Post by littleb on Oct 23, 2009 4:56:12 GMT -5
How did I miss this post? Sorry hon. It made for a fabulous read! And I'm gonna try and edit in AG's post... just to make things really complicated and difficult for myself!
I understand why in the show we're to believe Sarah let Derek think it was her. But that decision was made in the writers room and it was IMO really, really bad.
I agree. I can just about fanw*nk it for the sake of my own sanity and love of the show, but it wasn't a good idea for all the reasons we've already gone over.
Derek never would have assumed that Sarah killed Sarkissian. Earlier that day (in What He Beheld), he came to the realization that she'd never killed anyone before because he'd watched her freeze when Sarkissian's thug had a gun to her son's head the night before. So I find it totally unbelievable that he'd leap straight to the idea that Sarah the Pure Heart killed those men.
Good point. I think I can accept it because it works from Sarah's POV - allowing Derek to jump to the conclusion that he does just makes it less complicated for Sarah right there and then - but I never really thought about it from Derek's angle before. And now it doesn't work. So, thank you very much
Y'know, I always took that scene by the ambulance as the first time the issue had even come up. i.e. it was the first time Derek and Sarah had spoken since he'd rolled up with Charley. Consequently, Sarah had never explicitly stated she had killed Sarkissian, and when Derek jumped to that as a conclusion he was jumping to it off his own back, not based on a version of events that Sarah had actually told him. Which is possibly why it works a little better for me. Almost as if Derek gave Sarah an easy out and she took it and ran with it and that was just how it was left.
I guess if you go with my "they were busy being patched up and Derek stayed out the way until Charley was just about finished" theory, it takes a lot of the issues out of that scenario.
Ahhh! Thank you! I'm not the only one who does a double-take every time that scene rolls around then! Proud is an utterly bizarre word for that scenario and works with neither take on Sarkissian. Having said that, neither does Sarah's "I know what you saw..." which - if we go with the show's misdirection - means "I know you saw me killing Sarkissian" (and I'm proud of you) or "I know you saw me taking a beating" (and I'm proud of you.) If we consider it, with hindsight, knowing Sarah's somehow talking about John doing the killing (which is what she should be doing cos neither her nor John are being misdirected) it makes no sense at all. And I'm not convinced I've made sense there either
Having spent nine episodes setting up John's desperate need for Sarah's attention and respect, he saves her for a change and all he does at rage at her. Driven by guilt and self-loathing or not that note always felt forced as if having decided to amp up John's stake in Future!War (and one hates to say it but make him look more badass) by killing someone, they have to go to pains to show us that killing is bad and John is tortured by it. But what he mostly looks like a petulant brat.
Oh ITA with that. I don't think John Connor should run around arbitrarily icing the bad guys. I think he should be tortured by the fact that sacrifices have to be made, that he will probably have to do things that keep him awake at night. I guess having Sarah as slightly off-kilter moral compass (she'll blow up a building but stops short at actually murdering people to save the world!) gives us an idea of where John should be heading and keeps up the comparison with Cameron who does kill with her eye on the practical side of things (i.e. Brothers of Nablus)
But they didn't write him like that. Or not consistently like that. There were moments when you really felt for him, felt his isolation and the stunned sense of what he had done - the shot of him in the corridor at school in Automatic is lovely. But mostly, you saw him acting up, spitting his dummy out (as we say over here!) and behaving like a pissy little idiot. Which didn't exactly give you faith in the future of mankind... especially not when you actually look at what he was raging against: the fact that his mother, post-being smacked about, with her hands tied behind her back, couldn't get free quickly enough to save the son she's saved countless times over 16 years. Yeah, John, I feel your pain.
I could understand Fox asking for Riley and some love interest and more stand-alone episodes. Not so sure they'd request breaking down the characters, making the lead male completely unsympathetic and wrecking the dynamic that was actually making the show work so well... but then this is Fox, so what the hell do I know?!
The idea to replay the end of T2 with John saving the robot is strong, building off widely known character and plot beats from the movies. But that idea creates its own natural tension between Sarah and John that didn't need to be multiplied by John and Sarky and "Why didn't you save me". Or overshadowed by it.
True. There was enough going on with Cameron to provide the tension and, ultimately, the show did place the emphasis on that anyways. Sarah was never going to be completely happy with a duplicitous jail-bait cyborg hanging around her impressionable, hormone-addled son and she had obvious issues with handing over the mantle of Chief Protector of Son, so adding Sarkissian into the mix was over-egging the pudding slightly.
I'm not sure Sarah saw Cam as unreliable, the one thing Cam was consistently good at was sticking by John (whatever her motivations which were always steeped in grey-areaness!) Sarah did grudgingly trust Cam (as much as Sarah is going to trust any metal) as protector of John until she went all mental and twitchy. Then, not so much. I liked the prickly, confused relationship Sarah had with Cam - half the time she didn't know whether to kill her or confide in her.
LOL. I couldn't seriously believe she wouldn't have calmly stepped over there, rassled the gun offa him and then smacked him upside his head with it! "You are grounded until Judgement Day, young man."
<sigh> Didn't he just
Heh, yeah, they worked better as some kind of perverse buddy movie partnership. "Do what you do, girlie." Indeed.
And then they went and put Derek in some other show where he fannied about on his own with his Future!Bird in subplot Bs for most of the season...
After barely getting to know these characters and their relationships, the entire dynamic changes... Splitting up the characters might have worked if it had started and concluded in the back 9. Kicking off the season with it, though, and running it all the way through was a terrible choice.
So are we pretty much saying that they made a balls-up of most of the character dynamics in S2 save for the occasional episodes where they hit the nail on the head and got things back to where they should've been? Cos much as I adore S2 (and I think I actually prefer it to S1 on the whole) 20/20 is a wonderous thing and I wish they'd not made a lot of the choices that they did.
I understand why in the show we're to believe Sarah let Derek think it was her. But that decision was made in the writers room and it was IMO really, really bad.
I agree. I can just about fanw*nk it for the sake of my own sanity and love of the show, but it wasn't a good idea for all the reasons we've already gone over.
Derek never would have assumed that Sarah killed Sarkissian. Earlier that day (in What He Beheld), he came to the realization that she'd never killed anyone before because he'd watched her freeze when Sarkissian's thug had a gun to her son's head the night before. So I find it totally unbelievable that he'd leap straight to the idea that Sarah the Pure Heart killed those men.
Good point. I think I can accept it because it works from Sarah's POV - allowing Derek to jump to the conclusion that he does just makes it less complicated for Sarah right there and then - but I never really thought about it from Derek's angle before. And now it doesn't work. So, thank you very much
We don't get to see what Sarah tells Derek at the warehouse about the day's events. But even if she wanted to hide the fact that John had done it, why would she say she'd done it?
Y'know, I always took that scene by the ambulance as the first time the issue had even come up. i.e. it was the first time Derek and Sarah had spoken since he'd rolled up with Charley. Consequently, Sarah had never explicitly stated she had killed Sarkissian, and when Derek jumped to that as a conclusion he was jumping to it off his own back, not based on a version of events that Sarah had actually told him. Which is possibly why it works a little better for me. Almost as if Derek gave Sarah an easy out and she took it and ran with it and that was just how it was left.
But instead, Sarah either decided to tell Derek she killed Sarkissian or she totally implied it so he'd make the assumption. Neither scenario makes any fraking sense. And even after all this time, I still don't get why Sarah even would've felt the need to hide the truth from Derek in the first place. I really hate that whole Sarakissian nonsense. HATE.
I guess if you go with my "they were busy being patched up and Derek stayed out the way until Charley was just about finished" theory, it takes a lot of the issues out of that scenario.
You know what else doesn't make sense? This bit of dialog:
"I know what you saw today. I know what you did and I'm so proud of you."
Proud? It's a very odd choice of words, both when we believe John watched him mom kill Sarkissian and later when we find out he killed Sarkissian.
"I know what you saw today. I know what you did and I'm so proud of you."
Proud? It's a very odd choice of words, both when we believe John watched him mom kill Sarkissian and later when we find out he killed Sarkissian.
Ahhh! Thank you! I'm not the only one who does a double-take every time that scene rolls around then! Proud is an utterly bizarre word for that scenario and works with neither take on Sarkissian. Having said that, neither does Sarah's "I know what you saw..." which - if we go with the show's misdirection - means "I know you saw me killing Sarkissian" (and I'm proud of you) or "I know you saw me taking a beating" (and I'm proud of you.) If we consider it, with hindsight, knowing Sarah's somehow talking about John doing the killing (which is what she should be doing cos neither her nor John are being misdirected) it makes no sense at all. And I'm not convinced I've made sense there either
Having spent nine episodes setting up John's desperate need for Sarah's attention and respect, he saves her for a change and all he does at rage at her. Driven by guilt and self-loathing or not that note always felt forced as if having decided to amp up John's stake in Future!War (and one hates to say it but make him look more badass) by killing someone, they have to go to pains to show us that killing is bad and John is tortured by it. But what he mostly looks like a petulant brat.
Oh ITA with that. I don't think John Connor should run around arbitrarily icing the bad guys. I think he should be tortured by the fact that sacrifices have to be made, that he will probably have to do things that keep him awake at night. I guess having Sarah as slightly off-kilter moral compass (she'll blow up a building but stops short at actually murdering people to save the world!) gives us an idea of where John should be heading and keeps up the comparison with Cameron who does kill with her eye on the practical side of things (i.e. Brothers of Nablus)
But they didn't write him like that. Or not consistently like that. There were moments when you really felt for him, felt his isolation and the stunned sense of what he had done - the shot of him in the corridor at school in Automatic is lovely. But mostly, you saw him acting up, spitting his dummy out (as we say over here!) and behaving like a pissy little idiot. Which didn't exactly give you faith in the future of mankind... especially not when you actually look at what he was raging against: the fact that his mother, post-being smacked about, with her hands tied behind her back, couldn't get free quickly enough to save the son she's saved countless times over 16 years. Yeah, John, I feel your pain.
Whether they were the fault of FOX meddling or not, I think the way they spun Sarah, John and Cameron's arcs from that episode over the course of the season was ultimately detrimental to the show.
I could understand Fox asking for Riley and some love interest and more stand-alone episodes. Not so sure they'd request breaking down the characters, making the lead male completely unsympathetic and wrecking the dynamic that was actually making the show work so well... but then this is Fox, so what the hell do I know?!
The idea to replay the end of T2 with John saving the robot is strong, building off widely known character and plot beats from the movies. But that idea creates its own natural tension between Sarah and John that didn't need to be multiplied by John and Sarky and "Why didn't you save me". Or overshadowed by it.
True. There was enough going on with Cameron to provide the tension and, ultimately, the show did place the emphasis on that anyways. Sarah was never going to be completely happy with a duplicitous jail-bait cyborg hanging around her impressionable, hormone-addled son and she had obvious issues with handing over the mantle of Chief Protector of Son, so adding Sarkissian into the mix was over-egging the pudding slightly.
Instead Cameron becomes this thing that Sarah just sucks up and never discusses with John until the end of the season. All the reasons why John's decision to revive Cameron were OOC hold doubly true for Sarah for whom Cameron had consistently proven an unreliable asset even before she tried to kill Sarah's son.
I'm not sure Sarah saw Cam as unreliable, the one thing Cam was consistently good at was sticking by John (whatever her motivations which were always steeped in grey-areaness!) Sarah did grudgingly trust Cam (as much as Sarah is going to trust any metal) as protector of John until she went all mental and twitchy. Then, not so much. I liked the prickly, confused relationship Sarah had with Cam - half the time she didn't know whether to kill her or confide in her.
It fundamentally undermined Sarah's authority in a way that doesn't help the series - particulary the moment when we're meant to believe Sarah watches John reboot Cameron because John's holding a gun on her? We were seriously meant to believe Sarah thought for an instant John would shoot her? Cow-pucky.
LOL. I couldn't seriously believe she wouldn't have calmly stepped over there, rassled the gun offa him and then smacked him upside his head with it! "You are grounded until Judgement Day, young man."
What was great about bringing Derek into the mix in the first place was that he provided a strong antagonist for Sarah.
<sigh> Didn't he just
The interplay between Cameron's lack of affect and Sarah's hostility was often dramatically static (Sarah looked like she was kicking the puppy).
Heh, yeah, they worked better as some kind of perverse buddy movie partnership. "Do what you do, girlie." Indeed.
In comparison, the overtly-hostile and grudgingly-cooperative back and forth between Sarah and Derek crackled because Sarah was fighting within her own weightclass so to speak.
And then they went and put Derek in some other show where he fannied about on his own with his Future!Bird in subplot Bs for most of the season...
After barely getting to know these characters and their relationships, the entire dynamic changes... Splitting up the characters might have worked if it had started and concluded in the back 9. Kicking off the season with it, though, and running it all the way through was a terrible choice.
So are we pretty much saying that they made a balls-up of most of the character dynamics in S2 save for the occasional episodes where they hit the nail on the head and got things back to where they should've been? Cos much as I adore S2 (and I think I actually prefer it to S1 on the whole) 20/20 is a wonderous thing and I wish they'd not made a lot of the choices that they did.