SG1: Heroes

[Swiftbow]

The points on keeping the program secret are sound.

But I always thought it was a pity they never got to do the story where the program DOES become public knowledge (intentionally or not) and they have to deal with the fallout

As I understand it, that was the plan for what was supposed to be the 3rd movie (after Continuum), but various factors contributed to that movie never being made. It's too bad... I love this series.

(So much that we crossed Stargate over with our Harry Potter comic series (they fit, really!) more than a couple times.)

[Nevix]

I.

HATE.

This.

Episode.

I understand I'm in the minority on that. I get why others enjoy it, I get from a subjective standpoint why people would take a lot away from it emotionally and love it and all of the points that Chuck brought up during the review.

But I despise it. I hate how long it is. I hate that it kills off Dr. Frasier, I hate the randomness of her death, I hate the dramatic reasoning for it to add some drama in the story, I hate the documentarian and how aggressive he is and how much he wants to push his own damn version of events regardless of the positive spin he WANTS to give on the SGC and how he insists on having things be dramatic and how he can't seem to just stay the hell out of everyone's way. I hate how he tries to sell himself as some big truthteller and his damn sense of self-importance when in reality he's interfering in their regular routine and being a dick about people's privacy.

I just hate it and I cannot stand it. Like I said, I get that other people take away a lot more good from it, but it just makes me grind my teeth.

This reminds me of every episode of hospital dramas and police dramas where a member of the team or a long term character is sick or hurt, and the other character go through Hell and high water to save them, only to have some stupid random complication kill them.

It also reminds me of characters suddenly leaving a series because of behind the scenes drama between actors, or because contract negotiations fail, or whatever other reason.

It's why I don't like the finale movie of Homicide: Life on the Street, and part of why I watch no broadcast or cable series. If it's a drama, it's only a matter of time before the writers decide to break a character, or the entire cast, for ratings.

[Thuglife]

What was that British show you referrenced in the middle of the review?

The one talking about aliens

Is it red dwarf?

[TGLS]

What was that British show you referrenced in the middle of the review?

The one talking about aliens

Is it red dwarf?

It's That Mitchell and Webb Look

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/That_Mitchell_and_Webb_Look

[Nealithi]

I liked SG-1 for the fact that it ended up asking questions that were hard to answer. As Chuck mentions should we let this into the political arena of the US?
What about the world?
The answer I have to the BBC skit. What you gain in secrecy is the ability to advance some form of progress before it becomes public knowledge. From alien politics to science and technology. But the moment it becomes public knowledge you may not work the way your were. That includes the Stargate Program. Why have a plan should the knowledge get out? The moment it does get out it is in the purview of Congress. And that may as well be the end of it.
The basis of my belief as cynical as it sounds is the F-117 stealth fighter. It was kept under wraps till there were too many of them to keep secret. And the moment they found out, congress had hearings demanding someone in the military say stealth was code for first strike. All so they could lead a charge for 'peace'. Yet how was the F-117 used in combat. It snuck past radar sites and did surgical strikes and got out. We didn't carpet bomb a city like WW2. A plane or two and a designated target. Congress would have the military fighting with shovels and rakes and pocketing the extra money if they thought they could get away with it. That is my opinion on them.

[CaptainCalvinCat]

I.

HATE.

This.

Episode.

I understand I'm in the minority on that. I get why others enjoy it, I get from a subjective standpoint why people would take a lot away from it emotionally and love it and all of the points that Chuck brought up during the review.

But I despise it. I hate how long it is. I hate that it kills off Dr. Frasier, I hate the randomness of her death, I hate the dramatic reasoning for it to add some drama in the story, I hate the documentarian and how aggressive he is and how much he wants to push his own damn version of events regardless of the positive spin he WANTS to give on the SGC and how he insists on having things be dramatic and how he can't seem to just stay the hell out of everyone's way. I hate how he tries to sell himself as some big truthteller and his damn sense of self-importance when in reality he's interfering in their regular routine and being a dick about people's privacy.

I just hate it and I cannot stand it. Like I said, I get that other people take away a lot more good from it, but it just makes me grind my teeth.

Oh, Linkara, I so concur.
Teryl Rothery was asked on Fedcon, why they killed of her character and she said it very clearly: "Because the producers were on drugs".
Later on, TPTB said some mumbo-jumbo about this episode would be their tribute to the war on terror or some crap like that.

And they did the same crap later on Stargate-Atlantis. In both cases, they initially pitched it as a harmless, nice slice-of-life story - no word about killing off a beloved character.
The episode is called "Sunday" and I hate it with the same amount of passion, that I hate this episode, but since I don't wanna be an asshole, I'm not spoil the thing, they did on Sunday. .

[Captain Crimson]

Isn't insomnia lovely?

I want to say I generally love this story, I think it's solid, yet it also irked me so much that General Hammond was stonewalling Bregman. I love Hammond, don't get me wrong. Quality character, who reminds me of my own uncle. LOL. But Bregman absolutely right when he stated that is the path to the world of your Stalins and secret police. I get SG-1 has had issues with reporters before, and he's also trying to look out for his people, but frankly, this is a huge secret they can never hope to keep classified forever, and it was utterly irresponsible this sorta attempt wasn't made sooner, so that the public has a record of what to make of all this when the lid gets blown. More needed to be made than just this one. I know that Hammond admitted he was wrong at the end, but frankly, it shouldn't have come to that. It can come off more like a conflict ball than an actual story, which is why other users like Linkara don't like it. Bregman was a very complex and engaging character who had right motives and even a respect for what the SGC does, yet no one sees this until the end. He's not of the same ilk as Kinsey or Maybourne. But at least it's nice to see him and Colonel Rundell on a first-name basis at the end, like he'd wanted.

Can't lie, as much as I love SG-1, it really is in many ways a propagandized take on the US Air Force. It's kind of perfectly encapsulated in that S1 moment where Hammond gives up such a blatantly false retort that is clearly a product of internal head bias, how "the US is not in the business of interfering in other people's affairs," to such an exaggeration even O'Neill calls it out. Insert J. Jonah clip here. Think about it. When's the last time YOU saw Hammond needing to severely discipline his people who got a little "rowdy" on a local village of primitives through the Stargate, with all that that implies? Or perhaps had orders to sweep that under the rug, as it happens in the RL chain of command? Not once. Please. Plus the good ol' US of Awesome are the only ones who get to around saving the day, bedding grateful gorgeous ladies, and playing with our toys. This is the SF 'Murica, more than SW.

On the subject of Dr. Fraiser's death, I loved it. There's this wonderful buildup where there's a slight fakeout, you know O'Neill ain't dying, but you expect it to be the redshirt... and no, it's the major secondary recurring doctor character. Subversion done right!

Mr. Chuck's monologue was the best he's been at in years. Love that kinda straight-shooting. And while there was no joke made that Kivas Fajo was conducting the documentary (boo), laughed so hard with the dig on John Hammond. Finally, after several years, we get that connection to JP! #WorthIt.

[nothri]

So I just recently began rewatching SGI and noticed Chuck had a review of this episode. Not much to add that he didn't discuss.

One thing I thought was interesting about part 2 in particular was the introduction of Woolsey. Picardo of course gives a great performance. But that's only part of the story. I love everything about his scenes, especially the series of interviews he conducts presented as one fluid scene where his questions are picked up and passed from one character to another in a very smooth transition. This episode does a great job of making him appear extremely intimidating and somewhat sinister while distancing him from some of the other government villains in the series with their own agendas. You get the impression that this man is dangerous, and perhaps even more dangerous in his own way than corrupt politicians like Senator Kinsey. This guy is single minded, determined, and sincere in his belief that the protagonists of our story are a threat that needs to be eliminated in a precise, legal manner that is nonetheless completely ruthless. The episode right after this gives him a bit more nuance and depth, but that initial impression here is very very effective and instantly makes me eager to see more of him.

[Frustration]

but something like this with zero public oversight puts the most powerful artifact in the history of the world at the whims of nothing other than random chance.

Yes, public oversight will ensure the Stargate is handled properly!

*facepalms*

[clearspira]

So I just recently began rewatching SGI and noticed Chuck had a review of this episode. Not much to add that he didn't discuss.

One thing I thought was interesting about part 2 in particular was the introduction of Woolsey. Picardo of course gives a great performance. But that's only part of the story. I love everything about his scenes, especially the series of interviews he conducts presented as one fluid scene where his questions are picked up and passed from one character to another in a very smooth transition. This episode does a great job of making him appear extremely intimidating and somewhat sinister while distancing him from some of the other government villains in the series with their own agendas. You get the impression that this man is dangerous, and perhaps even more dangerous in his own way than corrupt politicians like Senator Kinsey. This guy is single minded, determined, and sincere in his belief that the protagonists of our story are a threat that needs to be eliminated in a precise, legal manner that is nonetheless completely ruthless. The episode right after this gives him a bit more nuance and depth, but that initial impression here is very very effective and instantly makes me eager to see more of him.

Yeah, Woolsey is great. Unfortunately however he was Flanderized into a fluffy bunny in Atlantis season 5. Although he does get a few cool moments like the time he stood up to the Chinese woman who was trying to steal his job.