![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I watched SGA 2.16 last night
I just wanted to say that there was such a slashy editing in that look where not-John tells Teyla that John cares for her, and we cut to the heartbroken expression on Rodney's face and that if you're not interpreting it in the slashy way, I don't see how else you'd make sense of it.
It was sort of... so... utterly slashy. Like the editors were having an inside joke with the slashers.
I haven't seen such obvious "is this *meant* to be slash-driven?" editing since the pilot episode of Sports Night. You know the moment I mean, where Casey kisses Dana's cheek, and we cut to a stricken expression on Dan's face.
Also, I totally saw a lot of that plot coming. I don't know if that means I'm getting into the logic and characterisation (the groove) of SGA well enough to understand and predict their storytelling techniques, or if it means that the plot was really dodgy.
It was sort of... so... utterly slashy. Like the editors were having an inside joke with the slashers.
I haven't seen such obvious "is this *meant* to be slash-driven?" editing since the pilot episode of Sports Night. You know the moment I mean, where Casey kisses Dana's cheek, and we cut to a stricken expression on Dan's face.
Also, I totally saw a lot of that plot coming. I don't know if that means I'm getting into the logic and characterisation (the groove) of SGA well enough to understand and predict their storytelling techniques, or if it means that the plot was really dodgy.
no subject
no subject
But for a moment, I was all "oh, oh, this exposition is so clunky, she must be doing it for *this reason*" and she was, which was infinitely better than...
...well...
The Storm/The Eye episodes where the exposition is so clunky it starts being *funny* (especially the *fifth* time the same plot point gets explained in a double episode).