Star Trek vs Star Gate

[stormthebeaches]

I'm in an argument with a Trekkie who is saying that Star Gate is a horrible show and is holding up Star Trek is an example of good sci-fi writing. I'm telling him that he is wrong and have pointed out some obvious holes in Star Trek writing (Klingon brainbug for example) but he just keeps saying that Star Trek aliens are a reflection of humanity and thus get a free pass.

It's been a long time since I watched any Star Trek and I can't remember individual episodes that well so could someone give me some examples of bad writing? Preferably bad characterization and badly written alien societies.

[Genii Lodus]

Have a look at Sonnenburg's video reviews at his website. Most of the ones for Voyager and Enterprise are bad (reflecting the quality of those series).

[Stark]

Just get him to define what he means by 'good sci-fi writing'. If he means juvenile, simplistic, utopian made-up words, then he's technically right.

[NecronLord]

You can't win. Taste is subjective.

Something like 'The Asgard are more technologically advanced than the Federation' you could prove, but you can't prove what series is better.

[loomer]

You could use the original series as an example, if you wanna get oldschool on him. Bring up the Planets of Hats - the one with the entire planet devoted to being gangster films, that Roman one, and so forth.

[Serafina]

You can't win. Taste is subjective.

Something like 'The Asgard are more technologically advanced than the Federation' you could prove, but you can't prove what series is better.

Well, yes - but the "the aliens reflected humanity"-statement is still debateable. And utter bullshit, IMO.

Basically, he uses that as an excuse for shitty writing. But what does it actually mean?
Simple: The Star Trek writers were either unable or unwilling to create complex alien societies.
This is easily demonstrable, as you can measure compexity.

Unless he want to argue that overly simplyfied portraials are a good thing, he should have to conceed that point.
There is no way that he can show that the simplicity is a necessity for the "reflection of humanity". Other shows manage to portray complex societies, but give them one distinctive (NOT totally overplayed) characteristic to reflect on whatever they want to. Ot they use humans for that job.
His excuse is just that - an excuse. Other shows are able to do it and produce a higher quality, therefore, this IS bad writing.

[NecronLord]

You could use the original series as an example, if you wanna get oldschool on him. Bring up the Planets of Hats - the one with the entire planet devoted to being gangster films, that Roman one, and so forth.

And you'd then lose. What with the vast majority of planets in stargate being exactly the same ancient/medeival peasants, in three galaxies.

[NecronLord]

You can't win. Taste is subjective.

Something like 'The Asgard are more technologically advanced than the Federation' you could prove, but you can't prove what series is better.

Well, yes - but the "the aliens reflected humanity"-statement is still debateable. And utter bullshit, IMO.

Basically, he uses that as an excuse for shitty writing. But what does it actually mean?
Simple: The Star Trek writers were either unable or unwilling to create complex alien societies.
This is easily demonstrable, as you can measure compexity.

Unless he want to argue that overly simplyfied portraials are a good thing, he should have to conceed that point.
There is no way that he can show that the simplicity is a necessity for the "reflection of humanity". Other shows manage to portray complex societies, but give them one distinctive (NOT totally overplayed) characteristic to reflect on whatever they want to. Ot they use humans for that job.
His excuse is just that - an excuse. Other shows are able to do it and produce a higher quality, therefore, this IS bad writing.

In Stargate, in ten years, one two-parter solidly explores the goa'uld's culture, and the other antagonists are all given less development. The Klingons, in comparison, are explored in considerable depth.

[NecronLord]

To continue, we know next to nothing about even the Ancients' culture; other than that they had a High Council, and the core beliefs quoted in my sig. Other than that, we know they're not monogamous (at least in Janus' case) and that's about all we know about their civillian lives.

And raising TOS is a bad idea, he sounds like one of the trekkies that haven't even watched it. IMO the best of TOS is better than the best of Stargate, certainly far deeper.

[Serafina]

I did not say that SG necessarily has better writing (i don't now SG all that well) or that ST has generally good writing.

I just said that this particulary argument is full of shit.

[tezunegari]

To continue, we know next to nothing about even the Ancients' culture; [...] we know they're not monogamous (at least in Janus' case) and that's about all we know about their civillian lives.

Really? I don't remember anything being mentioned about Janus in that regard. Without trying to imply anything - could someone please point me to a source of this statement?

[loomer]

You could use the original series as an example, if you wanna get oldschool on him. Bring up the Planets of Hats - the one with the entire planet devoted to being gangster films, that Roman one, and so forth.

And you'd then lose. What with the vast majority of planets in stargate being exactly the same ancient/medeival peasants, in three galaxies.

True, I forgot about that. At least 'oppressed peasantry' makes a bit more sense on a galactic scale than 'wisetalking gangster', but point taken and conceded.

[Revy]

To continue, we know next to nothing about even the Ancients' culture; [...] we know they're not monogamous (at least in Janus' case) and that's about all we know about their civillian lives.

Really? I don't remember anything being mentioned about Janus in that regard. Without trying to imply anything - could someone please point me to a source of this statement?

It was in the episode about the Lost Asgard Tribe. Daniel shows up at Atlantis to find Janus' secret lab, and while going over the files on Janus in the Ancient Database they mention that he was a bit of a Bond guy when it came to the ladies. At least I think it was something like that, been a while since I've seen it.

[Coyote]

You really need to define "better" in the argument. Better what? If there's one thing Stargate did a lot of, it was (IMO) undermine religion as superstitious BS pushed by people of questionable motivations.

If you're talking about fighting (JAVA = Just Another Versus Argument) then I'd say the average SG team could take out the average Trek landing party (unless it's Kirk and he rips his shirt/get a bloody lip) and one-on-one the ships might be comperable due to the Asgard tech.

Both series suffer the brainbug of "planet of the week" syndrome, be it Gangsters, Romans, or Nazis or Peasants, Slaves, and Serfs. I think a little bit more effort went into Jaff'a society than went into Klingon society (at least the Jaff'a are smart enough to use staff weapons at standoff distance instead of swords) but in truth the real Jaff'a depth came late in the series when they forged the alliance and worked with rebel Jaff'a.

There are good and bad points to both series, but part of it has to do with the difficulty of any TV series-- keeping an audience interested in story arcs while also leaving things open enough that newcomers could come into the action. SG-1 was better at story arcs, IMO, whereas Trek (TOS especially) mostly relied on the situation-of-the-week stand-alone plot. One thing Trek never shook was "last week's miracle discovery has been forgotten" (probably in the same warehouse with the Ark of the Covenent, eh?); StarGate made a point to go back and look at things they's used or discovered before and try them again.

[tezunegari]

It was in the episode about the Lost Asgard Tribe. Daniel shows up at Atlantis to find Janus' secret lab, and while going over the files on Janus in the Ancient Database they mention that he was a bit of a Bond guy when it came to the ladies. At least I think it was something like that, been a while since I've seen it.

Thanks. I think I found it. It's in "First Contact" at about 2 1/2 minutes into the episode where Daniel and McKay discuss the possibility of Janus having a secret lab in Atlantis.
Though Daniel only states: "Or as one of his lovers [interruption by McKay "He had lovers?!"] put it 'an isles of solitude within the city walls'."

[NecronLord]

To continue, we know next to nothing about even the Ancients' culture; [...] we know they're not monogamous (at least in Janus' case) and that's about all we know about their civillian lives.

Really? I don't remember anything being mentioned about Janus in that regard. Without trying to imply anything - could someone please point me to a source of this statement?

As mentioned above, in The Lost Tribe, it's said that he had lovers. It's not mentioned which gender they were, or if both, or if they were concurrent or sequential, but it seems to imply that they're concurrent from the way it was presented.