|
Post by allergygal on Jan 18, 2009 17:35:08 GMT -5
The redesign of the official blog, showing a large image of Cameron has refueled discussion about whether or not the title character of the show is actually still intended to be the main character. This is a topic that was talked about quite a bit before season 2 began when most of the promos focused on John. Cameron also got quite a bit of focus, just as she had before season 1 began. There's an argument to be made that marketing targets its materials to the audience they're trying to pull in, not the audience they already have. If they believe the only way to pull in young male viewers is to promote John or Cameron, then they will. But now that we've gone 13 episodes through season 2, it's clear that the show did, in fact, dilute its protagonist. Sarah no longer has VOs to start and close each episode and she's spent time in secondary storylines. As a result, the POV is weaker. So what do you think about this? Was it a good change? A bad change? Do you not care who the focus of the show is as long as there are cool explosions?
|
|
|
Post by potomac79 on Jan 19, 2009 0:15:01 GMT -5
I think the audience has a funny way of deciding who the protagonist of a series is going to be. Family Ties was supposed to have much of the focus on the parents, but it evolved into the Alex P. Keaton show. Beverly Hills, 90210 was also supposed to have a major adult element, but that disappeared pretty quickly as well (its continuation, 90210 seems to be doing better with it so far). Joan of Arcadia...amazingly, most people thought this would mostly be about Joan, but it was at least as much about the parents despite audience expectations. (It should also be mentioned, that Amber Tamblyn, who played the titular character, was only the third person listed in the credits.)
Examples abound of various characters taking over a show. Perhaps the brightest example being the "Fonz" moving from a minor recurring character to the main draw on Happy Days. So, it should come as no surprise that TTSCC is becoming a victim of the same sort of inattention to the title character. It should have been assumed that it was likely to happen. After all, John is the ultimate hero of the tale. That's what the mythos is all about. Plus, it's also been proven in the franchise that a good scary robot is gold.
As long as they can have have Sarah do the voice-overs, the title and the character remain relevant as chroniclers of the story. Honestly, I think the creators messed up by having such a long franchise title. It took me quite a while to stop saying, "The Sarah Jessic...er, Connor Chronicles". I think changing it to "The Connor Chronicles" would have been easier on the tongue as well as broadened audience expectations.
But, even if Sarah remains relevant, is she the protagonist? No. That ship has sailed. John and/or Cameron are the heroic leads with Catherine having emerged as an enigmatic and potentially formidable antagonist. The rest of the ensemble are for support of the aims of those characters.
|
|
schmacky
Major
"Make yourself useful."
Posts: 522
|
Post by schmacky on Jan 19, 2009 2:04:37 GMT -5
It's an ensemble cast. Sarah teeters on the edge of the main lead, but most often she's part of the ensemble instead of it being "her" show. I think the last few episodes have been more about Sarah but that's because the main story arc - the 3 dots - has been about Sarah. A large portion of this season had Sarah on the B or C storyline It's still a slippery line in my opinion and if they decided on calling the show The Sarah Connor Chronicles then they should focus more on Sarah. I think a very easy way of doing this is bringing back her VOs. Even if the episode isn't about Sarah, it still feels like her show because she's narrating it. It was a HUGE mistake, in my opinion, to take these out. I'm quite shocked to have learned that Josh was never a big fan of them to begin with and he wasn't the one to decide to bring them back. We can thank Denise The, writer of the Tower, for bringing the VO back.
However, I have to disagree with potomac saying that John and/or Cameron are the heroic leads of the show. Cameron is the most popular character (on the internet anyway), I think. But if you really look at the episodes, Cameron doesn't have THAT much exposure where you can call her the heroic lead.
|
|
DEM
Refugee
I'm Kilroy.
Posts: 94
|
Post by DEM on Jan 19, 2009 3:01:27 GMT -5
Here's the thing: One can have both a strong ensemble and a strong (i.e., clear) protagonist. Chuck has an ensemble cast, and in the vast majority of the episodes there is a Buy More B-story that Chuck isn't driving. However, it would be a rare (very rare) week that a novice viewer could tune in and not get very quickly that Chuck Bartowski is the central protagonist.
Then there's Damages. Damages has no character's name in the title and has a powerhouse supporting ensemble, yet it is clearly led by both Patty Hewes (Glenn Close) and Ellen Parsons (Rose Byrne). Moreover, despite the online venom that was hurled Rose Byrne's way during S1 and despite the fact that Glenn Close is A Big Name who gets most of the press, the producers of Damages have remained true to their premise and kept Ellen Parsons front and center in S2. As far as I know, pitchforked mobs haven't shown up on the set, and S2 is getting good reviews.
T:SCC doesn't look like either of those shows. Nor, unfortunately, does it look like a "true" ensemble like BSG or Lost or Heroes (which, nevertheless, have easily identifiable main characters). This sort of ties into what schmacky pointed out: That neither John nor Cameron qualify as heroic leads (either). OTOH, at least both of them have had season-long arcs.
Here's the other thing: Fonzied-shows like Happy Days, Good Times, Family Ties, that Urkel show, and ST:Voyager didn't Fonzie themselves in the second season. Theirs were gradual descents into darkness. I notice that a lot of these shows are sitcoms, and wonder whether it's the overarching goal of generating laughs that causes them to slip faster than dramatic shows like ST:Voyager and L&O:SVU. But, ya know, Seinfeld managed not to become Kramer, so it can be done -- assuming the producers are willing.
I'm not sure the producers of T:SCC have been willing or able. A tell: Exactly none of the regulars added in S2 were attached to Sarah Connor. Catherine Weaver is James Ellison's, Jesse is Derek's, and Riley is John's. At every choice-point -- from marketing to story structure to casting -- TPTB have chosen the path that further dilutes Sarah Connor's influence and centrality.
In conclusion: No, at this point I don't think Sarah Connor is the protagonist of her own show (or she's a weak one at best) and no, I don't like it.
|
|
schmacky
Major
"Make yourself useful."
Posts: 522
|
Post by schmacky on Jan 19, 2009 3:11:52 GMT -5
What makes it so damn bothersome is the name of the show. If Sarah wasn't in the title, I wouldn't care (I would, but that's besides the point) that Sarah wasn't the central part of the show. But because this thing is billed as HER show, it's so annoying and frustrating and a disappointment that they're not kept up on their side of the bargain. They could have easily called it Terminator: The Connor Chronicles and it wouldn't have been an issue whether or not Sarah was central as long as one of the Connors or both (or traded off) were the protagonist.
But, a viewer has a certain expectation when tuning into The Sarah Connor Chronicles - and that's that Sarah is front, center, and central to the entire show. And when she's not, you gotta scratch your head and ponder what's up with that. It's like they shot themselves in the foot with the naming of the show and not living up to it.
|
|
DEM
Refugee
I'm Kilroy.
Posts: 94
|
Post by DEM on Jan 19, 2009 4:09:21 GMT -5
Heh. For me, at least, it would be easier to disengage. I've sampled many a show with a title character or lead I didn't particularly care for, but figured the supports might be strong enough to balance things out. If they didn't, I walked away. I don't petition for The Laundryman to become more about The Barista sidekick (I made that up), but neither do I begrudge the barista her time in the sun. OTOH, I do complain about ensemble shows that become 1- or 2-star vehicles. IOW, I don't like bait-and-switch, no matter who's doing the baiting and/or switching. Another thought: It would still be possible to do eps like Allison from Palmdale and Complications and Self-Made Man. What's important is that the story come back to the protagonist in the end. Even if that "coming back" involves the protagonist not getting the whole story. That, in itself, is a story point. Does Sarah know about any of that stuff from those eps (above)? Don't think so. Does she care? Beats.The.Frak.Outta.Me. -- and that is problematic, to say the least.
|
|
t101
Major
Posts: 716
|
Post by t101 on Jan 19, 2009 6:36:00 GMT -5
I don't get why people are so stuck on the title. It's an ensemble show with Sarah's name in the title, I'll never understand why that correlation matters so much. And I think aside from VO nothing really changed from season 1. To me personally the name never implied that she must be the main lead.
|
|
|
Post by littleb on Jan 19, 2009 9:09:48 GMT -5
I'm not sure about that. I stopped watching Lost because it was just too huge an emsemble. I hated the format of each character having their own one or two episodes a season and then fading into the background for the rest of the time. I managed one season of Heroes because none of the characters were at all sympathetic, I didn't give a damn what happened to them (plus, they all had super powers so that kinda cut out the tension somewhat.) I still watch and really love BSG but I don't feel emotionally involved with it any more. I appreciate it as a terrific show, but somewhere along the road it lost its emotional tug for me. I don't know whether it just got too damn depressing or whether the tendency to kill off people without blinking stopped me becoming too attached to anyone or whether it just had a shonky third season but I don't watch it in the way I watch TSCC. Maybe I'm just not cut out for big ol' casts. But Farscape, Buffy and Northern Exposure managed to have pretty large ensemble casts and IMHO are three of the best shows ever to grace the small screen. John's arc has - to a massive extent - been intrinsically tied to Sarah. His rebellion has been against her, his misplaced blame has been aimed at her. I think her own arc has been trying to (re)establish her role as a mother, reconciling it with her perceived failure as John's main protector. She's had to face the prospect of her cancer, lost Charley, almost lost John and then possibly - enter the 3 dots - lost the plot entirely. I don't think she's had a bad season so far. I saw the new blog layout and y'know, I never even noticed Cameron until I read the fallout on here. I'm not condoning or agreeing with it, I just didn't think anything of it because - in the publicity material - it's so bloody commonplace. On the plus side, Allergygal's comment on the feedback made me laugh so hard my face ached. I think there's a big disparity between the way the marketing people are working the show and the way it's being written. Like it or not, Summer is a huge draw and the show needs ratings. The obvious choice therefore is to focus on what pulls in the audience and if that means Sarah and her fans taking one for the team and getting a third season out of it, I can live with it (and that's coming from someone who adores Sarah.) I don't like it, but I appreciate where the tactic is coming from. Unfortunately, TSCC has ended up with a split ensemble this season which has resulted in quite a few episodes where the characters are playing out by themselves with their new cast additions. I'm hoping the back 9 will pull everything together, that all these strands that have necessitated the split will converge and the fallout will reunite the main cast. I'm not sure we'll see Sarah's reaction to Cameron's episodes but the Derek/Jesse/Riley fandango is the one where I'm guessing sparks will fly. Thinking about S2... I'm not convinced by the Sarah in the background theories. I wonder whether it's more down to her role within the episodes; whether she has been active or passive within the central plots. I remember around Allison, Goodbye and Tower that people were getting antsy that Sarah was sitting about and letting everyone else run around with guns. On the flip side of that, the writing for her character was excellent, especially in Goodbye to all That, she just wasn't busting anyone's head. They have taken the time to develop her character and I think even when she's not been the focus of the A-plot ( Complications is a very good example) there has still been a lot of depth afforded her character. Jesse and Derek can do all the nail-pulling and arbitrary murdering they want but the scene I remember from Complications is Sarah quietly confessing to her son that she screwed up. The two Cameron eps have pushed her into the background but that's two episodes out of 13 that've aired and when you think of the eps where she's had an active, central role - Samson, Automatic, Mousetrap, Brothers, Mr Ferguson, Strange Things, Alpine Fields, Earthlings her character hasn't fared badly. I miss the voice-overs, they always pulled the story back to Sarah and - when she's the title character - it made the Chronicles aspect make sense. They didn't always work though and occasionally felt forced or unnecessary. I'd rather they were around more, but I don't mind them not being on every episode. If it helps any, I remember The Turk on one of the topics on here. He said one thing no one will be able to say by the end of the season, is that there weren't enough episodes about Sarah. I don't think it's realistic to expect Earthlings week in, week out, but they headed into their hiatus with a fantastic Sarah episode and left us with her life poised as a cliffhanger which implies they do still see her as their central protagonist no matter who might be on the background of the blog.
|
|
cyadon
Major
A Random Sci-Fi Geek
Posts: 612
|
Post by cyadon on Jan 19, 2009 11:06:30 GMT -5
I think the show has mainly been treated as an ensemble cast. Especially in season two. I think the thing that kept bringing it all back to Sarah every time last season, that helped keep us focused on the fact that it was her show (and what's missing now) is the voice overs.
Without her starting the story and ending the story (regardless of the content) we no longer get the feeling, in our minds, that Sarah is the storyteller anymore. Even Self Made Man could have had some very interesting and introspective voice overs and while the episode would have been about Cameron, I believe it would have felt like it was Sarah telling us (the audience) a story and that would have been all right. It'd be like taking a break from telling us about her own escapades to relay what happened in the life of one of her comrades, even if the on screen character of Sarah would not immediately know what was going on.
So... Turk... if you're listening, please, please, please bring back the voiceovers. Full force. Every episode. Please.
|
|
k8ie
Corporal
Posts: 1,482
|
Post by k8ie on Jan 19, 2009 13:26:05 GMT -5
So... Turk... if you're listening, please, please, please bring back the voiceovers. Full force. Every episode. Please. Yeah, I agree with that. Well, maybe not full force - I think some of the episodes themselves were over-narrated - but the VO's provided continuity, like they do on Grey's Anatomy, particularly to episodes like "Goodbe to All That" that exist outside of any particular plot or character arc. Also, losing them for the season IMO diminishes the impact of not having a VO in episodes like S&D and Alison from Palmdale or the resounding silence over the final scene of The Mousetrap. Overall, I'd say ditching the voiceovers was a mistake. As for protagonist, protagonist, hero and POV character don't necessarily have to be the same thing in screenwriting (or any kind of writing but novels and screenwriting are two distinctly different beasts). In screenwriting, the protagonist is the character who's wants/desire drive the story. That means that while the majority of screenplays identify "hero" and "protagonist" this doesn't have to be the case - structurally, for example, the Pirates of the Carribean trilogy was Elizabeth Swan's story, she was the protagonist and her character transcribes the most complete character arc. But Jack Sparrow is quite clearly the hero of the movies. You can argue that R2-D2 is the protagoist of Star Wars (his desire to deliver the Death Star plans to Ben Kenobi and then the Rebel Alliance drive the story) or that the Terminator is the protagonist of The Terminator (he wants to kill Sarah Connor, everything spins from that), T2 and T3 while Kyle Reese, T-100 and T-X all fulfill the function of antagonist in the various screenplays. Then again, TV writing is different from screenwriting again and I guess you can have a different protagonist for each episode. While Buffy was indisputably the Hero of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, she wasn't the protagonist over every episode nor was the show told from her point of view, rather the show revolved around Buffy. I'd argue that, regardless of which character drives any particular episode, the idea that the show is told from Sarah's point of view is implicit in the title and that drives audience expectation (my expectation anyway), which is why the voiceovers are more effective than not IMO. But a more interesting question than "is Sarah the protagonist" might be " is Sarah the hero of her own life?" Todd Alcott has a really good post on LJ about the protagonist that I've been referring to because my screenwriting class was a long time ago now. And Syd Field has posted the interview he did with Jim Cameron for his book "Four Screenplays" on his site[/url].
|
|
DEM
Refugee
I'm Kilroy.
Posts: 94
|
Post by DEM on Jan 19, 2009 13:30:45 GMT -5
I don't get why people are so stuck on the title. Here's the original official FOX press release: THE SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES (Sundays, 9:00-10:00 PM ET/PT): Executive producers ... bring to television an intense new drama based on the celebrated heroine of the "Terminator" movies: Sarah Connor. ... THE SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES reveals what happens when SARAH ... stops running and goes on the offensive against an ever-evolving technological enemy bent on destroying her life, and perhaps the world. Her son, 15-year-old JOHN CONNOR ... knows that he may be the future savior of mankind, but is not yet ready to take on the mantle of leadership that he's told is his destiny. John finds himself inextricably drawn to CAMERON ... an enigmatic and otherworldly student at his high school, who soon proves to be much more than his confidante she assumes the role of Sarah and John's fearless protector. On their trail are not only threats from the future, but an intelligent and tough FBI agent, JAMES ELLISON ... who soon becomes a powerful ally. THE SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES represents an exciting reinvention of the "Terminator" franchise, in which the strong and intrepid Sarah discovers that protecting her son and stopping the rise of the machines is more difficult than she had ever imagined. I don't know how that could be any clearer. That is the description of a show with a central protagonist with supporting players, not of an ensemble show.
|
|
k8ie
Corporal
Posts: 1,482
|
Post by k8ie on Jan 19, 2009 13:33:52 GMT -5
^^ ITAWTC
|
|
|
Post by allergygal on Jan 19, 2009 14:49:56 GMT -5
Expanding outward a bit would have worked better if they'd done what Dem said (I hit you with some *karma* for that BTW) and cyadon reiterated: Make the stories come back to Sarah even if she's not the main focus of a particular episode. Here's the original official FOX press release: THE SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES (Sundays, 9:00-10:00 PM ET/PT): Executive producers ... bring to television an intense new drama based on the celebrated heroine of the "Terminator" movies: Sarah Connor. ... THE SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES reveals what happens when SARAH ... stops running and goes on the offensive against an ever-evolving technological enemy bent on destroying her life, and perhaps the world. Her son, 15-year-old JOHN CONNOR ... knows that he may be the future savior of mankind, but is not yet ready to take on the mantle of leadership that he's told is his destiny. John finds himself inextricably drawn to CAMERON ... an enigmatic and otherworldly student at his high school, who soon proves to be much more than his confidante she assumes the role of Sarah and John's fearless protector. On their trail are not only threats from the future, but an intelligent and tough FBI agent, JAMES ELLISON ... who soon becomes a powerful ally. THE SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES represents an exciting reinvention of the "Terminator" franchise, in which the strong and intrepid Sarah discovers that protecting her son and stopping the rise of the machines is more difficult than she had ever imagined. Thanks for posting that, Dem. I really don't get how anyone could be confused about who the protagonist was in season 1. Adding to that, here was the intro from all the season 1 episodes: In the future, my son will lead mankind in a war against Skynet, a computer system programmed to destroy the world. It has sent machines back through time — some to kill him, one to protect him. Today we fight to stop Skynet from ever being created, to change our future, to change his fate. The war to save mankind begins now. The story was very clearly being told by Sarah Connor. Now compare that to the text of this season's intro (thank God it's gone now) and we can see exactly what happened: In the future, a computer program called Skynet will declare war on the human race. Machines have traveled back in time taking human form to Terminate John Connor, the future leader of the resistance. Sarah Connor, John's mother teacher and protector. Cameron, a Terminator reprogrammed to defend them at all costs. Derek Reese, Johns Uncle and a commanding officer with The Resistance. Together they fight to stop Skynet from ever being created. The Battle for our tomorrow starts today. They presented John as the main character, with Sarah being a supporting player along with Cameron and Derek. The POV wasn't handed to John, but it was intentionally taken away from Sarah for some reason. And I think that really mucked things up. We lost a lot when we lost her as our protagonist — the emotional impact of the story got watered down. Whereas season 1 pulled me right in, season 2 left me sitting in the audience watching a cool show. It wasn't bad; it didn't fail, but it didn't have the same impact. It didn't have heart. I don't think the show works well as a true ensemble because this isn't Cameron's story or Derek's story or Ellison's story or Catherine's story or Jesse's story. It's Sarah and John's story as told by Sarah Connor. That's how the series started, and that's how it remained through the beginning of season 2. If they get back to that (reinstating the VOs would certainly help), the show will be much stronger for it.
|
|
t101
Major
Posts: 716
|
Post by t101 on Jan 19, 2009 18:03:55 GMT -5
I don't get why people are so stuck on the title. Here's the original official FOX press release: THE SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES (Sundays, 9:00-10:00 PM ET/PT): Executive producers ... bring to television an intense new drama based on the celebrated heroine of the "Terminator" movies: Sarah Connor. ... THE SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES reveals what happens when SARAH ... stops running and goes on the offensive against an ever-evolving technological enemy bent on destroying her life, and perhaps the world. Her son, 15-year-old JOHN CONNOR ... knows that he may be the future savior of mankind, but is not yet ready to take on the mantle of leadership that he's told is his destiny. John finds himself inextricably drawn to CAMERON ... an enigmatic and otherworldly student at his high school, who soon proves to be much more than his confidante she assumes the role of Sarah and John's fearless protector. On their trail are not only threats from the future, but an intelligent and tough FBI agent, JAMES ELLISON ... who soon becomes a powerful ally. THE SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES represents an exciting reinvention of the "Terminator" franchise, in which the strong and intrepid Sarah discovers that protecting her son and stopping the rise of the machines is more difficult than she had ever imagined. I don't know how that could be any clearer. That is the description of a show with a central protagonist with supporting players, not of an ensemble show. Well. I judge by what I see in the actual show. It's an ensemble show and it's fine by me. Seems like some people can't make peace with that.
|
|
rossbondreturns
Corporal
Summer 08 Wallpaper Challenge Winner!
Posts: 1,617
|
Post by rossbondreturns on Jan 19, 2009 18:45:56 GMT -5
Agreed with 101 it was ALWAYS an ensemble show...it was just not named as such.
I thought it was pretty glaringly obvious since before the show even began that telling it from any single characters POV was pretty much show suicide.
|
|