(spinoff) Story or Shock?

[Raymar3d]

"Baby Killing December 22nd, 2003 15:45 PM

"Battlestar Galactica Quote of 2003:

"Who is to say the killing of the baby is an act of evil? That's our human prejudice. A natural reaction." -- David Eick, Battlestar Galactica 2003 mini-series producer, when asked about the baby killing scene where the skull of a Colonial infant is crushed by a Cylon robot. SciFi.com Chat on December 4, 2003 at 9 PM."

THIS IS SICK. IT IS EVIL, AND EVIL IS ALL ABOUT CLOUDING MORALITY. EVIL NEEDS GREY TO THRIVE. WELL, HERE IT COMES.

That is how I define the answer to your question.

I am sick that I had anything to do with making this.

Ken"

I reject the premise of "who's to say killing a baby is evil?"

If that's what's in store, that kind of philosophy, then we have a serious problem here. I don't support that kind of thinking. Call me a dinosaur, but I'm a father.

Who the H___ is David Eick to define evil??

Kiss my a__, Mr. Eick.

Sorry folks, I'm very disgusted this morning. No offense to Aaron here, but I just thought he should know what some of us think.

On the flipside of this coin, people kill unborn children every day in the name of convenience and don't take responsibility for it. So, maybe we are the flawed creation after all. Hypocritcal enforcement of laws against murder. It is sad.

Ken

[Darth Marley]

Morality (IMO-and O can stand for opinion,or observation) is something we get from the culture we are raised in.

Certainly,I have moral outrage for actual baby killing,while none at all in the context of the mini.

For those interested in a take on we humans being "flawed creations" check out gnosis.org (warning,religious heresy!).

While the anti-shades of gray folk I would describe as being adherents to Manichean philosophy.

No matter where you stand on it,my two cents says evil exists,and must be opposed,whether external evil,or the evil within ourselves.

[beeker]

Originally posted by Raymar3d
I reject the premise of "who's to say killing a baby is evil?"

If that's what's in store, that kind of philosophy, then we have a serious problem here. I don't support that kind of thinking. Call me a dinosaur, but I'm a father.

Who the H___ is David Eick to define evil??

Kiss my a__, Mr. Eick.

Sorry folks, I'm very disgusted this morning. No offense to Aaron here, but I just thought he should know what some of us think.

On the flipside of this coin, people kill unborn children every day in the name of convenience and don't take responsibility for it. So, maybe we are the flawed creation after all. Hypocritcal enforcement of laws against murder. It is sad.

Ken

Who are you to define evil?

From the interview Eick's position seemed to be that not only an action but the context of the action defines evil. This position is widely held today even among those who profess to be moral absolutists.

I won't defend the baby killing from a moral standpoint, but it doesn't distrub me any more than all the other killing that happened in the mini. I personally find it disturbing that people are more outraged about killing a baby done by hand than the killing of billions (many of whom are babies) done by bombs. The baby killing scene should be distrubing, and that should be magnified every time you see one of the nukes go off.

If you want we can discuss moral absolutism and moral relativism, and how that is portrayed in the mini. However, I would suggest that we make it a different topic.

[Raymar3d]

Originally posted by beeker
Who are you to define evil?

Who do I have to be to know that it's evil?

Come on!

Now, the scene in the film while grotesque, doesn't bother me as much as the attitude Eick expresses. That's my objection.

What are we? Just evolved animals? If that's true, then there is no good or evil but what we define as such. I don't want to live in a world that does not define murder as evil.

If, as I believe, we live under a higher power, then the definitions are very clearly defined. Murder IS evil. So, either way, evil is defined.

I question the agenda to change the definitions of evil. But that's my opinion. Regardless, as far as I'm concerned, it's evil, most people would agree. I despise Hollywood degrading the foundations of morality as they have over the last several years. Once again, my opinion.

Ken

Originally posted by Raymar3d

Now, the scene in the film while grotesque, doesn't bother me as much as the attitude Eick expresses. That's my objection.

Eick was trying to make a point, but the problem was he made the point very poorly. Moore is attempting to give the Cylon's some depth, and he succeeded to a degree. I can understand how alot of people didn't know how to take this scene because it was wedged in between a few humpathons. However, that is more of a problem with Moore not settling on a direction of where he wanted to take the mini, it's not a problem with that scene itself.

As I said on some of the other boards, I don't think anyone is advocating killing babies. Outside of this argument, the thing that bothers me about the reaction to this scene is that I don't see it repeated when a baby is killed on other TV series, and I didn't see anyone get upset over the Joy Luck Club, which has a very similar scene cinematography-wise, where a mother murders her baby.

As Aaron pointed out (and so did Dennis at subspace) the fact that this scene is still being maturely debated weeks after the mini aired shows that it's gotten us to think. And that's what good writing should do.

[ViperAce]

i too have seen numberous comments on the "baby-killing" scene ... and find it somewhat odd that I had not really put all that much thought into the scene. Of course, we live in a world where the media overwhelms us with child murders, molestations, and abuses. Why should a scene where a human-looking robot kills a baby, with no graphic portrayal, bother us so much? Food-for-thought and endless debate!!!

What the scene represented to me was far less evil than some have gotten from it. Other than "data" that Number 6 was programmed with, she would hold no first-hand knowedge of children. The scene led me to believe she was curious about the child. When the scene was over I was left wondering if she had intentionally killed, or if she had done so because she did not know how fragile human life can be. I guess I am guilty of loving science fiction too much to have assumed this was in-line with CSI and exploiting disaster.

[beeker]

As Aaron doesn't mind the discussion I'll continue it.

Originally posted by Raymar3d
Who do I have to be to know that it's evil?

Come on!

Now, the scene in the film while grotesque, doesn't bother me as much as the attitude Eick expresses. That's my objection.

I was objecting to your objection. Eick has every much right to define evil as you do. Furthermore Eick was not so much expressing his attitude toward good and evil as he was suggesting other ways to view the scene. Eick pointed out (though he did not actually say it was the case) that Six could have been performing a "mercy killing". Even in our society there is not unimity of thought regarding mercy killings (assisted suicide, and removal of life support as two examples).

What are we? Just evolved animals? If that's true, then there is no good or evil but what we define as such. I don't want to live in a world that does not define murder as evil.

No one is asking you to. Eick was refering to the motivations of a cylon. Considering the genocide I don't think that I would take moral cues from them.

If, as I believe, we live under a higher power, then the definitions are very clearly defined. Murder IS evil. So, either way, evil is defined.

It is not as clearly defined as you may think. Murder is an extremely subjective term. That subjectivnes leaves too much wiggle room for me.

I question the agenda to change the definitions of evil. But that's my opinion. Regardless, as far as I'm concerned, it's evil, most people would agree. I despise Hollywood degrading the foundations of morality as they have over the last several years. Once again, my opinion.

Ken

I don't see BSG or Eick's interview as an attempt to change the definitions of evil. That would be the case if the 'good guys' were performing such acts. I think that the mini shows that whatever the cylons think of their actions we are led to the conclusion that they are evil.

I think that the mini does have a revelent moral story for today. The fact is the people do not consider themselves as evil. Bin Laden truly and honestly believes that he is doing God's work, and that his actions are good. We know the difference between good and evil people by their actions. The show is the same. Whatever Six's motivations regarding the murder she is defined by her actions.

Where you despise Hollywood for degrading morality in this country, I despise the religious right (politically speaking) for doing the same. I think that they are far more insidious that the Hollywood types. As a moral absolutist myself I truly despise those who espouse moral absolutes but in practice do not follow those absolutes. That is people who say they believe in absolute good and evil, but when they commit an evil act they will convince themselves that it was really good.

[Darth Marley]

"What are we? Just evolved animals? If that's true, then there is no good or evil but what we define as such. I don't want to live in a world that does not define murder as evil."

Belief in god is an act of faith.Whether we are created by divine forces,ancient astronauts,or evolved, we are here.

If one could prove there is no god,that would not negate the existance of good and evil.

Beeker makes a good point about Islamist killing in god's name.They do not have a monopoly on these actions.

[Raymar3d]

Re: Re: I sent this via email to Ron Moore today. December 23rd, 2003 19:42 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by larocque6689
Ken

I'd appreciate hearing Ron's reply. Hope he writes back.


Here it is:

"Jeez, Ken, caffeinate much?

Eick's answer was misquoted -- he was talking to someone on the phone who typed in his answer in an on-line chat. All he was trying to say was that from Six's perspective, killing the baby probably had a different moral point of view than from our own.

Sorry you're so upset about the show. Obviously, I'm very pleased and the audience & critical response was tremendous, so I don't think we sent out some abominable moral message to the masses.

In any case, thank you for your work on the mini and I hope that you have a great holiday season.

Best Regards,
Ron"

And my reply to him:

"Ron,

Maybe so. It just is a very insensitive statement, and that's not cool. My wife is pregnant right now, and a good friend of mine lost his child to miscarriage. I didn't have a problem with evil cylons doing evil things. My problem is the feeling that his statement seemed so callous. I would very much like to keep evil evil and good good, and the moral tug of war clearly that. No one is perfect, no one is entirely evil. But the cylons know of human morality, so they know it is evil. They're not animals that are just following instinct. That's my point.

I don't know, it just seems that everywhere I turn around, life becomes something to throw away. For once, I would like to see an optimistic view of humanity, not one so sympathetic to dragging us through the gutter with guilt.

Anyhow, if he was misquoted, my apologies.

To you and yours, Happy Holidays.

Ken"

[Raymar3d]

Originally posted by beeker
As Aaron doesn't mind the discussion I'll continue it.



I was objecting to your objection. Eick has every much right to define evil as you do. Furthermore Eick was not so much expressing his attitude toward good and evil as he was suggesting other ways to view the scene. Eick pointed out (though he did not actually say it was the case) that Six could have been performing a "mercy killing". Even in our society there is not unimity of thought regarding mercy killings (assisted suicide, and removal of life support as two examples).

Where you despise Hollywood for degrading morality in this country, I despise the religious right (politically speaking) for doing the same. I think that they are far more insidious that the Hollywood types. As a moral absolutist myself I truly despise those who espouse moral absolutes but in practice do not follow those absolutes. That is people who say they believe in absolute good and evil, but when they commit an evil act they will convince themselves that it was really good.

Hi,

Regarding evil being done in the name of God, it happens every day. I know that. It sucks.

Anyhow, I'm not perfect, no one else is either. It just seems to me that life is too precious to devalue it so much, and that's what bothers me. We desensitize evil acts, they aren't considered as evil anymore. It's a slow process of erosion.

I don't disagree with you on many of your points. But it's a sad day that the debate over a child-killing being evil or not even has to be debated.

Ken

[beeker]

Originally posted by Raymar3d
Hi,

Regarding evil being done in the name of God, it happens every day. I know that. It sucks.

Anyhow, I'm not perfect, no one else is either. It just seems to me that life is too precious to devalue it so much, and that's what bothers me. We desensitize evil acts, they aren't considered as evil anymore. It's a slow process of erosion.

I don't disagree with you on many of your points. But it's a sad day that the debate over a child-killing being evil or not even has to be debated.

Ken

I agree with you. However, I wasn't actually debating the act itself (of course child-killing is evil).

I will say that looking at moral debate as erosion is one sided, and historically quite wrong. Many things that we think of as evil today were, in the past, seen as either morally neutral or positive goods. Really the only things I can think of the went (or are going) the other way (from evil to good) all revolve around sex. If you look at other issues (from slavery to child abuse) you will see that the moral debate went from good (or accepted) to evil in the minds of most people.

[DarkJedi]

Aaron,

Thanks for the reply. My first chance back online with work. (am a travel agent and holidays are ....well you get the idea. lol) I sent you some information on different convention circuits that I have entrusted over the years and the contact numbers to them in a private message. (hope you don't mind)

Enjoy your holiday with your family! Stay warm and safe (this goes for EVERYONE!)

And those involved in the moral debate...I am keeping an eye on this as a moderator so please keep flaming to a minimum and so forth. Remember this is not the place for political issues and I am afraid this is one. I am just stating this as a moderator and a friend to you. If you really want to have this discussion - move it to another thread - don't hijack this one... ok? Thanks guys and gals! =D HAPPY HOLIDAYS!!!!


Kristi
just tryin' to keep it peaceful around here

[Hito]

Originally posted by DarkJedi

And those involved in the moral debate...I am keeping an eye on this as a moderator so please keep flaming to a minimum and so forth. Remember this is not the place for political issues and I am afraid this is one. I am just stating this as a moderator and a friend to you. If you really want to have this discussion - move it to another thread - don't hijack this one... ok? Thanks guys and gals! =D HAPPY HOLIDAYS!!!!


Kristi
just tryin' to keep it peaceful around here

I am keeping an eye on things here.
If things go too far south I will handle it.

[Raymar3d]

Hi folks,

Peace to all, and a Merry Christmas if you celebrate it.

Regarding the debate, it exists elsewhere on the forum, if anyone wants to continue it.

If I offended anyone, I'm sorry. The thing is, I just wanted people to know that I for one don't support the kind of thinking I was seeing with that quote from Mr. Eick. He speaks for himself, not everyone associated with the production.

Ken

[Stevew]

Ken
The baby killing scene was an abomination and should have been cut, it in no way refelcts BSG. The same can be said for all the sex scenes.
It just tarnishes what BSG stands for IMHO
S

Excuse me, I'm still having trouble understanding how *hearing* the baby's neck snap is worse -- by any rational measure -- than the presumably millions of babies that were killed when the Cylons dropped nukes on the Colonial planets?

See, the problem is the word "rational." Rationality goes out the window when we're shown a baby. We saw this child's face. We heard it coo.

And we also saw the distress and guilt on Number Six's face as she walked away.

This scene is critical, absolutely critical, to establishing Number Six's character. As a writer, I understand it. With a critical eye, I applaud it. As a human being, I abhor it.

As an artist, I am in awe of it.

[AlternityOrange]

Are you a friend or tributairy of Ronald D Moore? That's the only reasoning I could see for anyone to be in awe of such an unecessary, gratuitous scene. It's hardly critical. It's there for shock value, that's all.

[Dennis]

Originally posted by AlternityOrange
Are you a friend or tributairy of Ronald D Moore? That's the only reasoning I could see for anyone to be in awe of such an unecessary, gratuitous scene. It's hardly critical. It's there for shock value, that's all.

Because you can not see any other reason than personal association for a viewer to find value in that scene does not make it so.

I'm hardly "in awe" of the infant-murder scene, but it works and it does tie thematically and emotionally into much of the rest of the story. That's my opinion. I've discussed it here and elsewhere, more than once. The scene has been much debated and analyzed as well on science fiction boards other than those devoted primarily to BSG, and people have quite a range of responses and understandings of it.

Now, your's is that "it's there for shock value, that's all", but let us acknowledge that this is simply an opinion and not an assertion of fact.

Being neither a friend, tributary, employee or relative of Moore, Eick, Rymer, Olmos, Sackhoff or just about anyone else involved in BSG 2003 (used to know one of the lead ZOIC guys IRL, though, years before he got into the business), I can however assure you as a matter of fact -- not opinion -- that one does not have to be any of those things to appreciate that scene as part of the stark drama of the story.

[AlternityOrange]

Ah yes Mr. Bailey,

Hardly a surprise to read your response. However, I will agree that my "shock value" opinion is in this instance simply that, my opinion. Providing you're "thematic and emotional" feelings of it are just that as well, your opinion.

The fact that the scene was added long after the initial script was written, not to mention that it has nothing to do with anything else in the story, does prove it was unnecessary. But if you appreciate those type of scenes, more power to you.

[Dennis]

Originally posted by AlternityOrange
Ah yes Mr. Bailey,

Hardly a surprise to read your response. However, I will agree that my "shock value" opinion is in this instance simply that, my opinion. Providing you're "thematic and emotional" feelings of it are just that as well, your opinion.

I can't say that I have even a passing interest in surprising you.

That my opinion is my opinion is obvious and redundant.

What you're sidestepping now is your mistaken insinuation that people who don't share your opinion of the scene do so out of personal association with the writer ("friend or tributary"). I'm afraid that's testable against fact -- not opinion -- and you're wrong.

Oh, and -- Mr. Bailey? Yeah -- sure, that'll do fine.

[BST]

Now, your's is that "it's there for shock value, that's all", but let us acknowledge that this is simply an opinion and not an assertion of fact

Quite true, as is most of what appears on these boards. All opinions should be respected whether we agree with them or not.

[Dennis]

Originally posted by BST
Quite true, as is most of what appears on these boards. All opinions should be respected whether we agree with them or not.

Perhaps, but...would that extend to not insinuating that people who like something only do so 'cause they must be buddies of the producers? :lol:

Really, what's to be respected is the right to express an opinion.

[AlternityOrange]

I'm not sidestepping anything Mr. Bailey. If you enjoy scenes of babies having their necks snapped, regardless of who wrote it, that's perfectly within your rights.

[Darth Marley]

While I do not see the scene as critical,I do see that it developes character and plot.

As for friend or tributary to RDM;several posters opposed to the success of the mini are friends or employees of Hatch.Does the same reasoning apply to their opinions?
I don't see why that would be relavent.Of course we all have a bias,and sometimes there is a personal connection.That connection does not make ones views irrelevant,or unreasonable.

[BST]

Originally posted by Dennis
Perhaps, but...would that extend to not insinuating that people who like something only do so 'cause they must be buddies of the producers? :lol:

Really, what's to be respected is the right to express an opinion.

No, Dennis, IT is the opinion that is to be respected as well as the right to present it. If a person has a different point of view then, that point of view can be presented as well. Dissecting another person's opinion is not the same as presenting a dissenting opinion.

[Darth Marley]

I think POLITE dissection is sometimes called for.
It does not have to be insulting.
And can point out errors in thinking from time to time.

[AlternityOrange]

As for friend or tributary to RDM;several posters opposed to the success of the mini are friends or employees of Hatch.Does the same reasoning apply to their opinions?

That's certainly a valid question. And while I don't know that there are any here who could be considered "employees" of Hatch, I suppose I am one who could be considered his "friend" even though he likely wouldn't recognize me if he fell over me. But to answer your question yes, the same reasoning applies. If Hatch were to write a scene I felt was disgusting, pointless, and gratuitous, I would say so. If others were to describe the same scene as "awe inspiring" or some such I would still question their reasoning.

[Darth Marley]

Questioning reason is a good thing.
You admitted that a personal connection was "That's the only reasoning I could see for anyone."
So from there it falls on opposing views to provide such reasoning,or feelings,opinions,etc.
BarrymoreYorke cited artisitic appreciation as a writer in the post you replied to,so I sense that stipulating personal relationship with RDM is non-responsive.Correct me if this is an erroneous analysis.

[Hito]

Originally posted by BarrymoreYorke

This scene is critical, absolutely critical, to establishing Number Six's character. As a writer, I understand it. With a critical eye, I applaud it. As a human being, I abhor it.

As an artist, I am in awe of it.

You really do seem to be laying it on kinda thick there.
I really LIKED this show and i had real problems artisticaly and personally with this one scene.

Sort of like the comicly loud zipper sound Joss Wheaton used the first time spike and buffy had sex, I beleve that sound was added for shock, becasue it did nothing to move the narritive along that Dialogue and editing has not already acomplished.
Look without the sound we know from the coments made by 6 about how fragile the child's neck was, then by the mothers reaction and the female cylon's expression what has heppned.

Especialy in light of the realistic direction they were trying to go with as far as the rest of the show like minimal sound in space, handheld photography ect...
The addition of this almost rediculously loud CRUNCH was gratuitous used solely to telegraph the situation to the lowbrows that watch sci-fi these days.

I guarantee that even as an amature editor i could have taken that footage into premier and told the story just as effectivly even with no sound.

Originally posted by AlternityOrange
Are you a friend or tributairy of Ronald D Moore? That's the only reasoning I could see for anyone to be in awe of such an unecessary, gratuitous scene. It's hardly critical. It's there for shock value, that's all.

I agree that the sound was added for shock. but lets move on from the POV that everyone that liked the show is a sci-fi ron moore shill please.
People have seen the show and can form real opinions based on its merits or lack of.

Originally posted by Dennis


Now, your's is that "it's there for shock value, that's all", but let us acknowledge that this is simply an opinion and not an assertion of fact.

I tend to believe that the scene was done for shock as well but by observation of the rest of the show.
Considering just how much story is told through just dialogue and off screen, this one event just kind of sticks out there like an ugly wart on an otherwise perfect behind.

[Hito]

I am splitting this debate away from Aarons's greeting thread in order to keep the focus of it positive.

Should this thread go to far south i will remove it.
I am confident we can continue to talk about this like mature adults.

Dont make me wrong.