|
Post by Erika on Mar 26, 2008 18:44:42 GMT -5
Well yeah WE knew it was an empty threat, but Derek didn't know that. To him, all that he knows is that she's this great legend and former leader. Derek was always butting heads w/ her because they're jostling for the rank of top dog in their pack.
Derek was convinced that her threat was real, until he realized that she's all bark and no bite....well not against people anyways.
|
|
k8ie
Corporal
Posts: 1,482
|
Post by k8ie on Mar 26, 2008 20:23:07 GMT -5
Derek was convinced that her threat was real, until he realized that she's all bark and no bite....well not against people anyways. Y'think? 'Cause I got the impression from that scene that Derek didn't take her threat all the seriously at the time either. I'm not entirely sure who walked out of the shower scene with the top hand - Derek wasn't exactly cowed but Sarah had absolutely zero problem with dressing him down while he was naked. I'd chalk it up to a draw, myself, which is part of what's attractive about a potential romance between the two characters - they are so evenly matched. The idea that Sarah's never killed anyone, though, is one that I think just isn't supported by canon - she's supposed to have been running with Sandinistas, gunrunners, insurgents and other generally unsavoury types in Central America. I find it hard to believe that Sarah survived 10 years down there, child in tow, and was never in a position to that forced her to take a life - in a jungle firefight, if nowhere else. I see Derek's comment as his attempt to get a read on Sarah's character, figure out why she's so pissed at him about Andy and Fake!Sarkissian.
|
|
|
Post by Derek Reese on Mar 26, 2008 20:27:00 GMT -5
Even if she was involved with the likes of those people. It doesn't mean she had to kill. She could have threatened to do as such to give an appearence, but it doesn't mean she truly had to. All she did was hide to the biggest and train on focusing John and his destiny and her own abilities. She could choose otherwise determined by the circumstances of her own actions and willingness to seek out otherwise.
|
|
k8ie
Corporal
Posts: 1,482
|
Post by k8ie on Mar 26, 2008 20:39:25 GMT -5
Even if she was involved with the likes of those people. It doesn't mean she had to kill. I just think it would be very unlikely if she'd gotten through that experience unscathed, so to speak. And I think the idea that she did contradicts the impression of Sarah's character created by her backstory in T2. It's something I'd like to see TSCC address one way or the other at some point. Of course, who says taking a life is what determines whether or not your heart is pure? However, that's probably a bit OT for this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Derek Reese on Mar 26, 2008 20:42:43 GMT -5
There's no determined period as to how long she was with each group, but its very likely she choose not to get involved, when the situation called for it. That's not to say that she may or may not have showed her hand if need be, but she doesn't come off as the killing type. Even though she came close to killing Miles Dyson in T2. John's safety had to be the highest priority, just like it as at present.
|
|
rossbondreturns
Corporal
Summer 08 Wallpaper Challenge Winner!
Posts: 1,617
|
Post by rossbondreturns on Mar 26, 2008 21:00:16 GMT -5
I have always held Sarah in the highest regard as high a regard as James Cameron himself. He wanted to create a hard character, an hard but very beliveable female character. A hard character and a soldier- a soldier does not have to kill people in order to be established as a killer. In fact part of what makes Sarah Sarah is that she doesn't go around killing people- because she doesn't have to.
She proves her toughness- her Alpha position simply by proving time and time again that she is not to be fraked with. She is wise enough to know that a constant threat of if not Death but overwhelming asskickery by herself is generally more than enough to persuade most sane or insane people that she is not to be fraked with.
Of course after a certain point her taking a "life" whether human or artificial would occour- would this make her more of a hard ass- possibly. But would it really equate anything to do with greatness would her killing someone or something take her to the next level?
Not to me.
She's a hardass- she doesn't need to be a killer.
|
|
k8ie
Corporal
Posts: 1,482
|
Post by k8ie on Mar 26, 2008 21:26:24 GMT -5
Of course after a certain point her taking a "life" whether human or artificial would occour- would this make her more of a hard ass- possibly. But would it really equate anything to do with greatness would her killing someone or something take her to the next level? Not to me. She's a hardass- she doesn't need to be a killer. Great post - you make a great point there. I don't think killing would make Sarah tougher - I don't buy into the idea that killing another person makes you strong or tough. I think killing is often the action of a coward. But I still find it unlikely that given the life Sarah was supposed to have lead prior to T2 she was never in a firefight or a situation where she had to defend herself and John. Even in the TSCC, we've seen Sarah coming back from what was apparently a combat patrol in a jungle. Basically, I think Derek's making an assumption based on facts not in evidence. But as a hypothetical, it would be interesting if Sarah's reluctance to take life comes from knowing exactly what it means to kill someone rather than an intrinsic and unchallenged reverence for human life.
|
|
rossbondreturns
Corporal
Summer 08 Wallpaper Challenge Winner!
Posts: 1,617
|
Post by rossbondreturns on Mar 26, 2008 21:46:14 GMT -5
Great response K8ie!
I love reasoned and thought out responses and yes she is seen coming back from some kind of patrol in T SCC.
We of course do not know what it was. There are many possibilities all from my perspective as a longterm T-Fan and T-Writer make for great conjecture and talk.
1) She was a scout. A Watcher. Assigned to her watch detail and was coming back having had an encounter. With man or beast it wouldn't really matter. If she had to kill a beast to protect herself or the camp good for her. If she had to kill someone encroashing upon the camp again...bravo.
I would personally personally take her tough hard ass talk to get their attention to the wrong place and then attack swiftly and mercilessly to capture them and bringthem back to camp.
2) She was sent forth to engage the enemy.
3) Target practice.
4) Wepaons recovery detail.
Each of these would be acceptable to help further cement the fact that whatever she is asked to do...she does it above and beyond the call of duty. Which each completed element she improves herself and her standing withing the cartel..or merc group or what have you.
Any scene such as that...helps to build up the fact that Sarah is a hard ass...and that's really all I need.
|
|
|
Post by allergygal on Mar 29, 2008 14:20:27 GMT -5
Well yeah WE knew it was an empty threat, but Derek didn't know that. To him, all that he knows is that she's this great legend and former leader. Derek was always butting heads w/ her because they're jostling for the rank of top dog in their pack. Derek was convinced that her threat was real, until he realized that she's all bark and no bite....well not against people anyways. I doubt Derek thought Sarah would actually kill him for lying or anything else. It was just an expression. But she was clearly pissed off at him, just like when she threatened to bust his head if he went in her room again. But now even knowing now that she's never killed anyone, I don't think that necessarily makes Derek think she still wouldn't beat the crap out of him if he lied to her (or went in her room!). The idea that Sarah's never killed anyone, though, is one that I think just isn't supported by canon - she's supposed to have been running with Sandinistas, gunrunners, insurgents and other generally unsavoury types in Central America. I find it hard to believe that Sarah survived 10 years down there, child in tow, and was never in a position to that forced her to take a life - in a jungle firefight, if nowhere else. I see Derek's comment as his attempt to get a read on Sarah's character, figure out why she's so pissed at him about Andy and Fake!Sarkissian. I like this: I see Derek's comment as his attempt to get a read on Sarah's character, figure out why she's so pissed at him about Andy and Fake!Sarkissian. That's a great read on Derek. Funny you should mention Sandinistas because I happen to know someone who lived with them for a while and no, she never killed anyone. -- I've got more to say about Sarah's "pure heart", but I'll take it to the Sarah Connor thread.
|
|
k8ie
Corporal
Posts: 1,482
|
Post by k8ie on Mar 29, 2008 15:42:56 GMT -5
Funny you should mention Sandinistas because I happen to know someone who lived with them for a while and no, she never killed anyone. There's also the small problem that the Sandinista insurgency end in 1984, when they won the elections IIRC, and I can't quite see Sarah as a Contra (although in 1984, I think North Americans in general were anti-Sandinista due to the Communist thing so who knows?) and, wow, I'm way OT. Derek/Sarah - yes please as long as it doesn't get all schmoopy. I'd like to see Derek pine a little bit, though. I feel BAG would do crazy-end, hard ass resistance fighter pinage really well.
|
|
|
Post by allergygal on Mar 30, 2008 15:58:33 GMT -5
They've both got a lot of emotional Kyle baggage and they've both spent their lives dealing with the future war. So schmoopy is without a doubt the last thing I'd ever expect them to be.
|
|
k8ie
Corporal
Posts: 1,482
|
Post by k8ie on Mar 31, 2008 23:26:51 GMT -5
Fair point. Maybe a better way of expressing it would be to say that if TSCC were going to go down a Sarah/Derek road, I hope they take a page out of Farscape's playbook and not Battlestar Galactica or the X-Files or Stargate, etc, etc.
I thought one of Farscape's real strengths dramatically was having John and Aeryn acknowledge and even consumate their attraction in season one and then spend the next three seasons negotiating a relationship rather than play the standard, tired Moonlighting/Scifi game of "will they/won't they" unresolved sexual tension.
I don't buy into the cant that letting your characters act on their attraction makes for boring storytelling. On the contrary, I think it opens up a whole range of storytelling possibilities that are far more organic than endlessly setting up roadblocks in front of a relationship. If the characters and the situation are well-crafted, complications arise naturally. I think Sarah and Derek could be extremely interesting if approached from that point of view rather than the standard soapy "I like her but can't admit it" that seems to dominate genre TV these days (yes, I'm looking at you Ron Moore).
|
|
|
Post by allergygal on Apr 2, 2008 0:46:24 GMT -5
I've never seen Farscape, but I like that sound of that kind of relationship -- less cliched, more adult. If approached right, you can have plenty of drama and tension even in an on-going relationship. TV shows always seems to assume that once two people get together that's it, parties over and they lived happily ever after.
|
|
k8ie
Corporal
Posts: 1,482
|
Post by k8ie on Apr 2, 2008 23:12:36 GMT -5
Allerygal, not to get OT but if you like scifi, Farscape is a must-see. It's like the cantina scene in Star Wars on acid and a four-pack of XXXX. And Ben Browder fills out a t-shirt in ways that are delightful and if you love Sarah Connor, you will adore Aeryn Sun. If I were at home, I would try and set you up with some eps... *sigh*
So... Derek/Sarah. Yeah, that could be fun. If done right.
|
|
|
Post by allergygal on Apr 3, 2008 3:08:25 GMT -5
I'll have to look into this. I definitely need something to watch over the next few months. I don't know how many more times I can rewatch these 9 TSCC eps.
|
|