Duh, what? What does liberalism have to do with it?
Looks like Stargate is officially done
- Thread starter Kirby
- Start date
Duh, what? What does liberalism have to do with it?
Saquist
Commodore
The apparent lack of choice in roles.
Also contributing is black-listing and type casting.
http://tv.yahoo.com/blog/tv-executi...nda--3086?bcmt=1260956#mwpphu-comment-1245545
There is no blacklist. The lack of choice in roles is because there are too many actors and not enough roles. You realize how many people go to Hollywood in the hopes of landing acting jobs? There are only so many to go around.
But I'm sure it's more comforting to assume that when a conservative can't get an acting job, it's because teh libruls are out to get him, not because he's a bad actor or gave a poor audition.
Yeah, there are liberals in Hollywood, and some of them are assholes. This is news? There are assholes in every industry, regardless of politics.
Go on believing there's a vast left-wing conspiracy to keep conservative actors out of work if it makes you feel better, though.
Saquist
Commodore
There is no blacklist. The lack of choice in roles is because there are too many actors and not enough roles. You realize how many people go to Hollywood in the hopes of landing acting jobs? There are only so many to go around.
But I'm sure it's more comforting to assume that when a conservative can't get an acting job, it's because teh libruls are out to get him, not because he's a bad actor or gave a poor audition.
Yeah, there are liberals in Hollywood, and some of them are assholes. This is news? There are assholes in every industry, regardless of politics.
Go on believing there's a vast left-wing conspiracy to keep conservative actors out of work if it makes you feel better, though.
Why would it make me "feel better"?
Do feelings always make YOUR decisions?
Does it make you feel better to contradict the article?
There is no blacklist. The lack of choice in roles is because there are too many actors and not enough roles. You realize how many people go to Hollywood in the hopes of landing acting jobs? There are only so many to go around.
But I'm sure it's more comforting to assume that when a conservative can't get an acting job, it's because teh libruls are out to get him, not because he's a bad actor or gave a poor audition.
Yeah, there are liberals in Hollywood, and some of them are assholes. This is news? There are assholes in every industry, regardless of politics.
Go on believing there's a vast left-wing conspiracy to keep conservative actors out of work if it makes you feel better, though.
Why would it make me "feel better"?
Do feelings always make YOUR decisions?
Does it make you feel better to contradict the article?
It make's me feel better your post is only 3 lines long.
There is no blacklist. The lack of choice in roles is because there are too many actors and not enough roles. You realize how many people go to Hollywood in the hopes of landing acting jobs? There are only so many to go around.
But I'm sure it's more comforting to assume that when a conservative can't get an acting job, it's because teh libruls are out to get him, not because he's a bad actor or gave a poor audition.
Yeah, there are liberals in Hollywood, and some of them are assholes. This is news? There are assholes in every industry, regardless of politics.
Go on believing there's a vast left-wing conspiracy to keep conservative actors out of work if it makes you feel better, though.
Why would it make me "feel better"?
Do feelings always make YOUR decisions?
Does it make you feel better to contradict the article?
No, I am a rational human being, which is why I can detect what unmitigated bullshit that article is.
I understand that you are driven entirely by your emotions, despite your protestations to the contrary. Given how personally you take a bad TV show--enough to write voluminous posts deriding it--and now the perceived persecution of conservatives in Hollywood, it's hard to draw any other conclusion.
And apparently likes that hairstyle...
I think that's his regular hairstyle.
Saquist
Commodore
Rationality means logic and reason.
Reason: A cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event
Rational: Based on or in accordance with reason or logic:
Thus I'm curious as to your logical explanation (evidence based) to cause you to completely dismiss the article.
I need not protest your beliefs.
They really don't concern me.
A given which isn't a given...
It's not the first and won't be the last.
Translation: "I have three exhibits and therefore a conclusion of finality".
Firstly. Perception proves nothing. A volume of negativity doesn't define bias. You say perception of persecution but this is a CONFESSION reported by a reputable news source referenced on camera and in written form from the mouth of the TV executives themselves.
You're ridiculing the article,
You're ridiculing me.
But these are not rational arguments, they're Red Herring informal fallacies. Are you sure you're thinking like a "Rational Human Being" or just a flawed feeling Human Being?
You are nothing if not predictable, Saquist.
Saquist
Commodore
Thank You.
Saquist is a vulcan. (at least the character is) The name means "to be in error" and is the name of an officer in a Section 31 story I wrote. But I have since taken it as an unique on-line name. It is fitting for me because I have studied logic extensively and I have always been in situations between two opposing points-of-views. Logic is invaluable in being objective and rejecting your first feelings on a point of contention. But most of all, logic is static, it is symbolically equal to Newton's First Law of Motion. Logic remains at rest or in motion unless acted upon by contradictory evidential information.
Ironic that you would make such a comparison as I'm am strictly against the people that wrote vulcans as a whole to be aggressive and illogical because it presents a potential series plot hole given how long Vulcan generations are, it is exceedingly unlikely they could have turned into a more ritualistic traditional planetary society by the time of 23rd century from one of a secular authoritarian based society in less than a hundred years.
In the past I described these corrections in ENT to be late and "poorly conceived patch jobs" to correct their numerous errors with the series premise by pitting the vulcans and humans against one another when never before were they described as adversaries. The premise was illogical from even a internal view of a series. It was like watching the original V where the Earth basically just hands over control of the planet with out a fight in a contrived plot device to create a resistance. In ENT it's far worse off. There was never an objective to the "Aggressive Vulcan" contrivance. It was merely a contrivance for drama and that is similar to the mistake of what the writers did for SGU in pitting the people against the ship that were used to working together on a top secret program who are supposed to be the best of the best both psychologically and tactically and yet they are making all the wrong moves and are present as all the wrong people.
Looking at V.
The story was commentary on World War II. Like X-men was commentary on the Human Rights movement between Malcom X and MLK. The objective of the plot was to get to the resistance side of the story as quickly as possible because it was about the sympathizers and sacrifices, drawing lines and absolutes, so they didn't linger on the world government facts an issue of retaliation or glossed over it. By becoming commentary of real issues it raises the awareness of society.
Was SGU commentary?
What was SGU trying to raise awareness of?
It's hard to see.
Saquist
Commodore
I think Stargate made a very strong statement against false god's and I think eventually that turned into a statement against deities in general thus the Ori/Christian theme. Even though they avoided making comment on the Earth impact of all these false god's in real time consequences the Ori were clearly a statement against God and god's. It would have been interesting to see how the religions of the world would have reacted not just to the Gate program but the revelation than the religions of Earth were seeded by aliens and...evil...
Even though I'm Christian I think SGU would have been the perfect series to subtly plug anti deity themes to a stronger degree. Scott haveing a Catholic background, Wray being Lesbian. They really missed out on some good old fashion ideology conflict. Even the abortion thing with the baby. But with this huge revelation of what Destiny's mission was...that there was apparently evidence of a structure to the universe...come on...that's huge and could have been made epicly dramatic with the conflicts previously mention.
Really as far as my creative juices go...that's what SGU should have been about.
The cast should have been made of people with very different ideologies. Christian Muslim, Jew, Buddhism, Hindi and the secular ideology of nationalism and military or atheist. Young should have been a military commander that was an uber American, "by the book or else" no room for interpretation, America is better than everyone else. Rush as the Atheist would have been Absolutely AWESOME. I could see him playing the angry atheist role with the kind of solidarity that would have given Dawkins a run for his money. Scott as the alter boy, later revealed as being molested by a priest. Greer should have been Muslim. The natural clash here between him and Scott and Young would be obvious but not immediate. I would put him not just as Muslim but as a black Muslim. Chloe as a Senator's daughter would be in cahoots Wray as a lesbian feeding the liberal side. Eli should have been of Jewish decent, still a slacker genius. He would be an interesting balance (just as he was in the show between military and civilian) between religion and science. I'd imagine he and Rush would have the more interesting conversations. He could be the objective observer as everyone around him took their sides in certain conflicts. These ideological issues would be played against the "mortal coil" of survival and morality in survival. In the conflicts the big question would be asked and perhaps never answered.
Does might make right?
What is moral?
Is there a God?
What is the role of Science?
Should religion be band?
and don't stop there. Ask the political questions too.
Conservative and Liberals
Capitalism vs Communism (in fact I'm surprised there was no Russian or Chinesse on the crew)
And give us some insight in conflicts in other nations like Europe and Asia. It would have been a lot but I think it would have put SGU on the radar. It would have been Commentary in a way we'll likely never be able to speak about our reality...from a whole new perspective.
Last edited:
I thought Stargate's philosophy was basically, "We're humans, we're badass, and we're gonna wreck your shit if you get in our way."
Seriously, though, what I liked about SG-1 was a group of lowly humans taking on much bigger and more sophisticated enemies, taking them down with ingenuity and planning rather than superior technology. It made humans out to be the scrappy newcomers, just fighting for a piece of the universe. I think SG-1 started to lose some of its magic once humans started building warships and space fighters, putting us on more even footing with our enemies. While fairly realistic, it also robbed us of our underdog status--but then they brought in the Ori who were even more powerful than the Goa'uld.
Unfortunately, the Ori lacked interest as villains because they were so faceless and cookie-cutter. At least the Goa'uld, as individuals, had personality. The Ori really didn't, and I never really bought Adria as a threatening villain.
Seriously, though, what I liked about SG-1 was a group of lowly humans taking on much bigger and more sophisticated enemies, taking them down with ingenuity and planning rather than superior technology. It made humans out to be the scrappy newcomers, just fighting for a piece of the universe. I think SG-1 started to lose some of its magic once humans started building warships and space fighters, putting us on more even footing with our enemies. While fairly realistic, it also robbed us of our underdog status--but then they brought in the Ori who were even more powerful than the Goa'uld.
Unfortunately, the Ori lacked interest as villains because they were so faceless and cookie-cutter. At least the Goa'uld, as individuals, had personality. The Ori really didn't, and I never really bought Adria as a threatening villain.
One thing I like about the Stargate franchise is that we got to see progress and expansion. They didn't establish a status quo and find excuses to reset everything and stick to it. Sure, the stargate itself got demystified and pushed to the wayside in the process, but that's a small price to pay I guess. And with SGU, I actually came to I like seeing the mastery they had over alien tech. That actually made up for the demystification of the gate. The only thing I didn't like was seeing the last few seasons of SG-1 get bogged down in interstellar politics. The stuff they did wasn't very exciting.
As for the Ori, I liked them better than the goa'uld. I like powerful faceless enemies. They're scarier and more threatening.
As for the Ori, I liked them better than the goa'uld. I like powerful faceless enemies. They're scarier and more threatening.
The Ark of Truth, which was still mostly padding, despite TPTB claiming they had at least another season's worth of Ori stories. Continuum was a retread of "Moebius". It's really no wonder no additional SG movies got made.
But at least Continuum did it right! I can't believe that with so many people writing Moebius that it went so horribly wrong. Continuum was the same wrapper story, but it did it so much better, and the extra budget was put to great use, so I was happy they did that. You can never have too many time travel stories.
The end of season 10 feels really rushed to wrap it mostly up before the end of the season, so they could have gotten another season out of it if they hadn't compressed all of that, plus whatever other storylines they had to drop. But The Ark of Truth didn't feel like padding to me. It actually felt a bit rushed to me to wrap up the whole Ori storyline, with the convenient "show one prior a box" thing. Either way, I didn't love it. It was alright, but it was just tying up loose ends.
Not really. They sold extremely well. The studio doesn't care how good they are. Were it not for MGM's financial troubles coinciding with the recession I imagine more SG-1 movies would have been an almost certainty. I'd agree Continuum was basically just a two-parter dressed as a movie, but I thought Ark of Truth was fantastic. Proper movie pacing, wrapped everything up and some great dialogue.
