quote:Originally posted by rivka: That's a different Lehrer song altogether. Bits of two competing means none wins.
I've always found National Brotherhood Week to be more catchy than Who's Next. The lyrics are genius too.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stargate SG-1 would be awesome with updated effects, but I don't think I'd want a reboot. If they tried to do one, I'd imagine it would end up being similar to Stargate Universe, and that show was nothing like the original.
This discussion has actually gotten me to start watched the original show again on Netflix. Man, does it look crappy. Still fun, but it doesn't hold up very well at all.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Universe was a failure, I think, because it tried to follow the trend of making sci-fi edgy. That was never what drew people to SG1, which was far more about the funny and the great chemistry between Daniel and Jack. It's a formula they barely did justice to in Atlantis, and only after juggling the cast around for a few years before getting it right. They didn't even try to do it in Universe.
It's ironic too, because the original movie was very serious, and they made a pretty goofy remake but with a lot of heart. Now they want to go back to the serious and they're shocked that SG1's fanbase isn't making the switch. I wouldn't mind seeing a more serious version that still retains the camaraderie of the original, and stops trying to make it all backstabby with lots of childish drama. But it will be hard to retain the magic of the original unless they find a couple of fantastic lead actors who have great chemistry. I think that was the heart of the whole show.
I think it holds up well, crappy graphics and all...though I admit going back through, I skip over a lot more episodes than I used to. However, I do the same thing with TNG.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: That was never what drew people to SG1, which was far more about the funny and the great chemistry
You should have stopped there. It was never just -- or even mostly -- about Jack and Daniel. Heck, their real rapport didn't develop for a couple seasons.
Now, Jack and Sam, OTOH . . .
But seriously, even from pretty early on, the cast as a group had pretty decent chemistry.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a shame SGU didn't catch on; it was easily my favorite of the three. It wasn't good because it was edgy, it was good because it was the first sci-fi series I'm aware of to not portray its characters as infallible gods. An entire crew of second stringers and also-rans! I love that concept, and wish it had time to grow.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: That was never what drew people to SG1, which was far more about the funny and the great chemistry
You should have stopped there. It was never just -- or even mostly -- about Jack and Daniel. Heck, their real rapport didn't develop for a couple seasons.
Now, Jack and Sam, OTOH . . .
But seriously, even from pretty early on, the cast as a group had pretty decent chemistry.
Oh lord, a Sam and Jack shipper. I've always imagined that Mos Eisley Cantina was entirely patronized by Sam and Jack shippers. I'll admit there were a few moments where I was sucked in, but I never really got the draw to the will they/won't they. Frankly, I always found Daniel and Vala to be the more entertaining couple, and they only had that going for like two years.
It took Atlantis forever to get the chemistry right. I honestly didn't care for most of the actors. The acting to start off was incredibly stiff. And they had all these weird vocal mannerisms that kept repeating and just sounded very odd to me. David Hewlett as Rodney McKay was the only one I liked from the beginning and felt only got better. He's delightful. Sheppard was alright. I liked the interplay between the two of them, but he's one of the stiff actors I think, he was just never the anchor that RDA was. Getting rid of Ford was a great choice, as Jason Momoa was a VAST improvement, as was Jewel Staite over Paul McGillion (though I liked McGillion). I never really liked Teyla either. Or Weir all that much. She had her moments, but I also thought she was too wooden an actor. Robert Picardo and Amanda Tapping were improvements.
I will say that I thought Atlantis did a much better job of utilizing their secondary characters like Major Lorne, Colonel Caldwell, Zalenka, Grodin (who died too early), Jeannie Miller (played by Hewlett's real life sister, whose episodes were my absolute favorites on the show).
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Who's jack, and why do I have to get all improbably cozy and carnal with him
Because he's MacGuiver. Duh.
Anyway, the show kinda lost my interest after Richard Dean Anderson left. He was essentially the everyman main character of the show (sarcastic, doesn't understand the techno-babble), so watching it without him (replaced by that other guy) just wasn't the same. I really like the first five seasons, though. Classics.
Did any of you ever hear about those proposed sequels to the movie? The guy who made the original film has said that he wants to make direct sequels to the movie and that the TV shows aren't part of his continuity. Apparently in his version, the stargate only goes to the one planet, rather than all over the galaxy. Personally, while I enjoyed the movie, I prefer the show. It has much more interesting stories.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, that idea has been bouncing around for a couple of years. I always find it interesting when someone takes a one-off and makes it dramatically more popular than the original, only to have the first guy come back and try to reclaim it. Sure, he came up with the original idea, but then he dropped it, and wants to simultaneously piggyback on the fame created by others while disavowing their contribution.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Yes, that idea has been bouncing around for a couple of years. I always find it interesting when someone takes a one-off and makes it dramatically more popular than the original, only to have the first guy come back and try to reclaim it. Sure, he came up with the original idea, but then he dropped it, and wants to simultaneously piggyback on the fame created by others while disavowing their contribution.
Tsk tsk.
Yup. Also, if it only goes one place, the scope is too limited to make even another movie all that appealing, let alone anything further.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Yes, that idea has been bouncing around for a couple of years. I always find it interesting when someone takes a one-off and makes it dramatically more popular than the original, only to have the first guy come back and try to reclaim it. Sure, he came up with the original idea, but then he dropped it, and wants to simultaneously piggyback on the fame created by others while disavowing their contribution.
Tsk tsk.
Yup. Also, if it only goes one place, the scope is too limited to make even another movie all that appealing, let alone anything further.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Yes, that idea has been bouncing around for a couple of years. I always find it interesting when someone takes a one-off and makes it dramatically more popular than the original, only to have the first guy come back and try to reclaim it. Sure, he came up with the original idea, but then he dropped it, and wants to simultaneously piggyback on the fame created by others while disavowing their contribution.
Tsk tsk.
Yup. Also, if it only goes one place, the scope is too limited to make even another movie all that appealing, let alone anything further.
It doesn't even make sense. Why would they have to figure out the address or the point of origin if it was merely a door between two places? Address doesn't matter if you can only go one place. And it's also a little hard to believe that with space ships, they only found one other planet worth colonizing, and that place was a desert wasteland.
It seems pretty obvious that it must go other places. From a technical standpoint though, I never got the seventh symbol as a point of origin though. There are only so many symbols on the gate, and they've been to way, way more planets than there are symbols.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Yes, that idea has been bouncing around for a couple of years. I always find it interesting when someone takes a one-off and makes it dramatically more popular than the original, only to have the first guy come back and try to reclaim it. Sure, he came up with the original idea, but then he dropped it, and wants to simultaneously piggyback on the fame created by others while disavowing their contribution.
Tsk tsk.
Yup. Also, if it only goes one place, the scope is too limited to make even another movie all that appealing, let alone anything further.
It doesn't even make sense. Why would they have to figure out the address or the point of origin if it was merely a door between two places? Address doesn't matter if you can only go one place. And it's also a little hard to believe that with space ships, they only found one other planet worth colonizing, and that place was a desert wasteland.
I honestly never thought about that, but you're right. Seems like a pretty big plot hole.
quote:It seems pretty obvious that it must go other places. From a technical standpoint though, I never got the seventh symbol as a point of origin though. There are only so many symbols on the gate, and they've been to way, way more planets than there are symbols.
I'm not a big math person, but somebody should do the math on that, just to see.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It seems pretty obvious that it must go other places. From a technical standpoint though, I never got the seventh symbol as a point of origin though. There are only so many symbols on the gate, and they've been to way, way more planets than there are symbols.
I'm not a big math person, but somebody should do the math on that, just to see.
Forget the math. It makes no sense in the first place. It's like me addressing a letter to someone in Canada, and adding USA on the last line, after the complete Canadian address.
You need six points to define/describe a unique 3-dimensional location. The 7th makes no sense; either the point of origin should have its own 6-point identifier (which it does, when going TO there), or it shouldn't have to be specified at all.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the footnote is speculation anyway. AFAIK, in SG1 they only had the one offworld gate prop and they also usually re-used the same DHD prop from episode to episode.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I believe the point was so that the DHD's could keep track of gate activation which couldn't be done without a DHD so it was required to dial with the dialing computer.
IP: Logged |
posted
For the footnote to make sense, there would have to be millions of different glyphs. We've never seen that many.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I think the footnote is speculation anyway.
I think it's actually semi-canonic, but it doesn't matter, because it doesn't make sense!
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: AFAIK, in SG1 they only had the one offworld gate prop
Two physical props (one complete and one partial) and frequent CG ones, especially in the last few seasons.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: For the footnote to make sense, there would have to be millions of different glyphs. We've never seen that many.
And gates work when moved to a new location, but the the POO glyph doesn't stay the same.
The seventh symbol requirement makes absolutely no sense. Someone thought it was a cool/clever puzzle, and we're stuck with it, but all the after-the-fact apologetics in the world can't get around the simple fact that it does not make any sense. It never did.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
The 8th symbol doesn't work for the exact same reason. There are thousands of galaxies, and having a single glyph stand for each galaxy makes no sense, especially when they're actually seeding random galaxies with random gates. There's no way for the gates to know where one glyph goes, and apparently there aren't six glyphs to pinpoint the galaxy's point in space.
This is especially true when, as you say, gates can be moved. If there are a million glyphs for each theoretical point, then certain gates could only ever work on 36 different planets.
Oh the hell with it...::puts on first disc of season 1 dvd and hits play::
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Once you get to the end of Season 4 of Babylon 5, you're pretty much done. Just jump ahead and watch the series finale that was originally the Season 4 finale and you're good to go.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heck, these days, I don't even watch season 1 anymore. Once you watch it once, you never need to do it again. The main bulk of the story and character arcs are in 2-4.
Posts: 3658 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Still watching SG1, Lyr? I'm roughly 1/3 through S3. Just skipped Deadman's Switch (which I find mostly annoying). So now it's time for medieval English and witch burning! Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm rewatching SGU, and I'm finding it surprisingly more impressive than the first time around.
From Rush's time in the chair, reliving his wife's final days before dying of cancer or realizing that when they thought they were going to die by flying straight into a sun Grier decided to face the end by undressing and staring out the window.
It helps knowing how Eli's character changes by the end of the series.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Still watching SG1, Lyr? I'm roughly 1/3 through S3. Just skipped Deadman's Switch (which I find mostly annoying). So now it's time for medieval English and witch burning!
I'm a third of the way through S4. I just finished Window of Opportunity, which might be my all time favorite episode. It's right up there with The Fifth Race.
I'm skipping a bit here and there, but I was surprised by how much of S3 I didn't skip. There are a lot of great episodes in that season.
I suspect we aren't skipping the same episodes though. I think Deadman Switch is a great funny episode, and I skipped Demons. And Urgo is one of my favorites, but I seem to recall you having a special place of hatred for it.
As I'm watching, I don't see how they could possibly remake this and make it better, or even as good. The only thing that would likely be better is the graphics.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm a third of the way through S4. I just finished Window of Opportunity, which might be my all time favorite episode. It's right up there with The Fifth Race.
Agreed with you on both of those.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm skipping a bit here and there, but I was surprised by how much of S3 I didn't skip. There are a lot of great episodes in that season.
Yeah, S3 has a bunch of great ones.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I suspect we aren't skipping the same episodes though. I think Deadman Switch is a great funny episode, and I skipped Demons. And Urgo is one of my favorites, but I seem to recall you having a special place of hatred for it.
Yeah. No accounting for your taste.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: As I'm watching, I don't see how they could possibly remake this and make it better, or even as good. The only thing that would likely be better is the graphics.
quote:Originally posted by T:man: Are they cutting personnel from every branch?
I'm looking into joining the coast guard, and that doesn't really sound good for me.
Yes. But you'll be fine as long as you...
1) Don't get wounded or hurt in any way. This includes getting diagnosed with something.
2) Make sure you research your career field and pick one that is in high demand. A lot of jobs are getting cut because they have too many people in them. My job happens to be one of those, which means if I stay in, I'll have to pick a new field to work in.
3) Be OK with doing a lot of extra work that was previously spread out. The whole military is cutting its numbers, but the work those people are doing doesn't just go away. It has to go somewhere, and that somewhere is you.
4) Know that going in, everything your recruiter is telling you either bends the truth or is a flat-out lie. These guys are paid to get you to sign, and it is all a numbers game, just like in any sales job. Have you ever noticed that all of them are typically attractive or in shape? There's a reason for that. They have to be able to sell this thing to you, and it has to sound amazing. Don't listen to anything they say. My recruiter actually told me that my job was something completely different from what it actually ended up being (he said it was an Intel Network Security job when it was actually just Tech Support). I was a fool and took him at his word, and then I discovered (when it was too late) that everything he'd told me was a lie.
If you want to know more, I wrote a blog entry called "Six Things You Really Need To Know Before Joining the Military". None of what I've just told you is mentioned in this blog, so it shouldn't be redundant. Maybe it will shed some light on it for you. Just keep in mind that I wrote it from an Air Force enlisted perspective. It could be drastically different in the other branches.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I misread that post. I thought he was asking if they were taking Coast Guard folks into SG service. They have Marines and Air-Force. Atlantis could have used the Coast Guard.
That's what they need to make--SG42. The last SG Team. Consists of the not-brightest scientists, some Coast Guard drop outs, and a couple of nephews of Senator Brand's who are useless type nerds. They go out and have silly adventures.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking of SG-1, I'm currently in season 2, episode 10 (Bane). I've been really enjoying the show, much more than I did as a kid (although I liked it back then, too).
Being in the Air Force has allowed me to appreciate it on a different kind of level (the uniforms, the ranks, medals, terms, etc, which I'd never really understood before). I've noticed a few abnormal things about that stuff here and there, but for the most part they are pretty spot-on with the way they portray the branch. It just adds to the fun, I suppose.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Speaking of SG-1, I'm currently in season 2, episode 10 (Bane).
That would be one I skipped.
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: I've noticed a few abnormal things about that stuff here and there, but for the most part they are pretty spot-on with the way they portray the branch.
Considering they had an on-set AF adviser for all or most of the series' filming, I would hope so.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I understand so long as North Korea doesn't significantly escalate tensions beyond their current salami tactics the United States will not start World War III or military unilaterally engage North Korea.
1) The United States cannot afford it unless it is a vital interest. 2) It would harm world economy. 3) Would not possess unaninimous support.
Assuming its just another incident like the Norks bombarding an uninhabited island or randomly shooting across the DMZ, if it ain't an invasion it ain't a threat to world peace.
Afterall I would consider Iran to have significantly crossed the line in actuality that Iraq we only pretended to believed had crossed and the US isn't doing anything beyond supporting terrorist attacks on Iran.
Is Iran more likely to be the next confict? Yes, if some combination of Isreal doing an osirik style strike (not logistically probably but it might happen), Iran getting the bomb, or Iran providing a bomb to Hezbollah; blocking the straights,etc. It would take a significant escalationary type of event before a conflict would erupt.
Not to say there aren't tensions, things are pretty intense (like camping) right now with iran making noises about blocking the straights and the sanctions damaging Iran's economy and the ratcheting rhetoric etc. But rapid troop redeploymentsand increased arms shipments to Hezbollah aren't crossing the line before US military intervention becomes required.
What makes the situation much more uncertain is the power struggle in Iran right now between the different factions, the Revolutionary Guards, the Supreme leader and the office of the President; moderates vs hardliners, etc, its very chaotic from what I hear so that's why we get the inconsistent stances and messages from iran's leadership and mouthpieces that borders on shizophrenic.
Now interesting question, I actually believe this argument is bullshit but I'll bring it up anyways:
Do anyone believe that the embargo on Iran falls under the category of 'collective punishment' and illegal under international law?
Argument here:
quote: Yes. If you ship embargoed goods, perform financial transactions for, or are involved with any company that does these things and the government can prove you did it knowingly, your ass is trash and US companies are not allowed to do business with you.
The financial transactions is a particularly big one. Iran is now having problems because no one is allowed to take payment for the grain that is being shipped to them, and naturally no one will deliver until they're paid. Thus, the sanctions are starving citizens, and yet no one has any expectation that this will hurt the leaders in the slightest, only that it might piss people off enough to revolt and overthrow their leaders (hint: it won't, it gives them yet another reason to hate the Evil Empire).
If these rules result in people starving, which is the stated intention (to cause "hate and discontent at the street level" and "regime collapse"), then they're working entirely as intended and it should be viewed as such whether or not President Obama flies Air Force One to Tehran and physically takes bread out of people's mouths.
*****************
If you consider the ability to eat in a world that wastes as much food as we do a human necessity, and the country doing the boycott explicitly enacts policies that forceably shut down other countries ability to export food thus shrinking the number of food exporters any single country can work with, and then shut down a country's trade with the people that feed them leading to food supply shocks, then yes, those people who are now living through food supply shocks are having their human rights violated.
This is less a trading scenario and more of a hostage taking scenario that is being done in attempt to overthrow a nation's government. The US is trying to corner people into starvation in an attempt to subvert the people's ability to choose their way of life. If that isn't human rights abuse, then the words become meaningless.
If we were at war with Iran, this would fall under the collective punishment clauses and would be illegal. In a sane world, attempted social destruction would constitute an act of war and these sanctions would be intensely illegal right out of the box.
The people making these posts, and I direct this to Rakeesh, if its any consolation over our past disagreements, *are* in fact who even *I* would consider to be anti American pro terrorist useful idiots, not that you ever used or implied those words or sentiments to me or anyone, I am just showing that yeah, there's a line even I won't cross; the "give Iran nukes just to spite (ie "counter balance the US") the US" is pretty much the line.
Just in case though you ever did think I happened to be anywhere near the extreme end of leftist geopolitical spectrum, I'm just showing, I'm downright near the damn middle compared to some people on the internet.
IP: Logged |
quote:Afterall I would consider Iran to have significantly crossed the line in actuality that Iraq we only pretended to believed had crossed and the US isn't doing anything beyond supporting terrorist attacks on Iran.
Claim all you like that Iraq didn't do enough to justify invasion-there's a case to be made, there. But it did cross, as a question of public record *fact*, multiple really thick dark black lines over a period of years. And we're doing quite a bit more than 'supporting terrorist attacks on Iran'
As for the sitch in Iran, absolutely, much more complex than most Americans (or Europeans, Asians, Africans) credit, you're right.
As for other people, as exasperating and silly as I find some of your arguments (Iraq as 'aggressive war', we only pretended to think Iraq crossed lines), I've always rated you as, y'know, an actual person when it comes to politics and not just a total foaming fanatic, such as the link described.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: 4) Know that going in, everything your recruiter is telling you either bends the truth or is a flat-out lie. These guys are paid to get you to sign, and it is all a numbers game, just like in any sales job. Have you ever noticed that all of them are typically attractive or in shape? There's a reason for that. They have to be able to sell this thing to you, and it has to sound amazing. Don't listen to anything they say. My recruiter actually told me that my job was something completely different from what it actually ended up being (he said it was an Intel Network Security job when it was actually just Tech Support). I was a fool and took him at his word, and then I discovered (when it was too late) that everything he'd told me was a lie.
I want to reply to this: it really depends on your recruiter. I had one recruiter who slung me the standard "it's the greatest thing ever and all your wishes will come true!" line, and another recruiter saw he was losing me fast, so he stepped in and pretty much told me straight up how it would be. The important thing, though, is I didn't trust either of them. I went and researched the MOS I wanted, then made sure my contract specifically stated I would get that MOS.
You can only be fooled by recruiters if you let them fool you, and some of them will try and pressure you into signing a contract right away. This is how a lot of young people get screwed over. Instead, look at all your options (if necessary, ask for a different recruiter who won't pressure you), and spend a few months negotiating your contract before you sign anything.
I went in knowing exactly what to expect, and I haven't been disappointed so far.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
