When SG1 shut down I honestly thought that SGA would get better due to
the writers and producers being able to concentrate their creative
energies on just one show. Instead the show got worse in every way. Even
switching Weir for Carter was a change for the worse, who saw that
coming. So my question is, did any of you out there see the show's
recent decline coming, or was it a shock to all of you as well?

"Herbert Viola" <wgates@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:wgates-5D992A.19485025022008@news.verizon.net...
>
> When SG1 shut down I honestly thought that SGA would get better due to
> the writers and producers being able to concentrate their creative
> energies on just one show. Instead the show got worse in every way. Even
> switching Weir for Carter was a change for the worse, who saw that
> coming. So my question is, did any of you out there see the show's
> recent decline coming, or was it a shock to all of you as well?

A bit of a shock, but I recently re-watched the first episodes of season
four e.g., "Lifeline," and they hold up to the quality of earlier seasons.

And the last couple of episodes have improved.

I was a Weir-fan, so I could have told you Carter would be a downgrade.

Even the original actress who first played Weir was superior to the
competent and consistent but unspectacular Tapping.

And the fictional Weir character was always better than Carter, no-contest.

I now think losing Higginson was central to the decline. I'm hoping I'm
wrong, and the last couple of episodes, like "Midway," give reason to hope.

"Herbert Viola" <wgates@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:wgates-5D992A.19485025022008@news.verizon.net...
>
> When SG1 shut down I honestly thought that SGA would get better due to
> the writers and producers being able to concentrate their creative
> energies on just one show. Instead the show got worse in every way. Even
> switching Weir for Carter was a change for the worse, who saw that
> coming. So my question is, did any of you out there see the show's
> recent decline coming, or was it a shock to all of you as well?

I attribute the recent decline to Rachel getting pregnant, the addition of
the SG-1 people and the loss of Weir. In the bts featurette, Martin Gero,
said that they had a fairly large Teyla arc coming up. He couldn't say
what, but it was going to be big. I think they thought if they just added a
couple of people who were fan favs from SG-1, they could coast along. Most
of the mediocre episodes all feature the new additions prominently. Now, is
it because I'm partial to Weir and not Sam? Possibly a combination of both.
But I have faith that they will right this ship before any more damage is
done.

Puzz

On Feb 25, 10:22 pm, "puzzlrr" <puzzzl...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> I attribute the recent decline to Rachel getting pregnant, the addition of
> the SG-1 people and the loss of Weir. In the bts featurette, Martin Gero,
> said that they had a fairly large Teyla arc coming up. He couldn't say
> what, but it was going to be big. I think they thought if they just added a
> couple of people who were fan favs from SG-1, they could coast along. Most
> of the mediocre episodes all feature the new additions prominently. Now, is
> it because I'm partial to Weir and not Sam? Possibly a combination of both.
> But I have faith that they will right this ship before any more damage is
> done.

Yipes. This is bad news. I'm watching downloads and have only
limited time to watch anything so I'm only up to Tabula Rasa. So far
I'm not that disappointed. There have been a few dud episodes
(Travelers may be the worst TV I've seen in at least a decade), but
also some very good ones. When does this deterioration start? Any
agreement on that? (It won't stop me watching; I get stubborn about
these things.)

The replacement of Weir with little miss perky-poo is a definite
problem. I wasn't that partial to Weir either. She struck me as a
character with potential, but it was potential that the writers never
let her develop. She seemed interesting: so focused, so disciplined,
and yet always with a neurotic edge that suggested she wasn't really
coping as well as she seemed to be. Sam is just your standard, non-
threatening girly action figure.

I feel the same about Beckett's replacement and I was partial to him.
But I also like Jewel Staite, and she's doing what she can to make her
non-character (at least so far, she's just written as another perky-
poo) interesting and individual, but I'm having problems with buying
her as head of the entire medical team...much too young to start with
and just mentioning it doesn't help that problem.

Anyway, interesting if not particularly reassuring discussion.

himiko

> The replacement of Weir with little miss perky-poo is a definite
> problem. I wasn't that partial to Weir either. She struck me as a
> character with potential, but it was potential that the writers never
> let her develop. She seemed interesting: so focused, so disciplined,
> and yet always with a neurotic edge that suggested she wasn't really
> coping as well as she seemed to be. Sam is just your standard, non-
> threatening girly action figure.

agreed. weir as a character seemed so promising, given the rich background
she inherited from her sg1 appearance, but none of it was used. she was
relegated to nothing more than a hammond-a-like 'you have a go'

sam, as the sg techie, had a good rounded character, especially with problem
solving, out-of-the-box thinking and science-based theorising. since moving
to atlantis, she's been shoe-horned into weir's role and comes off pretty
static-thinking next to rodney.

>
> I feel the same about Beckett's replacement and I was partial to him.
> But I also like Jewel Staite, and she's doing what she can to make her
> non-character (at least so far, she's just written as another perky-
> poo) interesting and individual, but I'm having problems with buying
> her as head of the entire medical team...much too young to start with
> and just mentioning it doesn't help that problem.

agreed. again, good attempt to round out her character so far, but i think
too much too soon, and inconsistently. granted, she stepped in to take
becketts role when he was injured, but she should have been replaced with a
more senior person when circumstances permit.

whats perky-poo? :)

>
> Anyway, interesting if not particularly reassuring discussion.
>
> himiko

Previously on alt.tv.stargate-atlantis, puzzlrr said:

> what, but it was going to be big. I think they thought if they just added a
> couple of people who were fan favs from SG-1, they could coast along. Most

"A couple" of people? The only SG-1 character to be moved to SGA was
Carter. The only other SG-1 character to show up at all was a one-shot
guest appearance by Teal'c. (Note that I'm only counting regulars, not
recurring characters. So Dr. Lee's guest shots do not count.)

> of the mediocre episodes all feature the new additions prominently. Now, is

Really? Most of the mediocre episodes featured the regular cast.
"Harmony", in particular, was a real stinker.

--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled Send personal mail to gordol

"Physics tells us that for every action there must be an equal and
opposite reaction. They hate us, we hate them, they hate us back. And
so, here we are, victims of mathematics." (Amb. Mollari, B5 "A Voice
In The Wilderness pt 1")

"Atlas Bugged" <atlasbuggedBYspam@gmail.com> wrote in
news:TJmdnQPwhp9tC17anZ2dnUVZ_r6rnZ2d@comcast.com:

> I now think losing Higginson was central to the decline.

I agree with this and hope too that things improve. I think that
some eps were bad because they focused on SG1 characters OR they
had few of the SGA characters in them. I've talked before how
the show seems *anemic* this year.

Anyhow, I don't know if the show will get better but I get
annoyed everytime I see Carter or the doctor which isn't good.
They both annoy me enormously. If they keep focusing on them, it
will turn me off the show although I'll probably still watch
because of Rodney and Sheppard.

At least we'll get to see Beckett again which is nice.

Gisele

Herbert Viola wrote:

> When SG1 shut down I honestly thought that SGA would get better due to
> the writers and producers being able to concentrate their creative
> energies on just one show. Instead the show got worse in every way. Even
> switching Weir for Carter was a change for the worse, who saw that
> coming. So my question is, did any of you out there see the show's
> recent decline coming, or was it a shock to all of you as well?

SGA has always been inconsistent. It has a few good episodes and then
mediocrity hits, then a few bad episodes and back to good again. The cycle
then begins again. I don't think this season is any worse than the other
seasons. It's just frustrating that the cycle continues.

"Herbert Viola" <wgates@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:wgates-5D992A.19485025022008@news.verizon.net...
>
> When SG1 shut down I honestly thought that SGA would get better due to
> the writers and producers being able to concentrate their creative
> energies on just one show. Instead the show got worse in every way. Even
> switching Weir for Carter was a change for the worse, who saw that
> coming. So my question is, did any of you out there see the show's
> recent decline coming, or was it a shock to all of you as well?

Well, I thought it would get a lot better, but basically its just the same.
No better or worse. I get the impression that they are just going through
the motions, no passion left. It feels flat. There is no big 'wow' or
thrill, ever.

I honestly think it needs to end, and end on a high. Give it 10 years or so,
and some hot shot writer or producer will resurect it. It needs a completely
fresh approach.

Im sure there is plenty of scope left for the whole SG thing, but I think
the people doing it are , well, piss bored !!!

AC

On Feb 26, 9:27 am, "watercooler rr newst"
<rrne...@watercoolernews.co.uk> wrote:

> sam, as the sg techie, had a good rounded character, especially with problem
> solving, out-of-the-box thinking and science-based theorising. since moving
> to atlantis, she's been shoe-horned into weir's role and comes off pretty
> static-thinking next to rodney.

Haven't seen all that much SG-1, in part because of Sam who bored me
there too. I don't know about her thinking, static or otherwise, but
outside of her professional work, she isn't a person to me at all on
either show. She's just exposition, a very stock character with no
major (read interesting) flaws or quirks....to be fair, maybe she
showed some when I was't watching which was most of the time.
>
> agreed. again, good attempt to round out her character so far, but i think
> too much too soon, and inconsistently. granted, she stepped in to take
> becketts role when he was injured, but she should have been replaced with a
> more senior person when circumstances permit.

Yeah, I just saw Missing and was pleased that they rounded her out a
bit more. A bit too much of a female (and more socially adept) Rodney
actually, but that is the aspect of SGA that I like the most: the fact
that most of the characters really don't belong in high action
situations, let alone a major war. So much more interesting than
watching stock action types (or even well-developed action types) do
what they're trained to do and have a natural aptitude for.

So I'm happier with her character development now, but still unhappy
about putting her in charge of the medical unit. Why do all the main
characters have to be in charge? Why can't she just be one of the
doctors, not the leader, just a young doctor off on an adventure. I
liked that she was unsure about being put in charge and it might have
worked well if she had a mix of relief and disappointment (even mild
resentment) when she was replaced with someone more suitable.

Speaking of people who aren't absolutely at the top of the hierarchy,
I am also pleased that we're seeing more of Zelenka. I have a real
soft spot for him anyway.

> whats perky-poo? :)

Female counterpart to smart-mouth-action-guy a la Jack or Sheppard.
Stock character type who is emotionally well-adjusted and capable even
in the direst circumstances. Perky-poos may occasionally be hurt or
disconcerted, but they soon return to perkiness. To be fair, perky-
poos are better than damsels-in-distress (the other, older stock
female role in action drama), but both are one-dimensional and dull.

himiko

"Jeffrey Kaplan" <nomail@gordol.org> wrote in message
news:13o8s3pk05kn94943hn20rt06o7kmuj9j4@gordol.org ...
> Previously on alt.tv.stargate-atlantis, puzzlrr said:
>
>> what, but it was going to be big. I think they thought if they just
>> added a
>> couple of people who were fan favs from SG-1, they could coast along.
>> Most
>
> "A couple" of people? The only SG-1 character to be moved to SGA was
> Carter. The only other SG-1 character to show up at all was a one-shot
> guest appearance by Teal'c. (Note that I'm only counting regulars, not
> recurring characters. So Dr. Lee's guest shots do not count.)
>
>> of the mediocre episodes all feature the new additions prominently. Now,
>> is
>
> Really? Most of the mediocre episodes featured the regular cast.
> "Harmony", in particular, was a real stinker.
>
>

Sorry, but I was including Keller in the mix as she's one of their
favorites. No, she wasn't on SG-1, so I miss-typed. I should have said, "I
have had a problem with SG-1 rejects (Sam, Teal'c) and Firefly (Keller),
being added to the mix at the expense of the regular cast. Now, Teal'c
wasn't added as a regular, but I cringed when I saw he had a guest spot. I
thought, oh, no, here we go again. But I can say that I was pleasantly
surprised by his episode. Pity, Sam and Keller weren't given just one
episodes." This reminds me of ST:TNG when it first aired. The original ST
people said that they didn't think it was a good idea and a lot of them
refused to do the show. Then ST:TNG got massive ratings and suddenly, it
was the placed to be.

Btw, Harmony, wasn't that bad, but the one where Keller whined about
defending herself against people who were trying to killer her, smelled
something awful.

Puzz

In article <13o8s3pk05kn94943hn20rt06o7kmuj9j4@gordol.org>,
nomail@gordol.org (Jeffrey Kaplan) says...

> "A couple" of people? The only SG-1 character to be moved to SGA was
> Carter. The only other SG-1 character to show up at all was a one-shot
> guest appearance by Teal'c. (Note that I'm only counting regulars, not
> recurring characters. So Dr. Lee's guest shots do not count.)

If SGA uses any of the characters from the original SG, they have to pay
royalties. That's why you will never see Daniel Jackson on SGA. That
may also be why we don't see Goa'uld on SGA. For a while, I thought a
Goa'uld Wraith would be an interesting problem for both Wraith and
Humans, but I guess it's never going to happen.

--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.

Previously on alt.tv.stargate-atlantis, Larry Caldwell said:

> > "A couple" of people? The only SG-1 character to be moved to SGA was
> > Carter. The only other SG-1 character to show up at all was a one-shot
> > guest appearance by Teal'c. (Note that I'm only counting regulars, not
> > recurring characters. So Dr. Lee's guest shots do not count.)
>
> If SGA uses any of the characters from the original SG, they have to pay
> royalties. That's why you will never see Daniel Jackson on SGA. That

That only applies to characters originated in the Stargate movie. So
as it applies to SGA, that means Jackson and O'Neill. And guess
what... they both had guest appearances on SGA.

> may also be why we don't see Goa'uld on SGA. For a while, I thought a

We don't see Gua'uld on SGA because SGA has its own set of villains.

--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled Send personal mail to gordol

"Very sad life. Probably very sad death. But at least is symmetry."
(Zathras, B5 "War Without End" pt 1)

> That only applies to characters originated in the Stargate movie. So
> as it applies to SGA, that means Jackson and O'Neill. And guess
> what... they both had guest appearances on SGA.

Dont remember Jackson?

David B <bothecat3@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:47C48B45.164FF859@hotmail.com:

> Herbert Viola wrote:
>
>> When SG1 shut down I honestly thought that SGA would get
better due
>> to the writers and producers being able to concentrate their
creative
>> energies on just one show. Instead the show got worse in every
way.
>> Even switching Weir for Carter was a change for the worse, who
saw
>> that coming. So my question is, did any of you out there see
the
>> show's recent decline coming, or was it a shock to all of you
as
>> well?
>
> SGA has always been inconsistent. It has a few good episodes
and then
> mediocrity hits, then a few bad episodes and back to good
again. The
> cycle then begins again. I don't think this season is any worse
than
> the other seasons. It's just frustrating that the cycle
continues.

True but what makes it worse this season is that some of the main
cast is missing and has been replaced by people that don't
belong. That adds to the mediocrity.

Gisele

"Jeffrey Kaplan" <nomail@gordol.org> wrote in message
news:ha3bs3p69jrtdjfqjoq1hgtivsg7r5nfs3@gordol.org ...
> Previously on alt.tv.stargate-atlantis, Larry Caldwell said:
>
>> > "A couple" of people? The only SG-1 character to be moved to SGA was
>> > Carter. The only other SG-1 character to show up at all was a one-shot
>> > guest appearance by Teal'c. (Note that I'm only counting regulars, not
>> > recurring characters. So Dr. Lee's guest shots do not count.)
>>
>> If SGA uses any of the characters from the original SG, they have to pay
>> royalties. That's why you will never see Daniel Jackson on SGA. That
>
> That only applies to characters originated in the Stargate movie. So
> as it applies to SGA, that means Jackson and O'Neill. And guess
> what... they both had guest appearances on SGA.
>
>> may also be why we don't see Goa'uld on SGA. For a while, I thought a
>
> We don't see Gua'uld on SGA because SGA has its own set of villains.
>

Also I doubt it if there are any Gua'uld or Jaffa in the Pegasus galaxy.

Previously on alt.tv.stargate-atlantis, V&S said:

> > That only applies to characters originated in the Stargate movie. So
> > as it applies to SGA, that means Jackson and O'Neill. And guess
> > what... they both had guest appearances on SGA.
>
> Dont remember Jackson?

I thought it was an SG1/SGA two-part crossover since it had season 10
SG1 in Atlantis. Turns out it was a crossover in the other direction
only, an SG1 episode that took place on Atlantis.

Maybe I was wrong about who can be in such crossovers. O'Neill has
been in Atlantis episodes on multiple occasions, and O'Neill and
Jackson, but none of the others, were in the series premier of SGA.

--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled Send personal mail to gordol

If I Am Ever the Sidekick... 22. When the Hero tosses me his car keys,
I will toss them back, and take the bus. Let the car bomb blow him up
for a change.

"puzzlrr" <puzzzlrrr@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:7Acxj.3092$pl4.2205@newssvr22.news.prodigy.ne t...
>
> "Jeffrey Kaplan" <nomail@gordol.org> wrote in message
> news:13o8s3pk05kn94943hn20rt06o7kmuj9j4@gordol.org ...
>> Previously on alt.tv.stargate-atlantis, puzzlrr said:
>>
>>> what, but it was going to be big. I think they thought if they just
>>> added a
>>> couple of people who were fan favs from SG-1, they could coast along.
>>> Most
>>
>> "A couple" of people? The only SG-1 character to be moved to SGA was
>> Carter. The only other SG-1 character to show up at all was a one-shot
>> guest appearance by Teal'c. (Note that I'm only counting regulars, not
>> recurring characters. So Dr. Lee's guest shots do not count.)
>>
>>> of the mediocre episodes all feature the new additions prominently.
>>> Now, is
>>
>> Really? Most of the mediocre episodes featured the regular cast.
>> "Harmony", in particular, was a real stinker.
>>
>>
>
> Sorry, but I was including Keller in the mix as she's one of their
> favorites. No, she wasn't on SG-1, so I miss-typed. I should have said,
> "I have had a problem with SG-1 rejects (Sam, Teal'c) and Firefly
> (Keller), being added to the mix at the expense of the regular cast. Now,
> Teal'c wasn't added as a regular, but I cringed when I saw he had a guest
> spot. I thought, oh, no, here we go again. But I can say that I was
> pleasantly surprised by his episode. Pity, Sam and Keller weren't given
> just one episodes." This reminds me of ST:TNG when it first aired. The
> original ST people said that they didn't think it was a good idea and a
> lot of them refused to do the show. Then ST:TNG got massive ratings and
> suddenly, it was the placed to be.

But then several of the Original Star Trek lot turned up in TNG.

But I agree. They've not given the cast of SGA to gel correctly. Too many
cast changes doesn't bode well. And in Season 5 we know that there will be
another major change that won't work (slap head)

With SG1 there were some really good relationships butilt up with the
characters. Jack & Teal'c who were always big buddies, Jack and Daniel (that
often created sparks) Jack & Sam (he just wanted to bang her sensless)

But in SGA where are those bonds? Sheppard and McKay is the only one I can
think of (a bit like Jack & Daniel I guess). Was there ever anything between
Sheppard and Weir? We'll probably never know. The relationship between McKay
and Zelenka was building up to be quite a good one, but in Season 4 Zelenka
has almost vanished as a character in the show (and the awful bit where
Carter seems ot dislike him)

But the rest, Ronan and Tey'la, does anyone really care? Ronan is so one
dimensional (unlike Teal'c) as a character. Also, where are the "fun"
characters like Siler and Walter?

"V&S" <videoandstream@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mkixj.22151$y05.11526@newsfe22.lga...
>> That only applies to characters originated in the Stargate movie. So
>> as it applies to SGA, that means Jackson and O'Neill. And guess
>> what... they both had guest appearances on SGA.
>
> Dont remember Jackson?

Well technically he wasn't. But in "The Pegasus Project" he did go to
Atlantis, but that was technically an SG1 episode. He's supposed to be in
Season 5 though.

"Andy" <gresd@jhg.com> wrote in message news:fq4dqc$pf9$1@aioe.org...
>
> "Jeffrey Kaplan" <nomail@gordol.org> wrote in message
> news:ha3bs3p69jrtdjfqjoq1hgtivsg7r5nfs3@gordol.org ...
>> Previously on alt.tv.stargate-atlantis, Larry Caldwell said:
>>
>>> > "A couple" of people? The only SG-1 character to be moved to SGA was
>>> > Carter. The only other SG-1 character to show up at all was a
>>> > one-shot
>>> > guest appearance by Teal'c. (Note that I'm only counting regulars,
>>> > not
>>> > recurring characters. So Dr. Lee's guest shots do not count.)
>>>
>>> If SGA uses any of the characters from the original SG, they have to pay
>>> royalties. That's why you will never see Daniel Jackson on SGA. That
>>
>> That only applies to characters originated in the Stargate movie. So
>> as it applies to SGA, that means Jackson and O'Neill. And guess
>> what... they both had guest appearances on SGA.
>>
>>> may also be why we don't see Goa'uld on SGA. For a while, I thought a
>>
>> We don't see Gua'uld on SGA because SGA has its own set of villains.
>>
>
> Also I doubt it if there are any Gua'uld or Jaffa in the Pegasus galaxy.


There was the one episode where Coloner Cauldwell had a Goa'uld inside him.

"Martin" <nonhere@nonhere.com> wrote in message
news:A7qdnTRuK7nvYVjanZ2dnUVZ8s-qnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "Andy" <gresd@jhg.com> wrote in message news:fq4dqc$pf9$1@aioe.org...
>>
>> "Jeffrey Kaplan" <nomail@gordol.org> wrote in message
>> news:ha3bs3p69jrtdjfqjoq1hgtivsg7r5nfs3@gordol.org ...
>>> Previously on alt.tv.stargate-atlantis, Larry Caldwell said:
>>>
>>>> > "A couple" of people? The only SG-1 character to be moved to SGA was
>>>> > Carter. The only other SG-1 character to show up at all was a
>>>> > one-shot
>>>> > guest appearance by Teal'c. (Note that I'm only counting regulars,
>>>> > not
>>>> > recurring characters. So Dr. Lee's guest shots do not count.)
>>>>
>>>> If SGA uses any of the characters from the original SG, they have to
>>>> pay
>>>> royalties. That's why you will never see Daniel Jackson on SGA. That
>>>
>>> That only applies to characters originated in the Stargate movie. So
>>> as it applies to SGA, that means Jackson and O'Neill. And guess
>>> what... they both had guest appearances on SGA.
>>>
>>>> may also be why we don't see Goa'uld on SGA. For a while, I thought a
>>>
>>> We don't see Gua'uld on SGA because SGA has its own set of villains.
>>>
>>
>> Also I doubt it if there are any Gua'uld or Jaffa in the Pegasus galaxy.
>
>
> There was the one episode where Coloner Cauldwell had a Goa'uld inside
> him.

True, but the Trust put the Gua'uld in Colonel Steven Caldwell, it wasn't
from the region.

"Martin" <nonhere@nonhere.com> wrote in message
news:oeWdnT5bitl8ZljanZ2dnUVZ8vydnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "puzzlrr" <puzzzlrrr@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:7Acxj.3092$pl4.2205@newssvr22.news.prodigy.ne t...
>>
>> "Jeffrey Kaplan" <nomail@gordol.org> wrote in message
>> news:13o8s3pk05kn94943hn20rt06o7kmuj9j4@gordol.org ...
>>> Previously on alt.tv.stargate-atlantis, puzzlrr said:
>>>
>>>> what, but it was going to be big. I think they thought if they just
>>>> added a
>>>> couple of people who were fan favs from SG-1, they could coast along.
>>>> Most
>>>
>>> "A couple" of people? The only SG-1 character to be moved to SGA was
>>> Carter. The only other SG-1 character to show up at all was a one-shot
>>> guest appearance by Teal'c. (Note that I'm only counting regulars, not
>>> recurring characters. So Dr. Lee's guest shots do not count.)
>>>
>>>> of the mediocre episodes all feature the new additions prominently.
>>>> Now, is
>>>
>>> Really? Most of the mediocre episodes featured the regular cast.
>>> "Harmony", in particular, was a real stinker.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, but I was including Keller in the mix as she's one of their
>> favorites. No, she wasn't on SG-1, so I miss-typed. I should have said,
>> "I have had a problem with SG-1 rejects (Sam, Teal'c) and Firefly
>> (Keller), being added to the mix at the expense of the regular cast.
>> Now, Teal'c wasn't added as a regular, but I cringed when I saw he had a
>> guest spot. I thought, oh, no, here we go again. But I can say that I
>> was pleasantly surprised by his episode. Pity, Sam and Keller weren't
>> given just one episodes." This reminds me of ST:TNG when it first
>> aired. The original ST people said that they didn't think it was a good
>> idea and a lot of them refused to do the show. Then ST:TNG got massive
>> ratings and suddenly, it was the placed to be.
>
> But then several of the Original Star Trek lot turned up in TNG.
>

Which was very funny, iirc, especially since they panned it.


> But I agree. They've not given the cast of SGA to gel correctly. Too many
> cast changes doesn't bode well. And in Season 5 we know that there will be
> another major change that won't work (slap head)
>

I have faith that a very good actor will make all the difference. Plus he
has a history with the show. Hopefully they won't sweeten him up. The
Rodney McKay that was on SG-1, is not the same guy on SGA, from what I'm
told. Even in the pilot, he was quite different.


> With SG1 there were some really good relationships butilt up with the
> characters. Jack & Teal'c who were always big buddies, Jack and Daniel
> (that often created sparks) Jack & Sam (he just wanted to bang her
> sensless)
>

Did that ever happen? I don't think I can take 10 years of John banging
everyone except for Teyla. No more Travelers please!

> But in SGA where are those bonds? Sheppard and McKay is the only one I can
> think of (a bit like Jack & Daniel I guess). Was there ever anything
> between Sheppard and Weir? We'll probably never know. The relationship
> between McKay and Zelenka was building up to be quite a good one, but in
> Season 4 Zelenka has almost vanished as a character in the show (and the
> awful bit where Carter seems ot dislike him)
>

I have to disagree. When John disobeyed Weir, they really had to sort out
their relationship (he basically had to learn to respect her decisions). As
for the other characters, there is/was a marvelous chemistry between all the
origianl members. John/Teyla, Teyla/Ronon, McKay/John, Mckay/Zelenka,
Carson/Teyla, Carson/Rodney, Rodney/Ronon, Rodney/Teyla, etc...On several
commentaries, they talk about cutting those type scenes, when the episodes
run long. Either you cut the action or the funny banter about who would be
whom on the A-Team.

> But the rest, Ronan and Tey'la, does anyone really care? Ronan is so one
> dimensional (unlike Teal'c) as a character. Also, where are the "fun"
> characters like Siler and Walter?

I don't know who Siler and Walter are, sorry. Keep Ronon and Teyla!

Puzz

On Feb 28, 3:39 am, "puzzlrr" <puzzzl...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "Martin" <nonh...@nonhere.com> wrote in message

>
> > But I agree. They've not given the cast of SGA to gel correctly. Too many
> > cast changes doesn't bode well. And in Season 5 we know that there will be
> > another major change that won't work (slap head)
>
> I have faith that a very good actor will make all the difference. Plus he
> has a history with the show. Hopefully they won't sweeten him up. The
> Rodney McKay that was on SG-1, is not the same guy on SGA, from what I'm
> told. Even in the pilot, he was quite different.

A good actor can make a lot of difference, but s/he still needs lines
and a story. And by "story," I don't mean a plot line, I mean some
character development: some indication of a past, some key moments/
dialogue that tell us things we didn't suspect at first glance, and
some relationships in which they can develop. And by relationships, I
don't necessarily mean sweet ones; conflict works too. Rodney is a
good model for them to follow: a complex, often self-contradictory
(real people are, after all) character played by a first class actor
who, IMO, hasn't missed a beat yet. It would still help if they would
put in more interaction between the characters though. They too often
put in temporary, undeveloped characters (like Katie Brown who could
have been a person but just wasn't written that way) for main
characters to interact with rather than letting them interact with
each other. OTOH, sometimes those temporary characters do develop
into something interesting as is the case with Zelenka who I think was
initially just intended to be a foil for Rodney, but there, a good
actor made a big difference.

> > With SG1 there were some really good relationships butilt up with the
> > characters. Jack & Teal'c who were always big buddies, Jack and Daniel
> > (that often created sparks) Jack & Sam (he just wanted to bang her
> > sensless)
>
> Did that ever happen? I don't think I can take 10 years of John banging
> everyone except for Teyla. No more Travelers please!

Amen. Teyla's baby being someone we've never heard of who's probably
dead anyway is the worst instance of the real avoidance of
relationships between the main characters. John would be the natural
choice for Daddy and might do wonders to develop his character: how he
feels about fatherhood and/or commitment could show a lot about him
even if they later just kill off or otherwise dispose of Teyla and the
baby...grieving works too. Or they could give it to Ronon or even
Rodney...except that Rodney doesn't need that much character
development while Sheppard and Ronon really, really do. How about
Zelenka and Teyla? It's so wrong it's right...dramatically speaking.
But yeah, no more Travelers....shudder.

> I have to disagree. When John disobeyed Weir, they really had to sort out
> their relationship (he basically had to learn to respect her decisions). As
> for the other characters, there is/was a marvelous chemistry between all the
> origianl members. John/Teyla, Teyla/Ronon, McKay/John, Mckay/Zelenka,
> Carson/Teyla, Carson/Rodney, Rodney/Ronon, Rodney/Teyla, etc...On several
> commentaries, they talk about cutting those type scenes, when the episodes
> run long. Either you cut the action or the funny banter about who would be
> whom on the A-Team.

And they always opt for the action. The potential for the
relationships you note is all there, but it's painfully undeveloped
and often deliberately avoided. I understand that they don't want to
end up with a soap, but for people living and working so close
together, constantly under stress, stronger interactions (friendships,
conflicts, love, etc.) is natural. Action doesn't work unless we care
about the outcome, and that means caring about the people under
threat.
>
> > But the rest, Ronan and Tey'la, does anyone really care? Ronan is so one
> > dimensional (unlike Teal'c) as a character. Also, where are the "fun"
> > characters like Siler and Walter?
>
> I don't know who Siler and Walter are, sorry. Keep Ronon and Teyla!

I agree, but just develop them. Teyla actually has gotten some
considerable development, but most of it has to do with stuff external
to her life on Atlantis. Also, the actress is not terribly strong
IMO...looks the part, but not much projection. Ronon has had a few
intriguing episodes in the past, but now they seem to be making him
dumber and dumber. Big dumb muscle guy...yawn. How about a few
surprises? Things we wouldn't expect?

himiko

Larry Caldwell wrote:
> In article <13o8s3pk05kn94943hn20rt06o7kmuj9j4@gordol.org>,
> nomail@gordol.org (Jeffrey Kaplan) says...
>
>> "A couple" of people? The only SG-1 character to be moved to SGA was
>> Carter. The only other SG-1 character to show up at all was a one-shot
>> guest appearance by Teal'c. (Note that I'm only counting regulars, not
>> recurring characters. So Dr. Lee's guest shots do not count.)
>
> If SGA uses any of the characters from the original SG, they have to pay
> royalties. That's why you will never see Daniel Jackson on SGA. That
> may also be why we don't see Goa'uld on SGA. For a while, I thought a
> Goa'uld Wraith would be an interesting problem for both Wraith and
> Humans, but I guess it's never going to happen.
>
Really? :-)

http://gateworld.net/news/2008/02/shanks_set_for_mid-season_iatlan.shtml
"Shanks set for mid-season Atlantis visit"--
"You can't keep a good archaeologist down! Dr. Daniel Jackson will
return to the city of the Ancients in Season Five, when actor Michael
Shanks makes his second guest appearance on the spin-off series."

> "You can't keep a good archaeologist down! Dr. Daniel Jackson will
> return to the city of the Ancients in Season Five, when actor Michael
> Shanks makes his second guest appearance on the spin-off series."

2nd???

"V&S" <videoandstream@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:SWBxj.8562$f8.1133@newsfe23.lga...
>> "You can't keep a good archaeologist down! Dr. Daniel Jackson will
>> return to the city of the Ancients in Season Five, when actor Michael
>> Shanks makes his second guest appearance on the spin-off series."
>
> 2nd???

Kevin!! Are you telling me you haven't seen the Atlantis pilot, aka as
"Rising"?

Eva
--
Join the Stargate SG-1 SETI@home Team
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=30516

"Ceremonies have killed religions for they provide the masked comforts to
delusionals..."

> Kevin!! Are you telling me you haven't seen the Atlantis pilot, aka as
> "Rising"?

Dont remember it.

"V&S" <videoandstream@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:HyHxj.13836$097.2265@newsfe21.lga...
>> Kevin!! Are you telling me you haven't seen the Atlantis pilot, aka as
>> "Rising"?
>
> Dont remember it.


You are getting old.... <g&r>

Eva
--
Join the Stargate SG-1 SETI@home Team
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=30516

"Ceremonies have killed religions for they provide the masked comforts to
delusionals..."

"whodunit" <whodunit@whodunit.net> wrote in message
news:_BAxj.3086$fX7.2177@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Larry Caldwell wrote:
>> In article <13o8s3pk05kn94943hn20rt06o7kmuj9j4@gordol.org>,
>> nomail@gordol.org (Jeffrey Kaplan) says...
>>
>>> "A couple" of people? The only SG-1 character to be moved to SGA was
>>> Carter. The only other SG-1 character to show up at all was a one-shot
>>> guest appearance by Teal'c. (Note that I'm only counting regulars, not
>>> recurring characters. So Dr. Lee's guest shots do not count.)
>>
>> If SGA uses any of the characters from the original SG, they have to pay
>> royalties. That's why you will never see Daniel Jackson on SGA. That
>> may also be why we don't see Goa'uld on SGA. For a while, I thought a
>> Goa'uld Wraith would be an interesting problem for both Wraith and
>> Humans, but I guess it's never going to happen.
> Really? :-)
>
> http://gateworld.net/news/2008/02/shanks_set_for_mid-season_iatlan.shtml
> "Shanks set for mid-season Atlantis visit"--
> "You can't keep a good archaeologist down! Dr. Daniel Jackson will return
> to the city of the Ancients in Season Five, when actor Michael Shanks
> makes his second guest appearance on the spin-off series."


PUKE! Not another one! It looks like they'll have so many dead (Beckett)
and rejected (Daniel) people on the show next season, there probably won't
be much room for anything else.

Puzz

<himiko@animail.net> wrote in message
news:9f2a2201-aaf5-4483-850e-3bc7af283e8d@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...


> A good actor can make a lot of difference, but s/he still needs lines
> and a story. And by "story," I don't mean a plot line, I mean some
> character development: some indication of a past, some key moments/
> dialogue that tell us things we didn't suspect at first glance, and
> some relationships in which they can develop. And by relationships, I
> don't necessarily mean sweet ones; conflict works too.

This is why I have such high hopes for Robert Picardo. He is such a good
actor, that he can take a flimsy character and turn it into a 3 dimensional
character. Look at what happened to Zelenka (as you mentioned) and Beckett.
There wasn't much there for them, but look at what they did with it.

> I agree, but just develop them. Teyla actually has gotten some
> considerable development, but most of it has to do with stuff external
> to her life on Atlantis. Also, the actress is not terribly strong
> IMO...looks the part, but not much projection.

I like Teyla and Ronon, so I hope they stay. She did get a chance to
explore her dark side. All this time I thought she was just the Earth
mother of the team, but she got cutthroat when she needed to be. Too bad I
had to endure the whining of Keller, during the episode. Her voice just
grates on my last nerve. I think Ronon, could surprise us in the future.
They could do any number of things with him. How do we really know what he
did on Sateda? Also, did you know that he refuses to take his shirt off for
Atlantis? jerk!

Puzz

> You are getting old.... <g&r>

I dont remember last week much less 4 years ago :(

"V&S" <videoandstream@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:GtNxj.60146$Ft5.13609@newsfe15.lga...
>> You are getting old.... <g&r>
>
> I dont remember last week much less 4 years ago :(


I can relate to that, if it's any consolation. :-)

Eva
--
Join the Stargate SG-1 SETI@home Team
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=30516

"Ceremonies have killed religions for they provide the masked comforts to
delusionals..."

On Feb 28, 9:35 pm, "puzzlrr" <puzzzl...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> <him...@animail.net> wrote in message
>
> news:9f2a2201-aaf5-4483-850e-3bc7af283e8d@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > A good actor can make a lot of difference, but s/he still needs lines
> > and a story. And by "story," I don't mean a plot line, I mean some
> > character development: some indication of a past, some key moments/
> > dialogue that tell us things we didn't suspect at first glance, and
> > some relationships in which they can develop. And by relationships, I
> > don't necessarily mean sweet ones; conflict works too.
>
> This is why I have such high hopes for Robert Picardo. He is such a good
> actor, that he can take a flimsy character and turn it into a 3 dimensional
> character. Look at what happened to Zelenka (as you mentioned) and Beckett.
> There wasn't much there for them, but look at what they did with it.

I'd include Weir in that grouping too. She had what should have been
a leading role, but it was never written that way. Nonetheless,
Higginson managed to make her presence felt, and to suggest much more
than was written in. Woolsey is already a solid character in a stock
sort of way: pestiferous bureaucrat. That alone offers possibilities
for conflict. And Picardo is, as you note, likely to make more of it
than that whether the writers cooperate or not.

> I like Teyla and Ronon, so I hope they stay. She did get a chance to
> explore her dark side. All this time I thought she was just the Earth
> mother of the team, but she got cutthroat when she needed to be. Too bad I
> had to endure the whining of Keller, during the episode. Her voice just
> grates on my last nerve.

Hmmm. Keller doesn't annoy me particularly, but now that you mention
that story as being an interesting character development for Teyla, I
realize that I didn't focus on that at all. For better or worse,
Keller totally upstaged her. Mostly for worse, now that I think of
it. Also, her role as the helpless one needing protection could
easily have been filled by Rodney or Zelenka...although there was a
bit more tension given that we couldn't be sure she would come through
whereas with Rodney and Radek, we know by now that they probably
will. Beckett would surely have been the best choice for that episode
as he would not only have needed Teyla's skills (thus highlighting
them), but expressed far more ethical opposition to much of what she
was doing...thus highlighting the cultural and personal differences.

> I think Ronon, could surprise us in the future.
> They could do any number of things with him. How do we really know what he
> did on Sateda?

They could do a lot, and I would love for them to do so, but I'm not
seeing much sign they plan to go that route.

>Also, did you know that he refuses to take his shirt off for
> Atlantis? jerk!

You mean the actor? Why won't he? Just shy? Doesn't want to be
upstaged by his own physique? Seems odd he wouldn't want to show it,
given that he's clearly worked on looking the way he does.

himiko
>
> Puzz

<himiko@animail.net> wrote in message
news:3158f4db-b412-4021-9b7c-fb65555d0bf1@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 28, 9:35 pm, "puzzlrr" <puzzzl...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> <him...@animail.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:9f2a2201-aaf5-4483-850e-3bc7af283e8d@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > A good actor can make a lot of difference, but s/he still needs lines
>> > and a story. And by "story," I don't mean a plot line, I mean some
>> > character development: some indication of a past, some key moments/
>> > dialogue that tell us things we didn't suspect at first glance, and
>> > some relationships in which they can develop. And by relationships, I
>> > don't necessarily mean sweet ones; conflict works too.
>>
>> This is why I have such high hopes for Robert Picardo. He is such a good
>> actor, that he can take a flimsy character and turn it into a 3
>> dimensional
>> character. Look at what happened to Zelenka (as you mentioned) and
>> Beckett.
>> There wasn't much there for them, but look at what they did with it.
>
> I'd include Weir in that grouping too. She had what should have been
> a leading role, but it was never written that way. Nonetheless,
> Higginson managed to make her presence felt, and to suggest much more
> than was written in. Woolsey is already a solid character in a stock
> sort of way: pestiferous bureaucrat. That alone offers possibilities
> for conflict. And Picardo is, as you note, likely to make more of it
> than that whether the writers cooperate or not.
>
>> I like Teyla and Ronon, so I hope they stay. She did get a chance to
>> explore her dark side. All this time I thought she was just the Earth
>> mother of the team, but she got cutthroat when she needed to be. Too bad
>> I
>> had to endure the whining of Keller, during the episode. Her voice just
>> grates on my last nerve.
>
> Hmmm. Keller doesn't annoy me particularly, but now that you mention
> that story as being an interesting character development for Teyla, I
> realize that I didn't focus on that at all. For better or worse,
> Keller totally upstaged her. Mostly for worse, now that I think of
> it. Also, her role as the helpless one needing protection could
> easily have been filled by Rodney or Zelenka...although there was a
> bit more tension given that we couldn't be sure she would come through
> whereas with Rodney and Radek, we know by now that they probably
> will. Beckett would surely have been the best choice for that episode
> as he would not only have needed Teyla's skills (thus highlighting
> them), but expressed far more ethical opposition to much of what she
> was doing...thus highlighting the cultural and personal differences.
>
>> I think Ronon, could surprise us in the future.
>> They could do any number of things with him. How do we really know what
>> he
>> did on Sateda?
>
> They could do a lot, and I would love for them to do so, but I'm not
> seeing much sign they plan to go that route.
>
>>Also, did you know that he refuses to take his shirt off for
>> Atlantis? jerk!
>
> You mean the actor? Why won't he? Just shy? Doesn't want to be
> upstaged by his own physique? Seems odd he wouldn't want to show it,
> given that he's clearly worked on looking the way he does.

Well the reason he didn't take his shirt off (not that I care, although I'd
like to see Tapping take hers off) was that if you remember he had all those
wounds on his back, which would have kept him in make up for hours to do.
Although rather conveniently, McKay "Magiced" them away when he got his
brain boost in Season 3.

puzzlrr wrote:
>
> "whodunit" <whodunit@whodunit.net> wrote in message
> news:_BAxj.3086$fX7.2177@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> Larry Caldwell wrote:
>>> In article <13o8s3pk05kn94943hn20rt06o7kmuj9j4@gordol.org>,
>>> nomail@gordol.org (Jeffrey Kaplan) says...
>>>
>>>> "A couple" of people? The only SG-1 character to be moved to SGA was
>>>> Carter. The only other SG-1 character to show up at all was a one-shot
>>>> guest appearance by Teal'c. (Note that I'm only counting regulars, not
>>>> recurring characters. So Dr. Lee's guest shots do not count.)
>>>
>>> If SGA uses any of the characters from the original SG, they have to
>>> pay royalties. That's why you will never see Daniel Jackson on SGA.
>>> That may also be why we don't see Goa'uld on SGA. For a while, I
>>> thought a Goa'uld Wraith would be an interesting problem for both
>>> Wraith and Humans, but I guess it's never going to happen.
>> Really? :-)
>>
>> http://gateworld.net/news/2008/02/shanks_set_for_mid-season_iatlan.shtml
>> "Shanks set for mid-season Atlantis visit"--
>> "You can't keep a good archaeologist down! Dr. Daniel Jackson will
>> return to the city of the Ancients in Season Five, when actor Michael
>> Shanks makes his second guest appearance on the spin-off series."
>
>
> PUKE! Not another one! It looks like they'll have so many dead
> (Beckett) and rejected (Daniel) people on the show next season, there
> probably won't be much room for anything else.
>
> Puzz
>
Why do you keep calling the stars of SG:1 "rejected" or "rejects"???
I don't get that. I for one am glad when there are connections to the
original series like Jackson's visit. :-)

"whodunit" <whodunit@whodunit.net> wrote in message
news:xR%xj.14432$R84.4933@newssvr25.news.prodigy.n et...
> puzzlrr wrote:
>>
>> "whodunit" <whodunit@whodunit.net> wrote in message
>> news:_BAxj.3086$fX7.2177@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>> Larry Caldwell wrote:
>>>> In article <13o8s3pk05kn94943hn20rt06o7kmuj9j4@gordol.org>,
>>>> nomail@gordol.org (Jeffrey Kaplan) says...
>>>>
>>>>> "A couple" of people? The only SG-1 character to be moved to SGA was
>>>>> Carter. The only other SG-1 character to show up at all was a
>>>>> one-shot
>>>>> guest appearance by Teal'c. (Note that I'm only counting regulars,
>>>>> not
>>>>> recurring characters. So Dr. Lee's guest shots do not count.)
>>>>
>>>> If SGA uses any of the characters from the original SG, they have to
>>>> pay royalties. That's why you will never see Daniel Jackson on SGA.
>>>> That may also be why we don't see Goa'uld on SGA. For a while, I
>>>> thought a Goa'uld Wraith would be an interesting problem for both
>>>> Wraith and Humans, but I guess it's never going to happen.
>>> Really? :-)
>>>
>>> http://gateworld.net/news/2008/02/shanks_set_for_mid-season_iatlan.shtml
>>> "Shanks set for mid-season Atlantis visit"--
>>> "You can't keep a good archaeologist down! Dr. Daniel Jackson will
>>> return to the city of the Ancients in Season Five, when actor Michael
>>> Shanks makes his second guest appearance on the spin-off series."
>>
>>
>> PUKE! Not another one! It looks like they'll have so many dead
>> (Beckett) and rejected (Daniel) people on the show next season, there
>> probably won't be much room for anything else.
>>
>> Puzz
>>
> Why do you keep calling the stars of SG:1 "rejected" or "rejects"???
> I don't get that. I for one am glad when there are connections to the
> original series like Jackson's visit. :-)

Well, obviously being a star of the longest running (ok, Dr
WTFists--continuous) SF show in history equals "reject."
This comes from people who, not having watched the show, can't see what a
pale imitaion SGA is of the first 8 years of SG1.
Unfortunately, Seasons 9 and 10 were an even paler imitation.

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 05:39:11 -0600, "puzzlrr"
<puzzzlrrr@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
.. Also, where are the "fun"
>> characters like Siler and Walter?
>
>I don't know who Siler and Walter are, sorry. Keep Ronon and Teyla!
Sgt. Siler and Chief Walter Harriman were support characters (SGC
technicians) on SG-1.
x@y.zzz

"Politicians are conniving, wheeler-dealing scum. Don't have a fit of morals
over them; they wouldn't, over you."
--Harry Pearce, "MI-5"

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:18:16 -0000, "Martin" <nonhere@nonhere.com>
wrote:

>>>Also, did you know that he refuses to take his shirt off for
>>> Atlantis? jerk!
>>
>> You mean the actor? Why won't he? Just shy? Doesn't want to be
>> upstaged by his own physique? Seems odd he wouldn't want to show it,
>> given that he's clearly worked on looking the way he does.
>
>Well the reason he didn't take his shirt off (not that I care, although I'd
>like to see Tapping take hers off)

Brings to mind what Jamie Lee Curtis said, in commenting on making the
movie "Trading Places": "I thought, while they're up and firm, why not
shoot them once or twice." I wish Amanda (among others) would give it
some consideration.


x@y.zzz

"Politicians are conniving, wheeler-dealing scum. Don't have a fit of morals
over them; they wouldn't, over you."
--Harry Pearce, "MI-5"

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 18:34:31 GMT, "x@y.zzz" <x@y.zzz> wrote:

>On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 05:39:11 -0600, "puzzlrr"
><puzzzlrrr@sbcglobal.net> wrote;

>. Also, where are the "fun"
>>> characters like Siler and Walter?
>>
>>I don't know who Siler and Walter are, sorry. Keep Ronon and Teyla!

>Sgt. Siler and Chief Walter Harriman were support characters (SGC
>technicians) on SG-1.

To fill things out more, Sgt. Siler was the lead maintenance
technician at the SGC for the Stargate and the electrical support
systems. Sgt. Walter Harriman is the lead Stargate Operator (and,
seemingly, the Senior Enlisted man on base). Basically, Walter's role
was filled on Atlantis by Peter Grodin for most of Season One and by
"Chuck, the technician" since. Siler's role has been combined with
those of Dr. Lee and Colonel Carter and rolled into Rodney, Zelenka
and some other support staff (including Chuck).
--
"Try to learn something about everything and everything about
something."
- T.H. Huxley

David V. Loewe, Jr wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 18:34:31 GMT, "x@y.zzz" <x@y.zzz> wrote:
>
>
>>On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 05:39:11 -0600, "puzzlrr"
>><puzzzlrrr@sbcglobal.net> wrote;
>
>
>>. Also, where are the "fun"
>>
>>>>characters like Siler and Walter?
>>>
>>>I don't know who Siler and Walter are, sorry. Keep Ronon and Teyla!
>
>
>>Sgt. Siler and Chief Walter Harriman were support characters (SGC
>>technicians) on SG-1.
>
>
> To fill things out more, Sgt. Siler was the lead maintenance
> technician at the SGC for the Stargate and the electrical support
> systems. Sgt. Walter Harriman is the lead Stargate Operator (and,
> seemingly, the Senior Enlisted man on base). Basically, Walter's role
> was filled on Atlantis by Peter Grodin for most of Season One and by
> "Chuck, the technician" since. Siler's role has been combined with
> those of Dr. Lee and Colonel Carter and rolled into Rodney, Zelenka
> and some other support staff (including Chuck).

Master Sargent Siler was played by Stargate SG-1's stunt coordinator
(and Richard Dean Anderson's stunt double) Dan Shea. That was the
reason the writers and directors would always have Siler electrocuted,
blown up, or injured on some way. Making the character accident prone
was a running joke in the production company.

ALV

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 17:39:29 -0800, Andrew Venor <alvenor@comcast.net>
wrote:

>David V. Loewe, Jr wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 18:34:31 GMT, "x@y.zzz" <x@y.zzz> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 05:39:11 -0600, "puzzlrr"
>>><puzzzlrrr@sbcglobal.net> wrote;
>>
>>
>>>. Also, where are the "fun"
>>>
>>>>>characters like Siler and Walter?
>>>>
>>>>I don't know who Siler and Walter are, sorry. Keep Ronon and Teyla!
>>
>>
>>>Sgt. Siler and Chief Walter Harriman were support characters (SGC
>>>technicians) on SG-1.
>>
>>
>> To fill things out more, Sgt. Siler was the lead maintenance
>> technician at the SGC for the Stargate and the electrical support
>> systems. Sgt. Walter Harriman is the lead Stargate Operator (and,
>> seemingly, the Senior Enlisted man on base). Basically, Walter's role
>> was filled on Atlantis by Peter Grodin for most of Season One and by
>> "Chuck, the technician" since. Siler's role has been combined with
>> those of Dr. Lee and Colonel Carter and rolled into Rodney, Zelenka
>> and some other support staff (including Chuck).
>
>Master Sargent Siler was played by Stargate SG-1's stunt coordinator
>(and Richard Dean Anderson's stunt double) Dan Shea. That was the
>reason the writers and directors would always have Siler electrocuted,
>blown up, or injured on some way. Making the character accident prone
>was a running joke in the production company.
>
>ALV

I knew that when I was watching the episode with the power armbands
("Upgrades", I think it was called), and O'Neill slapped Siler on the
back and knocked him clear off the staircase, injuring him. Knowing
it was Shea made it uproariously funny.


x@y.zzz

"Politicians are conniving, wheeler-dealing scum. Don't have a fit of morals
over them; they wouldn't, over you."
--Harry Pearce, "MI-5"

Previously on alt.tv.stargate-atlantis, David V. Loewe, Jr said:

> >Sgt. Siler and Chief Walter Harriman were support characters (SGC
> >technicians) on SG-1.
>
> To fill things out more, Sgt. Siler was the lead maintenance
> technician at the SGC for the Stargate and the electrical support

Other trivia: Siler was played by Dan Shea, who was also the stunt
coordinator for the show, and RDA's stunt double.

--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled Send personal mail to gordol

Peter's Top 100 Things I'd Do If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord, #23. I
will keep a special cache of low-tech weapons and train my troops in
their use. That way -- even if the heroes manage to neutralize my power
generator and/or render the standard-issue energy weapons useless -- my
troops will not be overrun by a handful of savages armed with spears
and rocks.

"whodunit" <whodunit@whodunit.net> wrote in message
news:xR%xj.14432$R84.4933@newssvr25.news.prodigy.n et...
> puzzlrr wrote:
>>

>> PUKE! Not another one! It looks like they'll have so many dead
>> (Beckett) and rejected (Daniel) people on the show next season, there
>> probably won't be much room for anything else.
>>
>> Puzz
>>
> Why do you keep calling the stars of SG:1 "rejected" or "rejects"???
> I don't get that. I for one am glad when there are connections to the
> original series like Jackson's visit. :-)

Uh, whatever. I call them rejects, because if they were as great as people
seem to think, they're show wouldn't have gone bye-bye. When SGA goes
bye-bye, they'll be rejects too.

Puzz

<himiko@animail.net> wrote in message
news:3158f4db-b412-4021-9b7c-fb65555d0bf1@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 28, 9:35 pm, "puzzlrr" <puzzzl...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>>Also, did you know that he refuses to take his shirt off for
>> Atlantis? jerk!
>
> You mean the actor? Why won't he? Just shy? Doesn't want to be
> upstaged by his own physique? Seems odd he wouldn't want to show it,
> given that he's clearly worked on looking the way he does.


I think the reason given was because he did it so much on Baywatch.
<grouse>

Puzz

On Mar 2, 3:27 am, "puzzlrr" <puzzzl...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> <him...@animail.net> wrote in message
>
> news:3158f4db-b412-4021-9b7c-fb65555d0bf1@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Feb 28, 9:35 pm, "puzzlrr" <puzzzl...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>Also, did you know that he refuses to take his shirt off for
> >> Atlantis? jerk!
>
> > You mean the actor? Why won't he? Just shy? Doesn't want to be
> > upstaged by his own physique? Seems odd he wouldn't want to show it,
> > given that he's clearly worked on looking the way he does.
>
> I think the reason given was because he did it so much on Baywatch.
> <grouse>

I'll see your grouse and raise you a grump. Jason Momoa is a fine,
fine looking man.

himiko

puzzlrr wrote:
>
> "whodunit" <whodunit@whodunit.net> wrote in message
> news:xR%xj.14432$R84.4933@newssvr25.news.prodigy.n et...
>> puzzlrr wrote:
>>>
>
>>> PUKE! Not another one! It looks like they'll have so many dead
>>> (Beckett) and rejected (Daniel) people on the show next season, there
>>> probably won't be much room for anything else.
>>>
>>> Puzz
>>>
>> Why do you keep calling the stars of SG:1 "rejected" or "rejects"???
>> I don't get that. I for one am glad when there are connections to the
>> original series like Jackson's visit. :-)
>
> Uh, whatever. I call them rejects, because if they were as great as
> people seem to think, they're show wouldn't have gone bye-bye. When SGA
> goes bye-bye, they'll be rejects too.
>
> Puzz
>
Wow. Guess that means old great series stars like William Shatner,
Candice Bergen, et al are "rejects" too? Interesting.

Carolyne in TX

himiko@animail.net wrote:
> On Mar 2, 3:27 am, "puzzlrr" <puzzzl...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> <him...@animail.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:3158f4db-b412-4021-9b7c-fb65555d0bf1@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> On Feb 28, 9:35 pm, "puzzlrr" <puzzzl...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> Also, did you know that he refuses to take his shirt off for
>>>> Atlantis? jerk!
>>> You mean the actor? Why won't he? Just shy? Doesn't want to be
>>> upstaged by his own physique? Seems odd he wouldn't want to show it,
>>> given that he's clearly worked on looking the way he does.
>> I think the reason given was because he did it so much on Baywatch.
>> <grouse>
>
> I'll see your grouse and raise you a grump. Jason Momoa is a fine,
> fine looking man.
>
> himiko
>
Could go back to the fact that Ronon was supposed to have all kinds of
horrible scars on his back from his days of being a runner (and probably
injury scars all over his front, I'm guessing too) and he preferred not
to show those (save a lot of makeup, prosthetics, etc every episode
too)--of course, now that Rodney's healed him up, maybe in the future,
he'll lose his shyness. :-)

"whodunit" <whodunit@whodunit.net> wrote in message
news:QeByj.7759$tW.1525@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
> puzzlrr wrote:
>>
>> "whodunit" <whodunit@whodunit.net> wrote in message
>> news:xR%xj.14432$R84.4933@newssvr25.news.prodigy.n et...
>>> puzzlrr wrote:
>>>>
>>
>>>> PUKE! Not another one! It looks like they'll have so many dead
>>>> (Beckett) and rejected (Daniel) people on the show next season, there
>>>> probably won't be much room for anything else.
>>>>
>>>> Puzz
>>>>
>>> Why do you keep calling the stars of SG:1 "rejected" or "rejects"???
>>> I don't get that. I for one am glad when there are connections to the
>>> original series like Jackson's visit. :-)
>>
>> Uh, whatever. I call them rejects, because if they were as great as
>> people seem to think, they're show wouldn't have gone bye-bye. When SGA
>> goes bye-bye, they'll be rejects too.
>>
>> Puzz
>>
> Wow. Guess that means old great series stars like William Shatner, Candice
> Bergen, et al are "rejects" too? Interesting.
>
> Carolyne in TX

Well, of course. Alda, Danson, Landon, Browder, Black, Staite... Hell, the
old Twilight Zone is a who's who of the 2nd half 20th century rejects.
No good show has ever gone out of production.
And, naturally, on SGA there's no reason to haul in a reject that happens to
be the world's leading authority on Things Ancient. How in the world could
that ever advance a storyline?

In article <jj8js3hsj9i7jnshelr570of55ujk6sumk@4ax.com>,
"x@y.zzz" <x@y.zzz> wrote:

> Brings to mind what Jamie Lee Curtis said, in commenting on making the
> movie "Trading Places": "I thought, while they're up and firm, why not
> shoot them once or twice." I wish Amanda (among others) would give it
> some consideration.

She left out big.

puzzlrr wrote:
>
> "whodunit" <whodunit@whodunit.net> wrote in message
> news:_BAxj.3086$fX7.2177@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> Larry Caldwell wrote:
>>> In article <13o8s3pk05kn94943hn20rt06o7kmuj9j4@gordol.org>,
>>> nomail@gordol.org (Jeffrey Kaplan) says...
>>>
>>>> "A couple" of people? The only SG-1 character to be moved to SGA was
>>>> Carter. The only other SG-1 character to show up at all was a one-shot
>>>> guest appearance by Teal'c. (Note that I'm only counting regulars, not
>>>> recurring characters. So Dr. Lee's guest shots do not count.)
>>>
>>> If SGA uses any of the characters from the original SG, they have to
>>> pay royalties. That's why you will never see Daniel Jackson on SGA.
>>> That may also be why we don't see Goa'uld on SGA. For a while, I
>>> thought a Goa'uld Wraith would be an interesting problem for both
>>> Wraith and Humans, but I guess it's never going to happen.
>> Really? :-)
>>
>> http://gateworld.net/news/2008/02/shanks_set_for_mid-season_iatlan.shtml
>> "Shanks set for mid-season Atlantis visit"--
>> "You can't keep a good archaeologist down! Dr. Daniel Jackson will
>> return to the city of the Ancients in Season Five, when actor Michael
>> Shanks makes his second guest appearance on the spin-off series."
>
>
> PUKE! Not another one! It looks like they'll have so many dead
> (Beckett) and rejected (Daniel) people on the show next season, there
> probably won't be much room for anything else.
>
> Puzz
>

I'll take a Shanks guest spot over yet another replicators episode.
That idea burned itself out in SG-1, I wish they never created an
Atlantis variant.

--

Replace '???????' with 'hotmail' to e-mail me.

"whodunit" <whodunit@whodunit.net> wrote in message
news:qgByj.7760$tW.7243@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...

> Could go back to the fact that Ronon was supposed to have all kinds of
> horrible scars on his back from his days of being a runner (and probably
> injury scars all over his front, I'm guessing too) and he preferred not
> to show those (save a lot of makeup, prosthetics, etc every episode
> too)--of course, now that Rodney's healed him up, maybe in the future,
> he'll lose his shyness. :-)
>

But in the 'Tao of Rodney', he 'cured' Ronon.

Puzz

"whodunit" <whodunit@whodunit.net> wrote in message
news:QeByj.7759$tW.1525@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
> puzzlrr wrote:
>>
>> "whodunit" <whodunit@whodunit.net> wrote in message
>> news:xR%xj.14432$R84.4933@newssvr25.news.prodigy.n et...
>>> puzzlrr wrote:
>>>>
>>
>>>> PUKE! Not another one! It looks like they'll have so many dead
>>>> (Beckett) and rejected (Daniel) people on the show next season, there
>>>> probably won't be much room for anything else.
>>>>
>>>> Puzz
>>>>
>>> Why do you keep calling the stars of SG:1 "rejected" or "rejects"???
>>> I don't get that. I for one am glad when there are connections to the
>>> original series like Jackson's visit. :-)
>>
>> Uh, whatever. I call them rejects, because if they were as great as
>> people seem to think, they're show wouldn't have gone bye-bye. When SGA
>> goes bye-bye, they'll be rejects too.
>>
>> Puzz
>>
> Wow. Guess that means old great series stars like William Shatner, Candice
> Bergen, et al are "rejects" too? Interesting.
>
> Carolyne in TX
>

Not interesting, because SG-1 wasn't in the same league as those shows. I
mean, come on.

Puzz

<himiko@animail.net> wrote in message
news:d210c8a9-1e72-40f2-a3f8-0296f3494f8b@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 2, 3:27 am, "puzzlrr" <puzzzl...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> <him...@animail.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:3158f4db-b412-4021-9b7c-fb65555d0bf1@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Feb 28, 9:35 pm, "puzzlrr" <puzzzl...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>Also, did you know that he refuses to take his shirt off for
>> >> Atlantis? jerk!
>>
>> > You mean the actor? Why won't he? Just shy? Doesn't want to be
>> > upstaged by his own physique? Seems odd he wouldn't want to show it,
>> > given that he's clearly worked on looking the way he does.
>>
>> I think the reason given was because he did it so much on Baywatch.
>> <grouse>
>
> I'll see your grouse and raise you a grump. Jason Momoa is a fine,
> fine looking man.
>
> himiko
>
>

Yes indeed. But his pairing with Lisa Bonet is a head scratcher for me.

Puzz

puzzlrr wrote:
>
> "whodunit" <whodunit@whodunit.net> wrote in message
> news:qgByj.7760$tW.7243@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
>> Could go back to the fact that Ronon was supposed to have all kinds of
>> horrible scars on his back from his days of being a runner (and probably
>> injury scars all over his front, I'm guessing too) and he preferred not
>> to show those (save a lot of makeup, prosthetics, etc every episode
>> too)--of course, now that Rodney's healed him up, maybe in the future,
>> he'll lose his shyness. :-)
>>
>
> But in the 'Tao of Rodney', he 'cured' Ronon.
>
> Puzz
>
Yes, that is exactly what I referred to in my last sentence. :-)
Hopefully Ronon is just shy about taking off his shirt. Maybe a
fling with Keller (gosh, does anyone ever go SWIMMING at Atlantis??)
might relax him a little bit. :-)