05 August 2006 @ 08:58 am
Inside Idiots' Heads -- SG-1  
10.04 -- Craptastic Insiders

I hated that episode with the passion of a thousand burning suns. I cannot believe I have been mistaken for nine years; I thought that Sam was a member of the military, trained to deal with all sorts of unhappy situations, including torture and death.

How absolutely stupid is it to have her hand over the entirety of the Ancients' database (have we forgotten that they protected it just so that the snakes could never get their hands on it?) because Ba'al threatens to go in the other room and kill Barrett?!?!?!?!?! Yes, let me repeat: to go into the other room. And kill Barrett. So, what does she do? She hands it all over. That's right, she hands over everything so that life in the galaxy can be wiped out rather than bear the thought of the mere threat that Barrett might be killed. In the other room.

And she really does, "just hand it over." No tricks. I mean, it's not as if Ba'al checks to see that what he has is a list of gate addresses rather than, say, a stunning collection of Girls Gone Wild videos or Dr. Lee's fabulous footage of out of control plant growth. I kept waiting for her to reveal her clever plot because Ba'al, like me, should have been going, "Hey - that was too easy! What trick is she pulling?" Kind of like with the Aschen, where the first address links to the black hole gate. Or, that the program would fry the computer system (hey, it's sci fi and we ignore things like Dells are not, in fact, intergalactic plug and play machines.) But no, the episode ended and Sam handed over everything and Landry patted her wee, feeble head and told her that she made the right call. *barf*

I've bitched repeatedly that I hate Jack/Sam because of what it does to Sam. How it strips her of the intelligence and competence that I prize in her because the writers can't write her in a romantic scenario without giving her a lobotomy. I was, apparently, mistaken. The writers don't need 'ship to degrade and humiliate her. They can do it all on their very own. *sigh*

Really? If the suckitude of that scenario doesn't leap out and hit you, then my rant isn't going to make it any more obvious. This episode should be retitled to, "How Sam Misses Every Clue and Gives Away Tip Top Secret Data but the Men Pat Her on the Head Anyway." Seriously. This makes me so f'in angry that I'm still not coherent. I'll try again later but that just sucked.

Not even 20 Ba'als could save it for me. I adore Cliff Simon - though why he's running around in those god-awful gray jumpsuits is beyond me - but the character-rape was just too much for me to enjoy his turn on the stage.

I want the Sam who, facing death at the butt end of a staff weapon, pleaded with a drugged Martouf to resist. I want the Sam who resisted torture rather than reveal where Teal'c was in New Ground. I want the Sam who fought through some painful memories of Jolinar's escape to get her team and Dad out of Hell. I want Sam.
Tags:
 
 
Current Mood: morose
 
 
( Post a new comment )
[identity profile] betacandy.livejournal.com on August 7th, 2006 10:54 pm (UTC)
I agree totally with your assessment of ship and Grace and what could have been and what we all got instead. I gather AT thought Pete was an actual attempt for Sam to have an "adult relationship" as she called it - meaning, I believed, one involving compromise and adult decisions. But I have a bad feeling that all along, in RCC's mind, Pete was Plot Device Boyfriend - the guy our leading lady dates in order to learn she just can't live without our leading man. Who's, you know, dating that other woman at the time, but who cares about her, either? /rolleyes

Threads just made them both look so deeply ill-advised. Foolish, sleazy... I'm not sure, so I go with "ill-advised". Making bad decisions. And you know, if bad decisions are properly examined in the script, they can work. This was so not an example of doing it right.

I actually reposted Cereta's article on Hathor because it triggered something in me, too. The general resistance of, say, white men to affirmative action programs is more a case of ignorance than an actual backlash - they don't realize they used to have affirmative action that privileged them. But what Hollywood does is actually sit around in meetings and say things like "Nobody wants to see a woman in that role/another black comedy/some butch [lesbian] running around kicking the crap out of people". So for those guys, I say "backlash". There's nothing ignorant or unconscious about it. I'm not sure I've expressed this well, but I have to run, so please forgive me if I said anything really nonsensical, LOL.

In the case of your example, I can make a good guess what that's about. "Women in jep" movies (the most polite term for movies about women being stalked, raped, kidnapped, etc.) is were relegated to Lifetime TV. Only "thrillers" could make it to the big screen. "Crush" and its ilk are strictly for titillation, whereas bigscreen dramas about women being kidnapped, stalked or raped usually focus more on the cops and criminals and mates of said woman than on her. So: realistic drama about women in jeopardy goes to small screen, thriller about cop chasing down guy who raped his girlfriend goes to big screen.