|
Post by richardstevenhack on Dec 12, 2008 8:02:14 GMT -5
That's what I meant - the Terminator was destroyed after its second attack on the Fields. Somebody suggested it wasn't, if I read a previous post correctly. So we're agreed that he's out of the picture.
And again, I wasn't confused about what took place in the present or the past or the future, but where in the show I was when it started (mostly because I download the show and don't get the opening so when the show started it actually looked like it was in the middle somewhere - I thought the file was out of whack somehow for a minute) and more importantly where in the series time line was all this taking place. I simply didn't expect a flashback to six months before what is supposed to be the current events.
As for Cameron having a human brain, an earlier poster said he thought that was the case. I was responding to that. I don't think Josh will do that but if it does turn out that way, I won't be able to accept it at all. It will ruin the show for me completely. Fortunately, I'm very confident that's not the case.
As for the M-79, they need to get more than one. They also need to get reloads. And for simple reasons of personal security, they should never go "Terminator hunting" or on rescue missions without it. If Derek is off doing something else with it, get his butt back with it or don't go on the mission. He didn't seem to bring it on the "Goodbye to All That" mission, either, since the writers wanted to showcase the Barrett. But the M-79 would have been a lot better than the Barrett, although both weapons have their uses. The Barrett is best used as Derek used it - as a sniper weapon to damage the Terminator's limbs and eyes before finishing him off. The M-79 is for use at closer range, but longer range than the shotguns, which are minimally effective. The handguns are only useful for dealing with humans - although I would like to see what would happen to a Terminator if you shot its eye lenses with an armor-piercing tungsten steel core 9mm.
Vicheron: No, I don't expect follow ups of every little thing. I DO expect follow ups where it can be used to expand and contribute to the story line. Why make it harder on the writers to think up new stuff when they can just run with plot lines they've already established and make them bigger and more interesting? Following up on the nuclear plant WAS done - it was just done by Ellison, not the Connors. And if you had a follow up attack by Skynet on one of the targets, you'd have the opportunity to deal with the concept properly which itself would be interesting.
The writers brought this criticism on themselves by having "Terminator of the Week" episodes all season, and running Grand Central Station through the time portals with Resistance fighters as well. Nobody would be concerned about follow up attacks if it was established that the whole time travel concept was not being abused because the writers couldn't think up plots that didn't NEED "hints" from the future for the Connors to deal with the Skynet conspiracy in the present. The dumber you make the Connors, the more "hints" from the future they need.
The problem with this show is very simple: there isn't much forward movement, and when there is, it's very slow. It's like Josh thinks he has a five year series to bring to a close in his own time. Well, he doesn't. If he doesn't keep up the action and move things along more rapidly, his show will close after the next ten episodes.
I've just watched all ten episodes of "Fringe" over the last couple days. That show MOVES. Every episode has people running around trying to prevent a catastrophe or solving a mystery and there is tension in every episode. But every episode also moves the underlying plot device of "The Pattern' and "Massive Dynamics" along, even it it's only a few minutes at the end. But mainly the show has some tension and intensity to it.
T:SCC is missing that, at least in the same degree. It does have it in some episodes but then they drag in some stand-alone episode - and now, two in a row - which slows the momentum. You HAVE to have momentum to keep a show like this interesting or viewers will tune out. This isn't a show like "Star Trek" where every week the episode is completely disconnected from the last and you don't need to know much to drop in and enjoy the current episode and judge the current episode on its own merits. T:SCC is an episodic TV show - it needs to get and keep MOVING. The decision to do more stand alone episodes this season was a big mistake, one that I hope they do not repeat if they get a third season.
Josh has now promised that everything that was set up in the first 12 episodes will be dealt with in the back nine. I hope so - or those nine episodes will be the last ones we ever see if the ratings don't go up. And we have only nine more episodes to get those ratings up despite a change in nights and a two-month hiatus,
|
|
t101
Major
Posts: 716
|
Post by t101 on Dec 12, 2008 8:35:39 GMT -5
Where did that come from? We've been given absolutely no indication that's the case (or even possible). I wouldn't worry. Absolutely no indication? Are we watching the same show? Cameron passed the ultimate Turing Test, twice. In the first fifteen minutes of the first episode, she passed as a normal human teenage girl in the flesh to a guy who is on the lookout for robots from the future. In Allison From Palmdale, after Cameron's HUD went offline (which we saw happen), she had amnesia and then, forgetting how she was supposed to act, I assert that she acted as her normal self by default... a human teenage girl playing foosball. Most of the time we see Cameron intentionally acting like a robot, because she doesn't want John to fall in love with her. Cameron *IS* Allison, which is how she has her memories, including the voice of her mother and the encounter with the tiger. She is technically a cyborg, part human, part machine. Cameron learned to mimic Allison by interrogating her. That was the purpose of the interrogation scenes, if she could have Allison's memories then she would not need to do that and half of that episode would be pointless and illogical. Her split personality was made up from what she knew about Allison. Cameron can pull it off because that's what she was built for. And for the love of god she doesn't have Allison's brain. As for the M-79, they need to get more than one. They also need to get reloads. And for simple reasons of personal security, they should never go "Terminator hunting" or on rescue missions without it. If Derek is off doing something else with it, get his butt back with it or don't go on the mission. He didn't seem to bring it on the "Goodbye to All That" mission, either, since the writers wanted to showcase the Barrett. But the M-79 would have been a lot better than the Barrett, although both weapons have their uses. The Barrett is best used as Derek used it - as a sniper weapon to damage the Terminator's limbs and eyes before finishing him off. The M-79 is for use at closer range, but longer range than the shotguns, which are minimally effective. The handguns are only useful for dealing with humans - although I would like to see what would happen to a Terminator if you shot its eye lenses with an armor-piercing tungsten steel core 9mm. Just no. As if they haven't already cheapened the terminators a bit by having one dealt with every episode with relative ease. All we need is Connors walking around with an arsenal of terminator-slaying weaponry. What we do not need is to reduce the threat of terminators even more. These weapons should be very rare and very hard to get with very limited access to ammunition. And I don't care if that's even true but it needs to be for things to stay interesting. They do not need more m79s or any other ubber-gun. Lets keep things old school. A terminator should represent an overwhelming menacing force, not cannon fodder.
|
|
DEM
Refugee
I'm Kilroy.
Posts: 94
|
Post by DEM on Dec 12, 2008 11:01:37 GMT -5
Well I don't personally think the date is all that important this early in the story. You see it as early? I don't understand. What's the "story" if not the series in its entirety? I respectfully disagree. Timelines are important (as you say), regardless of how close we are to Big Events. I think the show fails when it tries both to eat its episodic cake and have it serially, too. I appreciated the clarification! ;D I've been crazy over that since the ep aired. However, how did that a gaffe that huge happen in the first place? I see that as just one instance of a larger problem. Count me with the "couldn't tell which was the present" crowd. Derek's query to Lauren re: how she knew Sarah didn't help matters, nor, I suspect, did my default mode of treating Sarah's POV as primary. p.s. Miss you elsewhere, allergygal!
|
|
|
Post by allergygal on Dec 12, 2008 18:02:52 GMT -5
Cameron learned to mimic Allison by interrogating her. That was the purpose of the interrogation scenes, if she could have Allison's memories then she would not need to do that and half of that episode would be pointless and illogical. Her split personality was made up from what she knew about Allison. Cameron can pull it off because that's what she was built for. And for the love of god she doesn't have Allison's brain. Yes! *karma* As for the M-79, they need to get more than one. They also need to get reloads. And for simple reasons of personal security, they should never go "Terminator hunting" or on rescue missions without it. Just no. As if they haven't already cheapened the terminators a bit by having one dealt with every episode with relative ease. All we need is Connors walking around with an arsenal of terminator-slaying weaponry. What we do not need is to reduce the threat of terminators even more. These weapons should be very rare and very hard to get with very limited access to ammunition. And I don't care if that's even true but it needs to be for things to stay interesting. They do not need more m79s or any other ubber-gun. Lets keep things old school. A terminator should represent an overwhelming menacing force, not cannon fodder. I so agree. The threat of terminators really has been reduced by having too many show up and too many destroyed. Now when there's one that they don't destroy (like the first time at the cabin) it points to Sarah and Cameron looking not so much in jeopardy as simply being unprepared. And really, would Sarah or Cameron ever be unprepared when going on a mission? We can make excuses for it - fill in scenarios, but we shouldn't have to. I really do prefer the machines to be OMG DANGER!!! And if that means I have to forget how easily Cromartie was taken out or any of the others then so be it. I'd rather add that to the growing list of things I need to overlook than to feel like terminators are no problem if you just remember to bring the shotgun with depleted uranium load. Well I don't personally think the date is all that important this early in the story. You see it as early? I don't understand. What's the "story" if not the series in its entirety? I respectfully disagree. Timelines are important (as you say), regardless of how close we are to Big Events. I think the show fails when it tries both to eat its episodic cake and have it serially, too. I meant in terms of a 4-year march towards judgement day. We started in Sept 07 and j-day is Apr 11, so lapsing a few months within the first 20 episodes of the show doesn't seem like a big deal to me. What I don't like is when they confuse the timeline. That irks me to no end. But I think I've beat that drum plenty already and since Turk cleared it up for us, I'm okay with it. We've all made a pretty big fuss about it so I'm hoping they'll pay more attention to the dates they're writing and the timeline they're laying out. If not, there will be something other than carrots and apples in my head come Feb. And wrath will follow. Oh see, there was your mistake - the Sarah POV. It's called the Sarah Connor Chronicles because it's partly about her and told from the perspective of various other people including guest stars Don't leave, Dem! Stay with us! I used to split my time, but the other got rather unfriendly in between seasons so I pretty much gave up on it. I should pop in once in a while though. It used to be fun.
|
|
|
Post by richardstevenhack on Dec 12, 2008 18:43:46 GMT -5
I don't think there's a problem with the Connors carrying around M-79's. First of all, they can't do so on the street, obviously. I'm just saying when they go on a rescue mission, they just look stupid carrying a 9mm or even a shotgun (unless you specify it's loaded with those breaching rounds or depleted uranium core rounds.)
Second, having to carry such high-powered weapons around DOES make the Terminator threat more obvious.
Third, just because they HAVE an M-79 doesn't mean a Terminator is EASY to take out. Like I said in the Charley episode, Derek didn't have a reload. What if he misses his first shot? And it could take two or more to down a Terminator. Just because an M-79 is effective doesn't mean a Terminator isn't a major threat.
One thing they could try to emphasize is that a Terminator DOESN'T MISS. I mean, how many times did Cromartie fire his weapons at John and Riley and Ellison outside the police station in Mexico and never hit them once? A Terminator should never miss. He doesn't have to worry about recoil, he can have instant re-acquisition of target, and he has a frickin' targeting computer in his eyes! Dude should not miss even if he's running, he should have automatic motion compensation!
What that means is you' d better take him out with your first shot or you're dead meat. And that means you'd better have either cover (like the kevlar-covered chair in the pilot) or you'd better have a weapon that can take him down with a couple of shots - because you won't get another.
That would solve all the problems of cheapening Terminators at the same time you make the Connors look stupid.
But I agree that we've seen too damn many Terminators this season. For all the "we don't want a Terminator-of-the-week" disclaimers, that's exactly what we've seen so far this season. In 12 episodes, we've seen what, at least FIVE Terminators, not counting Weaver and Cromartie: Greenway, Bedell, the female, Fields, and Ellison. In season one in nine episodes, we only saw Carter and Vic - and Vic was a repeat appearing in three episodes which made more sense. Most of the problems the Connors had in season one came from other humans. That should be the approach - let Skynet use other humans in this time period to do its dirty work.
Then you don't need to carry around an M-79. But if every week you face a new Terminator, then, yes, you damn well better be carrying around an M-79. Because then you have the opposite situation that was the problem with Cromartie - he would get close to the Connors but never manage to put them down. And THAT makes the Terminators look less of a threat. If the Connors can just evade them and walk around with 9mm's and not be that concerned, it cheapens the Terminator threat.
|
|
DEM
Refugee
I'm Kilroy.
Posts: 94
|
Post by DEM on Dec 12, 2008 18:56:06 GMT -5
Oh see, there was your mistake - the Sarah POV. It's called the Sarah Connor Chronicles because it's partly about her and told from the perspective of various other people including guest stars Teh Heh. I ain't goin' nowhere! Now that I've posted, you'll never be rid of me! Mwa. Hah. Hah. ... and, yeah, I know what you mean... still, we need as many crazy Sarah-lovin' voices as we can get. Cross-post and run, perhaps?
|
|
t101
Major
Posts: 716
|
Post by t101 on Dec 12, 2008 19:06:36 GMT -5
If terminators never missed the show would be over in five minutes. And the movies too.
|
|
|
Post by vicheron on Dec 12, 2008 19:52:38 GMT -5
Vicheron: No, I don't expect follow ups of every little thing. I DO expect follow ups where it can be used to expand and contribute to the story line. Why make it harder on the writers to think up new stuff when they can just run with plot lines they've already established and make them bigger and more interesting? Following up on the nuclear plant WAS done - it was just done by Ellison, not the Connors. And if you had a follow up attack by Skynet on one of the targets, you'd have the opportunity to deal with the concept properly which itself would be interesting. The writers brought this criticism on themselves by having "Terminator of the Week" episodes all season, and running Grand Central Station through the time portals with Resistance fighters as well. Nobody would be concerned about follow up attacks if it was established that the whole time travel concept was not being abused because the writers couldn't think up plots that didn't NEED "hints" from the future for the Connors to deal with the Skynet conspiracy in the present. The dumber you make the Connors, the more "hints" from the future they need. The problem with this show is very simple: there isn't much forward movement, and when there is, it's very slow. It's like Josh thinks he has a five year series to bring to a close in his own time. Well, he doesn't. If he doesn't keep up the action and move things along more rapidly, his show will close after the next ten episodes. I've just watched all ten episodes of "Fringe" over the last couple days. That show MOVES. Every episode has people running around trying to prevent a catastrophe or solving a mystery and there is tension in every episode. But every episode also moves the underlying plot device of "The Pattern' and "Massive Dynamics" along, even it it's only a few minutes at the end. But mainly the show has some tension and intensity to it. T:SCC is missing that, at least in the same degree. It does have it in some episodes but then they drag in some stand-alone episode - and now, two in a row - which slows the momentum. You HAVE to have momentum to keep a show like this interesting or viewers will tune out. This isn't a show like "Star Trek" where every week the episode is completely disconnected from the last and you don't need to know much to drop in and enjoy the current episode and judge the current episode on its own merits. T:SCC is an episodic TV show - it needs to get and keep MOVING. The decision to do more stand alone episodes this season was a big mistake, one that I hope they do not repeat if they get a third season. Josh has now promised that everything that was set up in the first 12 episodes will be dealt with in the back nine. I hope so - or those nine episodes will be the last ones we ever see if the ratings don't go up. And we have only nine more episodes to get those ratings up despite a change in nights and a two-month hiatus, The problem is that there are potential stories every where but only a fraction of them are going to be realized. The power plant for example, maybe following up on it could lead them to Zeira Corporations or they follow up on it and Derek tells them that Automite Systems was the company that operated the power plant before Skynet took it over and that everything is working out the way it's supposed to. Only one of those scenarios is actually worth being shown on screen. Since the first one didn't happen, we should assume that the writers wanted us to think that something similar to the second scenario happened. It's the same thing with the guy who got the Turk for Catherine. Maybe he's still around LA, stealing high tech equipment for rival companies and that the Connors can track him down and learn where he sold the Turk but he could also be in France, sipping wine and enjoying an early retirement. Again, since the first scenario didn't happen, we should assume that writers want that lead to be a dead end. Showing the Connors trying to track him down only to find out that he's changed his identity and fled the country will give us some closure but it would also be a waste of time. There's plenty of things that they could do with Sarkissian. Maybe he's part of a much larger criminal organization. He does have considerable connections and his willingness to kill people shows that he's not just some small time crook. Maybe the criminal organization he belonged to now want the Connors dead. There's plenty of potential stories there too but just because there's the potential for new stories does not mean they'll ever be written.
|
|
|
Post by richardstevenhack on Dec 14, 2008 4:29:13 GMT -5
Thank you for explaining the limitations of the universe to us. But I think we knew that. My point of course was that some of these stories would be considerably more interesting than the ones that actually GOT written. Basically I'm not the sort who can just sit back and declare that everything is fine as it is and I should bow down to the efforts of writers I don't even know who for all I know may very well be considered "UCLA hacks" by everybody else in the business. I'm not a "fan" of anything or anybody, no matter how much I may like any particular thing. To me, a "fan" is someone who accepts everything uncritically. I prefer to see things get better, not worse or stay the same - although I'll take the latter if worse is the only alternative. The bottom line is that if better stories don't get written, this show that I like may well go off the air. It might well go off for other reasons as well, but it would be nice if the writers took some criticism as well intended and actually listened to it. And I'm not the only one who has been critical of the show this season. Fortunately the criticism hasn't been as biting as, for example, the criticism of "Heroes". But the writers and producers need to pay attention to it. As someone posted in the IO9 thread about the coming episode: All I can hope for is that this episode makes up for the last two atrocities they claimed to be "Episodes". When are they going to explore Cameron and her backstory more than 'She's a Terminator that was meant to kill John Connor but they turned her nice'. Between the fact that I want to know what sort of role she plays in the future because it seems to be a big one, and what happened to her when her chip malfunctioned they are ignoring a lot of story elements. For a show so close to getting shit-canned they had better work on wrapping some of these things up lest their reputation goes down the drain. But the IO9 review has this to say about the episode: It's not as ridiculous as it sounds at first, since future technology could easily be indistinguishable from alien visitation. But it means that she ventures into a world of conspiracy theories that are even nuttier than what she knows to be true, hypnotists, and even crazy bloggers. (In one of the episode's laugh-out-loud lines, John Connor says you should never take a blogger seriously, something he's already figured out despite having only recently traveled forward in time from the 1990s.) It's a world that's even fringier than the one Sarah normally inhabits, and the show seems to be using it as a way to question Sarah's sanity from a new angle — by surrounding her with kooks, outcasts and weirdos. In particular, one person she meets turns out to have a secret which I won't reveal (although we covered it in morning spoilers ages ago) and which honestly feels sort of tacked on and random, in the context of the episode.
Of course, the rabbit hole turns out to go a lot deeper than we realize at first. That's not a spoiler, because this is a television show, and that always happens on TV. By the end, you're really not sure exactly what's going on here, or whether Sarah's still reliable narrator. Her ventures into crazy-land seem to have left her with bonus crazy. This is great characterization - but again, as writers are told many times in becoming a writer, there are three critical elements to a story: plot, plot and plot. Characterization is NOT plot. So unless Sarah's nuttiness ends up moving the PLOT along, it basically is a waste of everybody's time - at least if it's run on for many more episodes. We hopefully have got past Cameron's glitches. That's another characterization element that has outlived its usefulness. It would seem that the John-Riley affair is going to be ending by end of this season. That would be a "Good Thing". I can't see them running it out for another nine episodes.
|
|
t101
Major
Posts: 716
|
Post by t101 on Dec 14, 2008 5:50:54 GMT -5
I'm going to disagree whole heartily. In terms of character driven vs. plot driven, character driven can work on it's own. Plot driven without good characterization produces shallow tripe most of the time. The obnoxious kids in the comments of places like IO9 aren't worth anyone's attention.
|
|
|
Post by vicheron on Dec 14, 2008 6:46:38 GMT -5
Thank you for explaining the limitations of the universe to us. But I think we knew that. My point of course was that some of these stories would be considerably more interesting than the ones that actually GOT written. Basically I'm not the sort who can just sit back and declare that everything is fine as it is and I should bow down to the efforts of writers I don't even know who for all I know may very well be considered "UCLA hacks" by everybody else in the business. I'm not a "fan" of anything or anybody, no matter how much I may like any particular thing. To me, a "fan" is someone who accepts everything uncritically. I prefer to see things get better, not worse or stay the same - although I'll take the latter if worse is the only alternative. The bottom line is that if better stories don't get written, this show that I like may well go off the air. It might well go off for other reasons as well, but it would be nice if the writers took some criticism as well intended and actually listened to it. And I'm not the only one who has been critical of the show this season. Fortunately the criticism hasn't been as biting as, for example, the criticism of "Heroes". But the writers and producers need to pay attention to it. As someone posted in the IO9 thread about the coming episode: All I can hope for is that this episode makes up for the last two atrocities they claimed to be "Episodes". When are they going to explore Cameron and her backstory more than 'She's a Terminator that was meant to kill John Connor but they turned her nice'. Between the fact that I want to know what sort of role she plays in the future because it seems to be a big one, and what happened to her when her chip malfunctioned they are ignoring a lot of story elements. For a show so close to getting shit-canned they had better work on wrapping some of these things up lest their reputation goes down the drain. But the IO9 review has this to say about the episode: It's not as ridiculous as it sounds at first, since future technology could easily be indistinguishable from alien visitation. But it means that she ventures into a world of conspiracy theories that are even nuttier than what she knows to be true, hypnotists, and even crazy bloggers. (In one of the episode's laugh-out-loud lines, John Connor says you should never take a blogger seriously, something he's already figured out despite having only recently traveled forward in time from the 1990s.) It's a world that's even fringier than the one Sarah normally inhabits, and the show seems to be using it as a way to question Sarah's sanity from a new angle — by surrounding her with kooks, outcasts and weirdos. In particular, one person she meets turns out to have a secret which I won't reveal (although we covered it in morning spoilers ages ago) and which honestly feels sort of tacked on and random, in the context of the episode.
Of course, the rabbit hole turns out to go a lot deeper than we realize at first. That's not a spoiler, because this is a television show, and that always happens on TV. By the end, you're really not sure exactly what's going on here, or whether Sarah's still reliable narrator. Her ventures into crazy-land seem to have left her with bonus crazy. This is great characterization - but again, as writers are told many times in becoming a writer, there are three critical elements to a story: plot, plot and plot. Characterization is NOT plot. So unless Sarah's nuttiness ends up moving the PLOT along, it basically is a waste of everybody's time - at least if it's run on for many more episodes. We hopefully have got past Cameron's glitches. That's another characterization element that has outlived its usefulness. It would seem that the John-Riley affair is going to be ending by end of this season. That would be a "Good Thing". I can't see them running it out for another nine episodes. But there are many other limitations to how a show is created, many of which are far beyond the control of the writers. There are issues with budgets, time constraints, the availability of actors, sets, and locations, etc. It's not like the first draft of a script is written in stone. I would agree that there are potential stories that are better than some of the ones that have been written. "Strange Things Happen at the One Two Point" was a rather fruitless episode and it probably would have been better to devote an episode to trying to find the Turk through more credible sources and completely tie up the whole Sarkissian plot thread. However, I don't know all the problems experienced by the makers of the show. The show doesn't have a very large budget and it is filmed in Los Angeles, which it's not exactly the cheapest city to shoot a television show, especially now. Considering these factors, I am willing to let certain things slide and reserve judgment for a bit longer.
|
|
|
Post by potomac79 on Dec 14, 2008 13:36:24 GMT -5
This is great characterization - but again, as writers are told many times in becoming a writer, there are three critical elements to a story: plot, plot and plot. Characterization is NOT plot. On this we will have to disagree. Writers are either taught or learn on their own (eventually), that character trumps plot almost every time. It is how the characters interact with their environment and each other that drives a plot/story forward. Where writers err is when they force their characters to...well, basically act somewhat out of character in order to move the plot along. Some of the problem is that several characters haven't been presented as being sufficiently complex, even if they are. For a number of episodes, Derek was presented as this PTSD'd anti-metal fighter. The Jesse backstory and his lying about it have provided a little more meat to the character, but it's still a little thin. Sarah comes in with an established backstory (as does John), but very often they are reduced to being "worried crazy mom" and "petulant/rebellious teen". The characters that have consistently been given the depth to propel the story have been, ironically, the "emotionless" machines. The odd thing is that all the pieces are in place. The mains have a goal that goes beyond simply protecting John: stopping the creation of Skynet. They have a worthy adversary in Catherine who seems to be intent on ensuring a strong and vibrant Skynet comes into being. This shared-and-conflicting goal should be the arc that ties everything together and yet it isn't very imposing. Why? Hitchcock explained that there was no terror/suspense in a bomb exploding. It's the anticipation of that explosion that creates the tension in the audience. As a result, he had no problem giving the audience a lot of information while the characters were left with gaps in their own knowledge of the situation. This, I think, is an area where the TTSCC PTB could improve. Give the audience more information. Yes, we do know a few tidbits more than the characters do outside their own sphere of experience, but not nearly enough to enhance the dramatic tension. The great thing is that this is an easy fix: more info. You show some of Cameron and John in the future...whether that's Derek's future or Jesse's doesn't much matter. Jesse should have been introduced with more Jesse-as-stalker scenes to help the audience understand her mission and whether it was sanctioned. Riley's background needed more setup. Instead, she just pops up in front of John--it wasn't organic to the story. So, moving on from where we are means that there need to be backstory and flashbackforwards to reveal the machine behind the curtain. (Hmmm....another WoO reference....and Jesse is from "Oz"...wicked witch of the west (i.e. Perth)? But I digress...) What does John become? What turned Jesse? What is Sarah's fate? Is Skynet worse now than it was before all the meddling? From what future does Catherine come? We've seen some of this work. With the Derek/Jesse scenes in "Fields", Jesse became more than a 2-d villain. Derek also gains a bit of long-needed depth. Cameron became more than a terminator/protector with "Allison"--though the question remains whether this was a real memory or a Cameron fantasy. So, a combination of corroborating information exchange among the amazingly secretive characters plus more reveals to the viewers would go a long way toward engaging the audience and likely would cause the story to move along...not because it's forced to by the writers, but because it's in the nature of the characters to do so.
|
|
|
Post by richardstevenhack on Dec 15, 2008 1:50:26 GMT -5
Allow me to point out that I never said characterization isn't important. It's probably equally important as plot. But with a bad plot, characterization does NOT work on its own. And if you have a plot with bad characterization, you may end up with "tripe", but if the plot is good, the story still stands on its own. The plot IS the story. Characterization merely fleshes out the story and enables more resonance with the reader or viewer. As for the limits on the show, they can produce good shows or bad shows regardless of the budget limitations. I'm not saying they have to have huge special effects, or expensive locations, or whatever. The stories I'd like to see do not require them, in most cases. There was a spy show called "The Sandbaggers" on Brit TV some years back. It was a very tense, well-written show with complicated plots. It was filmed almost entirely within the confines of several offices. There was very little external shooting and almost no special effects. The stories were riveting, the characterization was brilliant. It was an example of some of the best of British television. Go read the Wikipedia entry, which I quote here: The Sandbaggers inverts most of the conventions of the spy thriller genre. In sharp contrast to the "girls, guns, and gadgets" motif established by the James Bond movies, The Sandbaggers features very few action sequences, no flashy cars, and no high-tech gizmos. On more than one occasion, in fact, characters explicitly disparage the fictitious Bond and the romanticized view of the intelligence business that some amateurs and outsiders have. In contrast, Neil Burnside is a harried spymaster who doesn't drink; Willie Caine is a secret agent who abhors guns and violence; and no character is seen to have sex over the course of the series. The bureaucratic infighting is reminiscent of John le Carré's George Smiley novels. The overall style is one of gritty realism. The series is particularly grim (though laced with black humour), depicting the high emotional toll taken on espionage professionals who operate in a world of moral ambiguity.
The plots are complex, multi-layered, and unpredictable: regular characters are killed off abruptly, and surprise twists abound. The dialogue is intelligent and frequently witty. Indeed, most of what happens in The Sandbaggers is just conversation. In a typical episode, Burnside moves from office to office having conversations (and heated arguments) with his colleagues in Whitehall and in the intelligence community. Sometimes his conversations are intercut with scenes of the Sandbaggers operating in the field; other times the audience sees more of the buzzing "Ops Room," where missions are coordinated and controlled, than of the Sandbaggers' actual field activities. There's no reason Terminator can't do the same. The shows they've done this season show that their budgets are more than adequate to produce quality programming. The Sandbaggers was probably produced on a budget - even allowing for 1978 dollars - that was a tenth of of what Terminator spends. Speaking of "gritty realism", one of the points I've fastened on where this show lacks is simply that. What the show needs to do is stop focusing on trying to come up with "cool" scripts, with a lot of "geek inside references" and implausible events like the 1920's Terminator, and instead take the internal logic of the franchise (such as it is) and simply embed in the REAL WORLD. As an example, take the Cromatie SWAT Team massacre. In the REAL WORLD, there's NO WAY the FBI would have brought Ellison in, said, "Gee, tough job! Take a few weeks leave" . Instead it would have been, "Yo, dude! AFTER HAVING DESTROYED HALF THE LOS ANGELES FBI FIELD OFFICE, YOU MORON, YOU"RE IN DEEP CRAP!" The FBI in reality would have moved heaven and earth to determine what the hell went down in "George Lazslo's" apartment - and would quickly have determined that it was connected to the Sarah Connor case, and indeed with this guy Ellison was moving from county jail to the US Marshall lockup when he was broken out by two 5'6" females who just happen to fit the description of the two in the bank that blew up eight years ago - with no bodies found...etc., etc., etc. I mean, look at any FBI show on the air today - which one seems more realistic to you? And I hate the FBI, and really do think they're morons a lot of the time - but this is ridiculous. And what would that mean for the Connors? How would they deal with the increased heat? What would happen? Get the point? You can simply take the situation the Connors on in and inflict upon it the real world. You'd get more than enough story lines to follow. The same applies to the internal logic of the series. PUT THE CONNORS BACK ON THE TRAIL OF THE TURK! It's that simple. You can then just develop that. There's no need to be sitting around the writers room trying to think up "cool" plot lines that nobody in the audience but hard core geeks and English lit majors will understand. Does anything think they wrote "24" that way?
|
|
|
Post by vicheron on Dec 15, 2008 2:13:33 GMT -5
In the real world, the Connors would have been caught after T2 considering how they had no transportation, Sarah was hemorrhaging blood, they left a trail of destruction that you can see from space, their faces would have been all over the news, and just about every law enforcement officer in California had been mobilized to look for them.
|
|
|
Post by potomac79 on Dec 15, 2008 2:40:16 GMT -5
As I said, Richard, we'll just have to agree to disagree. The character vs plot argument has been around since I first started writing scripts in the 80s, and it was an old (ancient) argument even then. Might as well debate as to whether it's vowels or consonants that are more important.
Getting back to TTSCC...I agree that even though a lot of latitude needs to be given to a show geared for entertainment and not documentary, since it's based in our recognizable world, some of our world's rules and realities should be given a little more attention. It helps the audience willingly suspend their disbelief. Ellison's wrist slap and Charlie's apparent ownership of his particular paramedic unit (given his roaming-the-streets ability) tends to raise questions that needn't be raised.
But it's even the simple things. In this episode, when the Fields first enter the cabin and are confronted by women with guns, Mike tells Lauren to go to her room. Not a word from Sarah or Cameron that no one leaves. No, they let Lauren not only go off, but also to get a gun and get the drop on Sarah. That wouldn't happen. Having Lauren run off on her own while Sarah (and Cameron) tries to control the situation makes more sense. Lauren can still get the drop on Sarah, but at least it doesn't look like the Keystone Konnors are in charge.
The devil is in the details.
|
|