Comments on: Stargate Atlantis: Brain Storm

By: Big boobs.

Big boobs. — Fri, 07 May 2010 23:50:09 +0000

Big boobs….

Big boobs….

By: Kdvb1 aka Kimberly

Kdvb1 aka Kimberly — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 05:15:55 +0000

You said: "Do you see any vortexes forming when you open a 30-degree ice-cream cart freezer outside in 110-degree weather?"
The science there was SO bad it was embarrassing. Did they even consult a meteorologist to find out if there was ANY way tornadoes could form (even over time) from the heat being taken from a desert? I think someone said, "Hey tornadoes would be cool….make it so!" (sorry about the lame ST: TNG reference…lol)

I thought the basic premise of the story was a good one…but the science and McKeller interactions were just wrong.

Kimberly

By: Kdvb1 aka Kimberly

Kdvb1 aka Kimberly — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 05:15:15 +0000

Keller should have stuck up for Rodney. She knows his work is classified and that he could run rings around the other scientists there. Especially Nye…the guys not even an astrophysicist but an engineer! And how many times has Rodney saved Atlantis and Earth? Even if you don't count the time he helped Sam make calculations to get the gate far from Earth before it exploded, he has kept the Wraith from getting Earth info. countless times, and anyway Keller was supposed to be there to help Rodney look/feel good and she failed miserably. She's not a loyal person at all.

You said: "A few seconds pass, the camera still lingering on Nye. “That’s one odd duck, that guy,” Nye says to himself while reading the brief." I kinda felt that was a nod at Nye himself. Nye is one odd duck so to me it was funny having him say that about someone else. Pot meet kettle! LOL

By: Kdvb1 aka Kimberly

Kdvb1 aka Kimberly — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 05:14:34 +0000

Dang…that last one shouldn't have had the 2nd line starting with "ask"…add this line to the front of it:
"I loved the part where Rodney doesn't want to sign that contract and"

Here's the next part of my comment:
I also agree that Keller isn't sympathetic to Rodney being picked on by Nye & deGrasse Tyson or anyone else for that matter. I find it interesting that Keller sarcastically says that she knows about working/going to school with competitive(maybe petty) people…but she doesn't give any credence to Rodney's feelings towards the people around them that are like that with him. You are right that she expects him to be better than they are which is ridiculous given the person he is at this point.

By: Kdvb1 aka Kimberly

Kdvb1 aka Kimberly — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 05:11:39 +0000

So back to this episode. ;o)
asks if there are dinosaurs as that's the only reason good enough for him to sign. I love the Jurassic Park nod….which always brings me back to my feelings when I first watched it and saw the dinosaurs for the first time! Great moment for me!

You said: "If Rodney’s going to be a good person, I’d rather see him come by it honestly, by his own realisations, not because he’s chastised into behaving how his girlfriend thinks he ought to; that was already a problem with him being with Katie Brown!"

I agree. I'm not saying that a significant other can never say anything about his lack of social skills, but I don't want him constantly lectured and berated. Plus is it really change if he doesn't change on the inside from some kind of personal epiphany and is just paying lip service to his latest squeeze? (sorry…I know they are "in love" supposedly…but I really don't see it)

By: Kdvb1 aka Kimberly

Kdvb1 aka Kimberly — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 05:10:37 +0000

(It wouldn't post my whole comment so I'll be splitting it into several posts)

Wolfie I loved your review. Sorry I'm so late with the comments! *hugs*

I too am not a McKeller fan….I really tried to be. I actually thought they might be interesting together as when they first met in Adrift (4.1)she snarked right back at him and wasn't offended by his snarkiness. I thought they were cute at the end of Trio(4.16) but dang, that was 15 episodes after Adrift. Why so long to start the romance? I'm thinking they waited too long to get them together and David and Jewel got to be good buddies which ruined any chemistry between them. So if they had introduced something of a sexual nature between them earlier maybe a spark would have been there? I tell you that kiss between Rodney and Sam in Grace Under Pressure was extremely hot(even if it was just in Rodney's mind) and that's the type of chemistry I would expect…no demand from TPTB if they are going to hook up any of the characters. Otherwise why bother? I was SO glad they jettisoned Katie Brown….she was SO sweet she gave me cavities (and I usually like sweet characters)

By: Hoobajoobah

Hoobajoobah — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:15:48 +0000

You know what? I apologize. I'm wrong.
I'm not wrong about what I said – that was trifling, and it's inconceivable to me that anyone would take umbrage at it – but I am wrong to have argued about it.
I like to talk to people. For me, discussion involves a back-and-forth of ideas, some of which any party involved in the discussion may agree with, disagree with, or have no opinions on, but I like the exchange of ideas, and conversation in general.
Furthermore, for me personally, any argument (Clearly this is an argument, not a conversation) should revolve around the idea of bringing something new to the table that wasn't there before. It's not about bludgeoning the other person in to accepting your ideas, it's about pointing out something that maybe was unnoticed before.

By: Hoobajoobah

Hoobajoobah — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:30:40 +0000

You said >>> I have the impression with you that you expect me to comply with how you think I should approach it, not just McKeller but the science as well, and that you find fault with me as a person if I do not<<<

That's a whole lot to take from me saying "You're taking it too seriously." And frankly, if you glean that much completely unintentional and nonexistant subtext from one sentence, it actually goes a long way towards justifying what I said: not only are you taking the romantic aspect of the show too seriously, but you're taking it so seriously that even a casual comment strikes you as a mortal wound that you spend days railing against.

By: hoobajoobah

hoobajoobah — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 08:29:57 +0000

so if we're not going to talk, or exchange ideas? WHat's the point? Certainly not for the joy of using this maddening comment system. It becomes apparent that this site is intended essentially for like-minded people, true believers, and you'd really just as soon not have people who think for themselves muddying up the waters of the vaguely-buddhist temple of crappy tv science fiction.

And so I'll take my leave of you. Thank you for your time, thanks for putting up with me, sorry it didn't work out, and I guess that's it.

Goodbye.

By: hoobajoobah

hoobajoobah — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 08:23:35 +0000

and I find that kind of reactionary behavior strangely religious and fearful, and it makes me uncomfortable. I don't like to be judged by people I don't know and I feel that happens a lot here. (Despite the fact that politically I mostly agree with you, I evidently don't agree in *the Right Way* and therefore my heresy is subject to condescenstion and derision). This may not be the actual case, but that's the way it comes across.

By: Hoobajoobah

Hoobajoobah — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 08:21:16 +0000

I'm not entirely sure why, but I think it revolves around the conversation/argument thing I mentioned above. Casual conversations here are fine, but if someone inherently annoying and questioning comes along and says something that violates some unstated article of faith on the site, the whole thing comes to a grinding hault. (Mister Hunt or whatever his name was' discussion of wether or not an unborn person is alive or not is a recent example, there are others). There's also an odd current of paranoia about the political right here which is…uhm…strange to come across in thinking people. Again, if anyone broaches a right-wing thought (Like that ian guy a while back) things again shut down.

By: Hoobajoobah

Hoobajoobah — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 08:16:14 +0000

So there's realy no point to the argument, is there?
I mean, we're not discussing the show anymore, instead we're arguing about wether or not you've got issues, and that's not right. I have no right to come into your house and rag on you. (I do have the inherent human right to make random offhand observations about the behavior of other people, however).
So I'm not going to do that anymore.
I'm also not going to frequent this column anymore because, well, obviously, what's the point?
And in a larger sense, I've felt uncomfortable on this website for a while now.

By: hoobajoobah

hoobajoobah — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 07:35:47 +0000

If you think that my opinion that you're obsessing too much over a tiny detail that you don't like personally reflects on you, personally, that's just hopelessly sad, and I'm sorry for your fears of criticism and rejection, I truely am, but that's just not my fault is it?
If you don't want people occasionally politely disagreeing with you, you shouldn't have a discussion feature on your column. Or it should require a code so only like-minded people can talk to you.

By: Hoobajoobah

Hoobajoobah — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 07:32:36 +0000

I mean, yeah, the science is stupid. It always has been in the SG Franchise (A planet with Neutronium in the crust? Come on!), and SF in general always plays loose and fast with that sort of thing. You learn to take it in stride. I've no argument that it was stupid, I just don't care because it was merely a macguffin to set up an enjoyable little adventure/comedy romp.

By: Serenity

Serenity — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:45:53 +0000

LOL! *hugs back* From the many, many posts I read on LJ, Joseph Mallozzi's blog and on Gateworld, I think that there are more than a few of us less than satisfied customers out there!
I don't think my dislike of the pair makes me any less the fan, and I am a proud Atlantis supporter. I just am not shy about being honest with my feelings. I'm not sure why this is a problem for some people.

By: Hoobajoobah

Hoobajoobah — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:27:47 +0000

This all seems horribly defensive to me. If I went on and on and on about the unsatisfactory conclusion to the Ivonova/Marcus romance in Babylon 5 (or, in fact, the unsatisfactory conclusion to the series as a whole) and you, or anybody else told me I was getting worked up about nothing, I'd chuckle, say "probably," and then either continue to do it (If I was still interested) or I'd change the subject (If I wasn't interested). To accuse me of being condescending and inappropriately mean for two days because of *one* sentence, which was more than passingly polite says more about you than it does about me.

By: Serenity

Serenity — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:11:45 +0000

I admire your internal fortitude for sitting through what I consider to be the worst episode of the entire Stargate franchise, Bar None. Period.
I was dismayed that the writers chose to go in this direction with so few episodes left.
I agree with much that has been written on Joseph Mallozzi's blog in the past few days concerning the "wrongness" of this ship.
I agree wholeheartedly with your review and am so glad to have read it.
Thanks so very much!

By: WolfenM

WolfenM — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 05:51:31 +0000

And, above all, I warned people off that they might not like what I had to say, that I needed to vent, implying from the get-go that it was going to be a passionate and not favourable reaction. And yet you complain that that's how I reacted, when I gave fair warning not to read if that would bother you. Unless you put my column 'n ths same caliber as the show, in that you just *have* to read it, even when you fear it will be bad, in case there's something good that might be missed otherwise? Or think, like how I feel about the show, that it's just soooooo good otherwise, you lament the introduction of something that's spoiling it for you? In which case, thank you for the compliment, I guess.

I also said repeatedly within the coulm that my big problem with Mckeller in this particular instance was that Keller tried to force her opinion of how he should behave onto him — and yet there you went, trying to impress upon me your opinion of how I ought to act. (Well, maybe your intent then is to just get a rise out of me? Are you that kind of person? If so, well done! Bravo!)

By: WolfenM

WolfenM — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 05:50:51 +0000

I have the impression with you that you expect me to comply with how you think I should approach it, not just McKeller but the science as well, and that you find fault with me as a person if I do not.

While I hope they would take my criticism into consideration if they *did* come across it, I hold no illusions that they are going to read my column and comply with my wishes, nor do I expect them to. I wouldn't think they are terrible at their job if they don't, especially since I know there are people who did enjoy it, so obvioulsy they must be doing something right for those people. I can only express my hopes and disappointments. You'll notice that I ask questions more than make statements..

By: WolfenM

WolfenM — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 05:50:12 +0000

I didn't say "With no disrespect intended, I'm saying something that can't be anything but disrespectful about *you*". I said it as "With all due respect to Gero, Hewlett and Staite as people, whose works I *normally* enjoy, I'm about to be hostile about McKeller, an aspect of the show that they are involved in." I criticised the work and questioned the characterisation, not put down the individuals. It was meant as "I respect a, b, and c, but I'm personally unhappy with d." Yours came off to me as "I respect a, but it's an idiot and I know better so it should listen to me." BUt all right, fine there is a note of hipocrisy in there Fine, you've shown me that it was bad to do so. I admit I shoudn;t have. My apologies to Gero, Staite, and Hewlett.