Watching Stargate SG1 For the First Time | The Nox | Reaction
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 сен 2024
- From the team that brought you Babylon 5 For the First Time, now join Jeff and Brent as, together, they embark on a new journey, tackling another beloved 90's sci-fi series, Stargate SG-1 For the First Time, Still Not a Star Trek Podcast. This week, it's the fith episode of season 1, "The Nox." In this one, Teal'c comes face to face with some old friends, SG-1 comes face to face with some new friends, and the Nox come face to face with people with whom they don't want to be friends. So join the guys as they dive into their respective first watches of this episode.
And be sure to catch our main show, Babylon 5: For the First Time, when Brent is joined by Jeff to take a deep dive into the episode, searching for those Star Trek-like messages, and seeing if they should have watched it sooner. New Episodes drop on Mondays.
This show is produced in association with the Akin Collective, Mulberry Entertainment, and Framed Games. Find out how you can support the show and get great bonus content like access to notes, a Discord server, unedited reaction videos, and more: / babylon5first
Special Thanks to all who support our show through Patreon, including:
Executive Producers:
Delenn D., Terrafan, TrekkieTreytheTrekker, Ron H., Rob B., Peter S., Nathanael M., Michael P., Mega, Jeffrey H., David M., ClubPro70, Chris A., Andrew T., Addryc
Producers:
Adam P., David B., Guy K., John K., Kat,
Follow us on Twitter: / babylonfirst
Website: www.babylon5fi...
All rights belong to the Prime Time Entertainment Network, WBTV, and TNT. No copyright infringement intended.
Copyright Disclaimer, Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for 'fair use' for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
You could call your new section Michael gets Shanked
The only thing I hate about this is that I didn’t think of it first
@@Babylon5FortheFirstTime 😆
or Daniel gets Jacked
What happened to the "oh yes" when Brent said "are they breathing on the embers?"
The Nox are my #1 favorite aliens. Their quote @ the end is one of my top 5. Father Nox looks like Jason Gun, 🇳🇿 famous comic, had an arvo kids show with Thingy in the 90's
The Nox was a great way to demonstrate advanced societies can operate independently and peacefully without compromising ideology or their own society...
If your ideology allows for the mass enslavement and murder of others your ideology is bad.
You're counting the number of times Jack says "For crying out loud"… are you also counting how many times Teal'c says "indeed", Daniel says "I don't know/I have no idea", Hammond says "the iris" and Sam says one of the 3 C's (calculate/configure/calibrate and their variations)? I also count whenever anyone says "with (all) due respect"
10:03 what about the number of times apophis "dies" lol? I think they were having a contest
The Nox are so interesting. So advanced, even if we didn't know. I got ST-TOS "Errand of Mercy" vibes, The Organians, I think.
65!
Be seeing you!
Can we put Daniel's death to 2 just cause of the movie?
Nope, Jeff hasn’t seen the movie yet. Well count it when we do that one
If you made a drinking game of the phrase "some kind of" in in ALL scifi movies/series, you'd die from alcoholism.
@36:30 to @36:55, re: non-violent movements: People are _forever_ taking the wrong lesson from those two movements, and I fear that Brent is doing the same, on this occasion.
Non-violent movements of that type work _specifically and solely_ against...
(a.) Christian societies; who
(b.) are currently blind to the sinful oppressiveness of their institutions (but willing to have their eyes opened); and who
(c.) are ready to value mercy and justice over institutional stability and imperial greatness.
They work under such circumstances because _only_ such societies are open to seeing "the face of Christ in the least of these my brethren" applied to the group performing non-violent resistance. Precisely _because_ the U.S. in the 1960's fit that description, and precisely _because_ the British in 1947 fit that description, the American civil rights movement and the Indian Independence movement were able to succeed. Those movements relied upon the underlying _goodness_ of the societies they hoped to transform, by revealing how those societies hypocritically failed to meet their own merciful-and-just moral standards. The Civil Rights Reforms in the U.S., and the peaceful end of the British Raj, thus represented American and British attempts to live out more-fully what they already believed was their own moral identity.
But governments who embraced an entirely different moral identity would, of course, have acted entirely differently.
So if the American civil rights leaders had been non-violently opposing unjust discrimination under, say, an Islamic-State-style Caliph? Totally different outcome!
Or, had the Indian Independence movement been trying to oppose _Chinese Communist_ imperial control? Again, totally different outcome!
In short,
IF these non-violent persons been opposing governments/forces whose identities were wrapped up in ideologies radically different from the American and British self-identification as "good Christians,"
THEN those non-violent movements would have failed,
their participants casually massacred or "disappeared,"
and Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi would be currently be utterly unknown names, lost to history.
I hope people will keep that in mind, when discussing these movements. It was the right strategy for _those_ circumstances; but it would have been a foolish and suicidal (and thus _gravely_ immoral) strategy to follow, under different circumstances.
The Nox are not entirely what they seem to be.
Are you saying, they are more than meets the eye?
@@michaelconnor1542 :
No. That's Transformers.
Funny story about your kid.. my son had a similar story in the 4th grade.. he had a bully that had him backed up against a chain link fence. The bully lunged at my song and found himself hanging upside down from his waist belt on the other side of the fence
How far through the episode did you start getting serious Star Trek TOS "Errand of Mercy" vibes?
Another O'neill behavior is to fall down in combat, losing his cap. Once the aliens are dead he'll retrieve it, shaking the dirt off before putting it back on.
One of the many great Star Trek cameos, and one of the great episodes where Earth is referred to as young or primitive.
The nox philosophy has a lot of both Hindu and Budhhist philosophy.
The prase "your way is not the only way" is typical Hindu, as they don't denie any other way of living.
While in Buddhism, you can be Buddhist and at the same time follow any other belief.
There is nothing that stop you from that.
Its often in western scifi series and movies they use earth cultures as a template for alien groups.
Can see it in star trek, star wars, babylon 5 and also in stargate..
Speaking of Aikido, the one problem with the pure form which has no attacks at all [there is a separate style which includes a few attacks] is that it is fine so long as you are being attacked, you can avoid or neutralize and deal with the situation, but if someone else is the victim, what can you do when your defence is dependent on someone attacking you ... jump up and down and yell "Hit me, hit me!"?
I do a soft style of kung fu which does indeed have a lot of defensive moves that stops attacks without harming the attacker, but I have actually had a few times when somebody else was threatened and I had to take a more aggressive stance. What I am trying to say is, non-violence is the ideal situation and if you are powerful enough, then you can be 100% non-violent in any situation that happens, but sometimes you need to have the ability to strike in order to prevent worse things. As an old saying goes: "Avoid, rather than check. Check, rather than hurt. Hurt, rather than maim. Maim, rather than kill. For all life is precious, nor can any be replaced."
The Nox have an amazing level of abilities - not only can they disappear, but it seems they can transport things [otherwise, how did they put Apothis through the gate?] and they can not only heal, but actually "cure" being dead [I assume that is only for someone who just died a short time ago] So it is easy for them to be absolute passificists. For those who have not got all those skills, it is an ideal we can strive for but we may still need to be prepared to fight if need be.
I would say the rational pacifist is the one who in all things chooses the action that does the least harm, and the more able one is to act, the less one needs to do. That is to say, if you are a highly skilled fighter then you don't need to fight. You can't be intimidated by someone you know you can deal with and you can take more chances when you know that if things go wrong, you can prevent harm to yourself and others.
About the degree of response. How often can you determine the intentions, capabilities and resolve of those assaulting you? Underestimating any of those and using a response that's too lenient might just lose you your life, or more. It's nice to philosophize on such things, but reality rarely gives you enough time or good enough information on the situation, to reliably come to a least damaging conclusion during the incident. That sort of thing is mostly applied in hindsight.
@@raifthemad that depends on what level of ability you have, if you walk up to me, assuming I am paying attention, I already have a reasonable idea of how much skill you have in unarmed combat simply by how you move. That wasn't always true, but over time, as I learned more, I learned. Now if you have a gun, that is something I don't know much about, but I can read a situation and have a feel for the level of danger.
That said, it is true I can't have absolute knowledge of what the danger from an individual is. I also don't know if the driver of a car is going to lose control and swirve onto the sidewalk and kill me or if there is a sniper looking at me through a gun scope. Nobody knows everything, but we all can assess a situation and make rational judgements. I know my response in any situation depends on my read of the situation. Could making a mistake result in me dying? Sure, but if I walk around assuming that I might be attacked at any moment then it isn't much a life I am living and also it leads to the risk I will see some innocent movement and think it is an attack and react to it which could result in me hurting someone.
Part of dealing with life is making rational judgements - reading the situation. I don't worry about a car going out of control and hitting me, even though it could happen, because the odds are very low. But by being able to handle myself in general, if a car does come crashing towards me, I have a much better chance of acting fast enough and in the right way to survive it then I would have if I had not been trained. It still won't save me if some idiot fires a gun into the air and the bullet falls on me, but I'm not going to walk through live afraid of everything that could happen. I prepare for what is currently likely to happen and respond to the situation as it unfolds.
@@TheFireMonkey I really wasn't talking about life in genera, but about physical altercations. I don't care how good at assessing the situation you think you are. If you err your response on the side of as minimal amount of force as possible, you're endangering yourself and whomever else you might be protecting.
It's the old(and very ignorant) "shoot the leg" argument of stopping someone with a firearm.
@@raifthemad Combat and life both come down to the same principals, but fine, strictly talking combat.
I'm not really sure what your point is. Obviously if you make a mistake you risk harm - that is always true. Are you suggesting that at the first hint that there might be an altercation that you should instantly beat the suspected attacker into the ground, just in case? I hope not, that way of approaching things will, if you are lucky, land you in jail. All of life is judgements and choices and combat is no different. The way you handle a situation needs to be based on your best judgement of the risks and possible choices.
The best action is to see potential danger coming and avoid it. Simply don't be there. Not always an option. If you don't notice the danger soon enough or if the danger involves others whom you can not get away from the danger, etc. Next best is words. Talk the person down. You can continue to talk even if you are fighting. Deescalate the situation if you can. Now if you look at things at the start and judge that you must act more aggressively, then you might have to start there, but each action is a choice and in any choice you might make a mistake. Combat itself is the same - if you try to punch me in my face I might sidestep you, redirect with a soft block, try to capture your fist, just move my head and shoulders a bit, step backwards so your punch falls short - lots of actions and each one has a reason to use them, but choose the wrong actions and you can be in trouble. So yes, if I make a mistake, if I misread a situation, if I hold back too much, then I could be harmed. That is why it is a judgement call.
If you have a gun, unless I am bulletproof, which I am not, my only options are talking you down or getting away. If there are others in danger, that cuts it down even more since I can't make others escape - they have to do that for themselves. So there is talking. Now, if I can get you to close the gap so you are within a single move of me, then I open the possibility of disarming you or taking you out of action, otherwise, all I have is talking. If the gun is not drawn, then I have as long as it takes for you to draw the gun in which to change the situation. So either I can talk you down, or close the gap between us and subdue you before you draw. If you have the gun out and are too far from me for me to act, I have nothing but words and the hope that my reflects are fast enough that I can dodge at the moment I see you start to pull the trigger ... I can't dodge a bullet, but pulling the trigger is slow enough that if I do it at the last moment, when you are committed to your action and not able to react to my action fast enough, I have a chance of dodging you, that is, not being where you are aiming at the moment the bullet is fired. Not a tactic I'd like to depend on but if I can't talk you down, it may be all I have. That does not protect others unless I am getting the person with the gun to focus enough on me that the others can escape.
I think that about covers the issue of a gun - oh, other than me throwing something at you, but that would be very risky since I am not skilled at throwing things.
There is no right answer in this case, you just have to judge what is the least risky action. Now if I was bullet proof or had some other ability that could be used, then the gun is not an issue, but I am not. Me vs a gun which is drawn at range is really just about talking.
If we are talking hand to hand, then I must judge what is an acceptable risk. Back 30 years ago, I would have tried to stop you without hurting you unless I saw that you were also skilled in hand to hand combat at a level which presented more risk than I was willing to accept. Today, being 30 years older and not having the endurance I once had, if you were unarmed and you moved like the average person that might attack someone on the street, I'd try to avoid and/or block your attack at first, but unless I could get you to stop quickly, I would have to take you down because I am not in shape for a prolonged combat. Ironically, 30 years ago when I was in top shape, an attacker would have been far more likely to walk away unharmed other than perhaps their ego, and today when I am nowhere near my best, you would stand a good chance of needing a hospital because the risk is now too high.
@@TheFireMonkey Now tell me how many actual physical altercations have you been in. Your mentality sounds great on paper. In fact sounds exactly like someone, who's learned their principles in some class, and never having any contact with real conflict. Illustrated by your pool of examples not actually mentioning having to face multiple assailants(what often happens irl). Even bigger giveaway is the "if you have a gun my only options are to run away or attack you," both of which are usually more dangerous, than giving the person with a gun what they want, and yet in your little fantasy universe, such option doesn't even exist apparently.
You are the poster child of someone with all theory, no practice.
Well you just spoiled Daniels death's for Jeff or is is Geoff? He won't feel the emotion from the scenes now he knows he dies multiple times.
Oh hey, I'm going to stop this video to spoil upcoming videos. This series would be enjoyable if it wasn't for the constant exposition on scenes that are currently happening or will happen.
Back in 1998 I was on vacation in Portugal and one evening I turned on the Hotel TV and this episode was on. And I was just wondering: I don't remember this episode of MacGyvet! What is this? I think it took another year or so before the show aired in Germany (then dubbed of course).
Spends more time taking notes than watching the episode!
+1 on Daniel Jackson's death count
Oh my God! They killed Danny! You bastards!
Michael Shanks does end up with hottest woman to ever appear on Stargate.
You just got Nox'd!
Brent reacting to Jeff like we wanted to react to Brent and Jeff watching B5.
Yup. There’s no overall, preplanned, 5 season arc. I’m one voice, not thousands. Most importantly, there’s no future SG1 FT2T to protect.
@@Babylon5FortheFirstTimeno, just pointing out how hard it can be not to say too much and why people do want to speak (even when understanding why not). You are experiencing the frustration we have (which is not a complaint but just helps you sympathize a bit more)
Sometimes the very young do not always do as they are told.
"Always" is redundant in that sentence. In fact, either use "sometimes," or "always," either one is fine, but not both together.
Maybe I stuck 'always' in the line but it's not really there.
One comment: Principal Schneider
Unforgettable role!
@@la_beatrice Him and the Mayor were favorites for me - great villains - well, Schneider wasn't exactly a villain as such, he was mostly just obsessed with keeping the status quo.
@@TheFireMonkey And he fought for that status quo right until the end.
@@orthochronicity6428 that he did - great final scene as he demands order as a monstrous demon snake is destroying everything... I loved that show a lot.
Remember, Daniel started off officially dead....
Are they going to bury the stargate or are they only telling SG1 that they will bury the stargate?
I imagine they’ll just Nox it
Oh no, they killed Kenny!
Snake bit
If you count the movie, this is the second time Daniel has died. He is literally the Kenny of the Stargate universe.
Recency bias. Just sayin.
lol
Things are not what they seem ......
They have all of that technology just hanging there in the sky, but they choose to stay in the forest and have a hard Nox life
Edit: ...Sorry...
Damn it this so good.