![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif){kind=small}
bascon had a short-fic/drabble writting panel; I came in late, but I managed to get this out:There are four ways to define home, Ford thinks.[]
He makes his wry smiles and brings it to his team, but cracks it wider (than he ever would, for them), full of teeth. He finds her loyalty and brings it to them, his team, little parts of Wraith that he gives to them, to put inside. He finds ingenuity, in a little man who talks fast and is cowed easily, and he finds manpower (grunts), and tries not to find them familiar.
Ford creates his home, bit by bit, assembling it out of muscle and tissue and brains, all stitched together with a sickle grin (and needlepoint).
There are four ways, to define home, Ford thinks; he has, here, created them all (again), he looks at the bobble-ling heads all around him.
And smiles.
So I was reading this meta on Weir by
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
mari4212 and what registered to me both in this piece and saeva's post was how much SGC was not especially keen to having her around...This brings home even more the idea that SGA is really a story about a bunch of misfits pushed to extremes, 'cause it's like a one-way trip and you *know* SGC was thinking, "Oh, well, you're expendable. Go ahead."
'Cause I mean, it's easy to see how Rodney and Kavanaugh won't exactly be missed and how John is all black-marked and how Beckett has extremely shady medical ethics (wherein 'Poison In The Well' is Beckett's 'Trinity') and how Heightmeyer is a psychologist like a shady, shady researcher ("Teyla/Rodney you shouldn't be freaking out for losing control of your body. Loose it again. Show me more.").
And it's not just possibly problematic writing of the show (that, for instance, Beckett is written as a shady doctor, because maybe he *is*), the patterns appear too often for that...So in a way, it was a relief to finally see where Weir was coming from, that SGC literally didn't want her around because she was a threat to the power structure and because she's really more a negotiator than a leader.
Which brings up an interesting question: What was up with Ford? Why were they so willing to let him go?
I haven't watched SG1 so I can't extrapolate from there...but perhaps I can guess from what I've seen of Ford in season 1. Please jump in if you've noticed stuff too or you have things to add from SG1!
As far as I could tell at first glance, Ford is a energetic guy, very young compared to the other characters, competent.
But this is SGA, and nothing is quite so cut and dry as appearances. 'Cause as early as ep3. (38 min.), we see Ford towards the end losing it and just slamming against the wall in this surprising rage. And I forgot which ep, but they were playing Prime-NotPrime and Ford kept losing and getting all irritated, and Ford's reaction towards being used as wraith-bait, and the little bits of reaction throughout the season that had him disgruntled or overlooked...
[
lierdumoa points out: Ford freaked out in S1 and it was identical to how he reacted in S2, but with the enzyme "he was on that razor edge *constantly* instead of only in particular situations."]And then we have Season 2 Ford. See, the man likes explosives, yanno. Ticking time-bombs, and I can't help but look back and wonder at Season 1 Ford, and wondering if I'd read the Good Boy thing wrong. If I'd mis-read their team-family dynamics. I can't help but wonder if Ford had just that One Really Bad Day that pushes a good man to do evil.
And I can't help but wonder if it's in his records that he may be closer to that snapping point than other people. I can't help but compare Ford's reaction under the enzyme to Teyla and Ronon's reaction, to McKay's reaction, and to John's reaction, and then trying to figure out relative dosages and the effects of sedatives and still still still coming back to the fact that Ford's reaction is extreme (he formed a drug gang and ate Wraiths. DUDE.) and that I wouldn't be surprised if Ford was written as an explosives expert for a *reason*.
Ticking time-bomb, heh.
Which...sorta causes one to go back and re-evaluate the S1 team dynamics once S2 Ford comes along, because John and Rodney and Ford and Teyla made a family of a team dynamic it's just...a somewhat dysfunctional one. More than anyone might've possibly guessed. (and Ford went ahead and created his own family, out of the skin of friends ::shakes head:: ah Ford.)
[edit] I'm not drawing a line saying that Ford from season 1 absolutely and straight-forwardly and conclusively leads to Ford from season 2, not at all, because I believe that he's essentially a good person who is relatively mentally stable considering the situation that they're in. However, the potential for Ford to react as he did in season 2 was always there and was referenced through in small ways through season 1, and that was what I was trying to awkwardly get at. He had that One Bad Day that throws good men into doing evil things.
Also, btw?
Zelenka. His arc hasn't come yet...but I can sorta see it coming (sideways, if I squint) ever since Siege III. And it's coming like a trainwreck.
Which, you know, will DESTROY THE BRAIN when it happens.
::is SO looking forward:: Because SGA is EVIL, it'll make me flail at the screen, I just know it.
Tags:
no subject
First, there's those sent through the US gov't in a civilian -- or, in John's case, gene-carrying -- capacity. Those like Weir, who's the proof of compromise, or Rodney, who will never be the darling of the program like Sam Carter, or Miller -- one of the techs -- or Kavanaugh. People who don't fit anywhere else or are second string (but still brilliant) but are of too much worth to remove from the Stargate program completely.
Second, the international group. In S6 of SG-1 the SGC is forced to inform six countries -- among them England, China, and Germany -- of the program, as well as keeping the Russians informed.
The Russians have been aware of the Stargate since the second year of the program, nearly seven to eight years ago more or less, and have managed only the concession of a single SG explorative team and maybe a couple of scientists inside the SGC in the time since. The other countries, more belatedly brought in, have not managed even that -- until Atlantis, at least.
Atlantis is the ultimate political coup, for funding without any real concessions (at least until the Atlantis mission is discovered to be relatively a roaring success in SGC terms -- something we're seeing played out in SGC's funding problems in S9). It's the way for the SGC to say "See, we're no longer solely a US military operation. We've compromised."
In Rising Elizabeth states that there's more than 12 separate countries being represented, among them China (we hear Mandarin), Japan (Miko Kusanagi), Germany (various scientists, recent military additions), Canada (Rodney), the UK (Grodin, Beckett -- though this may be split into "England" and "Scotland", depending on how exact Elizabeth was being), the Russians (which may or may not be how Radek Zelenka got in, even though he's personally Czech), and others.
These are not, likely, second string scientists and technicians at all. They're who the international community has to offer, who are also willing to go.
Then third, we have the Marines. The Marines -- like Sumner, like Ford, like Bates -- are a different issue from the civilians the US gov't is sending along. We know the Marines have struggled, somewhat, with getting representation within the SGC, being as the Stargate Program is predominantly Air Force (and from what we can tell the Army and the Navy are completely shut out).
The Marines also have a long-standing tradition of getting the shit jobs, the grunt work, and being really good at it. That's why they train harder and longer than any branch of the US military save certain elite forces (notably, the Air Force's basic training is the least of all the branches and the AF in general is seen as the "soft" branch of the military -- *laughs* and there's more than a few choice insults about manhood that could be mentioned here). The Atlantis expedition is right up Marine alley, especially since they're going to, if there is a threat, need to actively be defending the majority civilian population in what may be a wide variety of circumstances.
As Ford falls into the third category, and really seems to be a fairly typical Marine (for the cheerful side -- Bates represents the serious one), I don't think that his outbursts in the earlier episodes weren't meant to be anything but a show of his frustration with the often condescending behaviour of the scientists (or scientists like McKay). Nor do I think his love of explosives is anything but fairly typical Marine behaviour.
[tbc]
no subject
Which isn't to say that I think he's terribly stable but, then, he's the type of man who wants to be a Marine and then stick through the basic training and enlistment -- and if he's twenty-five chances are he came up on his choice to enlisted only six or so months before the Atlantis mission cropped up -- if he took a standard-long six year enlistment and not a standard short (two years, I think, I'm a little rusty on Marine tendency), that is. And if he's that type of man then stability, in the sense that the civilian population thinks of stability, probably isn't his strong point.
... And that wasn't short. *sighs* Next time maybe.
- Andrea.
no subject
It isn't so much that his actions are unethical in and of themselves -- the Wraith don't fall under the Geneva Convention and would actively, gladly kill every last one of the Atlantis expedition -- but that they're not cautious. Like with applying gene therapy to people with only the warning that it hasn't exactly been tested by the FDA. It's a bottom line thing and a good move to get what is necessary done as quickly as possible, but it had huge amount of risk and probably not something he would have done if he has other reasonable choice. Atlantis just doesn't afford a lot of "other reasonable choice".
- Andrea.
no subject
What I'm a bit confused about, though, is that you seem to be setting up the facts as the otherside of a discussion to my post (though I could just be reading your words wrong; and if I am, I apologize) so I'm not sure what you're getting at because the facts you present seem to state roughly the same thing that I was imagining only with far more detail, which I am delighted that you've fleshed out.
I'm guessing that perhaps you're arguing either against how SGA is a bunch of misfits or that Ford showed the potential for acting like he did under the Wraith enzyme since season 1? I'm guessing this because those two were the main two points of my post.
And I don't really disagree with anything you've stated in your comment. I think that your first, second, and third points are spot-on; but also that doesn't prevent the SGA crew from *still* being...well, "expendable." And I *don't* mean to say that every single member of the expedition isn't frighteningly competent; I don't mean to say that they're top-notch. I really do believe in Elizabeth's words that each member of the expedition was hand-picked and are truly near the top of the game in their various fields.
However, they're all flawed in such a way that people wouldn't mind them being on a one-way trip to possible Doom. One thing that particularly highlights this for me is how in The Rising O'Neil absolutely refused to let Daniel Jackson go to Atlantis. Jackson is *needed* and *essential* in a way that, say, McKay isn't. Also, it's surprising that Sheppard was the only one of his rank; they *had* to know that the possibility of Everett being lost in the line of duty was there, and possibly didn't want Sheppard in command, and there probably wouldn't have had even a Major had not Sheppard been there...
As for Ford, I'm not drawing a line saying that Ford from season 1 absolutely and straight-forwardly and conclusively leads to Ford from season 2, not at all, because I believe that he's essentially a good person who is relatively mentally stable considering the situation that they're in.
However, the potential for Ford to react as he did in season 2 was always there and was referenced through in small ways through season 1, and that was what I was trying to awkwardly get at. He had that One Bad Day that throws good men into doing evil things.
(This was mostly a reaction against the impression people at
As for his outbursts and the explosives; it's not the fact that they're normal or abnormal in RL, but rather that the show *chose* to show these as part of Ford. They could have just as easily had him blankly polite, or non-reactive instead of panicking in 38 Minutes, or have him be a sniper instead of an explosives expert; taken individually these incidences could be brushed off as bad-writing, but if it's consistent and and if it fits in a pattern then it's usually the writers trying to get at something.
Regarding Beckett, I've elaborated more in my latest post. But I think we might be coming up against a communication mishap again: when I say "shady" I don't mean "unethical"; instead I mean the word to imply gray areas and something like "ethically dubious". =) Sorry for the confusion.
no subject
I tend to come off as argumentative, especially when I'm in a migraine phase like I have been for the last week, even when I'm not actually arguing.
We're definitely not arguing about the screw-up/misfit/expendable thing, just to be clear. They are second string, they are screw ups in a way that SG-1 can't even touch in part because SG-1 is mythic and SGA is... Your slacker ex-boyfriend and the tech geek in your college dorm.
*looks for where I wrote on that, I know I did... Found it! Here. (http://www.livejournal.com/users/saeva/57004.html)
We're also not arguing that Season One Ford informs Season Two Ford. I absolutely agree that he's the same man he always was. I actually do think S1 Ford "absolutely and straight-forwardly and conclusively leads to" S2 Ford.
My point in the third section of my comment was Ford "really seems to be a fairly typical Marine", in direct contention with your point "And I can't help but wonder if it's in his records that he may be closer to that snapping point than other people."
If by 'other people' you mean people in general then I might agree but you specifically say records which means a comparison with other people who are Marines. In which case, I can't agree with you.
Look at the places Sumner, as shortly as he was onscreen, lost his temper; look at the places Sgt. Bates has lost his temper in canon, especially over reasonable security threats (and this is an SG1 thing too where Bates is coming from a context where the evil aliens might look just like you and me on the surface and they'll enslave you as much as look at you). Look at what those places have in common with the places that Ford himself loses his temper.
I doubt anything on his record shows him as likelier to snap than others because Ford is, fairly simply, a typical Marine. He snaps at the sort of things he's literally trained to snap at -- such as with Carson -- or things which heavily insult his pride and skill -- like with Prime Not Prime, and such values are drilled into the consciousness of Marines as a primary goal.
[Really, that's what I love about Jarhead, if you've seen the movie. It's so representative of what the Marines I know in real life have gone through.]
So, I'm not arguing that S1 Ford informs S2, or that the choices the writers made were random, not at all. I'm arguing with your overall premise of Ford as a misfit or atypical of *his* grouping. Rodney is atypical of the science grouping from SG1, Weir is atypical of the leader grouping of SG1, Sheppard is, okay, Sheppard's not that atypical of the pilot grouping from SG1 but he's been established in SGA as atypical because of how he joined so it counts. Etc.
Ford isn't atypical of the group in canon that informs him, he isn't a misfit, he probably isn't there because he's in particular seen as expendable. All Marines are expendable.
Not in the sense that they're not valued but in the sense that if the Atlantis expedition went sideways (like it did) and they lost soldiers (like they did) then at least they know they sent in their best chance of not losing soldiers, unlike if they sent in a bunch of Air Force soldiers. It also explains why in the SGC you have to basically be an AF Major to get your own team but the SGA mission sent along one Colonel, a Lieutenant (or maybe a couple, we can't know for sure), and NCOs (like Sgt. Bates). The Air Force sees things, uh, differently than the Marine Corps.
It's a HELL of a lot harder to become an officer in the USMC than it is in the USAF, but you are able to do more and get more training at lower levels in the Marines to make up the difference.
[tbc -- damn character limits!]
no subject
Though to address your post: "One thing that particularly highlights this for me is how in The Rising O'Neil absolutely refused to let Daniel Jackson go to Atlantis. Jackson is *needed* and *essential* in a way that, say, McKay isn't."
*That* is far more a reflection of Jack than it is of Daniel's worth. Technically Daniel could have appealed to the president and Weir to be taken on the mission, but he wasn't willing to without his best friend's blessing. Daniel is more than qualified for it and being the foremost expert on Ancient in particular the SGC had would have been a great asset to the Atlantis expedition in particular, especially since it's his actions and what he forced Jack into that led to the discovery of Atlantis (and the Antartica outpost) in the first place.
Daniel was more needed on ATLANTIS than the SGC -- the SGC could replace him -- but Jack was general at the time and Jack would sooner shoot off his own foot than allow his (former) team members to leave him. It isn't until Jack has left the SGC himself that Daniel rebroaches the subject, and Sam (another member of Jack's team) leaves to deal with her own projects, and Teal'c (the last member) does the same.
Which doesn't invalidate your point -- there's a reason that Rodney was asked along on the mission instead of Sam and Sheppard was thrown in solely for his ability to turn things on -- but I think you're reading the Rising scene without the full background that's there. *laughs*
- Andrea.
no subject
no subject
And yeah, shows have shady science, I think part of it is due to the impossibility of displaying real cutting-edge science on tv because the techno-babble would be beyond most people (even most scientists, if they weren't in the specific field of study).
OHH! *You're* the one that made that HS comparison!! ::GLOMPS:: so. true.
My point in the third section of my comment was Ford "really seems to be a fairly typical Marine", in direct contention with your point "And I can't help but wonder if it's in his records that he may be closer to that snapping point than other people."
Ahhh okay, that makes more sense now. =) With regards to S1 Ford "absolutely and straight-forwardly and conclusively leads to" S2 Ford, I meant as a character who is Evil level, not in a narrative progression level. For instance, I don't think that S1 Ford wasn't destined to become Evil, but that with the right circumstances he could go there.
Look at what those places have in common with the places that Ford himself loses his temper.
I have to agree with you that those other characters have lost their temper too but, imho, Ford's bursts of anger seem more raw and uncontrolled than either Sumner or Bates' reactions.
I doubt anything on his record shows him as likelier to snap than others because Ford is, fairly simply, a typical Marine. He snaps at the sort of things he's literally trained to snap at -- such as with Carson -- or things which heavily insult his pride and skill -- like with Prime Not Prime, and such values are drilled into the consciousness of Marines as a primary goal.
::nodnod::
Ford isn't atypical of the group in canon that informs him, he isn't a misfit, he probably isn't there because he's in particular seen as expendable. All Marines are expendable.
::rolls idea around in head:: huh. Yeah, that works.
And now I'm really really curious about the possible interaction of Weir and Sumner!
no subject
Again, this is SG-1 informing me, and while they're not the same show they do have many, many things in common -- starting with the writers and producers and moving on down -- so a connection can be made. And SG-1 loves it's personality alteration plots especially when a chemical substance can be involved, to the point that it's been done at least eight times in SG-1 to my recollection (completely aside from the fact that an entire race of beings in SG-1 are utterly informed by a chemical influence tendency).
To give you yet more background, in SG-1 there's a race called the Goa'uld. The Goa'uld are, large and by far, evil in the narrative sense. They're the bad guys. This is caused by two things in a general way, the first being genetic memory.
The Goa'uld remember what their parent (Goa'uld are spawning, not live birth, and self-reproducing) knew, who remembers what their parent knew, who remembers... On and on until certain traits are so reinforced that it takes an entire change in mindset to push one out of it, in which case the children of said changed Goa'uld will have the changed mindset. [And when one such Goa'uld did have a change of mindset s/he spawned -- literally -- a resistance movement.]
The second is the technology involved. Goa'uld are long-living and have extraordinary healing ability. They're parasites and when they infect a body (usually a human one) they can not only control it but they can heal it as well; also, they physically develop between spawning and parasite infestation in a sort of synthesized pouch that's forced onto a subset of humanity called the Jaffa, but that's really more than you need to know.
So, they're long-living, they heal, and so barring accident they'll live hundreds of years. They're also scavengers of technology, they don't make their own tech they steal and try to improve or adapt on the schematics. One such technology they discovered from the Ancients, or what the Ancients had left behind, and they developed the sarcophagi, which are chambers that revitalizes living people and can even resurrect a recently dead person. At a price, that price being mental stability and a sense of perspective, to the point that it horribly distorts what may once have been a relatively reasonable personality.
You can see where this sort of informs where they went with the Wraith enzyme, right? Especially since this fountain of youth technology was essentially distortive from the very beginning -- in fact, the Ancient version only required one exposure to it, while the sarcophagi require repeated exposure and will go away if you allow the withdraw to happen.
In this analogy what happened to Ford, or what happened to Sheppard in Conversion, are the equivalent of the Ancient fountain of youth box (it's in a puzzle box form, don't ask me *laughs*) whereas what's happening to Teyla, McKay, and Ronon is the equivalent of the sarcophagi. Ford has learned from what happened to him -- as he said -- and figured out a safer, more effective, less destablizing way to acheive the same physical process.
But he did so from the point of view of someone who was exposed to high, high levels of personality changing biochemistry in a single sitting (who was also then forced to go through levels of withdraw which, if allowed to complete themselves, would have killed him). That explains why his personality has taken such a larger shock or forced him to greater extremes than Teyla or Ronon's (and Rodney's dosage was heavily reduced anyway).
Oh, and, no.
And, you know, now I'm horribly tempted to write (probably wankily) about the different experiences SGA fans who've seen SG-1 must have from SGA fans who haven't seen SG-1.
- Andrea.
no subject
Ah, bad phrasing here, pardons.
I meant it as Ford-is-an-Evil-cartoon-villian (which I don't believe), versus the idea that Ford was pushed to a narrative place he would not have normally gone.
As for the rest I'll need to chew on it I think, though the comparison between the two seem a bit non-conclusive. I'm not sure what argument you are making there.
Also I take SG1 symbolism (this does not include world creation) crossed over into SGA with a huge grain of salt, because of how different the two shows seem to be, inherently. (ie. SG1's heroes, military, & family v. SGA's misfits, civilian, & dysfunctionality)
no subject
[You ever find that we, in particular, tend to have more conversations out of misunderstanding of terms...]
- Andrea.
no subject
heh, yeah. I think it's just me though, 'cause I tend to think very laterally rather than linearly and it's hard to convey my ideas in a linear fashion.
In reference to symbolism, I mean it by visual/metaphoical/narrative symbolism that builds up to a sorta unified theme of a show (for instance Buffy:tVS and Angel:tS have opposing themes, where Buffy's was more hopeful, Angel's was more apocalyptic); it's basically a lot of my film class showing through; and it was in reference to comparing Wraith enzyme to Ancient fountain of youth box.
I think that SG1 and SGA are sort of similar to BtVS and AtS in that though there are spin-offs of the shows, they don't follow the same themes (ie. the same symbolic language); while they share a certain world and share the basic laws/logic of that world (ie. Stargates or Vampires), their themes run in different patterns.
no subject
"Of course. We are far superior [to humans]. And if you could see into the mind of an animal you would blindly feed upon, you would reach the same conclusion."
Those are two lines of dialogue from a season six episode of Stargate: SG-1, lines which have obvious copy in the treatment of the Wraith towards his human "benefactors" in 'Condemned'. And there's literally dozens of direct copies like that in the way SGA operates, unlike with Buffy and Angel. Buffy informs Angel but Angel is still very much its own show, with its own mythology and plot. SGA is far less so in comparison to SG-1, at least at this point, and almost everything it does is connected to something SG-1 did.
[I've recently been having my friends quiz me on that, naming things in Atlantis and seeing if I could trace them back to SG-1. If you'd like to join the fun, feel free to name something.]
You say above that SG-1 is about "heroes, military, & family" while SGA is about "misfits, civilian, & dysfunctionality" but I'd disagree.
While you can make the civilian/military divide -- though its not that clear cut in the personalities of Jack O'Neill and Sam Carter -- the other ones don't function at all. SG-1 is also about misfits and dysfunctionality and its message about family is nothing so much as "Damn. You can't pick your relatives."
All four members of the SG-1 team are disconnected from the world they wished to belong to -- Teal'c betrays his people for what he believes, Jack's a black ops operative in a first contact job, Sam was meant to go to NASA but got sidetracked, and Daniel, Daniel got laughed out of the only profession he ever wanted. They found themselves and each other in SG-1 but they're misfits from the outside world and their family relationships are all incredibly painful (abandonment, guilt, death, secrecy, just some of the problems they've had or enacted with family members).
One can make the argument towards SG-1 being mythic and SGA being human, which is probably the greatest divide they do have, but even there it's a difference in how the plots play out, the consequences, and not the beginnings. It's not that Sam doesn't have a Trinity -- she blew up a sun, once, and that's not even the worst thing she's done -- or Daniel doesn't have a Hot Zone -- he? managed to destroy (to dust) the planet he called home -- but that they don't have to suffer the consequences of those actions in the same way.
But the parallels are there and they're very conclusive -- SGA is using so many of the same things SG-1 did and just renaming them (actors are just the most obvious manifestation of that, though I was deathly amused to see the first incarnation of Perna, played by the same actress who played Perna, while rewatching some older SG-1 earlier today). On SG-1 the Hoff were called the Bangarians and the Wraith resistence drug was called Tretonin and designed to remove the Goa'uld ability to prey on the humans, but some of the dialogue could have been easily lifted.
I don't really have a decisive point very often, by the way, I'm just talking about anything I think you might find interesting in response to what I see you saying. I don't think very linearly myself.
- Andrea.
no subject
I'm not arguing that the plots are canned, because they are; but I'm saying that these similar plots are used as different symbols to point to different themes. The blessing of a genre is that one can subvert the message within the genre itself by following very specific patterns; therefore showing something new while at the same time keeping the safety of the familiar. In this way, some of the best critique can arise, from within the source itself; but it does this most easily and most safely by steadfastly keeping themselves within established conventions in other ways.
It may be because I've only seen a few episodes of SG1, but it never captured me the way that just two episodes of SGA did; I have an inkling of why, but I'm still forming my theories on that.
In sum, I think the two shows are using similar plots to point to two different places; but not having seen SG1 I can't make any solid overaching comment on it's themes, just what I've noticed other's mainly picking up on.
Regarding the dysfunctionality, I wasn't referring to family dysfunctionality of the individual team members; rather, I was referring to the dysfunctionality of the team itself, in microcosm, and the expedition as a whole.
One can make the argument towards SG-1 being mythic and SGA being human, which is probably the greatest divide they do have, but even there it's a difference in how the plots play out, the consequences, and not the beginnings. It's not that Sam doesn't have a Trinity -- she blew up a sun, once, and that's not even the worst thing she's done -- or Daniel doesn't have a Hot Zone -- he? managed to destroy (to dust) the planet he called home -- but that they don't have to suffer the consequences of those actions in the same way.
err...could you re-state this? I think I see what you're getting at, but I'd hate to make assumptions that'll get us more confused.
But the parallels are there and they're very conclusive -- SGA is using so many of the same things SG-1 did and just renaming them
Yes, exactly. =) It's a stable framework from which SGA can use as point of derivation. It also follows very many sci-fi conventions from the various Star Trek and Babylon 5, that I know of, and I think some other sources that I remember others pointing out.
[I've recently been having my friends quiz me on that, naming things in Atlantis and seeing if I could trace them back to SG-1. If you'd like to join the fun, feel free to name something.]
As a point of curiosity, how were the Ancients introduced in SG1 and what is the tone of SG1 towards the Ancients?
no subject
- Andrea.
no subject