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.
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 .
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.[/QUOTE] I agree that some of the first season could have been dropped in order to push the overall plot forward more quickly. And, yes, that includes some episodes in which the crew are acting like dipshits. Nonetheless I do love that much of the crew were at each other's throats for a long time. I liked that for long stretches crewmates didn't trust each other let alone like one another. That made it even more rewarding when they moved beyond those differences and came together. They "earned" that trust, they didn't just hand it over to each other overnight ala Voyager. In those final four or so eps of season two they were essentially a family and I respected how they got to that point because I saw their arrival at that point step by painful step. This is something I will simply agree to disagree with other people. Stargate fans tend to want such coming-together to happen quickly, they want deepness of divisions to be shallow and easily bridged. I am one of those who can appreciate the more painful and longer journey. Of course apparently that may not be the best way if you want to keep the attention of audiences.
Without the set up of the first season the second seaon can't really standalone IMO. And I agree with the comments about the crew not being perfect people, the casts of the other two series especially SG1 were rather perfect and didn't have many flaws nor did they fail at times. The comparisons with the new Battlestar Galactica are superficial at best.
NKemp3, a word of advice: please avoid making so many posts back-to-back. It is considered spamming and is against the rules. Use the multiquote feature. (I do not moderate this forum, just giving you a tip before a real mod steps in.)
I've only seen one episode of the second season, but I suffered through the entire first year, and nothing about it's set-up warranted being twenty episodes long. A more disciplined writing staff could have covered the same ground in terms of narrative and character in half the time.
This might also be said for the first season of The X-Files, Babylon 5 and certainly Lost. IMO 13 eps. were more than enough the new Battlestar Galactica's first season. But when shows are contracted for a 20 or 22 ep. season that's pretty much what you get.
There's no reason they couldn't have come up with more story material to properly fill twenty hours of television. All the padding and delay to the serial narrative was simply lazy writing.
When I watch a series, I want things to happen. That "character-driven" drama does nothing for me. I stopped watching "Air" (which was I believe the second episode?) after the second flashback that had nothing at all to do with the plot of the episode, for example.
Air was the three part pilot for the series, so I'm not quite sure which flashback you're talking about.