See, here is an area where we sorta agree/disagree.The "closet scene" was fine to me, it was *supposed* to show how lax security et al was under Col Young, yet they did not truly build on that idea. Then of course there is the fact that "fraternising" on that level is supposed to be a huge no no. It's a good idea, but what they did with it is just,
The fraternizing was not Stargate. There were ways that they could have shown Col. Young's incompetence/apathy/etc. that weren't so graphic and distasteful. A Stargate character can grow and should grow over the course of a series, but what they tried with Col. Young was so over the top and ridiculous that it was a major flaw from the get go -- hence my assertion that SGU was not a good concept to begin with. Obviously the depiction of Col. Young was just one of
many flaws in the conceptualization of the show.
I'm sorry if this sounds insulting as I don't mean it to but the way I see it is that anyone who asserts that
"SGU was a good idea that just wasn't carried out correctly" has to prove their assertion. The entire premise of marooned people on a ship is so tired and hackneyed as to defy the definition of being "good". It was a stolen concept and the characters were stolen, cardboard cliches and stereotypes -- the angry lesbian, the leader wrestling with fear and indecision
and alcoholism, the angry black man who resents authority, the maniacal scientist, the fat lonely geek, etc. How is using someone else's tired archetypes considered good
especially when nothing new is done to flesh out these characters? This isn't the basis for a "good" concept, it's lazy writing.
The fact that they added in a "mission" for Destiny in the second season also proves that the initial concept wasn't good. How can SGU be considered a "good idea" from inception when its core story line didn't even exist for the entire first season???
And let's not forget the style of the show from inception -- they went for cliche, contrived, derivative, hackneyed, tired tired tired
melodrama. This style was an integral part of the inception of the show, it wasn't just window dressing. The characters motives, methods and actions were informed by melodrama. How can this be considered good in any way, shape or form?
Were there some good ideas that could have been mined from the stolen, derivative, hackneyed concept of SGU? Sure, but that would require doing something different with those ideas and giving them an original spin. I didn't see much originality in the depiction of those stolen concepts.
There's more, always more, but the bottom line is that if anyone is going to claim that SGU was based on a good, original concept it is up to them to prove it. I haven't seen that yet.
Nope, sorry folks, but the truth is that SGU
wasn't based on good concepts which is exactly why it failed. If anyone asserts that SGU was good conceptually it's up to them to prove it.
Thank you