Page 1 of 2

SG-1: Forever in a Day

Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2020 9:32 pm
by Darth Wedgius
https://sfdebris.com/videos/stargate/sg1s3e10.php

Teal'c, you can bean a running man on the head with an avocado at 50 yards, but you can't shoot her in the arm while she's standing three feet away from you? Come on, man!

Re: SG-1: Forever in a Day

Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2020 9:51 pm
by Mecha82
Yup, he totally could had just shot her to arm instead of killing her. Then again maybe he didn't have time to think about that and went with first solution he had in his mind.

Re: SG-1: Forever in a Day

Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:23 pm
by Nightbeat74
i hated that they killed off Sha're when she could have really helped the tok'ra out she was the host of Amaunet after all so she has a ton of intel on the Goa'uld and they can help her with the whole having a Goa'uld in her head.

Re: SG-1: Forever in a Day

Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:44 pm
by CrypticMirror
I keep getting this one confused with the one where Daniel goes mad with power and conquers the world when given a hallucination. Man, that guy gets a lot of hallucinations.
Darth Wedgius wrote: Wed Jan 22, 2020 9:32 pm https://sfdebris.com/videos/stargate/sg1s3e10.php

Teal'c, you can bean a running man on the head with an avocado at 50 yards, but you can't shoot her in the arm while she's standing three feet away from you? Come on, man!
Yeah, but two things:
1: That doesn't result in a dead Goa'uld, and the ultimate ending of the lineage of Apophis, now does it? And Teal'c is all about the endeadening of the Goa'uld.
2: The Goa'uld snake would just body surf on into Daniel, and now he's got someone else to shoot. Guy can't spend all day shooting fools, he has some serious brooding time to get in too.

Re: SG-1: Forever in a Day

Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2020 12:09 am
by Yukaphile
She was a plot device, plain and simple. She was completely objectified in and out of world till the day she died. Writers didn't want that baggage of her being around, weighing down the show with incredibly "emo" themes like sexual assault, rape babies, and the overall larger social repercussions to it. I will say it again, they are COWARDS. And I really have no idea why Apophis would want this, since it doesn't seem to offer any benefits the Goa'uld don't already have, with a genetic memory. To be perfectly frank, seems way more like baggage from their initial pilot, which was done just to shock people. "See? We have a naked woman, TOTAL TITTIES! And a worm is burrowing into her! Aren't we so edgy?"

Re: SG-1: Forever in a Day

Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2020 12:09 am
by Yukaphile
Another beef I have is the sins of Apophis here are painted in the light of "stereotypical supervillain evil." Not a special breed of evil in and of its own right, since that kind of treatment is far beyond the pale, despite how commonplace it is, sadly...

Re: SG-1: Forever in a Day

Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2020 12:12 am
by Yukaphile
We are shown how Daniel and Sha're are reacting outwardly to this completely obscene evil, but never get into their feelings, hesitations, doubts, because they're good guys and can't be seen that way. Hell, if anything, the one time it's implied Daniel Jackson feels that way, the rape baby of his wife raised by Oma Desala shames him! "That will lead you to corruption." My wife was treated that way, nursing a grudge is no sin. And it seems to have rubbed off on him too, given what he tells Teal'c when they were waiting to take out Apophis's super fleet.

Re: SG-1: Forever in a Day

Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2020 2:23 am
by Beastro
I found the episodes end a mercy of death for the character and for Daniel.

She never really fit and it makes me wonder what might have happened had they had her die in the pilot and Daniel then struggling with revenge as a motivation.

Re: SG-1: Forever in a Day

Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2020 4:05 am
by Taurian Patriot
Ditching Sha're so quickly and easily is especially jarring from writers who would later make fantastic use of loose plot threads on a regular basis. Heck, at least let her appear as a recurring antagonist and get some mileage out of her character before this, so she's an actual character instead of just a woman-shaped plot device.

Considering this was season 3, were the writers not yet confident in building a subplot with her, or was this a matter of "freeing" Daniel for potential episodes with romantic shenanigans like with so many other protagonists? Maybe it was Showtime's meddling, since it was largely responsible for the gratuitous full frontal and sexual creepiness in the pilot episode (because "gratuitous" is how premium cable rolled in those days).

Re: SG-1: Forever in a Day

Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2020 5:26 am
by ChiggyvonRichthofen
I never really liked this episode and I'm not sure exactly why, although some of what Chuck touched on might explain it.

The episode is important, but you can tell from this episode alone that the Sha're subplot just hasn't been integrated into the show very well. Daniel's supposed driving reason for being there just didn't come up most of the time. Resolving that and giving Daniel a new reason to be part of the program feels like a dull formality. Without real emotional investment in the character, the repetition and dreaming and all that, while presented well enough, just doesn't come off for me.

I thought the harsesis child plot was basically a flop too, although it did help to set up some stronger storylines down the road.

By comparison, resolving Skaara's arc came off better.