Stargate SG-1: Evolution Part 2  » TV  »
1 votes
Are you familiar with this?
Feel free to rate it!
  • No, it wasn't what we deserved, but then the producers of this show are idiots in my opinion who don't care about the fans

    • by Orrymain

      all reviews
      Stargate SG-1: Evolution Part 2 didn’t give Jack and Daniel fans what they wanted at the beginning. In reality, it gave us a nauseating soap opera scene that was completely out of character for Jack O’Neill. In the history of the show, when someone has needed help, Jack is chomping at the bit to go. In The First Ones, for example, he was rattling off all the things he wanted in order to rescue Daniel.

      Here, in Stargate SG-1:

      Evolution Part 2, Hammond practically has to order him to go to South America. There’s so little passion and caring in this scene that it’s disgusting. From Hammond’s office, Jack heads to Sam’s lab. Sam’s about to depart on the Super Soldier mission. What we get is some ridiculous violin music scene, as if neither of these people cared one bit about Daniel or what happened to him.

      Did I mention the word disgusting? That’s what it ...

      • is. It’s completely against type for both Jack and Sam to behave like this, and it angered many, me included (obviously).

        Jack does get to South America and does rescue Daniel. A lot of folks were disappointed in that. I actually liked the sequence. No, it wasn’t what we deserved, but then the producers of this show are idiots in my opinion who don’t care about the fans. They’ve said as much, so I wasn’t that surprised.

        Still, it was something, and I did enjoy the big rescue and Daniel’s reaction to it.

        The last scene was a continuation of the producer’s personal soap opera. It was stupid and disrespectful.

        So, Stargate SG-1: Evolution Part 2 was a big let down, even with its few scattered good moments.

        Michael Shanks did a great acting job in both parts of Evolution. His acting and the rescue are the only reason this show gets even the number it gets in rating.

    • Don't Be Nice. Be Helpful.

    The review was published as it's written by reviewer in March, 2009. The reviewer certified that no compensation was received from the reviewed item producer, trademark owner or any other institution, related with the item reviewed. The site is not responsible for the mistakes made. 101903636690431/k2311a0319/3.19.09
    Your use of this website constitutes acceptance of the Terms & Conditions
    Privacy Policy