Response
J_Mallozzi
make an exception for the recent Salon.com article, "Fan Rebellion
Threatens 'Stargate'". To my surprise, it proved to be an
occasionally amusing and overall very entertaining read, a true gem of
fantasy and wishful thinking. Given the fact that the "journalist"
who wrote the piece culled her facts from the handful of "negative
rant sites" that have popped up of late, I suppose it was too much to
expect at least the semblance of impartiality. In all fairness,
however, it is possible she did try to contact someone involved in the
production to offer a balanced view but was unable to get through (If
I recall correctly, we were on the phone between 11:30 and 11:35 last
Friday ordering lunch from the nearby Swiss Chalet). More a rambling
editorial than than anything else, it does neatly encapsulate many of
the half-truths and fabrications that have been making the rounds.
And so, using the Salon.com diatribe as my launch point, I'd like to
address some of these so-called "facts".
To begin with, ratings haven't plunged. If they had, we wouldn't be
around for a sixth season. In fact, last time I checked, our
syndication numbers had us finishing first three weeks running.
Secondly, in spite of assertions to the contrary, the show did not
suddenly abandon its tried and true formula in favor of conspiracy
storylines. The fact is, the NID have been part of this show since
first season. In season three, we had one episode (Shades of Grey)
dedicated to the so-called "NID conspiracy angle". In season four, we
had one episode (Chain Reaction) dedicated to the storyline. In
season five, the NID angle was a B plot in Fifth Man and a minor
development in Desperate Measures (the second to last scene) and 48
Hours (the goa'uld happened to be with the NID). Admittedly, we
aren't meeting as many new off-world civilizations as we did in the
first two seasons, but this is due to the evolution of the show's
ongoing story-arcs rather than any "creative re-tooling". Episodes
dedicated to revisiting old friends (the Asgard, the Tollan, the
Tok'ra, etc.) and storylines (the struggle for power amongst the
System Lords, the rise of Anubis, etc.) necessarily result in fewer
episodes focusing on off-world exploration. Nonetheless, we strive to
include a fair mix of off-world and Earth-based episodes in every
season.
Thirdly, season five did not "have more Earth-based stories". Season
five contained 9 Earth-based stories, the same number as seasons two
and four, and one more than season three. The fact that a number of
these episodes happened to fall together may have led many to
incorrectly assume a preponderance of these storylines.
Fourthly, contrary to the opinion of some, the character of Daniel
Jackson was very present in season five. He was spotlighted in such
episodes as Beast of Burden, Summit, Last Stand, and Menace, and was
an active and driving force in many others (Enemies, 48 Hours, Red
Sky, and The Tomb to name a few). True, I've only cited 8 episodes
out of the 20 episodes prior to his departure, but in all fairness the
team is made up of three other members.
Fifthly, while some lament the change in the Daniel Jackson character
over the course of the five seasons, his progression from the
animated, wide-eyed innocent of Torment of Tantalus to the cool,
willing assassin of Summit/Last Stand, the fact is that characters do
evolve over time. Given everything Daniel has gone through in his
five years with SG-1, it would be unrealistic for him to remain
unchanged. Michael Shanks himself pushed for this development as he
clearly saw the danger in keeping Daniel a static character.
Finally, I'd like to end with a quick thank-you to all of the Stargate
SG-1 fans out there who take the time to posts or, at the very least,
take the time to read the posts. I can honestly say that the
overwhelming majority of the fans I have dealt with online have been
intelligent, polite, and well-spoken. When you've liked something,
you've let me know. And when you haven't liked something, you've darn
well let me know as well. But throughout, you've been respectful of
us and the show as a whole - and for that I also thank you.
As we head into the show's sixth year of production and make the big
move to SciFi, you can look forward to a kick-butt sixth season.
Questions will be answered, secrets revealed, old friends revisited,
and a few surprises sprung. Better invest in a crash helmet for at
least the first three episodes. We're going to hit the ground
running. Hard!
Joseph Mallozzi
Lisa
>
> Finally, I'd like to end with a quick thank-you to all of the Stargate
> SG-1 fans out there who take the time to posts or, at the very least,
> take the time to read the posts. I can honestly say that the
> overwhelming majority of the fans I have dealt with online have been
> intelligent, polite, and well-spoken. When you've liked something,
> you've let me know. And when you haven't liked something, you've darn
> well let me know as well. But throughout, you've been respectful of
> us and the show as a whole - and for that I also thank you.
>
Thank you for taking the time and the trouble to let us know your feelings
on this matter. The article certainly stirred up the fans yet again, but
what I think it has shown us is that there is a middle ground out there,
that there are many of us who just don't feel the extremes in either
direction caused by the loss of Daniel Jackson. That's not to decry those
extremes at all, I fully understand where both sides are coming from, I just
don't share them. I may not always agree or like everything show, but for
me Stargate still does what it's supposed to do, once a week it entertains
me, it takes me out of my real life and into a fantasy world that I enjoy.
I can say that it's just a tv show, but somehow it's more than that because
I enjoy it so much and I love the friends I've made because of it.
> As we head into the show's sixth year of production and make the big
> move to SciFi, you can look forward to a kick-butt sixth season.
> Questions will be answered, secrets revealed, old friends revisited,
> and a few surprises sprung. Better invest in a crash helmet for at
> least the first three episodes. We're going to hit the ground
> running. Hard!
Well, I for one am looking forward to it, I'm prepared to sit back, wait and
see and judge what I get when I get it. I'll miss Daniel deeply, he was a
very important part of the show, but for me was not the whole show, that has
always been about the entire concept and not one character. Roll on season
6!
Lisa
Sheryl R. Rieling
>
> Finally, I'd like to end with a quick thank-you to all of the Stargate
> SG-1 fans out there who take the time to posts or, at the very least,
> take the time to read the posts. I can honestly say that the
> overwhelming majority of the fans I have dealt with online have been
> intelligent, polite, and well-spoken. When you've liked something,
> you've let me know. And when you haven't liked something, you've darn
> well let me know as well. But throughout, you've been respectful of
> us and the show as a whole - and for that I also thank you.
>
Joe,
All I can say is...THANK YOU! What you've said needed to be said.
There is a huge silent majority out here that appreciates the efforts
of yourself and the production staff. I've consistently pointed out
that you folks never gave me a hard time when I've pointed out some
medical flubs but apparently some parts of the fandom confuse polite
criticism with a license to rant.
Please keep your sense of humor where all of this is concerned.
Eventually it will peeter out and the fandom will once again return to
its usual controlled chaos mode instead of the present ugliness.
Thanks again,
Sheryl AKA Lost
John Clark
Whilst I'm an ardent fan of SG-1, I'm of the "great unwashed" silent type
and mostly a lurker on this august newsgroup.
As I've not studied the pertinent article in great depth, (I've e-mailed it
to myself for further study.) I may be jumping in here with my size 12's
boots, but as I say "I'm not often right, but I'm wrong again!" So I'll
reply to some general points of this message.
If I may point out, all opinions and comments that follow are my own!
warning -- snippage will occur to points I'm not replying to.
"J_Mallozzi" <JMallo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:516b2a2b.02021...@posting.google.com...
> Although I make it a point to avoid reading fan fiction, I decided to
> make an exception for the recent Salon.com article, "Fan Rebellion
> Threatens 'Stargate'".
<snippage>
> To begin with, ratings haven't plunged. If they had, we wouldn't be
> around for a sixth season. In fact, last time I checked, our
> syndication numbers had us finishing first three weeks running.
>
I never follow ratings (a black art to me!), if I like a show, I watch it!
Alought, I agree that the evil dark powers, who control the money, put great
standing in the opinion of those mystics who cast the runes of ratings. (and
to me ratings is akin to throwing bones or devining entrails. <grin> They
seem to have the same accuracy)
> Secondly, in spite of assertions to the contrary, the show did not
> suddenly abandon its tried and true formula in favor of conspiracy
> storylines. The fact is, the NID have been part of this show since
> first season.
< interesting episode stats snipped>
I, for one, am quite happy with the spread of the episode subjects.
> Fourthly, contrary to the opinion of some, the character of Daniel
> Jackson was very present in season five. He was spotlighted in such
> episodes as Beast of Burden, Summit, Last Stand, and Menace, and was
> an active and driving force in many others (Enemies, 48 Hours, Red
> Sky, and The Tomb to name a few). True, I've only cited 8 episodes
> out of the 20 episodes prior to his departure, but in all fairness the
> team is made up of three other members.
>
If I may take you to task here, the *team* is made up of more than four
members!
The "team" is the entire SGC, albeit the focus is on SG-1, the show entails
(to me) more than just this "band of heroes", it encompasses the entire
command.
The Gen, The Doc, "Gate Guy", et al, have a strong position in the show and
add to the storyline.
> Fifthly, while some lament the change in the Daniel Jackson character
> over the course of the five seasons, his progression from the
> animated, wide-eyed innocent of Torment of Tantalus to the cool,
> willing assassin of Summit/Last Stand, the fact is that characters do
> evolve over time. Given everything Daniel has gone through in his
> five years with SG-1, it would be unrealistic for him to remain
> unchanged. Michael Shanks himself pushed for this development as he
> clearly saw the danger in keeping Daniel a static character.
>
In my opinion, *any* character that remains unchanging and staid, during a
long running show (in this day, SG-1, is a loooonnngggg running show, when
most don't get the first pick up!), is doomed to the pit of everlasting
"Bleeechhhttt"!!!!! A character _*HAS*_ to develope or fans will lose
interest in them!
> Finally, I'd like to end with a quick thank-you to all of the Stargate
> SG-1 fans out there who take the time to posts or, at the very least,
> take the time to read the posts. I can honestly say that the
> overwhelming majority of the fans I have dealt with online have been
> intelligent, polite, and well-spoken. When you've liked something,
> you've let me know. And when you haven't liked something, you've darn
> well let me know as well. But throughout, you've been respectful of
> us and the show as a whole - and for that I also thank you.
>
NO!!!! Thank you emmensily for even taking the time to post here.
It warms the cockles of my heart, that some TPTB take notice what the fans
think, most seem to think that us poor plebs have no input worthwhile of
consideration! Some have the opinion of "shovel them sh*te, they'll watch it
anyway!"
Once again, thank you for your informative rebuttal and a great insight to
the show
> As we head into the show's sixth year of production and make the big
> move to SciFi, you can look forward to a kick-butt sixth season.
> Questions will be answered, secrets revealed, old friends revisited,
> and a few surprises sprung. Better invest in a crash helmet for at
> least the first three episodes. We're going to hit the ground
> running. Hard!
>
> Joseph Mallozzi
Looking forward to it already, if it's picked up in the UK!!!!!!!!!
John Clark
BTW Ranger Bob, are you safely out of harms way yet?
---
Outgoing mail and attachments are to the best of my knowledge virus free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.323 / Virus Database: 180 - Release Date: 08/02/02
Antonio Santa Cruz Polanco
I'd like to congratulate you on a very fine Stargate Fifth season.
I own the Stargate Season 1 DVD collection and it is one of the best
DVD collections I have. I'd love to have the rest of the series in
such a format, but so far Season two may be sold in september. I hope
that the rest of the series can be made available more easily and,
hopefully, within the next year or two. I know that many of the
episodes, up to season four, can be obtained in the UK, in every
format and I only wish that could be made true in America.
Regarding the show: You got me sold on the sixth season, the spin-off
series and the second movie. I would have liked for the original cast
to be there for the entire haul, but I know shows grow and change.
People grow and change. And let's face it...don't we always gripe
about the fact that "four guys have defeated time and time again a
vastly numbered, overly powerful empire of self-appointed gods? When
we will see something different?"
Well, now we got something different. Let's stick with it and see
where it takes us. Remember: Daniel isnt' gone. He will return, new
and improved and that will be something worth watching. The Tollan are
gone, the Tok'ra are badly beaten. But the Asgard are back in the
fight...and I think Anubis stumbled upon some Ancient
technology....Too many good plot points to miss the next season on
account of Daniel's death. I'm sure he would want us to keep watching.
I was saddened when I saw "Meridian". It was a very powerful, if
poignant chapter. But I cheered when I saw "Revelations." Now that was
a season finale.
So sold on season sixth.
Keep up the good work.
diane
"J_Mallozzi" <JMallo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
<snip stuff everyone knows I agree with anyway>
> As we head into the show's sixth year of production and make the big
> move to SciFi, you can look forward to a kick-butt sixth season.
> Questions will be answered, secrets revealed, old friends revisited,
> and a few surprises sprung. Better invest in a crash helmet for at
> least the first three episodes. We're going to hit the ground
> running. Hard!
>
> Joseph Mallozzi
SH*T
<spoiler space for Season 5 finale>
- it wasn't a nice Jack smile after all was it???? something nasty in the
air...... not sweet and cuddly Danny..... is "ratbastards" the correct
american term to use?
Diane (who now has to rewatch that ending *again*.....life just keeps
getting harder)
Michael Smith
Thank you for coming and posting. I think I speak for almost everyone here
when I say how appreciated your post is. I found the article very bias
against the writers, which is a shame, as you do do a great job. I
personally prefer the exploring type storylines, but even the conspiracy
ones are well written and a joy to watch.
You must be happy that we aren't like the Simpsons newsgroup where the
people post comments about the show declining, and nothing good; and in
return the writers include great sections fighting back against the
newsgroup :)
Any chance of the group getting a mention in a future episode, in some small
line. :)
--
Michael Smith
Laure B.
> SG-1 fans out there who take the time to posts or, at the very least,
> take the time to read the posts. I can honestly say that the
> overwhelming majority of the fans I have dealt with online have been
> intelligent, polite, and well-spoken. When you've liked something,
> you've let me know. And when you haven't liked something, you've darn
> well let me know as well. But throughout, you've been respectful of
> us and the show as a whole - and for that I also thank you.
Joe,
Thank *you* !
Even if I haven't seen S5 yet (France here... :) ), I'll always enjoy the
show with or without MS. I like his character and I'm sure I'll be very sad
while seeing Meridian, but Stargate SG1 is not one person but a whole team.
I'll be sad too if Teryl Rothery or Don S. Davis would leave...
I'm not as good as the other ones here to express my feelings (especially in
english!) but I am very pleased you've taken some times to share your
thoughts with us. Contrarily to what "this journalist" said, I found in
Internet a place where meet great and intelligent people that like this show
as much as I am. And I don't feel I am neither they obsessive fan ! What a
curious thought... And I really don't think that there is 'revolution' about
MS departure ... A sadness yes, but not a revolution...
BTW, Thank you one more time :) It's so good to know you're caring about us
... poor fans... :))
Laure, fan and proud of it ! :)
Eva
news:516b2a2b.02021...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
> Finally, I'd like to end with a quick thank-you to all of the Stargate
> SG-1 fans out there who take the time to posts or, at the very least,
> take the time to read the posts. I can honestly say that the
> overwhelming majority of the fans I have dealt with online have been
> intelligent, polite, and well-spoken. When you've liked something,
> you've let me know. And when you haven't liked something, you've darn
> well let me know as well. But throughout, you've been respectful of
> us and the show as a whole - and for that I also thank you.
As a member of the more or less silent majority, I'd like to say that
although I will miss Daniel very much, I *am* looking forward to S6. So
you'd better make it great! :-)
Just one thing - I'm sure there is still time to change the name of the
spin-off into something more original. I mean - "Atlantis"??
Eva
--
Join the Stargate SG-1 SETI@home Team
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/team/team_46150.html
diane
"Michael Smith" <webm...@mounted-games.com> wrote in message
<snip>
>
> Any chance of the group getting a mention in a future episode, in some
small
> line. :)
It would have to be said by Marty though wouldn't it? and then we would have
to deal with the whole "we hate Marty" section! oh, and then there would be
the "how come they only mentioned the NG? our club / group / forum has far
more members.... the NG people suck up to TPTB that's the only reason they
got a mention<sulk> "
diane:-)
Eva
> small
> > line. :)
>
> It would have to be said by Marty though wouldn't it? and then we would
have
> to deal with the whole "we hate Marty" section! oh, and then there would
be
> the "how come they only mentioned the NG? our club / group / forum has far
> more members.... the NG people suck up to TPTB that's the only reason they
> got a mention<sulk> "
LOL! What a sad state of affairs, Diane!
John Hulls
"Eva" <ev...@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uuVa8.52329$as2.8...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> "J_Mallozzi" <JMallo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:516b2a2b.02021...@posting.google.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> > Finally, I'd like to end with a quick thank-you to all of the Stargate
> > SG-1 fans out there who take the time to posts or, at the very least,
> > take the time to read the posts. I can honestly say that the
> > overwhelming majority of the fans I have dealt with online have been
> > intelligent, polite, and well-spoken. When you've liked something,
> > you've let me know. And when you haven't liked something, you've darn
> > well let me know as well. But throughout, you've been respectful of
> > us and the show as a whole - and for that I also thank you.
>
> As a member of the more or less silent majority, I'd like to say that
> although I will miss Daniel very much, I *am* looking forward to S6. So
> you'd better make it great! :-)
>
> Just one thing - I'm sure there is still time to change the name of the
> spin-off into something more original. I mean - "Atlantis"??
>
>
Whats wrong with Atlantis. Perhaps Patrick Duffy could make a guest
appearance complete with webbed fingers and toes.
(70's TV reference for younger readers)
John
Eva
news:a4hc9j$h3$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
>
> "Eva" <ev...@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:uuVa8.52329$as2.8...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
<snip>
> > Just one thing - I'm sure there is still time to change the name of the
> > spin-off into something more original. I mean - "Atlantis"??
> >
> >
>
> Whats wrong with Atlantis. Perhaps Patrick Duffy could make a guest
> appearance complete with webbed fingers and toes.
>
> (70's TV reference for younger readers)
And will he be bringing the shower, too?
(80s TV reference for even younger readers)
diane
and then the writers could pretend that season was only a dream Anise had
while he was in the shower <g>?
diane (I remember the 70's......)
Elaine Palmer
>
> "diane" <loin...@spamfreebtinternet.com> wrote in message
> >
> > "Michael Smith" <webm...@mounted-games.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > Any chance of the group getting a mention in a future episode, in some
> > small
> > > line. :)
> >
> > It would have to be said by Marty though wouldn't it? and then we would
> have
> > to deal with the whole "we hate Marty" section! oh, and then there would
> be
> > the "how come they only mentioned the NG? our club / group / forum has far
> > more members.... the NG people suck up to TPTB that's the only reason they
> > got a mention<sulk> "
>
> LOL! What a sad state of affairs, Diane!
But from what I've heard, Diane's assessment sounds pretty accurate. ;-)
Elaine
RDAluvr
>SG-1 fans out there who take the time to posts or, at the very least,
>take the time to read the posts.
No, THANK YOU very much for taking the time out of your schedule to set some
facts straight. I thought the article was rather biased an unfair at times.
Stargate SG1 is not made up of only one character and he is not everyone's most
favorite as I'm sure you can tell by my e-mail name. ;-D
I have yet to see the 2nd half of season 5, since I am in the states, what's up
with that? LOL Anyway, I am very much looking forward to it and seeing how
the departure of Daniel is handled. I am staying fairly spoiler free, or
trying to. <G>
While I will miss Daniel very much and the interaction with the team, I am very
much looking forward to Season 6 as well. It will be interesting to see where
they go from here.
Thanks again!
Sue Mitchell
<ev...@removethisukonline.co.uk> writes
>
>As a member of the more or less silent majority, I'd like to say that
>although I will miss Daniel very much, I *am* looking forward to S6. So
>you'd better make it great! :-)
>
>Just one thing - I'm sure there is still time to change the name of the
>spin-off into something more original. I mean - "Atlantis"??
>
Or better yet, why not go the whole hog and pitch into Lemuria, the
legendary lost continent of the Indian Ocean which stretched from
Madagascar to Sri Lanka.
Some call the Lemurians the Third Root Race. They allegedly communicated
by telepathy and had highly developed psychic abilities. Their aim was
to develop their imagination under will power to control the forces of
nature.
When Lemuria was disappeared under the ocean as a result of
earthquakes/vulcanism, the people relocated to Atlantis where they
developed into the Fourth Root Race.
Best wishes,
Sue
--
s...@imps.demon.co.uk
"I have the knowledge. I have to make sure it gets used properly. Now I can
elevate us to the point of wiping out the Goa'uld or I can watch it all go to
waste."
Megan Grenenger
news:516b2a2b.02021...@posting.google.com...
>
> <snip>
(Whole hearted agreement with comments about one-sided nature of article.)
> Fifthly, while some lament the change in the Daniel Jackson character
> over the course of the five seasons, his progression from the
> animated, wide-eyed innocent of Torment of Tantalus to the cool,
> willing assassin of Summit/Last Stand, the fact is that characters do
> evolve over time. Given everything Daniel has gone through in his
> five years with SG-1, it would be unrealistic for him to remain
> unchanged. Michael Shanks himself pushed for this development as he
> clearly saw the danger in keeping Daniel a static character.
I can't comment on the ratings or Daniel's share of the action in season 5
episodes, as in Brisbane we're only a handful of episodes into Season 5. I
was "spoiled" so I know of Daniel's fate, but I will certainly keep
watching. It's not a turn-off, although I'll have the Kleenex at the ready.
I've seen many episodes out of order, but I know I was aware of the change
in his character over time and I distinctly remember thinking it was well
done. As you say, people evolve. And as another reader commented, we often
witness the team emerging unscathed from one death defying mission after
another - we wonder how they manged it but we never fear as we know the
leads must survive to fight again. So you've rattled our cage and the
playing field is not quite as we had presumed for the future!
> Finally, I'd like to end with a quick thank-you to all of the Stargate
> SG-1 fans out there who take the time to posts or, at the very least,
> take the time to read the posts. I can honestly say that the
> overwhelming majority of the fans I have dealt with online have been
> intelligent, polite, and well-spoken. When you've liked something,
> you've let me know. And when you haven't liked something, you've darn
> well let me know as well. But throughout, you've been respectful of
> us and the show as a whole - and for that I also thank you.
It is a huge credit to the show and all who contribute to it that it can
generate such passion and discussion. As other shows have noted in the past
(i.e. XF), online forums are often only a small vocal portion of the total
viewing audience and the views expressed here may not be representative of
the wider viewing public. But the very fact that you've created characters
we love to love and love to hate is a success in itself. I'm with Lisa - TV
is an escape - and if you can make me care about the people I'm watching
then bravo! I can't remember the jargon but Stargate is "make-a-date" TV for
me - I plan my social outings to be sure I'm home to watch Stargate on
Thursday nights :)
> As we head into the show's sixth year of production and make the big
> move to SciFi, you can look forward to a kick-butt sixth season.
> Questions will be answered, secrets revealed, old friends revisited,
> and a few surprises sprung. Better invest in a crash helmet for at
> least the first three episodes. We're going to hit the ground
> running. Hard!
>
> Joseph Mallozzi
Thankyou! And bring it on!
:)
Megan
Brisbane, Australia
Kevin
Not to be confused with Felicity.
Disappointed Former Fan
all over the board with regard to MS leaving and the perceived change in
direction/quality of the show since season 4.
All I can say is that I used to wait all week for SG-1 to come 'round
again with another witty, intelligent and fun episode built around a
team of characters I had grown to know and love. I saw the pilot on
it's premier night and watched the first run of nearly every episode on
Showtime for the past five years.
Then, during season four, things started to change. Less exploration
and intellect, more teen action hour - we even got Tokra Barbie. Worse
yet, in season five I found myself asking repeatedly whay they had
dumbed down O'Neill? He was written more and more as a shallow military
goon. Then the season stalled out midway through. No more eps and no
explanation (at least not via Showtime!). In short, I've been both
dying for a return of the show and yet also wondering who's at the helm?
Now, today for the first time, I hear that Michael Shanks is leaving the
show. Daniel Jackson is *gone*. WTF?!? I've waited all this time just
to learn that they've broken up my team?!? To borrow a military term -
this is a total clusterfuck! How could they take one of the best Sci-Fi
shows going and run it into the ground like this?!? How could they do
that to *my* show?!?
For me, the show was the team - the characters and chemistry between
them. That is now gone. Whatever it becomes, it will not be the same.
If there is ever a movie with the *original* team, I will rejoice and
happily go see it. As for season 6, I'm not sure if I'll even watch it
- this despite having switched cable companies just to get the damn
Sci-Fi channel to watch this show! This is just about the biggest
letdown I could have received regarding SG-1. I'm not even sure that
cancelling it would have been worse. If it's not the same show, does it
really matter whether it goes on?
> We're going to hit the ground running. Hard!
>
> Joseph Mallozzi
Unfortunately, (for me) you've already hit the ground hard. And you're
not running!
I really don't know what to say other than this news is a total
disappointment, and I'm sorry I wasted all this time waiting for my show
to come back.
YMMV, but I don't really care - I'm just expressing my own opinions.
You are entitled to have your own, but don't expect me to share or argue
them with you.
--
--
<@earthlink.net>
Eva
news:Gdd2d8AE...@imps.demon.co.uk...
> In article <uuVa8.52329$as2.8...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>, Eva
> <ev...@removethisukonline.co.uk> writes
<snip>
> >Just one thing - I'm sure there is still time to change the name of the
> >spin-off into something more original. I mean - "Atlantis"??
> >
> Yeah, Atlantis is a bit old hat. How about Yonaguni off Okinawa?
>
> Or better yet, why not go the whole hog and pitch into Lemuria, the
> legendary lost continent of the Indian Ocean which stretched from
> Madagascar to Sri Lanka.
>
> Some call the Lemurians the Third Root Race. They allegedly communicated
> by telepathy and had highly developed psychic abilities. Their aim was
> to develop their imagination under will power to control the forces of
> nature.
>
> When Lemuria was disappeared under the ocean as a result of
> earthquakes/vulcanism, the people relocated to Atlantis where they
> developed into the Fourth Root Race.
Oh dear, are you saying it could get worse? :-) Next they'll be having
Graham Hancock as their adviser... <shudder> The thing is, since they're
calling it Atlantis, there will be a reason for it, in other words, it may
deal with an advanced civilisation, on Earth (?), lost for whatever reason,
so people will probably associate it with Atlantis anyway. I do hope I'm
wrong though. I do hope the series will be about something completely
different.
Jak Crow
<a very good bitch slap to salon snipped>
You go Joe!
Sue Mitchell
<ev...@removethisukonline.co.uk> writes
><snip>
>> >Just one thing - I'm sure there is still time to change the name of the
>> >spin-off into something more original. I mean - "Atlantis"??
>> >
>> Yeah, Atlantis is a bit old hat. How about Yonaguni off Okinawa?
>> Or better yet, why not go the whole hog and pitch into Lemuria,
>> control the forces of nature. When Lemuria was disappeared under the
>Oh dear, are you saying it could get worse? :-) Next they'll be having
>Graham Hancock as their adviser... <shudder>
>The thing is, since they're
>calling it Atlantis, there will be a reason for it, in other words, it may
>deal with an advanced civilisation, on Earth (?), lost for whatever reason,
>so people will probably associate it with Atlantis anyway. I do hope I'm
>wrong though. I do hope the series will be about something completely
>different.
Best wishes,
Sue
--
s...@imps.demon.co.uk
"Are you trying to tell me this water thinks?"
Eva
> In article <AT4b8.71585$H37.9...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>, Eva
> <ev...@removethisukonline.co.uk> writes
<snip>
> >Oh dear, are you saying it could get worse? :-) Next they'll be having
> >Graham Hancock as their adviser... <shudder>
> ROFLMAO :)))
I see you've heard of him then... (Yeah, I know, who hasn't by now!)
> >The thing is, since they're
> >calling it Atlantis, there will be a reason for it, in other words, it
may
> >deal with an advanced civilisation, on Earth (?), lost for whatever
reason,
> >so people will probably associate it with Atlantis anyway. I do hope I'm
> >wrong though. I do hope the series will be about something completely
> >different.
> Amen! Maybe they'll bring in a defunct Norwegian Blue... ;)
I'm afraid I need help here, Norwegian Blue? The only thought coming to my
mind right now is not one I should admit to... <g>
Sue Mitchell
<ev...@removethisukonline.co.uk> writes
> I do hope the series will be about something completely
>> >different.
>> Amen! Maybe they'll bring in a defunct Norwegian Blue... ;)
>
>I'm afraid I need help here, Norwegian Blue? The only thought coming to my
>mind right now is not one I should admit to... <g>
>
The 'Dead Parrot Sketch' from 'Monty Python's Flying Circus' one of
whose catch-phrases was "...and now for something completely
different..."
The dead parrot was a Norwegian Blue.
If you haven't seen it, then I'm really sorry. I must have seen twenty
times at least and even though I know exactly what's coming next, I
still find it as funny as I did the first time. There aren't many
humorous episodes that you can say that about :)))
Best wishes,
Sue
--
s...@imps.demon.co.uk
"Err. Colonel?"
"It's my side arm, I swear."
Eva
> In article <b26b8.71898$H37.9...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>, Eva
> <ev...@removethisukonline.co.uk> writes
> > I do hope the series will be about something completely
> >> >different.
> >> Amen! Maybe they'll bring in a defunct Norwegian Blue... ;)
> >
> >I'm afraid I need help here, Norwegian Blue? The only thought coming to
my
> >mind right now is not one I should admit to... <g>
> >
> LOL :)
>
> The 'Dead Parrot Sketch' from 'Monty Python's Flying Circus' one of
> whose catch-phrases was "...and now for something completely
> different..."
>
> The dead parrot was a Norwegian Blue.
ROTFLMAO!!! Not you as well!! <gathers composure> Unless you've been
lurking here for a while, you won't know that MP references are totally lost
on me and that I have suffered greatly for it. <looks at chimera> :-)
It's not that I don't like MP, I've seen the series, I just don't know all
the lines by heart like some people do... <g>
> If you haven't seen it, then I'm really sorry. I must have seen twenty
> times at least and even though I know exactly what's coming next, I
> still find it as funny as I did the first time. There aren't many
> humorous episodes that you can say that about :)))
No, that's true. If I had time, I'd probably watch the repeats on one of
the channels we have, but it's just not going to happen ATM.
> "Err. Colonel?"
> "It's my side arm, I swear."
You know, I am still amazed that they actually let Jack say that (probably
RDA's idea). :-)
Sue Mitchell
<ev...@removethisukonline.co.uk> writes
>> The dead parrot was a Norwegian Blue.
>
>ROTFLMAO!!! Not you as well!! <gathers composure> Unless you've been
>lurking here for a while, you won't know that MP references are totally lost
>on me and that I have suffered greatly for it. <looks at chimera> :-)
>
>It's not that I don't like MP, I've seen the series, I just don't know all
>the lines by heart like some people do... <g>
>
>> "It's my side arm, I swear."
>
>You know, I am still amazed that they actually let Jack say that (probably
>RDA's idea). :-)
either wouldn't hear it or wouldn't understand it, because (and
I.A.N.A.Christian) "Unto the pure, all things are pure" [Titus ch.1 v.15]
And the rest of us have more fun ;)
Best wishes,
Sue :)
--
s...@imps.demon.co.uk
Most of us are going to Hell; some of us already know the way.
Simon Cooper
> Now, today for the first time, I hear that Michael Shanks is leaving the
> show. Daniel Jackson is *gone*. WTF?!? I've waited all this time just
> to learn that they've broken up my team?!? To borrow a military term -
> this is a total clusterfuck! How could they take one of the best Sci-Fi
> shows going and run it into the ground like this?!? How could they do
> that to *my* show?!?
>
he wasn't getting enough to do.
'They' haven't run anything into the ground.
'They' haven't doen anything to 'your' show. And it's not your show.
It's MGM's.
Ankh
"Simon Cooper" <stc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dc7de41.02021...@posting.google.com...
Goody. As a consumer of a product MGM is creating that means viewers can
complain.
Go here:
www.savedanieljackson.com
Sue Mitchell
Cooper <stc...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>'They' haven't doen anything to 'your' show. And it's not your show.
>It's MGM's.
and my show and the show of anyone who watches it on a regular basis.
If it's only M.G.M.'s show, why are they letting us watch it?
One assumes M.G.M. wants a successful show, and when a show becomes as
successful as this one has, then it goes with the territory that its
audience will relate to it on some level and identify with the
characters.
If you manage to inspire that level of caring about something, then it's
only to be expected that those who do care will try to do something
about it if they feel that it existence and integrity are being
threatened.
H.T.H.
Best wishes,
Sue
--
s...@imps.demon.co.uk
"Well, they don't look completely homo sapien. Ah, the larger brow ridge would
imply homo erectus, but then again they'd have canine teeth. Ah, it could be
Australopithecus but then the brow ridge would be less prominent..."
"You don't know, do you?"
"No."
some guy
--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
All inbound/outbound communications scanned with Norton AntiVirus 2002
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"Megan Grenenger" <megangr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3c6c4579$0$13726$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Elaine Palmer
I have two initial points to make regarding this post of yours. First, I
have to remain sceptical that you are in fact the person you claim to be
- since you're using a Yahoo email address and Joe Mallozzi to my
knowledge has never posted here before, I'm sure that if you are who you
say you are then you'll appreciate my caution.
> Although I make it a point to avoid reading fan fiction, I decided to
> make an exception for the recent Salon.com article, "Fan Rebellion
> Threatens 'Stargate'". To my surprise, it proved to be an
> occasionally amusing and overall very entertaining read, a true gem of
> fantasy and wishful thinking. Given the fact that the "journalist"
> who wrote the piece culled her facts from the handful of "negative
> rant sites" that have popped up of late, I suppose it was too much to
> expect at least the semblance of impartiality. In all fairness,
> however, it is possible she did try to contact someone involved in the
> production to offer a balanced view but was unable to get through (If
> I recall correctly, we were on the phone between 11:30 and 11:35 last
> Friday ordering lunch from the nearby Swiss Chalet). More a rambling
> editorial than than anything else, it does neatly encapsulate many of
> the half-truths and fabrications that have been making the rounds.
> And so, using the Salon.com diatribe as my launch point, I'd like to
> address some of these so-called "facts".
My second, and I think most important point, is that if you are indeed
Joe Mallozzi then this is not the place to post the above paragraph. Any
disagreements you have with the contents of the article should be
directed to Salon.com and if they have published an article containing
accuracies, or even 'lies' as you seem to be claiming, then salon.com
should be publishing a retraction - a link to which would be acceptable here.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, and deciding to take your post at
face value, I would like to disagree with your assessment of the
article. I found it an entertaining read, but I appreciate that it is
focusing on only one aspect of the fandom. This to me seems totally
reasonable as at this moment in time the section of fandom featured is
the most vocal and organised section. You may be interested to know that
I totally disagree with their perspective, but I respect their right to
voice their opinions. I have not been subjected to any attempts to
coerce me into agreeing with their viewpoint, to my knowledge they
merely state their opinion and leave others to make up their own minds.
I have even promised to write something for the savedanieljackson.com
site saying why I still like Stargate and plan to continue watching when
series 6 begins. Assuming it still holds my interest, and I really hope
that it will, I will then be buying the DVDs when they are released. For
heaven's sake, I've already got the series 4 DVDs pre-ordered (or at
least the first five) and the first of them isn't due out until April,
the fifth is sheduled for release in August!
There are a lot of people like me, who will stick with the programme
even if it is Daniel-less, but those who won't are perfectly entitled to
shout their support of the character from the rooftops if they like. And
I admire them even more as they are actually prepared to put their money
where their mouths are.
Strangely enough, after today I can understand their feelings much
better. I heard on the seven o'clock news this morning that Kevin
Phillips could be up for sale. Okay, so that means nothing to you, but
it's a *very* big deal to me, and to a LOT of other Sunderland fans.
Should he be sold the fans will be in revolt at the board and the
manager for their lack of ambition, but will understand and to an extent
even sympathise with Phillips and his reason for leaving. Hmm, does that
latter bit sound familiar? As it happens, it was announced on the radio
this afternoon that he is not for sale and his contract is good for at
least a couple more years. So I heaved a sigh of relief. :-) So I'm fine
now. ;-)
> To begin with, ratings haven't plunged. If they had, we wouldn't be
> around for a sixth season. In fact, last time I checked, our
> syndication numbers had us finishing first three weeks running.
What about the figures for series 4 and 5 on Showtime?
> Secondly, in spite of assertions to the contrary, the show did not
> suddenly abandon its tried and true formula in favor of conspiracy
> storylines. The fact is, the NID have been part of this show since
> first season. In season three, we had one episode (Shades of Grey)
> dedicated to the so-called "NID conspiracy angle". In season four, we
> had one episode (Chain Reaction) dedicated to the storyline. In
> season five, the NID angle was a B plot in Fifth Man and a minor
> development in Desperate Measures (the second to last scene) and 48
> Hours (the goa'uld happened to be with the NID). Admittedly, we
> aren't meeting as many new off-world civilizations as we did in the
> first two seasons, but this is due to the evolution of the show's
> ongoing story-arcs rather than any "creative re-tooling". Episodes
> dedicated to revisiting old friends (the Asgard, the Tollan, the
> Tok'ra, etc.) and storylines (the struggle for power amongst the
> System Lords, the rise of Anubis, etc.) necessarily result in fewer
> episodes focusing on off-world exploration. Nonetheless, we strive to
> include a fair mix of off-world and Earth-based episodes in every
> season.
Hey, so far I've enjoyed the mix. I happen to like political stories and
intrigue and the like, and like to see such plots included in the
Stargate universe.
> Thirdly, season five did not "have more Earth-based stories". Season
> five contained 9 Earth-based stories, the same number as seasons two
> and four, and one more than season three. The fact that a number of
> these episodes happened to fall together may have led many to
> incorrectly assume a preponderance of these storylines.
It's actually a little difficult for a great many fans outside the UK to
comment on this, since they are still waiting for the last half, if not
all, of the series. And I must confess that I am not an avid enough fan
to have bothered counting them.
> Fourthly, contrary to the opinion of some, the character of Daniel
> Jackson was very present in season five. He was spotlighted in such
> episodes as Beast of Burden, Summit, Last Stand, and Menace, and was
> an active and driving force in many others (Enemies, 48 Hours, Red
> Sky, and The Tomb to name a few). True, I've only cited 8 episodes
> out of the 20 episodes prior to his departure, but in all fairness the
> team is made up of three other members.
Except for 'The Tomb' and possibly 'Red Sky', in both of which I can't
actually remember Daniel having that much to do, I agree. Personally I
think that Daniel has had more than his share of focus and it's time for
him to step back and give the limelight to the other characters. I think
Michael Shanks is a mug for leaving, and that those who want more Daniel
are greedy. Doesn't mean they shouldn't ask for what they want though.
As the old sayings go: 'if you don't ask you don't get' & 'shy bairns
get nowt'.
> Fifthly, while some lament the change in the Daniel Jackson character
> over the course of the five seasons, his progression from the
> animated, wide-eyed innocent of Torment of Tantalus to the cool,
> willing assassin of Summit/Last Stand, the fact is that characters do
> evolve over time. Given everything Daniel has gone through in his
> five years with SG-1, it would be unrealistic for him to remain
> unchanged. Michael Shanks himself pushed for this development as he
> clearly saw the danger in keeping Daniel a static character.
I think that the evolution of Daniel has been very good and very believable.
> Finally, I'd like to end with a quick thank-you to all of the Stargate
> SG-1 fans out there who take the time to posts or, at the very least,
> take the time to read the posts. I can honestly say that the
> overwhelming majority of the fans I have dealt with online have been
> intelligent, polite, and well-spoken. When you've liked something,
> you've let me know. And when you haven't liked something, you've darn
> well let me know as well. But throughout, you've been respectful of
> us and the show as a whole - and for that I also thank you.
You're welcome. But such sentiments make it harder for me to understand
why you would post your feelings on the Salon article on a fan forum.
> As we head into the show's sixth year of production and make the big
> move to SciFi, you can look forward to a kick-butt sixth season.
> Questions will be answered, secrets revealed, old friends revisited,
> and a few surprises sprung. Better invest in a crash helmet for at
> least the first three episodes. We're going to hit the ground
> running. Hard!
I sure hope so. But could you do me a favour? Go watch Farscape and see
how they write for female characters - Sam (and Amanda Tapping) really
deserves better than she gets. Thanks.
Elaine
Eva
news:3C6D7285...@citysun.ac.uk...
> J_Mallozzi wrote:
>
> I have two initial points to make regarding this post of yours. First, I
> have to remain sceptical that you are in fact the person you claim to be
> - since you're using a Yahoo email address and Joe Mallozzi to my
> knowledge has never posted here before, I'm sure that if you are who you
> say you are then you'll appreciate my caution.
Actually, it is common to use Yahoo or Hotmail for this purpose, you
wouldn't expect them to use their business or private emails, would you? :-)
I remember the poor PR No 1 guy, Jonathan Z., who got accused of being a
phoney for using a Yahoo (I think) email address. It turned out he was a
genuine article, although he didn't last long.
<large snip of a very good reply>
> > Finally, I'd like to end with a quick thank-you to all of the Stargate
> > SG-1 fans out there who take the time to posts or, at the very least,
> > take the time to read the posts. I can honestly say that the
> > overwhelming majority of the fans I have dealt with online have been
> > intelligent, polite, and well-spoken. When you've liked something,
> > you've let me know. And when you haven't liked something, you've darn
> > well let me know as well. But throughout, you've been respectful of
> > us and the show as a whole - and for that I also thank you.
>
> You're welcome. But such sentiments make it harder for me to understand
> why you would post your feelings on the Salon article on a fan forum.
Why not? The link was posted here, the article is being debated here, it
seems a logical place for JM to post his reply here, too. Maybe he sent a
similar message to other forums? I would imagine a busy newsgroup will have
a much larger readership than even the most popular web based forum.
> > As we head into the show's sixth year of production and make the big
> > move to SciFi, you can look forward to a kick-butt sixth season.
> > Questions will be answered, secrets revealed, old friends revisited,
> > and a few surprises sprung. Better invest in a crash helmet for at
> > least the first three episodes. We're going to hit the ground
> > running. Hard!
>
> I sure hope so. But could you do me a favour? Go watch Farscape and see
> how they write for female characters - Sam (and Amanda Tapping) really
> deserves better than she gets. Thanks.
Great idea, Elaine. :-)
diane
>
> I have two initial points to make regarding this post of yours. First, I
> have to remain sceptical that you are in fact the person you claim to be
> - since you're using a Yahoo email address and Joe Mallozzi to my
> knowledge has never posted here before, I'm sure that if you are who you
> say you are then you'll appreciate my caution.
JM posts to the SG1 club on yahoo under his usual yahoo alias of "moorysum",
this post was up there too and in one other yahoo club he belongs to. I
think he was just trying to avoid being shouted at for "favouring" one fan
site over others (which is a common complaint). He has replied to posts in
response to this message in the SG1 yahoo club (he has done live on-line
chats in there a few times and is one of TPTB that does interact with fans
when asked to). His replies in SG1 fans are interesting.
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/sg1fans
diane
Lisa
> Actually, it is common to use Yahoo or Hotmail for this purpose, you
> wouldn't expect them to use their business or private emails, would you?
:-)
> I remember the poor PR No 1 guy, Jonathan Z., who got accused of being a
> phoney for using a Yahoo (I think) email address. It turned out he was a
> genuine article, although he didn't last long.
This is the genuine article from Joe, he also posted it at Starguide and SG1
Fans where he does regularly post.
>
> <large snip of a very good reply>
Seconded, I thought that was one of the best replies I've read Elaine.
>
> Why not? The link was posted here, the article is being debated here, it
> seems a logical place for JM to post his reply here, too. Maybe he sent a
> similar message to other forums? I would imagine a busy newsgroup will
have
> a much larger readership than even the most popular web based forum.
I would hope that as a writer himself he did indeed write to Salon and post
his side of the story to them.
> >
> > I sure hope so. But could you do me a favour? Go watch Farscape and see
> > how they write for female characters - Sam (and Amanda Tapping) really
> > deserves better than she gets. Thanks.
>
> Great idea, Elaine. :-)
Yep, another excellent idea. I also hope that Joe has the courtesy to come
back here and answer some of the replies that his original post has
garnered. It wouldn't be polite to make such a post and then not answer any
of them.
Lisa
Eva
news:a4ju3p$re5l$1...@ID-56231.news.dfncis.de...
> Eva wrote
<snip>
> This is the genuine article from Joe, he also posted it at Starguide and
SG1
> Fans where he does regularly post.
That's good to know. I thought it was but it's nice to have it confirmed.
> > <large snip of a very good reply>
>
> Seconded, I thought that was one of the best replies I've read Elaine.
It certainly was.
> > Why not? The link was posted here, the article is being debated here,
it
> > seems a logical place for JM to post his reply here, too. Maybe he sent
a
> > similar message to other forums? I would imagine a busy newsgroup will
> have
> > a much larger readership than even the most popular web based forum.
>
> I would hope that as a writer himself he did indeed write to Salon and
post
> his side of the story to them.
I guess we'll see if he does.
<snip>
> Yep, another excellent idea. I also hope that Joe has the courtesy to
come
> back here and answer some of the replies that his original post has
> garnered. It wouldn't be polite to make such a post and then not answer
any
> of them.
Lisa, are you using psychology here? <g>
Elaine Palmer
>
> "Elaine Palmer" <elaine...@citysun.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:3C6D7285...@citysun.ac.uk...
>
> > J_Mallozzi wrote:
> >
> > I have two initial points to make regarding this post of yours. First, I
> > have to remain sceptical that you are in fact the person you claim to be
> > - since you're using a Yahoo email address and Joe Mallozzi to my
> > knowledge has never posted here before, I'm sure that if you are who you
> > say you are then you'll appreciate my caution.
>
> Actually, it is common to use Yahoo or Hotmail for this purpose, you
> wouldn't expect them to use their business or private emails, would you? :-)
Depends who he's posting on behalf of. <g> But seriously, a little
caution doesn't hurt, and I did give him the benefit of the doubt.
> I remember the poor PR No 1 guy, Jonathan Z., who got accused of being a
> phoney for using a Yahoo (I think) email address. It turned out he was a
> genuine article, although he didn't last long.
>
> <large snip of a very good reply>
>
> > > Finally, I'd like to end with a quick thank-you to all of the Stargate
> > > SG-1 fans out there who take the time to posts or, at the very least,
> > > take the time to read the posts. I can honestly say that the
> > > overwhelming majority of the fans I have dealt with online have been
> > > intelligent, polite, and well-spoken. When you've liked something,
> > > you've let me know. And when you haven't liked something, you've darn
> > > well let me know as well. But throughout, you've been respectful of
> > > us and the show as a whole - and for that I also thank you.
> >
> > You're welcome. But such sentiments make it harder for me to understand
> > why you would post your feelings on the Salon article on a fan forum.
>
> Why not? The link was posted here, the article is being debated here, it
> seems a logical place for JM to post his reply here, too. Maybe he sent a
> similar message to other forums? I would imagine a busy newsgroup will have
> a much larger readership than even the most popular web based forum.
I still think that he should have responded directly to Salon first, and
if it elicited a response to post the link to that response here.
> > > As we head into the show's sixth year of production and make the big
> > > move to SciFi, you can look forward to a kick-butt sixth season.
> > > Questions will be answered, secrets revealed, old friends revisited,
> > > and a few surprises sprung. Better invest in a crash helmet for at
> > > least the first three episodes. We're going to hit the ground
> > > running. Hard!
> >
> > I sure hope so. But could you do me a favour? Go watch Farscape and see
> > how they write for female characters - Sam (and Amanda Tapping) really
> > deserves better than she gets. Thanks.
>
> Great idea, Elaine. :-)
Ta. But I realised after I posted that the US hasn't had the last four
episodes of series 3 even though we have <insert smug smirk!>, and I
don't know if Canada has or not. <g>
Elaine
Lisa
> That's good to know. I thought it was but it's nice to have it confirmed.
>
To be honest I never considered that people would think it wasn't, but it
makes sense that they might be doubtful if they don't go to those other
forums.
> > I would hope that as a writer himself he did indeed write to Salon and
> post
> > his side of the story to them.
>
> I guess we'll see if he does.
And whether or not Salon will be posting anyones replies to them.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Yep, another excellent idea. I also hope that Joe has the courtesy to
> come
> > back here and answer some of the replies that his original post has
> > garnered. It wouldn't be polite to make such a post and then not answer
> any
> > of them.
>
> Lisa, are you using psychology here? <g>
LOL, not my style I'm afraid, I can't even manage to use psychology to get
myself a Valentines day card from Dearly Beloved <g>
Lisa
Elaine Palmer
>
> Eva wrote
>
> > Actually, it is common to use Yahoo or Hotmail for this purpose, you
> > wouldn't expect them to use their business or private emails, would you?
> :-)
> > I remember the poor PR No 1 guy, Jonathan Z., who got accused of being a
> > phoney for using a Yahoo (I think) email address. It turned out he was a
> > genuine article, although he didn't last long.
That's just starting to ring bells. I think that situation has been
mentioned on this group since I joined.
> This is the genuine article from Joe, he also posted it at Starguide and SG1
> Fans where he does regularly post.
Thanks. I didn't know that. I still think that the fan forums was the
wrong place for it, but I guess I'm in a minority of one on that point,
so maybe I should let it lie. <g>
> > <large snip of a very good reply>
>
> Seconded, I thought that was one of the best replies I've read Elaine.
Thank you. It did seem best to mull over the original post before replying.
> > Why not? The link was posted here, the article is being debated here, it
> > seems a logical place for JM to post his reply here, too. Maybe he sent a
> > similar message to other forums? I would imagine a busy newsgroup will
> > have a much larger readership than even the most popular web based forum.
>
> I would hope that as a writer himself he did indeed write to Salon and post
> his side of the story to them.
I would hope so too, but I would be very surprised if the article got
its facts wrong.
> > > I sure hope so. But could you do me a favour? Go watch Farscape and see
> > > how they write for female characters - Sam (and Amanda Tapping) really
> > > deserves better than she gets. Thanks.
> >
> > Great idea, Elaine. :-)
>
> Yep, another excellent idea. I also hope that Joe has the courtesy to come
> back here and answer some of the replies that his original post has
> garnered. It wouldn't be polite to make such a post and then not answer any
> of them.
Maybe it'll depend how many favourable responses it garners. If it
starts producing unfavourable ones he might be ducking for cover
instead. ;-^)
Elaine
PS Have you done your bit about series 6 for the savedaniel site? I
haven't started mine, I've still got an SG4 con report to finish first!
Which Keith is expecting to be able to put up with yours on this
weekend's site update. ;-)
diane
hmmm the author is described as "a writer"... but to be brutally honest, if
you compare the writing style to that of any other journalistic writer it is
"less than professional" IMO. To me, the style just read like another fan
rant trying to couch itself in "article" terms. I would be totally
gobsmacked if the person concerned made a living from writing, it just does
not ring true in the style.
diane
Elaine Palmer
>
> "Elaine Palmer" <elaine...@citysun.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:3C6D83A9...@citysun.ac.uk...
> > Lisa wrote:
<snip>
> > > I would hope that as a writer himself he did indeed write to Salon and
> > > post his side of the story to them.
> >
> > I would hope so too, but I would be very surprised if the article got
> > its facts wrong.
>
> hmmm the author is described as "a writer"... but to be brutally honest, if
> you compare the writing style to that of any other journalistic writer it is
> "less than professional" IMO. To me, the style just read like another fan
> rant trying to couch itself in "article" terms.
I guess that's where I differ from you. I didn't see a rant, I saw an
observation. :-)
> I would be totally gobsmacked if the person concerned made a living from
> writing, it just does not ring true in the style.
As I understand it, she's an investigative journalist. But correct me if
I'm wrong. However, I don't know how old she is, so maybe she's learning
her trade in online journalism.
Elaine
Mike Burke
While I'll agree with others that your response to his posting is
well thought out, I have to disagree with this complaint.
If you will re-read the last two sentences in his opening paragraph,
you will see that he said that he was using that article ("diatribe") as
a reason to jump in and address the " . . .half-truths and fabrications
that have been making the rounds."
That being the case, his posting this to this group in valid.
Snipped some.
>
>
> Strangely enough, after today I can understand their feelings much
> better. I heard on the seven o'clock news this morning that Kevin
> Phillips could be up for sale. Okay, so that means nothing to you, but
>
> it's a *very* big deal to me, and to a LOT of other Sunderland fans.
> Should he be sold the fans will be in revolt at the board and the
> manager for their lack of ambition, but will understand and to an
> extent
> even sympathise with Phillips and his reason for leaving. Hmm, does
> that
> latter bit sound familiar? As it happens, it was announced on the
> radio
> this afternoon that he is not for sale and his contract is good for at
>
> least a couple more years. So I heaved a sigh of relief. :-) So I'm
> fine
> now. ;-)
I take it that this is soccer that you are referring to here.
Mike
Xie
> I sure hope so. But could you do me a favour? Go watch Farscape and see
> how they write for female characters - Sam (and Amanda Tapping) really
> deserves better than she gets. Thanks.
I do wish there were some things that Sam wasn't able to fix. For once, I'd
really like her to say that she didn't have a clue as to why something was
happening, wasn't even able to hazard a clue as to why it was happening and
even if she could, wouldn't be able to fix it. In 48 Hours I would have
loved for the annoying geek to have been right.
Xie
Simon Pleasants
wrote:
{snip}
>Fourthly, contrary to the opinion of some, the character of Daniel
>Jackson was very present in season five. He was spotlighted in such
>episodes as Beast of Burden, Summit, Last Stand, and Menace, and was
>an active and driving force in many others (Enemies, 48 Hours, Red
>Sky, and The Tomb to name a few). True, I've only cited 8 episodes
>out of the 20 episodes prior to his departure, but in all fairness the
>team is made up of three other members.
{snip}
I know this is going to be an unpopular thing to say, particularly
light of the recent rantings on the above subject, but it seems a
little to me like someone's ego got too big. Despite being one of
four characters he had the spotlight in far more episodes than any
other character and yet still demanded even more and then left when he
didn't get it. Well fine, there's the door, please close it behind
you.
It's not the character I don't like, it's the attitude of the actor.
To walk out on a series because you don't have the limelight enough is
egotistical at best, but considering he is 25% of a TEAM of FOUR, and
has had nearly 50% of the limelight I would think he has had more than
his fair share already. That is nearly as much as all the other three
put together. If they had increased his share even further it would
become more than all the other three put together but because they
wouldn't he walked out. Now if that isn't an egotistical throwing of
his teddy firmly in the corner I don't know what is. Perhaps the new
actor will remember he is not bigger than the programme.
Personally, if they don't come up with some good explanations for the
huge leap in technology of Anubis then I will fill find that a much
more compelling reason to switch off.
Simon
Elaine Palmer
>
> Elaine Palmer wrote:
>
<snip>
> > accuracies, or even 'lies' as you seem to be claiming, then salon.com
> > should be publishing a retraction - a link to which would be
> > acceptable here.
>
> While I'll agree with others that your response to his posting is
> well thought out, I have to disagree with this complaint.
>
> If you will re-read the last two sentences in his opening paragraph,
> you will see that he said that he was using that article ("diatribe") as
> a reason to jump in and address the " . . .half-truths and fabrications
> that have been making the rounds."
>
> That being the case, his posting this to this group in valid.
I think I've agreed with others to 'agree to disagree' on this aspect. :-)
> Snipped some.
>
> >
> >
> > Strangely enough, after today I can understand their feelings much
> > better. I heard on the seven o'clock news this morning that Kevin
> > Phillips could be up for sale. Okay, so that means nothing to you, but
> >
> > it's a *very* big deal to me, and to a LOT of other Sunderland fans.
> > Should he be sold the fans will be in revolt at the board and the
> > manager for their lack of ambition, but will understand and to an
> > extent
> > even sympathise with Phillips and his reason for leaving. Hmm, does
> > that
> > latter bit sound familiar? As it happens, it was announced on the
> > radio
> > this afternoon that he is not for sale and his contract is good for at
> > least a couple more years. So I heaved a sigh of relief. :-) So I'm
> > fine now. ;-)
>
> I take it that this is soccer that you are referring to here.
We call it FOOTBALL dammit! ;-)
Elaine
Elaine Palmer
Maybe it should be someone from a less developed world whose 'stupid
idea' solves a problem that the SGC can't. <g>
Elaine
Ankh
"Simon Pleasants" <ple...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ejbs6uc75gvkrr9jr...@4ax.com...
> {snip}
> It's not the character I don't like, it's the attitude of the actor.
Because you know him so well, better than the rest of the cast who have been
crying in England and Australia because he's leaving and made it abundantly
clear they adore him. Hey, you know him better than Amanda Tapping who
described MS as being her brother and said "I would kill for him". Yes,
that's just what you'd say about someone with "attitude" if they were asking
for the limelight which would reduce your character's screen time. Poor
delusional Amanda! Maybe you should write to Amanda Tapping and Chris Judge
and tell them what a spoilt little shit their friend and "brother" is and
how he wants their characters sidelined because of his big ole ego. I'd make
a will first if I were you. You do have insurance, right? When you do, sell
tickets so I can watch the dismemberment.
Far easier to dismiss what he's saying as a temper tantrum than accept he
might actually have a point. Far easier to dismiss the fact hundreds (yes,
hundreds) of online fans are saying the same thing on the net and in letters
and phone calls. But what the hell would they know? They're just not
watching the show right, right? MS is a "spoilt brat" and the complaining
fans are just "bitchers" whiners" and "lunatics".
> To walk out on a series because you don't have the limelight enough is
> egotistical at best, but considering he is 25% of a TEAM of FOUR, and
> has had nearly 50% of the limelight I would think he has had more than
> his fair share already. That is nearly as much as all the other three
> put together. If they had increased his share even further it would
> become more than all the other three put together but because they
> wouldn't he walked out. Now if that isn't an egotistical throwing of
> his teddy firmly in the corner I don't know what is. Perhaps the new
> actor will remember he is not bigger than the programme.
Bull.
www.savedanieljackson.com
Read the interviews. He isn't asking for the limelight. In season 4 he asked
for Daniel to be incorporated into *the team*. In season 5 he felt Daniel
was left out of the storylines that weren't specifically written for his
character.
"I went to the producers and said, 'I'm worried. I'm concerned about the
ramifications of the end of the love interest story and with the
introduction of the Earth conspiracy staff with Maybourne and the NID."'
Speaking of the whole wheels-within-wheels plot Shanks says, 'It wasn't that
I felt they weren't interesting storylines. Those were very good episodes.
The problem for me was that oftentimes because it's a show about a military
man in a military base surrounded by the inner workings of the military,
Daniel, as a civilian was not included in the loop of those things. It's
logical he wouldn't be included and I guess what I'm saying is I wanted a
stronger effort made to include the character within those things. I could
see how difficult it was becoming to create a valid role for Daniel and that
ultimately became a needle in my side. The character wasn't involved in
those things when the episodes came up."
Having seen his best friend (Chris Judge) treated like wallpaper for 2
seasons I guess he had no reason whatsoever to believe any promises that
season 6 would be any different. I'm inclined to agree. So apparently are
others. Check out my sig.
Ankh
--
"It's clear from viewing this season that it's no wonder Michael Shanks
wanted to move on; he
barely has three lines to say in most of the episodes. It's a miracle that
Christopher
Judge didn't bugger off years ago..." - SFX magazine #86(Jan 2002) on
season 5
Eva
> Eva wrote
>
> > That's good to know. I thought it was but it's nice to have it
confirmed.
> >
>
> To be honest I never considered that people would think it wasn't, but it
> makes sense that they might be doubtful if they don't go to those other
> forums.
There is always the possibility, but just as Brad Wright's post, this one
rang true for some reason.
> > > I would hope that as a writer himself he did indeed write to Salon and
> > post
> > > his side of the story to them.
> >
> > I guess we'll see if he does.
>
> And whether or not Salon will be posting anyones replies to them.
And whether or not I will be able to find it there. I don't like the site
one bit, to me it is rather user unfriendly. I hope someone will post a
link here. :-)
<Lisa not using psychology>
> > Lisa, are you using psychology here? <g>
>
> LOL, not my style I'm afraid, I can't even manage to use psychology to get
> myself a Valentines day card from Dearly Beloved <g>
It's all humbug anyway. :-)
chimera
>"J_Mallozzi" <JMallo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:516b2a2b.02021...@posting.google.com...
>
><snip>
>
>> SG-1 fans out there who take the time to posts or, at the very least,
>> take the time to read the posts. I can honestly say that the
>> overwhelming majority of the fans I have dealt with online have been
>> intelligent, polite, and well-spoken. When you've liked something,
>> you've let me know. And when you haven't liked something, you've darn
>> well let me know as well. But throughout, you've been respectful of
>> us and the show as a whole - and for that I also thank you.
>
Since when? :^) But seriously, although you haven't been very vocal
about a certain subject that has been the main topic of discussion on
the group recently, you have participated in a lot of the discussions
about Stargate in general.
>... I'd like to say that although I will miss Daniel very much, I *am*
>looking forward to S6. So you'd better make it great! :-)
That isn't a threat, really :^)
>Just one thing - I'm sure there is still time to change the name of the
>spin-off into something more original. I mean - "Atlantis"??
The last thing we need is Graham 'I'm not making this up' Hancock
wanting to make a guest appearance...
BTW Eva, are look looking forward to the Channel 4 show next week where
Mr Hancock tells us all about his new theory?
--
__
/ `|_ o,_ _ _ ,_ _ (Mr) Kristen Steward BSc (Hons) AstPhys
\__.| ||| | |(/,| (_\_ chi...@groundspring.demon.co.uk
"... when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains,
however improbable, must be the truth. -Sherlock Holmes
chimera
>
>> As we head into the show's sixth year of production and make the big
>> move to SciFi, you can look forward to a kick-butt sixth season.
>> Questions will be answered, secrets revealed, old friends revisited,
>> and a few surprises sprung. Better invest in a crash helmet for at
>> least the first three episodes. We're going to hit the ground
>> running. Hard!
>>
>
>SH*T
>
>
>
><spoiler space for Season 5 finale>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>- it wasn't a nice Jack smile after all was it???? something nasty in the
>air...... not sweet and cuddly Danny.....
Maybe, maybe not.
>is "ratbastards" the correct american term to use?
DIANE?!? You kiss your children goodnight with that mouth??? ;^)
>Diane (who now has to rewatch that ending *again*.....life just keeps
>getting harder)
It's a serious burden you carry, having to watch an episode of Stargate
all over again :^)
chimera
>news:a4hc9j$h3$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
[snip]
>> Whats wrong with Atlantis. Perhaps Patrick Duffy could make a guest
>> appearance complete with webbed fingers and toes.
>>
>> (70's TV reference for younger readers)
>
>and then the writers could pretend that season was only a dream Anise had
>while he was in the shower <g>?
Thing is, would Daniel be the one who walks into the shower :^)
>diane (I remember the 70's......)
I don't since I only just appeared at the end of the 70's ::g,d & r::
chimera
>news:cWyAvrB4...@imps.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <b26b8.71898$H37.9...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>, Eva
>> <ev...@removethisukonline.co.uk> writes
>> >> > I do hope the series will be about something completely
>> >> >different.
>> >> Amen! Maybe they'll bring in a defunct Norwegian Blue... ;)
>> >
>> >I'm afraid I need help here, Norwegian Blue? The only thought
>> >coming to my mind right now is not one I should admit to... <g>
I don't know what you're on about Eva, but I think I might be scared :^)
>> LOL :)
>>
>> The 'Dead Parrot Sketch' from 'Monty Python's Flying Circus' one of
>> whose catch-phrases was "...and now for something completely
>> different..."
>>
>> The dead parrot was a Norwegian Blue.
He's not dead, he's merely having a lie down.
>ROTFLMAO!!! Not you as well!! <gathers composure> Unless you've been
>lurking here for a while, you won't know that MP references are totally lost
>on me and that I have suffered greatly for it. <looks at chimera> :-)
I think of it as an education for Eva :^)
>It's not that I don't like MP, I've seen the series, I just don't know all
>the lines by heart like some people do... <g>
::whistles a ditty::
>> If you haven't seen it, then I'm really sorry. I must have seen twenty
>> times at least and even though I know exactly what's coming next, I
>> still find it as funny as I did the first time. There aren't many
>> humorous episodes that you can say that about :)))
The only problem I have with the MP series is that their sketches are
very hit or miss. In all honesty I'd rather just watch the movies.
>No, that's true. If I had time, I'd probably watch the repeats on one of
>the channels we have, but it's just not going to happen ATM.
Me neither.
>> "Err. Colonel?"
>> "It's my side arm, I swear."
>
>You know, I am still amazed that they actually let Jack say that (probably
>RDA's idea). :-)
But the humour in that episode is IMHO one of the reasons why people
still regard it as one of their favourites.
diane
"chimera" <chi...@groundspring.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Lw8dymCL...@groundspring.demon.co.uk...
> diane <loin...@spamfreebtinternet.com> wrote with elegant flair:
> >"J_Mallozzi" <JMallo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > <snip stuff everyone knows I agree with anyway>
> >
> >> As we head into the show's sixth year of production and make the big
> >> move to SciFi, you can look forward to a kick-butt sixth season.
> >> Questions will be answered, secrets revealed, old friends revisited,
> >> and a few surprises sprung. Better invest in a crash helmet for at
> >> least the first three episodes. We're going to hit the ground
> >> running. Hard!
> >>
> >> Joseph Mallozzi
> >
> >SH*T
> >
> >
> >
> ><spoiler space for Season 5 finale>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >- it wasn't a nice Jack smile after all was it???? something nasty in
the
> >air...... not sweet and cuddly Danny.....
>
> Maybe, maybe not.
>
> >is "ratbastards" the correct american term to use?
>
> DIANE?!? You kiss your children goodnight with that mouth??? ;^)
<diane hangs head in shame> mind you - you didn't see me being really mean
to them in the hotel room - mother from hell, that's me<g> Anyway its Joe
M's fault not mine, he got me all worried about that ending
> >Diane (who now has to rewatch that ending *again*.....life just keeps
> >getting harder)
>
> It's a serious burden you carry, having to watch an episode of Stargate
> all over again :^)
indeed, still at least my friend Tasha brought back the DVDs she borrowed so
I can finally get to hear all the audio commentaries......
diane
diane
"chimera" <chi...@groundspring.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
<snip>
> The last thing we need is Graham 'I'm not making this up' Hancock
> wanting to make a guest appearance...
>
> BTW Eva, are look looking forward to the Channel 4 show next week where
> Mr Hancock tells us all about his new theory?
OK Kris I know I lead a sheltered life TV wise - but who's he??
diane
diane
> diane <loin...@spamfreebtinternet.com> wrote with elegant flair:
> >"John Hulls" <john_hul...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:a4hc9j$h3$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Whats wrong with Atlantis. Perhaps Patrick Duffy could make a guest
> >> appearance complete with webbed fingers and toes.
> >>
> >> (70's TV reference for younger readers)
> >
> >and then the writers could pretend that season was only a dream Anise had
> >while he was in the shower <g>?
>
> Thing is, would Daniel be the one who walks into the shower :^)
>
> >diane (I remember the 70's......)
>
> I don't since I only just appeared at the end of the 70's ::g,d & r::
I know I know, I started teaching in 1979<s> so you are too *young* for me
to have taught you!
diane
Jette Goldie
"Eva" <ev...@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote
> > > Lisa, are you using psychology here? <g>
> >
> > LOL, not my style I'm afraid, I can't even manage to use psychology to
get
> > myself a Valentines day card from Dearly Beloved <g>
>
> It's all humbug anyway. :-)
You sound like a woman who didn't get a card from the
person you *really* wanted a card from ;-)
--
Jette
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
Lt General Bosslady, SG-6, Search and Rescue.
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
The difference between men and boys
is the cost of their toys"
Eva
news:Gyzb8.1232$w33.9...@news-text.cableinet.net...
>
> "Eva" <ev...@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote
> > > > Lisa, are you using psychology here? <g>
> > >
> > > LOL, not my style I'm afraid, I can't even manage to use psychology to
> get
> > > myself a Valentines day card from Dearly Beloved <g>
> >
> > It's all humbug anyway. :-)
>
>
> You sound like a woman who didn't get a card from the
> person you *really* wanted a card from ;-)
I'm sure Jack sent it and it just got delayed....
Eva
news:a4mfgb$1ahhc$1...@ID-113081.news.dfncis.de...
Where does one start??
Simon Pleasants
wrote:
>"It's clear from viewing this season that it's no wonder Michael Shanks
>wanted to move on; he
> barely has three lines to say in most of the episodes. It's a miracle that
>Christopher
> Judge didn't bugger off years ago..." - SFX magazine #86(Jan 2002) on
>season 5
Obviously this writer watched a different series from me. Barely had
three lines? Not in the series I just watched. I seem to remember a
two parter which featured little other than him.
You can dress it up in whatever language you like but the fact remains
the man playing a charactor who got more exposure than any other
single cast member wanted more exposure than he was getting and left
when he was told he could not have it. That is a FACT, irrespective
of what spin you put on it.
Simon
Eva
> Eva <ev...@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote with elegant flair:
<snip>
> >As a member of the more or less silent majority...
>
> Since when? :^)
<poke> I am *very* silent ATM, LOL.
> But seriously, although you haven't been very vocal
> about a certain subject that has been the main topic of discussion on
> the group recently, you have participated in a lot of the discussions
> about Stargate in general.
Thank you, Kris. :-) I was referring to the silent majority of fans, who
have not taken part in this particular discussion (here or elsewhere) and
who *will* be watching S6, hoping it will be a good one.
> >... I'd like to say that although I will miss Daniel very much, I *am*
> >looking forward to S6. So you'd better make it great! :-)
>
> That isn't a threat, really :^)
As if I ever threatened anyone? o :-)
> >Just one thing - I'm sure there is still time to change the name of the
> >spin-off into something more original. I mean - "Atlantis"??
>
> The last thing we need is Graham 'I'm not making this up' Hancock
> wanting to make a guest appearance...
The good thing is they probably couldn't afford him...
> BTW Eva, are look looking forward to the Channel 4 show next week where
> Mr Hancock tells us all about his new theory?
You know, his new series clashes with something, I'm sure...
(Kris, there is just so much laughter a person can take!) :-)
Eva
> Eva <ev...@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote with elegant flair:
> >"Sue Mitchell" <s...@imps.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:cWyAvrB4...@imps.demon.co.uk...
> >> In article <b26b8.71898$H37.9...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>, Eva
<snip>
> >> >I'm afraid I need help here, Norwegian Blue? The only thought
> >> >coming to my mind right now is not one I should admit to... <g>
>
> I don't know what you're on about Eva, but I think I might be scared :^)
Good! :-)
<the dead [looks down] the not-so-dead parrot sketch>
> He's not dead, he's merely having a lie down.
You really believe that?
> >ROTFLMAO!!! Not you as well!! <gathers composure> Unless you've been
> >lurking here for a while, you won't know that MP references are totally
lost
> >on me and that I have suffered greatly for it. <looks at chimera> :-)
>
> I think of it as an education for Eva :^)
I have no doubt *you* do... :-)
> >It's not that I don't like MP, I've seen the series, I just don't know
all
> >the lines by heart like some people do... <g>
>
> ::whistles a ditty::
Oh, here's the one I was talking about, Sue! It sounds like you two could
talk about MP for hours and hours and hours... :-)
> >> If you haven't seen it, then I'm really sorry. I must have seen twenty
> >> times at least and even though I know exactly what's coming next, I
> >> still find it as funny as I did the first time. There aren't many
> >> humorous episodes that you can say that about :)))
>
> The only problem I have with the MP series is that their sketches are
> very hit or miss. In all honesty I'd rather just watch the movies.
Some of the movies...
<snip>
> >> "Err. Colonel?"
> >> "It's my side arm, I swear."
> >
> >You know, I am still amazed that they actually let Jack say that
(probably
> >RDA's idea). :-)
>
> But the humour in that episode is IMHO one of the reasons why people
> still regard it as one of their favourites.
Do you think it was the humour? I don't think there was that much humour,
actually, although I could be wrong. I'll find out during the re-watching.
Are you going to take part, Kris? Have you got access to the episodes at
all?
Ankh
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 13:49:41 -0000, "Ankh" <ma...@ankh.freeserve.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >"It's clear from viewing this season that it's no wonder Michael Shanks
> >wanted to move on; he
> > barely has three lines to say in most of the episodes. It's a miracle
that
> >Christopher
> > Judge didn't bugger off years ago..." - SFX magazine #86(Jan 2002) on
> >season 5
>
> Obviously this writer watched a different series from me.
She's watching the same one as me and lots of others. Sky One. Wednesdays at
8pm. Daniel's the guy with the glasses.
>Barely had
> three lines? Not in the series I just watched. I seem to remember a
> two parter which featured little other than him.
So you don't find it interesting that someone outside of fandom thought
Daniel had little to do this season? Oh wait, it's someone saying Daniel had
nothing to do so of course she's probably a fangirl Danny-obsessed whiner,
not an unbiased observer. As for the two parter - Daniel got to wander about
corridors, be an assassin and talk into a radio. Sam, Elliot and Osiris got
just as much to do. There's a difference between being on screen and
actually having something to do.
> You can dress it up in whatever language you like but the fact remains
> the man playing a charactor who got more exposure than any other
> single cast member wanted more exposure than he was getting and left
> when he was told he could not have it. That is a FACT, irrespective
> of what spin you put on it.
No, that's the FACT according to what YOU see on the screen. I see something
different. I see episode after episode in which Daniel was there to make up
numbers:
Threshold (gets a funny line)
Ascension (gets to phone Sam)
Rites of Passage (I don't recall. Did he touch something in Nirrti's lab?)
The Tomb (Gets a funny line and spends most of the episode looking at a
wall)
Proving Ground (Is in opening scene where he gets to shoot someone then
later gets to sit in a chair.)
Fair Game. (Gets to watch Sam save the world)
Desperate Measures (Gets a scene where he fakes an injury)
Wormhole extreme. (Is he even in this one? Oh wait! There's Danny in the
opener! He said a line! Woohoo!)
Warrior (Does squat. Looks decorative)
Revelations (Not in it because he left due to the writers inability to
incorporate his character into the storylines)
Oh and please, before anyone starts saying "What about Teal'c!" I've been
complaining about the way the character's been used - or not - for two
years. Just because Teal'c is wallpaper doesn't make it OK to do it to
another character, particularly the one that was the hero from the movie
that started this whole Stargate adventure. Four people to write for on a
regular basis. Four.
Have you written to Amanda Tapping yet to tell her how spoilt and
egomaniacal her "brother" is? Forward her response to me, will you? Maybe we
can post it on Sam and Teal'c website in the 'Fans Who Have Been Verbally
Dismembered By The Stars' section.
Ankh
Mls0055
<ev...@removethisukonline.co.uk> writes:
>Subject: Re: Already mostly OT, Monty Python (was: Response)
>From: "Eva" <ev...@removethisukonline.co.uk>
>Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 21:20:32 -0000
>
>"chimera" <chi...@groundspring.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:ahoJ2$Eaimb...@groundspring.demon.co.uk...
>> Eva <ev...@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote with elegant flair:
>> >"Sue Mitchell" <s...@imps.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >news:cWyAvrB4...@imps.demon.co.uk...
>> >> In article <b26b8.71898$H37.9...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>, Eva
>
><snip>
>
>> >> >I'm afraid I need help here, Norwegian Blue? The only thought
>> >> >coming to my mind right now is not one I should admit to... <g>
>>
>> I don't know what you're on about Eva, but I think I might be scared :^)
>
>Good! :-)
>
><the dead [looks down] the not-so-dead parrot sketch>
>
>> He's not dead, he's merely having a lie down.
>
>You really believe that?
Of course not. He's merely 'pining for the fjiords.'
Mandi
Mls0055
To: alt.tv.stargate-sg1
Date: 16/02/2002
>
>In article <B2Ab8.62331$as2.10...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>, "Eva"
><ev...@removethisukonline.co.uk> writes:
>
>>Subject: Re: Already mostly OT, Monty Python (was: Response)
>>From: "Eva" <ev...@removethisukonline.co.uk>
>>Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 21:20:32 -0000
>>
>>"chimera" <chi...@groundspring.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:ahoJ2$Eaimb...@groundspring.demon.co.uk...
>>> Eva <ev...@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote with elegant flair:
>>> >"Sue Mitchell" <s...@imps.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> >news:cWyAvrB4...@imps.demon.co.uk...
>>> >> In article <b26b8.71898$H37.9...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>, Eva
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> >> >I'm afraid I need help here, Norwegian Blue? The only thought
>>> >> >coming to my mind right now is not one I should admit to... <g>
>>>
>>> I don't know what you're on about Eva, but I think I might be scared :^)
>>
>>Good! :-)
>>
>><the dead [looks down] the not-so-dead parrot sketch>
>>
>>> He's not dead, he's merely having a lie down.
>>
>>You really believe that?
>
Sue Mitchell
>> of what spin you put on it.
>
>No, that's the FACT according to what YOU see on the screen. I see something
>different. I see episode after episode in which Daniel was there to make up
>numbers:
>Threshold (gets a funny line)
>Ascension (gets to phone Sam)
>Rites of Passage (I don't recall. Did he touch something in Nirrti's lab?)
>The Tomb (Gets a funny line and spends most of the episode looking at a
>wall)
>Proving Ground (Is in opening scene where he gets to shoot someone then
>later gets to sit in a chair.)
>Fair Game. (Gets to watch Sam save the world)
>Desperate Measures (Gets a scene where he fakes an injury)
>Wormhole extreme. (Is he even in this one? Oh wait! There's Danny in the
>opener! He said a line! Woohoo!)
>Warrior (Does squat. Looks decorative)
>Revelations (Not in it because he left due to the writers inability to
>incorporate his character into the storylines)
>
to be Ep. 98: Desperate Measures - and counted the number of speeches of
each of the principal characters in the script. And the scores on the
doors were...
1. Jack 86
2. Maybourne 47
3. Sam 32
4= Simmons 18
4= Daniel 18 (one of which was 'Aargh!')
(6. Homeless Guy 16)
Way down at the bottom were...
Hammond 7
Doc. Fraiser 4
Teal'c 3
I say no more.
Best wishes,
Sue
--
s...@imps.demon.co.uk
"Aargh!"
Louis M. Brown
<stevechr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>X-No-Archive: yes
>
>
>
>Eva wrote:
>>
>> > You sound like a woman who didn't get a card from the
>> > person you *really* wanted a card from ;-)
>>
>> I'm sure Steve sent it and it just got delayed....
>
>
>Er, of course! <g>
Yea, OK... we REALLY BELIEVE YOU.
<eg>
-LMB
"Erotic is when you use a feather - Exotic is when you use the whole chicken! " - Unknown
"He who lives by the sword gets shot by those who don't. "
"Cat: 1. a lapwarmer with a built-in buzzer. 2. a four footed allergen.
3. a small, four-legged, fur-bearing extortionist. 4. a small, furry lap fungus. 5. a treat-seeking missile. 6. a wildlife control expert. 7. one who sleeps in old, empty pizza boxes. 8. a hair relocation expert. 9. an unprogrammable animal. "
Ankh
:-D Have you got Ascension and Rites of Passage? Oooh! Oooh! And WX?
Ankh
<insert Daniel's cry of distress in Fifth Man if there was one here>
Mls0055
<ma...@ankh.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>> {snip}
>
>> It's not the character I don't like, it's the attitude of the actor.
>
>Because you know him so well, better than the rest of the cast who have been
>crying in England and Australia because he's leaving and made it abundantly
>clear they adore him. Hey, you know him better than Amanda Tapping who
>described MS as being her brother and said "I would kill for him".
Maybe that was the problem. He just got really tired of finding the remains
of small animals outside his door! <eg>
Mandi
Mike Burke
And what we call Football is something that makes a large percentage
of the male population in the U.S. go stark raving bonkers every Sunday
for a few months out of each year. Not me, of course. I only watch the
Superbowl, and I watch that for the commercials. <g>
Mike
Simon Pleasants
wrote:
>Have you written to Amanda Tapping yet to tell her how spoilt and
>egomaniacal her "brother" is? Forward her response to me, will you? Maybe we
>can post it on Sam and Teal'c website in the 'Fans Who Have Been Verbally
>Dismembered By The Stars' section.
Of course my observation is based on my observations - how else could
it be? And no, of course I don't know him personally. I was merely
stating the facts as I see them and you, clearly, see them
differently. And that was all I did - post them.
However the emotional ranting and raging you have posted back and some
of the ridiculous things you have said have certainly done nothing to
convince me I should take any more notice of what you've said than you
have of what I've said. It merely makes you appear *exactly* like the
sort of person described by the article that this discussion is all
about.
Now you may be *nothing* like that, and you may even be a really nice
person, but when all I have to base an opinion on is your stupid
rants, I am not going to conclude "ooh this person is so nice and
friendly". FWIW, I am a freelancer in the radio industry and have
worked behind the scenes or on the air of a number of stations. In my
experience you often find people who, behind the scenes, exactly match
their on air persona, and an equal number who are nothing like it. I
know of one or two people whose on air persona I really don't like but
who are really nice people, and equally one or two whose on air
persona I really like but can't be bothered with the people they are
when not on air.
The point being I can only say what I see, and you can either agree or
disagree, but at least try to do it in a calm, logical manner and with
a little degree of respect, or don't post at all.
Simon
Eva
news:3C6EF7...@yahoo.com...
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
>
> >Jette wrote:
> Eva wrote:
> >
> > > You sound like a woman who didn't get a card from the
> > > person you *really* wanted a card from ;-)
> >
>
>
> Er, of course! <g>
Steve, are you really RDA in disguise??
Ankh
> Of course my observation is based on my observations - how else could
> it be? And no, of course I don't know him personally.
Then why describe him as spoilt etc?
I was merely
> stating the facts as I see them and you, clearly, see them
> differently. And that was all I did - post them.
You did. I challenged them. I offered evidence - the reactions and feelings
of the rest of the cast, who would presumably be cast in the shade if MS was
demanding the limelight. Where's your evidence?
> However the emotional ranting and raging you have posted back and some
> of the ridiculous things you have said have certainly done nothing to
> convince me I should take any more notice of what you've said than you
> have of what I've said. It merely makes you appear *exactly* like the
> sort of person described by the article that this discussion is all
> about.
LOL. I tell you you're talking bull because you make accusations about
someone you don't know and offer evidence saying why - and point out the
likely reaction you would get if you made such accusations to AT and CJ, the
people who woul suffer if MS was the egomaniac you claim - and your answer
is to dismiss me. Go for it. But if you post accusations when there is
contradictory evidence then expect people to point it out to you.
> Now you may be *nothing* like that, and you may even be a really nice
> person, but when all I have to base an opinion on is your stupid
> rants,
Stupid because it doesn't agree with *you*. Gee. You call MS spoilt etc and
I say you're wrong and his friends, AT and CJ, would be furious with you if
you said such things about their friend and "brother" to their faces, but
I'm the one having "stupid rants". You're a funny guy. But I understand why
you think that way. It's easier to believe that MS is leaving because he's
a, um, spoilt brat, and not because he actually has a point about the
writing excluding his character.
I am not going to conclude "ooh this person is so nice and
> friendly". FWIW, I am a freelancer in the radio industry and have
> worked behind the scenes or on the air of a number of stations. In my
> experience you often find people who, behind the scenes, exactly match
> their on air persona, and an equal number who are nothing like it. I
> know of one or two people whose on air persona I really don't like but
> who are really nice people, and equally one or two whose on air
> persona I really like but can't be bothered with the people they are
> when not on air.
>
> The point being I can only say what I see, and you can either agree or
> disagree, but at least try to do it in a calm, logical manner and with
> a little degree of respect, or don't post at all.
Your first post was not respectful, it was full of accusations. As for
mine...but I took out all the multiple exclamation marks and everything!!!!!
Simon, you posted that someone was leaving because he's demanding and
spoiled. You've never met the guy. Tell me - if you have a guest on a radio
show do you assume he's spoiled and greedy for the spotlight because of a
few posts on an NG and because of an interview or two, and do you announce
to all the listeners that that's what you think of said guest, before you've
even had him on air/met him? Would that be fair? Would that be respectful?
Ankh
Ankh
"Mls0055" <mls...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20020217035156...@mb-fl.aol.com...
LOL! Mandi, you made me spill my coffee, you horrid person!
Ankh
Jette Goldie
"Mike Burke" <mike...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3C6F77B1...@mindspring.com...
> Elaine Palmer wrote:
>
> > Mike Burke wrote:
>
> > > I take it that this is soccer that you are referring to here.
> >
> > We call it FOOTBALL dammit! ;-)
> And what we call Football is something that makes a large percentage
> of the male population in the U.S. go stark raving bonkers every Sunday
> for a few months out of each year. Not me, of course. I only watch the
> Superbowl, and I watch that for the commercials. <g>
Only on Sundays? WE have to suffer football on Saturdays,
Sundays and mid-week as well, from August to - well, I think
the season ends in the spring, but there are always matches
being shown during the summer from the Antipodes and
South America.
--
Jette (lives near a football ground)
(aka Vinyaduriel)
"Work for Peace and remain fiercely loving" - Jim Byrnes
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/fanfic.html
Simon Pleasants
wrote:
>> Of course my observation is based on my observations - how else could
>> it be? And no, of course I don't know him personally.
>
>Then why describe him as spoilt etc?
I said I didn't like his attitude and that it smacked of his ego
having grown a bit too big. I don't think that goes as far as calling
him an egomaniac or spoilt (bratt) and as such I have not used either
of those two words at any point.
I have seen a number items recently which show Naomi Campbell in a
relatively poor light. I think it is unrealistic to think that
members of the public will not have an opinion based on what they see
of her, even though most will never have actually met her. This is
exactly the same.
>> I was merely
>> stating the facts as I see them and you, clearly, see them
>> differently. And that was all I did - post them.
>
>You did. I challenged them. I offered evidence - the reactions and feelings
>of the rest of the cast, who would presumably be cast in the shade if MS was
>demanding the limelight. Where's your evidence?
My evidence is that he wanted more time for his charactor and because
they wouldn't give it to him he left.
>> However the emotional ranting and raging you have posted back and some
>> of the ridiculous things you have said have certainly done nothing to
>> convince me I should take any more notice of what you've said than you
>> have of what I've said. It merely makes you appear *exactly* like the
>> sort of person described by the article that this discussion is all
>> about.
>
>LOL. I tell you you're talking bull because you make accusations about
>someone you don't know and offer evidence saying why - and point out the
>likely reaction you would get if you made such accusations to AT and CJ, the
>people who woul suffer if MS was the egomaniac you claim - and your answer
>is to dismiss me. Go for it. But if you post accusations when there is
>contradictory evidence then expect people to point it out to you.
Several points here. Firstly, I did post evidence of why I thought
what I thought and accept the validity of what you posted as evidence
to the contrary. Secondly, I have no problem with people not agreeing
with me and I even stated I expected it to be an unpopular opinion
when I made the original post. It is, after all, just my opinion, and
I never claimed it to be anything else. I also do not claim always to
be right.
It is not that you disagree, or that you have valid evidence for it,
it was the tone of the response that got my back up. Your response
was far more assertive and aggressive than the post it responded to.
It was much less of an opinion, as mine was, and much more of a
"you're wrong and I'm right" style of post. Although it stopped short
of being downright abusive, it came fairly close.
Quote 1 "Maybe you should write to Amanda Tapping and Chris Judge
and tell them what a spoilt little shit their friend and "brother" is
and how he wants their characters sidelined because of his big ole
ego. I'd make a will first if I were you. You do have insurance,
right? When you do, sell tickets so I can watch the dismemberment."
And so it goes on.....
Quote 2 "But what the hell would they know? They're just not watching
the show right, right? MS is a "spoilt brat" and the complaining fans
are just "bitchers" whiners" and "lunatics"."
None of which I actually said.
>> Now you may be *nothing* like that, and you may even be a really nice
>> person, but when all I have to base an opinion on is your stupid
>> rants,
>
>Stupid because it doesn't agree with *you*.
No stupid because it was an aggressive, almost abusive, rant, not a
calm and reasonable "Well I don't agree because.... "
>It's easier to believe that MS is leaving because he's
>a, um, spoilt brat, and not because he actually has a point about the
>writing excluding his character.
Why is one thing easier to believe than another? Believing anything
is not difficult. In this case I do not agree with his opinion that
his character was not featured enough.
>> The point being I can only say what I see, and you can either agree or
>> disagree, but at least try to do it in a calm, logical manner and with
>> a little degree of respect, or don't post at all.
>
>Your first post was not respectful, it was full of accusations. As for
>mine...but I took out all the multiple exclamation marks and everything!!!!!
It was a simple statement of my opinion and never a direct accusation.
I said "it seems to me....". And I didn't use any multiple
explamation marks.
>Simon, you posted that someone was leaving because he's demanding and
>spoiled. You've never met the guy. Tell me - if you have a guest on a radio
>show do you assume he's spoiled and greedy for the spotlight because of a
>few posts on an NG and because of an interview or two, and do you announce
>to all the listeners that that's what you think of said guest, before you've
>even had him on air/met him? Would that be fair? Would that be respectful?
Of course not. But it is not a valid comparison. Same as I am free
to type "It seems to me that Naomi Campbell is a bitch judging by her
outburst against those people on that plane" but would be unlikely to
go charging up to her and say "You're a bitch - I saw what you did to
those people on that plane". In fact if you really want to take this
to an extreme you are basically saying "You have no right to condemn
drugs if you haven't tried them". Life doesn't work like that.
As I said, I stated what I thought was potentially a reason in his
decision to leave. In response you could have posted stating that it
was unlikely because those that know him best do not perceive it like
that. Instead you decided to post an aggressively worded rant telling
me I had no idea what I was talking about and to go and tell it to
Chris Judge because you would enjoy watching me savagely murdered.
The two may say the same thing, but they say it in radically different
ways as I have stated many times, it was the way in which you said it,
not that you disagreed, that I did not like.
Simon
Ankh
> >You did. I challenged them. I offered evidence - the reactions and
feelings
> >of the rest of the cast, who would presumably be cast in the shade if MS
was
> >demanding the limelight. Where's your evidence?
>
> My evidence is that he wanted more time for his charactor and because
> they wouldn't give it to him he left.
He also stated that he felt his character had become wallpaper because there
was no place for an archaeologist in storylines that focused on the military
and Govt conspiracies. That's different from saying he wanted more of the
limelight at the expense of the others, which is what you were saying.
You wrote:
Simon wrote: "I know this is going to be an unpopular thing to say,
particularly
light of the recent rantings on the above subject, but it seems a
little to me like someone's ego got too big. Despite being one of
four characters he had the spotlight in far more episodes than any
other character and yet still demanded even more and then left when he
didn't get it. Well fine, there's the door, please close it behind
you."
Simon wrote: "It's not the character I don't like, it's the attitude of the
actor.
To walk out on a series because you don't have the limelight enough is
egotistical at best, but considering he is 25% of a TEAM of FOUR, and
has had nearly 50% of the limelight I would think he has had more than
his fair share already. That is nearly as much as all the other three
put together. If they had increased his share even further it would
become more than all the other three put together but because they
wouldn't he walked out. Now if that isn't an egotistical throwing of
his teddy firmly in the corner I don't know what is. Perhaps the new
actor will remember he is not bigger than the programme."
You are saying his ego got too big. You are saying he demanded more of the
spotlight and by saying there are others in the cast are suggesting he was
demanding more than his fair share. You are saying he threw a "tantum",
calling him egotistical, suggesting a spoilt child mentality, totally
disregarding any explanations he put forth as to why he felt his character
was sidelined in season 5 (something many fans agree with btw). Like you
say, there are four main characters. Four main characters who should be
written for equally. He's not demanding more than the others, just a share,
and a storyline that includes his character.
You are also saying that MS believes he is bigger than the show - "Perhaps
the new
actor will remember he is not bigger than the programme." - yet nowhere has
he stated this.
> Several points here. Firstly, I did post evidence of why I thought
> what I thought and accept the validity of what you posted as evidence
> to the contrary.
Can you point me towards this evidence please? I thought I'd read all the
interviews and con reports and sat through three MS panels. Apparently I've
missed some.
Oh, I should post a link to AT's comment about "I would kill for him". It's
a nice interview:
http://www.prevuemagazine.com/Articles/Flash/324
> Secondly, I have no problem with people not agreeing
> with me and I even stated I expected it to be an unpopular opinion
> when I made the original post. It is, after all, just my opinion, and
> I never claimed it to be anything else. I also do not claim always to
> be right.
And I'm telling you that you were unfair. I asked you if you would prejudge
a guest on a radio show and announce your assumptions to the listeners.
*Would* you announce said guest's ego was too big and he was prone to
throwing teddy in a corner during tantrums for more screen time on no
evidence? (I'm sure I'd remember an article stating he did so)
> It is not that you disagree, or that you have valid evidence for it,
> it was the tone of the response that got my back up. Your response
> was far more assertive and aggressive than the post it responded to.
> It was much less of an opinion, as mine was, and much more of a
> "you're wrong and I'm right" style of post. Although it stopped short
> of being downright abusive, it came fairly close.
You thought *that* was a rant? :-) After reading some of the posts about the
"lunatics" (no, you didn't use that word to my knowledge) ringing MGM I can
only assume you don't read the NG much. Nowhere did I call you an idiot or
some such thing. I said you were *wrong* and *unfair*. I even used the word
"bull". That's a strongly worded disagreement. There's a difference. But,
hey, if you want to dismiss it as a rant fine. I've read worse.
> Quote 1 "Maybe you should write to Amanda Tapping and Chris Judge
> and tell them what a spoilt little shit their friend and "brother" is
> and how he wants their characters sidelined because of his big ole
> ego. I'd make a will first if I were you. You do have insurance,
> right? When you do, sell tickets so I can watch the dismemberment."
>
> And so it goes on.....
>
> Quote 2 "But what the hell would they know? They're just not watching
> the show right, right? MS is a "spoilt brat" and the complaining fans
> are just "bitchers" whiners" and "lunatics"."
>
> None of which I actually said.
You implied he was a spoilt brat by saying he was throwing a tantrum. The
"bitchers" and "whiners" came from others on the NG. If you thought I was
implying you said it, my apologies for that.
<snip>
> Why is one thing easier to believe than another? Believing anything
> is not difficult. In this case I do not agree with his opinion that
> his character was not featured enough.
Perhaps because I believe in believing the best of people until proven
otherwise. As for not being featured enough, perhaps you just didn't see it?
I like Daniel - I did see it. So did others. You think there would be this
much of a fuss from so many people if it didn't have evidence to support it?
You seriously think an actor would leave a job he loves, working with people
who are like "a family" to him, if there wasn't a problem?
> >> The point being I can only say what I see, and you can either agree or
> >> disagree, but at least try to do it in a calm, logical manner and with
> >> a little degree of respect, or don't post at all.
> >
> >Your first post was not respectful, it was full of accusations. As for
> >mine...but I took out all the multiple exclamation marks and
everything!!!!!
>
> It was a simple statement of my opinion and never a direct accusation.
> I said "it seems to me....". And I didn't use any multiple
> explamation marks.
Simple statements of "fact" (as you were calling them) don't include phrases
like "Now if that isn't an egotistical throwing of his teddy firmly in the
corner I don't know what is"
> >Simon, you posted that someone was leaving because he's demanding and
> >spoiled. You've never met the guy. Tell me - if you have a guest on a
radio
> >show do you assume he's spoiled and greedy for the spotlight because of a
> >few posts on an NG and because of an interview or two, and do you
announce
> >to all the listeners that that's what you think of said guest, before
you've
> >even had him on air/met him? Would that be fair? Would that be
respectful?
>
> Of course not. But it is not a valid comparison. Same as I am free
> to type "It seems to me that Naomi Campbell is a bitch judging by her
> outburst against those people on that plane" but would be unlikely to
> go charging up to her and say "You're a bitch - I saw what you did to
> those people on that plane". In fact if you really want to take this
> to an extreme you are basically saying "You have no right to condemn
> drugs if you haven't tried them". Life doesn't work like that.
I think it is a valid comparison. We're dealing with making public
statements about someone on no evidence. You stated he was demanding more
than his fair share and having tantrums to an entire NG yet offered no
evidence to support this. As for the comparison to drugs... We're talking
about a *person* here. You're free to type that - and I'm equally free to
disagree with you. Which it appears I am.
> As I said, I stated what I thought was potentially a reason in his
> decision to leave. In response you could have posted stating that it
> was unlikely because those that know him best do not perceive it like
> that. Instead you decided to post an aggressively worded rant telling
> me I had no idea what I was talking about and to go and tell it to
> Chris Judge because you would enjoy watching me savagely murdered.
I told you that it would be interesting to see what CJ's and AT's reaction
would be if you threw such accusations about their friend and "brother" in
their face. I was trying to make the point that his fellow cast members
don't think he's the kind of person you accused him of being. That was
supposed to be evidence backing my point.
> The two may say the same thing, but they say it in radically different
> ways as I have stated many times, it was the way in which you said it,
> not that you disagreed, that I did not like.
Here you go:
1. You think his ego is too big, he's throwing a tantrum, and he wants more
screen time at the expense of the others.
2. 'The others' are his friends, call him their "brother, and one of them
stated "I would kill for him" suggesting your assumptions are wrong.
Hope that clarifies things.
Ankh
diane
"Ankh" <ma...@ankh.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a4ojpk$hvb$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
<snippety snip>
> 1. You think his ego is too big, he's throwing a tantrum, and he wants
more
> screen time at the expense of the others.
> 2. 'The others' are his friends, call him their "brother, and one of them
> stated "I would kill for him" suggesting your assumptions are wrong.
>
> Hope that clarifies things.
I don't think he is throwing a tantrum, but I think he made a professional
mistake in choosing to go. If you recall when Don Davis was talking about
this at SG3 *he* said that *he* told MS he was making a mistake in going...
His fellow cast members may like him and value him highly - but it is wrong
to assume that they think he made the correct decision in going.
I don't think anyone has to be the bad guy(s) here, MS made a career
decision which may. or may not, turn out to be a good one. I hope it is a
good one for his sake, but I suspect it is not.
diane
Ankh
>
> "Ankh" <ma...@ankh.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:a4ojpk$hvb$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> <snippety snip>
>
> > 1. You think his ego is too big, he's throwing a tantrum, and he wants
> more
> > screen time at the expense of the others.
> > 2. 'The others' are his friends, call him their "brother, and one of
them
> > stated "I would kill for him" suggesting your assumptions are wrong.
> >
> > Hope that clarifies things.
>
>
> I don't think he is throwing a tantrum, but I think he made a professional
> mistake in choosing to go. If you recall when Don Davis was talking about
> this at SG3 *he* said that *he* told MS he was making a mistake in
going...
> His fellow cast members may like him and value him highly - but it is
wrong
> to assume that they think he made the correct decision in going.
I don't recall Don saying that. I made notes but can't find a reference to
it. :-( However, if you say he did then I'll take yopur word for it.
However, bear in mind Don's interview at that time in which he made it very
clear that he was worried about his (Don's) financial future after Stargate
SG1 ended. Don may think he's making a mistake because it's so much easier
for MS to stick it out for a year and collect a pay cheque. He's coming from
a different direction to MS and has different priorities and concerns. MS is
a young actor who prefers challenge to financial security (and made it clear
he won't have any financial worries if he doesn't work).
RDA on the other hand said he understood why MS felt he had to leave and
supported his decision.
> I don't think anyone has to be the bad guy(s) here, MS made a career
> decision which may. or may not, turn out to be a good one. I hope it is a
> good one for his sake, but I suspect it is not.
I don't think anyone is the bad guy. I think a creative decision was made re
the direction of the show which has resulted in two of the characters having
reduced roles. CJ was prepared to put up with it (has done so for two
years). MS wasn't. He said he felt he should leave because he could see that
if he stayed it would sour something he felt good about (I think that was in
the latest Dreamwatch interview). Presumably, in those long talks he had
with BW et al nothing was said that assured him that things would be
different in season 6. There was talk of "not rosking the boat" which
suggests to me someone higher up was calling the shots, probably MGM. I
think that was the right decision for MS. It's like me with season 6. Right
now I still have a love of the show. In season 6, seeing the team without
Daniel will sour it for me. Best to let go while the feelings are positive.
:-)
Ankh
diane
It was part of his talk on Sunday when he was asking all to be nice to MS -
I think he was worried that people would feel he had let them down.......
interesting actually that this has been no-ones reaction, well not any
substantial minority that I have seen anyway...
I *may* not enjoy it as much without the J/D interactions - but I am pretty
sure it will still entertain me for an hour a week which is all I ask of
it<s>. I found the last season of B5 (Without Ivanova) less enjoyable than
the first 4 - but I still looked forward to it every week.
diane
Elaine Palmer
>
> "Mike Burke" <mike...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3C6F77B1...@mindspring.com...
> > Elaine Palmer wrote:
> >
> > > Mike Burke wrote:
> >
> > > > I take it that this is soccer that you are referring to here.
> > >
> > > We call it FOOTBALL dammit! ;-)
>
> > And what we call Football
Which we call "American Football" ;-)
> > is something that makes a large percentage
> > of the male population in the U.S. go stark raving bonkers every Sunday
> > for a few months out of each year. Not me, of course. I only watch the
> > Superbowl, and I watch that for the commercials. <g>
>
> Only on Sundays? WE have to suffer football on Saturdays,
> Sundays and mid-week as well, from August to - well, I think
> the season ends in the spring,
I think the Scottish season begins at a slightly different time from the
English, but I can't remember if it's earlier or later. Our season
begins about the second weekend in August and finishes about the middle
of May. But this year of course we have the World Cup to look forward
to. <g>
> but there are always matches being shown during the summer from
> the Antipodes and South America.
Surely you shouldn't have to put up with excessive amounts of football
unless you have Sky Sports . . . or [light flickers on here] *Andrew*
has Sky Sports?
Elaine
(who finds it very convenient living near the football ground)
Sue Mitchell
<ma...@ankh.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>
>You are saying his ego got too big. You are saying he demanded more of the
>spotlight and by saying there are others in the cast are suggesting he was
>demanding more than his fair share.
Forgive me for butting in here, but if Michael Shanks is, as suggested,
hell-bent on getting *more* than his fair share of the limelight, then how
come he requested that he not receive a credit for the voice of Thor? Not
the action of a prima donna, one would have thought.
The success of the programme turned on both the originality (and humour)
of the scripts and the chemistry between the diverse characters. It had a
synergistic dynamic - that is to say:
1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = an awful lot more than 4.
Where there is a building predominance of terrestrial military themes, a
geek with doctorates in archaeology and linguistics is clearly surplus to
requirements.
This leads to 1 + 1 + 1 + ..........(1), at which point, the dynamic
crumbles, as I suspect Mr. Shanks realized. Either they are a team of 4,
or a team of 3 + a hanger-on. Apparently, Shanks' didn't relish just
tagging along for the ride, and I for one don't blame him.
Best wishes,
Sue
--
s...@imps.demon.co.uk
"Daniel Jackson made this place... happen. As a member of SG-1, he was
our voice, our conscience. He was a very courageous man. He was a
good man. For those of us lucky enough to know him, he was also a friend."
Michael Smith
"Elaine Palmer" <elaine...@citysun.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3C6FEC7C...@citysun.ac.uk...
> Jette Goldie wrote:
> >
> > "Mike Burke" <mike...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:3C6F77B1...@mindspring.com...
> > > Elaine Palmer wrote:
> > >
> > > > Mike Burke wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I take it that this is soccer that you are referring to here.
> > > >
> > > > We call it FOOTBALL dammit! ;-)
> >
> > > And what we call Football
>
> Which we call "American Football" ;-)
Which I call Nancy-Boys Rugby. Why do they need body armour for a wimpy
version of Rugby? :)
--
Michael Smith
Ankh
>
> "Ankh" <ma...@ankh.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:a4omo1$c0h$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
Don S Davis:
> It was part of his talk on Sunday when he was asking all to be nice to
MS -
> I think he was worried that people would feel he had let them down.......
Don nearly had me in tears during that. :-( I only have to look at someone
getting upset and I start sniffling. He's such a lovely, lovely man.
> interesting actually that this has been no-ones reaction, well not any
> substantial minority that I have seen anyway...
I actually wrote to him to assure him that people would be nice to MS. I got
very soppy in the letter. ;-)
> I *may* not enjoy it as much without the J/D interactions - but I am
pretty
> sure it will still entertain me for an hour a week which is all I ask of
> it<s>. I found the last season of B5 (Without Ivanova) less enjoyable
than
> the first 4 - but I still looked forward to it every week.
I'm glad you'll be tuning in. You can give me spoilers and let me know when
CJ's and AT's episodes are coming up. :-) I will make a point of watching -
I'll just pretend Daniel's off with SG9 or something, LOL. I do hope they
let AT direct like she's asked. This is the last season and she should have
the opportunity, dammit. I have to say, I do feel a bit 'unfaithful' not
watching but it's a case of watching and being miserable every week. After
Ivanova left B5 just didn't have that special something for me - I was an
Ivanova/Marcus shipper so when *that* happened... <sob!>
Ankh
diane
oh don't get me going on Marcus <cue hysterical sobbing and rending of
garments> he was a wonderful character.... I was a bit of a Garibaldi fan (I
know I know, and it's absolutely clear from this that I make clear
distinctions between the characters and the actors -- right? <s>) and loved
the "going dark side under that nice Mr Chekov's influence" sub plot.
Infact what I loved most about B5 were the sub plots that just kept weaving
in and out and popping up. And then, of coruse there was Londo and
G'Kar..... <sigh> so many great characters to care about for me...
diane
Eva
<snip>
> I'm glad you'll be tuning in. You can give me spoilers and let me know
when
> CJ's and AT's episodes are coming up. :-) I will make a point of
watching -
> I'll just pretend Daniel's off with SG9 or something, LOL. I do hope they
> let AT direct like she's asked. This is the last season and she should
have
> the opportunity, dammit. I have to say, I do feel a bit 'unfaithful' not
> watching ....
<clutches at straws> Is that a ray of hope I've spotted? Is that a sign
that there might be a chance to talk you into watching S6, if one puts a lot
of effort into it? :-)
> ... but it's a case of watching and being miserable every week.
You could do a lot of pretending, Daniel could be on loan to a different SG
team every week...
> After
> Ivanova left B5 just didn't have that special something for me - I was an
> Ivanova/Marcus shipper so when *that* happened... <sob!>
I couldn't stand Marcus, but Ivanova was my favourite character (together
with Londo) and I really missed her. :-(( But I still watched...I couldn't
not to.
Ankh
> In article <a4ojpk$hvb$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, Ankh
> <ma...@ankh.freeserve.co.uk> writes
> >
> >You are saying his ego got too big. You are saying he demanded more of
the
> >spotlight and by saying there are others in the cast are suggesting he
was
> >demanding more than his fair share.
>
> Forgive me for butting in here, but if Michael Shanks is, as suggested,
> hell-bent on getting *more* than his fair share of the limelight, then how
> come he requested that he not receive a credit for the voice of Thor? Not
> the action of a prima donna, one would have thought.
I don't know where this prima donna crap is coming from. It's certainly not
coming from the set.
> The success of the programme turned on both the originality (and humour)
> of the scripts and the chemistry between the diverse characters. It had a
> synergistic dynamic - that is to say:
>
> 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = an awful lot more than 4.
>
> Where there is a building predominance of terrestrial military themes, a
> geek with doctorates in archaeology and linguistics is clearly surplus to
> requirements.
>
> This leads to 1 + 1 + 1 + ..........(1), at which point, the dynamic
> crumbles, as I suspect Mr. Shanks realized. Either they are a team of 4,
> or a team of 3 + a hanger-on. Apparently, Shanks' didn't relish just
> tagging along for the ride, and I for one don't blame him.
Not when he's faced with scripts like Proving Ground. I did what you did
with DM to some other episodes that had transcripts over at SG1 Fans.
Grabbed a few at random and did a line check (I guess an actor would do the
same, highlighting the dialogue they have to learn that week). CJ is getting
less than the guest stars. Here's the results:
Rite of Passage:
Janet 155
Sam 105
Cassandra 97
Jack 64
Daniel 45
Hammond 30
Teal'c 23
Nurrti 18
Proving Ground:
Jack 184
Elliot 161
Sam 60
Haley 45
Satterfield 37
Hammond 37
Grogan 32
Kerrigan 14
Daniel 14
Teal'c 9
The Tomb:
Jack 163
Daniel 96
Sam 87
Russian Colonel 65
Hammond 34
Russian Major/Marduk 32
Teal'c 24
Fail Safe:
Sam 163
Jack 131
Daniel 59
Teal'c 37
Summit:
Jacob 75
Daniel 58
Jack 56
Sam 49
Zipacna 29
Yu 26
Osiris 21
Elliot 20
Teal'c 13
Last Stand
Daniel 95
Jacob 72
Elliot 59
Sam 57
Osiris 43
Jack 39
Slave 17
Teal'c 17
Red Sky
Jack 216
Sam 98
Daniel 87
Elrad 70
Teal'c 8
Ankh
>
> oh don't get me going on Marcus <cue hysterical sobbing and rending of
> garments> he was a wonderful character....
<wail!>
I was a bit of a Garibaldi fan (I
> know I know, and it's absolutely clear from this that I make clear
> distinctions between the characters and the actors -- right? <s>)
I liked Garibaldi. :-) I thought his friendship with Ivanova was lovely.
When he was doing the funny lines his delivery reminded me of Bruce Willis
in Moonlighting. Actually, I can't think of a single duff character. The
Franklin addiction storyline didn't grab me the first time I watched. I need
to watch it all again from the beginning. Is it on DVD yet?
and loved
> the "going dark side under that nice Mr Chekov's influence" sub plot.
> Infact what I loved most about B5 were the sub plots that just kept
weaving
> in and out and popping up. And then, of coruse there was Londo and
> G'Kar..... <sigh> so many great characters to care about for me...
What was it? Ten regular characters if you include semi-regulars like Marcus
<sob!>? I was talking to Kris about this a few hours ago and we agreed that
the way JMS developed all of the characters was amazing. By the end of the
show not one character was unchanged and the changes were logical and
smooth. The man is a marvel.
Ankh
Ankh
"Eva" <ev...@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pIWb8.97894$H37.12...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> "Ankh" <ma...@ankh.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:a4pc40$689$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> <snip>
>
> > I'm glad you'll be tuning in. You can give me spoilers and let me know
> when
> > CJ's and AT's episodes are coming up. :-) I will make a point of
> watching -
> > I'll just pretend Daniel's off with SG9 or something, LOL. I do hope
they
> > let AT direct like she's asked. This is the last season and she should
> have
> > the opportunity, dammit. I have to say, I do feel a bit 'unfaithful' not
> > watching ....
>
> <clutches at straws> Is that a ray of hope I've spotted? Is that a sign
> that there might be a chance to talk you into watching S6, if one puts a
lot
> of effort into it? :-)
LOL! Eva you are a darling. :-) xx I would watch episodes penned by CJ and
AT, yes. It will be interesting to see what they come up with. I'm still
hoping the archaeological wonder will be appearing.
>
> > ... but it's a case of watching and being miserable every week.
>
> You could do a lot of pretending, Daniel could be on loan to a different
SG
> team every week...
<snort>
> > After
> > Ivanova left B5 just didn't have that special something for me - I was
an
> > Ivanova/Marcus shipper so when *that* happened... <sob!>
>
> I couldn't stand Marcus,
Blasphemy!
but Ivanova was my favourite character (together
> with Londo) and I really missed her. :-(( But I still watched...I
couldn't
> not to.
She had some terrific lines. :-) One of my favourite female characters
ever - probably because one got the impression she was written not as a
woman, just as a person. Never really thought about who my favourite is but,
thinking about it, yes I'd say Ivanova takes the gold. Strong, vulnerable
and a wicked sense of humour.
Ankh
Sue Mitchell
>> The success of the programme turned on both the originality (and humour)
>> of the scripts and the chemistry between the diverse characters. It had a
>> synergistic dynamic - that is to say:
>> 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = an awful lot more than 4.
>> Where there is a building predominance of terrestrial military themes, a
>> geek with doctorates in archaeology and linguistics is clearly surplus to
>> requirements.
>> This leads to 1 + 1 + 1 + ..........(1), at which point, the dynamic
>> crumbles, as I suspect Mr. Shanks realized. Either they are a team of 4,
>> or a team of 3 + a hanger-on. Apparently, Shanks' didn't relish just
>> tagging along for the ride, and I for one don't blame him.
>
>Not when he's faced with scripts like Proving Ground. I did what you did
>with DM to some other episodes that had transcripts over at SG1 Fans.
>Grabbed a few at random and did a line check (I guess an actor would do the
>same, highlighting the dialogue they have to learn that week). CJ is getting
>less than the guest stars. Here's the results:
required for a lot of the action sequences and the few lines he does get
are usually corkers :)
Even so, I do think he gets a very raw deal >:-(
Perhaps, if he were as financially as secure as M.S., he might not have
signed up for series 6 either...
Best wishes,
Sue
--
s...@imps.demon.co.uk
"Basic survival training, we know what we have, what do we need?"
"We have the Stargate, we need the Dial Home Device."
"Thank you Teal'c."
diane
> I couldn't stand Marcus
!?!?!?!?
<diane falls to floor and needs first aid team>
couldn't stand *Marcus* but but but but but he was so.... so.... quirky and
smart and funny and honourable and sweet... I loved the eps when he and
Steven went to Mars and had to pretend to be a couple<g> "I spy with my
little eye...."
oh I loved that show .....
diane (one annoying boring term paper finished.... yay!!!!!!)
diane
look at Buffy too.... that's what happens when it's one person's vision I
think, the character of the show is much like that of a multimedia novel as
the characterisations remain true and plausible... I don't think I ever
thought "nah, X could never do that / say that" or if they did act "out of
character" you smelled a fishy smell and knew Bester / the shadows had been
at work<g>. Shows which have different writers do suffer from the
"different voice" syndrome IMO.
diane
diane
>
> She had some terrific lines. :-) One of my favourite female characters
> ever - probably because one got the impression she was written not as a
> woman, just as a person. Never really thought about who my favourite is
but,
> thinking about it, yes I'd say Ivanova takes the gold. Strong, vulnerable
> and a wicked sense of humour.
as in "worse case of testosterone poisoning I've ever seen" <g>
I also really liked Zack Alan, the security guy..... one of my faves of his
was
"talk about delusions of adequacy!"
diane:-)
Louis M. Brown
<ev...@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>"Steve Christianson" <stevechr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:3C6EF7...@yahoo.com...
>> X-No-Archive: yes
>>
>>
>> >Jette wrote:
>> Eva wrote:
>> >
>> > > You sound like a woman who didn't get a card from the
>> > > person you *really* wanted a card from ;-)
>> >
>> > I'm sure Steve sent it and it just got delayed....
>>
>>
>> Er, of course! <g>
>
>Steve, are you really RDA in disguise??
>
>Eva
He wishes.
-LMB
"Erotic is when you use a feather - Exotic is when you use the whole chicken! " - Unknown
"He who lives by the sword gets shot by those who don't. "
"Cat: 1. a lapwarmer with a built-in buzzer. 2. a four footed allergen.
3. a small, four-legged, fur-bearing extortionist. 4. a small, furry lap fungus. 5. a treat-seeking missile. 6. a wildlife control expert. 7. one who sleeps in old, empty pizza boxes. 8. a hair relocation expert. 9. an unprogrammable animal. "
Bizarro7
skills...like writing episodes, instead of wasting it here, arguing with fans?
Mike Burke
> "Mike Burke" <mike...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3C6F77B1...@mindspring.com...
> > Elaine Palmer wrote:
> >
> > > Mike Burke wrote:
> >
> > > > I take it that this is soccer that you are referring to here.
>
> > >
> > > We call it FOOTBALL dammit! ;-)
>
> > And what we call Football is something that makes a large
> percentage
> > of the male population in the U.S. go stark raving bonkers every
> Sunday
> > for a few months out of each year. Not me, of course. I only watch
> the
> > Superbowl, and I watch that for the commercials. <g>
>
> Only on Sundays? WE have to suffer football on Saturdays,
> Sundays and mid-week as well, from August to - well, I think
> the season ends in the spring, but there are always matches
> being shown during the summer from the Antipodes and
> South America.
Gee. A sixteen week season doesn't sound all that bad by comparison.
<g> And I forgot that there are also the Monday night games. And I was
only talking about the professional league games. The collegiate games
are usually on Saturdays.
>
>
> --
> Jette (lives near a football ground)
> (aka Vinyaduriel)
The parking and pedestrian traffic must be dreadful on game days.
Mike
Mike Burke
Why did the want-to-be King build his castle so big in Shrek? <g> It
makes them look big and . . .
I try not to think about it too much. The only sport that I like to
watch is yacht racing. I'd be lost trying to fill a position on one of
those boats, but I love watching those boats in action.
Mike
Simon Pleasants
<diane.b...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>look at Buffy too.... that's what happens when it's one person's vision I
>think, the character of the show is much like that of a multimedia novel as
>the characterisations remain true and plausible... I don't think I ever
>thought "nah, X could never do that / say that" or if they did act "out of
>character" you smelled a fishy smell and knew Bester / the shadows had been
>at work<g>. Shows which have different writers do suffer from the
>"different voice" syndrome IMO.
I agree. I think it proves difficult to keep the continuity flowing
as well. Star Trek TNG had major continuity issues, but a loyal fan
base was always quick to point them out and I think DS9 was much
better (although we're not going mention Voyager). Stargate is better
still.
Babylon 5 had a number of benefits in this respect. Firstly, it had a
single writer and secondly he knew in advance what it was he wanted to
create. So before even the first episode was shot he knew how the
last episode of the last season was meant to end. He already had a
pretty good idea of how his concept of the universe was going to turn
out in the long wrong - all things which gave the show a distinct
advantage in terms of continuity, although there were still plot
devices which he forgot to go back and tie up. I thought B5 was head
and shoulders above all other sci fi until I saw Stargate.
Speaking of lost plot devices, Ch4 showed Crystal Skull yesterday.
They never introduced the aliens properly but they did have Daniel's
grandad go and spend time as a liaison. That was two years ago. I
wonder if they're ever going to go back to him? Be a bit of a sod if
they don't go back as he has no way of opening the iris!
Simon
Sue Mitchell
<biza...@aol.com> writes
>Don't some professionals have better things to do with their valuable time and
>skills...like writing episodes, instead of wasting it here, arguing with fans?
Actually, I think it's called 'damage limitation'. ;)
Best wishes,
Sue
--
s...@imps.demon.co.uk
Teal'c:[Watching Carter hitchhike] "This method appears to be ineffective."
[He walks on to the road]
Jack: "Teal'c? Teal'c!" [Teal'c stands in front of a bus and it stops]
"What were you thinking?!"
Teal'c:"That is effective, O'Neill."
Sue Mitchell
<phy...@rocketmail.com> writes
>"Cat: 1. a lapwarmer with a built-in buzzer. 2. a four footed allergen.
>3. a small, four-legged, fur-bearing extortionist. 4. a small, furry lap fungus.
>5. a treat-seeking missile. 6. a wildlife control expert. 7. one who sleeps in
>old, empty pizza boxes. 8. a hair relocation expert. 9. an unprogrammable
>animal. "
Best wishes,
Sue
--
s...@imps.demon.co.uk
"I would gladly stay...if only to spend more time with a certain inhabitant
of this planet...I speak of course of Schroedinger."
Tom
support the direction of the recent stargate series, why not any of the
other writers, could it be because they don't feel the same way, and they
feel that the show has been going downhill the last few seasons?
"J_Mallozzi" <JMallo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:516b2a2b.02021...@posting.google.com...
> Although I make it a point to avoid reading fan fiction, I decided to
> make an exception for the recent Salon.com article, "Fan Rebellion
> Threatens 'Stargate'". To my surprise, it proved to be an
> occasionally amusing and overall very entertaining read, a true gem of
> fantasy and wishful thinking. Given the fact that the "journalist"
> who wrote the piece culled her facts from the handful of "negative
> rant sites" that have popped up of late, I suppose it was too much to
> expect at least the semblance of impartiality. In all fairness,
> however, it is possible she did try to contact someone involved in the
> production to offer a balanced view but was unable to get through (If
> I recall correctly, we were on the phone between 11:30 and 11:35 last
> Friday ordering lunch from the nearby Swiss Chalet). More a rambling
> editorial than than anything else, it does neatly encapsulate many of
> the half-truths and fabrications that have been making the rounds.
> And so, using the Salon.com diatribe as my launch point, I'd like to
> address some of these so-called "facts".
>
> To begin with, ratings haven't plunged. If they had, we wouldn't be
> around for a sixth season. In fact, last time I checked, our
> syndication numbers had us finishing first three weeks running.
>
> Secondly, in spite of assertions to the contrary, the show did not
> suddenly abandon its tried and true formula in favor of conspiracy
> storylines. The fact is, the NID have been part of this show since
> first season. In season three, we had one episode (Shades of Grey)
> dedicated to the so-called "NID conspiracy angle". In season four, we
> had one episode (Chain Reaction) dedicated to the storyline. In
> season five, the NID angle was a B plot in Fifth Man and a minor
> development in Desperate Measures (the second to last scene) and 48
> Hours (the goa'uld happened to be with the NID). Admittedly, we
> aren't meeting as many new off-world civilizations as we did in the
> first two seasons, but this is due to the evolution of the show's
> ongoing story-arcs rather than any "creative re-tooling". Episodes
> dedicated to revisiting old friends (the Asgard, the Tollan, the
> Tok'ra, etc.) and storylines (the struggle for power amongst the
> System Lords, the rise of Anubis, etc.) necessarily result in fewer
> episodes focusing on off-world exploration. Nonetheless, we strive to
> include a fair mix of off-world and Earth-based episodes in every
> season.
>
> Thirdly, season five did not "have more Earth-based stories". Season
> five contained 9 Earth-based stories, the same number as seasons two
> and four, and one more than season three. The fact that a number of
> these episodes happened to fall together may have led many to
> incorrectly assume a preponderance of these storylines.
>
> Fourthly, contrary to the opinion of some, the character of Daniel
> Jackson was very present in season five. He was spotlighted in such
> episodes as Beast of Burden, Summit, Last Stand, and Menace, and was
> an active and driving force in many others (Enemies, 48 Hours, Red
> Sky, and The Tomb to name a few). True, I've only cited 8 episodes
> out of the 20 episodes prior to his departure, but in all fairness the
> team is made up of three other members.
>
> Fifthly, while some lament the change in the Daniel Jackson character
> over the course of the five seasons, his progression from the
> animated, wide-eyed innocent of Torment of Tantalus to the cool,
> willing assassin of Summit/Last Stand, the fact is that characters do
> evolve over time. Given everything Daniel has gone through in his
> five years with SG-1, it would be unrealistic for him to remain
> unchanged. Michael Shanks himself pushed for this development as he
> clearly saw the danger in keeping Daniel a static character.
>
> Finally, I'd like to end with a quick thank-you to all of the Stargate
> SG-1 fans out there who take the time to posts or, at the very least,
> take the time to read the posts. I can honestly say that the
> overwhelming majority of the fans I have dealt with online have been
> intelligent, polite, and well-spoken. When you've liked something,
> you've let me know. And when you haven't liked something, you've darn
> well let me know as well. But throughout, you've been respectful of
> us and the show as a whole - and for that I also thank you.
>
> As we head into the show's sixth year of production and make the big
> move to SciFi, you can look forward to a kick-butt sixth season.
> Questions will be answered, secrets revealed, old friends revisited,
> and a few surprises sprung. Better invest in a crash helmet for at
> least the first three episodes. We're going to hit the ground
> running. Hard!
>
> Joseph Mallozzi