Why do people hate the stones?

[The Grim Ghost]

The thing that bothered me about the show is that it was composed of so-so characters. I guess we are used to two other shows where Carter or McKay are there to cover all the technology bases. Here, Rush needs half a dozen people just to get the job done.

See for me, this is a plus. We get more of a supporting cast that way. And even though I love shows like Trek with the uber skilled characters, I also like seeing more realistic characters who can't instantly solve every problem. It makes their struggles seem to mean more.

 

[Brent]

I wanted to add, the stones are a way better idea then what ended up happening on Atlantis. Atlantis was supposed to be about our team being out of contact with Earth, lost in another galaxy, but of course they quickly not only gained communication but also the ability to get to the galaxy, and transport things through the Stargate. What I like about the stones is that while they have communication, they are truly cut off from their homeworld, there is no getting supplies via ships or Stargate, they really only have what they have and what they can get on planets near them.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I think having the actors continue to portray themselves after the swap is a cop-out to how weird the situation actually is.

That's kind of how they've done it since the stones were first used that way in season 9 of SG-1.

 

[Crewman47]

I like the idea of the stones but there's often one thing I'm confused about and that is, what do the swapees see from there own POV? I know that they see the person they've swapped with in a mirror, but do they see there own body when they look down at themselves through there own eyes?

 

[cylkoth]

^They see the meat suit they're wearing, not their own body.

 

[aloha62]

They break immersion, they have this dark, moody oppressive atmosphere building on the ship and just as you start to feel how cut off they are from the homes and loved ones up pops a interstellar phone call and that whole atmosphere evaporates.

 

[Pauln6]

The issue of having sex while in someone else's body is one thing but abusing and attempting to kill someone else's body? How would that not be pre-meditated murder? Wray will be totally within her rights to get Young indicted when they get back to Earth. His actions were amateurish and unnecessary - Rush can be rescued at any time and once the Lucien Alliance's involvement has been uncovered there will be other way of obtaining information and evidence that don't place Rush's life at risk. This was a series low in the logic stakes for me.

And the one thing the Lucien Alliance has learned over the years is that torture is effective... errrr... only in US tv shows and movies actually. In the real world information and confessions obtained using torture are notoriously unreliable. Why do US writers struggle so much to understand such a concept?

 

[Caliburn24]

The idea that torture is unreliable is an idea that is distinctly Western in origin and very recent, really just appearing when the idea of human rights started appearing.

And while I feel strongly against using torture due to moral reasons, I would argue that its effectiveness is not as unreliable as modern scholars and the news media would like us to think.

Military history is rife with accounts where information gleaned through torture was accurate and gave an advantage to the side who had done the torture.

Israeli authorities claim to have prevented over 90 attacks through information gained from torture. French general Paul Aussaresses in Algiers claimed that he was able to find bombs and locate terrorist cells through the use of torture. In 1995 the Philippines intelligence service gained information through torture that foiled an Al Qaeda plot to crash 11 airliners into the ocean and kill 4000 people.

Torture has existed in every culture in the history of mankind, since the dawn of that history.

If it were so ineffective would it have been so widespread? I do not believe so.

 

[Pauln6]

The idea that torture is unreliable is an idea that is distinctly Western in origin and very recent, really just appearing when the idea of human rights started appearing.

And while I feel strongly against using torture due to moral reasons, I would argue that its effectiveness is not as unreliable as modern scholars and the news media would like us to think.

Military history is rife with accounts where information gleaned through torture was accurate and gave an advantage to the side who had done the torture.

Israeli authorities claim to have prevented over 90 attacks through information gained from torture. French general Paul Aussaresses in Algiers claimed that he was able to find bombs and locate terrorist cells through the use of torture. In 1995 the Philippines intelligence service gained information through torture that foiled an Al Qaeda plot to crash 11 airliners into the ocean and kill 4000 people.

Torture has existed in every culture in the history of mankind, since the dawn of that history.

If it were so ineffective would it have been so widespread? I do not believe so.

Depends on your definition of effective though. I don't doubt that information can be gained but if you torture someone who doesn't know the information you want then you get false information - and how many other innocent people might get dragged in to be tortured and killed based on that information before it is determined that the information is wrong?

Plus Israeli tactics are increasingly being seen as oppressive and unreasonable...

 

[The Wormhole]

And the one thing the Lucien Alliance has learned over the years is that torture is effective... errrr... only in US tv shows and movies actually. In the real world information and confessions obtained using torture are notoriously unreliable. Why do US writers struggle so much to understand such a concept?

It comes down to the fact that the Lucian Alliance are walking supervillain cliches. They torture their prisoners for information and cooperation, they arbitrarily execute their own minions for displaying incompetence. Kiva herself has the whole "I'm a reasonable person doing horrible things for the sake of my people" routine. Seriously, the only thing they're missing is a Tower of Doom(tm).

 

[David cgc]

They have several second-hand pyramids, and second-hand pyramid-shaped spaceships. Don't those count?

 

[The Wormhole]

I suppose so. But I was thinking more along the lines of an Evil Castle or something where the Ruler of the Lucian Alliance sits on his throne in his dark robes twirling his moustache and laughing evilly about his plans to rule the galaxy.

 

[Caliburn24]

Stargate has never been good at creating strong villains. The Go'uld were laughable. The Replicators were a weak Borg rip off and a chance to make bad guys out of legos. The Ori started interestingly, but ended up just another bunch of cliches. The Wraith were completely one dimensional. The Lucian Alliance is just following along in that mold.

Which is why I hope Wray and Telford can transcend that and become Stargate's first truly sympathetic villains.

 

[The Wormhole]

Stargate has never been good at creating strong villains. The Go'uld were laughable. The Replicators were a weak Borg rip off and a chance to make bad guys out of legos. The Ori started interestingly, but ended up just another bunch of cliches. The Wraith were completely one dimensional. The Lucian Alliance is just following along in that mold.

Which is why I hope Wray and Telford can transcend that and become Stargate's first truly sympathetic villains.

In SG-1 and Atlantis the cartoony villains worked because those were light-hearted action-adventure shows and the villains were appropriate to that setting. Although, I thought the depiction of Ba'al in the later years of SG-1 enhanced the character and the show, and Atlantis could have benefitted from having more Kolya.

However, with SGU they are trying to be darker and approaching things in a more "serious manner." So presenting the Lucian Alliance as such E-Vil bad guys that you would expect to spend weekends hanging out with Magneto and the Joker just doesn't fit the atmosphere they are trying to establish. Or rather, claim to be trying to establish.

 

[Caliburn24]

^I agree, but for the most part we're talking about the same writers who wrote all those years of SG-1 and SGA, so expecting them to somehow now create more compelling villains when they have never demonstrated that talent in the past seems unlikely.

 

[TiberiusMaximus]

Stargate has never been good at creating strong villains. The Go'uld were laughable. The Replicators were a weak Borg rip off and a chance to make bad guys out of legos. The Ori started interestingly, but ended up just another bunch of cliches. The Wraith were completely one dimensional. The Lucian Alliance is just following along in that mold.

Which is why I hope Wray and Telford can transcend that and become Stargate's first truly sympathetic villains.

Telford? Maybe. Wray? I don't think she could ever really be a villain, she flips back and forth between being soft and vulnerable and trying to be tough and intimidating.
The Lucians from SG-1 were scarier than these morons...they actually managed to come across as ruthless and not just stupid and angry.

 

[Meredith]

The latest LA villain seems to be somewhat more dimensional...