Ok, the powers that be now officially owned up to the pitch they made to
Scifi for a possible third live action stargate series:

For those who can't be bothered to read the article, here is a quick
summary:



Millions of years ago (before Atlantis moved to the Pegasus Galaxy) the
Ancients sent a giant ship into deep space. Just heading out there and
keep going, its mission: To seed the galaxies it passed through with
Stargates.

Then much later they build another big ship, this one an explorer ship.
It was supposed to follow in the direction of the previous ship and ...
explore what there was to find out there.

But then the Ancients got bored of this plane and decided to ascend
instead, leaving a fine ship unused.

Now the pesky humans have figured out that through the use of the Ninth
Chevron on a Stargate it is possibly to get a direct access to the
explorer vessel - no matter where it is - and to gate to it.
And we gotta mess with that!


It's a first pitch, subject to all kinds of network interference before
it reaches the screens - IF it reaches them.






http://www.gateworld.net/news/2008/04/istargate_universei_revealed.shtml

On Apr 5, 8:31 pm, Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
> Ok, the powers that be now officially owned up to the pitch they made to
> Scifi for a possible third live action stargate series:
>
> For those who can't be bothered to read the article, here is a quick
> summary:
>
> Millions of years ago (before Atlantis moved to the Pegasus Galaxy) the
> Ancients sent a giant ship into deep space. Just heading out there and
> keep going, its mission: To seed the galaxies it passed through with
> Stargates.
>
> Then much later they build another big ship, this one an explorer ship.
> It was supposed to follow in the direction of the previous ship and ...
> explore what there was to find out there.
>
> But then the Ancients got bored of this plane and decided to ascend
> instead, leaving a fine ship unused.
>
> Now the pesky humans have figured out that through the use of the Ninth
> Chevron on a Stargate it is possibly to get a direct access to the
> explorer vessel - no matter where it is - and to gate to it.
> And we gotta mess with that!
>
> It's a first pitch, subject to all kinds of network interference before
> it reaches the screens - IF it reaches them.
>
> http://www.gateworld.net/news/2008/04/istargate_universei_revealed.shtml

Nice summary, interesting concept.

Dan Dassow

On Apr 5, 8:31 pm, Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
> Ok, the powers that be now officially owned up to the pitch they made to
> Scifi for a possible third live action stargate series:
>
> For those who can't be bothered to read the article, here is a quick
> summary:
>
> Millions of years ago (before Atlantis moved to the Pegasus Galaxy) the
> Ancients sent a giant ship into deep space. Just heading out there and
> keep going, its mission: To seed the galaxies it passed through with
> Stargates.
>
> Then much later they build another big ship, this one an explorer ship.
> It was supposed to follow in the direction of the previous ship and ...
> explore what there was to find out there.
>
> But then the Ancients got bored of this plane and decided to ascend
> instead, leaving a fine ship unused.
>
> Now the pesky humans have figured out that through the use of the Ninth
> Chevron on a Stargate it is possibly to get a direct access to the
> explorer vessel - no matter where it is - and to gate to it.
> And we gotta mess with that!
>
> It's a first pitch, subject to all kinds of network interference before
> it reaches the screens - IF it reaches them.
>
> http://www.gateworld.net/news/2008/04/istargate_universei_revealed.shtml

Let me guess: once on the ship they can't get back and find themselves
billions of miles from home in a strange galaxy, and so begins
"Stargate: Voyager". ;-)

On Apr 6, 7:47 am, Anybody <anyb...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
> On Apr 5, 8:31 pm, Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ok, the powers that be now officially owned up to the pitch they made to
> > Scifi for a possible third live action stargate series:
>
> > For those who can't be bothered to read the article, here is a quick
> > summary:
>
> > Millions of years ago (before Atlantis moved to the Pegasus Galaxy) the
> > Ancients sent a giant ship into deep space. Just heading out there and
> > keep going, its mission: To seed the galaxies it passed through with
> > Stargates.
>
> > Then much later they build another big ship, this one an explorer ship.
> > It was supposed to follow in the direction of the previous ship and ...
> > explore what there was to find out there.
>
> > But then the Ancients got bored of this plane and decided to ascend
> > instead, leaving a fine ship unused.
>
> > Now the pesky humans have figured out that through the use of the Ninth
> > Chevron on a Stargate it is possibly to get a direct access to the
> > explorer vessel - no matter where it is - and to gate to it.
> > And we gotta mess with that!
>
> > It's a first pitch, subject to all kinds of network interference before
> > it reaches the screens - IF it reaches them.
>
> >http://www.gateworld.net/news/2008/04/istargate_universei_revealed.shtml
>
> Let me guess: once on the ship they can't get back and find themselves
> billions of miles from home in a strange galaxy, and so begins
> "Stargate: Voyager".  ;-)

How dare you even think that the SG writers would steal ideas from
another show ! This is impossible !

Anybody wrote:
> On Apr 5, 8:31 pm, Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
>> Ok, the powers that be now officially owned up to the pitch they
>> made to Scifi for a possible third live action stargate series:
>> http://www.gateworld.net/news/2008/04/istargate_universei_revealed.shtml
>
http://groups.google.nl/group/alt.tv.stargate-sg1/msg/63893a2609bc3fd3 ;-)

> Let me guess: once on the ship they can't get back and find themselves
> billions of miles from home in a strange galaxy, and so begins
> "Stargate: Voyager". ;-)

AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!

Are you trying to give a guy nightmares?!?

--
www.woutervalentijn.net

www.nksf.scifics.com/nksfseries.html

liam=mail

In article <060420081647395580%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com>,
anybody@anywhere-anytime.com says...
> On Apr 5, 8:31 pm, Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
> > Ok, the powers that be now officially owned up to the pitch they made to
> > Scifi for a possible third live action stargate series:
> >
> > For those who can't be bothered to read the article, here is a quick
> > summary:
> >
> > Millions of years ago (before Atlantis moved to the Pegasus Galaxy) the
> > Ancients sent a giant ship into deep space. Just heading out there and
> > keep going, its mission: To seed the galaxies it passed through with
> > Stargates.
> >
> > Then much later they build another big ship, this one an explorer ship.
> > It was supposed to follow in the direction of the previous ship and ...
> > explore what there was to find out there.
> >
> > But then the Ancients got bored of this plane and decided to ascend
> > instead, leaving a fine ship unused.
> >
> > Now the pesky humans have figured out that through the use of the Ninth
> > Chevron on a Stargate it is possibly to get a direct access to the
> > explorer vessel - no matter where it is - and to gate to it.
> > And we gotta mess with that!
> >
> > It's a first pitch, subject to all kinds of network interference before
> > it reaches the screens - IF it reaches them.
> >
> > http://www.gateworld.net/news/2008/04/istargate_universei_revealed.shtml
>
> Let me guess: once on the ship they can't get back and find themselves
> billions of miles from home in a strange galaxy, and so begins
> "Stargate: Voyager". ;-)


That is what some of us fear yes, lets hope they don't go that way :)

Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote in news:MPG.2262465d343ca77198bd19
@news.usenetserver.com:
>
> It's a first pitch, subject to all kinds of network interference before
> it reaches the screens - IF it reaches them.
>

Well, of course it isn't finalized. I mean, there's no one the crew meets in the first
episode, pisses off, and ends up fighting for five or so years. :)


-==Kensu==-
"Screw you guys, I'm going home." -Jack O'Neil: Stargate Universe ("Pilot")

In article <Xns9A788D2CCF1Bkensuhotmailcom@66.250.146.128>,
kensu__@hotmail.com says...
> Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote in news:MPG.2262465d343ca77198bd19
> @news.usenetserver.com:
> >
> > It's a first pitch, subject to all kinds of network interference before
> > it reaches the screens - IF it reaches them.
> >
>
> Well, of course it isn't finalized. I mean, there's no one the crew meets in the first
> episode, pisses off, and ends up fighting for five or so years. :)

From your mouth to Brad wrights ears :)

"Chris Schumacher" <kensu__@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A788D2CCF1Bkensuhotmailcom@66.250.146.128 ...
> Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote in news:MPG.2262465d343ca77198bd19
> @news.usenetserver.com:
>>
>> It's a first pitch, subject to all kinds of network interference before
>> it reaches the screens - IF it reaches them.
>>
>
> Well, of course it isn't finalized. I mean, there's no one the crew meets
> in the first
> episode, pisses off, and ends up fighting for five or so years. :)
>
>
> -==Kensu==-
> "Screw you guys, I'm going home." -Jack O'Neil: Stargate Universe
> ("Pilot")


There are still alot of unexplored avenues with the sort of established
history this show has.We havent met the Furlings.What if they turned out to
"speak" an ancient form of semitic "Babylonian"?The show layed out how we
got the Egyptian pantheon.Is it taboo to go for the other bits :-)
What about a few teams that go meeting other cultures deciding to pretend
they are Gods and go down the path of the Guaold?In any case I would
definitely like to see the special effects to be excellent from the very
start, I was disappointed with the suits of armor in the series compared to
the armor from the movies when the series first came out.Yes, I know, it was
expensive.

Varekem wrote:
> "Chris Schumacher" <kensu__@hotmail.com> wrote in message


<snip>

> There are still alot of unexplored avenues with the sort of
> established history this show has.We havent met the Furlings.What if
> they turned out to "speak" an ancient form of semitic
> "Babylonian"?The show layed out how we got the Egyptian pantheon.Is
> it taboo to go for the other bits :-)

There once was an alien guy that kidnapped Daniel who was connected to
Babylon. Somewhere in the first seasons. He had a base under a sea and
wanted to know "What fate..." Forgot about the rest of that sentence but he
was curious what happened to his wife. He and she had been fighting the
Gua'uld on Earth.
And other pantheons have been touched upon, and not only by the enemy. Think
about the Asgard!

> What about a few teams that go meeting other cultures deciding to
> pretend they are Gods and go down the path of the Guaold?

Also happened at one time early on on SG-1.

> In any case
> I would definitely like to see the special effects to be excellent
> from the very start, I was disappointed with the suits of armor in
> the series compared to the armor from the movies when the series
> first came out.Yes, I know, it was expensive.

You mean that cool helmet effect etc? Yeah...


--
www.woutervalentijn.net

www.nksf.scifics.com/nksfseries.html

liam=mail

"Wouter Valentijn" <liam@valentijn.nu> wrote in message
news:47f93a7e$0$14355$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> Varekem wrote:
>> "Chris Schumacher" <kensu__@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
> <snip>
>
>> There are still alot of unexplored avenues with the sort of
>> established history this show has.We havent met the Furlings.What if
>> they turned out to "speak" an ancient form of semitic
>> "Babylonian"?The show layed out how we got the Egyptian pantheon.Is
>> it taboo to go for the other bits :-)
>
> There once was an alien guy that kidnapped Daniel who was connected to
> Babylon. Somewhere in the first seasons. He had a base under a sea and
> wanted to know "What fate..." Forgot about the rest of that sentence but
> he was curious what happened to his wife. He and she had been fighting the
> Gua'uld on Earth.

Thats right, I forgot about that one.he makes the team think Daniel died.
> And other pantheons have been touched upon, and not only by the enemy.
> Think about the Asgard!

Yeah they did alot of the Norse thing. I am still hung up on the Furlings
only because O'neill kept referring to some sort of cuddly teddy bear and
that annoys me.They were part of the original alliance, doesnt it make sense
to introduce them?

>
>> What about a few teams that go meeting other cultures deciding to
>> pretend they are Gods and go down the path of the Guaold?
>
> Also happened at one time early on on SG-1.
>
>> In any case
>> I would definitely like to see the special effects to be excellent
>> from the very start, I was disappointed with the suits of armor in
>> the series compared to the armor from the movies when the series
>> first came out.Yes, I know, it was expensive.
>
> You mean that cool helmet effect etc? Yeah...
>
>
> --
> www.woutervalentijn.net
>
> www.nksf.scifics.com/nksfseries.html
>
> liam=mail
>
>

In article <ftb86i$c6h$1@registered.motzarella.org>, hanaram857
@archangels.mil says...

> There are still alot of unexplored avenues with the sort of established
> history this show has.

Indeed, but this is the way they want to go.

(Of course there is the alien race in "Scorched Earth" - would be
interesting to learn more about them)

> We havent met the Furlings.

Nor are we likely to, the powers the be seems to think it was a stupid
name they came up with, that it sounds like "furry" and thusly wont
return to them (lame yes)

Though Rob Cooper pointed out the amusing coincidence that "Furlings" is
an anagram of FunGirls *g*

> In any case I would
> definitely like to see the special effects to be excellent from the very
> start, I was disappointed with the suits of armor in the series compared to
> the armor from the movies when the series first came out.Yes, I know, it was
> expensive.

Yeah Brad Wright has said he would like more money to do this series or
he may not be interested at all. Would be a downer to go to a far away
galaxy and it looks like a forrest in canada...

"Pete B" <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.22635fba1553ed2498bd26@news.usenetserver. com...
> In article <ftb86i$c6h$1@registered.motzarella.org>, hanaram857
> @archangels.mil says...
>
>> There are still alot of unexplored avenues with the sort of established
>> history this show has.
>
> Indeed, but this is the way they want to go.
>
> (Of course there is the alien race in "Scorched Earth" - would be
> interesting to learn more about them)
>
>> We havent met the Furlings.
>
> Nor are we likely to, the powers the be seems to think it was a stupid
> name they came up with, that it sounds like "furry" and thusly wont
> return to them (lame yes)
>
> Though Rob Cooper pointed out the amusing coincidence that "Furlings" is
> an anagram of FunGirls *g*
>
>> In any case I would
>> definitely like to see the special effects to be excellent from the very
>> start, I was disappointed with the suits of armor in the series compared
>> to
>> the armor from the movies when the series first came out.Yes, I know, it
>> was
>> expensive.
>
> Yeah Brad Wright has said he would like more money to do this series or
> he may not be interested at all. Would be a downer to go to a far away
> galaxy and it looks like a forrest in canada...
>


I guess with a show like this, that was going to "end" so many times, alot
of this stuff was written without regard to longevity?Furlings is a stupid
name.
Did they have in mind the Atlantis spinoff when they did "Lost City"?The
drones in Lost City are far different from the drones in "Rising", like they
had to re-adapt the concept the same way the armor was.

Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in
news:060420081647395580%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com:

http://www.gateworld.net/news/2008/04/istargate_universei_reveale
d.shtml

> Let me guess: once on the ship they can't get back and find
themselves
> billions of miles from home in a strange galaxy, and so begins
> "Stargate: Voyager". ;-)

Lol...

Gisele

In article <ftbg80$nm0$1@registered.motzarella.org>, hanaram857
@archangels.mil says...
> I guess with a show like this, that was going to "end" so many times, alot
> of this stuff was written without regard to longevity?Furlings is a stupid
> name.
> Did they have in mind the Atlantis spinoff when they did "Lost City"?The
> drones in Lost City are far different from the drones in "Rising", like they
> had to re-adapt the concept the same way the armor was.
>

They generally don't plan ahead more than a year at a time (nor have
they ever claimed to do otherwise). They try to remember and respect
what has gone before to have continuity, though sometimes they change
things a bit - because they forget (not so good), because they add new
functionality or we (the humans) didn't know all there was to know on
the subect(fine) - or sometimes quietly try to forget something because
they don't really like it (dubious). For instance they have a ton of
"zat guns" stolen from the goauld, why don't they use them on Atlantis?
Do they have to kill all opposition with expensive bullets? Well, they
don't like them so much. And the third zat shot (if you have seen the
whole series) kills. I don't see a problem with that, but some of the
execs think it is stupid and just ignore the guns *g*

Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:

> And the third zat shot (if you have seen the
> whole series) kills. I don't see a problem with that, but some of the
> execs think it is stupid and just ignore the guns *g*

Actually, isn't it that the first shot stuns, the second shot kills and
the third disintegrates? I remember that the zats have the ability to
disintegrate objects, which they used to good effect when they travelled
back in time to the 60's or whenever it was. :-)

--
Aaron Hsu <arcfide@sacrideo.us> | Jabber: arcfide@jabber.org
``Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to
live at the expense of everybody else.'' - Frederic Bastiat

"Pete B" <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2263719f656d194498bd28@news.usenetserver. com...
> In article <ftbg80$nm0$1@registered.motzarella.org>, hanaram857
> @archangels.mil says...
>> I guess with a show like this, that was going to "end" so many times,
>> alot
>> of this stuff was written without regard to longevity?Furlings is a
>> stupid
>> name.
>> Did they have in mind the Atlantis spinoff when they did "Lost City"?The
>> drones in Lost City are far different from the drones in "Rising", like
>> they
>> had to re-adapt the concept the same way the armor was.
>>
>
> They generally don't plan ahead more than a year at a time (nor have
> they ever claimed to do otherwise). They try to remember and respect
> what has gone before to have continuity, though sometimes they change
> things a bit - because they forget (not so good), because they add new
> functionality or we (the humans) didn't know all there was to know on
> the subect(fine) - or sometimes quietly try to forget something because
> they don't really like it (dubious). For instance they have a ton of
> "zat guns" stolen from the goauld, why don't they use them on Atlantis?
> Do they have to kill all opposition with expensive bullets? Well, they
> don't like them so much. And the third zat shot (if you have seen the
> whole series) kills. I don't see a problem with that, but some of the
> execs think it is stupid and just ignore the guns *g*
>


The second kills, the third disintegrates.
:-)

"Varekem" <hanaram857@archangels.mil> wrote in
news:ftboae$s66$1@registered.motzarella.org:
>
> The second kills, the third disintegrates.
>:-)

Yeah, I remembered that too. Geez, that's from a LONG time ago; like, early
season 2, I think. I'm sure there's people here who never knew they did
anything else but stun. :)

I should point out that we've only really seen SG-1 use them, and I believe
those are the ones they stole from Skarra's (forget his Goa'uld name) ship
back in Serpent's Lair. Not to say we haven't seen other people use them,
but I don't think they became standard equipment.

-==Kensu==-

In article <ftboae$s66$1@registered.motzarella.org>, hanaram857
@archangels.mil says...
> And the third zat shot (if you have seen the
> > whole series) kills. I don't see a problem with that, but some of the
> > execs think it is stupid and just ignore the guns *g*
> >
>
>
> The second kills, the third disintegrates.
> :-)


Yes sorry, ment disintegrates :)

In article <Xns9A78C96A912B9kensuhotmailcom@66.250.146.128>,
kensu__@hotmail.com says...

> I should point out that we've only really seen SG-1 use them, and I believe
> those are the ones they stole from Skarra's (forget his Goa'uld name) ship
> back in Serpent's Lair. Not to say we haven't seen other people use them,
> but I don't think they became standard equipment.

Hm.. didn't they give one to Vala in the beginning.

On Apr 6, 10:27 pm, "Varekem" <hanaram...@archangels.mil> wrote:
> "Chris Schumacher" <kens...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9A788D2CCF1Bkensuhotmailcom@66.250.146.128 ...
>
> > Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote in news:MPG.2262465d343ca77198bd19
> > @news.usenetserver.com:
>
> >> It's a first pitch, subject to all kinds of network interference before
> >> it reaches the screens - IF it reaches them.
>
> > Well, of course it isn't finalized. I mean, there's no one the crew meets
> > in the first
> > episode, pisses off, and ends up fighting for five or so years. :)
>
> >                        -==Kensu==-
> > "Screw you guys, I'm going home." -Jack O'Neil: Stargate Universe
> > ("Pilot")
>
> There are still alot of unexplored avenues with the sort of established
> history this show has.We havent met the Furlings.What if they turned out to
> "speak" an ancient form of semitic "Babylonian"?The show layed out how we
> got the Egyptian pantheon.Is it taboo to go for the other bits :-)
> What about a few teams that go meeting other cultures deciding to pretend
> they are Gods and go down the path of the Guaold?In any case I would
> definitely like to see the special effects to be excellent from the very
> start, I was disappointed with the suits of armor in the series compared to
> the armor from the movies when the series first came out.Yes, I know, it was
> expensive.

They never touched the monotheistic religions. Just once when Vala was
pregnant and said something like "have you ever heard of someone being
born without sexual relations ?" and the others were slightly
embarrassed - and they spoke about Arthur. They chose to never speak
about Christianity, Judaism, or Islam for obvious reasons (it could
make a lot of people angry) , but Galactica does it (indirectly) and
with great success. So why not ? They don't even have to invent
anything, they can just behave as usual and steal from other writers
ideas.

"jojo" <jojlolo@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2e5a89aa-45d3-4d53-ab2b-74ca56374235@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 6, 10:27 pm, "Varekem" <hanaram...@archangels.mil> wrote:
> "Chris Schumacher" <kens...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9A788D2CCF1Bkensuhotmailcom@66.250.146.128 ...
>
> > Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote in news:MPG.2262465d343ca77198bd19
> > @news.usenetserver.com:
>
> >> It's a first pitch, subject to all kinds of network interference before
> >> it reaches the screens - IF it reaches them.
>
> > Well, of course it isn't finalized. I mean, there's no one the crew
> > meets
> > in the first
> > episode, pisses off, and ends up fighting for five or so years. :)
>
> > -==Kensu==-
> > "Screw you guys, I'm going home." -Jack O'Neil: Stargate Universe
> > ("Pilot")
>
> There are still alot of unexplored avenues with the sort of established
> history this show has.We havent met the Furlings.What if they turned out
> to
> "speak" an ancient form of semitic "Babylonian"?The show layed out how we
> got the Egyptian pantheon.Is it taboo to go for the other bits :-)
> What about a few teams that go meeting other cultures deciding to pretend
> they are Gods and go down the path of the Guaold?In any case I would
> definitely like to see the special effects to be excellent from the very
> start, I was disappointed with the suits of armor in the series compared
> to
> the armor from the movies when the series first came out.Yes, I know, it
> was
> expensive.

"They never touched the monotheistic religions. Just once when Vala was
pregnant and said something like "have you ever heard of someone being
born without sexual relations ?" and the others were slightly
embarrassed - and they spoke about Arthur. They chose to never speak
about Christianity, Judaism, or Islam for obvious reasons (it could
make a lot of people angry) , but Galactica does it (indirectly) and
with great success. So why not ? They don't even have to invent
anything, they can just behave as usual and steal from other writers
ideas."

A story involving the origins of Babylonian symbolism could be viable and
would actually be along the lines of the original movie.It could be done but
you would certainly have people wondering if you were trying to convey a
particular religious message (or a specifically non-religious message-there
are no chaplains on the show, and all military bases have them).The show
never addressed beliefs of the ancients in any higher beings than themselves
(who have the power of gods almost) but that could be hand-waved away easily
with one episode where they say that dont know any more than anyone else
about the matter.Some sort of explanation , say, for the Tower of Babel ( a
weapon? A war between space races?) would anchor the show to existing
mythology but to be honest, I would be happy if they have good science
advisors and have a decent technical base for whatever they do. I wont mind
missing out on discovering the Planet of the Hebrews, nobody would have the
balls to do that well anyway and too many people will cry just reading this
post.<G>

jojo <jojlolo@gmail.com> wrote:

> hey chose to never speak
> about Christianity, Judaism, or Islam for obvious reasons (it could
> make a lot of people angry) , but Galactica does it (indirectly) and
> with great success. So why not ?

From my limited experience, the audience of Stargate is much more likely
to take offense to the direct play on monotheistic religions, and
Christianity in particular, than the audience of Galactica. I know a lot
of fans of the series that already thought the Ori were too close to an
anti-God thesis to feel comfortable. The fans I know who like Galactica,
however, seem to be either theists or more anti-religion.

--
Aaron Hsu <arcfide@sacrideo.us> | Jabber: arcfide@jabber.org
``Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to
live at the expense of everybody else.'' - Frederic Bastiat

Aaron Hsu <arcfide@sacrideo.us> did eloquently scribble:
> jojo <jojlolo@gmail.com> wrote:

>> hey chose to never speak
>> about Christianity, Judaism, or Islam for obvious reasons (it could
>> make a lot of people angry) , but Galactica does it (indirectly) and
>> with great success. So why not ?

> From my limited experience, the audience of Stargate is much more likely
> to take offense to the direct play on monotheistic religions, and
> Christianity in particular, than the audience of Galactica. I know a lot
> of fans of the series that already thought the Ori were too close to an
> anti-God thesis to feel comfortable. The fans I know who like Galactica,
> however, seem to be either theists or more anti-religion.

Think you mean atheists. Theists are the opposite, they believe in a supreme
being (or beings).
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| spike1@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Varekem wrote:
> "Wouter Valentijn" <liam@valentijn.nu> wrote in message
> news:47f93a7e$0$14355$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...


<snip>

> Yeah they did alot of the Norse thing. I am still hung up on the
> Furlings only because O'neill kept referring to some sort of cuddly
> teddy bear and that annoys me.They were part of the original
> alliance, doesnt it make sense to introduce them?

Maybe they were meant for the 'reserve' bench.
Just to have something around. Then they can say: "Hey, we mentioned them
earlier as part of that important aliance."

--
www.woutervalentijn.net

www.nksf.scifics.com/nksfseries.html

liam=mail

Aaron Hsu wrote:
> Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
>
>> And the third zat shot (if you have seen the
>> whole series) kills. I don't see a problem with that, but some of the
>> execs think it is stupid and just ignore the guns *g*
>
> Actually, isn't it that the first shot stuns, the second shot kills
> and the third disintegrates? I remember that the zats have the
> ability to disintegrate objects, which they used to good effect when
> they travelled back in time to the 60's or whenever it was. :-)

1969.

I always thought there was a chance they would run into John Christopher.
;-)


--
www.woutervalentijn.net

www.nksf.scifics.com/nksfseries.html

liam=mail

spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:
> Aaron Hsu <arcfide@sacrideo.us> did eloquently scribble:
>> jojo <jojlolo@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> hey chose to never speak
>>> about Christianity, Judaism, or Islam for obvious reasons (it could
>>> make a lot of people angry) , but Galactica does it (indirectly) and
>>> with great success. So why not ?
>
>> From my limited experience, the audience of Stargate is much more
>> likely
>> to take offense to the direct play on monotheistic religions, and
>> Christianity in particular, than the audience of Galactica. I know a
>> lot
>> of fans of the series that already thought the Ori were too close to
>> an anti-God thesis to feel comfortable. The fans I know who like
>> Galactica, however, seem to be either theists or more anti-religion.
>

I love both shows.
The problem with the Ori was that they were boring. I kept on saying to my
self: "Hollow are the Ori!"

> Think you mean atheists. Theists are the opposite, they believe in a
> supreme being (or beings).

They did at one time fight a being that could be interpreted as the 'devil'.
And one other episode featured a primitive community with a Christian style
believe.

--
www.woutervalentijn.net

www.nksf.scifics.com/nksfseries.html

liam=mail

On Apr 7, 12:37 pm, arcf...@sacrideo.us (Aaron Hsu) wrote:
> jojo <jojl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > hey chose to never speak
> > about Christianity, Judaism, or Islam for obvious reasons (it could
> > make a lot of people angry) , but Galactica does it (indirectly) and
> > with great success. So why not ?
>
> From my limited experience, the audience of Stargate is much more likely
> to take offense to the direct play on monotheistic religions, and
> Christianity in particular, than the audience of Galactica. I know a lot
> of fans of the series that already thought the Ori were too close to an
> anti-God thesis to feel comfortable. The fans I know who like Galactica,
> however, seem to be either theists or more anti-religion.
>

It could be. I myself is not an atheist or anti-religion and very much
enjoy Galactica even if the "bad guys" believe in One God and commit
genocides in his name. It's just a frakking show.

<spike1@freenet.co.uk> wrote:

> > From my limited experience, the audience of Stargate is much more likely
> > to take offense to the direct play on monotheistic religions, and
> > Christianity in particular, than the audience of Galactica. I know a lot
> > of fans of the series that already thought the Ori were too close to an
> > anti-God thesis to feel comfortable. The fans I know who like Galactica,
> > however, seem to be either theists or more anti-religion.
>
> Think you mean atheists. Theists are the opposite, they believe in a supreme
> being (or beings).

No, actually, I meant theists: people who are wiling to acknowledge that
God or a supremely higher being of some sort is the most reasonable
explanation to things, but who are not necessarily willing to
acknowledge that Christianity or other belief systems answer the rest of
the details.
--
Aaron Hsu <arcfide@sacrideo.us> | Jabber: arcfide@jabber.org
``Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to
live at the expense of everybody else.'' - Frederic Bastiat

jojo <jojlolo@gmail.com> wrote:

> It could be. I myself is not an atheist or anti-religion and very much
> enjoy Galactica even if the "bad guys" believe in One God and commit
> genocides in his name. It's just a frakking show.

I have actually wanted to check it out, but simply have not had the
time. :-)

--
Aaron Hsu <arcfide@sacrideo.us> | Jabber: arcfide@jabber.org
``Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to
live at the expense of everybody else.'' - Frederic Bastiat

In article <47fa6349$0$14343$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, "Wouter
Valentijn" <liam@valentijn.nu> wrote:

> Aaron Hsu wrote:
> > Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
> >
> >> And the third zat shot (if you have seen the
> >> whole series) kills. I don't see a problem with that, but some of the
> >> execs think it is stupid and just ignore the guns *g*
> >
> > Actually, isn't it that the first shot stuns, the second shot kills
> > and the third disintegrates? I remember that the zats have the
> > ability to disintegrate objects, which they used to good effect when
> > they travelled back in time to the 60's or whenever it was. :-)
>
> 1969.
>
> I always thought there was a chance they would run into John Christopher.
> ;-)

Maybe they should have had Jack telling a young Dean Devlin a bedtime
story. ;-)

In article <Xns9A78C96A912B9kensuhotmailcom@66.250.146.128>,
Chris Schumacher <kensu__@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Varekem" <hanaram857@archangels.mil> wrote in
>news:ftboae$s66$1@registered.motzarella.org:
>>
>> The second kills, the third disintegrates.
>>:-)
>
>Yeah, I remembered that too. Geez, that's from a LONG time ago; like, early
>season 2, I think. I'm sure there's people here who never knew they did
>anything else but stun. :)
>
>I should point out that we've only really seen SG-1 use them, and I believe
>those are the ones they stole from Skarra's (forget his Goa'uld name) ship
Klorel

>back in Serpent's Lair. Not to say we haven't seen other people use them,
>but I don't think they became standard equipment.

Along these lines, have you ever wondered why they haven't been
collecting staff weapons? Think of all the times they have
blasted a group of Jaffa and just left the staff weapons laying
around. ARG!

Jill
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++
The colors blend, the edges soften. Swirling and mixing
we are becoming white light.
jill@tuells.org

jill wrote:
> In article <Xns9A78C96A912B9kensuhotmailcom@66.250.146.128>,
> Chris Schumacher <kensu__@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Varekem" <hanaram857@archangels.mil> wrote in
>> news:ftboae$s66$1@registered.motzarella.org:
>>>
>>> The second kills, the third disintegrates.
>>> :-)
>>
>> Yeah, I remembered that too. Geez, that's from a LONG time ago;
>> like, early season 2, I think. I'm sure there's people here who
>> never knew they did anything else but stun. :)
>>
>> I should point out that we've only really seen SG-1 use them, and I
>> believe those are the ones they stole from Skarra's (forget his
>> Goa'uld name) ship Klorel
>
>> back in Serpent's Lair. Not to say we haven't seen other people use
>> them, but I don't think they became standard equipment.
>
> Along these lines, have you ever wondered why they haven't been
> collecting staff weapons? Think of all the times they have
> blasted a group of Jaffa and just left the staff weapons laying
> around. ARG!
>
Didn't they sorta address this in one episode? I seem to recall one episode
where some Jaffa wanted to know why SGC wasn't helping them train with staff
weapons. O'Neil and Carter responded by having a Jaffa fire at a hanging
log, punching a crater or hole in the log; then Carter cut the log in half
with her P90. O'Neil followed up by saying staff weapons were weapons for
terrorizing people while the SGC's weapons were for fighting a war with.

--
..-- - ..-. ..--..

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

> jill wrote:
> > In article <Xns9A78C96A912B9kensuhotmailcom@66.250.146.128>,
> > Chris Schumacher <kensu__@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Varekem" <hanaram857@archangels.mil> wrote in
> >> news:ftboae$s66$1@registered.motzarella.org:
> >>>
> >>> The second kills, the third disintegrates.
> >>> :-)
> >>
> >> Yeah, I remembered that too. Geez, that's from a LONG time ago;
> >> like, early season 2, I think. I'm sure there's people here who
> >> never knew they did anything else but stun. :)
> >>
> >> I should point out that we've only really seen SG-1 use them, and I
> >> believe those are the ones they stole from Skarra's (forget his
> >> Goa'uld name) ship Klorel
> >
> >> back in Serpent's Lair. Not to say we haven't seen other people use
> >> them, but I don't think they became standard equipment.
> >
> > Along these lines, have you ever wondered why they haven't been
> > collecting staff weapons? Think of all the times they have
> > blasted a group of Jaffa and just left the staff weapons laying
> > around. ARG!
> >
> Didn't they sorta address this in one episode? I seem to recall one episode
> where some Jaffa wanted to know why SGC wasn't helping them train with staff
> weapons. O'Neil and Carter responded by having a Jaffa fire at a hanging
> log, punching a crater or hole in the log; then Carter cut the log in half
> with her P90. O'Neil followed up by saying staff weapons were weapons for
> terrorizing people while the SGC's weapons were for fighting a war with.

Right! That was a fun episode. I actually liked that explanation. They
were also more accurate, as they did the demo with moving logs, and so
on, I think. However, another reason you don't pick up weapons as you go
is that we are talking a war zone here. It's not like you bring your big
Sam's Club shopping trolley around to collect the staff weapons with
your kids on a Saturday afternoon. In fact, I believe it's also common
practice (or I would expect it to be common practice) to leave clips,
shells, maybe magazines and all sorts of other items laying around in
the middle of a fight.

I think the bottom line is that the Human Weapons have proven to be
effective, albeit somewhat crude tools which are well suited to the
purposes of the SGC. They also serve to differentiate the good guys from
the bad guys. It would get pretty annoying if everyone started carrying
around staffs and wearing snake armour.

--
Aaron Hsu <arcfide@sacrideo.us> | Jabber: arcfide@jabber.org
``Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to
live at the expense of everybody else.'' - Frederic Bastiat

Anybody wrote:
> In article <47fa6349$0$14343$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, "Wouter
> Valentijn" <liam@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>
>> Aaron Hsu wrote:
>>> Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And the third zat shot (if you have seen the
>>>> whole series) kills. I don't see a problem with that, but some of
>>>> the execs think it is stupid and just ignore the guns *g*
>>>
>>> Actually, isn't it that the first shot stuns, the second shot kills
>>> and the third disintegrates? I remember that the zats have the
>>> ability to disintegrate objects, which they used to good effect when
>>> they travelled back in time to the 60's or whenever it was. :-)
>>
>> 1969.
>>
>> I always thought there was a chance they would run into John
>> Christopher. ;-)
>
> Maybe they should have had Jack telling a young Dean Devlin a bedtime
> story. ;-)

He was like 7 then.... Maybe just young enough.

--
www.woutervalentijn.net

www.nksf.scifics.com/nksfseries.html

liam=mail

In article <47fb03f3$0$36405$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>Didn't they sorta address this in one episode? I seem to recall one episode
>where some Jaffa wanted to know why SGC wasn't helping them train with staff
>weapons. O'Neil and Carter responded by having a Jaffa fire at a hanging
>log, punching a crater or hole in the log; then Carter cut the log in half
>with her P90. O'Neil followed up by saying staff weapons were weapons for
>terrorizing people while the SGC's weapons were for fighting a war with.

IIRC the line was "This is a weapon of terror. It scares people.
THIS is a weapon of war. It KILLS people." Or something along those
lines.

There are also some instances in which they do retrieve staff weapons,
e.g. in the second part of "Moebius" we see a weapons cache set up
by Daniel Jackson that is full of staff weapons presumably stolen from
Ra.

--
Kyle Haight

"Dimensional Traveler" <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:

> jill wrote:
>> Along these lines, have you ever wondered why they haven't been
>> collecting staff weapons? Think of all the times they have
>> blasted a group of Jaffa and just left the staff weapons laying
>> around. ARG!

> Didn't they sorta address this in one episode? I seem to recall one episode
> where some Jaffa wanted to know why SGC wasn't helping them train with staff
> weapons. O'Neil and Carter responded by having a Jaffa fire at a hanging
> log, punching a crater or hole in the log; then Carter cut the log in half
> with her P90. O'Neil followed up by saying staff weapons were weapons for
> terrorizing people while the SGC's weapons were for fighting a war with.

Yeah, that's what O'Neil said then. I'm not sure I entirely buy it -- seems
to me, the staff weapon could have been a decent weapon of war if the Jaffa
hadn't all gone to the Imperial Stormtrooper Marksmanship Academy for their
lessons :-). Also, one might point out (and, IIRC, one of the Jaffa in that
episode *did* point out) that the H&K P90, while having a number of fine
characteristics, is dependent on being regularly fed with bullets, and thus
dependent on at least semi-regular contact with the Department of Defense
and its supply sergeants. Staff weapons don't need ammo; it's not clear how
many shots one can get out of its energy source, but I don't think we've
ever seen a staff weapon energy source "run out" unless subjected to
extreme abuse like, say, being hotwired to a Stargate and used to dial
the Asgard galaxy.

In article <1iezoey.187t88wviry8N%arcfide@sacrideo.us>,
arcfide@sacrideo.us says...
> Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
>
> > And the third zat shot (if you have seen the
> > whole series) kills. I don't see a problem with that, but some of the
> > execs think it is stupid and just ignore the guns *g*
>
> Actually, isn't it that the first shot stuns, the second shot kills and
> the third disintegrates? I remember that the zats have the ability to
> disintegrate objects, which they used to good effect when they travelled
> back in time to the 60's or whenever it was. :-)


Yeah, its been so long i was forgetting :)

In article <1if0f61.m6rqivbm9vblN%arcfide@sacrideo.us>,
arcfide@sacrideo.us says...
> jojo <jojlolo@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > hey chose to never speak
> > about Christianity, Judaism, or Islam for obvious reasons (it could
> > make a lot of people angry) , but Galactica does it (indirectly) and
> > with great success. So why not ?
>
> From my limited experience, the audience of Stargate is much more likely
> to take offense to the direct play on monotheistic religions, and
> Christianity in particular, than the audience of Galactica. I know a lot
> of fans of the series that already thought the Ori were too close to an
> anti-God thesis to feel comfortable. The fans I know who like Galactica,
> however, seem to be either theists or more anti-religion.

I think you are right, it seems many fans of the Stargates are less
scifi orientated and watch it because it seems fairly "real", ie more
action and less heady scifi concepts :)

In article <47fa6349$0$14343$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, liam@valentijn.nu
says...
> Aaron Hsu wrote:
> > Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
> >
> >> And the third zat shot (if you have seen the
> >> whole series) kills. I don't see a problem with that, but some of the
> >> execs think it is stupid and just ignore the guns *g*
> >
> > Actually, isn't it that the first shot stuns, the second shot kills
> > and the third disintegrates? I remember that the zats have the
> > ability to disintegrate objects, which they used to good effect when
> > they travelled back in time to the 60's or whenever it was. :-)
>
> 1969.

Ah yes, where O'Neill fathered Mitchell ;)

In article <MPG.2269c597d013ac8e98bd60@news.usenetserver.com>, Pete B
<xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:

> In article <47fa6349$0$14343$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, liam@valentijn.nu
> says...
> > Aaron Hsu wrote:
> > > Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> And the third zat shot (if you have seen the
> > >> whole series) kills. I don't see a problem with that, but some of the
> > >> execs think it is stupid and just ignore the guns *g*
> > >
> > > Actually, isn't it that the first shot stuns, the second shot kills
> > > and the third disintegrates? I remember that the zats have the
> > > ability to disintegrate objects, which they used to good effect when
> > > they travelled back in time to the 60's or whenever it was. :-)
> >
> > 1969.
>
> Ah yes, where O'Neill fathered Mitchell ;)

That would explain a lot. ;-)

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 23:02:53 +0200, "Wouter Valentijn"
<liam@valentijn.nu> wrote:

>Varekem wrote:
>> "Chris Schumacher" <kensu__@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
><snip>
>
>> There are still alot of unexplored avenues with the sort of
>> established history this show has.We havent met the Furlings.What if
>> they turned out to "speak" an ancient form of semitic
>> "Babylonian"?The show layed out how we got the Egyptian pantheon.Is
>> it taboo to go for the other bits :-)
>
>There once was an alien guy that kidnapped Daniel who was connected to
>Babylon. Somewhere in the first seasons. He had a base under a sea and
>wanted to know "What fate..." Forgot about the rest of that sentence but he
>was curious what happened to his wife. He and she had been fighting the
>Gua'uld on Earth.
Wasn't he the guy asking what fate Omorosa? Who knew that aliens watch
reality TV?

>And other pantheons have been touched upon, and not only by the enemy. Think
>about the Asgard!
>
>> What about a few teams that go meeting other cultures deciding to
>> pretend they are Gods and go down the path of the Guaold?
>
>Also happened at one time early on on SG-1.

Yeah, it's something that might happen but you don't want to build a
show around the idea of the central characters being evil.

>> In any case
>> I would definitely like to see the special effects to be excellent
>> from the very start, I was disappointed with the suits of armor in
>> the series compared to the armor from the movies when the series
>> first came out.Yes, I know, it was expensive.
>
>You mean that cool helmet effect etc? Yeah...
it shouldn't be that expensive to do at this point in time.

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 23:32:00 +0200, Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com>
wrote:

>In article <ftb86i$c6h$1@registered.motzarella.org>, hanaram857
>@archangels.mil says...
>
>> There are still alot of unexplored avenues with the sort of established
>> history this show has.
>
>Indeed, but this is the way they want to go.
>
>(Of course there is the alien race in "Scorched Earth" - would be
>interesting to learn more about them)
>
>> We havent met the Furlings.
>
>Nor are we likely to, the powers the be seems to think it was a stupid
>name they came up with, that it sounds like "furry" and thusly wont
>return to them (lame yes)
>
>Though Rob Cooper pointed out the amusing coincidence that "Furlings" is
>an anagram of FunGirls *g*
>
So we might meet a group of space going party girls?

>> In any case I would
>> definitely like to see the special effects to be excellent from the very
>> start, I was disappointed with the suits of armor in the series compared to
>> the armor from the movies when the series first came out.Yes, I know, it was
>> expensive.
>
>Yeah Brad Wright has said he would like more money to do this series or
>he may not be interested at all. Would be a downer to go to a far away
>galaxy and it looks like a forrest in canada...

I wonder how the Sanctuary series will turn out for the SciFi channel?
Will they be able to improve their special effects for a series that
is already sold. If so that might suggest they can do a better job of
making the worlds they go to look different by using some CGI settings
instead of having everything be shot outdoors.

On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 13:46:09 -0500, Richard Todd
<rmtodd@ichotolot.servalan.com> wrote:

>"Dimensional Traveler" <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
>
>> jill wrote:
>>> Along these lines, have you ever wondered why they haven't been
>>> collecting staff weapons? Think of all the times they have
>>> blasted a group of Jaffa and just left the staff weapons laying
>>> around. ARG!
>
>> Didn't they sorta address this in one episode? I seem to recall one episode
>> where some Jaffa wanted to know why SGC wasn't helping them train with staff
>> weapons. O'Neil and Carter responded by having a Jaffa fire at a hanging
>> log, punching a crater or hole in the log; then Carter cut the log in half
>> with her P90. O'Neil followed up by saying staff weapons were weapons for
>> terrorizing people while the SGC's weapons were for fighting a war with.
>
>Yeah, that's what O'Neil said then. I'm not sure I entirely buy it -- seems
>to me, the staff weapon could have been a decent weapon of war if the Jaffa
>hadn't all gone to the Imperial Stormtrooper Marksmanship Academy for their
>lessons :-). Also, one might point out (and, IIRC, one of the Jaffa in that
>episode *did* point out) that the H&K P90, while having a number of fine
>characteristics, is dependent on being regularly fed with bullets, and thus
>dependent on at least semi-regular contact with the Department of Defense
>and its supply sergeants. Staff weapons don't need ammo; it's not clear how
>many shots one can get out of its energy source, but I don't think we've
>ever seen a staff weapon energy source "run out" unless subjected to
>extreme abuse like, say, being hotwired to a Stargate and used to dial
>the Asgard galaxy.

I don't know about that. Staff weapons may not need ammo but they are
awfully large, and would be quite unwieldy in close quarters. Now the
zats make perfect sense as they can stun or kill, are easily
maneuvered/carried and they seem to have an endless supply of shots.
So it makes sense to me that Stargate Command might pick up Zats as a
secondary weapon but not staff weapons. Plus you never know if the
staff weapons have been booby trapped, while the trusty P90 is easily
checked out.

In article <ipr9045ngai95lh1fdg5dtvi78seg7uab7@4ax.com>,
nanoflower@gmail.com says...
> >> What about a few teams that go meeting other cultures deciding to
> >> pretend they are Gods and go down the path of the Guaold?
> >
> >Also happened at one time early on on SG-1.
>
> Yeah, it's something that might happen but you don't want to build a
> show around the idea of the central characters being evil.
>

Evil is subjective.

In article <ipr9045ngai95lh1fdg5dtvi78seg7uab7@4ax.com>,
shawn <nanoflower@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 23:02:53 +0200, "Wouter Valentijn"
> <liam@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>
> >Varekem wrote:
> >> "Chris Schumacher" <kensu__@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> There are still alot of unexplored avenues with the sort of
> >> established history this show has.We havent met the Furlings.What if
> >> they turned out to "speak" an ancient form of semitic
> >> "Babylonian"?The show layed out how we got the Egyptian pantheon.Is
> >> it taboo to go for the other bits :-)
> >
> >There once was an alien guy that kidnapped Daniel who was connected to
> >Babylon. Somewhere in the first seasons. He had a base under a sea and
> >wanted to know "What fate..." Forgot about the rest of that sentence but he
> >was curious what happened to his wife. He and she had been fighting the
> >Gua'uld on Earth.
> Wasn't he the guy asking what fate Omorosa? Who knew that aliens watch
> reality TV?
>
> >And other pantheons have been touched upon, and not only by the enemy. Think
> >about the Asgard!
> >
> >> What about a few teams that go meeting other cultures deciding to
> >> pretend they are Gods and go down the path of the Guaold?
> >
> >Also happened at one time early on on SG-1.
>
> Yeah, it's something that might happen but you don't want to build a
> show around the idea of the central characters being evil.

Like ENTERPRISE?

--
Star Trek 09:

No Shat, No Show.
http://www.disneysub.com/board/noshat.jpg

In article <MPG.226f1976aa31f42698bd6f@news.usenetserver.com>,
Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, it's something that might happen but you don't want to build a
>> show around the idea of the central characters being evil.
>
>Evil is subjective.

No, it isn't.

That said, I probably would have watched Enterprise if they'd just done
episodes in the Mirror universe. There's something fascinating -- almost
liberating -- about unabashedly evil characters doing what they do best.

Another example: the "Start of Darkness" volume of "Order of the Stick".

--
Kyle Haight

In article <DJadnXZZaJynpJjVnZ2dnUVZ_vninZ2d@giganews.com>,
khaight@lefDELETEtistME.org (Kyle Haight) wrote:

> In article <MPG.226f1976aa31f42698bd6f@news.usenetserver.com>,
> Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Yeah, it's something that might happen but you don't want to build a
> >> show around the idea of the central characters being evil.
> >
> >Evil is subjective.
>
> No, it isn't.
>
> That said, I probably would have watched Enterprise if they'd just done
> episodes in the Mirror universe. There's something fascinating -- almost
> liberating -- about unabashedly evil characters doing what they do best.

The regular Archer was more evil than the mirror Archer.

--
Star Trek 09:

No Shat, No Show.
http://www.disneysub.com/board/noshat.jpg

Anim8rFSK wrote:
> In article <DJadnXZZaJynpJjVnZ2dnUVZ_vninZ2d@giganews.com>,
> khaight@lefDELETEtistME.org (Kyle Haight) wrote:
>
>> In article <MPG.226f1976aa31f42698bd6f@news.usenetserver.com>,
>> Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
>>>> Yeah, it's something that might happen but you don't want to build a
>>>> show around the idea of the central characters being evil.
>>> Evil is subjective.
>> No, it isn't.
>>
>> That said, I probably would have watched Enterprise if they'd just done
>> episodes in the Mirror universe. There's something fascinating -- almost
>> liberating -- about unabashedly evil characters doing what they do best.
>
> The regular Archer was more evil than the mirror Archer.
>
and had less conscience. :)

In article <hur9049m8ai4ln6oqckkftfslj00gf9c03@4ax.com>,
nanoflower@gmail.com says...

> >> We havent met the Furlings.
> >
> >Nor are we likely to, the powers the be seems to think it was a stupid
> >name they came up with, that it sounds like "furry" and thusly wont
> >return to them (lame yes)
> >
> >Though Rob Cooper pointed out the amusing coincidence that "Furlings" is
> >an anagram of FunGirls *g*
> >
> So we might meet a group of space going party girls?

I wouldn't bet on it.

> >Yeah Brad Wright has said he would like more money to do this series or
> >he may not be interested at all. Would be a downer to go to a far away
> >galaxy and it looks like a forrest in canada...
>
> I wonder how the Sanctuary series will turn out for the SciFi channel?
> Will they be able to improve their special effects for a series that
> is already sold. If so that might suggest they can do a better job of
> making the worlds they go to look different by using some CGI settings
> instead of having everything be shot outdoors.

I don't know if they have got more money for the effects. I think one of
the reasons scifi liked it was because "hey - cheap sets!" ;)

In article <DJadnXZZaJynpJjVnZ2dnUVZ_vninZ2d@giganews.com>,
khaight@lefDELETEtistME.org says...
> In article <MPG.226f1976aa31f42698bd6f@news.usenetserver.com>,
> Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Yeah, it's something that might happen but you don't want to build a
> >> show around the idea of the central characters being evil.
> >
> >Evil is subjective.
>
> No, it isn't.

It is to intelligent people.

In article <MPG.22709d2c7562e52e98bd7e@news.usenetserver.com>,
Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Evil is subjective.
>>
>> No, it isn't.
>
>It is to intelligent people.

Argument from intimidation. Fallacious.

Calling me stupid because I don't agree with your assertion isn't
particularly persuasive.

--
Kyle Haight

Anybody wrote:

> On Apr 5, 8:31 pm, Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
> > Ok, the powers that be now officially owned up to the pitch they made to
> > Scifi for a possible third live action stargate series:
> >
> > For those who can't be bothered to read the article, here is a quick
> > summary:
> >
> > Millions of years ago (before Atlantis moved to the Pegasus Galaxy) the
> > Ancients sent a giant ship into deep space. Just heading out there and
> > keep going, its mission: To seed the galaxies it passed through with
> > Stargates.
> >
> > Then much later they build another big ship, this one an explorer ship.
> > It was supposed to follow in the direction of the previous ship and ...
> > explore what there was to find out there.
> >
> > But then the Ancients got bored of this plane and decided to ascend
> > instead, leaving a fine ship unused.
> >
> > Now the pesky humans have figured out that through the use of the Ninth
> > Chevron on a Stargate it is possibly to get a direct access to the
> > explorer vessel - no matter where it is - and to gate to it.
> > And we gotta mess with that!
> >
> > It's a first pitch, subject to all kinds of network interference before
> > it reaches the screens - IF it reaches them.
> >
> > http://www.gateworld.net/news/2008/04/istargate_universei_revealed.shtml
>
> Let me guess: once on the ship they can't get back and find themselves
> billions of miles from home in a strange galaxy, and so begins
> "Stargate: Voyager". ;-)

They find themselves in a part of space where thoughts become reality.

On Apr 6, 3:32 pm, Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
> In article <ftb86i$c6...@registered.motzarella.org>, hanaram857
> @archangels.mil says...
>
> > There are still alot of unexplored avenues with the sort of established
> > history this show has.
>
> Indeed, but this is the way they want to go.
>
> (Of course there is the alien race in "Scorched Earth" - would be
> interesting to learn more about them)
>
> > We havent met the Furlings.
>
> Nor are we likely to, the powers the be seems to think it was a stupid
> name they came up with, that it sounds like "furry" and thusly wont
> return to them (lame yes)
>

Where did you hear this from?

> Though Rob Cooper pointed out the amusing coincidence that "Furlings" is
> an anagram of FunGirls *g*
>
> > In any case I would
> > definitely like to see the special effects to be excellent from the very
> > start, I was disappointed with the suits of armor in the series comparedto
> > the armor from the movies when the series first came out.Yes, I know, itwas
> > expensive.
>
> Yeah Brad Wright has said he would like more money to do this series or
> he may not be interested at all. Would be a downer to go to a far away
> galaxy and it looks like a forrest in canada...

Oh yeah, I've had enough of the British Columbia-looking planets. Come
on,
we need to see something more exotic.

On Apr 11, 11:43 am, Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
> In article <1if0f61.m6rqivbm9vblN%arcf...@sacrideo.us>,
> arcf...@sacrideo.us says...
>
> > jojo <jojl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > hey chose to never speak
> > > about Christianity, Judaism, or Islam for obvious reasons (it could
> > > make a lot of people angry) , but Galactica does it (indirectly) and
> > > with great success. So why not ?
>
> > From my limited experience, the audience of Stargate is much more likely
> > to take offense to the direct play on monotheistic religions, and
> > Christianity in particular, than the audience of Galactica. I know a lot
> > of fans of the series that already thought the Ori were too close to an
> > anti-God thesis to feel comfortable. The fans I know who like Galactica,
> > however, seem to be either theists or more anti-religion.
>
> I think you are right, it seems many fans of the Stargates are less
> scifi orientated and watch it because it seems fairly "real", ie more
> action and less heady scifi concepts :)

How would them being _more_ scifi-orientated make it easier to slip
in a direct slam against monotheistic theology?

In article
<a48c3e31-68d7-42ff-a40c-70ceac92c609@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Apr 6, 3:32 pm, Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
> >
> > Yeah Brad Wright has said he would like more money to do this series or
> > he may not be interested at all. Would be a downer to go to a far away
> > galaxy and it looks like a forrest in canada...
>
> Oh yeah, I've had enough of the British Columbia-looking planets. Come
> on, we need to see something more exotic.

Australia is cheap (relative to the US anyway) to film in as well, so
maybe the next planets will look like the outback or aliens look like
the Crocodile Hunter. ;-)

mike3 wrote:
> On Apr 11, 11:43 am, Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
>> In article <1if0f61.m6rqivbm9vblN%arcf...@sacrideo.us>,
>> arcf...@sacrideo.us says...
>>
>>> jojo <jojl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> hey chose to never speak
>>>> about Christianity, Judaism, or Islam for obvious reasons (it could
>>>> make a lot of people angry) , but Galactica does it (indirectly)
>>>> and with great success. So why not ?
>>
>>> From my limited experience, the audience of Stargate is much more
>>> likely to take offense to the direct play on monotheistic
>>> religions, and Christianity in particular, than the audience of
>>> Galactica. I know a lot of fans of the series that already thought
>>> the Ori were too close to an anti-God thesis to feel comfortable.
>>> The fans I know who like Galactica, however, seem to be either
>>> theists or more anti-religion.
>>
>> I think you are right, it seems many fans of the Stargates are less
>> scifi orientated and watch it because it seems fairly "real", ie more
>> action and less heady scifi concepts :)
>
> How would them being _more_ scifi-orientated make it easier to slip
> in a direct slam against monotheistic theology?

Because they would be more intellectual, rational?


--
www.woutervalentijn.net

www.nksf.scifics.com/nksfseries.html

liam=mail

On May 4, 1:35 am, "Wouter Valentijn" <l...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
> mike3 wrote:
> > On Apr 11, 11:43 am, Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
> >> In article <1if0f61.m6rqivbm9vblN%arcf...@sacrideo.us>,
> >> arcf...@sacrideo.us says...
>
> >>> jojo <jojl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> hey chose to never speak
> >>>> about Christianity, Judaism, or Islam for obvious reasons (it could
> >>>> make a lot of people angry) , but Galactica does it (indirectly)
> >>>> and with great success. So why not ?
>
> >>> From my limited experience, the audience of Stargate is much more
> >>> likely to take offense to the direct play on monotheistic
> >>> religions, and Christianity in particular, than the audience of
> >>> Galactica. I know a lot of fans of the series that already thought
> >>> the Ori were too close to an anti-God thesis to feel comfortable.
> >>> The fans I know who like Galactica, however, seem to be either
> >>> theists or more anti-religion.
>
> >> I think you are right, it seems many fans of the Stargates are less
> >> scifi orientated and watch it because it seems fairly "real", ie more
> >> action and less heady scifi concepts :)
>
> > How would them being _more_ scifi-orientated make it easier to slip
> > in a direct slam against monotheistic theology?
>
> Because they would be more intellectual, rational?
>

But if you have _science_ fiction then it would not bother with
theology
at all since that is not science.

Also, this assumes that one liking more "scientific" shows must
automatically _hate_ religion, which may not be the case.

mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 4, 1:35 am, "Wouter Valentijn" <l...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
> > mike3 wrote:
> > > On Apr 11, 11:43 am, Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
> > >> In article <1if0f61.m6rqivbm9vblN%arcf...@sacrideo.us>,
> > >> arcf...@sacrideo.us says...
> >
> > >>> jojo <jojl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>>> hey chose to never speak
> > >>>> about Christianity, Judaism, or Islam for obvious reasons (it could
> > >>>> make a lot of people angry) , but Galactica does it (indirectly)
> > >>>> and with great success. So why not ?
> >
> > >>> From my limited experience, the audience of Stargate is much more
> > >>> likely to take offense to the direct play on monotheistic
> > >>> religions, and Christianity in particular, than the audience of
> > >>> Galactica. I know a lot of fans of the series that already thought
> > >>> the Ori were too close to an anti-God thesis to feel comfortable.
> > >>> The fans I know who like Galactica, however, seem to be either
> > >>> theists or more anti-religion.
> >
> > >> I think you are right, it seems many fans of the Stargates are less
> > >> scifi orientated and watch it because it seems fairly "real", ie more
> > >> action and less heady scifi concepts :)
> >
> > > How would them being _more_ scifi-orientated make it easier to slip
> > > in a direct slam against monotheistic theology?
> >
> > Because they would be more intellectual, rational?
> >
>
> But if you have _science_ fiction then it would not bother with
> theology
> at all since that is not science.
>
> Also, this assumes that one liking more "scientific" shows must
> automatically _hate_ religion, which may not be the case.

This is true, but IME, those people who read or enjoy a lot of hardcore
science fiction read more varying Sci. Fi. In doing so, they allso are
enjoying and reading *Science* fiction, which tends to often portray
religion as incompatible with Science, *especially* serious religion,
and not just social religion or meditation. This doesn't have to be the
case, but often is. So, those who like the broader range of Sci. Fi. are
also those who enjoy the sci fi that plays science against religion.

That is, these shows or books often portray rationalism as superior to
or an evolution beyond "simple" religious beliefs. So people who are
more into Sci Fi will be more into the various ways Sci Fi can present
its ideas, including the anti-religious stuff, whether or not they
actually agree. Those who enjoy less standard or classical Sci Fi (or,
what I call/term classical sci fi) are more likely to be turned off by a
perceived attack on their own personal beliefs. With a fairly pervasive
set of people who are monotheistic, you are going to run into a LOT of
those people, who enjoy some sci fi, but are turned off as soon as it
comes after their beliefs. People who enjoy the sci fi genre as a whole
are more likely to enjoy even those shows which attack their beliefs,
because they like the genre more than those who are casual sci fi
followers.
--
Aaron Hsu <arcfide@sacrideo.us> | Jabber: arcfide@jabber.org
``Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to
live at the expense of everybody else.'' - Frederic Bastiat

Aaron Hsu wrote:
> mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 4, 1:35 am, "Wouter Valentijn" <l...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>>> mike3 wrote:
>>>> On Apr 11, 11:43 am, Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
>>>>> In article <1if0f61.m6rqivbm9vblN%arcf...@sacrideo.us>,
>>>>> arcf...@sacrideo.us says...
>>>
>>>>>> jojo <jojl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> hey chose to never speak
>>>>>>> about Christianity, Judaism, or Islam for obvious reasons (it
>>>>>>> could make a lot of people angry) , but Galactica does it
>>>>>>> (indirectly) and with great success. So why not ?
>>>
>>>>>> From my limited experience, the audience of Stargate is much more
>>>>>> likely to take offense to the direct play on monotheistic
>>>>>> religions, and Christianity in particular, than the audience of
>>>>>> Galactica. I know a lot of fans of the series that already
>>>>>> thought the Ori were too close to an anti-God thesis to feel
>>>>>> comfortable. The fans I know who like Galactica, however, seem
>>>>>> to be either theists or more anti-religion.
>>>
>>>>> I think you are right, it seems many fans of the Stargates are
>>>>> less scifi orientated and watch it because it seems fairly
>>>>> "real", ie more action and less heady scifi concepts :)
>>>
>>>> How would them being _more_ scifi-orientated make it easier to slip
>>>> in a direct slam against monotheistic theology?
>>>
>>> Because they would be more intellectual, rational?
>>>
>>
>> But if you have _science_ fiction then it would not bother with
>> theology
>> at all since that is not science.
>>
>> Also, this assumes that one liking more "scientific" shows must
>> automatically _hate_ religion, which may not be the case.
>
> This is true, but IME, those people who read or enjoy a lot of
> hardcore science fiction read more varying Sci. Fi. In doing so, they
> allso are enjoying and reading *Science* fiction, which tends to
> often portray religion as incompatible with Science, *especially*
> serious religion, and not just social religion or meditation. This
> doesn't have to be the case, but often is. So, those who like the
> broader range of Sci. Fi. are also those who enjoy the sci fi that
> plays science against religion.
>
> That is, these shows or books often portray rationalism as superior to
> or an evolution beyond "simple" religious beliefs. So people who are
> more into Sci Fi will be more into the various ways Sci Fi can present
> its ideas, including the anti-religious stuff, whether or not they
> actually agree. Those who enjoy less standard or classical Sci Fi (or,
> what I call/term classical sci fi) are more likely to be turned off
> by a perceived attack on their own personal beliefs. With a fairly
> pervasive set of people who are monotheistic, you are going to run
> into a LOT of those people, who enjoy some sci fi, but are turned off
> as soon as it comes after their beliefs. People who enjoy the sci fi
> genre as a whole are more likely to enjoy even those shows which
> attack their beliefs, because they like the genre more than those who
> are casual sci fi followers.

Exactly!


--
www.woutervalentijn.net

www.nksf.scifics.com/nksfseries.html

liam=mail

On May 4, 5:52 pm, arcf...@sacrideo.us (Aaron Hsu) wrote:
<snip>
> This is true, but IME, those people who read or enjoy a lot of hardcore
> science fiction read more varying Sci. Fi. In doing so, they allso are
> enjoying and reading *Science* fiction, which tends to often portray
> religion as incompatible with Science, *especially* serious religion,

So they actually often directly single out religion and attack against
it,
not merely present "scientific" views that may/may not be incompatible
with some religious belief system? E.x. a story in which Evolution is
featured heavily may go against types of fundamentalist Christianity &
Islam, but would not necessarily be a _direct_ attack agianst
religion,
whereas if they slip a line in like "Oh the BIBLE? Oh, that's a whole
lot of made up worthless nonsense", or "God is a made up imaginary
friend", or something like that, those would be a more direct attack
against religion. So what is it like?

> and not just social religion or meditation. This doesn't have to be the
> case, but often is. So, those who like the broader range of Sci. Fi. are
> also those who enjoy the sci fi that plays science against religion.
>
> That is, these shows or books often portray rationalism as superior to
> or an evolution beyond "simple" religious beliefs. So people who are
> more into Sci Fi will be more into the various ways Sci Fi can present
> its ideas, including the anti-religious stuff, whether or not they
> actually agree. Those who enjoy less standard or classical Sci Fi (or,
> what I call/term classical sci fi) are more likely to be turned off by a
> perceived attack on their own personal beliefs. With a fairly pervasive
> set of people who are monotheistic, you are going to run into a LOT of
> those people, who enjoy some sci fi, but are turned off as soon as it
> comes after their beliefs. People who enjoy the sci fi genre as a whole
> are more likely to enjoy even those shows which attack their beliefs,
> because they like the genre more than those who are casual sci fi
> followers.

That's right, it's fiction, one doesn't have to "agree" with the
viewpoint
it presents.

On May 3, 8:46 pm, Anybody <anyb...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
> In article
> <a48c3e31-68d7-42ff-a40c-70ceac92c...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 6, 3:32 pm, Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
>
> > > Yeah Brad Wright has said he would like more money to do this series or
> > > he may not be interested at all. Would be a downer to go to a far away
> > > galaxy and it looks like a forrest in canada...
>
> > Oh yeah, I've had enough of the British Columbia-looking planets. Come
> > on, we need to see something more exotic.
>
> Australia is cheap (relative to the US anyway) to film in as well, so
> maybe the next planets will look like the outback or aliens look like
> the Crocodile Hunter.  ;-)

Heh. You sure it would still be cheaper to film there though, given
that the
MGM studios for Stargate are located in Canada?

mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 4, 5:52 pm, arcf...@sacrideo.us (Aaron Hsu) wrote:
> <snip>
> > This is true, but IME, those people who read or enjoy a lot of hardcore
> > science fiction read more varying Sci. Fi. In doing so, they allso are
> > enjoying and reading *Science* fiction, which tends to often portray
> > religion as incompatible with Science, *especially* serious religion,
>
> So they actually often directly single out religion and attack against
> it, not merely present "scientific" views that may/may not be
> incompatible with some religious belief system?

Yes, it is portrayed strongly enough in a lot of fiction I have read or
that others have read to turn some people off to it. In much of the
fiction I have read there is often a religious aspect in it that is
usually always considered to be mysticism that has some social worth,
but not inherent worth as the truth, and the books (or movies) usually
portray the religions as troublesome and likely to cause problems with
society, with the solution being to wake up and embrace rationalism as
the new religion.

Of course, as in any writing, the degree and nature of these views
ranges on all sides. I have read science fiction that actually puts a
very strong emphasis on religion being "the truth," and I have also read
some fiction that seems to be nothing more than a veiled dissertation on
the reasons religion is wrong on principle, or that belief in God is
flawed. I would tend to expect most of the Sci. Fi. out there to fall
somewhere on the anti-god side of the middle range of the spectrum,
where there are hints, suggestions, or even approaches and philosophies
in the texts which supports an anti-religious view, but which do not
inherently represent a strict thesis against religion everywhere and on
principle.

> > People who enjoy the sci fi genre as a whole
> > are more likely to enjoy even those shows which attack their beliefs,
> > because they like the genre more than those who are casual sci fi
> > followers.
>
> That's right, it's fiction, one doesn't have to "agree" with the
> viewpoint it presents.

Yes, indeed, it is fiction, but many people do not believe that fiction
is worth reading or watching if it comes off as blatantly biased against
their beliefs. That is to say, when they seek for some form of
entertainment, they want something that they don't feel attacks their
beliefs in some way. They want things to go the way they like it when
they want to be entertained. I take it to be the same reason that some
people don't like movies which have "unhappy" endings. It doesn't serve
their purpose of entertainment.

Sure, these same people may poor over attacks on their beliefs in all
sorts of other areas, but they wouldn't consider it entertainment.
--
Aaron Hsu <arcfide@sacrideo.us> | Jabber: arcfide@jabber.org
``Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to
live at the expense of everybody else.'' - Frederic Bastiat

Aaron Hsu wrote:
> mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 4, 5:52 pm, arcf...@sacrideo.us (Aaron Hsu) wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> This is true, but IME, those people who read or enjoy a lot of hardcore
>>> science fiction read more varying Sci. Fi. In doing so, they allso are
>>> enjoying and reading *Science* fiction, which tends to often portray
>>> religion as incompatible with Science, *especially* serious religion,
>> So they actually often directly single out religion and attack against
>> it, not merely present "scientific" views that may/may not be
>> incompatible with some religious belief system?
>
> Yes, it is portrayed strongly enough in a lot of fiction I have read or
> that others have read to turn some people off to it. In much of the
> fiction I have read there is often a religious aspect in it that is
> usually always considered to be mysticism that has some social worth,
> but not inherent worth as the truth, and the books (or movies) usually
> portray the religions as troublesome and likely to cause problems with
> society, with the solution being to wake up and embrace rationalism as
> the new religion.
>
> Of course, as in any writing, the degree and nature of these views
> ranges on all sides. I have read science fiction that actually puts a
> very strong emphasis on religion being "the truth," and I have also read
> some fiction that seems to be nothing more than a veiled dissertation on
> the reasons religion is wrong on principle, or that belief in God is
> flawed. I would tend to expect most of the Sci. Fi. out there to fall
> somewhere on the anti-god side of the middle range of the spectrum,
> where there are hints, suggestions, or even approaches and philosophies
> in the texts which supports an anti-religious view, but which do not
> inherently represent a strict thesis against religion everywhere and on
> principle.
>
>>> People who enjoy the sci fi genre as a whole
>>> are more likely to enjoy even those shows which attack their beliefs,
>>> because they like the genre more than those who are casual sci fi
>>> followers.
>> That's right, it's fiction, one doesn't have to "agree" with the
>> viewpoint it presents.
>
> Yes, indeed, it is fiction, but many people do not believe that fiction
> is worth reading or watching if it comes off as blatantly biased against
> their beliefs. That is to say, when they seek for some form of
> entertainment, they want something that they don't feel attacks their
> beliefs in some way. They want things to go the way they like it when
> they want to be entertained. I take it to be the same reason that some
> people don't like movies which have "unhappy" endings. It doesn't serve
> their purpose of entertainment.
>
> Sure, these same people may poor over attacks on their beliefs in all
> sorts of other areas, but they wouldn't consider it entertainment.

Here's a couple of books that take big pokes at organized religion that
you might want to take a look at: "Job: A Comedy of Justice" and also
"Stranger in a Strange Land" - both by Robert A. Heinlein.

In article
<7065699e-3279-4b90-8759-a952b2a99738@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 3, 8:46 pm, Anybody <anyb...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <a48c3e31-68d7-42ff-a40c-70ceac92c...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 6, 3:32 pm, Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Yeah Brad Wright has said he would like more money to do this series or
> > > > he may not be interested at all. Would be a downer to go to a far away
> > > > galaxy and it looks like a forrest in canada...
> >
> > > Oh yeah, I've had enough of the British Columbia-looking planets. Come
> > > on, we need to see something more exotic.
> >
> > Australia is cheap (relative to the US anyway) to film in as well, so
> > maybe the next planets will look like the outback or aliens look like
> > the Crocodile Hunter.  ;-)
>
> Heh. You sure it would still be cheaper to film there though, given
> that the MGM studios for Stargate are located in Canada?

It's unlikely, but it *MIGHT* work out cheaper to ship and/or re-build
the sets in Australia rather than stay in Canada. Only the
bean-counters would really know that answer. :-)

On May 6, 3:12 pm, Anybody <anyb...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
> In article
> <7065699e-3279-4b90-8759-a952b2a99...@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On May 3, 8:46 pm, Anybody <anyb...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <a48c3e31-68d7-42ff-a40c-70ceac92c...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 6, 3:32 pm, Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Yeah Brad Wright has said he would like more money to do this series or
> > > > > he may not be interested at all. Would be a downer to go to a far away
> > > > > galaxy and it looks like a forrest in canada...
>
> > > > Oh yeah, I've had enough of the British Columbia-looking planets. Come
> > > > on, we need to see something more exotic.
>
> > > Australia is cheap (relative to the US anyway) to film in as well, so
> > > maybe the next planets will look like the outback or aliens look like
> > > the Crocodile Hunter.  ;-)
>
> > Heh. You sure it would still be cheaper to film there though, given
> > that the MGM studios for Stargate are located in Canada?
>
> It's unlikely, but it *MIGHT* work out cheaper to ship and/or re-build
> the sets in Australia rather than stay in Canada. Only the
> bean-counters would really know that answer.   :-)

Hmm.

On May 6, 3:14 am, arcf...@sacrideo.us (Aaron Hsu) wrote:
> mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On May 4, 5:52 pm, arcf...@sacrideo.us (Aaron Hsu) wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > This is true, but IME, those people who read or enjoy a lot of hardcore
> > > science fiction read more varying Sci. Fi. In doing so, they allso are
> > > enjoying and reading *Science* fiction, which tends to often portray
> > > religion as incompatible with Science, *especially* serious religion,
>
> > So they actually often directly single out religion and attack against
> > it, not merely present "scientific" views that may/may not be
> > incompatible with some religious belief system?
>
> Yes, it is portrayed strongly enough in a lot of fiction I have read or
> that others have read to turn some people off to it. In much of the
> fiction I have read there is often a religious aspect in it that is
> usually always considered to be mysticism that has some social worth,
> but not inherent worth as the truth, and the books (or movies) usually
> portray the religions as troublesome and likely to cause problems with
> society, with the solution being to wake up and embrace rationalism as
> the new religion.
>
> Of course, as in any writing, the degree and nature of these views
> ranges on all sides. I have read science fiction that actually puts a
> very strong emphasis on religion being "the truth," and I have also read
> some fiction that seems to be nothing more than a veiled dissertation on
> the reasons religion is wrong on principle, or that belief in God is
> flawed. I would tend to expect most of the Sci. Fi. out there to fall
> somewhere on the anti-god side of the middle range of the spectrum,
> where there are hints, suggestions, or even approaches and philosophies
> in the texts which supports an anti-religious view, but which do not
> inherently represent a strict thesis against religion everywhere and on
> principle.
>

And where does Stargate fit in then on this spectrum you mentioned?

I'm also curious about those fictions you mentioned that "portray the
religions
as troublesome and likely to cause problems with society, with the
solution
being to wake up and embrace rationalism as the new religion". Do they
actually have lines in there like, "Oh, the Bible <or other religious
book>?! That's
a load of made-up fairytales, you know."?

> > > People who enjoy the sci fi genre as a whole
> > > are more likely to enjoy even those shows which attack their beliefs,
> > > because they like the genre more than those who are casual sci fi
> > > followers.
>
> > That's right, it's fiction, one doesn't have to "agree" with the
> > viewpoint it presents.
>
> Yes, indeed, it is fiction, but many people do not believe that fiction
> is worth reading or watching if it comes off as blatantly biased against
> their beliefs. That is to say, when they seek for some form of
> entertainment, they want something that they don't feel attacks their
> beliefs in some way. They want things to go the way they like it when
> they want to be entertained. I take it to be the same reason that some
> people don't like movies which have "unhappy" endings. It doesn't serve
> their purpose of entertainment.
>

Although believe it or not I'm actually *frustrated* when the bomb
DOESN'T
go off... :-)

Anyway, you're saying the dedicated SF geek would not have so much of
a problem because they like the genre so much that they can look past/
put
aside any disagreements they may have with something in the story
about
religion or whatever topic it 'disagrees' with them on?

> Sure, these same people may poor over attacks on their beliefs in all
> sorts of other areas, but they wouldn't consider it entertainment.

In article <481f4291$0$14354$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, liam@valentijn.nu
says...
> Aaron Hsu wrote:
> > mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On May 4, 1:35 am, "Wouter Valentijn" <l...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
> >>> mike3 wrote:
> >>>> On Apr 11, 11:43 am, Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
> >>>>> In article <1if0f61.m6rqivbm9vblN%arcf...@sacrideo.us>,
> >>>>> arcf...@sacrideo.us says...
> >>>
> >>>>>> jojo <jojl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>>> hey chose to never speak
> >>>>>>> about Christianity, Judaism, or Islam for obvious reasons (it
> >>>>>>> could make a lot of people angry) , but Galactica does it
> >>>>>>> (indirectly) and with great success. So why not ?
> >>>
> >>>>>> From my limited experience, the audience of Stargate is much more
> >>>>>> likely to take offense to the direct play on monotheistic
> >>>>>> religions, and Christianity in particular, than the audience of
> >>>>>> Galactica. I know a lot of fans of the series that already
> >>>>>> thought the Ori were too close to an anti-God thesis to feel
> >>>>>> comfortable. The fans I know who like Galactica, however, seem
> >>>>>> to be either theists or more anti-religion.
> >>>
> >>>>> I think you are right, it seems many fans of the Stargates are
> >>>>> less scifi orientated and watch it because it seems fairly
> >>>>> "real", ie more action and less heady scifi concepts :)
> >>>
> >>>> How would them being _more_ scifi-orientated make it easier to slip
> >>>> in a direct slam against monotheistic theology?
> >>>
> >>> Because they would be more intellectual, rational?
> >>>
> >>
> >> But if you have _science_ fiction then it would not bother with
> >> theology
> >> at all since that is not science.
> >>
> >> Also, this assumes that one liking more "scientific" shows must
> >> automatically _hate_ religion, which may not be the case.
> >
> > This is true, but IME, those people who read or enjoy a lot of
> > hardcore science fiction read more varying Sci. Fi. In doing so, they
> > allso are enjoying and reading *Science* fiction, which tends to
> > often portray religion as incompatible with Science, *especially*
> > serious religion, and not just social religion or meditation. This
> > doesn't have to be the case, but often is. So, those who like the
> > broader range of Sci. Fi. are also those who enjoy the sci fi that
> > plays science against religion.
> >
> > That is, these shows or books often portray rationalism as superior to
> > or an evolution beyond "simple" religious beliefs. So people who are
> > more into Sci Fi will be more into the various ways Sci Fi can present
> > its ideas, including the anti-religious stuff, whether or not they
> > actually agree. Those who enjoy less standard or classical Sci Fi (or,
> > what I call/term classical sci fi) are more likely to be turned off
> > by a perceived attack on their own personal beliefs. With a fairly
> > pervasive set of people who are monotheistic, you are going to run
> > into a LOT of those people, who enjoy some sci fi, but are turned off
> > as soon as it comes after their beliefs. People who enjoy the sci fi
> > genre as a whole are more likely to enjoy even those shows which
> > attack their beliefs, because they like the genre more than those who
> > are casual sci fi followers.
>
> Exactly!

Indeed.

mike3 wrote:


<snip>

> Anyway, you're saying the dedicated SF geek would not have so much of
> a problem because they like the genre so much that they can look past/
> put
> aside any disagreements they may have with something in the story
> about
> religion or whatever topic it 'disagrees' with them on?

Or the other way around I think: That the dedicated SF geek *agrees* with
the story.

>
>> Sure, these same people may poor over attacks on their beliefs in all
>> sorts of other areas, but they wouldn't consider it entertainment.


--
www.woutervalentijn.net

www.nksf.scifics.com/nksfseries.html

liam=mail

On May 8, 12:16 pm, "Wouter Valentijn" <l...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
> mike3 wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Anyway, you're saying the dedicated SF geek would not have so much of
> > a problem because they like the genre so much that they can look past/
> > put
> > aside any disagreements they may have with something in the story
> > about
> > religion or whatever topic it 'disagrees' with them on?
>
> Or the other way around I think: That the dedicated SF geek *agrees* with
> the story.
>

But what if you *don't* agree with the story? Can you enjoy it
regardless? Yes,
I think so. Sometimes I've come across stories (not necessarily SF,
but in
general) that incorporate some idea I may not agree with, but I can
still
like the story. Because I, unlike you, or whomever the "geek" you had
in
mind was, do not have to agree with the story's world-view for it to
be likable
or interesting.

It depends, therefore, on the individual, and making sweeping and
broad
statements like that is dicey.

mike3 wrote:
> On May 8, 12:16 pm, "Wouter Valentijn" <l...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>> mike3 wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Anyway, you're saying the dedicated SF geek would not have so much
>>> of a problem because they like the genre so much that they can look
>>> past/ put
>>> aside any disagreements they may have with something in the story
>>> about
>>> religion or whatever topic it 'disagrees' with them on?
>>
>> Or the other way around I think: That the dedicated SF geek *agrees*
>> with the story.
>>
>
> But what if you *don't* agree with the story? Can you enjoy it
> regardless? Yes,
> I think so. Sometimes I've come across stories (not necessarily SF,
> but in
> general) that incorporate some idea I may not agree with, but I can
> still
> like the story. Because I, unlike you, or whomever the "geek" you had
> in
> mind was, do not have to agree with the story's world-view for it to
> be likable
> or interesting.
>
> It depends, therefore, on the individual, and making sweeping and
> broad
> statements like that is dicey.

Well, yeah...
It all depends on one's taste and how /critical/ you are. What you find
acceptable or not within the /context of the reality/ of that particular
story / franchise.

--
www.woutervalentijn.net

www.nksf.scifics.com/nksfseries.html

liam=mail

I thought that the next Stargate series was supposed to be
Stargate:Universe ?

And, what -does- that 9th Chevron do?

Justin Kase wrote:
> I thought that the next Stargate series was supposed to be
> Stargate:Universe ?
>
> And, what -does- that 9th Chevron do?

Uhm..
See the beginning of this thread:

http://groups.google.nl/group/alt.tv.stargate-sg1/browse_frm/thread/a15d10629448c6d3/dfceac0f