Fixer wrote:Am I the only one that thought SG:U wasn't that bad?
I think in another thread I made a comment about how I liked SGU, and also how it was really my first exposure to what I call Hatedom.
I think my "favorite" was the guy on the old Farpoint Media forums who hated the show, and (I swear on my life) blamed President Obama for it. I wish I was kidding.
I thought SG:U certainly got better as it went along, and I would classify season two in its entirety as "decent" with some very good moments. On the other hand, the first season deserves all the negativity it got. They tried to do "more serious sci-fi", but it had the occasional illogical/mediocre writing of late SG-1 and Atlantis while lacking the fun or enjoyable characters that those shows had.
Just to cite one of the more egregious examples- the communication stones are a bad, poorly thought out plot device, but they're also used in obnoxious, unethical, and frankly annoying ways.
With that said, I think it is a show that I'd enjoy watching Chuck suffer through.
ChiggyvonRichthofen wrote:I thought SG:U certainly got better as it went along, and I would classify season two in its entirety as "decent" with some very good moments. On the other hand, the first season deserves all the negativity it got. They tried to do "more serious sci-fi", but it had the occasional illogical/mediocre writing of late SG-1 and Atlantis while lacking the fun or enjoyable characters that those shows had.
Just to cite one of the more egregious examples- the communication stones are a bad, poorly thought out plot device, but they're also used in obnoxious, unethical, and frankly annoying ways.
With that said, I think it is a show that I'd enjoy watching Chuck suffer through.
I hated those stones. The reason i gave up on the show.
ChiggyvonRichthofen wrote:I thought SG:U certainly got better as it went along, and I would classify season two in its entirety as "decent" with some very good moments. On the other hand, the first season deserves all the negativity it got. They tried to do "more serious sci-fi", but it had the occasional illogical/mediocre writing of late SG-1 and Atlantis while lacking the fun or enjoyable characters that those shows had.
Just to cite one of the more egregious examples- the communication stones are a bad, poorly thought out plot device, but they're also used in obnoxious, unethical, and frankly annoying ways.
With that said, I think it is a show that I'd enjoy watching Chuck suffer through.
I hated those stones. The reason i gave up on the show.
the reason, I gave up on the show, was, that they were trying SOOO hard to be relevant and dark, edgy, grim, gritty, realistic, that they completely forgot how to be a a fun show about space exploration, that didn't take itself too seriously. Can we please stop using grim and gritty as a crutch?
ChiggyvonRichthofen wrote:I thought SG:U certainly got better as it went along, and I would classify season two in its entirety as "decent" with some very good moments. On the other hand, the first season deserves all the negativity it got. They tried to do "more serious sci-fi", but it had the occasional illogical/mediocre writing of late SG-1 and Atlantis while lacking the fun or enjoyable characters that those shows had.
Just to cite one of the more egregious examples- the communication stones are a bad, poorly thought out plot device, but they're also used in obnoxious, unethical, and frankly annoying ways.
With that said, I think it is a show that I'd enjoy watching Chuck suffer through.
I hated those stones. The reason i gave up on the show.
the reason, I gave up on the show, was, that they were trying SOOO hard to be relevant and dark, edgy, grim, gritty, realistic, that they completely forgot how to be a a fun show about space exploration, that didn't take itself too seriously. Can we please stop using grim and gritty as a crutch?
The show really found it's feet latter half of season 2 though.
Just after the first encounter with the berserker drones. Decent space combat, characters being smart in dealing with threats, lots of fun sci-fi concepts, time clones and an ancient civilisation from alternate copies of themselves thrown into the past.
If the show had started like that and continued, it could have been one of the best shows of the past decade.
Thread ends here. Cut along dotted line.
------8<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ChiggyvonRichthofen wrote:I thought SG:U certainly got better as it went along, and I would classify season two in its entirety as "decent" with some very good moments. On the other hand, the first season deserves all the negativity it got. They tried to do "more serious sci-fi", but it had the occasional illogical/mediocre writing of late SG-1 and Atlantis while lacking the fun or enjoyable characters that those shows had.
Just to cite one of the more egregious examples- the communication stones are a bad, poorly thought out plot device, but they're also used in obnoxious, unethical, and frankly annoying ways.
With that said, I think it is a show that I'd enjoy watching Chuck suffer through.
I hated those stones. The reason i gave up on the show.
the reason, I gave up on the show, was, that they were trying SOOO hard to be relevant and dark, edgy, grim, gritty, realistic, that they completely forgot how to be a a fun show about space exploration, that didn't take itself too seriously. Can we please stop using grim and gritty as a crutch?
The show really found it's feet latter half of season 2 though.
Just after the first encounter with the berserker drones. Decent space combat, characters being smart in dealing with threats, lots of fun sci-fi concepts, time clones and an ancient civilisation from alternate copies of themselves thrown into the past.
If the show had started like that and continued, it could have been one of the best shows of the past decade.
Yeah, if they hadn't tried to copy NBSG, I would've really liked that show. ^^ But no, they needed to be all "serious" and stuff like that.
ChiggyvonRichthofen wrote:I thought SG:U certainly got better as it went along, and I would classify season two in its entirety as "decent" with some very good moments. On the other hand, the first season deserves all the negativity it got. They tried to do "more serious sci-fi", but it had the occasional illogical/mediocre writing of late SG-1 and Atlantis while lacking the fun or enjoyable characters that those shows had.
Just to cite one of the more egregious examples- the communication stones are a bad, poorly thought out plot device, but they're also used in obnoxious, unethical, and frankly annoying ways.
With that said, I think it is a show that I'd enjoy watching Chuck suffer through.
I hated those stones. The reason i gave up on the show.
the reason, I gave up on the show, was, that they were trying SOOO hard to be relevant and dark, edgy, grim, gritty, realistic, that they completely forgot how to be a a fun show about space exploration, that didn't take itself too seriously. Can we please stop using grim and gritty as a crutch?
Why would the product had been better just because they try to be less dark?
ChiggyvonRichthofen wrote:I thought SG:U certainly got better as it went along, and I would classify season two in its entirety as "decent" with some very good moments. On the other hand, the first season deserves all the negativity it got. They tried to do "more serious sci-fi", but it had the occasional illogical/mediocre writing of late SG-1 and Atlantis while lacking the fun or enjoyable characters that those shows had.
Just to cite one of the more egregious examples- the communication stones are a bad, poorly thought out plot device, but they're also used in obnoxious, unethical, and frankly annoying ways.
With that said, I think it is a show that I'd enjoy watching Chuck suffer through.
I hated those stones. The reason i gave up on the show.
the reason, I gave up on the show, was, that they were trying SOOO hard to be relevant and dark, edgy, grim, gritty, realistic, that they completely forgot how to be a a fun show about space exploration, that didn't take itself too seriously. Can we please stop using grim and gritty as a crutch?
Why would the product had been better just because they try to be less dark?
Imho, mostly because the tone of the shows until that point was less dark and less serious. Which is, what I liked about SG 1 and SG A - that underlying sense of optimism, that no matter how hard the enemy will hit you, there is a silver lining on the horizon. To be honest, for me it was more of a unique selling point to that show - this "not to be taken tooo seriously" was something, which I liked and, honestly, was and is missing in lots of sci-fi shows until SG-1 came along and after SG A ended.
ChiggyvonRichthofen wrote:I thought SG:U certainly got better as it went along, and I would classify season two in its entirety as "decent" with some very good moments. On the other hand, the first season deserves all the negativity it got. They tried to do "more serious sci-fi", but it had the occasional illogical/mediocre writing of late SG-1 and Atlantis while lacking the fun or enjoyable characters that those shows had.
Just to cite one of the more egregious examples- the communication stones are a bad, poorly thought out plot device, but they're also used in obnoxious, unethical, and frankly annoying ways.
With that said, I think it is a show that I'd enjoy watching Chuck suffer through.
I hated those stones. The reason i gave up on the show.
the reason, I gave up on the show, was, that they were trying SOOO hard to be relevant and dark, edgy, grim, gritty, realistic, that they completely forgot how to be a a fun show about space exploration, that didn't take itself too seriously. Can we please stop using grim and gritty as a crutch?
Why would the product had been better just because they try to be less dark?
Imho, mostly because the tone of the shows until that point was less dark and less serious. Which is, what I liked about SG 1 and SG A - that underlying sense of optimism, that no matter how hard the enemy will hit you, there is a silver lining on the horizon. To be honest, for me it was more of a unique selling point to that show - this "not to be taken tooo seriously" was something, which I liked and, honestly, was and is missing in lots of sci-fi shows until SG-1 came along and after SG A ended.
There was Farscape, plenty of Star Trek. There was not that much on the SG scale.
