Stargate Information Archive

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 Search     Help     Rules     Members V     Calendar V     Live Chat V  
5 Pages V « < 3 4 5  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> 403 - Reunion
Rating  4
lancelot2
post Oct 25th 2007, 7:53 AM
Post #97


Second Lieutenant
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 574
Joined: October 2nd 2007
Member No.: 15,443
Gender: Male



QUOTE(Rogue Ashrak @ Oct 24th 2007, 9:49 PM) *

What a lovely attitude to have. "I'll do what I want when I want, and I don't care how many people I piss off in the process". And people wonder why the world is turning to sh*t.

no the world is going to sh*t because people don't stand up and say that's wrong or do anything about it when the politicians do something wrong(or other people).
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JC1
post Oct 25th 2007, 9:16 AM
Post #98


Captain
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 950
Joined: January 13th 2003
From: Dublin, Ireland
Member No.: 342
Gender: Male



QUOTE(Invisible Painting @ Oct 25th 2007, 3:09 AM) *

Tbh (to be honest, for your non knowing types) we had an episode that dealt with the Ronan character. IN early SG-1 we had episodes that dealt with each of the main characters. It didn't mean they were developed. Just that they were there, they meant something. and proved why they are part of the team.

I felt the Early episodes of SG1 had lot more character development than any of the Atlantis episodes. If you take Teal'c, we had episodes that obviosly dealt with his Jaffa backround, but we also had episodes dealing with his family, what he left behind, the crimes he commited in the service of the Goa'uld, all of which allowed us to see different sides of the character. With Ronon, all we seem to get is, he hates the Wraith and likes to fight.

Even Sheppards character seems to lack development. Yeah we know he's a bit of a smartass, he's a great pilot, he has a tendancy to disobey orders and he doesn't like leaving people behind. But we knew all that after the first episode and we're now in season 4. If you compare Sheppard to Mitchell, Mitchell has had far more devolpment, and he's only been around for 2 seasons. As a character, we've seen more sides to Mitchell and know more about him.

Don't get me wrong, I like Atlantis and as I said, this episode was enjoyable. I just think SG1 did a better job with character development than Atlantis does.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Invisible Painting
post Oct 25th 2007, 10:52 AM
Post #99


Lieutenant General
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 6,340
Joined: November 29th 2003
From: Aberystwyth, Wales. (And sometimes London)
Member No.: 2,819
Gender: Male



QUOTE(JC1 @ Oct 25th 2007, 3:16 PM) *

I felt the Early episodes of SG1 had lot more character development than any of the Atlantis episodes. If you take Teal'c, we had episodes that obviosly dealt with his Jaffa backround, but we also had episodes dealing with his family, what he left behind, the crimes he commited in the service of the Goa'uld, all of which allowed us to see different sides of the character. With Ronon, all we seem to get is, he hates the Wraith and likes to fight.

Even Sheppards character seems to lack development. Yeah we know he's a bit of a smartass, he's a great pilot, he has a tendancy to disobey orders and he doesn't like leaving people behind. But we knew all that after the first episode and we're now in season 4. If you compare Sheppard to Mitchell, Mitchell has had far more devolpment, and he's only been around for 2 seasons. As a character, we've seen more sides to Mitchell and know more about him.

Don't get me wrong, I like Atlantis and as I said, this episode was enjoyable. I just think SG1 did a better job with character development than Atlantis does.

Agreed, but the producers have expressed that as well. They know it was lacking esp in the first two seasons, that's why episodes like Sateda, Mckay and Mrs Miller et exitsted to try and change that. And they did good there but maybe needed to do it more or at least do it with Ronan and Teyla as well. But from what I understand they will more this year...
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rogue Ashrak
post Oct 25th 2007, 3:44 PM
Post #100


Hero of Time
Group Icon

Group: Donating Members
Posts: 1,134
Joined: January 7th 2005
From: Sydney, Australia
Member No.: 7,502
Gender: Male



QUOTE(lancelot2 @ Oct 25th 2007, 10:53 PM) *

no the world is going to sh*t because people don't stand up and say that's wrong or do anything about it when the politicians do something wrong(or other people).


People here have stood up and said your selfish views on smoking are wrong. You've basically ignored them all with your trite "have to agree to disagree" rubbish.

The people aren't to blame for the actions of the individual. The individual is to blame for their own actions. It's called responsibility.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lancelot2
post Oct 26th 2007, 9:22 AM
Post #101


Second Lieutenant
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 574
Joined: October 2nd 2007
Member No.: 15,443
Gender: Male



QUOTE(Rogue Ashrak @ Oct 25th 2007, 9:44 PM) *

People here have stood up and said your selfish views on smoking are wrong. You've basically ignored them all with your trite "have to agree to disagree" rubbish.

The people aren't to blame for the actions of the individual. The individual is to blame for their own actions. It's called responsibility.

no I expressed my opinion there is nothing wrong in having an opinion, I don't try and force people to smoke in a pub and I don't expect people who don't want to smoke in a pub to force me not to.
I expect to have the choice but when there is a ban freedom to choose goes out the window what I say is
this fine make it up to the publicans (the person who owns and runs the bar)as they're the ones who's buisness's it effects. also in regards to your other statement I never said that people aren't responsible for their own actions but what i am saying is they are also responsible when they do nothing when governments commit all sorts of shady stuff. like passing unjust laws.

This post has been edited by lancelot2: Oct 26th 2007, 9:22 AM
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JTMAG1
post Oct 26th 2007, 9:40 AM
Post #102


The Last Shogun
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3,888
Joined: August 28th 2004
From: Long Beach, CA USA
Member No.: 6,251
Gender: Male



Well, when you smoke next to someone, you are forcing them to smoke. It's call second hand smoke and that's the reason for the Effing law.

If we do see Mark Dascascos again, I hope he doesn't turn and try to help us. That would be too predictable.

This post has been edited by JTMAG1: Oct 26th 2007, 9:41 AM
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Invisible Painting
post Oct 26th 2007, 10:23 AM
Post #103


Lieutenant General
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 6,340
Joined: November 29th 2003
From: Aberystwyth, Wales. (And sometimes London)
Member No.: 2,819
Gender: Male



QUOTE(JTMAG1 @ Oct 26th 2007, 3:40 PM) *

Well, when you smoke next to someone, you are forcing them to smoke. It's call second hand smoke and that's the reason for the Effing law.

If we do see Mark Dascascos again, I hope he doesn't turn and try to help us. That would be too predictable.

I doubt he'd do that... I wouldn't rule out him returning (Mallozzi said the reason they changed it so he survives was to give them that option to bring him back) but him becoming good I don't see how that would work really. Plus where would that plot go, they'd still have to ruffle up some situation for that to be applicable and then it would just end up being like this episode. So I doubt they will, if anything just make him an off world bad guy kinda like Kolya, although a little different.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rogue Ashrak
post Oct 26th 2007, 10:27 AM
Post #104


Hero of Time
Group Icon

Group: Donating Members
Posts: 1,134
Joined: January 7th 2005
From: Sydney, Australia
Member No.: 7,502
Gender: Male



QUOTE(lancelot2 @ Oct 27th 2007, 12:22 AM) *

no I expressed my opinion there is nothing wrong in having an opinion, I don't try and force people to smoke in a pub and I don't expect people who don't want to smoke in a pub to force me not to.
I expect to have the choice but when there is a ban freedom to choose goes out the window what I say is
this fine make it up to the publicans (the person who owns and runs the bar)as they're the ones who's buisness's it effects.


Food for thought here: There are far more non-smokers than there are smokers. Which means:

Point one: Your right to freedom ends when it interferes with the freedom of the majority. In this case a few smokers cannot be allowed to inflict the results of their habit on other individuals.

Point two: Seeing non-smokers ARE the majority, even if we did use your "publicans choose" philosophy, which way do you think they'd swing? Seems to me the smart buisiness decision would be to support group that would bring in the most money ie. the one with the most people. So bye-bye smokers.

QUOTE
also in regards to your other statement I never said that people aren't responsible for their own actions but what i am saying is they are also responsible when they do nothing when governments commit all sorts of shady stuff. like passing unjust laws.


Enlighten me then. What should the people be doing in such a situation? Rioting in the streets? Formenting a revolution? Assassinating the President? All highly productive methods, I'm sure.

If a government passes laws that the people don't like, then the people vote someone else in who's going to get rid of the laws. That's how a democracy works.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
KillerMarv
post Oct 26th 2007, 1:24 PM
Post #105


Major General
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3,441
Joined: April 7th 2006
From: Bucharest, Romania
Member No.: 11,622
Gender: Male



This one was quite nice. First of all, McKay thinking he was the new leader of Atlantis was predictable, but it was still fun to see it in action, especially because McKay has this thing with his personality that makes one cliche not seem like one. Secondly, Carter's making decisions is awesome: enough seriosity to make the people obbey the orders, and enough "kindness" to not make anyone upset through her decision, always giving arguments.

It was good they didn't forget about Weir, but IMO, they used too less of the subject. 1.gif

Looks like a great season so far. biggrin.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lancelot2
post Oct 27th 2007, 7:53 AM
Post #106


Second Lieutenant
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 574
Joined: October 2nd 2007
Member No.: 15,443
Gender: Male



QUOTE(JTMAG1 @ Oct 26th 2007, 3:40 PM) *

Well, when you smoke next to someone, you are forcing them to smoke. It's call second hand smoke and that's the reason for the Effing law.

if the pub they choose to go into allows smoking and they know that then It's their own fault
QUOTE(Rogue Ashrak @ Oct 26th 2007, 4:27 PM) *

Food for thought here: There are far more non-smokers than there are smokers. Which means:

Point one: Your right to freedom ends when it interferes with the freedom of the majority. In this case a few smokers cannot be allowed to inflict the results of their habit on other individuals.

Point two: Seeing non-smokers ARE the majority, even if we did use your "publicans choose" philosophy, which way do you think they'd swing? Seems to me the smart buisiness decision would be to support group that would bring in the most money ie. the one with the most people. So bye-bye smokers.
Enlighten me then. What should the people be doing in such a situation? Rioting in the streets? Formenting a revolution? Assassinating the President? All highly productive methods, I'm sure.

If a government passes laws that the people don't like, then the people vote someone else in who's going to get rid of the laws. That's how a democracy works.

in britain there are more smokers than non smokers and you have a very rose tinted view of a democracy
you actually think that just voting works (oh I wish) over here a man was elected because he promised not
to allow a rubbish incinerator (he was a member of the green party) less than 1 month after he's been elected he's given the green light for 2 too be built so where is the democracy in that?
also sometimes rioting and revolution are the only option sometimes you get more done that way!
and at least with the publicans choose philosophy there would be the choice thats my point they take our freedom to choose and that is one of the mian things in a democracy. people have become like sheep they believe all the hear and see on a tv screen
and what they don't understand is a lot of it is just propaganda designed to stop us all from doing something about it
(which about 200 years ago people would have done).don't you realise that a government gives the licence to a broadcast company
and if the broadcast company doesn't toe the line (no more licence).

This post has been edited by lancelot2: Oct 27th 2007, 8:09 AM
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Revan
post Oct 27th 2007, 11:12 AM
Post #107


Dark Lord of The Sith
Group Icon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 4,455
Joined: February 1st 2006
From: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., Terra Firma
Member No.: 11,056
Gender: Male



If you want to continue discussing smoking, you can do it in this thread, which was actually created to discuss a smoking ban in my state, but I don't care.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
38_mins moo
post Oct 28th 2007, 12:33 PM
Post #108


Senior Airman
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 110
Joined: February 6th 2006
From: Scotland
Member No.: 11,114
Gender: Male



Fairly good episode.
One point, the camera angles used at the beginning of the episode did nothing for rachel lutrell in her current situation!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Revan
post Oct 28th 2007, 12:59 PM
Post #109


Dark Lord of The Sith
Group Icon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 4,455
Joined: February 1st 2006
From: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., Terra Firma
Member No.: 11,056
Gender: Male



QUOTE(38_mins moo @ Oct 28th 2007, 1:33 PM) *

Fairly good episode.
One point, the camera angles used at the beginning of the episode did nothing for rachel lutrell in her current situation!

Rachel Luttre;l spoiler:
» Click to Show Spoiler «
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JTMAG1
post Oct 28th 2007, 1:11 PM
Post #110


The Last Shogun
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3,888
Joined: August 28th 2004
From: Long Beach, CA USA
Member No.: 6,251
Gender: Male



wow, shes pregnant?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Invisible Painting
post Oct 28th 2007, 1:17 PM
Post #111


Lieutenant General
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 6,340
Joined: November 29th 2003
From: Aberystwyth, Wales. (And sometimes London)
Member No.: 2,819
Gender: Male



QUOTE(Revan @ Oct 28th 2007, 5:59 PM) *

How pregnant was she when this was filmed?

This episode was actually filmed 9th in the series, to accomodate both Carter on set (as the films were being made) and so they could finish the sets. So they had to do a bigger job covering Teylas chest in this episode then in the other ones we've seen, which may be why certain camera cangles were chosen here over others.

This post has been edited by Invisible Painting: Oct 28th 2007, 1:18 PM
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Revan
post Oct 28th 2007, 1:20 PM
Post #112


Dark Lord of The Sith
Group Icon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 4,455
Joined: February 1st 2006
From: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., Terra Firma
Member No.: 11,056
Gender: Male



QUOTE(JTMAG1 @ Oct 28th 2007, 2:11 PM) *

wow, shes pregnant?

Well...

overarching S4(?) spoiler:
» Click to Show Spoiler «


QUOTE(Invisible Painting @ Oct 28th 2007, 2:17 PM) *

This episode was actually filmed 9th in the series, to accomodate both Carter on set (as the films were being made) and so they could finish the sets. So they had to do a bigger job covering Teylas chest in this episode then in the other ones we've seen, which may be why certain camera cangles were chosen here over others.

OH okay I understand now.... her pregnancy was becoming more apparent as hormones made the necessary alterations... laugh.gif It looks like the wardrobe department has stopped dressing Rachel in bare-middrift shirts... biggrin.gif


That could also explain the odd marriage jokes...
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

5 Pages V « < 3 4 5
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



- Lo-Fi Version Time is now: April 17th 2014 - 10:57 AM
Stargate Information Archive

Stargate SG-1 © 1997-2013 MGM Worldwide Television, Inc.
Stargate Atlantis © 2004-2013 MGM Worldwide Television, Inc.
Text and images from this site may not be used without permission.

All comments on these pages belong to the author of those comments, and
do not necessarily reflect the views of the Stargate Information Archive.