@GratefulDisciple Blasphemy 😉. (At least as far as the first few seasons of SG1 are concerned.)

@Matthew I was much younger when I watched a handful of those episodes, way before I watched STNG reruns where I was attracted by the STNG humanity angle. The only thing that stick with me from Stargate is the technology part, not the more prominent mythological angle. Although both involve humanoid aliens, STNG emphasizes more the common humanity element but Stargate (as I remember vaguely) is more about religion and mythologies.

I also like the Battlestar Galactica 2004 Series (only watched the first 2 seasons I think), not so much the mythological part but for the military culture, the ethical angle, and the AI element.

@Matthew What offends you the most from SG1 ? I treat them as modern speculative mythologies probably much like Japanese superhero / supernatural anime, to which @冥王Hades knows a lot more than the only one I was familiar, Urusei Yatsura.

Mythologies and religions subsume the other in their own system. That's expected. So they would borrow Christian elements and twist them according to their logic.

We Christians ALSO of course try to subsume other religions, ancient mythologies, and modern speculative mythologies under our own theological system. The more a mythology's internal system of entities (ontology), values (ethics), epistemology, and meanings cohere with Christianity, the more it is enlightening for us to help reflect on the REAL humanity from another angle, which is why I like the ST franchise.

So C.S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia, his Space Trilogy, The Great Divorce, and Till We Have Faces are mythologies too, but he constructed those in a way that coheres a lot more with Christian theological elements, so pose no problem for us, although some more fundamentalist theologians take issue with it.

@GratefulDisciple It continues the theme from the movie that aliens are responsible for Egyptian (and later, Norse) mythologies. Mostly, though, it's just a good SF action/drama series. Not as good as TNG — there's a strong argument for TNG being the best SF series of all time — but certainly not "boring".

@GratefulDisciple I was objecting to your classification of SG1. 🙂

With respect to your subsequent comments, however, have you come across the claim that all hero stories are actually allegories of Christ? (Whether deliberately or not...)

@Matthew TBH, I don't remember much about the Egyptian connection, is it like the Mummy movies? I don't know much about Egyptian religion either. They may try to be faithful to the real Egyptian mythologies (as scholars study them) and fill in the details, extend the narrative, etc. OR they may not be that faithful. Either way, they are STILL mythologies that as Christians we treat as ancient attempts to construct a religion using our God-given souls that have glimpses of the Truth.

@Matthew Can you elaborate? What's the objection in light of clarifying comments above?

@GratefulDisciple Having not seen the Mummy movies, I wouldn't know. 🙂 The movie, IIRC, opens with Daniel Jackson being ostracized due to proclaiming his hypothesis that the pyramids were actually built by aliens. (He's right... in the Stargate universe, anyway. The aliens claim to be Egyptian "gods".)

@GratefulDisciple No, you're still confused. You said SG1 was "boring".

I wasn't responding to the greater conversation.

Decrying you as a philistine would be equivalent. (Both tongue-in-cheek, you understand.)

@Matthew I haven't seen them for a long time. I just remember I was bored. If I see it again today from the eyes of religious studies, it probably wouldn't be "boring" to me anymore. The Stargate movie wasn't boring to me though. I just don't remember much of it.

@Matthew I would study hero stories, mythologies, religions using the scholarly methods of Religious Studies. The method is DESCRIPTIVE: trying to describe their internal coherence: how they see human beings, gods, creation, etc. Secondly, the method studies how they see other mythologies (like how Christian subsume ancient Judaism, how Roman gods subsume Greek gods, etc.) as they see it. Thirdly, the method compare and contrast systems from the scholar point of view.

The actors in the series were great. (Ahem: Richard Dean Anderson!) I won't pretend every single episode was amazing, but on the whole, it was quite good, even if it got a bit lost toward the end. (But I also feel like it found itself again for the last season and following films.)

Richard Dean Anderson, Michael Shanks, and Christopher Judge had really good chemistry. (Amanda Tapping is good, too, though I don't recall her as playing off the other three as much. Don S. Davis is really good. Even Teryl Rothery and Gary Jones brought a lot to it.)

I'd actually go so far as to say that RDA, MS and CJ made a trio on par with William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy and DeForest Kelley.

...and then you have the occasional appearance of Claudia Black (boy, is she a fun character!) and everyone's favorite, John de Lancie. Doing what he does best, of course.

SG1 is definitely worth a watch. SGA... maybe. Pretend SGU doesn't exist. 😉

@Matthew Thanks for the rec. Maybe I'll watch it again from Religious studies perspective. I take your word for it that the acting is good.

@Matthew I still haven't watched TOS series, only TOS movies.

@Matthew Follow up about "allegories of Christ", it really depends on WHOSE point of view: 1) Christian looking at another mythology presenting their mythology as allegory of Christ, 2) Other mythology trying to subsume Christ under their mythology (like how Hindu religion is doing it TODAY), 3) A religious studies scholar doing compare/contrast.

@GratefulDisciple From the perspective as a cultural icon, TOS is worth watching. However, quality-wise, it's rather scattered. I might suggest watching only a handful of the "best" episodes before committing, and don't feel too bad if you decide to give it a pass. (The first season, in particular, is rather all over the place.)

@Matthew Of course, I wouldn't expect quality from that era, much like watching The Twilight Zone. My #1 motivation is for internal reference from other series.

What do you think about Battlestar Galactica (the 2004 reboot)?

@GratefulDisciple Never really got into it. I didn't watch the original, either, though.

@Matthew I wasn't interested in the original either.

They say Battlestar Galactica 2004 is the "grown up" version of Star Trek, because Star Trek TV Series always resolves the tension at the end of 45 minute or 90 minute, and not too much personal cost to the main actors. I think that's the right assessment.

Better episodes of TOS: 1.4, 1.11+1.12, 1.14, 1.22, 1.25, 1.28, 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.15, 3.1

TOS and TNG were very episodic and heavily governed by tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StatusQuoIsGod. DS9 broke that mold. It isn't really fair to judge an episodic series for being episodic.

@Matthew I'm not the one who judged, I enjoy ST episodes as an individual episode myself. Different show, different value proposition. I actually enjoy both ST and BG.

@Matthew Again, thanks for the rec. Really helpful to prioritize.

@GratefulDisciple You're welcome! SG1 is definitely somewhere in between episodic and serial. It's "mostly" episodic, but there are overall arcs, so if you're going to watch, you really should start at the beginning and go episode by episode. It also wouldn't hurt to re-watch the movie first. By contrast, there are very few episodes of TOS or even TNG that don't stand entirely on their own.

@Matthew Thanks, I will. After I got hooked by TNG reruns on TV, when the DVD came out I binged on all the episodes in sequence: first TNG, then VYG, then DS9. Didn't quite finished ENT although I really like Scott Bakula from his Quantum Leap days. He makes a good captain, although I still ike Patrick Stewart the best.

Yeah, Patrick Stewart is something else. If you liked Bakula, though, I bet you'll like Anderson. 😉

(MacGuyver?)

@Matthew Oh, didn't realized he starred in MacGyver. Yes, I like him, although with Bakula it's his peaceful & gentle & compassionate air about him when dealing with unexpected situations. MacGyver came across as inventive & quick thinking & intelligent (didn't watch many MacGyver reruns).

While Patrick Stewart has the air of authority about him, that makes his subordinates tend to obey & trust his judgment and want to perform their best, while STILL maintain collegiality with his bridge officers.

@GratefulDisciple which is impressive because even many seasoned anime watchers don’t know Urusei Yatsura, simply because it’s very old. Older than Dragon Ball which itself marks a huge turning point for anime itself so it’s hard to remember stuff before it

The reason I found out about urusei yatsura first isn’t because I watched it, it’s because we were looking for anime and anime character with mind blowing displays of strength from the 80s and 90s specifically. We had Dragon Ball, Saint Seiya, Dr Slump and more.

Someone pointed out Urusei Yatsura being unusually strong as a “romcom”, I checked it out and they were right. I also really liked the anime and watched it all and bought the manga too