• CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        I respectfully disagree. I am currently in a rewatch, and there are two major issues I now have with SG1 (and don’t ask me why it didn’t bother/I didn’t notice before): how much civil oversight over the military is antagonized and how often events or explanations are recapped in dialogue.
        In Atlantis, Weir and Woolsey are really respectable civil leaders with authority over the expedition’s military and the relationship between military and civil personnel is much more balanced (plus every now and then it leads to interesting conflict).
        Also, this frequent summaries and retelling is often a point of critique for more modern shows (“modern shows get made for second screens”). That happens much less in Atlantis.

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          3 days ago

          I respectfully disagree. I am currently in a rewatch, and there are two major issues I now have with SG1 (and don’t ask me why it didn’t bother/I didn’t notice before): how much civil oversight over the military is antagonized …

          I feel like its not so much civilian-oversight that’s antagonized but greedy politicians. where Weir is not a politician- she’s a scientist and was in charge of the scientific expedition which the military (SGC) was tasked with protecting.

          Keep in mind that Woolsey was first introduced as Kinsey’s lackey coming in to sabotage the stargate program. His character arc is… wonderful; and he goes from Woolsey-the-antagonist to Woolsey-the-ally (and eventual leader of Atlantis). for his part, Kinsey was subordinate to the Trust (and the oligarchs that formed the Committee/NID before it.)

          Which, I do feel like American politicians are… how shall we say… like that.

          • CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            I feel like its not so much civilian-oversight that’s antagonized but greedy politicians.

            Partly, yes. But for the most part, the ones in favour of civilian oversight were only greedy politicians, and that was used to frame the whole idea. Also the pure thought of civilian oversight was ridiculed by the protagonists without it being contextualized as a point of debate or something. Remember, there was a whole episode about why the US Air Force was best to control the Stargate program instead of an international comittee.

            where Weir is not a politician- she’s a scientist

            No, Weir was a diplomat, peace activist and expert on international politics, not a scientist. Also, her appearance in SG1 marked a slight change in the show’s characterization of civil oversight.

            Kinsey is one of my biggest points in this issue. For several seasons, he was the only or leading figure arguing for civil oversight, and when you let only one or a most prominent character represent an idea that character is how the show frames that idea.

          • SatyrSack@quokk.au
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            Keep in mind that Woolsey was first introduced as Kinsey’s lackey coming in to sabotage the stargate program. His character arc is… wonderful; and he goes from Woolsey-the-antagonist to Woolsey-the-ally (and eventual leader of Atlantis).

        • Steve@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 days ago

          Atlantis is set after all of the civilian/military conflicts were hammered out back on earth. The IOA is more stable/reasonable than when the stargate was a US-Russian secret.

      • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        i pefer sga continuation of sg1’s mission, sg1 by the time it ended , it was already past its prime. the show was reaching by the time Ori was nearing is defeat. SGA had some upcoming storylines if it wasnt cancelled before s6. they already alluded to A,U appearances of enemies in the main universe. also ghost in the machine, repliweir foreshadowed future advanced races in the galaxy.

  • MadMadBunny@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    “I am Rygel the XVI, Dominar to over 600 billion subjects. I don’t need to talk to you!”

  • Autonomous@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    3 days ago

    Kosh: They are alone. They are a dying fanbase. We should let them pass.

    Sinclair: Who – the Trek Fans or the Babylon 5 fans?

    Kosh: Yes.

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 days ago

      That’s because they cancelled the show after the 4th season, but then another network picked it up, but they had already rushed the ending.

  • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    I’m a fan of both.

    B5 is better sci-fi. It’s told as one long cohesive story, so it has a lot of time to explore ideas and themes. It is, however…very cheesy. A lot of the VFX don’t hold up, the first season feels like dime store Star Trek before the actors found their characters and the plot kicks into gear, and the fifth season is almost entirely epilogue. But. It’s a show you should watch.

    Star Trek is very often better television. There’s more Trek to be had, and it’s easy to find your home in the franchise. Production quality is usually better. It’s slightly harder sci-fi, there’s usually less hibbity jibbity in it. Star Trek is a lot worse at following an overall story arc, DS9 is the best at it, TOS and TNG were aired before overall stories were invented, VOY infamously failed to implement the story they told us it had, ENT decided fuck it we’re Starship Troopers now, and that’s the canonical end of the Star Trek franchise.

    • GalacticGrapefruit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Well, B5 had a shit ton of production problems. Several actors left, they had run into some pretty dire technical issues, there was a nasty divorce somewhere in there too. Not to mention, the execs decided to say, “Hey, we’re canceling next season, so 4’s your last one.” and then the writers crammed two seasons’ worth of story into one. And then, they said, “Sike, you get your 5th season after all.”

      Screw the network.

  • _NetNomad@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    3 days ago

    oh please, who would watch a show about a space station? a commander torn between official duty to earth and being the chosen one to an alien species? episodes i have to watch in order? there isn’t a market for a single show like that!