Ewww.. SGU let's have some freaking protocol

[teacake]

You just have to know how to search a wiki to cut through all that.

However. Perhaps a there was an editing war and the hacktivist group Ancient Anonymous successfully deleted all reference to the ship and replaced it with some hilarious Destiny, like Destiny Galaxy the fail spin off of their version of My Little Pony. And they are still laughing their ascended asses off about it.

[RoJoHen]

Anytime you search for Destiny in the database, you end up getting Rick Rolled.

[NKemp3]

[QUOTE=Robert Maxwell;6986185]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

My main beef is that the people who were supposed to be in charge--Wray and Young--were simply not cut out for the task. How they kept things running at Icarus Base is beyond me. Young was a passive-aggressive fool and Wray was an unremarkable bureaucrat. Guess they let just anyone work for the SGC nowadays.

Sigh. This old argument again.

In America we can see that our top people in every profession are afflicted with the same negative traits. We complain about the crew of SGU bickering instead of working together because we see that is being absurd and immature. Well, what about the folks voted on by the people to serve in the highest offices of government who can't get along. Even when the country was on the verge of an economic collapse or still on the verge in some people's views) we had politicians, educated grownups for God's sake, who were more interested in party victories, personal triumphs, obstruction to make the other guys look bad, petty grievances, backstabbing, etc. We have politicians who go around cheating on spouses, taking bribes from special interest groups and big companies, lying under oath, distorting facts, being totally ignorant of historical events, letting their pride, stubbornness and ideology get in the way of doing what was best for the community. These are the people who are supposed to represent us and yet they all have their flaws, some appallingly more than others. How did they get those jobs? How and why did people vote for them, huh?


What about business leaders. They put on facades themselves and are held up as what is great about America. But behind the scenes so many of them are nothing more than petty, dismissive, selfish, greedy individuals who won't think twice about sticking it to the common/working man as long as it is good for their bottom line. Cutting back on the health care of workers even while giving CEOs large bonuses, shipping jobs overseas in for much cheaper labor costs that ultimately amount to slave labor, dumping toxic chemicals in the rivers or water of small rural towns or impoverished urban areas and so on. How did such wonderful human beings ever become leaders of the private sector, but, hey that is what they did. Character had nothing to do with it in many cases.

The same goes for the military. We Americans love to portray all military personnel as heroes. And while many are many are also dysfunctional, thuggish, ignorant, bigoted, sexist, intolerant assholes who believe their way of thinking is the only true one to go by. In fact some of the very best people on the battlefield fit those descriptions. They look all wholesome and clean-cut in their attire during ceremonies but beneath the surface lies all sorts of demons. These are people who go home and may abuse their children, their wives even before going off to war. They may be totally dysfunctional dealing with personal issues and conflicts and are only comfortable with giving orders or following orders. They can rise high in the ranks before someone realizes that, hey, they aren't that good at their job (hopefully it happens before they get themselves or someone else killed while in battle). When they return home from duty they may become suicidal. Again, how did such folks make it through their career despite all their negative qualities? Was it the incompetence of those above them?


The answer may be as simple as that human beings by nature are flawed. And if the only people getting important positions were those folks without any disagreeable attributes, we would have a much more limited and smaller workforce. This is true of all professions. Teachers. Social workers. Doctors. Law officers. Entertainment. Science. Construction. Religious leaders. Even a place like NASA had within its ranks a wacko like Lisa Nowak. Nowak was a highly decorated military officer and a top NASA specialist who also was besieged by so much jealousy and rage that she attempted to kidnap a woman whom she saw as a rival for a particular man's affections.

With these daily reminders of the failures of all of us, even the supposed best of us, we still have folks griping that the fictional crew of SGU were too unprofessional, too incompetent and too hostile? People are still arguing that such characteristics don't make sense despite evidence of such behaviour in our real world? Give me a break.

I have a sneaky suspicion that the character traits of the folks on SGU are more true to life than anything we got from all of the other SG shows. In fact I would go as far to say that one episode of SGU provided far more examples of real-life humanity (warts and all) than the entire runs of SG1 and SGA combined. Of course when anyone tries to argue this point the response form the old guard of Stargate fandom goes something like "Jack and John had personal issues to deal with as well they didn't allow that to get in the way of the job, blah, blah, blah". Okay. But maybe because those guys and their crew members were more like heroic cardboard cutouts of the Saturday morning matinee era. They are ideal presentations but not necessarily realistic ones. What I love about Young was how flawed he was and how he sometimes got it wrong, but nonetheless still try to do best by his crew. He was thrown into a tougher situation than other Stargate leaders had been tossed in and had to work with people who often did not see eye-to-eye with him. He had to make it work. He had to grow into being a better leader. No, he didn't have the answer for everything, he didn't have the quick, witty tongue. He didn't look the part of a leading man. And that made him recognizably human. The same went for the rest of the SGU cast with perhaps an exception here and there.

On the previous SG shows the personal setbacks of the main characters would be wrapped within a blanket of fantastical obstacles: a mate, parent, child, people, world was lost to some evil galactic empire of some sort. On SGU the personal problems were typically more...grounded. An affair that almost wrecked (did wreck) a marriage. The role of parenthood being thrust upon a young man that was not yet mature enough to handle the responsibility. The lost of a spouse to cancer.

Not exactly the typical exciting stuff we expect from science fiction shows which was probably part of the problem for viewers. Folks felt that personal stuff (or that "soap opera garbage" as they liked to say) was boring. I'll admit it wasn't always executed as well as it could have been. However for me at least it made those characters more recognizable as fellow flesh and blood creatures. So I reject the idea that characters like Wray, Young, Scott, Greer, etc were somehow the type of individuals who would never be good enough to serve in something like SGC. In my opinion only fans who have their view of "military" behavior shaped by fun fluff like the previous Stargate series and all non-DS9 Trek shows would have such a distorted notion of who would realistically qualify as acceptable and effective personnel of a highly secretive military and space program. Pressure can do all sorts of things to people; even the best of us can snap.

Look, if people don't like SGU because they found it boring, thought it was too much like a soap opera, thought it didn't have enough English-speaking/human-looking/oxygen-breathing alien, or thought the characters were unlikable b, I won't argue about that even if I disagree on all fronts. But the excuse that the characters weren't worthy of the positions they occupied doesn't wash with me. Flawed individuals make fill relative similar positions all the time. Some even overcome their flaws. The best part of SGU to me was seeing these guys over time overcome their flaws and start to pull together for the common good, to see them come to an understanding. Many viewers wanted that to happen overnight. I argue that not only is that not true to life, but that such a quick turnaround ended up being the fatal flaw of Star Trek:Voyager.

[JarodRussell]

The thing is I personally could punch everyone in the face who shows these "negative traits" in real life. So it's a default turn off on television.

What annoys me the most is the "I won't tell you what I know, just to make things complicated". I absolutely hate it. A version of it is "I won't ask you what I want to know, just to make things complicated." That's terrible and painful to watch. Especially when nobody but a complete psycho would react like that in a similar real life situation. I wouldn't, you wouldn't, and if you actually would, I would kill you.

[Sindatur]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

The thing is I personally could punch everyone in the face who shows these "negative traits" in real life. So it's a default turn off on television.

Exactly

I don't watch Political News anymore, precisely because I'm not entertained by the Self Serving Politicians, whose primary goal is to make the other side look bad, rather then solve the problems they were elected to solve. I like to debate Politics, but, lately that's become impossible, because people no longer actually debate the issues, they nitpick the meaning of words, and throw shiny balls in the air for you to chase, so, you'll get frustrated and accept the lack of debate on the actual issue.

As far as Business Leaders go, I certainly agree, they are self serving and care more about the money going into their pocket then about your ability to put food on your family's table, but, they aren't petty and Negative the way Politicians and the SGU S1 characters are, no one would tolerate that treatment from a CEO, and they would be replaced, because that's NOT Leadership.

[bullethead]

NKemp3 wrote:

---

Look, if people don't like SGU because they found it boring, thought it was too much like a soap opera, thought it didn't have enough English-speaking/human-looking/oxygen-breathing alien, or thought the characters were unlikable b, I won't argue about that even if I disagree on all fronts. But the excuse that the characters weren't worthy of the positions they occupied doesn't wash with me. Flawed individuals make fill relative similar positions all the time. Some even overcome their flaws. The best part of SGU to me was seeing these guys over time overcome their flaws and start to pull together for the common good, to see them come to an understanding. Many viewers wanted that to happen overnight. I argue that not only is that not true to life, but that such a quick turnaround ended up being the fatal flaw of Star Trek:Voyager.

The problem wasn't that the people had flaws, but that the flaws were either so massive that shouldn't have been in the positions they were in to begin with and/or the flaws were the defining characteristics of those characters. There's a certain level of competence to be expected from characters, and unfortunately for SGU, most of the leads aside from Rush rarely had it (except for plot relevant situations). We can buy people with flaws and who don't get a long as they're actually good/decent at what they're supposed to do, but when they utterly fail at that, we're gonna call bullshit on that.

[teacake]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

What annoys me the most is the "I won't tell you what I know, just to make things complicated". I absolutely hate it. A version of it is "I won't ask you what I want to know, just to make things complicated." That's terrible and painful to watch. Especially when nobody but a complete psycho would react like that in a similar real life situation. I wouldn't, you wouldn't, and if you actually would, I would kill you.

Totally and it seemed to me like this was used for edgy realism in SGU whereas all it really is is a tv trope. When this kind of nonsense is presented as the drama itself it's very frustrating

.

[Hartzilla2007]

bullethead wrote:

---

The problem wasn't that the people had flaws, but that the flaws were either so massive that shouldn't have been in the positions they were in to begin with and/or the flaws were the defining characteristics of those characters. There's a certain level of competence to be expected from characters, and unfortunately for SGU, most of the leads aside from Rush rarely had it (except for plot relevant situations). We can buy people with flaws and who don't get a long as they're actually good/decent at what they're supposed to do, but when they utterly fail at that, we're gonna call bullshit on that.

In addition to this the show was also boring because they took so long to get the freaking plot moving.

[Robert Maxwell]

Hartzilla2007 wrote:

---

In addition to this the show was also boring because they took so long to get the freaking plot moving.

Yeah, I think we've had multiple discussions around here about how you could have gotten the show to where it was at the end of the second season to roughly the beginning/middle of that season--compressing the first season-and-a-half into a single season, if not less. There were way too many filler episodes that just had people acting like dipshits that never went anywhere.

[teacake]

Then needed more aliens so the conflict focus was outside the ship rather than inside. Some of the early eps were like Ice Road Truckers in space.

I still enjoyed this show but the more stargatey it got the happier I was. The idea of making it grittier and with more "real" people was a good one, just too many bland one note characters. I would have loved to have had a season 3, I think it might have gotten a whole lot more interesting.

I still have the Air ep to watch with all the added footage so I'm looking forward to that.

[NKemp3]

It does say something sad about a show that the folks who occupy its forums can't seem to stand it. Oh, well. Personally I loved the show, well, at least by the end of the second season I did. So I'll play along here for another night.

JarodRussell wrote:

---

The thing is I personally could punch everyone in the face who shows these "negative traits" in real life. So it's a default turn off on television.

Yes, that's the power that the TV gives us. By all means click off. But I can't go along with the argument that characters having negative traits (sometimes an abundance of them) is alone reason enough to walk out of a movie, stop reading a book or write off a television show. As of right now the best of TV (particularly hour shows (are crammed with the type of folks that you wouldn't want to admire and hang out with in the real world). Without directly comparing SGU to any of these series, programs like Boss, Sons of Anarchy, Hell on Wheels, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, etc are dominated by individuals who, at the very least, aren't role models. This trend of giving lead characters some of our worst qualities appeared to have been started by The Sopranos and has been going on strong ever since. The New BSG even had a little bit of that.

Again this is not to compare SGU to any of those shows. Rather my argument is that even infusing our "heroes" with what at times seem like irredeemable characteristics is not an automatic reason for viewers to tune out. Now if SGU failed to provide watchers with storylines as interesting or characters as captivating, that's another discussion. I'm just not buying that characters-aren't-likable argument. To be honest I still may be bristling over the memory of the time reading/hearing that same nonsense back during the early years of DS9 when Fanboy Nation was throwing a hissy fit about Sisko and Co not being as likable and fun as Kirk, Picard and their crews.

[NKemp3]

Sindatur wrote:

---

As far as Business Leaders go, I certainly agree, they are self serving and care more about the money going into their pocket then about your ability to put food on your family's table, but, they aren't petty and Negative the way Politicians and the SGU S1 characters are, no one would tolerate that treatment from a CEO, and they would be replaced, because that's NOT Leadership.

Are you serious? Business leaders are just as capable as being some of the most petty, negative and deceitful people on the face of Eath. Since the beginning of civilization they could be just as much (if not more) a thorn in society's side as the worst politician. That should be a know fact to anyone unless you are one of those who worship CEOs and owners as Job Creators and therefore give them a free pass.

[NKemp3]

bullethead wrote:

---

The problem wasn't that the people had flaws, but that the flaws were either so massive that shouldn't have been in the positions they were in to begin with and/or the flaws were the defining characteristics of those characters. There's a certain level of competence to be expected from characters, and unfortunately for SGU, most of the leads aside from Rush rarely had it (except for plot relevant situations). We can buy people with flaws and who don't get a long as they're actually good/decent at what they're supposed to do, but when they utterly fail at that, we're gonna call bullshit on that.

1)I'm sorry but Rush's competence was too often overshadowed by the fact that he was the greatest bastard amongst the entire crew. Here was a guy who was willing to sacrifice people for his own ends (what he and I guess those that dote on him would describe as "The Greater good."). He was the most uncooperative, the most stubborn, the most likely to not be a team player. If you are going to be critical of the characters for not living up to your TV sci fi standards then how does he get a pass? Maybe you are one of those genuis idolizers, those Stargate fans who are drawn to the braniac individuals who in timely fashion figure out the impossible solutions in the last five minutes of each ep (no scifi series appears to have done as much to elevate the science geeks as Staragte). Hell, if so Rush should get your scorn. He doesn't even live up to those standards. Not that I'm saying he isn't a fantastic character because he is. At least a fascinating one.

2)Please, please provide me examples of the massive flaws that got in the way of these characters being credible officers. Because something tells me you may want to read up on the history of some of the great military leaders and some of the bravest soldiers in the history of humankind. Doing so you will come across people whose personal failings and stubbornness were only exceeded by their egos. And they still manage to get the job done...eventually if not immediately. The crew of SGU weren't perfect but in no way were they keystone cops.

3)Sometimes I wonder if some people don't understand that the writers intentionally had these characters fail and struggle. That they were not going to make these characters into the perfect individuals of TNG or SG1, the ones who got along, never showed signs of grey, always made the right decisions and told a thousand jokes along the way. Maybe I'm in the minority. I mean I love TNG growing up but I don't want to go back to that type of... "simplicity" for lack of a better word. While the internet forums were decrying Lt. Scott's whore-like ways, I found it refreshing to inject that trait within him. To be honest I'm not even sure it is fair to describe him as whore. He had the audacity to have sex on screen while on duty during the SGU premiere and then ditched his occasional hookup partner for a woman he actually developed truer feelings for. Oh. My. God. The horror. But wait! He had a son out of wedlock with another woman he didn't love back when he was a teenager!! That proves he is a sex-starved scumbag, right? No. It just proved he was an imperfect man who made mistakes when he was barely more than a boy. Big deal. Plenty of our bravest and finest fit the same description and are more capable and professional than most of us posting on these forums. And Young? He betrayed his wife and got an officer serving under him pregnant. Is that reason to be dismissed from the military? Yes. Is it enough for one to wonder about his judgment? Yes. Is it a definitive statement on his capability to lead, to make pressure decisions, to provide moral authority when needed? Nope. Thankfully in our world one's life and accumulated experience doesn't have to be discarded simply because of a few boneheaded indiscretions and bad decisions. Why should it be different for a TV character like Young?

[NKemp3]

teacake wrote:

---

Totally and it seemed to me like this was used for edgy realism in SGU whereas all it really is is a tv trope. When this kind of nonsense is presented as the drama itself it's very frustrating

.

Well, can't you say the same about SG1's and SGA's lighthearted approach? Isn't that just as much an artificial device used to present the desired mood to tell the stories the TPTB want to? Is it any better when "nonsense" such as witty comebacks and sophomoric jokes are used in the place of truer storytelling and plot advancement? Can't that be seen as filler or even worse a predictable and lazy way to present camaraderie? Just asking. Maybe we should simply respect the way TPTB chooses to tell its story (even if we don't care for) and not look at as trope or phony atmosphere.

[NKemp3]

Hartzilla2007 wrote:

---

In addition to this the show was also boring because they took so long to get the freaking plot moving.

Without question much of the first season was iffy and slow in progression. Can't argue against that.

That being said does anyone want to try to argue that the first two seasons of TNG were quality TV or that DS9 wasn't painfully trying to find its way very often during its first season or that Babylon 5 was not boring many people for the vast majority of its initial season? Anyone? Perhaps people give those shows a pass because they were so hungry for Trek or because of the more episodic nature of the first two shows or because each show had a slew of cool-looking, English-speaking aliens. Or maybe because of nostalgia we forget about the growing pains of those particular classic series.

My take is that by season two SGU was a far better series than TNG was during its sophomore season. That it seemed to be more confident of its direction even during its lackluster first season than DS9 and B5 (my personal faves) were during their respective first year on air. And I feel that the acting was top notch for SGU from the start.