Forum Replies Created

Viewing 29 posts - 1 through 29 (of 29 total)
  • Author
  • in reply to: New Stargate Show. Any News? #70283

    The new Stargate show, Stargate: Atlantis looks like it might be a little disappointing. I’m not getting my hopes up for it, but if you want info, go here:

    There are pictures of the new cast, and if you look closely at their uniforms they look like.. dorks is the best way I can describe it. Despite rumours that the team was likely to be civ. it is a military op. based on a distant world in another galaxy. I’m hoping these uniforms are their ‘wear on the base’ uniforms and they have others to do missions in, because big panels of solid colour in a cammoflage outfit tend to give your position away. That would be a major mistake on the wardrobe’s part.

    SPOILERS…season 7
    Dr Weir who stars in the last couple of eps. in season seven is the person who leads up the team on Atlantis. However, what some reason she seems to be a completely different person in Atlantis. (this is of course, because she is. They are two different actors) This was bad planning.
    It also might just be that I really enjoy the show with the original cast. You can’t go wrong with SG-1.
    Although, by making Jack a General, they do allow for him to only be on the show a certain number of times in each ep. and sometimes not at all (he devides his time between the show and his daughter) it also makes it difficult, i would imagine, to put him on missions. has a whole bunch of info about this. I could go on forever about it, but I’ll let those who are interested look themselves.

    in reply to: Grace #70112

    I think this ep was supposed to be speculative. You don’t know if the little girl is Sam as a kid, or if it’s the cloud thing. I actually think it’s a mix of Sam’s subconsious mind, the child she thinks she might have had, or might still have and the memories of herself as a child.
    As much as she is the scientist, she’s also very much a woman. and can still feel like she’s giving something up by the life she’s living.

    I’ve spoken to a number of people who believe that the conversation between sam and jack meant that she was giving up on him. i dont think thats true ( or is that just wishful thinking?)
    She loves him too much. I think this Pete thing just means that she’s exploring what she thinks she’s unable to have with Jack. It certainly can’t be anything too serious, she was completely unaware that he was stalking her for crying out loud! although that could also be an argument for her feeling more than just casual feelings for him (love is blind etc.)

    Grace is really confusing. My mind wanders around in circles everytime i watch it. but its one of my fav eps.

    in reply to: Ships? #70111

    Are you talking about upgrades that earth can use? coz there are a couple of them, you have the death glider based craft seen in redemption 1 and 2 – the x-302.
    And then of course, you have Prometheus.
    I like how they don’t make it too easy – I mean, they could quite easily just say hey, they can steal this technology, use it, and all is good. However, it’s not like that. They make it difficult to integrate the alien technology with our own. It makes things, not only more interesting, but as realistic as a show like this can get.


    in reply to: Cordy back for one episode – WHY? #69378

    Is cordy really the star of the show still?
    I thought that this season she’s no longer one of the main cast.

    as for why she probably won’t be back – i would imagine it would be similar to SMG’s reasons. She’s been playing the same character for eight years, I would imagine it would get a little tedious.

    in reply to: Anyone up for a SadCHAT? #69187

    I’m all for it.
    Though it’s possible my times don’t coincide with everyone elses.
    all I know is that at whatever time it is here, it’s exactly 12 hours before New York.
    Could possibly place sep. 11 responsible for that knowledge.

    in reply to: Ahhh, the Memories! #69160

    I have to say that I agree. Gummi Bears rocked.
    I was actually only talking about them the other day with my housemate trying to remember the words.
    Sadly we couldn’t recall all that much of it.
    Thanks lots. I shall pass it on and most likely that that theme in my head for the next few days.
    It’s all good though. It reminds of simpler times, when the most pressing issue was how to convince your mum that getting an ice cream from the ice cream man driving down the street, was not going to ruin your appetite for dinner.

    in reply to: Ideology in Sci Fi? No! Really? #69062

    but you’re right.

    even the ‘alien’ looking creatures speak english

    even the go’uld (cant spell?) speak english!

    i guess its just for ease of communication, because if i remember correctly, there was one episode a few seasons back where the people didnt speak english (if i remember enough, i dont think they spoke at all?) and there were far too many difficulties in trying to get the point accross. the issue was with the flying camera thingie they send in to new planets. it had knocked over some mushroom thing which prduced a noise or vibrations or whatever which regulated the people somehow. so these people were keeling over and they couldn’t figure out why.

    even so.. they could give some explaination – even if they made up some really lame excuse like the asgard give them some technology which allows them to translate different languages instantly – it’s a tried and true sci fi method why mess with tradition?
    fair enough, some might develop languages similar to english – but all of them? thats pushing it i think.

    in reply to: Ideology in Sci Fi? No! Really? #69060

    sorry, i forgot to mention that I’m a few episodes behind. apparently the southern hemisphere is unable to get the same shows at the same time as the northern hemisphere.

    the episode i was talking about was the one before ‘Lifeboat’.
    i cant’ remember what it was called, but the story was that the community lived in a bubble in the middle of a wasteland planet.

    meanwhile, the lifeboat episode, where daniel gets all those voices in his head – all the personalities of the crashed ship – their system was of a sovereign… of course, called a sovereign.

    do you think maybe it gets a little difficult every week to come up with names for things? and why does every planet the go to always have as their primary language english?

    it’s a wonder i dont get hugely frustrated with this show/

    in reply to: Favourite Angel Season – POLL #69044

    I figure thats because hot, hot James Marsters was, at least in part, a way to get the buffy only watchers to “cross over”, so to speak. And also because I believe he’s supposed to become a pretty big deal in the season as opposed to Andy Hallett who took a while to really get integrated into the show and into the gang. As soon as he became a major part of the gang he was put in the opening credits.

    Spike was major from the very beginning. He was also in the opening credits for buffy… it would seem a little strange (and unfair) to go from one to the other and not get that kind of recognition.

    Meanwhile, i think I’m arguing this far too much. suffice to say, I’m really looking forward to this season – I mean, what red-blooded female wouldn’t – with spike and angel. it’s gotta be good.

    in reply to: Dreams and Goals… #69016

    Ever since I can remember I’ve been passionately fascinated by history. Specifically European history, and generally in the Medieval period, but I do on occasion wander around in the modern times of Victorian England and Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany.

    The thing about history though is that it is dictated by people – not fact and figures and dates and stuff. but real people, who lived, loved, hated, manipulated, killed, wanted, desired and all the rest.

    I’ve always loved studying particularly diaries and letters and things to find out what people were thinking about in different times.

    And so with this all in mind I figured the only way I would be able to fulfill this passion would be to study, at uni, then research.

    And so, that is what I’m doing. I am one essay and two exams away from finishing my undergraduate degree in Arts (Humanities for all those Americans out there). Majoring in English, History and Political Science.
    Next year I’m doing my honours year, in English and History. After that, who knows. My ultimate goal is to do some sort of Post Grad study to then lecture at uni. (the only way I’m likely to get paid to research and to study what I love)

    It’s not set in stone, and if it doesn’t happen quite like that then it’s ok – so long as I’ve got the tools to look into the past and see how we became like we are then I’ll be happy.

    in reply to: Relationships in Sci Fi? #69007

    what about the buffy/spike thing.

    or as my housemate and i call it: spuffy.

    spuffy was cool coz it took the vampire / slayer thing a a lot further than they could go with angel. spike never had the fact of losing his soul hanging over his head. in fact while they had a relationship (if you can call it that) he didnt even have a soul.

    It brought out a whole new side of spike. or rather, an old side that we hadnt seen for ages. at least not since dru left him. for ages there he was wandering around, he could have compeated with angel for the brooding vampire award he was so boring.

    but then the tensions started with him and buffy. i think the best thing that happend in the last ep. was how he recognised that she never loved him, and it was ok.
    i agree with whoever said it (im in the middle of writing an essay, im not gonna bother with quotes and stuff) that morality is different now. you don’t necessarily have to be in love with someone to sleep with them. sex can be its own tension.

    however, i dont really think its possible for many, (if any) shows to consumate a relationship and not balls it up. there’s no tension in it. by letting the characters be happy for any length of time people lose interest. I mean, Oz and Willow were perfectly happy – people were losing interest though.

    in reply to: Not lost any of it’s magic! #68958

    I really liked last week’s episode with Jack’s clone.
    I hope they actually use that storyline to its potential – I mean, he’s an adult, with some pretty major life experience in the body of a teenager – how can they not use that material?

    I agree though, Jonas is a really interesting character. At first I didn’t like him much at all, but by the end, he really started becoming part of the team. Maybe they’ll bring him back next season?

    in reply to: Favourite Angel Season – POLL #68957

    I’ve always liked season 1.

    It was the one where they were introducing the characters in that setting, and I had a soft spot for Doyle.

    I actually didnt like season 4 very much at all. The whole Jasmine thing was a bit strange. and i prefer the stand alone episodes of the previous seasons rather than the running storyline.

    in reply to: 5:04 – Hellbound. SPOILERS #68956

    We havent got the new angel season yet, i dont think it starts here until feb. next year. ๐Ÿ™

    but i’ve been reading the transcripts on and from what I can gather, they’re simply doing what they’ve been doing for the last few seasons. They’re exploring characters. Angel has always been a bit weird – it’s just a little more prominant now coz he’s got more power as head of W&H.

    And, as for a big bad, they don’t usually turn up till later in the series anyway.

    As for an arc, I’m not sure. There are a few theories, one being that the spike vs. angel thing will be it. I couldn’t really say. There’s a distinct lack of atmosphere when it comes to reading the transcripts.

    in reply to: Another ‘What was that Show?’ question #68926

    The Mysterious Cities of Gold!!!!

    thankyou thankyou thankyou!!

    it wasnt spartakus, but they mentioned on that site the above title! coz spartakus is apparently loosely based on TMCoG. and just the name brought back memories. yayayayay.
    sorry, im a little too excited about this. I did a quick search and found a site on it

    go, listen to the theme music. it gave me goosebumps. yay!

    i shall be forever in your debt stormsweeper!

    in reply to: Another ‘What was that Show?’ question #68920

    sorry, can’t help ๐Ÿ™

    I actually have my own ‘What is that show’.

    I used to watch it when i was a kid. my brother’s and i loved it. It was a cartoon, and i seem to remember someting about a lost space ship, or a city or something. Whatever it was, they were searching for it and would come accross some weird adventures and creatures in their search. The memories are all very vague but I seem to remember we would rush home from school so as not to miss it.

    in reply to: Jonas #68919

    Homecoming – the ep that was on last night. I almost cried, except for the really bad portrayal of what could have been one of the most emotionally wrenching eps of the season. ggrrrr.

    I agree – the whole storyline encompassing Jonas has been pretty poor. Why did they bring him in, just to kick him out again? And, on top of that, if i hadn’t already been told about it ๐Ÿ˜† the opening credits would have told me when his spot was replaced with daniel, and all jonas got was a guest starring role! grr.

    I’m really not impressed actually, with the whole issue. People were just starting to warm up to him (I was at least) and now he’ s gone. I wonder if they will bring him back in future eps? And should they?
    He could certainly add that needed zing back into Sam and Jack’s relationship. I mean, Jonas could always invite sam to offworld activities or whatnot – Jack could get jealous and whallah! we have a storyline!

    I’m always a sucker for romance – i agree, it just adds a new dimention. You just have to look at buffy and spike to see that. mmm spike.
    oops sorry, i digress.

    if i didnt love the show so much i would boycott it until they brought Jonas back. yay!

    lol, could you see it? protesting in Australia for an american TV show???

    in reply to: Jonas #68834

    its all good snooklepie! ๐Ÿ˜€
    i think we’re only a couple of weeks behind you guys. we’re now up to the episode where daniel has done his whole re-appearance thing – though i missed the beginning of that particular episode, i believe he was found quite without his clothing?? damn! i always miss the good bits!
    he’s lost his memory and they’re trying to find the original planet the ancients ‘lost’. its a “to be continued episode, and jonas is in a pretty scary position at the end of it. I’ll have to wait until thursday night to see the conclusion. i hate that.
    and i can already pretty much see whats going to happen. ggrrr. like i said, Jonas is growing on me.. i hate it when they change things so quickly.

    im also annoyed at the new format the show is taking.. its very much doing the whole season arc thing… i like the stand alone episodes they used to have.

    ohhh and jack and sam are kinda flirting again. big fan of that story line. ๐Ÿ˜›

    in reply to: Jonas #68742

    I think I must have missed something?
    Jonas hasn’t actually been dumped has he? He’s still around, Daniel is just having minor appearances.
    At least that’s where the Australian eps. are up to.
    And to be completely honest, since writing my last post in this topic I’ve begun to change my mind. Like a squidgy goo, Jonas has seeped into my skin, taking over my SG-1 conciousness. I’ve actually grown quite attached to him. Though he’ll never replace Daniel completely, he still has become special in his own way.

    in reply to: Shows NOT Sci-Fi #68455
    ”fluffy wrote:

    Watch the simpsons every so often, but it’s not as funny anymore

    and i was just telling my housemate how much more i enjoy the simpsons now, than i did a few years ago.

    one thing i dont miss, even though i dont go out of my way to watch is neighbours. it’s on when im eating dinner – even when i go to family night dinner on a monday, or my book group on wednesday, it’s always a staple. for some reason it seems to bring everyone closer, or at least stimulates conversation, and sadly heated debates.

    im really quite ashamed at the number of shows i watch..although to be fair, they’re all on at different times of the year, some ratings some not – and actually tend to be on at the same time, so they replace each other:
    dawsons creek (although i do seem yell at the tv a lot more when watching this.)
    gilmore girls
    skithouse (ahh, now this is funny. if you’re australian that is… you just cant go past the disgusting jokes and skits of the aussies!)
    vicar of dibley – a classic if ever there was
    ohh, and whatever of Jamie Oliver is on at the time. they keep changing it, playing repeats, then new, then repeats again every few weeks. i hate free to air tv.

    in reply to: What Is Your Excuse For Not Posting On The Board? #68453

    Uni exams and essays and all things nasty. ๐Ÿ˜ก

    in reply to: Area 51; Paranormal or Patsy? #68378

    How come it always seems to be in the US that you hear about this stuff?
    You get things like crop circles, area 51, all of that, but its in America. If there were actually beings wanting to communicate with people, would they concentrate solely on one part of the world? or is it more likely they would try other parts as well.
    or, is it that because the yanks got themselves as far as the moon a couple of times, they were more ‘acceptable’ to the ‘aliens’?
    its all very strange when you think about it.
    – actually this was brought up in the last episode of stargate – about secrecy within the government etc.
    the storyline was simply a tried and true way of reviewing the adventures of SG-1, (ie. taking a trip down memory lane)
    but it prompted thought nonetheless. Exactly how much do our governments -all over the world- keep from us (go the conspiracy theories!!) Do they have regular contact with alien beings? do they trade technology and information, traversing the galaxy daily?
    and if that’s so, how much do they co-operate with each other? this episode in particular brought the ambassadors of france, china, england, the us and russia together to let the first three named in on the act. if this was true to life, why on earth would the other countries feel the need to be secretive about all of the information? – especially if tensions arose between the countries… in fact, why would the us feel the need to let anyone else know in the first place? they would then be placed over a barrel in the sence that as soon as the us overstepped its bounds, any of the other countries could hold the information against the us governent? or am i rambling about something i know crap all about?

    (just to clear everything up, this is not my actual stance, I believe whole heartedly that there are other beings out there, i just dont really have any concrete evidence so to speak.)

    in reply to: Harry Potters for nerds #68068

    I seem to be reading more and more children’s books recently. Harry Potter being only one series of the many.

    Of the huge number I’ve been reading, this series is certainly one of the better ones. Although i have to say that Tamora Pierce holds her own as well with her books about the Tortall universe. (her newest book is coming out in two weeks, and i’m not ashamed to say that i’ve already booked my copy, and plan to spend the day reading. yay!)

    But as for HP being a rip off of star wars – nope, if anything it’s drawn from Lord of the Rings. Been reading that recently too, for a class at uni, and the number of things that jump out, being familiar from the recent readings of HP are huge.

    But, for me, that just makes them even cosier. Almost familiar in a way. Because, although they may have bits and pieces of other books, they’re still pretty unique in the way they capture the imagination.

    I have to say, of everything, i have two gripes:
    1. A basalisk is not a serpent, it is a lizard creature. grr, all through the second book i was really angry, or at least after the part they started talking about it. I mean, that’s a really huge mistake, that could have been easily rectified. It also gives those with no idea of mythological beasts wrong concepts.

    2. The fifth book is much like the second lord of the rings movie, in the sense that it’s a filler. There’s nothing really there that is huge. Sure, someone dies, Voldemort comes back to power, and Harry goes through some teenage angstyness, but it’s still all just filler. You’re really left hanging at the end of it, rather than it being a story unto itself as the others are.

    Not so impressed as i was with the others, but still hanging out for the next one.

    in reply to: Political Ravings of Intolerance #67927
    Logan wrote:

    I believe very strongly in the rights and freedoms of the individual as long as they do not contribute to the suffering of others

    ”LexxLurker” wrote:

    At some point people have to realize there is a common base for individual rights for all human beings.

    ”Aleck” wrote:

    all have the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    1. What is the concept of rights based upon?
    2. If answer to ‘1.’ is being Human, what makes being a human so special?
    3. If answer to ‘2.’ is rational thinking, do those without the ability to think rationally have rights? (ie. mentally disabled, children – especially babies)
    4. If answer to ‘3.’ is yes – how are they different from animals? (this is linked to the idea that while human beings are biologically similar to apes, it is rationality which separates us) And, if not different, that is there is no apparant differences which would without question separate humans from animals other than rationality – humans are then considered to be animals themselves, thus prompting the question,

    why does being human automatically assume rights? and does that mean that animals have the same rights that humans have? or does that mean, if we go the other way – that mentally disabled people, babies, children etc. don’t have rights because they dont have the ability that is a prerequisite?

    and this of course is all without the added problems of the “inalienability” and “inviolability” that people have given to the concept of rights.

    if this is the case – that you cant sell, give away, have taken away etc. your rights, what happens when those rights conflict with someone elses? who wins out? is there a hierarchy of rights? but then, that in itself would negate the inviolable and inalienable bits.

    Sorry guys, you started in on american politics, and all i know about that is the basics – ie. constitution, basic principles of liberty, clinton’s almost impeachment, and the cuban missile crisis. thus, it makes it difficult for me to say anything – except the above, ๐Ÿ˜ก

    So anyway – whats the general consensus? The entire political system in the US is supposedly based upon rights and individual liberty, what happens if that construct is demolished?

    in reply to: Jonas #67857

    but there is so much tradition and history between jack and daniel! I mean, even after they became friends, there was still a kind of rivalry between them because of sam.
    there’s none of that rivalry between jack and jonas – and i agree, he is kinda bland.

    I dont think he really fits in enough – he steps on toes. With Daniel, the group had definate points, yet still were interconnecting with each other.
    hhmm, that doesnt really make sense, here, i’ll try and explain:

    sam was not only smart, scientifically, she also had the phisicallity of the military profession she was in.

    Daniel shared her intellectuality, yet had his own niche with linguistics and history etc.

    Jack, well, jack was jack. What more can i say?

    T’alc (spelling?) shared Jack’s hatred of the g’ould. Notice the word hatred, Daniel and sam disliked the enemy, but they didnt have the hatred that both Jack and T’alc held.

    as for Jonas… he’s kinda like and amalgamation of all four of the SG-1 team. And in that way i believe he steps on toes…and should clearly be killed off.

    hhhmm heartless and bloodthirsty. best way to be.

    in reply to: Sexiest Stars? #67856
    nursewhen wrote:

    Umm *cough* I do believe Orlando Bloom is of the male variety and rather nice in Pirates of the Caribbean too ๐Ÿ˜€

    I couldn’t have said it better myself.
    Sadly however, i’ve not actually seen “Pirates” yet… stupid Australian release dates! However I do have the intention of doing so.

    I’d also like to add another sexy star to my list:

    and that is, Seth Green aka Oz in buffy.

    Really, the goodness that is Buffy just never stops does it? I mean, even though is has all sadly ended, the goodness just continues – whether it be in the forms of memories, or the dvd collectors editions.

    You really must forgive me my sentimental ramblings – being so far behind, we only just lost the show the week before last. The last tastes are still lingering.

    But if you really think about it both Buffy, and Angel (the shows) are filled with beautiful people. Even being of the female variety myself, I can still, with good conscience say that Willow is hot, dispite her apparent doudyness. As is Xander – especially when he was a soldier..mmm

    in reply to: Non-Hollywood-Butchered #67855

    Actually I’m doing a unit this semester at uni called Medieval in the Modern World. We’re studying LOTR, Mists of Avalon, Sword in the Stone, and a bunch of others including Monty Python’s Quest for the Holy Grail. And last semester for history we studied medieval literature devoted to the Arthurian Legend. I too am fascinated by Arthuriana, and basically anything medieval. It’s all so very interesting, and I’m glad i’ve inspired you to see the LOTR movies again. It’s definately worth it, especially if you can get your hands on the extended versions – they may be a hell of a lot longer, but it’s worth the time and effort. And (I’m assuming you’re from the ‘land of the free’ when i say this) if you’re brave enough, and haven’t already had the pleasure, it’s always worth a look at Monty Python. While i would imagine it might be a little difficult to understand the englishness of it all – for anyone with any sense of the REAL middle ages and the king arthur legend, it’s certainly a hoot and a half!

    in reply to: Sexiest Stars? #67840
    nasym wrote:

    nothing can ever beat Julian mc Mayhon as “Cole” in Charmed

    ohh yeah, close but no cigar..
    what about :

    Logan: Dark Angel
    Spike: Buffy

    and to top it all off,

    Orlando Bloom: in anything..but especially with the long white blonde hair of an elf in LOTR.
    mmmmmmm excuse me while i wipe the drool off my chin. (What a first impression.)

    in reply to: Non-Hollywood-Butchered #67839

    Reading through all your posts, I found myself to be a little out of my depth. I’d always thought I was well read…but it seems I have nothing on you guys.
    But dispite my pitiful lack of experience in this matter, I shall indeed forge ahead – elf-like, in my knowledge of certain destruction.

    Right-oh, on with it then:
    The lord of the rings movies: wonderful. visually brilliant, not to mention true enough to the original book, yet original in its own way. I love how you’re able to immerse yourself into it, as you are in the books, without the tedious discriptiveness of tolkien’s writing. However, i cant actually say i liked either better than the other. the movies to me were simply an extention of the books. I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that i read the books after i saw the movies? Probably.

    Harry Potter: I have no idea how you could enjoy the movies more than the books. As much as i love the movies in their own right, they don’t come anywhere near the brilliance of the books themselves. And as for the waffling – you’ve got to remember that the series is seven books long. Some things won’t be resolved until the last book. Issues that were brought up in the first book are certainly going to thread themselves throughout the rest to get to their resolution in the last, hence the apparent waffling. You’ve also got to remember the intended audience are quite young. J.K. Rowling (im a terrible speller if you hadn’t noticed – although ignore it if you hadn’t) is I think unique in her ability to really put the reader into the mind of an 11 year old boy. Then in each progressive book, Harry gets older, as does the writing style.
    Um… I think i’ve ranted enough about this.
    besides, it’s not a thread to debate the pros and cons of harry potter. lol

    As for everything else.. I can’t say I’ve read a lot of sci-fi books that have been turned into movies. In actuality, i cant say ive read a lot of sci-fi books at all.

Viewing 29 posts - 1 through 29 (of 29 total)