Slowtrain Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 I think it was more for the benefit of Chloe's(his daughter who looks like Summer Glau) character. Having him die on-screen and violently has more of an effect than just saying "her father died recently". True. We'll see how it plays out. I wouldn't be surprised to see him return as some alien-reanimated being of some sort. Notice how I can belittle your beliefs without calling you names. It's a useful skill to have particularly where you aren't allowed to call people names. It's a mistake to get too drawn in/worked up. I mean it's not life or death, it's just two guys posting their thoughts on a message board. If it were personal or face to face all the usual restraints would be in place, and we would never have reached this place in the first place. Try to remember that.
Purkake Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 Well, his body is going to stay in the shuttle for the foreseeable future, so everything is possible.
LostStraw Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 In the beginning of the episode was the nerd character playing the upcoming Stargate MMO? I know they called the game by a different name but it would have been awfully convenient to slip it in Anyway, I liked chubby Jack O'Neill.
Humodour Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 (edited) Boring pilot episode. It had none of the adventure, excitement, or passion that made SG1 so charming. I also disagree with whichever shallow person above was claiming SG1's special effects were lame, not only because I don't think special effects are what make a show worth watching, but because SG1 did just fine in that department. Also, did anyone else notice in the opening credits, Richard Dean Anderson was a guest star, but Amanda Taping and Michael Shanks were credited as permanent actors? Edited October 5, 2009 by Krezack
Gorgon Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 That would be me, the shallow person that is. I guess I have a high standard for the effects needed to pull SF off at all. I have no patience for klingons. Anyway isn't it time Macgyver was put out to pasture. Na na na na na na ... greg358 from Darksouls 3 PVP is a CHEATER. That is all.
Purkake Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 (edited) The space battle effects were kind of weak from time to time. All the explosions and aliens and holographic stuff was top notch. And who doesn't like the awesome gate flush effect that they actually did with a jet engine and a water tank. Edited October 5, 2009 by Purkake
Moose Posted October 7, 2009 Posted October 7, 2009 Looks like quite a cliche plot, but you can never tell from pilots how a series will go. There are none that are right, only strong of opinion. There are none that are wrong, only ignorant of facts
Humodour Posted October 7, 2009 Posted October 7, 2009 I had a thought... the ship found a planet for them and opened a wormhole because it knew they needed help. It could be a non-sentient autopilot... but what if the ship is run by an AI? The Ancients were certainly smart enough to build one. I imagine that's just me being hopeful, though. The series is probably far too boring for that.
Humodour Posted October 7, 2009 Posted October 7, 2009 (edited) Having seen the first 2 episodes, and reading the wikipedia page for this show, I don't think it's going to appeal to me all that much. And the intended focus on drama makes me highly doubt they'll have an intelligent ship. Edit: but I would watch it if they did! Edited October 7, 2009 by Krezack
Moose Posted October 7, 2009 Posted October 7, 2009 The intelligent ship idea used in a few series, mostly Farscape, doesn't necessarily warrant the absence of any drama. Besides, drama is all right, provided it's not down to the level of soap opera like desperate house wives/ugly betty/sex in the city etc etc. There are none that are right, only strong of opinion. There are none that are wrong, only ignorant of facts
Purkake Posted October 7, 2009 Posted October 7, 2009 For now I'd go with well-programmed ship instead of crazy AI-run ship.
Killian Kalthorne Posted October 7, 2009 Posted October 7, 2009 Watch the pilot twice now. I will give it a few more episodes before making final judgment. "Your Job is not to die for your country, but set a man on fire, and take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe."
Slowtrain Posted October 7, 2009 Posted October 7, 2009 What is wrong with drama? Isn't drama the core of any watchable and worthwhile show or movie? Notice how I can belittle your beliefs without calling you names. It's a useful skill to have particularly where you aren't allowed to call people names. It's a mistake to get too drawn in/worked up. I mean it's not life or death, it's just two guys posting their thoughts on a message board. If it were personal or face to face all the usual restraints would be in place, and we would never have reached this place in the first place. Try to remember that.
Humodour Posted October 7, 2009 Posted October 7, 2009 What is wrong with drama? Isn't drama the core of any watchable and worthwhile show or movie? In a word: no. Have you ever seen a comedy, action, romance or adventure movie? Obviously not.
Moose Posted October 7, 2009 Posted October 7, 2009 I think we've got different definitions of drama going on here. I'm using it in the broad sense, as in a work of fiction produced for TV, in contrast to say reality TV, documentaries, comedy sketches etc. Where as I think you're looking at it in the sense of emotional and personal conflict and all that boring stuff. I tend to think class that as soap opera drama. There are none that are right, only strong of opinion. There are none that are wrong, only ignorant of facts
Humodour Posted October 7, 2009 Posted October 7, 2009 Where as I think you're looking at it in the sense of emotional and personal conflict and all that boring stuff. But that is what the producers have said they are aiming for. There's a specific TV genre called drama, and that's what they want this to be. I tend to think class that as soap opera drama. Which is why I'm disappointed.
Slowtrain Posted October 7, 2009 Posted October 7, 2009 (edited) So you're just looking for somethign where people shoot a lot of guns, grunting incoherently, while stuff blows up? Cause once people start talking to each other and characters start developing and motivations appear, you've got drama. Action without drama is about as mind-numbing and drool-inducing as it gets. Have you ever seen a comedy, action, romance or adventure movie? Obviously not. ALl of those are filled with drama. The good ones anyway. You're obviously a big fan of Steven Segal DTV epics. Edited October 7, 2009 by Slowtrain Notice how I can belittle your beliefs without calling you names. It's a useful skill to have particularly where you aren't allowed to call people names. It's a mistake to get too drawn in/worked up. I mean it's not life or death, it's just two guys posting their thoughts on a message board. If it were personal or face to face all the usual restraints would be in place, and we would never have reached this place in the first place. Try to remember that.
LadyCrimson Posted October 7, 2009 Author Posted October 7, 2009 A certain level of "drama" I like in sci-fi. I don't like soap opera drama either...altho Glee is kind of an exception because it's so satirical (often meanly so) and cracks me up. One of the issues I had with Battlestar Gallactica, before too much time had passed, is that for me, it was way way over-dramatized. It became an almost lyrical space soap opera. Not my thing. “Things are as they are. Looking out into the universe at night, we make no comparisons between right and wrong stars, nor between well and badly arranged constellations.” – Alan Watts
Slowtrain Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 Well, some science fiction is referred to as Space Opera for a reason. But I never felt that BSG crossed the line into Soap Opera. Soaps are a very specific drama format with a very specific set of conventions. BSG had a tendency to downplay pew-pew laser battles, but never went down the soap opera route. The BSG miniseries, had a ton of very riveting drama between all its characters, but relatively speaking, not so much straight action. I thought that was one of the things that made it work so well. ST:TNG was also heavy on the drama and light on the pew-pew action, especially in its best 3rd, 4th, 5th season run where the series peaked. Notice how I can belittle your beliefs without calling you names. It's a useful skill to have particularly where you aren't allowed to call people names. It's a mistake to get too drawn in/worked up. I mean it's not life or death, it's just two guys posting their thoughts on a message board. If it were personal or face to face all the usual restraints would be in place, and we would never have reached this place in the first place. Try to remember that.
Humodour Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 So you're just looking for somethign where people shoot a lot of guns, grunting incoherently, while stuff blows up? Cause once people start talking to each other and characters start developing and motivations appear, you've got drama. Action without drama is about as mind-numbing and drool-inducing as it gets. Have you ever seen a comedy, action, romance or adventure movie? Obviously not. ALl of those are filled with drama. The good ones anyway. You're obviously a big fan of Steven Segal DTV epics. Read my posts properly doofus. There's a specific genre of TV called 'drama', and that's what Stargate: Universe is being billed as to the public, and being produced as in private.
Slowtrain Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Read my posts properly doofus. There's a specific genre of TV called 'drama', and that's what Stargate: Universe is being billed as to the public, and being produced as in private. And? I don't get the problem. When someone somewhere says drama you immediately categorize it as boring or something? BSG was billed as a "drama" from the very start by its creators. Drama first, sf action third, fourth or fifth. Or something like that. I'm paraphrasing. There's bad drama and good drama of course, just like in all things. At the moment,. after one two-hour episode, SG:U seems all right, drama or not. Notice how I can belittle your beliefs without calling you names. It's a useful skill to have particularly where you aren't allowed to call people names. It's a mistake to get too drawn in/worked up. I mean it's not life or death, it's just two guys posting their thoughts on a message board. If it were personal or face to face all the usual restraints would be in place, and we would never have reached this place in the first place. Try to remember that.
LadyCrimson Posted October 9, 2009 Author Posted October 9, 2009 Well, some science fiction is referred to as Space Opera for a reason. But I never felt that BSG crossed the line into Soap Opera. Soaps are a very specific drama format with a very specific set of conventions. BSG had a tendency to downplay pew-pew laser battles, but never went down the soap opera route. The BSG miniseries, had a ton of very riveting drama between all its characters, but relatively speaking, not so much straight action. I thought that was one of the things that made it work so well. ST:TNG was also heavy on the drama and light on the pew-pew action, especially in its best 3rd, 4th, 5th season run where the series peaked. I think we just have different notions of what soap opera means. I'm not talking about specific conventions in actual daytime soap operas...rather, a tone and style. The really long dramatic pauses/reaction shots with sweeping or sappy music scores as characters glare at each other for 10 seconds before walking away. Every character being constantly tormented by ultimate-agonizing inner demons that fuels every plot. It becomes tedious and eventually laughable, to me. Like Vader screaming "nooo." Such is fine/entertaining in small doses to emphasis certain scenes, but BSG felt like every scene was like that...to me anyway. Just too much. “Things are as they are. Looking out into the universe at night, we make no comparisons between right and wrong stars, nor between well and badly arranged constellations.” – Alan Watts
Killian Kalthorne Posted October 10, 2009 Posted October 10, 2009 (edited) Third episode of SG:U was not bad. I am beginning to like Eli. The Statue of Liberty comment gave me a chuckle. Edited October 10, 2009 by Killian Kalthorne "Your Job is not to die for your country, but set a man on fire, and take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe."
Slowtrain Posted October 10, 2009 Posted October 10, 2009 Yep, still pretty decemt. Some of the acting is a little...weak during the distraught emotional scenes, but not hideously so. This show has a pretty big cast. It's been a bit difficult to get a sense of each character since they have so little screen time, with eahc of them having to share it with everyone else. I like the fact that at the moment there is no real "villian". It will be interesting to see if one emerges. Notice how I can belittle your beliefs without calling you names. It's a useful skill to have particularly where you aren't allowed to call people names. It's a mistake to get too drawn in/worked up. I mean it's not life or death, it's just two guys posting their thoughts on a message board. If it were personal or face to face all the usual restraints would be in place, and we would never have reached this place in the first place. Try to remember that.
Killian Kalthorne Posted October 10, 2009 Posted October 10, 2009 The "villain" has already been shown. Haven't you been watching? "Your Job is not to die for your country, but set a man on fire, and take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe."
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now