STARGATE UNIVERSE # 12: Divided (2)Season 1/2010

[Felon]

This "evil" thing is utterly unfathomable to me. How is it that the military guys are "good"? If I was a civilian on the ship -- and especially if I knew about Rush being left on that planet -- the only evil I'd see is the military, who have proven they'll sacrifice you for being inconvenient.

Many, many years of watching military science fiction has taught us that captains and commanders and people in uniforms always know best. SG-1 invariably portrayed civilian oversight as being thoroughly corrupt and incompetent. We cheered on Jack O'Neal and his noble team of unbeatable soldiers, even as they casually went around suppressing free speech with gag orders whenever a civilian learned anything about the Stargate.

In SGU, we're shown that we should look favorably upon handsome, daring young soldier Scott, father-figure Young, and caregiver T.J. Greer is a thug and bully, but note that he's never really taken to task for it, either by Young or by TV-show karma, which lends his bad-boy attitude validity.

Rush and Camile Wray are the foremost represenatives of the civilian segment, and they are predominantly self-serving in their every action, even when they try to obfuscate their motives by claiming they're looking out for the whole. Perhaps even more damning is that in spite of their pragmatic intelligence, they lose every confrontation. Karma delivers them come-uppance, so this teaches viewers they are in the wrong. Then there are all of the other civilians, who are a bunch of selfish, petulant whiners.

So, maybe it isn't so hard to see why supporting the civilian takeover is viewed as "evil".

 

[Wayside]

This "evil" thing is utterly unfathomable to me. How is it that the military guys are "good"? If I was a civilian on the ship -- and especially if I knew about Rush being left on that planet -- the only evil I'd see is the military, who have proven they'll sacrifice you for being inconvenient.

"Inconvenient?" I realize that's the word Wray used, and from her limited point of view it may be right, assuming she isn't aware that Rush framed Young for murder. With what we know, though, no, that's not even close to the right word. Rush was not left to die simply because he was "inconvenient." A civilian on the ship might see it that way, but the audience at home should not.

 

[Crothian]

So, maybe it isn't so hard to see why supporting the civilian takeover is viewed as "evil".

I'm not seeing it as evil as much as selfish. Yes the military have made mistakes but it is not as if the civilians have had any answers. It's just a power struggle of Rush verse anyone who disagrees with Rush. And Rush does not have the well being of the castaways as his number one priority.

 

[Dire Bare]

Many, many years of watching military science fiction has taught us that captains and commanders and people in uniforms always know best. SG-1 invariably portrayed civilian oversight as being thoroughly corrupt and incompetent. We cheered on Jack O'Neal and his noble team of unbeatable soldiers, even as they casually went around suppressing free speech with gag orders whenever a civilian learned anything about the Stargate.

In SGU, we're shown that we should look favorably upon handsome, daring young soldier Scott, father-figure Young, and caregiver T.J. Greer is a thug and bully, but note that he's never really taken to task for it, either by Young or by TV-show karma, which lends his bad-boy attitude validity.

Rush and Camile Wray are the foremost represenatives of the civilian segment, and they are predominantly self-serving in their every action, even when they try to obfuscate their motives by claiming they're looking out for the whole. Perhaps even more damning is that in spite of their pragmatic intelligence, they lose every confrontation. Karma delivers them come-uppance, so this teaches viewers they are in the wrong. Then there are all of the other civilians, who are a bunch of selfish, petulant whiners.

So, maybe it isn't so hard to see why supporting the civilian takeover is viewed as "evil".

You're right, of course, that the SG universe has been very pro-military and anti-civilian . . . . or really, anti-civilian government. I didn't mind the heroic portrayal of the military in the earlier series, but the almost constant portrayal of corrupt and incompetent civilian government (with a few exceptions) got tiring.

In SG:U, I do think that the writers are trying for a more balanced approach. The military isn't portrayed as consistently "good" and "right" all the time, and the civvies aren't consistently "bad" or incompetent. I think there is an honest effort to show all characters as more realistic, well-rounded human beings rather than always right heroes or always wrong villains. Now, granted, they haven't been even close to perfecting that balance . . . .

But the story of the civilian/military conflict isn't over, not by a long shot.

Oh, and BTW, I don't see Greer as a thug . . . . but he obviously has issues, is quick to use force, and is very loyal to the military. If Young ever needs somebody "wacked", he'd turn to Greer to get it done. (not that I think that will happen)

 

[Hand of Evil]

The problem is that Wray and Rush are not really civilians, they are special interest groups. The civilians on the ship are those in the background, the followers, I have yet to see Rush or Wray having the interest of their fellow crew members first and formost.

 

[Mark]

(not that i don't love tj, oh i do . . .)

ftw!

 

[Dire Bare]

The problem is that Wray and Rush are not really civilians, they are special interest groups. The civilians on the ship are those in the background, the followers, I have yet to see Rush or Wray having the interest of their fellow crew members first and formost.

Edit: Wait, sorry, I somehow missed the "first and foremost" part of your post somehow. We probably agree more than we disagree on these two characters . . .

I don't think you've got a handle on these two characters. Rush DOES care about his fellow passengers well-being and survival . . . . but he feels there are more important things at stake and does not want the crew to find a way back home to Earth . . . yet. Rush is arrogant, driven, and misguided, but not amoral.

Wray also cares very much for everyone's survival and well-being, but she is a bitter woman who is extremely distrustful of the military, and like Rush to a lesser degree, is somewhat arrogant. She is also part of an organization that wishes to wrest control of the Stargate program from the US military. I forget the name (IOA?), but it is essentially the international committee formed during SG-1 to provide international civilian oversight to the Stargate program. The same organization that Richard Woolsey, current (?) head of the Atlantis expedition, belongs to (actor Robert Picardo, of Star Trek Voyager Medical Hologram fame).

 

[Orius]

I have to honestly say I cheered when Greer and the other military personnel took back the ship. Yeah, I'm, on the pro-military side here. Young may have his screw ups, and there was that unfortunate incident with Rush, but I have the dramatic irony of knowing that Rush framed Young. Also, I'm not sympathetic toward Wray. She's IOA, and really the only likeable IOA character in the entire Stargate universe is Woolsey. Because she's IOA, she's a petty self-aggrandizing bureaucrat who wants to see the worst of the military in everything. And it doesn't help they pulled this coup right as the aliens popped in and attacked. That's another reason I cheered, because that's when you're going to need the military the most.

What I find amusing is that Rush apparently didn't back her up on this coup because he was nursing a grudge against Young, he did it because he thought Young would blame him for being a traitor because the aliens implanted him with a tracking device. The way I see it, he was using Wray this time. Seeing her get used was very appealing to me. I wonder just how much this is going to poison things on the ship.

At least Eli remains untainted. And of course, Eli probably is the only one on the ship right now who has seen the most of the power stuggle besides Young, Rush, and Wray.

I suspect that Young is going to consider getting weapons and shields up and running to be a priority now that these aliens have struck twice. Hunkering down under shields doesn't seem like the best plan to me, but the weapons also need to be in good working order to be able to fight back properly.

 

[Fast Learner]

Yeah, we obviously don't all see it the same -- the mark of a good show, I'm sure.

What I've seen so far is the military are bunch of thugs, bullies who are in control because they have the power to be in control. They commonly act in ways that are not in the best interests of the civilians on the ship, and Young in particular is an egotistical jerk, full of himself and a pure-and-simple dictator on the ship.

I don't think there's much in the way of evil on the ship, but I absolutely see the military as the bad guys in the show. Me, I was hugely disappointed that the military took back over so quickly. We've still never had a chance to see what might actually happen if the guys with the muscles and the guns weren't bullying everyone around.

 

[Merkuri]

In SGU, we're shown that we should look favorably upon ... father-figure Young...

Perhaps that was true at first, but I really feel like Young's abandonment of Rush (which was a death sentence, in Young's mind) put a real taint on how we're supposed to see the military. It's completely understandable that Young, as a human being, would respond that way, but as a military commander he really should have kept a cooler head and found some other way of dealing with possibly the only person who has a chance of getting them home.

I agree with others who are saying that the view of both the military and civilian leadership on the Destiny is pretty balanced. There are no clear-cut good guys and bad guys on the ship. This is not a heroic good-versus-evil conflict. This is a bunch of people in the wrong place trying to make the best of things, arguing about how things should be done and who gets to be in charge. This whole show is about shades of gray and how far is too far.

A few weeks ago I happened to glance at the comments about SG:U on Hulu and saw one person's complaint that said (I'm paraphrasing), "I'm sick and tired of characters with flaws. Why don't the writers try something different for a change?" I had to stare at that for a moment before I could believe what I was reading. This poster (and he/she wasn't the only one with this complaint) was actually complaining about the "good" characters having flaws, being three dimensional and realistic. That's exactly why I like this show. Nobody is perfect in real life.

At least Eli remains untainted.

I just realized what a smart move it was to have the two sides "trade" Eli in this episode. He is, and still remains, the neutral go-between for the two sides, and the fact that he actually spent time on both sides of the line helps to cement that idea in the viewer's minds.