Well, they had just worked very closely with his ascended self on a mission. So, that could affect the reaction somewhat.

Yeah, but dude, they weren't even surprised. I still think it was deeply bizarre.

Well, I don't think he was dead to the rest of SG-1 like Buffy was dead to the rest of the Scoobs. I mean, if Buffy had periodically popped in for spectral visits, all glowy and clad in earth tones, her friends probably wouldn't even have considered the possibility of her being hellbound and in need of resurrection.

Unless you consider earth tones hell, which Buffy very well may.

edit: I start too many sentences with "Well..."

Not just any mission, but a mission where he has to sneak around on a Goa'uld mother ship. WTF?!?

Yeah, that was fucked up. But it's that weird space where everything they do is right, because it's essentially episodic heroic TV. So the arguments for oversight are going to be weak almost by definition.

That's what I dislike about the politics episodes. Of course they were insubordinate. They're Heroes. It has to be that way. Plus, the arguments just seem so manufactured. "Hammond allowed emotion to sway him in waiting for SG-1 before closing the iris." Um, weren't you just complaining about him losing one 'very valuable' team member?

ITA, Emily. The thing is, the Stargate program is deeply risky (one could totally argue from S1 Kinsey's camp that they should never have opened the gate in the first place), and realistically speaking, everybody should have died a flaming agonizing death by now but for the grace of God, or more accurately, the crazy-ass luck of the heroes necessary to maintain an episodic action-adventure TV. You suspend your disbelief and go along the ride because the stories are fun and the characters are engaging.

However, to be able to deal with the political ramifications of the program believably, you need something more than a power-mad one-note villain and an attitude that says, "they're heroes. They save the world. So, there were lots of near misses, so what?", which is usually what we get at the end of these Kinsey-centric clip shows. I find them facile and unsatisfying, although I did like this one better than most because I liked the prez.

(one could totally argue from S1 Kinsey's camp that they should never have opened the gate in the first place),

Oh, absolutely! It just that it's just a whiny point now -- the gate is open, so unless you're going to suggest going back in time and keeping the gate from opening, Vice President, I suggest you come up with a better reason to take control away from the people who have, against all reasonable odds, not let the world be taken over by any of the races that have shown interest.

Yeah, but dude, they weren't even surprised. I still think it was deeply bizarre.

Yes. Well, that's Stargate for you. Characterization and emotional fallout are not really their strong points; they much prefer blowing stuff up.

In all honesty, coming out of Buffy and Angel and Farscape I find that kind of... relaxing. I mean, yeah, unrealistic, but it's a heck of a lot less emotionally exhausting for me. (Of course, I'll never describe Stargate as a brilliant show, either, despite how much I love it, so that's your tradeoff.)

ETA: Which isn't to say they haven't surprised me from time to time. There's a nice character arc for Daniel, for instance, particularly in S5 and through to the beginning of S7. I'm not entirely convinced they did that on purpose, though.

I mean, yeah, unrealistic, but it's a heck of a lot less emotionally exhausting for me.

You hit the nail on the head, Katie. The reason I like ME shows and SG1 is the same reason why I enjoy the mystery novels of P.D. James and Charlotte MacLeod. Sometimes, one needs light, well-crafted fluff to balance out the heavier, more complicated stuff.

Although Stargate isn't brilliant, it is well done, and seems content to be what it is.

Although Stargate isn't brilliant, it is well done, and seems content to be what it is.

Yes, exactly.