Ah, www.sonypictures.com/boards, here I come...

[gategrrl]

I broke down and signed up on the Sony Pictures forum board. The email for confimation finally came through this morning, but it was in the Yahoo spam bin! It's a good thing I decided to check in there before I deleted the bin. I usually don't look!

There's an Atlantis forum and a Stargate forum. I haven't visited the Atlantis forum yet since most of the folks I know socially do the Stargate thang (like I still do). But, at least with BSG, I could get into that fandom, I think. BSG has been bringing up questions about the most basic SF questions of all, lately, which are, "What is humanity?" "What makes us human?" and a score of others like that which I'm just not getting with Stargate or Atlantis. And that's what sets BSG heads above SG and ATL right now. Right now, the only character on SG or ATL bringing a smidgen of that sort of question to those shows are Daniel and Rodney, IMO. And even then, it's shallow.

Comments

[moonshayde.livejournal.com]

Well, in the classic days of SG-1, I think we saw a lot of those traditional scifi questions. IMO, that is what drew people in. Why do we like science fiction anyway? Most of the time, it's because we see somethign fantastic, but at the same time see a reflection of our deepest concerns and questions burined deep within.

That is why I think BSG is very good. I haven't been able to watch it this year due to TV issues, but I was hooked last season. I waited to watch that show, unlike SG-1 and SGA.

With SG-1, there is still a hint of that, when the writers go that route. Generally, we see it through Daniel and that is why I am resistent to a gun toting Jackesque type of Daniel. I am saying he should grow, of course, and have conflict, but the core of his character is discovery and question, something the writers should really be refecting on. Even with beings as creepy as the Ori, we haven't had any sense of question about them. No, they can't be reckoned with, but why? Are the Priors still human? And how do we acknowledge the need for faith but the need to resist oppression of faith? SG-1 isn't going deep enough. It can and it should. It can still have drama and comedy. It's all about balance.

SGA I don't have as much faith in, unfortunately. The show has failed to grab me. I watch it because I tape it for someone. I do like Rodney, but only because he's a jerk and I think it's important that not every "hero" is sweet and nice. He's got plenty of faults and that enriches him as a character. The other characters are okay, but they don't do much for me.

My biggest issue with SGA is that it lacks that deep human touch that drew me into SG-1. It's technical, and scientific. And while it is supposed to be about discovery, I don't feel that spark. I need something that harkens to our past, our motivations as humans, and how that can link with our future. Something is missing from SGA for me.

How are the boards by the way?

[gategrrl.livejournal.com]

The only forum I've lurked through is the Stargate one - there's the Vala thread, the New Team thread, the usual brainless mind-of-a-teenager GW Sam and S/J Fans (not intentionally insulting those who aren't brainless, but you know the types I mean?) and grouching about other fans and forums...however, in this place, it's not just OS that's come under the gun. GW has come under criticism also (and not by folks who frequent OS, either, so it's not an Us vs Them thing going on).

ATL...oh, Atlantis...it's an entertaining enough hour, when the plot isn't a rehash of a rehash of another rehash, and you can predict exactly what the characters are going to say, how they're going to say it, and when they're going to say it. But, it at least got me and the husband on the couch watching this past Friday, when last year, that would not have happened. It's now more tightly written than SG-1 is, now that the other writers don't have a new toy to play with. But it still lacks, as you said, that essential human connection. Weir is cold. Sheppard is smirky. Rodney is complex. Zelenka is like...Donald Duck (I like him!) to Rodney's blithe arrogance. Beckett shows some ethical problems as well as criminal carelessness with his experiments. I guess what I'm not liking is that most of the interactions are cold and clinical. At least to me. And rote. Even the Sheppard/Rodney interactions come across as rehearsed, even as I think they're amusing. Sort of. And I don't see any of those questioning themes in that show, either. No, "The Ancients that came here thought they knew what they were doing. Why should we?" Which is what Daniel always used to bring to Stargate. But Rodney doesn't question. He thinks he can be *better* than the Ancients. Okay, Hubris is also an ancient story device going way way back (think Odysseus and the Iliad). But they rarely broach that.

[moonshayde.livejournal.com]

I find that interesting how the new forum is developing criticism all the way around. And I think it's a good thing.

Your overview of Atlantis speaks better than I could put into words. I do agree that the writing has gotten better, but it also makes me resentful. Aside from the fact that Atlantis is newer and therefore can tackle stories that SG-1 really can't anymore, why can't they bring that same kind of writing to SG-1? SG-1 isn't dead yet and there are plenty of avenues to explore, though not in the classic way from before. (Never can go back to that nor would I want them to duplicate themselves.) For me, most of the spark of SG-1 is still there, but left to flounder and try to limp on its own. I don't care how good a show used to be; you have to give it the right framework.

*is too critical these days*

I should just watch for Michael's ass like everyone else.

[gategrrl.livejournal.com]

*sigh*

But you know, I don't think I've *ever* watched or followed a show like Stargate in which it was so obvious how bored the writers were with their characters and storyline (which they came up with themselves). Most shows would turn their faltering writers over and kick them off, and replace them with burnin' hot writers with new, great ideas. AND they would have kept up a Bible for the series, from which they might veer from once in a while - for a show like Trek, with its enormous history, it's inevitable they'd get some things wrong, so fans forgave them - but not directly contradict what's gone on before Just For a One Off story.

No, what Stargate's strength has always been are the actors and their ineffible charm, which they have in abundance, when they're allowed to show it -- like Amanda Tapping; she can be charming, but lately that's been lost, bigtime (for me at least), since her character is no longer charming to me.

Atlantis has some of the charm, but what charm the actors show is counteracted by the clumsily drawn characters and clunky warmed-over plots.

I have a hard time only watching for the bling-bling physicalities of the actors on either show. It takes an awful lot for a show to draw me into it simply for one actor or relationship within the show. I have to enjoy the premise. I have to like the storyline. The characters have to have some kind of charm and complexity.

I never did read Tigerbeat when I was a kid. It was blatant bubblegum then. I'm not fond of blatant bubblegum now.

[moonshayde.livejournal.com]

Yup, if this was...a network show I think we would see new writers moving in and out. Stargate has the start of a bumpling franchise. If this was in the main public consciousness, well, as much as I hate marketing and overly indulged capitalism, the networks would do whatever they could to get high ratings, shove the show in your face, and run with high merchandise.

I know with me, two things draw me to a show: plot and acting. The, "OMG! He's hot!" always comes second. I put off seeing Stargate the movie for years and I wouldn't watch the show because I hadn't watched the movie. One day, I was bored and figured I'd just watch the show. (I'd already seen some bits and pieces before anyway, out of context.) MS is part of what hooked me; I could partially identify with the character of Daniel and he played him so well. But it was also that I liked the interactions between all the characters and the plots. By the end of watching a week good season 4 reruns, I tuned into Lifeboat and then Abyss in syndication. That was it. Good plot and acting had me. And they used mythology and cleverness. I enjoyed that.

But to tune in just for an actor? I wouldn't do that now. To tune into a show looking for slash or ship before one episode ever airs? Nope.

btw, what is Tigerbeat?

[gategrrl.livejournal.com]

http://www.tigerbeatmag.com/

Back when I was a kid, Tigerbeat was aimed at tweenagers and young teens, and had lots of publicity information and "scoops" on the most current teen heart throbs. In my time it was Shaun Cassidy when he was on the Hardy Boys tv show. There were other boy celebs that were featured, but he's the one that sticks in my head from that period.