SyFy (really? can anyone say too much Tweeter or teenspeak?) canceled Stargate: Atlantis after only 5 seasons. And for a while, I didn’t agree with the opinions out there that those two season were bad because Mallozzi and Mulli had taken over production and writing for the series. Then I saw the Fifth season. Okay, Rodney McKay may be a bit self-centered and bit egotistical but after four years on Atlantis and all he’s been through he would not have been the jerk he was written as in “Search and Rescue.” Season Four did a half (blank) job on showing Rondey as human and caring for others. And now he goes back to being like the jerk he was before he joined the Atlantis expedition? NO. It’s like the writers and producers forgot their audience actually paid attention to the show, to characters, and saw what was happening. They tried to sell the viewers a bill of goods and it didn’t fly for many. Even more so is the fact that they just swept difficult and morally challenged issues (Lucius Loven and his “drug” that was pretty much a date rape drug comes to mind) under the rug.
Science fiction, at least it used to be, dealt with the difficult moral and ethical questions. Challenging what we held to be right and wrong but still agreeing that right and wrong were still very much black and white. Stargate seems to have forgotten morality and chucked it out the window. So has mch of society but I don’t think it’s the only factor involved.
Stargate: Universe premiers in October. However, I will not be watching and not only because I don’t have a working TV nor do I have cable. Once I found out that two of the main characters were going to be homosexual and blatanly so, I refused to watch. I won’t support or watch something I find morally offensive especially to my faith. Why cater to a very small minority that already gets plenty of air time on major TV networks? Not only that, but the plot is a rip off of Star Trek: Voyager (lost, far from home and not sure they’re going to get back; sound familiar?) (guess they’ll ruin the ending of the show and how they get home like they did on Voyager because hey, they can just follow that plot) with lots of soap opera style elements thrown in. When did science fiction become just about sex? No, really? When?
Last week, a character description got leaked and it causes an uproar. Read Here. Why? Because it was offensive in its description of a severely physically impaired person, calling the person “physically useless.” I also find this horribly offensive to anyone who has any sort of impairment. Who decided usefulness or worth based on physical ability? Well, unfortunately, many in society do especially in American where physical agility and beauty is rewarded with million dollar contracts and endorsements with large media outlets forcing these rewardees in our faces. While the producers apologized, it was all the talk on Gateworld and other sites. Why? Not just because of the offensive remarks made in the description but about comments from MGM’s spokesperson on how the lesbian of the show, Camilla Wray (played by Ming-Na) has the only “healthy relationship” on the show. Apparently, there will be some body-swapping going (like one of the comments, hello? 2009 here; come up with something new for once) and the physcially impaired person will swap bodies with the lesbian and then have sex with another male character on the ship. First, why and when did having sex imply or make someone a person whole? (Actually, the comment in question states it better.) But this is where it really gets interesting because many of the commenters are saying this is rape (I agree, just because you swap bodies doesn’t mean you possess or get to do anything you like with the body that isn’t yours) and there are others who are saying it’s not because swapping bodies means you get to do anything in that body. Read the really bad opinion piece and comments here.
But one commenter brought up Christopher Reeves. He was paralyzed from the neck down as a result of an accident. The commenter stated that if Christopher had the opportunity to swap bodies and have sex with his wife, he’d do it in a heartbeat. Hold on a minute. One, this supposes that Christopher had no consideration for the person he was swapping bodies with. Two, it supposes that Christopher can only love his wife and demonstrate his love for his wife through sex (apparently all those years of marriage didn’t mean a thing to this person). Three, it supposes that it is morally acceptable for one person to take control of another person’s body, even through body-swapping, and use it for their own purposes. Unfortunately, Mr. Reeves is dead so we can’t ask him but I don’t think he would be that callous to want to swap bodies with someone and then use that body in a way that the person wouldn’t use his/her own body for. I would consider it wrong for someone who swapped bodies to just do anything with that body that isn’t theirs. Anything you would do in that body would be causing harm (outside normal functions of eating, sleeping, and personal hygiene) and would even be considered assault, battery, and in some cases, rape. You don’t have the authority or the ability to just do anything with a body that isn’t yours. It really doesn’t surprise me that there are people out there who would see knothing wrong with using a body that isn’t theirs for their own purposes and without any regards to the consequences. They see nothing wrong because they don’t consider it their body so they don’t have to take responsibility for it and what they do. It’s the sad state of the world today. Nobody wants to take responsibility anymore.