Log in

View Full Version : Infanticide: the final word


peter noble
December 24th, 2003, 01:51 AM
I've read a lot about the baby-killing scene, and to those who are trying to justify it I'd say this:

Yes, BSG 2003 is a work of fiction, and no babies were actually harmed during the making of this picture!

But consider this, RDM mentioned that he was "inspired" by the events of 9/11, if this is indeed the case, to follow this line of thought to its logical conclusion, then the Cylons represent al-quaida.

Do you want to justify the killing of the baby now?

And I haven't even mentioned the act of genocide yet!

Peter

Pagz
December 24th, 2003, 02:25 AM
Your "logical conclusion" is based on fatuous reasoning. You are assuming that, since RDM drew inspiration from the events and emotions of 9/11 that this *must* apply to the scene in question. That does not neccessarily follow. I suggest that it is far more likely that the scenes involving the survivors, or the manner in which the attack is protrayed and reacted to is where said inspiration comes in. Not in the baby scene.

And just to reiterate my previous post on the subject:

In regard to Mr.Eick's answer to the baby killing question, I would suggest that there's an issue of semmantics to be considered. No where does he defend the morality of killing babies. The fact is, evil is a product of intent, not action. Evil is a human construct that we apply to things, often to things outside ourselves that can not be labelled as such. If an animal finds an unprotected litre and proceeds to kill the babies, that is not an act of evil.

The question to be asked is, what was the intent behind 6's action. Cylon's are not human, and as such, applying our morality to them is much like applying it to an animal. The difference being that the Cylons are aware of our conceptions of what encompasses good and evil, they are not, however, required to come to those same conlsuions themselves.

So, did 6 kill the baby as an act of evil, or was it something else? Was it curiousity about the strength of the childs neck? Was it a mercy killing to spare the child the pain of nuclear incineration? There's much to be made of the pained expression on 6's face after having done the deed. Why is it there and what is she thinking?

What it comes down to is Eick is not defending killing babies, nor arguing that killing babies is not wrong. He is saying that it was not neccessarily an evil act on the part of the Cylon. When we put a dog down, that's not evil, and the mentality behind this for 6 could be much the same.

peter noble
December 24th, 2003, 02:36 AM
Cylons don't seem to have any sort of alien ideoligy as shown in the mini. They seem to have embraced all that is bad about the human race, God they've even evolved into human beings. Their main motivation seems to revenge, good old fashioned revenge which is fueled by the human emotion of hate, they also lust, know fear and love it seems.

If alien life does exist, I hope to God they have the same moral compass as human beings, if they don't we could be in a lot of trouble.

Also, I'd like to point out that Cylons are self-aware and therefore not animals and killing something that is incapable of doing you harm is illogical.

Peter

Darth Marley
December 24th, 2003, 03:28 AM
"killing something that is incapable of doing you harm is illogical"

I would not cede that point.Perhaps it is a waste of energy.Cows are not a threat to me,but I may find logic in killing them as a food source.

These are Cylons,not Vulcans anyway.

Cylon ideology,or more accurately, religion, in the mini indicates they believe they have been give souls by a god that regrets the mistake of creating humans.

I also think the link between Al-Qaeda and the Cylons is not a one-to-one correspondence.Some comparison is valid,but to suggest that defending Cylons equates to defending Al-Qaeda is not an exercise in logic.

peter noble
December 24th, 2003, 06:42 AM
Originally posted by Darth Marley
Cows are not a threat to me,but I may find logic in killing them as a food source.

Human beings aren't cows, or a source of food.

The fact is you can't justify infanticide or the killing of billions upon billions of intelligent beings, there are no grey areas – it's just plain wrong!

Peter

Kester Pelagius
December 24th, 2003, 08:00 AM
Since this thread title is "the final word". . .

Originally posted by peter noble
The fact is you can't justify infanticide or the killing of billions upon billions of intelligent beings, there are no grey areas – it's just plain wrong!

Issues of morality are irrelevent. The entire scene was inserted for pure shock value and serves no other purpose than to attempt to stir up exactly what it has stirred up here, a hornets nest.

Consider: We see Six. Six is established to have been on planet for an unspecified amount of time, but long enough to establish not only a very human relationship of a sexual nature with one horn-dog of a genius but she is stated to have been interacting with other humans for the purpose and intent of espionage. (All of that takes time, at least several months.)

To show such a character suddenly baffeled by a baby is, in a word, ridiculous. In two words: basely illogical. In more than three words: against the grain of the character as presented.

By the moment in time we see Six she should have not only amassed a library of first hand obervational data, but one would assume she'd also long since have managed to download all relevant data about humanity at present up to that date as her computer access could gain her. (Starting from civilian nets, medical databases, et al) Personal curiosity of humanity's biology aside, to show Six so taken with a human baby as was done is a major gaff. IOW: a continuity error.

This scene, IMHO, would have been better shown at the beginning, prior to the roll of the credits, instead of that non-sensical "Armistace" station sequence. As a lead-in, set up to introduce us to a newly arrived Six on planet Caprica, then jumping forward through time lapse to show her with Baltar. . . THAT would have worked.

Further, as creations of humanity, one would assume the cylons would already have amassed more than a basic database of flaws, faults, and biological data. To not know the fragile nature of humans, infants or otherwise, is beyod the pale. But all that could have been ignored if the sequence was shown as a lead-in.

Just my humble opinion. YMMV.


edited for clarity

SpyOne
December 24th, 2003, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by peter noble

But consider this, RDM mentioned that he was "inspired" by the events of 9/11, if this is indeed the case, to follow this line of thought to its logical conclusion, then the Cylons represent al-quaida.

Do you want to justify the killing of the baby now?

Peter

Sure, I'll tackle this one.

Killing a baby is evil.
Cylons are bad guys.
Bad guys are supposed to be evil.

What part of that confuses you?

BST
December 24th, 2003, 09:07 AM
NUMBER 6: God wants children to grow and develop on their own. He wants them to reach their full potential. And so it is that parents must die.

But parents who stand in the way of God's plan, who defy his will... they must be struck down.

BALTAR
What's going on...?

NUMBER 6: Humanity's children are returning home. Today.

Based on this dialogue, the Cylons would appear to be engaged in a jihad against the humans.

Based on REAL events on Planet Earth, the al-Qaeda organization is waging a jihad against the "Western industrialized countries".

A comparison between the two is legitimate.

Darth Marley
December 24th, 2003, 09:38 AM
Comparison legit,but not exactly corellary.

BST
December 24th, 2003, 09:48 AM
Darth,

I'm going by what has been stated previously by Moore. In the CA interview, he DID, in fact, state that he was influenced by the "events of 9/11" and for the viewers to interpret, for themselves, what it means to them. I believe it was the answer to Question# 35. Sorry, I don't have access to the interview, at the moment.

BST

Darth Marley
December 24th, 2003, 10:04 AM
I don't think I am misunderstanding you,and really don't disagree.

I stick by my statement :"I also think the link between Al-Qaeda and the Cylons is not a one-to-one correspondence.Some comparison is valid,but to suggest that defending Cylons equates to defending Al-Qaeda is not an exercise in logic."

I would hope that all of us in the western world would hate real terrorist much more than RDM's fictional creation.

peter noble
December 24th, 2003, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by Darth Marley
I would hope that all of us in the western world would hate real terrorist much more than RDM's fictional creation.

That's a given. ;)

Going back to the motivations of Moore's Cylons, he seemes to say in all his interviews about the show, that the TOS Cylons's motivations were purely EVIL for the sake of somebody being the bad guy. This is not the case as a couple of bits of dialogue in Saga of a Star World inform us.

For all of his assertions about TOS Cylons, the Moore Cylons' motivations are no more clearer or as defined as the originals'.

They destroy the Colonials because God told them to. Yep, that one will go down well in a court of law! :wtf:

Peter

Pagz
December 24th, 2003, 12:20 PM
It seems to me we know as much about the cylons motives in '03 as we did in the pilot of TOS. Unless you've been lucky enought o see the unedited version of the pilot on tape, or now at last on dvd, the only version available has been an edited one where the (brief) history of the cylons that Apollo gives us is cut. Even with that history though, it's not a whole lot to go on. The '03 Cylons appear to be waging some kind of holy war, which I find more interesting personally, and seems to make more sense to me than the cylons of TOS killing us because they just don't understand us, which in itself seems like a continuity error in the face of such characters as Lucifer and Spectre and the Imperious Leader. These are not characters that seem to be unfamiliar with how human psychology works, as they appear to be afflicted with it as well.

Anyway, that's getting off topic. No one here is defending kiling babies. The issue here is, if labeling the act as "evil" is neccessarily correct in terms of Cylons. To us, certainly, it is evil, but that doesn't make it an evil act in intent. It's a matter of perspective. I'm not suggesting that this makes the act acceptable or forgivable, but in terms of the story and the characters being portrayed, it is not a scene that is unjustifiable in context of the film.

dec5
December 24th, 2003, 01:09 PM
Genocide in TOS...it was just toned down for the family hour.......If BG TOS was made into a feature motion picture.....you can expect a bit more graphic scenes of Cylon terror....... Even LOTR ROTK showed some genocide in the battle scenes on civilians.....

peter noble
December 24th, 2003, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by dec5
Genocide in TOS...it was just toned down for the family hour.......If BG TOS was made into a feature motion picture.....you can expect a bit more graphic scenes of Cylon terror....... Even LOTR ROTK showed some genocide in the battle scenes on civilians.....

Yep, you're right, the TOS killed billions upon billions of people, because they resented the way the Colonials' way of life, still somewhat relevant in this day and age regretably. The TOS Cylons see themselves as a force bringing order to the universe, while to them the humans represent chaos.

That's my take on it anyway.

Peter

dvo47p
December 24th, 2003, 03:14 PM
RATING & MONEY, Honey

Listen to David Eick, an Executive Producer of Battlestar Galatica lite!
WOW what a moral compass...............

"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.

http://www.scifi.com/transcripts/2003/eick.12.4.html

Pagz
December 24th, 2003, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by dvo47p
RATING & MONEY, Honey

Listen to David Eick, an Executive Producer of Battlestar Galatica lite!
WOW what a moral compass...............

How exactly can one consider BSG'03 "lite" in comparison to TOS? I really can't get my head around this, the mini is 10 times heavier than TOS.


"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.

http://www.scifi.com/transcripts/2003/eick.12.4.html

Okay, first, the baby's skull is not crushed, its neck is snapped, let's be perfectly clear on that. Secondly, I must reiterate:

In regard to Mr.Eick's answer to the baby killing question, I would suggest that there's an issue of semmantics to be considered. No where does he defend the morality of killing babies. The fact is, evil is a product of intent, not action. Evil is a human construct that we apply to things, often to things outside ourselves that can not be labelled as such. If an animal finds an unprotected litre and proceeds to kill the babies, that is not an act of evil.

The question to be asked is, what was the intent behind 6's action. Cylon's are not human, and as such, applying our morality to them is much like applying it to an animal. The difference being that the Cylons are aware of our conceptions of what encompasses good and evil, they are not, however, required to come to those same conlsuions themselves.

So, did 6 kill the baby as an act of evil, or was it something else? Was it curiousity about the strength of the childs neck? Was it a mercy killing to spare the child the pain of nuclear incineration? There's much to be made of the pained expression on 6's face after having done the deed. Why is it there and what is she thinking?

What it comes down to is Eick is not defending killing babies, nor arguing that killing babies is not wrong. He is saying that it was not neccessarily an evil act on the part of the Cylon. When we put a dog down, that's not evil, and the mentality behind this for 6 could be much the same.

dec5
December 24th, 2003, 05:19 PM
I think Number six embodies what is wrong with the holy war mentality.......the utter elimination of life just because you judge it obsolete and in the way.......her compassion is only based on how it fits the Cylon empire.

dvo47p
December 24th, 2003, 06:13 PM
RATING & MONEY, Honey

Listen to David Eick, an Executive Producer of Battlestar Galatica lite!
WOW what a moral compass...............

"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.

http://www.scifi.com/transcripts/2003/eick.12.4.html

SpyOne
December 25th, 2003, 05:00 AM
I didn't think she crushed its skull, I thought she broke its neck.

Little difference in the final analysis, but different.

dvo47p
December 25th, 2003, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by SpyOne I didn't think she crushed its skull, I thought she broke its neck. Little difference in the final analysis, but different.

Infanticide: the final word is by Executive Producer David Eick, read his words from a Scifi chat................quote and hyperlink included.

"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.

http://www.scifi.com/transcripts/2003/eick.12.4.html

Darth Marley
December 25th, 2003, 12:09 PM
ChatMod: alvin-maker> to <ChatMod>: One of the things RDM has tried to do was to give the Cylons a motive other than just simply being "evil", yet in later drafts of the script and the rough cut, they still had the "babykilling" scene. Isn't this a step backwards?

DavidE: Who is to say the killing of the baby is an act of evil? That's our human prejudice. A natural reaction

DavidE: To any animal, killing often has many motives. Some of which -- many of which are not about morality

dvo47p
December 25th, 2003, 01:13 PM
Ok I have read all of David Eick's bon mots, and…………………

Originally posted by Darth Marley
ChatMod: alvin-maker> to <ChatMod>: One of the things RDM has tried to do was to give the Cylons a motive other than just simply being "evil", yet in later drafts of the script and the rough cut, they still had the "babykilling" scene. Isn't this a step backwards?

DavidE: Who is to say the killing of the baby is an act of evil? That's our human prejudice. A natural reaction

DavidE: To any animal, killing often has many motives. Some of which -- many of which are not about morality

this one is called a distinction without a difference, so your point is what? Please do enlighten us with yours…….

Darth Marley
December 25th, 2003, 09:02 PM
Point is that I see people trying to equate his statement with lack of morals personally.Even to the point of suggesting that to appreciate the mini,one must support baby killing.

Taken in context,the quote does not support killing infants.It does comment on,for one thing,some actions having motives outside of moral conciderations.And this would certainly apply to a robot.Can Cylons be said to be moral in the first place?For that matter,can they be truly evil if they are soulless creatures?Wouldn't that make them destructive,deadly,and dangerous,but beyond good or evil?

Infanticide is practiced in several large and heavily armed cultures today.Certainly that does not make it right from my perspective.

A "human prejudice" is the reply when asked about the behavior of an artificial life form.There is the difference in the distinction.

Am I following the logic of contributors to this thread (and related ones)correctly as :
D.E. said Who is to say the killing of the baby is an act of evil? That's our human prejudice. A natural reaction
RDM said he was inpspired to make script changes by the events of 9/11/01.

So,anyone that enjoys the mini supports baby killing,terroism,and moral relativism?Those suppositions can be rehashed,and arguments for them are weak.

Well,the above is a bit of a strech,and perhaps I am injecting some of my own prejudice in favor of the mini as a whole.I am sure I will be corrected if this is an unfair inference.

It is a work of fiction
Bad acts were commited by "bad guys"
Moral constructs by humans would not necessarily apply to artificial life.

Now,I do understand the Manichean point of view directing that evil is just plain evil.Pointless to argue that A is not A,unless you invoke Godel's theorem of incompleteness.

The scene in question leaves room for doubt as the the motive,and even the method of the killing of the infant.I grant that using interviews and comments by the production team should clarify these questions.Taken in complete context of the question posed to D.E.,I do not see that it is a staement supporting infanticide.

Corwwyn
December 25th, 2003, 09:31 PM
...

[Post deleted, I had adapted a quote from B5, but in hindsight considered it a bit harsh. - Cor]

Darth Marley
December 25th, 2003, 09:41 PM
Hmm,..how adapted was it?

PM it to me if it is in response to me.

sihirvyth2
December 25th, 2003, 09:43 PM
It's getting to the point now where people are acting like the BSG mini is living in an artistic vaccuum.

I can agree if people point out parts of the mini that were written poorly. I can respect people's opinion if they didn't like it period. But all the 'outrage' regarding that scene (and if you include the scene where the girl who gets nuked on the agro ship) strikes me as somewhat over the top. I don't see anyone extending their outrage to Law and Order, The Professional, Joy Luck Club, Trainspotting, and a score of other shows whose plot includes violence against children.

I can understand that people don't like the mini. I didn't think it was the greatest sci fi show ever either. But I think alot of people need to step back, take a deep breath, and get some perspective about the scene.

Even though my impression of Eick is that he's a wanker, I'm not going to hang anyone on statements made in a chat room where someone else is probably typing and paraphrasing his answer. Again, perspective folks.

Corwwyn
December 25th, 2003, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by Darth Marley
Hmm,..how adapted was it?

The quote was intact, I just changed the speakers names.


PM it to me if it is in response to me.
It wasn't in response to you, just something that seemed apt for this thread title when I ran across it.

After posting it it looked a tad harsh in my eyes, and might offend mini fans, which I did not intend.

Darth Marley
December 25th, 2003, 10:20 PM
Well,it is the ugly forum.
I would hope we mini-fans can take a joke.

Coming from B5 leads me to believe it may be some Minbari philosophy on morality.Contributions to that discussion would be welcome on my part.

Corwwyn
December 25th, 2003, 10:36 PM
Ok, here it is then. Apologies for the poor taste.

(Taken from B5:Midnight at the firing line, original version was a Londo/G'kar banter-snatch)

G2003makers to BSGfans:"We should've wiped out your kind when we had the chance."
BSGfans"What happened? Run out of small children to butcher?"

Darth Marley
December 25th, 2003, 10:40 PM
Hehe.

Easy enough to take.

One question for you,and apologies if I asked elsewhere,it is hard to keep track of the numerous anti-mini posters;

Did you watch the show that aired,or no,just going by scripts,and 2nd hand reports?

Corwwyn
December 25th, 2003, 11:04 PM
Suffice to say I have not seen it in a manner that would be approved by the audiovisual equivalent of the RIAA.

Darth Marley
December 25th, 2003, 11:12 PM
Bootlegged copies is still watching it,and that is what I am trying to discover.

I understand the position of those that say they will never watch it.I have heard some of the reasons they do not wish to watch it.Olmos even said to some,"don't watch it."

I am trying to gauge where the various posters fit on the opinion map.

I judge a difference between those that have watched it (regardless of prior bias) and dislike it,and those who for other reasons refuse to watch it at all.

SpyOne
December 27th, 2003, 07:27 AM
Originally posted by dvo47p (deleted)
[B]

Sorry, folks. I see that others have already addressed how this guy just kept repeating himself without contributing to the conversation.

callsignfalcon
December 27th, 2003, 11:54 AM
I thought about writing a response... but then realised it'd just be redundant of what I said in the good mini series section in the thread where this is being discussed... scroll down in this if you want to read it.

http://www.colonialfleets.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5649&perpage=25&pagenumber=2

dvo47p
December 27th, 2003, 06:35 PM
"This guy" is curious, who deleted the quote?

Originally posted by SpyOne
Sorry, folks. I see that others have already addressed how this guy just kept repeating himself without contributing to the conversation.

I PRONOUNCE THIS THREAD AS REDUNDANT

MINI FANS CAN ENJOY THOSE BOOTLEGGED VHS, VCD & DVD’S

TOS FANS MAY WELL LOOK TO MGM’S NEW “BATTLESTAR” MOVIE!

http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/448/448369p1.html?fromint=1

December 23, 2003 - The success of Sci-Fi Channel's recent Battlestar Galactica re-imagining / re-make must have taken a number of people by surprise. Despite critical and fan lambasting, the mini drew impressive numbers for the cable channel, chalking up some of the best ratings in the network's history, so it seemed inevitable that a series order would be announced soon.

Earlier this week a number of web sites announced that just such an order had been inked. Not so, according to a spokesperson for the Sci-Fi Channel. While it still seems likely that there will be some action on the Galactica front, no orders for either a series or a sequel to the mini-series have come from Sci-Fi Channel. No decisions or orders for new episodes will happen until after the first of the year, so cool your jets, little Colonial Warriors.

SpyOne
December 28th, 2003, 05:11 AM
Originally posted by dvo47p
[B]"This guy" is curious, who deleted the quote?
I did. Sorry I wasn't clear about that.

I was replying to where you seemed to be replying to me but were in fact making a 3rd identical post with a quote from me above it.
I wrote a post that pointed out how your post didn't bring any new evidence to support your comments. Then I quoted the chat you linked to, and showed how you mis-characterized the quotation by mis-describing the question it was in response to.
And then I pointed out that in that chat they refer to the scene as "babykilling", with no reference at all to "crushing its skull".

But then I saw that several other people had beat me to it. While I prefer my own choice of phrase to theirs, they adequately addressed each point I had addressed, making my point redundant.
So, I deleted all the redundant parts, which left just the note that I was replying to you and vague snarky comments.

If you care to actually discuss this stuff, I'll gladly do so with you. If you instead choose to be diruptive and childish, I'll be ignoring you.

SpyOne
December 28th, 2003, 05:40 AM
Originally posted by peter noble
Cylons don't seem to have any sort of alien ideoligy as shown in the mini.
Well, they seem to think that killing all the humans is an ok idea. I certainly hope you find that a little alien.
...they also lust, know fear and love it seems.
I didn't see them showing lust or love. 6 only engaged in sex when it would further her purpose -- get her closer to Baltar. And while she showed a certain attachment to him, I'd call it curiosity mostly.
Also, there is the highly relevant question of whether Baltar has a chip in his head or is just hallucinating. In the latter case, nothing the 6 in his head says is really being said by a Cylon.
killing something that is incapable of doing you harm is illogical.
Unless you have some other motive, like curiosity about the strength of it's neck.

SpyOne
December 28th, 2003, 06:03 AM
I agree with Kester Pelagius that the scene in question was used mainly for the shock value.

Originally posted by Kester Pelagius

Consider: We see Six. Six is established to have been on planet for an unspecified amount of time, but long enough ..... at least several months.)

To show such a character suddenly baffeled by a baby is, in a word, ridiculous.
Associating mainly with adults myself, I had no problem embracing the idea that 6 had never actually seen a baby before, or at least never been close enough to touch one.

By the moment in time we see Six she should have not only amassed a library of first hand obervational data, but one would assume she'd also long since have managed to download all relevant data about humanity at present up to that date as her computer access could gain her.
Reading all the technical data on a thing is still not the same as actually holding it. If your life has not already proven this to you, I'd suggest reading a Masters & Johnson report on human sexuality. Contrast that with performing an actual sexual act.
This is often called the difference between "theoretical" and "practical" knowledge.

I agree the scene would have gone better at the beginning. The scene at Armistace Station makes no sense and the only purpose it serves is to tell the audience that Cylons can look human (and specificly like 6).

That said, I think it is also important that this not be her arrival on Caprica. An incindent like that makes her life more difficult, as the mother can describe her to the authorities (and is definitely going to connect the stranger and the dead baby). 6 can only take a risk like that if her mission is almost over.

Further, as creations of humanity, one would assume the cylons would already have amassed more than a basic database of flaws, faults, and biological data. To not know the fragile nature of humans, infants or otherwise, is beyod the pale.
Again, to have read about something is not the same as having experienced it. How many movies have included a line like "I always wondered what it felt like to kill a man."? 6 seemed to be curious about the baby. She found out what it felt like to hold it, then what it felt like to kill it. Both are things that will not be adequately described in any human database, but now she can share that knowledge with other Cylons.

So, while I don't support the idea of killing babies (or much of anyone, really), I can see why the Cylons might find it interesting.
As for the morality issue, I'll just say that if you've already made up your mind to kill everyone in the city, the exact manner of their death pales in importance by comparison. :)

peter noble
December 28th, 2003, 06:40 AM
Originally posted by SpyOne
Well, they seem to think that killing all the humans is an ok idea. I certainly hope you find that a little alien.

Actually I don't, surely you haven't forgotten Hitler's "Final Solution"?

Unless you have some other motive, like curiosity about the strength of it's neck.

This is so lame, I won't even dignify it with a counter-argument.

Peter

Trevor Angelus
December 28th, 2003, 05:59 PM
This is one of the things that is wrong with this country. We lost the nerve to establish things as good and evil. Right and wrong. We want to bend over backwards to please the bullies and charliatans of this nation so we desensitize our self to these notions.

"There is no good or evil, just a differance in point of view" FELGERCARB.

There IS good and evil in this world, right and wrong. To say anything else is to justify his or her wrong doing. Sure there are different points of view and opinions, but when you know that something is definatly wrong, such as rape and turn around and say "Well we can't let our moral prejudice say what he did was wrong, he was operating within his own moral scope" we just open another pandora's box that we can't close.

Don't let these politics and mumbo jumbo get in the way and tell you that there are no such things as morals. Yes It is one statement, but is a grain of sand in the desert and if we let things like this go, it turns into a sandstorm.

Like murder in music. Explicit sex in music and movies. I believe in freedom of speech, but DAMN! There is a limit! Sure it was ridiculous to blame Ozzy for the death of a kid, but when you basicly make political statements of hate and prejudice, of muder death and mayhem, you give up that right.

"If we silence one persons right of speech, we silence all others" FELGERCARB! There are thousands of rednecks just aching to get a lynch mob song on the air, yet they are denyed! Don't let this GARBAGE GET ANY WORSE.

There is just so much crap we can take.

dvo47p
December 28th, 2003, 06:24 PM
A voice of sanity on a thread that has 'some' rational people debating killing a baby!Originally posted by peter noble This is so lame, I won't even dignify it with a counter-argument. Peter
I shall go this, the noble, peter route, terminus.

SpyOne
December 29th, 2003, 08:36 AM
Originally posted by Trevor Angelus
Like murder in music. Explicit sex in music and movies. I believe in freedom of speech, but DAMN! There is a limit! Sure it was ridiculous to blame Ozzy for the death of a kid, but when you basicly make political statements of hate and prejudice, of muder death and mayhem, you give up that right.

"If we silence one persons right of speech, we silence all others" FELGERCARB! There are thousands of rednecks just aching to get a lynch mob song on the air, yet they are denyed! Don't let this GARBAGE GET ANY WORSE.

There is just so much crap we can take.

But who, exactly, would you put in charge of what can and cannot be said in public? I'm fairly sure I don't want it to be you, and trust me that you don't want it to be me. :)

And as for the "...when you basicly make political statements of hate and prejudice, of muder death and mayhem, you give up that right." bit, I stand with the Supreme Court on that one. You can say whatever you want, but you are also responsable for the results of what you say. If you yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire, you must accept responsability for the injuries and deaths that follow. Doesn't change the fact that you had the right to say it.

I have the right to say vile and untrue things about you. You have the right to sue me for damages if I do. Lovely circle.

That all said, I want to clarify my position to this degree:
I didn't realize what I joined this discussion how stupid it had become before this thread began. I assumed the discussion was over whether the scene should have been included, and whether killing a baby was "un-Cylon". That, I believe, has room for debate. As does whether the killing of the baby can be justified from a Cylon point of view.
This is, I feel, wholly seperate from any discussion of whether babykilling is a good thing.

SpyOne
December 29th, 2003, 08:59 AM
An act can be evil or heroic depending on the circumstances.

Being in a war for your very survival can make a lot of things seem justified.
At the risk of punching a button, I'll give an example drawn from modern history.
Right after Spetember 11, lots of folks were using hyperbole to describe the act of crashing an airplane into a target to cause it's destruction. They used worlds like "cowardly", and decried that anyone who took issue with them was an emeny sympathizer.
In the John Wayne movie The Flying Tigers, one of the heroic American pilots does just that. Rather than escape with his life, he crashes an airplane full of explosives into a train carrying supplies to the Japanese army. He does so because war has broken out between the US and Japan, and he realizes that the supplies on that train will be used to help kill Americans.
Being at war makes his suicide attack with an airplane a heroic act, not a cowardly one.
Similarly, we (the US) have, in times of war, knowingly targeted "civilian" targets that supported the enemy war effort, such as factories. In an all-out war, anyone who is supporting the enemy economy is a legitimate target.
So, the point where I disagree with Al-Queda is not thier methods, but the question of whether we were at war before their attack. If we were truly at war, and we were trying to stamp out their way of life, then our economic centers become valid targets and suicide attacks become heroic. But we weren't at war with them, nor were we trying to stamp out their way of life. At best, we were protecting ourselves form them and providing aid to their enemies.
Misguided hardly seems stong enough to characterize their actions, but is probably most accurate. Basicly, they were wrong.

So, the Cylons could do lots of awful stuff without seeing themselves as the villians of the piece. Sadly, the Cylons' motives are not revealed to the viewer.
As for killing the baby, it seems basicly irrelevant. What I mean is, 6 had already decided to kill everyone in that city, and probably hundreds of other cities. She had created the means to make that possable. She was already a mass murderer, and seemed ok with that. After all that, the exact means of death becomes of little importance. The baby was going to be dead before tomorrow, and 6 would have killed it. Is using your own hands any more or less morally acceptable than using nuclear bombs?

How about this? 6 had realized that an act is often more palatable when performed indirectly. That is, a human conscience is less bothered by dropping bombs (or ordering bombs to be dropped) than by sticking a kinfe in someone. Since Cylons seem to be sentient in a way similer to humans (and were, in fact, designed by humans), it seems a logical question to wonder if they have the same mental loophole. So, 6 is curious about whether she is really ready to have the death of everyone in the city on her hands, and more specificly whether she is capable of taking a life directly. A question killing the baby helps answer.

callsignfalcon
December 29th, 2003, 08:26 PM
The way you grow up(or brought up if you prefer) decides your point of view on morals. Societys, religons, family and etc help you to decide your morals. On the issue of baby killing... some people are pro abortion... other avidly against. Its what your taught that defines you and your morals... sure your morals can change as you learn more , but in the case of 6 not only do I think that she was curious about the baby(as she said 'how can its neck support such weight) in particular its neck, but I think she had no thoughts as to the fact that killing an innocent babie was wrong... after all she and her race commited Xenocide did they not?

((more on this topic can be foud in my other post... i really don't want to be redundant, scroll up and select onto the other forum then scroll down to see please))

Kester Pelagius
December 30th, 2003, 12:58 AM
Originally posted by SpyOne
Associating mainly with adults myself, I had no problem embracing the idea that 6 had never actually seen a baby before, or at least never been close enough to touch one.

Problem is if she is Human enough to have sex, yet has a consciousness that can be transferred to a new body at will (or at least upon her current body's demise), I find it hard to believe that the most basic of datum would not be part of her consciouness.

Rather, I think what the scene was attempting to set up was that that Six was not the Six with Baltar. We do see later on that there are other Six's, and I think that might be what that scene might have originally been attempting to set up.

EDIT: That this was a "new" Six. Possibly just born/created. As a Six fresh off the assembly line, as it were, one might assume she'd have some curiosity of the sort exhibited. Maybe.


Originally posted by SpyOne
Reading all the technical data on a thing is still not the same as actually holding it. If your life has not already proven this to you, I'd suggest reading a Masters & Johnson report on human sexuality. Contrast that with performing an actual sexual act.

This is often called the difference between "theoretical" and "practical" knowledge.

Alas that is assuming a Human mentality. Remember we are supposidly dealing with a artificial cybernetic intelligence. One would assume that memories could be easily downloaded, not just memory files.


Originally posted by SpyOne
I agree the scene would have gone better at the beginning. The scene at Armistace Station makes no sense and the only purpose it serves is to tell the audience that Cylons can look human (and specificly like 6).

Too right. Made no sense.

Worse, it only serves to show that the Colonial Military forces are totally inept. I mean a space station, set up to communiate with a enemy, who doesn't want to communicate, and only one officer? No monitoring? No communications personell? No security?

I fear whoever set that scene up hated the military, for it is a scene designed soley as a barb against the military and comes off as being a last minute tack on.


Originally posted by SpyOne
As for the morality issue, I'll just say that if you've already made up your mind to kill everyone in the city, the exact manner of their death pales in importance by comparison. :)

Which brings up a question: Why care?

Actually here's some food for thought: Either the Cylons are organic or they are not. If they are organic that means they had to be grown, even if we assume some form of cloning methodology was employed, that still means they would have a period of growth. Whether that period of growth is excellerated or not is irrelevant because, if they are organic, it immediately negates any sense of curiosity about the fragility of an organic lifeform.

Alas if they are not organic then we have a problem. It was stated the only way to tell a Cylon like Six apart from normal Humans was to cremate them and examine the cremains.

There is something wrong here.


EDIT: Though, if memory serves, wasn't it also hinted at that there might be a way to examine DNA to tell. . Or am I totally misremembering?

DCRabbit
December 30th, 2003, 03:52 AM
It's all just bad writing by someone who professes it to be so grounded in 'reality'.

Yeah.. about as grounded in reality as those old cheap 80s car racing movies where the hero's car wins the race cos he downshifted 50 times and that new 'oxygen injector pipe' his nerd mechanic friend installed turned on when the button is pushed and gives him 500 more horsepower.

DC

Trevor Angelus
December 31st, 2003, 08:24 AM
So everyone is okay with the fact that they got away with killing a baby on tv?


It makes my skin crawl that most everyone seems perfectly ok with it! Is Apathy REALLY that bad in this country?

I understand that there are grey areas in life that are often confusing, but it seems to be this country's purpose to stretch that area as far as possible!

I mean, for example, we have all seen that car in the road with the overloaded trunk. Instead of giving these people tickets to send a message "clean out your car, or don't carry so much", car makers build larger trunks in cars. Eventually these trunks become over loaded and the process begins anew.

It doesn't stop. Once something horrible becomes the norm, people try to stretch the bounds and out do the norm. The line between good and evil dissapears. It won't stop unless we as americans say "WHOA! WAIT JUST A MINUTE!"

But we won't. Because apathy has become our god in this nation.

Darth Marley
December 31st, 2003, 08:50 AM
Good posts Trevor,

I have reached a point in my life that I would rather spend the remainder of my days alone and friendless than trifle in the company of those that greet evil with a smile.

Evil does not stop at rape,murder and theft.There are many little treacheries that are tolerated.

What I don't get is the objection to the fictional portrayal of an evil act by an evil agent.I don't get the outrage,and I don't buy into the "slippery slope" theory that portrayal of these acts dooms our culture to ever increasing acceptance of evil in our real lives.

Obviously,some viewers have a different threshold of offense at both the baby scene,and the sex scenes.It is only a movie.

Kester Pelagius
December 31st, 2003, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by Trevor Angelus
So everyone is okay with the fact that they got away with killing a baby on tv?

You are aware that this is A) a fictional television reality, and; B) that at no time was the baby ever shown to actually be harmed, yes?

That said, if you re-read my posts, at least, you will see that I neither say it is a good or bad scene from a moral standpoint. Just that the scene is grossly irrelevent because it was obviously NOT thought through and, IMHO, exists solely to do just what it is doing here:

Elicit a knee-jerk shock response.

Weighing the scene based upon moral judgement calls of 'good' or 'bad' = Irrelevent because the scene is Irrelevent and totally amoral.

Bwhuh?

Let me explain: IMO the scene demonstrates that someone was not thinking things through by allowing it to survive the editing process. However, by not actually showing anything the scene allows viewers to fill in the gaps with their own imaginations. . . Which, again, only proves the scene is amoral since it leaves the viewer to fill in the blanks. It's also a very old movie making trick. Remember the original Psycho? The shower scene? Same deal. You really saw nothing, and yet you did. . . or did you?

That is why the scene is there. Someone thought they were being very clever with it, alas they did not think through the CONTENT being portrayed in relation to the story, which is more than just a bit vulgar and not at all necessary.

Either Six is a artificial lifeform or she isn't. Either way the level of naivette portrayed in that scene about basic organic lifeforms runs contradictory to everything about her character that has been portrayed in the rest of the series. That the scene was deliberately designed to intimate she might-have-murdered a helpless infant (without ever explicitly stating this as fact) is only par for the course in relation to the rest of the drek heaped upon us. ;)

Edit: It's all about ambiguity. Problem is you can't have too much ambiguity about what is going on, especially with characters, or else you get the sort of problems that arise from watching the mini-series. Intentional loose ends, which can be wrapped up in later series development, are one thing. But ambiguity on this level smacks of rushed production. IMO YMMV

The 14th Colony
December 31st, 2003, 09:30 PM
I had posted this in a seperate thread, but it is appropriate for this one:

I would be the last one could justifyably call old fashioned, prude, touchy, squemish, ect., but IMO there are certain places you don't go to in entertainment media. Killing babies for shock value is one of those places. In a film like Shindler's List, although I don't remember a specific scene of a baby being visibly killed, such a thing would be understandable and appropriate. But not in any other type of film or TV show. That scene, even though I knew it was coming from having read that part of the script last year, revolted and angered me.
The original BSG was a family oriented, kid friendly show. This time around, if the handjob in the first 2 minutes of the mini didn't do it, that baby killing scene would surely have prompted many a parent to change the channel for the sake of their viewing children.

Trevor Angelus
January 1st, 2004, 03:22 PM
Umm, I don't care what was going on with the story, the politics behind the camera, or if it was shock value. THEY KILLED A BABY! They showed someone reaching into a crib and snapping its neck. It doesn't matter how graphic it was, you don't show that on television.

Yes this was a work of fiction, no matter how much RDM and DE's efforts into makeing it more real and in documentary style. They were not filming some attrocity that actually happened, this was fiction and thought it would make the story good by showing such horror.

And most people instead of getting upset and letting these people know how horrible it was, have been justifying what they did.

There IS NO justification to what they did. It was wrong and they know it. They were only stretching the envelope for what would be acceptable in the future.

malachi42
January 1st, 2004, 04:36 PM
"Umm, I don't care what was going on with the story, the politics behind the camera, or if it was shock value. THEY KILLED A BABY! They showed someone reaching into a crib and snapping its neck. It doesn't matter how graphic it was, you don't show that on television."


You do realize that they didn't kill a REAL baby? Do you watch any dramas currently on television? I have seen far worse done to children on many nightime dramas.


"Yes this was a work of fiction, no matter how much RDM and DE's efforts into makeing it more real and in documentary style. They were not filming some attrocity that actually happened, this was fiction and thought it would make the story good by showing such horror."

So you must object to the fictional portrayal in BSG of the genocide of virtually an entire race of people, because it is fictional?


And most people instead of getting upset and letting these people know how horrible it was, have been justifying what they did.

There IS NO justification to what they did. It was wrong and they know it. They were only stretching the envelope for what would be acceptable in the future.

You seem to miss the point of fiction. It explores all aspects of the human story. Sometimes bad things happen. People are murdered, raped, brutalized. There are acts of unjustified war, genocide, racisim, wrongful imprisonment AND ABOUT A BILLION OTHER UNPLEASANT SUBJECTS. SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME WRITERS HAVE WRITTEN ABOUT THESE THINGS. WITH THE ADVENT OF FILM AND TELEVISION. THEY CONTINUED TO WRITe about them. It's not all teletubbies. Because a writers tells a story that may be about rape or murder it does not mean that he condones those acts. Where do you get such an idea?

malachi42
January 1st, 2004, 04:38 PM
Sorry about the upper case.

Trevor Angelus
January 2nd, 2004, 06:34 AM
Just because Peter did it, doesn't mean Paul had to. Just because there is precedent doesn't mean we have to blindly follow along, or more to the point, lower ourselves to those standards.

Yes the basic story of Galactica is genocide. It was horrible, but we did not have to watch as each individual was killed. We caught a glimpse of what happened. The fact that it happened alone was enough. And I understand that they had to show some explosions and what not, although I am still a bit upset that they showed the death of a dog in the original.

But my point is the deaths were not in your face. There was no moment, other than the dog, where something that horrible happened. Did they HAVE to show the fembot reaching into the crib? No. That was not needed to tell the story at all. Yes it was genocide and everyone died anyway, but this was a singled out moment chosen by Moore to be filmed for dramatic effect. The death of a child should not be that in your face for so petty a reason.

I do realize that there are programs on televison that do show these kind of attrocities. Law And Order is 3 of them(if you catch me). However 9 times out of ten they are based on REAL events, and all the time the story is centered around the crime and the punishment of the criminal. It has never been used solely for shock value as it was on the Mini. Yes the horrible thing happened but the police are going to catch those responsible and do their best to right the wrong.

Also not once did it happen, but twice. They focused on a little girl right before the ship she was on was destroyed. Yet again using the death of a child for dramatic effect.

Now was it real. NO. But the common occurance of using scenes like this solely for dramatic effect desesitises us to the absolute horror of what happened. Just think of what someone else is going to do in the comming years to top it.

And if that doesn't bother you, I think you need to reevaluate your morals.

Yminale
January 2nd, 2004, 07:47 AM
Originally posted by Trevor Angelus
Yes the basic story of Galactica is genocide. It was horrible, but we did not have to watch as each individual was killed. We caught a glimpse of what happened. The fact that it happened alone was enough. And I understand that they had to show some explosions and what not, although I am still a bit upset that they showed the death of a dog in the original.

Uhm in the original BG. They showed people screaming, getting blown up and bodies were being flung around. It's pretty disturbing to watch.


But my point is the deaths were not in your face. There was no moment, other than the dog, where something that horrible happened. Did they HAVE to show the fembot reaching into the crib? No. That was not needed to tell the story at all. Yes it was genocide and everyone died anyway, but this was a singled out moment chosen by Moore to be filmed for dramatic effect. The death of a child should not be that in your face for so petty a reason.

Petty reasons?? I disagree. The scene was designed to show the complexity of six in particular and the Cylons in general. The whole point that the new Cylons are not mindless killing machines, that their reason for the attack are multilayered and that they have a fasination with us seem to escape most people. If you think villians should be one dimensional cartoons, I guess you would have a problem with it.



Now was it real. NO. But the common occurance of using scenes like this solely for dramatic effect desesitises us to the absolute horror of what happened. Just think of what someone else is going to do in the comming years to top it.

Good Grief watching a child die on TV doesn't desensitize me when it happens in real life. The problem here is that people focus too much on the act don't even bother thinking about the context it's shown. I mean are you seriousely stating that their are some ideas artists shouldn't explore no matter how well it's done. That's called censorship.


And if that doesn't bother you, I think you need to reevaluate your morals.

What bothers me is when people state that if that I like the mini then I must be immoral. I personally consider that offensive. Many people are both horrified by the scene yet understand their purpose in the narrative. I also don't understand why people are judging the new BSG by the standards of the old one. I think Ron Moore should be given some credit for trying to make the show more mature.

malachi42
January 2nd, 2004, 08:35 AM
"But my point is the deaths were not in your face. There was no moment, other than the dog, where something that horrible happened. Did they HAVE to show the fembot reaching into the crib? No. That was not needed to tell the story at all. Yes it was genocide and everyone died anyway, but this was a singled out moment chosen by Moore to be filmed for dramatic effect. The death of a child should not be that in your face for so petty a reason."

I wouldn't call dramatic effect a "petty reason". That is the entire point of dramatic storytelling. I take it you felt the same way about 'Apocolypse Now'. 'The Killing Fields', 'Platoon' and 'Lord of the rings'. Visual media that sometimes uses horrific images (not just sounds) to convey horror.
In your face? We never saw the act of killing. It was all implied. I wasn't even sure of what 6 did, until the mother started screaming. Is it horrific? Of course it is. That is what dramtic fiction is supposed to do. Invoke feelings, sometimes good, happy feelings and sometimes bad and sad feelings.



"I do realize that there are programs on televison that do show these kind of attrocities. Law And Order is 3 of them(if you catch me). However 9 times out of ten they are based on REAL events, and all the time the story is centered around the crime and the punishment of the criminal. It has never been used solely for shock value as it was on the Mini. Yes the horrible thing happened but the police are going to catch those responsible and do their best to right the wrong."


As I asked you earlier, you object then to a show of any kind about genocide that is based on fictional events? I truly don't get thios point. It's ok to show the horrors of the Nazi regime, but not about a fictional regime? What do you read and watch?
And the bad guys do not always get caught on todays television, that kind of TV went out with TJ Hooker. I think the very idea of television somehow being involved in setting the moral code for us as one of it's goals is extremely dangerous.




"Also not once did it happen, but twice. They focused on a little girl right before the ship she was on was destroyed. Yet again using the death of a child for dramatic effect.

Now was it real. NO. But the common occurance of using scenes like this solely for dramatic effect desesitises us to the absolute horror of what happened. Just think of what someone else is going to do in the comming years to top it."

Or maybe it does not desensitize. It certainly hasn't had that effect on you or an awful lot of other posters. Perhaps it is the opposite effect. It does indeed horrify us, and rather than sitting like a couch potato in front of out tv once again,. we are angered and upset by the ideas presented. And perhaps the next time a political leader somewhere in the world begins to eliminate his people, we will think about the children who are going to die in horrific ways, and we will act swiftly. Perhaps when we hear about the children dying and losing limbs making basketballs in horrific conditions in India or Malaysia, we will move heaven and earth to stop it.





And if that doesn't bother you, I think you need to reevaluate your morals.

This is the kind of thinking that I find quite dangerous. If I disagree with you, then my morals are in question? If I have a different political view than someone, perhaps that makes me un American? Your entire train of thought smacks of censorship, quelling voices that don't vocalize your personal moral code. I find that offensive, but I defend to the end your right to say it, and would never want your view to be censored because it was differnt than mine.
BTW, have you ever read The Crucible?

__________________

Darth Marley
January 2nd, 2004, 08:37 AM
I am confident my morals are in good shape.

There is a great difference in morals and conduct and artistic expression.Those that hate the scene,hey,I am not going to claim you lack artistic appreciation,we have different standards and points of view.

Claiming that those that disagree are either tastless or amoral serves little constructive pupose.

Say you didn't like it.Say you will not let your children watch.
Say you didn't watch the scene because you hate the idea of the RDM production,but are going to complain anyway.Fine by me.

Say I need to check my morals,and I say you have gone too far.

BST
January 2nd, 2004, 09:51 AM
Ok, folks.

Please lighten up on the "generalizations" of the membership. Debating the issue is fine but, let the debate stay with the issue. Let the disagreement be with the issue, not with the person sharing their thoughts.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation,

BST

Trevor Angelus
January 2nd, 2004, 10:09 AM
I AM NOT saying that if you liked the mini that you are immoral. However if you have to go and bend over backwards to defend the actions of the writers, you need to stop and look at what it exactly is that you are protecting IN THE LONG RUN!

Granted I didn't care about the mini, but I didn't even WATCH IT! I would be arguing this if were Babylon 5 or Stargate or Tracker.

As to what I watch I like Smallville, Angel, Law and Order, Frasier, Scrubs, Alias, The Practice, Friends, and ER.

If you want a complex villian with layers, you can do it with out what they did. Now I admit they did have infantcide on Angel. I was upset about that, however the producers did not defend their actions in fact Angelus was an evil bastard until he gained a soul and spent every wakeing moment makeing up for his past. Also the act was never shown only discussed.

You want an alternative on what could have been more dramatic and had even more shock value without doing something like that? How about trading infants, leaving a cylon in the crib and taking the human child back to cylon to teach it Cylon values and ultimatly to hate its own race. And have the mother realize all to late what her child really is, but since he had a normal human up bringing, will he be good or will he be a slave to his Cylon instincts? There is a million things you could do with that scenario.

Now my big problem fictional atrocities over fact is this.

In movies like Platoon they are showing you THIS is what happens in war. THIS is what our sons and daughters will be called upon to do, and what could possibly happen to them.

In fiction, it is the writer stretching the envelope just to see what can get aired. To see just how far he can go before someone tells him "Hey, whoa there, that's a little too much."

We have to have boundaries, we have to know where to stop. No one should have to tell us when, but we should have the presence of mind to know ourselves.

As for the Mini, for all I know if I watched it I could have LOVED it to death, with a few exceptions. My issue is NOT with the fans of the mini but with the producers and the writer. Because death, any kind is used as a quick way for dramatic effect. And because it is so common place, that death happens all the time in all media, they have to get creative with it.

Think about it. Death on television doesn't bother us. It really doesn't. Because it happens all the time so we are used to it.

I just don't want us to get "used to" infantcide.

That is all I'm really trying to say. I'm sorry if I offended anyone.

Please forgive me.

Kester Pelagius
January 2nd, 2004, 11:07 AM
Greetings Trevor,

And a Happy New Year to you! :D

Originally posted by Trevor Angelus
I AM NOT saying that if you liked the mini that you are immoral. However if you have to go and bend over backwards to defend the actions of the writers, you need to stop and look at what it exactly is that you are protecting IN THE LONG RUN!

Granted I didn't care about the mini, but I didn't even WATCH IT! I would be arguing this if were Babylon 5 or Stargate or Tracker.

I think it is time you step away from the keyboard, count to ten, and remind yourself this is only a televsion series. Then, upon reflection, and in light of your statement above, re-evaluate whether the stress you obviously must be deriving from this discussion is really worth it. Too, speaking to something of which, by your own admission, you know nothing about is setting yourself up to be called a troll.

None of us want to see that.

I attempted to explained the scene, it is pointless, and totally amoral. (Not morally ambiguous, it is set up to be amoral while allowing viewers to fill-in-blanks.) It was designed that way. It is a trope. There is far worse out there in TV land, especially on "cop dramas" like NYPD Blue; if you are looking for a cause.

Just be aware that if you feel you can't be bothered with taking the time to actually view the shows you are setting out to chastise and heap contempt upon, that you may be treated in kind by those less charitable.

Just FYI.


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

BST
January 2nd, 2004, 12:03 PM
Ok, folks.

Time to take a chill pill!!

Please keep the debate to the issue and not with each other's opinion of the issue.


Kester,

FYI - I did not watch the mini-series, either, and I was upset about the scene being filmed and included. For me, I did not need to visualize the scene to be upset about it, the mere reading about it served that purpose. Does that make my opinion any less worthy?

BST

Darth Marley
January 2nd, 2004, 12:16 PM
If I had a chill pill,I would be much happier.But I have been off my medication for many months now.

Being upset about a scene you didn't see...

Well,for one thing,I would venture it makes your opinion less informed.Maybe I need a different word.Many can complain about,for example,abusive language in rap lyrics,and never have heard the song.I understand your point in this regard.

As a fan of the RDM mini,it is a bit perplexing to see the highly energized TOS fanbase devoutly refusing to watch "the abomination" but still bother to read the script.

For my part,I do not seek out rap lyrics to read.But if it were something I knew about,I would have sought out an advance copy of the script.
For my tastes,if I read the script in advance,I would probably have loved it.

These differences have been rehashed elsewhere in the forum.

http://www.colonialfleets.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5738 has interesting material direct from RDM.

BST
January 2nd, 2004, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by Darth Marley
If I had a chill pill,I would be much happier.But I have been off my medication for many months now.

Being upset about a scene you didn't see...

Well,for one thing,I would venture it makes your opinion less informed.

How so? (Then, I read the next 2 sentences...)

Maybe I need a different word.Many can complain about,for example,abusive language in rap lyrics,and never have heard the song.I understand your point in this regard.

Thanks, Darth. :)

...And to embellish what I said earlier, my point is, that I don't NEED to visualize #6 "holding the baby", "placing the baby back in the crib", "hearing the SNAP of the baby's neck", to realize that the scene sickens me. I was able to deduce that from reading it.

Also, as you don't go around looking for rap lyrics to read before listening to the song, I don't go around looking for scripts to read about shows which may interest me. I did, on this occasion, because BSG interests me and because the draft script was available. Due to my interest in BSG, suffice it to say that I kept up to date on the events surrounding it much more closely than I would other TV shows or movies.

Aside from watching the show, I feel that I was at least as "informed" as the person who heard about it and plopped down on the couch to watch it on Dec. 8 and 9.

BST

Darth Marley
January 2nd, 2004, 01:52 PM
I got a bit rushed,had to end the post.

The link to Larocque's post serve up good info on the topic,I thought.
Also,taken with reading that post,there may be something to actually seeing the scene.RDM's comment that it would have been cut if not so well performed.Sure,you can have informed outrage just by reading the script.But you might be missing something as well.

Kester Pelagius
January 2nd, 2004, 02:04 PM
Greetings BST,

And a very Happy New Year to you! :)

Originally posted by BST
FYI - I did not watch the mini-series, either, and I was upset about the scene being filmed and included. For me, I did not need to visualize the scene to be upset about it, the mere reading about it served that purpose. Does that make my opinion any less worthy?

It all depends upon context.

Viz. A discussion of scenes, as outlined in a script, is a far different matter from offering critique on a actual series. If you have not actually seen the scene in question how can you be able to properly speak to what was, or was not, actually shown? Imagination is a wonderous things and it can create vivid vistas of wonderous delight, or paint nightmare terraces of mind numbingly diabolical horror. But imagination is just what we would be talking about here, if all we were talking about was a scene in a script.

I am not trying to play devil's advocate for the scene, either as aired or as written, but if we haven't watched the series, then can we really speak to just how utterly pointless it was in context to what was actually shown on screen?

Of course not.

That isn't to say someone's opinion on the matter is invalid or unworthy. However the question you pose is a manner by comparison, and that could be construed as invalid as it could appear you are trying to deflect attention from what was actually said by twisting topical matters into a personal attack, thus forcing the person you are talking into a defensive stance. Debate society tactics 101, or over-reaction?

Doesn't matter. Irrelevant. Like the scene in question. ;)

I may be biased, having stated flatly I think it is a pointless scene, one that, IMO, was put in strictly for shock value. It is just a Hitchcockian shower scene. You never explicitly see anything actually occur. That makes it abjetly amoral. More to the point the scene in the actual series is, I believe, what was under discussion. Not how the scene may or may not have been presented in a script.

Script's change. The manner in which the written word portrays scenes undergoes significant change once the dynamic of human presense (read: actors) are involved. But, from what you've said, I presume the scene was even worse in the script. And that just goes to show, IMO, that the scene was designed to do just what it is doing here. Stir emotions by causing a visceral reaction. Far as I can see, based on the series as aired, and comments from those who have read the script, the scene would seem to have served no purpose beyond this.

Whch is sad.


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

Trevor Angelus
January 2nd, 2004, 06:16 PM
Okay I tried playing nice but it seems that from the responses I'm getting that you are skimming through my posts and taking them out of context.

For one, in order for me to be a troll I have to Slam one thing and praise another. I did no such thing. I have not slammed the Mini, well not in this thread anyway. This thread has nothing to do with slamming the mini. READ THE SUBJECT!!!!!

It ia discussing the issue of infantcide, not on how good or bad the mini was, but on how moral of a decision it was to use the death of children in a MINOR plot development, and when I ay minor, I mean the film could have done without these scenes.

My argument is and always ahas been that once you open the door to something more often than not you canot close it and it leads to yet another door.

Like it was said about the shower scene. That was 40 years ago, and back then that was very shocking. Today we can SHOW audiences the nudtity AND the actual stabbing of the victim.

My point is this, just like psycho, this act of infantcide has opened the door to where they may actually SHOW the child's death in a future film 40 years down the road, if not sooner.

Also does the shower scene still bother people? For the most part no, in fact you'll be hard pressed to find a a teen who is disturbed by the Exorcist! They look at that and say "What's the big deal?" I don't want that to happen where child death is concerned.

Another thing, I have never singled out ANYONE and called anybody immoral, yet I have been singled out in most everyone's posts.

It seems that what set everyone off was on how I said you need to reevaluate your morals.I was speaking in general to everyone, not singling out anyone in particular.

I was stating that if the death of a child, in any shape or form did not bother ANYONE we need to take a fresh look at what we, as human beings consider right and wrong.

I do not have the right to judge ANYONE, that job belongs to the courts and the powers the be behind the universe.

I was merely pointing out what will likely happen if we turn a blind eye to this.

And as for me attacking Moore, I loved Star Trek TNG. I think he is a VERY talented writer. Yet I do not agree with his decision to use infantcide in his script, and that was the SOUL of the subject on this thread. Let's stay on subject.

I'm with most people on the subject that if you like the mini, I'm glad it entertained you and I hope you continue to enjoy it. As for me, if I respect your opinion, please respect mine.

Go back and read my posts in this light to get my meaning. And once again if I offended anyone i'm sorry.

thomas7g
January 2nd, 2004, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by Kester Pelagius
.... speaking to something of which, by your own admission, you know nothing about is setting yourself up to be called a troll.

stop.gif

Kester, DO NOT REFER TO PEOPLE AS TROLLS.


EVERYONE. CALM DOWN. THE ANGER IS MESSING UP MY HAPPY ISLAND.