Fun game! How would you fix "Promethus"
Jim Davis
+
-
+
-
+
-
+
-
+
-
+
-
+
-
+
-
+
-
+
-
+
OKay, in the interest of public service (and because it's a favorite hobby
of mine) how could you have "fixed" the problems in "Prometheus", perferably
with just a dialog change or very simple (e.g. "free" change)?
Feel free to add your own problems as well. Here's my list (from a previous
post - many others had the same issues as well):
1) Jonas hides the crystal instead of just smashing it? Why not just break
it? Stick chewing gum in the slot it goes in or take a whiz on the control
panel - SOMETHING to permanently disable the ship.
POSSIBLE FIX:
Jonas could have been shown TRYING to break the crystal - smacking on the
counter (we've usually seen crystals shot but never, I think, just broken by
hand - we don't know how string they are). A joke about "good
craftsmanship" could have been nice. So in desperation he hides it as he
hears the bad guy's come back.
2) The ship is that large, still under construction, in a government
facility and lacks many systems and there wasn't ANY way that a strike force
could get on board while it was still on the ground? Considering this I'm
going to be all the more pissed when "Simmons" invariably shows up again
having latched on and entring through some porthole or airlock.
POSSIBLE FIX:
A statement from the bad guys such as "I've electrified the hull, nobody's
getting in here." or "The shields aren't at full power, but at least we'll
know if they're penetrated anyplace" would have done nicely I think.
3) OKay - Simmons is a big guy, no doubt, but he really took Jack and Teal'c
down fast and hard. Also isn't Teal'c supposed to be able to "sense"
Gou'ald? It just seemed that whole sequence was done in slow mo for no
point. Lastly why didn't Simmons use the GUN that he had?
POSSIBLE FIX:
Well, this was just silly. I suppose it may have conflicted with "part 2"
but I think that Simmons should have used his gun - he could have shot
Teal'c immediately thus explaining his effectiveness later in the scene. We
can then happily use suspension of disbelief of a "lucky shot" to explain
Jack's performance.
We could then assume that Teal'c's symbiote healed the wound on time for the
next story. Better yet Teal'c could have been Zat'd [sic] - in that case
O'Neill's having to grab him when the airlock opened would have made more
sense as well (and been a little more dramatic).
4) When Simmons is on board ready to take off wasn't the "we're going to
blow up Nevada" ploy a little empty? I mean these guys were strictly out to
save their own asses - there was NO CHANCE that they would destroy the ship
at that point. None. A better leverage would have been the hostages - but
I still don't think anybody would let the ship get away for that.
POSSIBLE FIX:
Simmons could have leveraged the hostages - but I still would have prefered
the answer of "no dice" from the Pentagon. However he could have also then
said something like:
"I'm not willing to throw my life away, but I'm a gambling man. I think
that this ship will survive breaking out of here but that you're
installation won't. I hate to think what would happen if the reactors on
level nine were to go up as we left."
In other words it seems like it would have been easy enough to make the
doors simply not a real barrier to the ship, but potentially very dangerous
to the ground crew. We might also assume that the ship has weapons and that
those could have been powered up to blow doors.
5) When this happened why didn't anybody cut the power to the docking
equipment. There's got to be a big 'ol "off" switch someplace, right? And
why would there be a ship-to-shore link for the docking arms but not the
doors?
POSSIBLE FIX:
A fix to both this one and number 4) would have been simply letting giving
the ships crew control of both docking mechanism and the doors or moving the
docking mechanism controls off-ship and combining it with the whole "doors"
thing.
6) Even if the Gou'ald had the knowledge how could one guy take the ship
from "far from ready" to "fully operational"? Wouldn't he need a wrench or
parts or something?
POSSIBLE FIX:
This is a tough one for me. I would have dropped the whole "we're a long
way from having HyperSpace" plot point and had Carter say something like:
"The hyperspace engine is mechanically complete; theoretically we could
launch tomorrow. However we'd have no place to go as the proper astrometric
parameters are still being finalized by NASA." She could then add "We had
to compensate in many places for our modifications to the alien technology,
programming the computers is taking longer than building the ship."
This has the added benefit of throwing blame directly on the Goa'uld for not
understanding. It also allows them a "way out" since we might assume that
the computer would have a copy of the original, Goa'uld, parameters and
could extrapolate their position by taking the original destination and the
compensations in mind.
There you go. That would have made me much happier with the episode. There
are other problems of course, but those are ones that stuck in my craw. How
would you have fixed it?
Jim Davis
Ken
"Jim Davis" <newsm...@vboston.com> wrote in message
news:ak8dr...@enews2.newsguy.com...
This doesn't bother me since he didn't know there were spies--plus he prolly
didn't want to irreparably damage the ship himself, be a "guest" and all.
> 2) The ship is that large, still under construction, in a government
> facility and lacks many systems and there wasn't ANY way that a strike
force
> could get on board while it was still on the ground? Considering this I'm
> going to be all the more pissed when "Simmons" invariably shows up again
> having latched on and entring through some porthole or airlock.
>
> POSSIBLE FIX:
> A statement from the bad guys such as "I've electrified the hull, nobody's
> getting in here." or "The shields aren't at full power, but at least we'll
> know if they're penetrated anyplace" would have done nicely I think.
The Goa'uld could have unpacked some alien equipment, and attached one to
the hull, which could have electrified it.
The Goa'uld could have unpack another device that modifies the comm dish,
boosting its signal to become an energy weapon.
> 5) When this happened why didn't anybody cut the power to the docking
> equipment. There's got to be a big 'ol "off" switch someplace, right?
And
> why would there be a ship-to-shore link for the docking arms but not the
> doors?
>
> POSSIBLE FIX:
> A fix to both this one and number 4) would have been simply letting giving
> the ships crew control of both docking mechanism and the doors or moving
the
> docking mechanism controls off-ship and combining it with the whole
"doors"
> thing.
Or they could have been in the midst of deactivating ship control over the
hangar, when the theives managed to deactivate the clamps--thus giving them
something both to do instead of looking goofy.
> 6) Even if the Gou'ald had the knowledge how could one guy take the ship
> from "far from ready" to "fully operational"? Wouldn't he need a wrench
or
> parts or something?
>
> POSSIBLE FIX:
> This is a tough one for me. I would have dropped the whole "we're a long
> way from having HyperSpace" plot point and had Carter say something like:
> "The hyperspace engine is mechanically complete; theoretically we could
> launch tomorrow. However we'd have no place to go as the proper
astrometric
> parameters are still being finalized by NASA." She could then add "We had
> to compensate in many places for our modifications to the alien
technology,
> programming the computers is taking longer than building the ship."
>
> This has the added benefit of throwing blame directly on the Goa'uld for
not
> understanding. It also allows them a "way out" since we might assume that
> the computer would have a copy of the original, Goa'uld, parameters and
> could extrapolate their position by taking the original destination and
the
> compensations in mind.
The Goa'uld--yes, again, which explains why it was used by Simmons in the
first place--pulls out the last of the devices, to help boost engine power
for blast off.
> There you go. That would have made me much happier with the episode.
There
> are other problems of course, but those are ones that stuck in my craw.
How
> would you have fixed it?
>
> Jim Davis
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. I like the positive spin. Instead of just complaining, but suggesting
solutions.
Jim Davis
"Ken" <kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:Q1R99.4721$yt3.1...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
> > POSSIBLE FIX:
> > Simmons could have leveraged the hostages - but I still would have
> prefered
> > the answer of "no dice" from the Pentagon. However he could have also
> then
> > said something like:
> > "I'm not willing to throw my life away, but I'm a gambling man. I think
> > that this ship will survive breaking out of here but that you're
> > installation won't. I hate to think what would happen if the reactors
on
> > level nine were to go up as we left."
> >
> > In other words it seems like it would have been easy enough to make the
> > doors simply not a real barrier to the ship, but potentially very
> dangerous
> > to the ground crew. We might also assume that the ship has weapons and
> that
> > those could have been powered up to blow doors.
>
> The Goa'uld could have unpack another device that modifies the comm dish,
> boosting its signal to become an energy weapon.
I don't know if they'd have to - my guess is that we'll see that the ship
has weapons in January. I can't see them going to effort to build this ship
without arming it... when you know the Goa'uld are out there waiting it
seems that a "peaceful exploration vessel" would just be out of the
question.
> > 5) When this happened why didn't anybody cut the power to the docking
> > equipment. There's got to be a big 'ol "off" switch someplace, right?
> And
> > why would there be a ship-to-shore link for the docking arms but not the
> > doors?
> >
> > POSSIBLE FIX:
> > A fix to both this one and number 4) would have been simply letting
giving
> > the ships crew control of both docking mechanism and the doors or moving
> the
> > docking mechanism controls off-ship and combining it with the whole
> "doors"
> > thing.
>
> Or they could have been in the midst of deactivating ship control over the
> hangar, when the theives managed to deactivate the clamps--thus giving
them
> something both to do instead of looking goofy.
There is that! I also thought that the little "command tent" (there was no
place else INSIDE to go?) was next to useless. Except for "patching things
through" (apparently from her headphones to a speaker) it didn't seem to
have any purpose whatsoever. I guess it did save them the trouble of
building a "launch control" set tho'...
> -- Ken from Chicago
>
> P.S. I like the positive spin. Instead of just complaining, but suggesting
> solutions.
Thanks. That's me - a solution kind of guy! ;^)
Jim Davis
Art
>
> "Ken" <kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> news:Q1R99.4721$yt3.1...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> "Jim Davis" <newsm...@vboston.com> wrote in message
>> news:ak8dr...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>
>> > We might also assume that the ship has weapons
>> > and that those could have been powered up to blow doors.
>>
>> The Goa'uld could have unpack another device that modifies the comm
>> dish, boosting its signal to become an energy weapon.
>
> I don't know if they'd have to - my guess is that we'll see that the
> ship has weapons in January. I can't see them going to effort to
> build this ship without arming it... when you know the Goa'uld are out
> there waiting it seems that a "peaceful exploration vessel" would just
> be out of the question.
Putting weapons on a ship that isn't (officially) ready to fly yet probably
isn't a good idea really in case something goes wrong during construction
and just adds to the explosion, if you were building a submarine you
wouldn't load it up with Nukes while you had folks plodding around with
welding gear etc.
Art
MaybeMaybourne
> it? Stick chewing gum in the slot it goes in or take a whiz on the control
> panel - SOMETHING to permanently disable the ship.
And where did we establish the crystals were delictate enough to
shatter with a blow? It took an unloaded P90 to take out a bank of
crystals in a previous episode.
> 2) The ship is that large, still under construction, in a government
> facility and lacks many systems and there wasn't ANY way that a strike force
> could get on board while it was still on the ground? Considering this I'm
> going to be all the more pissed when "Simmons" invariably shows up again
> having latched on and entring through some porthole or airlock.
Your possible fix of the bad guys saying something about the hull
being electrified is good. I thought the line that was in the actual
episode explaining the fact that they were putting the ship in
"lockdown" was even better.
>
> 3) OKay - Simmons is a big guy, no doubt, but he really took Jack and Teal'c
> down fast and hard. Also isn't Teal'c supposed to be able to "sense"
> Gou'ald? It just seemed that whole sequence was done in slow mo for no
> point. Lastly why didn't Simmons use the GUN that he had?
Teal'c's ability to sense a goa'uld presence isn't radar. In The
Tomb, he had to draw close enough to the dead creature to realize he
wasn't sensing a goa'uld. All the goa'uld had to do is wait until his
back was turned, then close the distance between them fast enough
before he could react. As for shooting someone - not exactly a
goa'uld's style.
> 4) When Simmons is on board ready to take off wasn't the "we're going to
> blow up Nevada" ploy a little empty? I mean these guys were strictly out to
> save their own asses - there was NO CHANCE that they would destroy the ship
> at that point. None. A better leverage would have been the hostages - but
> I still don't think anybody would let the ship get away for that.
That's a pretty big assumption. How can you assume they wouldn't be
desperate enough to trigger the explosion? Because it's a television
show?
>
> 5) When this happened why didn't anybody cut the power to the docking
> equipment. There's got to be a big 'ol "off" switch someplace, right? And
> why would there be a ship-to-shore link for the docking arms but not the
> doors?
What difference would it have made? Simmons asks Davis to open the
roof. He waffles. Simmons threatens to blow the ship. In your
scenario, things would have gone down exactly the same way. Davis
cuts power to the docking equipment. Davis waffles. Simmons
threatens to blow the ship.
> 6) Even if the Gou'ald had the knowledge how could one guy take the ship
> from "far from ready" to "fully operational"? Wouldn't he need a wrench or
> parts or something?
It's clear from Sam's McGyvering that there is equipment (ie.
wrenches, tools in general, etc.) scattered throughout the ship.
Jim Davis
"Art" <artu...@spammenotyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:zG4a9.41543$sp6....@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk...
I agree - but I'd be more willing to believe that they had armed the ship
than some of the other things this episode asked us to believe. ;^)
However we may be wrong in assuming ordinance. Would energy weapons
(presumably powered from the main ship power source) have the same concerns?
I didn't see any obvious weapons on the ship in flight, but then again you
don't see them on Goa'uld ships either.
I would imagine, keeping with "traditional" sci-fi and its Earth/American
origin that the ship is equipped with both Goa'uld enegy weapondry (I'm
still assuming that the main purpose pf the ship is defense from the
Goa'uld) and some "good old-fashioned" ordinance like missles/torpedoes. I
really doubt there'll be ballistic weapons but who knows...
Although a case could be made that some energy weapons are really just
ballistic weapons (just flinging out bolts of nasty instead of bullets). I
would put most SG1 weapons I've seen into that category while (for example)
Phasers on Trek seem to be more directed, "conductive" weapons.
Ah, I'm babbling now.
Jim Davis
Ken
I can see them not wanting to complicate a prototype starship with weapons
systems, yet the risk of getting caught without any kind of offensive weapon
seems great.
I imagine they might compromise and have the weapons system in a completely
separate, maybe easily-ejectable, circuit. I was thinking some missiles,
maybe even a couple of staff weapons mounted next to a robot hand to fire.
It wouldn't be massive, but it would be something--and we have seen Teal'c
take down gliders and a major ship using a staff weapon (before it crashed,
destroyed a stargate and trapping him inside the Earth stargate ''buffer'').
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken
"MaybeMaybourne" <spunk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f1f9ee1f.02082...@posting.google.com...
If ONLY she had DUCT TAPE, a SWITCHBLADE, some CHEWING GUM and a GUM
WRAPPER, she could have macgyvered her own STAFF WEAPON!
-- Ken from Chicago
Jim Davis
break
> > it? Stick chewing gum in the slot it goes in or take a whiz on the
control
> > panel - SOMETHING to permanently disable the ship.
>
> And where did we establish the crystals were delictate enough to
> shatter with a blow? It took an unloaded P90 to take out a bank of
> crystals in a previous episode.
We didn't - which is why I suggested that to fix this we DO establish this
here. We're still not how fragile the crystals are here...
> > 2) The ship is that large, still under construction, in a government
> > facility and lacks many systems and there wasn't ANY way that a strike
force
> > could get on board while it was still on the ground? Considering this
I'm
> > going to be all the more pissed when "Simmons" invariably shows up again
> > having latched on and entring through some porthole or airlock.
>
> Your possible fix of the bad guys saying something about the hull
> being electrified is good. I thought the line that was in the actual
> episode explaining the fact that they were putting the ship in
> "lockdown" was even better.
I suppose - but I juet never got a sense for what that meant... did it mean
they just locked the doors or was it more preventative than that?
> > 3) OKay - Simmons is a big guy, no doubt, but he really took Jack and
Teal'c
> > down fast and hard. Also isn't Teal'c supposed to be able to "sense"
> > Gou'ald? It just seemed that whole sequence was done in slow mo for no
> > point. Lastly why didn't Simmons use the GUN that he had?
>
> Teal'c's ability to sense a goa'uld presence isn't radar. In The
> Tomb, he had to draw close enough to the dead creature to realize he
> wasn't sensing a goa'uld. All the goa'uld had to do is wait until his
> back was turned, then close the distance between them fast enough
> before he could react. As for shooting someone - not exactly a
> goa'uld's style.
I agree that Teal's sense might be weak/distractable/need forethought
whatever.
However as to shooting somebody not being a Goa'uld's style - well I don't
agree. They're not honorable fighters and this one fighting for its life.
Although I agree that he'd rather order somebody to kill them or use a hand
device to melt their brains I don't think he'd have any compunction at all
shooting them with a primitive weapon if it meant saving his own hide.
> > 4) When Simmons is on board ready to take off wasn't the "we're going to
> > blow up Nevada" ploy a little empty? I mean these guys were strictly
out to
> > save their own asses - there was NO CHANCE that they would destroy the
ship
> > at that point. None. A better leverage would have been the hostages -
but
> > I still don't think anybody would let the ship get away for that.
>
> That's a pretty big assumption. How can you assume they wouldn't be
> desperate enough to trigger the explosion? Because it's a television
> show?
Because he's proven himself to be completely self-serving on multiple
occasions. Also his entire reason for this escapade was to escape - nothing
else. No "statement" (religious or otherwise) to make, no suicidal
tendancies.
Also, in a sense, Simmons has always seen himself as protecting the cause of
the American people - it seems more than a little unlikely that he would
blow up hundreds of thousands of them in this attempt to (in his mind)
saving them.
Lastly blowing up the ship served no purpose whatsoever - he would be dead,
so would the goa'uld, so would his team. If there's one thing that Simmons
has shown himself to be it's pragmatic.
> > 5) When this happened why didn't anybody cut the power to the docking
> > equipment. There's got to be a big 'ol "off" switch someplace, right?
And
> > why would there be a ship-to-shore link for the docking arms but not the
> > doors?
>
> What difference would it have made? Simmons asks Davis to open the
> roof. He waffles. Simmons threatens to blow the ship. In your
> scenario, things would have gone down exactly the same way. Davis
> cuts power to the docking equipment. Davis waffles. Simmons
> threatens to blow the ship.
But, and this is my point, it would at least seem to have made some sense.
As it was the whole thing rang very false and contrived.
The whole point, dramatically, in a situation like this is to place your
heros in a situation that they can't get out of - in a situation where the
only good thing to do is to go along, for a time, with the wishes of the bad
guys. In the best heroic drama the viewer feels that they would have done
the same thing as the hero (if they were heroic).
> > 6) Even if the Gou'ald had the knowledge how could one guy take the ship
> > from "far from ready" to "fully operational"? Wouldn't he need a wrench
or
> > parts or something?
>
> It's clear from Sam's McGyvering that there is equipment (ie.
> wrenches, tools in general, etc.) scattered throughout the ship.
The wrench comment was more a joke than anything else. The main point was
the Goa'uld got on the ship, then (at most) a coupla hours later it's ready
to rumble. That's even considering that he would have to work around the
human technology.
The point here is that the statements made indicated that the drive was far
from ready - and this one guy comes in and has up and happy in such a short
while. Again, it seemed forced and false.
Jim Davis
Jim Davis
>
> "MaybeMaybourne" <spunk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:f1f9ee1f.02082...@posting.google.com...
> > wrenches, tools in general, etc.) scattered throughout the ship.
>
> If ONLY she had DUCT TAPE, a SWITCHBLADE, some CHEWING GUM and a GUM
> WRAPPER, she could have macgyvered her own STAFF WEAPON!
Actually I don't think those items are allowed to be stored within 1000
yards of one another for that very reason. There's very specific
regulations about this!
Jim Davis
Mark Jones
<kwicker_era...@ameritech.net>'s OS blew up like an imploding
submarine, but the following SOS was heard:
>I can see them not wanting to complicate a prototype starship with weapons
>systems, yet the risk of getting caught without any kind of offensive weapon
>seems great.
>
>I imagine they might compromise and have the weapons system in a completely
>separate, maybe easily-ejectable, circuit. I was thinking some missiles,
>maybe even a couple of staff weapons mounted next to a robot hand to fire.
>It wouldn't be massive, but it would be something--and we have seen Teal'c
>take down gliders and a major ship using a staff weapon (before it crashed,
>destroyed a stargate and trapping him inside the Earth stargate ''buffer'').
You're missing the point.
OF COURSE we'll see that the X-303 is armed. If it weren't, they
couldn't write an "exciting" space battle sequence in the follow-up
episode. I ga-ron-tee!
--
Mark Jones
"You don't expect governments to obey the law because of some
higher moral development. You expect them to obey the law because
they know that if they don't, those who aren't shot will be hanged."
-Michael Shirley