Stargate SG-1: Seth  » TV  »
1 votes
Are you familiar with this?
Feel free to rate it!
  • Fans love to try and make something out of this, but the powers that be never went near that issue, and personally, I don't make anything of it

    • by Orrymain

      all reviews
      Stargate SG-1: Seth is another episode that some of the actors of the series thought was pretty bad. The whole premise seemed weak to them, the idea of a Goa’uld still living on Earth and having achieved nothing but a tiny cult like following seeming ludicrous. Still, I like this show a lot. It has a lot of fun moments in it, and it’s a nice hour of entertainment viewing.

      For fans, one thing that gets a

      lot of hoop-la-la is the fact that the Goa’uld in question is played by Robert Duncan. That’s the same actor who played Daniel’s father during the recreations in the season 2 episode, The Gamekeeper. Fans love to try and make something out of this, but the powers that be never went near that issue, and personally, I don’t make anything of it.

      The recurring character of Jacob, Sam’s father and now a Tok’ra, returns and has some nice ...

      • interaction with the ATF folks on the scene. In fact, my favorite scene is the one where Jacob and SG-1 banter a bit with the agent. Everything he asks is ‘classified’, and the man can’t stand that, nor can he understand why a geek like Daniel is on the team.

        Amanda Tapping’s Sam character gets to do some unexpected stuff here at the climax of the show that is fun, too. However, there’s a continuity glitch with her

        family here. In season 1, it’s indicated that Sam has a brother and he has children that she doesn’t see as often as she likes, but clearly she did. In this show, though, it’s as if she was estranged from him, just as her father was. So, bad grade in this department.

        Stargate SG-1: Seth makes for good watching. It may not make the most sense in the world or earn anyone an Emmy, but it’s still fun going!

    • 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. 101903638800831/k2311a0319/3.19.09
    Your use of this website constitutes acceptance of the Terms & Conditions
    Privacy Policy