Stargate Universe #3

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I am talking about the two that went to the other gate address, going in blind. I don't care how much they distrust Rush, they should have know better.

I am also talking about those. They did use and take the Kino.

 

[Rykion]

I think adding some action is definitely needed to help keep interest in the show. I also think the show needs to rein in Dr. Rush, or add an intermediary scientific character to explain what Rush is doing.

Rush is the worst kind of scientific adviser, one who doesn't actually advise. He makes a decision, probably the right one, but doesn't explain it to anyone or list any of the alternatives. He tells sergeant Greer that he doesn't have to explain his decisions to him or anyone else. He's seems to be the smartest guy and seems to have inside information about Destiny, but he's definitely not a team player. One of the major reasons to have a character like Eli is to have someone that needs exposition so that it can be added to the show without seeming out of place. Tight lipped Rush isn't providing it.

 

[LightPhoenix]

In past SG, the exposition has always come in bursts of Carter/Daniel/McKay monologues, which SGU so far lacks. They seem to be going for something more natural, but I don't think it's working.

The reason it's not working is because, as Rykion stated, Rush is pretty much the opposite kind of scientist as Carter/Daniel/McKay. The latter three were very open and amiable to being part of a team. Even McKay, who was arrogant, still cooperated well with his team, and with other scientists. That lends itself to long bouts of exposition, as they'll explain what is going on to the others.

Rush, on the other hand, is very closed off and very independent. He seems to actively resent most of the SGU crew (see below). That does not lend itself to expository dialogues. He even stated in this episode he doesn't feel like he needs to explain himself.

However, I agree that I think it's necessary for there to be some exposition. I'm hoping that it will come from a few directions. First, I think we'll see Eli explaining some of the more basic concepts to the other civilians. Second, I expect that some of it will come from Rush teaching Eli. Finally, I think a good portion of it will come from Rush/Eli/others discovering it as they go along. Case in point, why some addresses were locked out of the dialing computer.

Rush is the worst kind of scientific adviser, one who doesn't actually advise. He makes a decision, probably the right one, but doesn't explain it to anyone or list any of the alternatives. He tells sergeant Greer that he doesn't have to explain his decisions to him or anyone else. He's seems to be the smartest guy and seems to have inside information about Destiny, but he's definitely not a team player. One of the major reasons to have a character like Eli is to have someone that needs exposition so that it can be added to the show without seeming out of place. Tight lipped Rush isn't providing it.

More over, he seems to actively resent the majority of the SGU crew, most likely because he feels like an outsider. In the first parts, he got very upset that Eli was openly welcomed into the group by everyone (especially the dinner scene). It's clear that the SGU crew wasn't particularly fond of Rush either, especially the military folks. I don't think we have enough context for this relationship to really understand what's going on. It could be that Rush is supremely arrogant and looks down on the others. It also could be that Rush is a loner, and very private, and so no one really trusts him. It could be Rush has had bad experiences with teamwork (as a lot of scientists I know have). It could be that it's a simple communication breakdown. It could be that the military resents being away from home, and take it out on Rush. There are a lot of possibilities.

I think he adds an interesting dynamic to the show, even if the character is set up so that we dislike him. One of the guiding principles of the Stargate franchise has been the idea of science as a savior and scientists as heroes. SGU seems to be on the other side of that; scientists are people too, very flawed and sometimes having what are essentially different ways of thinking than non-scientists.

It's not just scientists I've noticed this with though. We're also seeing the military personnel acting contrary to how we think of O'Neill/Carter/Sheppard, as the warrior heroes. They're certainly more heroic than Rush/Eli, but we've got one who's basically crippled, one who is severe anger problems, one who is grossly under-qualified and under-supplied, and one who's struggling to fill the hero role.

The changes open up a lot of possibilities with the types of stories they can tell. They're not tethered by the heroic nature of the other shows, while still allowing characters to fill those roles (especially the younger characters). That's opposed to, for example, knowing O'Neill wouldn't have joined the NID because he's a hero. It essentially opens up more room for them to play. I've read that they felt after 10 years of SG1 and 5 of SGA that they pretty much exhausted all the stories they felt they could tell with those archetypes. Regardless of it that's necessarily true, if they felt exhausted, then it needed to be changed up.

I would also point out that, for the type of set-up that SGU has, I don't think that the standard Stargate formula works well. To provide a somewhat analogous example, I think one of Voyager's biggest problems was to take the premise of lost travellers and hang TNG on it. That is to say, it wasn't particularly different enough, which diminished the premise of the show. If they had instead written the show on it's own, letting the premise and the characters grow naturally instead of forcing them into the TNG situation, it would have worked a lot better. I think that's why, while DS9 has it's fans and it's detractors, overall it worked better than Voyager. Bringing it back around to Stargate, I think that SGU will do better than SGA, because they're not attempting to hang the premise on the SG franchise. They're attempting to take the basic ideas of the mythology, integrating it with the premise, and letting it go from there.

 

[Wycen]

SGU doesn't have Kate Mulgrew and in that respect it should be better than ST Voyeur.

 

[Rykion]

I think he adds an interesting dynamic to the show, even if the character is set up so that we dislike him. One of the guiding principles of the Stargate franchise has been the idea of science as a savior and scientists as heroes. SGU seems to be on the other side of that; scientists are people too, very flawed and sometimes having what are essentially different ways of thinking than non-scientists.

I think this is essentially what the show creators are going for. The other Stargate shows had very heroic characters. They had some depth, but we seldom saw their lives away from the Stargate.

With SGU we have a group of characters who aren't going to be able to maintain a false face. They don't leave each other to go home and cook supper once their work day is done. We will see their personal lifes and flaws in ways the previous shows didn't explore. The show hasn't actually been following each individual character's every moment, but we have a bigger window into their lives. This is why I think naming the floating eyes kinos was more than just a simple reference by the people behind the show.

The second link I gave in the first thread to Vertov's concept of a "kino-eye" says that it shows the people "without masks, without makeup, to catch them through the eye of the camera in a moment when they are not acting, to read their thoughts, laid bare by the camera." I think this is the major difference the show's creators are going for in the way we see characters over previous SG shows.

I think it's a good idea, but not all the pieces are in place for a successful show. It needs some action. It doesn't have to be as much as SG1/SGA. I actually like the character of Dr. Rush, but we need some more exposition to keep a casual audience.

 

[Viking Bastard]

However, I agree that I think it's necessary for there to be some exposition. I'm hoping that it will come from a few directions. First, I think we'll see Eli explaining some of the more basic concepts to the other civilians. Second, I expect that some of it will come from Rush teaching Eli. Finally, I think a good portion of it will come from Rush/Eli/others discovering it as they go along. Case in point, why some addresses were locked out of the dialing computer.

Yeah, I don't really mourn the death of the exposition monologues, but they still need to get that information out there. One of the show's goals is to get new blood into the fanbase, but that won't work if the potential fans are too confused over gate physics and why the characters keep jumping between bodies.

I hope they'll be able to juggle it, but it wasn't working in Air. I just think it's because they're trying for a different style and haven't quite gotten the hang of it yet.

 

[Gog]

Yeah, I don't really mourn the death of the exposition monologues, but they still need to get that information out there. One of the show's goals is to get new blood into the fanbase, but that won't work if the potential fans are too confused over gate physics and why the characters keep jumping between bodies.

I hope they'll be able to juggle it, but it wasn't working in Air. I just think it's because they're trying for a different style and haven't quite gotten the hang of it yet.

I think the lack of exposition is on purpose. Almost everybody on the ship is clueless about exactly what is going on. So I figure they are trying a little bit to build frustration in the audiance at least in regards to the characters that know what is going on. Rush isn't saying anything but neither is Young. Eli probobly would be he's as lost as everybody else.

 

[Fast Learner]

The true beauty of this series so far, as I see it, is that we get to explore Stargate universe things without having the hand-picked crew of the other two series. By the very nature of the ideas of the other two shows, someone who couldn't get along with everyone else would simply be replaced. Here it's not an option, and that's a great thing.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The third part was by far the slowest -- too much tromping through the desert looking for special dirt.

To quote MST3K..."Saaaaaaaaaaaandstormmm! SAAAAAAAANDstorm!"

Also, Sgt. Angry is clearly somebody you would NOT send to a top secret base as part of the military presence. The way he casually abuses Rush is not a sign of stability.

Remember, Rush said the Sgt. was not the kind of guy that he'd have approved...and that he (Rush) was part of the personnel approval committee.

To me, that says "Sgt. Angry" was placed on the base for a particular reason by a particular person in one of the agencies or gov't branches overseeing the Stargate program. Assassin? Spy? Saboteur? Psych experiment?

 

[Mark]

Remember, Rush said the Sgt. was not the kind of guy that he'd have approved...and that he (Rush) was part of the personnel approval committee.

To me, that says "Sgt. Angry" was placed on the base for a particular reason by a particular person in one of the agencies or gov't branches overseeing the Stargate program. Assassin? Spy? Saboteur? Psych experiment?

I'm guessing exile of a kind. Except for those that had a planned opportunity to go on through the gate, the base must have been considered an isolated and high risk duty. I'm sure they had some volunteers, mostly at the officer level, but probably had to somewhat fill out the ranks of grunts with those who who were on the ***-list with various commands, expendibles and problem cases that were too well-trained (too much of an investment and who knew too much) to just discharge. Perhaps it was also looked upon as a way for some borderline discipline problem cases to redeem themselves?