This is the antithesis of how to write a good antagonist. The best are the ones that have a solid argument to make and that is the reason why the door is open to being tempted by them.clearspira wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 8:53 pm And the writers know this which is why they first made him a religious fundamentalist and then a true villain as opposed to merely being an antagonist. All to discredit the fact that he was wrong only in hindsight.
The issue with this is the show spent time and energy discrediting the antagonist and not spending time actually making SG-1s position shine through as the better one to take. Sadly, the ethical side of Stargate in this regard was ignored too much I found, if only when it came to Earth's defence (because I suspect it would logically favour doing things the writers disagreed with, such as the US and Earth as a whole putting their interests first more often and actually expanding out into the universe rather than setting up temporary off world sites).
The irony to me about this is, post-9/11, this double dipping is so often what happened in US foreign policy.Ghilz wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 10:34 pmNot even what I mean. Like, my issue with, for example, Michael, isn't "Oh, what they are doing is inhumane", My issue is "They are unwilling to commit to what they are doing". So they end end up sorta treating Michael like a person even though none of them sees him as such, in something that is ultimately doomed to failure and literally causes Michael to escape. Had they left him in a cell like a lab subject, he'd never have broken out, and the countless people he killed would be fine. But the show can't commit to the main characters doing monstrous things for a greater purpose, so they sort of do half measures all the time.CrypticMirror wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 9:38 pmNow that I can agree with. I don't know if it was intentional, in fact I'd bet it wasn't, but it really came off as a deep critique of the whole post 9/11 paradigm. Whenever they resorted to post 9/11 tactics of abuse, torture, and deception as first resort it always resulted in a fuckup which made things worse. On the rare occasions they tried actual diplomacy or at least gaining informed consent, then it tended to work out better. Which is often how real life works too.
A lot of the Atlantis' Flaws is from this weird double dipping where "We want them to toe the line" but "we can't risk them being the villains". IE: Lets use an Asuran as a double door against his people, Michael, etc....
Why allow a nation that isn't even a regional power a toe into matters that it cannot contribute decently towards even if it wanted to help out? Russia, China, Britain, France, yes, but Egypt is not a Great Power. This is a matter when Realpolitik cuts in and lesser nations get to sit back as the global players enforce their will like they always have.
And such a treaty can and will be dropped as soon as something relevant can be had from Antarctica, like a planetary defence weapon. Same with claiming stuff in outer space, as soon as it becomes practical nations will start to have misgivings over that treaty and begin to neglect it once it starts to tie their hands (and stops tying other nations hands).Should also be pointed out that irl, most signatories of the Antarctica treaty do not recognize New Zealand's claim to the Ross Dependency. This includes the USA. And most of the non New Zealand world as no territorial claims can be asserted in Antarctica so long as the treaty is active. Both the UK and New Zealand signed that treaty.
