After viewing SGU’s sixth episode, Water, did you sit there and wonder “How the heck did they shoot the crevasse sequence?” Yeah, didn’t think so. But I’ll show you anyway…
Back in the office this morning where we broke our second story in as many days. Yesterday, we beat out the season opener for Paul and today, we spun episode two. Rob, who’ll be doing the honors on this one, pithced out a terrific, albeit radically different, A story to compliment the B, C, D, and E throughlines. Lots going on in this one – action, drama, spectacular visual effects, and a tough, tough decision. Two actually. Tomorrow, looks like Carl is on deck as episode five jumps two spots to take the position formerly held by episode three (my baby). Hopefully, we’ll be able to get his story broken AND squeeze in that Day 1 Mix of Faith. And lunch.
So here’s the question of the week, posed by the editor of IO9 regarding my recent rant that you may or may not be familiar with: “Is [my] skin getting thin because the complaints ring true, or was it an appropriate response to a monsoon of trolls?”
Well, after weighing all the evidence and giving it much thought I’m going to have to go with………………………………………………hmmmmmm…………………………………..the latter. If you read the entirety of what I had to say (rather than just the cross-posted excerpts), you’ll note I started off by stating: “I find myself in an awkward position. On the one hand, I want to keep this blog’s comment section open to differing opinions and allow fans to express their honest feelings about the show; on the other hand, I don’t want it to turn into a battleground where fans can feel free to insult the production, its personal, and each other.” And even the most cursory scan of past comment sections over this blog’s three-year run will bear this out.
I humbly submit the assertion that all comments should be recognized as worthy and constructive is, quite frankly, bullshit. There is a difference between weighing in with a negative opinion and launching inflammatory or personal insults from the anonymous refuge of your parents‘ basement. Only last week I mentioned I didn’t approve a comment to this blog for the first time in months. It happens, but rarely. Over the past couple of days, it has, admittedly, happened with more frequency, about a half-dozen posts, mostly from the same individual, seemingly designed to test the functionality of this blog’s TRASH button (Yep, it’s working just fine.).
The day after that initial entry, I posted the Cliff Notes for those who either didn’t read the entirety of what I had to say or missed the point. I broke it down in very simple terms. Evidently, not simple enough. So I’ll try again, breaking it down in even simpler terms.
Criticism = J
Inflammatory/Personal attacks = L
Two other points I touched upon. One, that those who use sexist terms while simultaneously arguing that a scene is sexist subvert their own argument. Two, that those who make use of sensational labels without supportive arguments risk undermining their credibility as well. I mentioned the use of the term “whore”, used by several posters. One of these individuals was someone who had (and has since) provided some terrific, well-reasoned critiques and yet, on this occasion, submitted a comment in which she labeled a character “a whore” and then moved on without so much as an explanation for her position. Some who read the post dismissed the poster and her views as extreme – which was a damn shame because, as I said, this individual has presented articulate and intelligent points in the past. To repeat what I said the other day (and you may have missed it as this part of my original post was presumably deemed less worthy of mention): “Still, I’d suggest that anyone looking to post a critical comment consider their wording – not their opinion, but the way in which they express said opinion. Sometimes, you can be offensive without even meaning to. And, when this happens, rather than making a good point, you risk alienating the very people you’re trying to convince.”
Finally, to all those who feel I’m slighting SG-1 and Atlantis by stating that SGU is far removed from the previous two Stargate incarnations… I had a wonderful time working on both shows for many, many years, and that was mainly due to its wonderful characters and the fact that, at the end of the day, neither series took itself too seriously, forever thumbing their noses at SF tropes like alternate realities (Ripple Effect), time travel (Morpheus I and II), and everything from phase-shifting to technobabble (Wormhole Xtreme, 200). Of course, both shows had their fair share of danger and drama and unexpected tragedies but, when all was said and done, the good guys were good and prevailed in the end while the bad guys were bad (although occasionally conflicted) and invariably wound up on the receiving end of a mothership explosion. Our heroes rarely, if ever, screwed up and, even if they did, their actions never resulted in any long-term consequences. In Stargate: Universe, however, the situation is darker, murkier. The characters are flawed. They make mistakes, sometimes big ones, and they suffer the ugly consequences. Like I said. A different show. Not better. Or worse. Just very different.
Looks like I’ve got a bit of a backlog in the mailbag – which I fully intend to get around to at some point this weekend.
Leave a Reply