
Those "Stargate" shows focused on weekly battles with aliens, mean IOA leaders or other enemies. The heroes were squeaky clean, quick with a one-liner and smart as whips. The shows provided a jaunty, wild ride each week.
This new "Stargate" is a different, darker animal that digs deeper into the psychology of characters that are not perfect, and not prepared for the challenges they face. There isn't a character on the Destiny who doesn't have a dark past, a dirty secret or an issue with another character. And few of them are happy to be stuck on the Destiny with little chance of getting home.
One of the best parts of watching "SGU" is wondering how I would react if I were on the Destiny. Would I crack jokes to hide any fears, like Eli Wallace (David Blue) does? Would I boldly search for a way to survive, like Lt. Matthew Scott (Brian J. Smith)? Would I deck Dr. Nicholas Rush (Robert Carlyle) every time he said something hateful?
I love that watching this wonderful group of characters struggle each week leads me to a bit of self-examination as opposed to only being entertained. That's smart TV.
SEX IS OK ON "SGU"
Scott and Chloe get together. Syfy photos
I'll start this argument off with a little rebuke of the defenders of "SGU" who claim the bedroom scene in "Light" between Scott and Chloe Armstrong (Elyse Levesque) wasn't "sex." Let's not pretty this up by claiming it wasn't a sex scene. Even if they were desperately reaching out for some form of human companionship as a last act, they had sex. Even if they love each other, they had sex. S-E-X. And that's OK. And it doesn't make either of them slutty. I think it makes them more emotionally real, human and interesting. (As does the fact that despite the unwanted pregnancy in his past, Scott felt a strong need for an emotional connection before his death. I think Smith's honest portrayal of this flawed but noble hero bears that out.)
Now, for those "Stargate" purists who think there's no room for sex on "SGU": Say what? Putting myself on the Destiny, facing imminent death as the ship was about to crash into a star, I'd definitely want to go out with a bang--so to speak. And Chloe had it right: I'd be after Scott, too, or Greer (Jamil Walker Smith). But that's beside the point.
The point is that this scene made complete and total sense, and obviously creates another path to more rich storytelling. I've read some blog comments claiming that nothing onscreen before has shown that Scott and Chloe would be so close so fast that they would connect like this. First, you don't really have to be close to have sex, but I believe they are. They shared that lovely scene when he can back from the desert planet in "Air II." They can relate to each other because they've both experienced the deaths of loved ones (he comforted her in "Air I"). And they have shared scenes that suggest they've had time together off-camera. Remember in "Darkness," when crew members were assembled in the mess hall and Eli was talking about the showers? He and Scott teased each other about who smelled worse and Chloe said that Scott definitely smelled worse. She wasn't sitting near him, so how did she know? I read into that scene that the two of them got close off-camera. Remember folks, these people don't live only when the camera is on them. Viewers need to bring a little imagination with them when watching.
Oh, one other reason the Chloe-Scott coupling made sense: They're both hot. So yes, they would go for it.
"SGU" IS NOT SEXIST
Many detractors have said the scene in "Darkness" where Eli and Riley (Haig Sutherland) got busted for Kino-peeping on James (Julia Benson) was gratuitous. That it did nothing but allow a shot of Benson's bod. I admire a nice rack more than the next gay, but still, that didn't register with me at all. I thought the scene was hilarious, and helped to show that Benson is an ass-kicking lady warrior like Carter on "SG-1" and Teyla on "Atlantis." And Benson was covered, as was Chloe in the shower scene in the same episode that others have called sexist. If you're one of those viewers keeping score, the boys are winning in the nakedness race. We saw some lovely shots of both Scott and Greer in "Light" (which also were not gratuitous, but showed how they both get "Zen" before death). Reverse sexism perhaps, but I'm not complaining. One special note here: The act of Kino-spying may be sexist, but that doesn't make anyone involved with the "SGU," or the show itself, sexist.
James was not happy to be the victim of Peeping Eli.
Another aspect of this argument is that the women aren't as fully developed as the men. I agree that they haven't gotten as much screen time, but I do believe that the time they have we've learned so many things. They are rich, complex characters, just like the guys.
For example, Camile Wray (Ming-Na), we've learned, is a lesbian who misses her sweetie back on Earth. We've also seen her mix it up with Col. Young (Louis Ferreira), watched her both battle Rush and defend him, and witnessed some sneaky moves (more on that in a minute). And for the record, I don't think this character is "the bitch," and neither does Ming-Na. Camile has made her opinions known, but not in a bitchy way at all. I couldn't disagree more.
Lt. Tamara Johansen (Alaina Huffman) has me completely curious. She was leaving the service when Icarus Base was attacked, but now is stuck as the chief medical officer even though she's not a doctor. We've gotten some short peaks into some kind of bad past in "Darkness," when she, Greer and Scott were working on the shuttle. I'm not sure what it was, but they were talking about her situation being unfair, and could it be resolved now that they were so far from home. I'm of two opinions here: I wonder if she was somehow involved with either Camile or Young. I remember an interesting look Camile gave her in "Air," and an Icarus flashback scene when T.J. told Camile she was leaving. Camile wanted to know why, the same question she asked Young in "Light." He said he had no idea. Was he hiding his affair with her? Is that why he was always leaving his wife on Earth to go on missions? Or does Camile want to reignite her affair with T.J.? Is that why she was pumping Young for info? This is where my imagination takes me from those well-done scenes that leave just a little bit to wonder about.
Finally, we have Chloe, who had an enormously strong scene in "Air" when she fought Rush after the incident with her father. Levesque showed both Chloe's strength and vulnerability in the span of what, a one-minute scene? I was bawling. Awesome acting. And the whole Chloe-Scott-Eli situation is totally realistic. She's being mean to Eli without even realizing that she's doing it. Boy, have I been on the Eli end of that situation. He's her friend; Scott's her love (as sad as that is for Eli).
Three fleshed out women here. Now I just want to see more of them--and James kicking some ass. (Update 10/31: Last night's ep, "Water," with take-charge TJ, sassy Chloe, thoughtful James and brilliant Dr. Park (Jennifer Spence) supports my arguments here.)
That's my rebuttal to the major arguments I've seen hurled against my show. Honestly I'm not able to understand how someone can't like this show; so much of it works. I'm impressed with the depth given all of the characters, even those not given much screen time. I wasn't thrilled with the idea of the Kino--the doc style of storytelling is getting kind of old. But I appreciated in "Light," when all the supporting characters got to do their bits and thus we got to learn quickly more about them.
It seems pretty clear that the producers, writers and actors have thought long and hard about the characters and the situations they are put in each week. And just because an episode leaves you with questions (like why does Telford (Lou Diamond Phillips) so dislike Young) doesn't mean it's failed. I enjoy that questions are raised each week, and the answers come slowly, like the peeling of an onion.
"SGU" is sci-fi in top form, using fantastical situations to tell truly human, real stories. I believe all the characters on Destiny show honest emotions, motivations and reactions. Would I have done the same thing? They make me wonder.
84 Comments
Amy Ellis said:
Well done. I couldn't have said it better myself. What would be the point of SGU if it were the exactly same formula as SG1 or SGA? I love this dark stuff and having these characters with murky motives & backgrounds.
I never thought those scenes in Darkness were sexist. I just wanted my equal share of the menfolk. Light did that quite nicely.
I'm very curious about T.J.'s background. I, too, thought there was something with her and Camille given that look in Air, but now I'm thinking it's T.J. and Young. (And if his wife really doesn't want him, I'm happy to volunteer.)
I also don't understand the criticisms of Scott, that he can't be religious/noble and also get jiggy. Why not? That's what makes a 3D character. And what young man DOESN'T get jiggy, no matter what their beliefs?
As to the question "would I have done the same thing?" if stranded on Destiny, I think I might just be hiding in a corner somewhere with a blanket over my head (or spying on Greer with a kino).
Curt Wagner said:
I'd probably be whining and complaining if I were on Destiny, but I'd like to think I'd be witty (Eli), brave (T.J., Greer, Scott) or a good leader (Young). I'd like to think... Thanks for reading and commenting.
nic stepro said:
"I admire a nice rack more than the next gay," some kind of freudian slip there? I am loving SGU so far.
The only scene I thought was gratuitous was the sex scene in the pilot. I think a lot of us enjoy watching recorded with our kids in the room and that came as a surprise. Aside from that I am loving the music, the camera work, the characterizations, etc. etc. but I know not everyone's taste runs the same way. What can you do?
Curt Wagner said:
No slip. Exactly what I meant to say. I'm gay, and I probably appreciate the female form more than the next gay guy. Yes, the first sex scene was pretty surprising. I think I'd vet for the kids first anyway, right? Show goes to some dark places. Thanks for commenting and reading!
minipax said:
What bothered me about the Scott and Cleo romp, was the Scott and one the other Lt. were getting it on in the first episode. The show seemed to be setting up a relationship with Scott and someone else, but the writers appeared to forget that. More annoyingly, Scott gives a nod to the other Lt. on the shuttle before the take off, with seemingly nominal reaction. It is almost like these two characters don't really know each other in the 5th episode even though they were screwing in the first.
Another thing that bothers me is if they have this stone that can bring anyones presence onto the ship, why don't they bring in specialized personel. It just seems silly. If someone is hurt, bring in a doctor. I'm sure someone on the ship is willing to swap bodies for a few hours.
Finally, now that the ship is back to full power can they dial up the gate and go home... perhaps get a nicer crew. These guys are a little whinny.
Curt Wagner said:
Rush and Eli say the power is only at about 40 percent, and Rush I think claims the ship could never dial Earth. But Scott and his broom closet hook-up, James, I think were just that: a hook-up. He seems to have genuine feelings for Chloe. They seemed to attach when her father died. I believe it works; I'm going with it. Hope you do too. Thanks for commenting.
WayBeyond SoccerMom said:
Sorry but Scott and his broom closet hook-up were both in uniform, on duty. Between Scott's lack of military propriety and his convoluted past (dead parents, raised by suicidal drunk priest, and getting a 16 year old pregnant), I don't like much about the character. My family is done with the show. We will just keep watching lighter fare, like Castle, Chuck, Big Bang Theory, etc.
Personally, I think SGU needs more women writers.
Curt Wagner said:
That's probably a good idea, since SGU is not a family show, which the producers have stated. Be careful though: Castle shows murders and all the shows you mention have lots of sexual innuendo. Thanks for commenting
Jayson Ng said:
well said Curt. A lot of these people who hate SGU for all of its "Sexuality" suggest watching other shows instead. But those shows end up tackling worst topics.
Curt Wagner said:
Thanks, and thanks for reading. Enjoy SGU
I agree with everything that you've said. I've been a Stargate loyalist since I started watching the franchise back in 2001 or so. I think that this new series being different is a good thing, and I'm glad that someone is saying so. I agree that the broom closet thing was just a hook-up. Thought Lt. James may not see it that way. My only thought on your original piece was that Chloe was being mean to Eli, though unintentionally. I think that she's just oblivious to his interest in her. What would be mean is if she was to actively send mixed signals to him. I think that Chloe, Scott, and Eli all aren't savvy when it comes to relationships. Chloe seems to have had either an isolated or very professional life. Eli's certainly not the most traditionally socially minded person. Scott seems to me like he needs comforting or to be close with someone, and sex may be the way he's learned to do that... Yikes hope I'm not thinking about this too much. What's funny about the SG fans is that people have been clamoring for Jack O'Neill and Sam Carter to get together for years and now that there are actual relationships in a show people are complaining. Oh well can't please everyone right? Regardless of what is said this show is great.
Curt Wagner said:
I agree with you on Chloe. She's unintentionally being mean is what I'm saying. And that's very interesting about fan wanting Jack and Sam to get together. LOL. Thanks for commenting.
lysambre said:
Oh, look ! Another privilege man trying to tell us woman that something is not sexist ! Wow, what a surprise ! What a shock ! What a revelation !
Until you become a woman full time, body AND mind, I would suggest you keep your condescending "x is NOT sexist" in your pocket.
I'm not trying to teach you what is homophobic or not, don't try to teach me what is sexist or not.
Curt Wagner said:
So a man can't have an opinion on what is sexist or not? Or do you just not want to civilly debate the issue at hand? You'd rather accuse me of being a privileged MAN? I'm simply debating, offering my opinion about a show I love; refuting claims I see as unfounded (And lat night's episode really backs up my arguments.)
And feel free to tell me what you think is and isn't homophobic. Bring it on. Oh, and thanks for reading!
rosiewook said:
Lysambre, you and I have known each other for a long time. I think you know that I'm not a woman who stands for much in the way of sexism, but I completely agree with Curt on this one.
I think the women are realistically portrayed, as are the men. The generic 20-something tends to be a horndog. (Not all, but in general.) By the same token, people in intense situations will form relationships very quickly.
In addition, I have seen more than my fair share of men who do stupidity things like the equivalent of spying on girls with kinos. (Just walk around Dragon*Con at night, for example.)
And I think TJ and Camille are showing great potential, but the needs of the story is preventing them from stepping forward, just yet. However, I can see how they will soon be moving up in the story-telling.
So nope. I don't find it sexist in the least, unless it's part of the story.
lysambre said:
I have seen more than my fair share of men who do stupidity things like the equivalent of spying on girls with kinos
And that makes it right how ? So because you've seen that sexist behaviour before and often it makes it better ?
I've seen (and been told) for 30 years women being told to "shut the hell up or else", being called "bitch" and more, does that mean it's not sexist ?
As I said in the above comment "boys will be boys", "they were just having fun" does not make something right, on the contrary.
That you don't see the sexism in it ? I can believe.
But to then tell me that what I see is wrong or not there ? That's insulting and condescending, which is not something I would have expected from you.
Curt Wagner said:
Hi again. What you aren't understanding is that the Kino-spying scene does not make the SHOW sexist. The act may have been sexist, and that is why Col Young admonished Eli for doing it. To call the show sexist for including a scene with a sexist act, and saying you will stop watching because of it, isn't really fair, because good drama always includes events that we might not agree with but that MAKE good drama. They cause debate, etc because of it. I mean, if you want to talk about lotsa sexism, tune in to "Mad Men." It runs rampant, but that's part of the story, no? That is part of the drama, no? Not the opinions of the writers, actors, producers or fans. If you wish not to see the depiction of events that you disagree with, you might have to stop watching movies, TV, reading books, etc. That kind of thing is all over the place as part of storytelling. And again, thanks for commenting.
lysambre said:
"So a man can't have an opinion on what is sexist or not?" IMO, which is the opinion of a survivor with PTSD, no, a man has no business telling me what he considers sexist, especially when it's to tell me I'm wrong on what I consider sexist.
Just like I would not dare telling a person of colour what racism is or not.
Until you have experienced it I think you simply cannot understand.
I do get that for you what I consider sexist is "funny", "boys will be boys", "understandable under the circumstances", but for me, all of those words are words we hear as female after a rape or any form of abuse by men to say : Whatever, get over it.
I will admit that I made the comment in anger, but I will make no apologies for saying exactly what I thought when I thought it. Doing that for me is a luxury as I've been known to suffer more abuse when I used to dare have a point of view.
That you defend the show you like, that's fine with me, I can completely understand. That I defend my point of view as a female that has suffered from sexism doesn't make it any less valid.
Please note that I wasn't attacking the show in itself in that comment, rather attacking the fact that you think you can tell us what is sexist or not.
I will not tell you what is homophobic for the simple reason that I've never been homosexual, thus I have no idea what you may have suffered from. I can talk with my friends who are, I can try to understand, but I cannot live it. And that's my whole point.
The reason I don't see a point to an "intelligent debate" as you call it, is that you are not willing to accept the points I consider sexist. Spying on nude women or women with big breast is sexist. That you consider it "funny" makes any argument I can have completely worthless for you.
You refuse to accept that because I consider this sexist then it is, but then you want to tell me that because you say it's not sexist then I should accept it.
I suppose neither of us is right or wrong, I am certain of what I consider sexist, and you are certain of what you consider not to be sexist, I think none of what either of us could say could make the other change their mind.
Therefore I will agree to disagree with you on that point.
Rose Hughes said:
Lysambre, thanks for saying what I was thinking.
Everytime I have seen a man "rush" to defend the show as not being sexist, they have demonstrated with their comments that don't have the least clue WHY it is being seen as sexist. Yet, in my personal experience, in the experience of my personal friends (many already FORMER SGU watchers), and from what I have seen on the Internet there are a LOT of people who see the show as sexist - both male and female.
But, somehow, they seem to think that TELLING us why we are wrong - and often quite arrogantly - will suddenly change our minds just because they told us we were "wrong".
Curt Wagner said:
I find it interesting that in your comment you don't bother to tell me what this show is sexist, yet you say I demonstrate in my post that I haven't a clue why it is. I scrolled through tons of blog posts and comments plus Twitter entries and picked out the arguments people were making as to why THEY think the show is sexist, and I gave my rebuttal to those arguments; I didn't just cluelessly make something up. And I'm telling why I THINK you're wrong about it being sexist. Maybe you can tell me why you THINK I'm wrong. Oh, and thanks for reading!
WormholeRiders said:
Hey Curt!
As usual your reports are concise, factual and great! We at WormholeRiders are working on a companion post, but until then you have done an excellent job discrediting the few troublemakers and malcontents who want to smear SGU. We get a few also, but according to our statistics, they are in a minority and seem to just like making insulting posts.
Pleas keep up the great work you do!
Thank You!
WR_Systems of WormholeRiders
Curt Wagner said:
Wow. Thanks. Let me know when you post. And as for the "troublemakers and malcontents": No name calling plz (lol). They are simply opinionated viewers like us and have a right to say what they think. They're just wrong! LOL. Thanks again for reading and commenting.
WormholeRiders said:
Indeed! You are so right Curt!
The vast majority are fans expressing their opinions. And that is a good thing! Let me clarify, we have isolated a rude group from a past experience. Their only goal is to invade fandom's and throw hand grenades and gasoline and then run!
Naturally we will never mention names, that is against our ethical code. And like you, don't worry, you will be among the first to know! Wht? Because our great friend ShowPatrol(Man) is everywhere!
Best Regards
FredPerry said:
The point is this is aimed at twenty something who still haven't really grown up - sex isn't chocking, its boring and a waste of time. Unless you are still the drool hormone controlled animals of the twenties - the kind of group that TV is aiming at these days.
Oh well.
Curt Wagner said:
I don't think that's true. I mean, yes, they want young viewers. But sex is not boring or unimportant to this kind of show IMHO. I think it adds a lot. Why did they get together? How does it change relationships, decision-making, allegiances...? It opens many more doors and is just realistic. I can't believe that no one on Destiny wouldn't be getting a bit horny, crass as it may sound. People have needs. And again, that's just what I'm thinking. Thanks for letting me know what you think.
Rose Hughes said:
I think we may have a difference of opinion on the meaning of "rebuttal".
Your statement that you found the scene with Benson being stalked by the Kino "hillarious" doesn't "rebut" it's sexism. It's your opinion and you certainly have the same right to yours as I have to mine.
One of my biggest complaints about SGU is that we are told by its producers that we should accept certain criteria about the situation. These people are ill-equipped (both in resources and in training and experience)and are desperate. Now, based on the disaster training that I have had, I have my own personal viewpoint on how people most likely would behave in those circumstances, but I am willing to suspend that to go along with the scenario we have been presented.
Far from the rule of law, a woman is stalked by two men. The commander of the base (and HER commander) blows it off as a simple "mistake" in her presence. Knowing she doesn't have his support, all that happens is she gets off an empty threat? No, not believable. It the reaction to the event as much as the event itself that I found both to be sexist and unrealistic.
"Another aspect of this argument is that the women aren't as fully developed as the men. I agree that they haven't gotten as much screen time, but I do believe that the time they have we've learned so many things."
While I may not have reviewed so many Twitter or blog posts as you, I was surprised to see you give this so little attention. It certainly is a much more major issue in the posts that I have seen as the other things you mentioned.
We have a - again - a despterate group of people who are ill-equipped in resources and training and in the midst of a disaster ... and female characters are getting no virtually no screen time. I have actually seen people, online, argue that the development of the female characters could wait until the most immediate disaster was over.
Well, if we don't need to see role of the female characters in the middle of a disaster, it is a pretty clear signal that they are not seen as "important" characters to the survival of Destiny by those writing this thing.
While you acknowledged the lack of screen time, I think you are underestimating its importance.
Now, I could go on, but I want to cover a couple of other points.
Did you notice I haven't mentioned the sex scenes? I don't care. While I know many people do find it to be part of the sexism issue, I don't.
I also don't see either Wray or Chloe as bitches - manipulative or otherwise.
Women in the situation that has been created for us may be bitches and may be engaging in casual sex, but they would be also doing other things for their own mutual protection. THOSE are the things being missed.
Quick example .... had Chloe let Eli into the room of people waiting (instead of the shower) and all those people been women (even if none of the other "major" female characters been present), I would have bought it completely. While we saw several major male characters "check in" on how Chloe was doing, I don't recall a single female character doing so. Well, women would have done that as well as banded together (strategically if not also physically) for their own protection in an environment where the rule of law was in doubt. If Wray were a leader, she would be the natural choice to make it happen.
If demonstrating leadership could wait until the disaster was over, George Bush wouldn't be vilified as having screwed up the Katrina response.
Rose Hughes said:
I accidentally hit "post" when I was going back to make a further comment on your statement.
"Another aspect of this argument is that the women aren't as fully developed as the men. I agree that they haven't gotten as much screen time, but I do believe that the time they have we've learned so many things."
As you stated, the arguement is that the women aren't as fully developed as the men. Your response was that "we have learned so many things".
"learned so many things" and "fully developed" are not equal.
Rose Hughes said:
"One of my biggest complaints about SGU is that we are told by its producers that we should accept certain criteria about the situation."
Apparently, I also forgot the second half of this sentence.
It SHOULD have read:
"One of my biggest complaints about SGU is that we are told by its producers that we should accept certain criteria about the situation, but they themselve are not consistent within that criteria."
Obviously the producers have the right and responsibility to set up whatever criteria they want.
Curt Wagner said:
Yay! Now here's a debate! After watching "Water," I think many of these arguments melt away. TJ took charge; Chloe made herself heard, and we saw a very brilliant Dr. Park. Now maybe all this should have happened sooner, but ... As for the stalking of James by two men. Bad as that may be, it does fit into what would happen on that ship and makes sense to be included. Also, Young's scolding of but not punishing Eli makes sense as well. Military attitude maybe? Also, he can't afford to lock anyone up. Heck, in "Water" he didn't even punish the soldier for stealing rations. Reality may not be what we'd like in an ideal world, but being on Destiny is not ideal. And your comment about the women bonding: I think we saw that sort of last night when James, despite her past with Scott, still went to Chloe to tell her about Scott's accident. Good scene I think.
Thanks so much for getting back. Debate is fun, yes? We can agree to disagree, yes? I respect your opinion (but you're still wrong--just kidding!). Thanks again
lovingstargate said:
The problem with the female characters in this series so far has been the lack of balance in power (a lack of any true leaders). In the previous series from the very beginning there was a clear balance in power between the male and female characters (i.e. Col. Jack O'Neil with Lt. Carter in SG=1 or Elizabeth Weir & Teyla with Colonel Jack Shepherd and Ronan in Atlantis). In this series we have been introduced to some very powerful men, but have yet to see any women who rival that power in a credible way (Camile Ray has tried to take power but has been shown to be a less than capable leader, like many of the government higher-ups of the previous series). I believe we should be concerned about this imbalance in power (because without the balance sexism can creep in and ruin a series that I believe has started off well in every other way). The most recent episode shows some promise, with Lt. Johansen taking center stage as a leader on the ship, however her credibility as a leader seems shaky at best (with two men still vying for control behind her back, and Col. Young still in command). With so many strong male characters there is a huge imbalance, and I hope that this imbalance does not remain (because it would be a huge detractor for me).
Curt Wagner said:
I think TJ did show some major power last night when she told Greer, "No, I don't trust you" or something like that. He totally backed off. 1. That shows he has HUGE respect for her. 2. Shows she's got what it takes to lead--even if she has her own doubts about herself (as both Young and Scott have shown about themselves). You are totally right about the balance of power thing compared to past Stargates, but I think it is unfair to compare to past Stargates. This is its own thing. I think the female characters will be shown to be strong. It's unfortunate it's taken this long, but I see it as a "growth" plotline maybe. I think everyone on the show, save Rush, doubts himself or herself. I hope "Water" was the beginning of the kick-ass women moving to the fore. Thanks for chatting
WormholeRiders said:
Heya,
We agree that there needs to be balance. In fact we are supporting requests that the men of SGU appear in Maxim too to even thescore! What's fair is fair!
Having been in the industry in a past life, our sincere advice is be patient until the season is a complete "play".
One way to think of SGU is as a multi act stage play. We have yet to conclude "Act I" and there are so many more "acts" to go. We suspect that as the story unfolds we may well see a female revolt lead by Ming. Huffman, Levesque & Bensen! Or at least a balance!
Best Regards, Cheers to #SHU and Happy Halloween!
PS: Be safe!
Curt Wagner said:
And hugs and kisses. Thanks WHR!
Amy Ellis said:
I believe that Colonel Young putting TJ in charge of the ship pretty much erases the sexism notion in my mind, not just because of his decision but because the other men followed her orders. Rush even made the point - even if not happily - that these were her decisions to make.
I think there's a vast difference between a few peepshow moments and actual sexism. The latter is ugly, abusive, and disempowering, robbing a woman of her ability to thrive, let alone function in her environment. I don't see anything remotely resembling that on SGU.
Curt Wagner said:
We totally agree. Thanks for commenting.
wonkguy said:
"Three fleshed out women here. Now I just want to see more of them..."
Good points & I'd especially like to see more of James.
Curt Wagner said:
I think James would be flattered to hear that, um, maybe. LOL. Thanks for commenting.
Nadine Ramsden said:
So many things to say... I just know I'm going to forget some...
First of all, I read your post last night (totally missed that we could comment :P) and loved it. I thought you fleshed out your arguments well and were able to rebut without being insulting, which these days I'm definitely finding a plus on the internet.
With the issue of an unfair balance of power on Destiny, I have to say that I never even considered that in terms of male/female. Truthfully, the only issue I saw there was military/civilian, much like I imagine they may've had some issues in Atlantis. But in both cases, there *is* a clear leader. That is, this is a military operation, and as such, the highest ranking military officer is in charge. Even had Camille attempted to exert more power, I do not believe it would have led anywhere but to a schism in these people who need to pull together to survive.
Also, as for this being different than in any of the other Stargates, I disagree. In SG-1 there have always been male Generals, and there weren't any high-ranking female officers until Carter became a Colonel. And in SGA, while Elizabeth was indeed the de facto head of the expedition, Col. Sumner was a high-ranking male military officer...
And the Kino scene with James - I really never found it offensive... It just made me chuckle. And when I read that feedback/criticism about, what was it, Julia Benson's "assets" or something, I was rather appalled. I took this as just boys being boys, and I really don't believe Eli would have taken it any further. I think that people want to tear apart SGU at all turns and so they are imposing their own views upon a situation. And I think that this is what, in part, has led to some of the vitriol over Scott and Chloe, which has only ended up being extremely hurtful to the actors and their families.
Truthfully? How is this scene any "worse" (I use quotation marks because I STILL don't see anything wrong with it) than season 9 of SG-1 when Vala is in Daniel's body in "Crusade" and she wanders into the men's locker room to find Mitchell? She could just as easily have waited outside, but she didn't... And I don't hear anyone tearing that apart.
I also agree with the comment about Jack and Sam. I only started watching Stargate last year, and from what I've read on the net, etc. People seem to have been clamouring for more relationships between certain main characters for *years*. And so now, when we actually see one, *this* is the reaction from certain fans?
M'kay, I'm sure I've missed *something* I wanted to talk about, but that should do it for now..
Thanks again for the great article! Managed to say a lot of what I've been thinking ;)
WormholeRiders said:
Very well put! Thx!
Curt Wagner said:
Wow. Prize to you for a great comment. Taught me something too: I had no idea about the Vala/Daniel's body thing. Oh, and your military/civilian idea? Keep watching. Thanks again
Nadine Ramsden said:
See, I *knew* I was going to forget something...
Right, with TJ in charge last night - I never took it as a bunch of male characters machinating to wrest control from this *woman* who was in charge, but rather more of the typical civilian/military arguments and the differing viewpoints both bring to the table. A long-standing issue in Stargate has been the dichotomy between the military and their civilian compatriots - with the most notable foils for this debate being Jack and Daniel. I loved that they put TJ in charge, and I loved that they argued, but ultimately followed her orders. And I definitely agree with the respect inherent in Greer's deferral to her orders - but at the same time it didn't surprise me. It seems to me that Scott, TJ, and Greer are friends, of a sort, and so I really was not shocked or anything when Greer backed down. If nothing else, Greer seems to be military through-and-through, and this is a *senior* officer, issuing him a direct order. I'm not sure why sexism has to be brought into it at all, and sometimes it seems like people are just trying too hard to see what they want to see...
OK, *now* I'm done... I think
Curt Wagner said:
Oh yes: "It seems to me that Scott, TJ, and Greer are friends..." That scene in "Darkness" when they were all on the shuttle. The guys told were how awful it was she did not get out in time, and then there was that exchange about "can they fix it?" that I didn't quite get. Anyway, totally showed they all are buds. Thanks for commenting.
Brian Knapp said:
NEWS FLASH YOU GUYS THIS AIN'T SG-1 OR SG-A. HATS OFF TO WRITERS, DIRECTORS, ACTORS OF SGU. Keep fueling more discussions like this. You're cooking with "CRISCO". Its only 5 episodes in and look how much they can touch such a diverse and intelligent group. P.S. love the opinions and remarks of all of you posting here. BTW I love SG-1 and SG-A. Now SG-U too.
Curt Wagner said:
U R SG GUY! Thanks for commenting
Rose Hughes said:
"Curt Wagner:
Yay! Now here's a debate! After watching "Water," I think many of these arguments melt away."
Well, it COULD have been a debate.
Thanks to overly rabid SGU fans who resorted to insults and name calling toward anyone who dared to cast the slightest doubt on the "wonderfulness" of what they see in SGU, I no longer watch the show. The last episode I saw was "Darkness".
The one I found funniest was "Get a life!". I have a life - which means I have lots of choices to make about what I do with my time. I don't OWE anyone an ENTIRE season to see IF they make the characters credible and/or interesting. I had planned to give it longer - until the Internet discussions got SO ugly SO quickly.
Never say never. I may get back to it someday. Or not.
I do appreciate your willingness to DISCUSS - rather than attack - the opinion of those who did disagree, however.
rosiewook said:
Keep on defendin', Curt. You've captured everything I've felt about the negativity.
I just keep reminding myself that we had many of the same reactions during the first season of SGA. But those very same complainers were more than upset when SGA was cancelled. I think it's the nature of the beast.
Curt Wagner said:
Interesting about SGA reactions. I'm learning a lot from this debate about past debates on both past shows. Thanks for commenting.
AccidentalVisitor said:
A group of characters who aren’t as well developed as another group of characters?
A group of characters who aren’t in the same position of authority as another group of characters?
A group of characters who aren’t getting as much screen time as another group of characters and who must wait for their turn to be developed?
A couple of female posters arguing about what they see as sexism on this series brought up the above points as examples of the problems that they have with SGU. Funny thing as a black person I can look at those same points and claim the same issues that they see limiting the female characters are the same that have been plaguing minority characters on science fiction shows for an eternity (with a few notable exceptions). Should I be just as indignant? Are the female posters just as worried about underdeveloped non-white characters that have populated Stargate and other sci fi franchises for decades? If not then perhaps they aren’t all that progressive themselves; they are merely concerned about their own selfish interests and concerns.
I’m really liking Stargate Universe so far despite its flaws and despite its obvious influence from BSG. That being said should I not be screaming mad that the two black characters that get any screen time are an angry black man and a cook? I love Greer mostly because the actor does wonders with the role but his character type is so stereotypical there is a common nickname for it: (the already mentioned Angry Black Man). He has no authority either. He’s just a grunt (or better off just a marine). Right now we know less about his past and his personal life than any of the white main characters of the show. He doesn’t get “the girl” or any of the gals so far. In fact all of the women right now seem to be distrustful of him. Perhaps afraid of his temper and or judgment (ooooh, the scary, threatening black male….another stereotype). And did I mention when we first saw him he was locked up? Okay. As of right now I will have to wait and see what his personal backstory is. And I’m willing to do that. But you think I haven’t gotten tired over the years of having to wait for the development of a black character on a TV series? You think I haven’t tired of seeing the development of white characters, regardless of sex, always taking precedence over those characters who are non-white? You know how often I wish a black character, with a couple of rare exceptions, would be given meaty storylines as well as be placed at the center of the main plot? I understand the majority of the audience is white but does that mean 99% of the leads of such series throughout the history of American TV have to be white as well? Especially on shows which rely on ensembles?
So I get what the two or three female posters who are objecting on this blog are coming from. But if these same women are white I must wonder if they have given equal thought to how crappy the treatment of non-white characters on sci fi shows that they might have enjoyed over the years. I can go down the list but it would take too long and take us too off track. I will however suggest that how would they feel if I called those shows racist and then told anyone who was white that they did not have a right to disagree with me on this issue. That’s essentially what these ladies did to Curt when they told him as a man he had no right to give his opinion about the show not being sexist in his eyes. And that’s appalling. If Curt “can’t see” the sexism that they are accusing the show of, are they any better or worse than him if they don’t see the racism or other forms of prejudices that may unintentionally raise their ugly heads in this show or similar series?
Last of all last time I checked the biggest demographic for shows like these are still males (heterosexual males most likely). The majority of the writers and producers are men as well. So if they ant to show a half-naked Lt. James for about 20 seconds then so be it. I know I enjoyed seeing her. Most male viewers probably didn’t mind either. Its natural. Soap operas are geared towards female viewers which is why it’s the males on those shows who are always exposing more of their bodies more often than the females.
Curt, I loved your writeup. Its almost comical how many fans/bloggers/critics have attacked this show while in the process suggesting that the characters from the previous SG shows were more complex and interesting and that the resolutions on those series were less predictable. Nothing could be further from the truth. I say that as a person who adored SG1 and yet realized it was as deep as a Saturday morning cartoon. Stargate Universe is far more complex, gritty and realistic than its predecessors.
Curt Wagner said:
Thanks for the comment. Love hearing all these different takes. And hey, I could argue for more gay guys, right? (Although I do love that Ming-Na's Camile Wray is the first out gay character in SG.) Anyway, I can fantasize/imagine my way into forgiving about lack of gay men, lol. I do think Greer is much more than the stereotype, but again that's partly my imagination from the tidbits we're getting: Young, though he punished him on Icarus Base, obviously secretly was pleased with Greer's offense against Telford; Greer's "Zen" moment and Kino moment also showed me that he may not be an ABM at all. Time will tell. Nice to read your comment and get your take on all of sci fi. Thanks
lysambre said:
A couple of female posters arguing about what they see as sexism on this series brought up the above points as examples of the problems that they have with SGU. Funny thing as a black person I can look at those same points and claim the same issues that they see limiting the female characters are the same that have been plaguing minority characters on science fiction shows for an eternity (with a few notable exceptions). Should I be just as indignant? Are the female posters just as worried about underdeveloped non-white characters that have populated Stargate and other sci fi franchises for decades?
If you knew anything about us, then yes, you would also know that we have been fighting the inherent racism of the shows as much as the inherent sexism, as much as the fact that there is never a gay character, as much as the colonialist spirit in place since season 1 of SG1 and other issues (because you know what, liking a show doesn't mean we're blind to the issues involved in the making of this show).
But strangely nowhere in this blog did I see "SGU is not racist", because I would have loved to see how the original poster would have answered to the people who think it is.
Would the POC explaining why they think the show is racist have been answered "duh ! No, you're wrong, and here's why : The fact that you're a POC doesn't mean you know better than me what racism is about". Oh, yes, I would have loved to see how this one would have gone down. I would love to see the OP trying to explain to people who have suffered from racism all their life what is or not racist.
Now despite the issues being very different, replace POC with Females, and racism with sexism, and explain to me why it's not ok to explain to POC what racism is as they are the ones living it daily (because I, for one, do not think it's okay), while it's okay to explain to women what sexism is while they are living it daily ? Talk about two scales judgement !
Last of all last time I checked the biggest demographic for shows like these are still males (heterosexual males most likely).
Have you been to a Stargate Convention recently (say in the past 5 to 10 years) ? Because about 70% + of the attendees are females nowadays. And that is why there are so many voices complaining about things like sexism.
That we're not the intended public that's one thing, and by the way its sexist too to assume that women don't watch Sci-fi, but intended or not, as it happens, we are in front of the screen (or at least we were).
The intended public is the young white males, we've been told so repeatedly (talk about adding insult to injury), and so of course the show is feeding them all their fantasies, the asian lesbian who will end up having straight sex with a white male, the young white damsel in distress who ends up having sex with the white young male, the hot-big-breasted military woman (hasn't she had sex with some white male already ?), the voyeurism (because assuming your sexuality is so ridiculous ! No, better do it in a way that will make women feel bad, as long as it was meant as a joke ! Har de har, I can't stop laughing [/sarcasm]). Does that mean that all of this is right ?
Did I think that SGA and SGU were sexist ? Hell yes ! Did I complain about it to the PTB ? Hell yes ! Was I already back then answered in the same condescending and insulting way ? Hell yes ! The only time I've ever not been answered in a
condescending way is when Malozzi send me a private apology after quoting me from this very blog.
What is comical is that the people liking SGU are, unlike the SG1/SGA fans, seemingly blind to the many issues inherent to the show. What is comical is that when I complained about sexism and racism in SGA the fan answer was never to tell me that I was wrong, but instead to tell me : If you still are able to enjoy the show, then make you voice known to TPTB, if we make enough noise then maybe they will change something. When I complained about the same in SGU the answer was : Shut up ! You're wrong ! You don't know what you are talking about.
Is that the evolution of fandom ? We went from extremely smart people enjoying SG1 (we're talking people with PhDs here) and being able to discuss, to being insulted and ridiculed for our opinions ? Impressive, except not in a good way.
I'm glad not to be watching anymore and I'm definitely taking a big step back from anything SGU on and off the Internet.
Rose Hughes said:
Accidental Tourist,
There is so much in your post that I have started several different responses that all address a completely different point.
Truth is that I don't need your permission to state the point-of-view that I have anymore than you need my persmission to state whatever point-of-view you may have. Therefore your "what-ifs" are irrelevant.
Have I noticed the underdeveloped people of color on Stargate and other shows for decades? Absolutely - and have stopped watching more than a few as a result. I am just not sure what I said would have led you to assume I would react differently.
SGU is not the FIRST show - science fiction or otherwise - that has developed white male characters at the expense of female/persons of color/ethnic diversity characters over the decades. I agree with you completely about that.
Oh, and did were you serious when you made the comment about women and soap operas?
Curt Wagner said:
Hi Rose. I just wanting to let you know that you might want to see "Water" online. I think it might change your mind a bit about the Destiny women beings "second-class." Give it another try. Thanks again for commenting, even if we don't agree.
PBMom said:
Well written. I am a middle-aged woman who does not see the perceived sexism in this show.
I have enough trust in the people behind this series that things will unfold as they should. The simple truth is that since this is a group of people who shouldn't have been there, there isn't going to be an equal balance of anything (as there would not be in real life): male/female (subcategories assertive/passive for both), age, sexual orientation, ethnicity, race, etc. Also you have the civilian/military angle as well, which I hear is going to clash in further episodes (as it was eluded to in Water last night when Eli was spying for Col. Young). All the women in the military at this high a level of experience (especially James' character being in special forces) have leadership ability (and perhaps some experience during training activities, but never perhaps in their time of their tour of duty, which they are now going to get).
There is only one wish -- that there would have been a warning to parents (a ratings attachment) with regards to the first episode. I think a lot of people on Joe Mallozi's blog were upset because they were told that it was fine for families to watch and that one scene was going to be a matter of point of view of the families watching them how that scene affected their families. Honestly I think that is part of where the fuel to this fire came from and made some people who were going to "give it a shot" became completely negative. I see it as a teachable moment, but some don't. People who think their kids aren't having sex are deluding themselves. Dr. Oz last week had a show that said kids as young as 8 were having sex and we've all seen abstinence training is a complete failure. I don't recall seeing a ratings attachment when the show first started on Syfy. It went from the end credits of "The Mummy" directly into the show. So perhaps that would have helped people on that first episode.
There are some people who have wanted to see this fail from the beginning, still harboring resentment for the cancellation of Stargate Atlantis. I understand where that comes from because I boycotted Syfy when they abruptly cancelled Farscape to buy Stargate SG-1 from Showtime. And I didn't watch for many years. In looking back, it was extremely juvenile and self-absorbed, as if my not watching Syfy was going to hurt them in any way. Delusions of grandeur. I commented on JM's blog that people haven't thought that if SGU didn't get support, they could pretty much count out SG-1 or SGA movies ever being made. They were biting off the hand that would feed them. John Lenic's recent interview seemed to confirm this.
There has also been discussion that why are all these people who hate SGU so much watching every week? That's pretty freakish. You subject yourselves to watching a show you hate just so you can spew ugliness on the internet? Do you get a sense of pleasure hurting the feelings of those involved with this project? The actors don't get paid to come on Twitter to indulge fans. They don't get paid for DVD commentary. If they do it, they are doing it because they are psyched about the project, they happen to have some available time or freed up some time just for us, and want to give back to the fans. I won't have you all ruining it for those of us who are loving Stargate Universe. You really need to examine your intentions as a human being why you are filled with such hate and rage and why you must intentionally hurt others with your comments (speaking most especially about the stuff directed towards the actors and their families). You need to learn about boundaries. No one seems to understand personal boundaries anymore.
Spoilers ahead:
In reading from the Stargate Magazine back in the summer, there is going to be division among the Destiny between the civilians and the military which is a long-running thread in the Stargate franchise.
Great things come to those who wait and I just can't wait until the next episode of Stargate Universe. I am going to have such withdrawal when it disappears on Syfy for a first months between the first 10 episodes and the last 10 episodes of the season, but I have no doubt, there WILL be a season 2.
Curt Wagner said:
Nicely stated PBMom. And I was so mad at Syfy for ditching Farscape as well! (I'm ready to get my series boxed set soon.) Oh and the division on the Destiny you mention: the seeds have been sewn the last two eps, no? This is going to be so great. Thanks for jumping over from Twitter. See you back there soon.
Patricia Bertrand said:
Are you sure you don't work for SGU? :)
You so impressed Joe Mallozzi (Producer of Stargate Atlantis) that he has linked to your column in his blog (http://josephmallozzi.wordpress.com/). Trust me when I say, that is extremely high praise indeed!
Patricia
Curt Wagner said:
Wow. Shocked me. And I confess, I'm a bit giddy too. No I do not work for SGU, Syfy or MGM--unless they buy Tribune Company. lol. Thanks for the heads-up P. See you on Twitter.
Bob Crane said:
The style of this show has more in common with BSG than either of the other SG shows. I know that was their intention, but for me it just doesn't work. It may in a season or two, but for now it moves too slow and it seems every single character needs to be put on suicide watch.
I almost wish when they decide to move a new show in such a different direction and style than the rest of the franchise that they'd just start a new franchise.
In the end I guess all we can say is this is not like the previous Stargate shows. If you're like me and don't care for it you don't have to watch it. You can be disappointed, but it may be that a new audience will emerge.
Curt Wagner said:
Count me as one of those new audience members. I liked SG-1 and SGA, but I Love SGU. Maybe I need to be put on suicide watch? Just kidding. I think SGU has been influenced a bit by BSG, but I do feel it's much more accessible than that show (and I loved BSG too). I really do love or love-to-hate these characters. I love that they are different, conflicted, imperfect, etc. Heck, even Rush, who I dislike immensely, makes me at points reevaluate those feelings. Anyway, hope you find a replacement for early SGs.
PBMom said:
I don't think it is boring at all. I like multidimensional characters, not having everything explained for me, the battles of the personal human struggles (like Col Young summoning up the strength from deep inside himself to pull Lt Scott out of the hole instead of relying on Asgard beaming technology). The VFX are better than I've ever seen in the series franchise, almost having a movie quality to them each and every week. The music is also movie quality stuff. But one's person's boring is another person's dream show.
PBMom said:
Oh poo, I attached the comment to the wrong responder. See the person below's comment.
Caia Caecilia said:
Thanks for saying so much better then I could all the stuff I've thought when reading the silly gripes leveled at Universe. I loved SG-1 and Atlantis but Universe is an entirely different animal - dark and 'grown-up'. I understand people are disappointed Atlantis has finished - I was too - but don't trash Universe because of it.
Curt Wagner said:
I think you said it pretty well. And thanks for that.
Markcooper said:
SGU committed the cardnial sin. IT IS B-O-R-I-N-G!! It's full of cardboard characters you don't care about and plot lines that make a root canal seem like fun. Cancelling Stargate Atlantis for this is like painting over the Sistine Chapel ceiling with a paint by numbers picture. SG-1 and SGA were fun, and that's what drew their following. There is no fun in SGU, just lots of boredom.
Curt Wagner said:
LOL. I couldn't disagree with you more on this. SGU is far from boring. Sure, it's not all jokey and filled with the alien foe o' the week thing, but it's far from boring. I prefer dark and disturbing, with very well drawn, complicated characters (as opposed to the fast-talking, quip-throwing, happy, shiny, squeaky clean, idealized heroes/foes on the other two). No that I didn't enjoy their tone too, but SGU is much better and realistic. Anyway, agree to disagree. Thanks for playing.
Markcooper said:
Well, you may disagree all you want, but to paraphrase Forest Gump, "Boring is, as boring does." SG-1 and SGA were fun, and you cared about the characters because you liked the characters. I have watched all the SGU episodes to date (and will watch no more), and I have not found one character in which I have any intrest as to what happens to them, nor have I noticed any fun. If they die on a mission....ehh to bad. Where are the Wraith when you really need them? I realize SGU has its fans, and God love them....better they have to watch the rest of SGU than me. Color me gone. Perhaps the third spin-off of SG-1 (there has to be one on the drawing board) will recapture the essence of the franchise that SGA continued, and that SGU so thoroughly missed.
On a happier note, Sanctuary is a winner in all respects. Of course it would be difficult for anything Amanda Tapping is in not to be a winner.
You were right, however, in one of your conclusions. We do agree to disagree.
Curt Wagner said:
You really going to bring up the tired ol' Wraith? Really? LOL. We do disagree. In fact, we have the exact opposite opinions. Cool. Sorry you don't dig it.
Debra Ketchner said:
I love that you point out that SGU is different from SG1 and SGA, but that's not really being fair to SGA. As the producers pointed out back then (in their commentary on the first episode of SGA, "Rising") they didn't set out to make "SG2" but rather made something entirely different. And some fans hated that. But it grew into its own show, and most people loved it even though some did not.
Same thing with SGU...it's not "SG2" nor "Stargate: some-other-base-not-on-earth" but rather an entirely different series. It has its own characters who each have flaws and nuances that we as an audience have yet to uncover. I love the subtleties that you pointed out, Curt, because they're all so true. I think the writers are being deliberately vague about some characters just to keep us guessing! (I wonder if they know how much fanfic they've already inspired?)
My only complaint about SGU is the shooting style. I have heard BSG fans indignantly complaining that their favorite series' shooting style was "ripped off." Well I'm sitting here as a huge fan of the Stargate franchise complaining that I can barely stand to watch my new favorite show because the shooting style is atrocious! I can't stand the shaky-cam--I literally get headaches from it and hafta pop 3 ibuprofen every friday! I know BW&RC were trying to make it look different as well as feel different, but I wish they had trusted their actors enough to do it for us. We really don't need the shaky cam to understand the dire straits that the Destiny is in, thankyouverymuch, BW&RC.
What brings me back to SGU every week (in spite of the necessity of pill-popping just to get through it) is the acting, special effects, and writing, all of which have been beyond superb thus far. Also, I kind of feel a connection with the actors and writers because the cast has gotten involved in blogging and Twittering in a way no other series that I watch has! I love that I can give them feedback as the show is airing!
Curt Wagner said:
The shaky camera thing doesn't bug me, but I have tons of friends who complain about it in movies all the time. I'm sure if they tuned into SGU they'd say the same thing. Funny it doesn't bother me, cuz I can't stand to be on a roller-coaster. Oh, and fan fiction: I have a lot of ideas going through my head about what's up with several characters. It's fun to see if i guess correctly. Thanks for commenting.
Isaiahb3 said:
I'm enjoying SGU as well. I do admit being a bit impatient at the pace of it compared to SG1 and Atlantis as I was a huge fan of both those series.
You made some really good arguments and defenses of the show.
That shot of Julia Benson in the tank top was an unexpected bonus that episode, holy buckets, they need to get to a steamy jungle planet and have her lead an away mission post-haste! Ogling aside, the characters are slowly revealing themselves as they are their own individual puzzle pieces to a large puzzle of the Destiny.
Although I do have a question about the 10/30 episode, what was the point of those Swarm critters? Just to show how TJ works in command? Seems like there's going to be more involved with those, especially when they formed Scott's face, as if they remembered him or were saying good bye.
At any rate, good article.
You enjoy Sanctuary too, any word on if/when Ashley is coming back? I'm not warming up to Kate yet...
PBMom said:
Maybe they were crushing on Lt. Scott and they came on board to follow him, and had to continue to survive. I don't think they were "bad" aliens. They did what they had to do to survive. As well, when they were attacked, they got hostile, just as everyone would do if their families were attacked. I think they were also communicating with Lt. Scott as they left, perhaps to say goodbye in their own alien way. I don't think they had the ability to let them hang around to learn how to communicate with them because of the speed at which they were consuming their supplies, as much as they might have wished.
Curt Wagner said:
The swarm also appeared to Scott on the desert planet. They seem to have a thing for him, as PBMom says. I'm guessing they may be back again at some point. As for "Sanctuary" and Ashley, check out my interview with Amanda Tapping on the blog.
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/show-patrol/2009/10/-emilie-ullerup-who-plays.html
alisa said:
I wasn't sure I would like SGU when it first started, but now, I love love love it. It shows all the parts of a person--good and bad. That's what makes it such good television. And there have only been a few episodes. I think the criticisms of character development are way premature. All of the shows that I have liked that have lasted a long time have always improved in subsequent seasons. In my opinion, people, today, aren't patient for the payoff and want everything to happen instantly. That is NOT good storytelling. Oh, and I agree with Amy about TJ and Young. Can't wait to see that payoff.
Curt Wagner said:
Sam here on TJ and Young. Thanks for commenting.
I'd hate to overly stir things up, but I've been thinking about this since I read somethings people have been saying.
I just wonder about whether or not white males not being allowed to comment on sexism or racism is in face sexist and racist. Being that I'm both I just wonder if my options when joining a public debate have somehow been restricted by some concept of ownership. Or that the opinions of white males are not as valid in those areas. I'm not angry or anything I just wonder about this notion. I was raised by a single mom, and care deeply about my female friends, one of whom I have feelings for and she brightens my days in ways that words cannot adequately convey. My longest friendship is with someone who is black. I personally don't discriminate against or objectify women or other races. Both of my supervisors are women, one is Mexican and the other is from Hong Kong. I respect both for their knowledge and experience. So are white males, like me, not allowed to comment on something that affects people that they love and/or respect? To say that seems analogous to saying the rich cannot comment on the suffering of the poor or disadvantaged. There's a great moment in Star Trek 4 the Voyage Home where McCoy asks Spock what it was like to die. Spock says that to comment would be futile as McCoy lacks a comment frame of reference. McCoy responds by saying so in order to discuss death with you I'd have to die? What's more is that men do experience sexism. In fact recently in the news men were not allowed to wait tables at Lawry's steakhouses denying them access to a well paying jobs. So not only does that perpetuate the out dated attitude that only women should be part of a wait staff, but it discriminates against men.
Additionally I'll say that a former male manager has made inappropriate advances towards myself and another male employee (both of us were supervisors), and the woman who managed him came to his defense when the woman I mentioned this (also a supervisor) to told her. Little was done to discipline the manager in question and he continued to behave inappropriately. Sexism, stereotyping, disrespect, harassment, and discrimination affect all sorts of people as no one lives in a vacuum. It affect not only the direct recipient of said treatment, but also those people around them.
Regarding the infamous Kino scene I felt it was more immature, inappropriate, and disrespectful, but I didn't think it sexist. I'd hate to use this source but Webster's dictionary defines sexism as prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially discrimination against women. Lt. James in that scene wasn't discriminated against. She was however treated disrespectfully. What's more is that while in a normal setting Sgt. Reilly could have been more properly reprimanded and Eli could have been punished somehow they aren't in normal circumstances. Meanwhile I find it odd that people don't become upset when men are objectified similarly to how Lt. James was. Certainly this hasn't happened in the SG franchise, but men are objectified all of the time in other shows, movies, and commercials. Further, Lt. James, character used sexuality as a means and placed Eli in an awkward position. Is morally right to use someone's sexuality to get what you want?
Curt you're right to say that having this in a show is a good thing. Since it adds drama to a show, and drama is part of entertainment. SciFi shows tend to be about squeaky clean people epitomizing the best of humanity. Look at Star Trek, very few characters and relationships were truly explored on that show. We just knew that these people were coworkers and friends. Perhaps the best exemption is Deep Space Nine. That stood out from the others because of the exploration of their characters and their relationships. Star Trek fans had all kinds of issues against Deep Space Nine, but it was really well done and much more dramatic. Also, I don't know if SGU is less fun than SG1 or SGA, but it sure is based more in relationships and the less perfect side of human nature. I do know one thing there's only so many times where tech, science, or mysticism can solve a problem before a franchise becomes stale. So a focus on characters and relationships can be a good thing. It's a very different story than what we are used to in the SG franchise and thus needs a different focus for that story.
One last thing that's been bugging me... why is sex bad and killing good? In movies and television we can see horrible murders, small armies of people get destroyed, and in some cases torture, but a sex scene with no body parts shown is a controversial thing. Eh, just another thing to ponder.
WOW, that was long. I'm sorry about the small essay there, but I've been pondering these things and I just wanted to get it off of my chest so to speak.
Curt Wagner said:
Let it ALL out Cody! Thanks for the comment(s). I want to highlight this excellent point: "One last thing that's been bugging me... why is sex bad and killing good?" That is so true. A lot of the examples commenters have given about shows they will continue to watch showcase murders and other crimes, yet they are OK to watch, they say. It's very odd. Thanks again.
alisa said:
Cody, just wanted to say I completely agree with your comments. My husband and I have discussed this at length and agree that, in our society, white males are not allowed to comment on sexism and racism without being skewered, but they are the only ones considered to be sexist or racist. I think you have demonstrated that this is not the only way it is. Good for you for posting your comments.
Rose Hughes said:
Cody, to respond to your comment....
Like most things in this world, it is a matter of degrees.
If someone says to me, "In my opinion, it was not sexist", I will debate the issue with them until the cows literally come home. A specific event may be seen by different people differently.
However, if someone says to me, "The show is NOT sexist so shut the hell up or are you too much a prude or too stupid to know better?" (And YES, I have seen similar comments on websites) then I will question whether the person in question UNDERSTANDS sexism and why it can be so difficult for the person experiencing it.
To respond to another comment of yours .... yes, being males being "hit" on is another form of sexism. On more than one job, I have been the person saying "stop sending the 'stupid man' jokes to each other - it's sexist". I don't pretend, however, that I understand what it feels to be treated that way 24/7 just because I have brothers and a Dad. I can empathize, but I cannot truly "understand".
Because I have been on job sites that allowed men who I had ZERO relationship with to constantly suggest sneaking out to a motel with me, I personally did not find the scene in question to be "hillarious". On an average day, I want to go to work, do my job, and go home to my family without being forced to deal with two people who have decided FOR ME that I should fufill some sort of need (completely unrelated to my job) that they have. In the scenario created for us on the show - imminent threat of death, minimal food available and minimal first aid equipment available - I think "cruel" was a better description.
And since you DID go there, Webster has two definitions for "sexism" in my copy. The one you DIDN'T share was the following:
behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex
Since you admit that you found it "immature, inappropriate, and disrespectful", it sounds as if even you may not be 100% sure it wasn't also "sexist".
As to the definition you did share, Lt. James could arguably be considered to be "still on the job". Having to deal with a "hostile work environment" is a form of discrimination.
borg said:
I'm a privileged man who doesn't care if the show is sexist or anything else just as long as I enjoy watching it.
I'm also a troublemaker and malcontent who wants to smear SGU because I don't like it.
I keep hearing that these characters are "complex". No they are not. Oddly enough what WormholeRiders wrote about people who don't like the show describes best the characters on the show, a bunch of malcontents with sociopathic tendencies. This is why a number of people say they don't like the characters. Most people are not sociopaths, hence the characters on the show are not realistic.
I watched only a couple of the SGU episodes and watched parts of the other SGU shows and ended up changing the channel. I might give it another go tonight but it isn't promising.
Curt Wagner said:
"A bunch of malcontents with sociopathic tendencies?" I see a few, but not all of them. I see some very heroic folks actually, and some folks who are being challenged in unexpected, extraordinary circumstances. Give it another try, maybe you'll find someone to like. Thanks for commenting.
Yeah, it's not about sex. They just had someone elses body have sex with the other guys girl, switch bodies for a sec, switch back. LoL.
As I said before, I think it just comes down to different taste. I don't see deep, well developed characters. I see a very slow story line. I figured I'd stick with it for the first season and see where it goes. Not sure if that's still the case.
Glad several of you enjoy it.
Curt Wagner said:
The SGU story is told over all the episodes. It's not a series of 1-ep stories. It's a serial, therefore it might seem "slow." But I don't think it is, it's just told over a longer period of time. Hope you find something to replace SG1 and SGA
WormholeRiders said:
Hey Curt!
It has been almost a month since we posted here. after being in Los Angeles for Stargate Farscape Con. However during our "free time" (LOL) in LA and since returning we have read with great interest.
We appreciate all of the people who have posted here. We recognize many posters here from other blogs or web sites and even from afar at convention halls crowed with fans of the Stargate Franchise in general and Stargate Universe in specific. We enjoy this blog so much that our editors have an entire folder devoted to following the pulse of the fans, both the pro and the con graciously hosted here by you … ShowPatrol!
Since leaving and returning from Los Angeles, have read all the comments by ALL the posters like Isaiahb3, PBMom, alias, Cody, Rose Hughes, borg, Bob, lysambre, Jayson Ng and naturally all your responses.
Without singling out anyone, we respectfully disagree that SGU is sexist. Nor were SGA or SG-1. These are TV shows, entertainment much like radio wa sin it’s day and for those that read as books are to this day. “The Single Effect” of literature whether in classic written form or acted out in a radio or screen play is supposed to produce reactions from the reader, listener or viewer. SGU does an outstanding job in this regard as each sequence fulfills Edgar Allen Poe’s original thoughts about the Single Effect..
When life is imitated in art, there are bound to be controversial subjects dealt with, but that does mean some writer or actor is deliberately ‘being’ the role that is being performed or written about. Quite the contrary. The writer is simply conveying the subject matter that has relevance to the times from which it is written. This is part of the Single Effect. The actor or actress role is also the same, to convey the Single Effect of the (screen) writer.
Now as for sexism, can anyone honestly say that SGU is sexist after the tender scenes with Camile and Sharon portrayed by Ming-Na and Reiko (of 24 fane) are sexist? Hardly. SGU deals with social morays of our times. But to those concerned; Are some scenes reflective of values that stir the conscience and thinking of the viewer?
As Jack O’Neill would say; Yeah Sure You Betcha!
But that is what is supposed to happen in a dark opening act. What do we mean by “act”. What has occurred is much like a four act play. Act one fulfilled the Single Effect for that act. As Martin Gero so eloquently put it during our time with him in Los Angeles, the “Stargate will be more recognizable in the coming episodes”
Lastly, on our use of the term malcontents; . It simply mean “unhappy” or not happy. And so it has been since we left for Los Angeles. Even several “Malcontents” we knew at the con had began to see the return to the magic of Stargate TPTB.
In closing thank you Curt for your great blog. “See You on the Other Side” to coin a phrase from SG1
Best Regards
Curt Wagner said:
Hey there. Yes I read somewhere one of the producers talking about how SGU will soon become more "recognizable" to fans of earlier SG series, that the first part was darker. (Maybe that was at wormholeriders.com I read that?) I'm liking the first part, so here is hoping I keep liking it. I'm sure I will. Thanks for coming back!
WormholeRiders said:
Hi Curt! Yes. we reported recently on Martin Gero about SGU becoming more "recognizable" and it has. Another tidbit is that we will see more SG-1 and perhaps SGA "characters too via the Ancient Communications Stones". Thinking Rodney McKay and Sam Carter team up?
See you laters and we Hope you have a great vaca!
Best Regards
Leave a Comment?
What your comment will look like:
said: