Reviewing SGU on Amazon

[Stardust]

Has anyone bothered to review the show on Amazon.com or Amazon UK lately?

I did these 2 reviews

Season 2
http://www.amazon.com/review/RDSK5LCXR6KQL/ref=cm_aya_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B004TJ1H3C#wasThisHelpful

Season 1
http://www.amazon.com/review/R3G1A8BDGTL01R/ref=cm_aya_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B00402FGE4#wasThisHelpful

What do people think of these? I noticed my Season 2 review has had a few no votes but no comments from SGU fanboys as to what is so upsetting, I think I was fair with my assessment of both shows.

Take a look if you have a few minutes, I was surprised my Season 1 review made it past Amazons moderating team, I'm guessing they agreed with me. Or the person who moderates reviews agreed that the show sucks and my reasons why.

But I think you'd agree I was fair on the show right?

 

[Stonelesscutter]

I read your review on season 1. I can agree with most of it but not all.
Lt. James' chest is NOT overly large. It's just right the way it is.

Welcome to Gatefans.

 

[Stonelesscutter]

To be honest I find your review on season 2 to be hmmm... hmmm... I dunno. Not agreeing with that one.

 

[Rac80]

welcome to the forum stardust. Don't worry about what the shills say on the reviews...they just vote down anything that doesn't say "its the bestest show evahhh!".

 

[Joelist]

Welcome indeed.

Tell us a little about yourself. What are your general interests (especially in the SciFi world)?

 

[SciphonicStranger]

I enjoyed the reviews, especially the inference that Chloe was actually 0-dimensional.

Identifying yourself as a "bitter angry Stargate Atlantis fan" right up front might cause certain folks to stop reading though...

IMO, the show improved in season 2 but you've nailed many of the frustrations I had with season 1. :beckettu:

 

[shavedape]

Good job!

From Stardust's Amazon review:

- Unlikable Characters

None of the characters have any real personality, they come accross as one dimensional with little to no depth to them, throughout the whole series you'l be watching not caring if someone dies, or wanting to cringe because of the absurdness of their lines, I call this bad writing more than anything else.

- Sexist Portrayel of women

Basically the females in this Season have no depth to them, Chloe is miss horny who sleeps with Matthew Scott any chance she gets, she basically becomes so one dimensional you might think a 0 dimension exists, she is not likable and is rather bratty.

Welcome Stardust!

Good job on the reviews. You nailed it in regards to the bad writing. SGU was rife with bad writing.

 

[shavedape]

To be honest I find your review on season 2 to be hmmm... hmmm... I dunno. Not agreeing with that one.

What don't you agree with in Stardust's season 2 review?

 

[Stonelesscutter]

What don't you agree with in Stardust's season 2 review?

He says the show got a little better but not much. I think it got a lot better.
Also he mentions 1 example of what he thinks is a bad episode, which I think is a good episode.

 

[shavedape]

He says the show got a little better but not much. I think it got a lot better.
Also he mentions 1 example of what he thinks is a bad episode, which I think is a good episode.

I'm not sure how you're defining "a lot better" in this context, but no worries. We could parse definitions and argue to what degree SGU improved in season 2 but it would be pointless. Since the show was flawed from the start there really wasn't anything that could be good enough to fix it. It just wasn't possible.

 

[Stonelesscutter]

I find it notable that one person posts one message and we're all back on discussing things that we did countless of times before.

 

[shavedape]

I find it notable that one person posts one message and we're all back on discussing things that we did countless of times before.

Funny how that works, eh?

 

[Stonelesscutter]

Funny how that works, eh?

Yes. But I'm waiting with great anticipation for Stardust's second post.