I almost sounds likeyou've seen the concept art for them...
What concept art? I don't care about spoilers.
2x12 Twin Destinies
- Thread starter AJ86
- Start date
I almost sounds likeyou've seen the concept art for them...What concept art? I don't care about spoilers.
http://a.imageshack.us/img444/5523/img6439d.jpg
Well, this was certianly better than the normal SGU fare. Even if it did tread where Star Trek has gone before. I'm thinking TNG's Time Squared and Voyager's Deadlock.
I'm just starting to be amused at all the ways they dispense of Telford after keeping him around for a few episodes. Yeah, I get it, LDP isn't available to be regular. But come on! I don't know, it is kind of amusing.
I could have done without the "Rush is a shady bastard" routine again, though it is interesting that Rush doesn't even trust himself. Mind you, I don't particularly care for the implication that Rush did indeed somehow sabotage things, as that does seem a bit out of character to me.
Also, why the hell was Chloe put in charge of one of the teams. Yeah, I know, it was only the plant gathering team, hardly anything requiring skill. But it would seem to me that someone who actually worked at Icarus would be more appropriate than the civilian visitor that got saddled with them. But of course, the real reason is because as a regular she needs her screen time.
The Dr. Lee cameo was fun, even if a little pointless. But whatever, it's always great to see him and at least this time he had dialogue. The McKay referance was kind of meh, I gather this was meant to remind us of him in preparation of his coming appearance?
Still, a surpirsingly solid episode which actually managed to hold my interest. About damn time too.
I'm just starting to be amused at all the ways they dispense of Telford after keeping him around for a few episodes. Yeah, I get it, LDP isn't available to be regular. But come on! I don't know, it is kind of amusing.
I could have done without the "Rush is a shady bastard" routine again, though it is interesting that Rush doesn't even trust himself. Mind you, I don't particularly care for the implication that Rush did indeed somehow sabotage things, as that does seem a bit out of character to me.
Also, why the hell was Chloe put in charge of one of the teams. Yeah, I know, it was only the plant gathering team, hardly anything requiring skill. But it would seem to me that someone who actually worked at Icarus would be more appropriate than the civilian visitor that got saddled with them. But of course, the real reason is because as a regular she needs her screen time.
The Dr. Lee cameo was fun, even if a little pointless. But whatever, it's always great to see him and at least this time he had dialogue. The McKay referance was kind of meh, I gather this was meant to remind us of him in preparation of his coming appearance?
Still, a surpirsingly solid episode which actually managed to hold my interest. About damn time too.
Saquist
Commodore
I won't miss it.
This was my first episode since the end of season one. It's what you get when you don't listen to your fan base. Often that's the wrong thing to do but this goes to show that there was a fundamental disconnect with the common viewer and the producer's plan which was supposed to capture the common viewer.
One good episode isn't going to change my mind because I'm just not desperate for stargate like the fans are. The show is getting what it deserves for what the producers have done to it. They said don't watch...and they didnt. Life goes on.
That's true. The show seemed to suffer from a lack of movement before and perhaps that's why.
For you maybe but I don't enjoy watching porn. I think it's disgusting and offensive to put such intimate acts up for viewing but then not everyone is a Christian. I appreciate the mental effect and influence it has.
There was no brilliance until now. Really.
It was full of plot holes and contrivances. There was a secret highway to return to the destiny once they were lost and they all somehow seemed to find it. That's a low standard for a show that claimed was attempting to be more realistic.
That's a horrible standard.
Episode was serviceable, not great. Telford's death scene was unintentionally hilarious.
I'm glad they brought up the fact that they're living on a ship with limited spare parts and technology they don't understand. Even though they've found the bridge and now have control of the ship, they can't be complacent and they still have real problems to deal with. I just hope the issue isn't brushed aside now that they picked up some spare parts from the other Destiny.
So, does our Destiny now have two pristine shuttles?!
I'm glad they brought up the fact that they're living on a ship with limited spare parts and technology they don't understand. Even though they've found the bridge and now have control of the ship, they can't be complacent and they still have real problems to deal with. I just hope the issue isn't brushed aside now that they picked up some spare parts from the other Destiny.
So, does our Destiny now have two pristine shuttles?!
Yes, although it remains to be seen how long that will last.
I guess we can be glad they at least explain where the shuttles come from, rather than just have spanking new shuttles every week without any onscreen explanation. 
Even so, the first replacement shuttle they got was done via sufficiently advanced magic and the second via time travel, so they're just finding workarounds for the "shuttle problem."
Even so, the first replacement shuttle they got was done via sufficiently advanced magic and the second via time travel, so they're just finding workarounds for the "shuttle problem."
If you can't distinguish between a pertinent sex scene in a TV show and pornography then you have some serious problems.
Well Saquist does like to point out every single little flaw in SGU (even ones that don't exist) because he is still miffed that SyFy decided to end Atlantis.
It is too bad they didn't get the weapon power thing, oh well.
Also, I chuckled at: "What do you call these things" "I call them things that make us go" I guess they are Pakleds
Given how the DHD got it's name, maybe they will start calling those thing TMG modules.
Saquist
Commodore
I don't really get "miffed". Atlantis was good not great. I miss it but I'm not dying for it. Just like I'm not dying for SG-1 even though it was far better than SGA or SGU. I'm not a fantic of Stargate. I just enjoy GOOD sci fi.
But I do like to point out all the flaws small or large, whether I like the show or not, and especially whether you like the show or not doesn't play factor.
No. the real issue is that I have a stricter sense of morality than you two. The thing is...if you think it's moral then that has nothing to do with my out look. We all have different beliefs. You're on a message board and you have to appreciate that we're not going to agree on everything (especially issues of morality).
I side with the legal definition.
I also side with the Christian definition. (because I am a Christian)
Legally it has been established that: Pornography is the depiction of sexual behavior that is intended to arouse sexual excitement in its audience. That is a LEGAL precedent. Whether that pornography is obscene or explicit is a different consideration.
My standards on this is never going to change and it's not influence by me ever having viewed pornography so there is no possibility of bias or desensitizing on this regard.
That's exactly the distinction I would have used too, meaning that the scene clearly wasn't pornographic.
Saquist
Commodore
That definition of pornographic comes with the following:
What you call "clearly" not pornographic doesn't fit the offensively pornographic as he stipulates as hardcore.
And since it is on TV and it is limited and simulated sexual conduct and note the lack of distinction between literary concerns it is protected by the First Amendment as well.
B.O.T
TWIN DESTINIES
Slips bellow 1 million for the third time.
Lowest ratings to date.
Last edited:
Saquist
Commodore
I'd be more disturbed if their weren't.
Christianity does establishes morals after all. Jesus said ‘You must not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to YOU that everyone that keeps on looking at a woman so as to have a passion for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.~Matt 5:28
because everything in the world—the desire of the flesh and the desire of the eyes and the showy display of one’s means of life—does not originate with the Father, but originates with the world. ~1 John 2:16
And I remember reading judicial commands in Exodus to not even look at the nakedness of family, so I doubt that wouldn't carry over to strangers. In Israel this was a given but today sex-texting and other forms of exposing oneself are far too common. I went to a Buzz Fest concert and a girl was "dry humping" on the grass with thousands of others around them. They wouldn't allow that in school because it's explicit, it's simulating sexual motions openly. It's only when it's one TV people seem to think it's different.
I can read between the lines here.
Watching people have sex is not right for Christians. I'm a Christian therefore I don't watch people have sex.
Saquist
Commodore
All of those further stipulations are still predicated on the fact that the material is meant for the sexual gratification of the audience, which the scene in question clearly wasn't.
I'd be more disturbed if their weren't.
Christianity does establishes morals after all.
It establishes a morality, not necessarily a moral one though. In fact some of it's 'moral' teaching are decidedly immoral.
Strange how a supposed perfect being could inspire teachings that are so ambiguous and ineffectual, you'd have thougth he'd have seen the confusion coming a mile off, given that's he's mean to me omniscient and all...
Whether you're Mesopotamian is beside the point, you can't ignore the fact that the basic teachings of the ten commandments existed in The Book of the Dead long before they did in the Bible or Torah.
Saquist
Commodore
I don't agree.
It's clearly to stimulate the audience otherwise it wouldn't need to be so explicit rather than suggestive. As a culture we've done suggestive for a long time.
Suggestive:Kirk putting his shirt on with a woman in the bed behind him.
Explicit: Kirk thrusting with a woman beneath him.
If the intent is to imitate the acts of sex in appearance then it's pornography because it doesn't serve any other purpose but to arrouse the audience...that's the entire reason why it's there.
Not even remotely true.
Speak for yourself,
It lead me to no confusion at all.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
You have knowledge and so you presume to have understanding but you're sitting in a pool of your own fallacy.
Similar threads
