I've just now looked at my contributions page, and realized that a trend is already developing....I'm picking only actors, shows, and eps that I really like to review.

I'm of two minds about this:  one part of me thinks that's a little skewed...if I'm recommending things to people with my reviews of them, shouldn't I be also warning people to steer clear of other things?  The other part of me thinks that that way lies trollish behavior- something I would never do.   Plus, do I really want to be tangling with other people who love the very thing I'm putting down?  (Or is that last part me just being chicken )

For now, I think I'm going to stick to my current method of whining about things in my blog...

So, I'd like to preface this by saying that I'm a big fan of Stargate: Atlantis, for a lot of reasons.  I've revelled in the highlights of the series with other fans, and defended the lows from critics.  So I'm saying this as an honest, constructive criticism:  this whole retrovirus story arc is bugging the crap out of me.

It doesn't feel like the writers are presenting many facets of a complex issue; it feels like the writers are wavering and undecided about the direction they want to take this.   In the early days of Stargate, one of the biggest attractions to the show was how the writers would take a point of view on any given issue and have it personifed by a character.  It made for great television, and interesting debate, because it was harder to dismiss any one point of view when you liked more than one character (a great example of this is any debate early Jack and Daniel had).   This is not really happening on Atlantis.  

 To date, I can't really tell how Sheppard, Weir, Teyla or McKay really feel about what they've done- justified? ashamed?  Even watching them be conflicted would be more interesting, more fulfilling, than this current black out of discussion.  It's gotten to the point where I'm relieved Ronon is in a scene- because even he's a one note character, at least he'll stay true to that one note.  He's the only character with conviction at this point.

Well, almost the only character- Beckett certainly has a firm viewpoint after all.  But that brings me to the thing that irritates me most about this storyline:  the viewpoint (personified by Beckett) that the wraith are only worth caring about when theyve taken human form.  Either the enemy are living beings, and have rights, or they don't- but to say they only matter when they're 'like you' is an ugly viewpoint disguised as morality. 

*sighs*  This is all tumbling out of my head without forethought; maybe I'll mull it over more and try to present my POV more coherently later.