(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

[sihirvyth2]

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:mad:

[BarrymoreYorke]

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. :salute:

[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.

[beeker]

Thanks for splitting the thread Hito. :) I was going to start a new thread on the subject yesterday, but it just seemed wrong to start a discussion about a baby killing (ficitonal or not) on Christmas.

The current debate around the scene seems to be whether it is, a) gratutious violence done simply for shock value, or b) a necessary scene that advances character and/or plot development. I think that there is another reason. That is to ivest the viewer emotionally into the violence inherent in BSG.

Most sci-fi is extremely violent (as are a lot of other shows like the News). Unless the violence happens directly to one of the main characters most viewers will simply shurg it off emotionally. The same is true in RL that unless it happens close to home people do not invest emotionally in it. People have become desensetized to violence. We put up walls between the violence in the world and our emotions. Unlike most sci-fi shows Moore wanted to get past those walls, and get people to react emotionally to the violence in BSG (part of the whole "re-invent sci-fi" thing).

There are only a few ways to get pretty much universal emotional reaction to violence. One, if it happens to people we know. This was the main reason for the "Earth" feel to the colonies, it was as close a possible that Moore could get to making feel like we could know those people. Two, if it happens to a child. Except to the most hardened individual violence against children cuts through all the emotional barriers that people put up.

Moore wanted to get away from the whole "gee billions are dead, lets go have a party" mentality of TOS (and other sci-fi). However, to do that it is not enough to have the actors react the way he wants. He has to get the viewers emotionally involved as well.

The viewers wouldn't get involved simply by the nuking of the colonies. No matter how close to Earth-like more can make it it is not close enough. That leaves violence to children to get past our guard. There are two such scene in the mini. The baby killing, and the abandonment of Kami. Both scenes had more emotional impact than all of the rest of the violence combined.

Going back to the baby scene. In a way it was gratutious and done for shock because it does not advance Six's character (not in any meaningful way) or the plot. In another way it was absolutley necessary to get the viewer to react to Six and the plot properly. We should react strongly to the destruction of the colonies, but we don't. We should react strongly to Six's role in that destruction, but again we don't. Therefore, there is a scene that can (in some ways) address that problem. It is transference. People will react strongly to the baby killing in the way they should (but don't) react to the destruction of the colonies. They will react to Six the same. In sci-fi it is all too common for the bad guys to change sides, and all is forgiven. That is not going to happen with Six (at least without a lot of work). Not because she is responsible of the shutting down of the defense network (which should be an unforgivable crime), but because she killed a baby.

IMO the baby killing wouldn't have been necessary if the destruction of the colonies was able to produce the same level of emotional distrubence among the viewers.

[AlternityOrange]

Originally posted by Hito
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.

That's not what I was saying. I am fully aware that many people here did like the mini series. It's the defence of that particular scene as anything other than something done simply for the shock value that I was referring to. I apologize if I was misunderstood by anyone.

[Dennis]

It was clear in the context of the scene that "baby-killing" was evil even -- to her surprise -- to Six; it appeared to trouble her despite a lifetime of religious indoctrination in the necessity of destroying the Enemy.

Eick's intended point, in context, makes sense as well: the Cylons certainly don't consider, or aren't taught to consider, the killing of humans (infant or otherwise) as an "evil thing" but as a goal and a necessity.

The folks who destroyed the World Trade Centers, after all, appeared to consider themselves courageous heroes and martyrs (as did a fair number of people in the part of the world they arose from, based on some of the celebrations that occurred there directly after).

I won't claim to be conversant -- or sympathetic -- to the system of ethics that casts civilian noncombatants as enemies in war, but if one doubts that such systems of belief exist simply watch the news or read a newspaper.

How much easier it would be to resolve problems if we could just get universal agreement on when and what kind of killing of whom is "heroic" and what is "barbaric" -- very few people, particularly young people, anywhere, really wish to train and carry out acts that they believe make them the Bad Guys, after all. Our problem remains that most killers of any stripe, under any flag, consider themselves heroes.

[jean]

Then there are those of us that saw the baby-killing scene and are so disgusted that we really don't give a rats ass about what Ron Moore intended. There are many people (with small children, have worked with abused children, etc.) that are going to feel at a gut level that the scene was crap and unnecessary. Intellectualization or rationalization of the scene doesn't help. Sometimes writers go too far.

This was a space opera about robots and space ships. This was not Schindler’s List. I would tolerate this scene in a movie about the attempted extermination of a race but I won't in a silly space opera.

I think writers should be careful about the shock content they use. They should make it appropriate for the type of material they are writing.

Some people are going to be in awe of a baby having its neck snapped. There are a lot of people who are going to hate it and change the channel.

[malachi42]

" This was a space opera about robots and space ships. This was not Schindler’s List. I would tolerate this scene in a movie about the attempted extermination of a race but I won't in a silly space opera."


Ummm, isn't BSG about the attempted extermination of a race? Are you being facetious?

So should we never do movies or television about what people are capable of doing to each other? Never show the violence that gets conducted every day of our lives? Never portray war, murder, child abuse...
Should television only portray happy, pretty stories and ignore the world we all live in? Doesn't that allow people to live in denial and the horror to perhaps be commited unchecked because everyone can pretend it doesn't happen? Can't film and television be a tool for consideration of the very questions that are being raised on this board and others? Shouldn't it be a vehicle to provoke debate and discourse and even make us uncomfortable sometimes, perhaps forcing change? Or should it just be a vehicle for escape?
What would happen to Eugene O'Neil, Steinbeck, Aurthur Miller, Diary of Anne Frank if we all condemned their creators for showing that which is ugly and horrifying.

[malachi42]

Originally posted by malachi42
" This was a space opera about robots and space ships. This was not Schindler’s List. I would tolerate this scene in a movie about the attempted extermination of a race but I won't in a silly space opera."


Ummm, isn't BSG about the attempted extermination of a race? Are you being facetious?

So should we never do movies or television about what people are capable of doing to each other? Never show the violence that gets conducted every day of our lives? Never portray war, murder, child abuse...
Should television only portray happy, pretty stories and ignore the world we all live in? Doesn't that allow people to live in denial and the horror to perhaps be commited unchecked because everyone can pretend it doesn't happen? Can't film and television be a tool for consideration of the very questions that are being raised on this board and others? Shouldn't it be a vehicle to provoke debate and discourse and even make us uncomfortable sometimes, perhaps forcing change? Or should it just be a vehicle for escape?
What would happen to Eugene O'Neil, Steinbeck, Aurthur Miller, Diary of Anne Frank if we all condemned their creators for showing that which is ugly and horrifying.

[malachi42]

Sorry everyone - just learned how to quote. Sort of...

[BST]

Originally posted by malachi42

Can't film and television be a tool for consideration of the very questions that are being raised on this board and others? Shouldn't it be a vehicle to provoke debate and discourse and even make us uncomfortable sometimes, perhaps forcing change? Or should it just be a vehicle for escape?

Yes, they should be tools used for these things. However, if too much time is spent on stating and re-stating problems, doesn't that take away from the time that could be spent on developing solutions to these very problems? It's very easy to say that there are problems in society -- we get daily updates of this from a multitude of sources -- newspapers, tv, radio, and internet. The hard part comes in trying to devise / develop solutions. Can't we as a people begin to allocate some time to look for the silver linings instead of constantly focusing all of our energies on looking for the dark clouds?

[jean]

Ummm, isn't BSG about the attempted extermination of a race? Are you being facetious?

Dude... Battlestar Galactica was not REAL. It never really happened. Schindler's List was about the Holocaust. Check that movie out sometime. It really happened. Killing Fields is another REAL movie.

Ron Moore is not Eugene O'Neil, Steinbeck, Arthur Miller, or writing the Diary of Anne Frank. Anne Frank was REAL too. I would not put Battlestar Galactica any where in that list.

I really don't need a hack like Ron Moore to teach me about life. The REAL world is a wonderful teacher.

Who is saying that we should not have provocative shows with unpleasant themes?

[Dennis]

Originally posted by AlternityOrange
I'm not sidestepping anything Mr. Bailey.



Claiming that a dozen times won't make it so. You insult folks by insinuations about their motives, as you did BarrymoreYorke. You can't deny that, so you'll settle for needling other folks instead.

"Sidestep" is just me using a more polite word than the behavior warrants.

Originally posted by BST
No, Dennis, IT is the opinion that is to be respected as well as the right to present it.

You're mistaken. There's no reason to respect the content of an opinion which one considers -- hypothetically -- bigoted or stupid or malign or transparently dishonest. One respects the right of others to express differing opinions; there is no civil or ethical requirement to pretend that all opinions have the same intrinsic value.

[callsignfalcon]

Schindlers list was a movie based on the truth. The Holocaust.

------
Dictionary.com 's definintion of Holocaust:

1. Great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life, especially by fire.
2.
1. Holocaust The genocide of European Jews and others by the Nazis during World War II: “Israel emerged from the Holocaust and is defined in relation to that catastrophe” (Emanuel Litvinoff).
2. A massive slaughter: “an important document in the so-far sketchy annals of the Cambodian holocaust” (Rod Nordland).
3. A sacrificial offering that is consumed entirely by flames.

---

This movie by definition was a holocaust or a 'Great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life'. It was also about the survivors and what they went through to escape.

Moore's objective was to show a more human version of Science fiction, correct? He did, in my opininion, an excellent job of showing Humanities survival instinct in the face of great peril: The extermination of their civilization and humanity as a civilization. He was using the major idea of the survivors of a holocaust running from their opressors in his film and although it is science fiction it is an entirely plausable happening.

I have also recenltly watched Terminator 3... the idea of machines whiping out the human race in that movie was not abhored, was it? In fact T3 and its predicerors are pretty popular. This is another version of the same.


He also in turn showed another side, the side of the cylons. While the Cylons are depictied as machines he has also brought into play another side of them, an emotional side. The cylon that tried to kill Adama on the station asked him if perhaps God had given the Cylons souls to punish(I believe there may be a better word for this) the humans for their faults or sins. Obviously they had a religon that they had built for themselves thus they are AI's capable of learning and adapting. Also the cylons seemed to infer that their destruction of humanity had to do with God... thus perhaps the ' sacrificial offering' comes into play.

However I'll get back to what I believe was the topic of this thread.

In the scene where six snaps the babies neck, although horrid, shows another side to this creature. It has her wondering how its neck can sustain the weight so she tries to see how much it can hold, or something to that affect. Perhaps she never meant to actually kill the babie at that time, she just meant to see how such a fragile thing could hold the weight.

The emotions shown later by six in that scene and beyond are evident that she has learned something. Its her belief that the humans should die yet she has attachment to them, or rather Baltar, enough to save him.

Perhaps she, if this goes to series, will learn that humans are not that bad and will turn on the other cylons. If we are to believe the Cylons as a whole are bad... what about Boomer? Boomer obvioulsy shows remorse and many other feelings of which can't have all been programed into her. She most likely learned to feel them... the same as what six was doing.

The Baby killing may have been unnecessary and is a very horrid thing, but what could have replaced it to succesfully enlighten us on six's character? I can't thing of anything currently... but perhaps there is something that could have been used. The scene built something important in my eyes that, while "shocking" and "Horrid" says this: Six is not human, but she was curious... a trait that has caused many things, both bad and good to happen.

The scene also helps to state that six is NOT human. She doesn't go by our moral judgements. Which is obvious since her "people" wiped out almost the entire human race... and are trying to finish it off. Just like our cultures here on Earth are different. One may say that murdering is wrong, another may say that to murder someone who has commitied audultry is honorable. In an even more disgusting point there are people who believe that rapeing an Infant will cure them of various diseases.

Morals are different from person to person. It can depend on your upbringing, your culture, your religon, etc. Six's upbringing(culture and religon) said that humans were to be exterminated and she showed that clearly throughout the mini. But she also started to show another side with her helping Baltar... people change why not an AI?

---

O.O I wrote a lot.... heh.... wow
:blink: :yikes:

[Dennis]

Originally posted by jean
This was a space opera about robots and space ships. This was not Schindler’s List.

And god forbid that a "space opera" aspire to be anything more interesting.

The amount of discussion concerning ethics and war-time violence (or the responsibilities of fiction, for that matter) being occasioned by this scene -- here and in quite a few other places -- is more than enough payoff for its inclusion. I mean, instead we could be arguing about whether it was the Toltecs or the Egyptians who descended from the Capricans. Thank god there's more to this show than that.

[jean]

Oh brother.

[callsignfalcon]

:light:

Why couldn't it be both? :P I mean they both had pyramids... perhaps they split into 2 factions due to different political values....


:D lol

[beeker]

Originally posted by BST
Yes, they should be tools used for these things. However, if too much time is spent on stating and re-stating problems, doesn't that take away from the time that could be spent on developing solutions to these very problems? It's very easy to say that there are problems in society -- we get daily updates of this from a multitude of sources -- newspapers, tv, radio, and internet. The hard part comes in trying to devise / develop solutions. Can't we as a people begin to allocate some time to look for the silver linings instead of constantly focusing all of our energies on looking for the dark clouds?

I disagree somewhat here. I agree that too much time is spent simply stating and re-stating problems, but I don't think that enough time is spent in understanding those problems. Without understanding there is unlikely to be any real solutions to those problems.

Without any real understanding of the fundamental problems most proposed solutions fail. Worse than simply failing they 1) usually cost too much for little gain; 2) cost more in lives than they should, also for little gain; and 3) upset just about everyone involved to no real purpose.

[Dennis]

Originally posted by callsignfalcon
:light:

Why couldn't it be both? :P I mean they both had pyramids... perhaps they split into 2 factions due to different political values....


:D lol

Well, Mr. callsignfalcon -- if that is your real name -- if you enjoy scenes of pyramids being split into factions, regardless of who wrote it, that's perfectly within your rights. :laugh:

[thomas7g]

I haven't had real time for debate these last two weeks, but personally I have a few thoughts.

On Eick- I'm sure he basically was caught with his pants down and tried to say something that came out horribly wrong. I'm sure he doesn't condone baby killing in any way. I just think his tongue made an arse of himself. Big oops.

The scene I think should have been cut. Same with the opening scene. (thank god they cut the hand grabbing his crotch part) The whole first hour was way too long anyways.

The whole baby killing works against the six character. How can you EVER sympathize with a baby killer? How can you feel empathy for her? How can you like her after that scene?

I think that scene seriously kills the future of Six. What can you do with a character after she has snapped off a baby's head? You can't make her a romantic lead. You can't make her vulnerable, or funny, or sweet. You can't ever redeem her. Basically she can only be a character the audience hates now. And she can only cause trouble, and be killed.

[Dennis]

And yet, they went on to do most of those things.

Looking around the boards and at the many reviews of the series, its a pretty small handful of people who find the character revolting.

One has to credit that mainly to Helfer, who's quite skilled and brought something to that scene that has fueled a lot of the back-and-forth about the character's motivations.

Some people who watched the miniseries wish the scene weren't there. One would be hard-pressed to prove, though (again, based on media reviews and on-line discussion) that in the main the "audience hates Six now".

The opening scene -- yeah, they should have done something different with that, simply because it's confusing and out-of-place. Obviously they needed to establish Six as a Cylon and as having been, without doubt, killed aboard the Armistice station to set up the audience recognition when she reappears later. But the scene as written and filmed is just slow and distracting.

[jean]

So, Battlestar Galactica is kind of like War and Peace with silver robots and spaceships. Don’t worry guys. If Sci Fi passes on it, I am sure Woody Allen would be willing to do it. :)

[BST]

Originally posted by BST

No, Dennis, IT is the opinion that is to be respected as well as the right to present it.
Originally posted by Dennis

You're mistaken. There's no reason to respect the content of an opinion which one considers -- hypothetically -- bigoted or stupid or malign or transparently dishonest. One respects the right of others to express differing opinions; there is no civil or ethical requirement to pretend that all opinions have the same intrinsic value.

I stand by what I wrote. All opinions and rights to present them should be respected. In a debate, it is the strength of the argument (or counter-argument) that would determine whether it's "right" or "wrong".

[BST]

Originally posted by beeker
I disagree somewhat here. I agree that too much time is spent simply stating and re-stating problems, but I don't think that enough time is spent in understanding those problems. Without understanding there is unlikely to be any real solutions to those problems.

Without any real understanding of the fundamental problems most proposed solutions fail. Worse than simply failing they 1) usually cost too much for little gain; 2) cost more in lives than they should, also for little gain; and 3) upset just about everyone involved to no real purpose.

To paraphrase (hopefully I don't butcher your line of thinking), we need to understand that there is a problem and we need to understand WHY there is a problem before trying to formulate a solution. That's how I interpreted your words and if that's a correct interpretation then, I wholeheartedly agree.

(I just don't think that people need to spend an overabundance of time on discussing any RL problem, we need to resist the temptation of debating an issue to death.)

[beeker]

Originally posted by BST
To paraphrase (hopefully I don't butcher your line of thinking), we need to understand that there is a problem and we need to understand WHY there is a problem before trying to formulate a solution. That's how I interpreted your words and if that's a correct interpretation then, I wholeheartedly agree.

Yep. That is about it. Understanding the why of problems is helpful in another way. If the same circumstances come up in the future we can either avoid the future problem alltogether, or knowing what the consequences of our actions are likely to be we can solve the coming problems at an early stage.

(I just don't think that people need to spend an overabundance of time on discussing any RL problem, we need to resist the temptation of debating an issue to death.)

I agree here. However, almost endless debate is a consequence of not living in an autocratic society. The problem is that reasonable people can disagree on issues, and unreasonable people are even worse. To solve any major problem in society we need a lot of reasonable people to agree on a solution, and that takes time and effort. Until enough people can be swayed one way or another the debates will continue.

[malachi42]

"Yes, they should be tools used for these things. However, if too much time is spent on stating and re-stating problems, doesn't that take away from the time that could be spent on developing solutions to these very problems? It's very easy to say that there are problems in society -- we get daily updates of this from a multitude of sources -- newspapers, tv, radio, and internet. The hard part comes in trying to devise / develop solutions. Can't we as a people begin to allocate some time to look for the silver linings instead of constantly focusing all of our energies on looking for the dark clouds?"

I guess I don't see that most people are even considering these issues at all. Newspaper readership is at an all time low, and People under 50 don't watch the evening news, according to the networks themselves.
The evening news in Los Angeles spends much less time on child abuse than it does on Ben Affleck and JLo. I can't even count the number of articles I have read about the corporatization of network news, the pressure they are under to do "happy talk", to not always bring people down with the bad news all the time. The president has himself called on the news media to play up the good stuff and not show the bad. The media is not allowed to show caskets of our soldiers brought back from Iraq. our networks are falling all over themselves to beat each other to the fantastic goals of bug eating and contestants rolling in chicken guts. Whatever the names of those idiots are on "The Bachelor", their faces fill our newstands with the earth shaking news of their breakups and marriages. In response to 9/11, we are told to keep shopping.
It seems to me that our culture is not indeed wallowing in an examination of the hard issues. The shows that deal with such stuff are few and far beween, Law and Order, ER? I'm not sure where all the gloomand doom is being shown, maybe CNN?
And yes I am quite aware that the Holocaust was a real event and BSG is fictional. Everything is not a literal expression. Nor was I comparing RDM to Eugene O'Neill. I was looking at this question outside of the limits of BSG and responding to the idea that we don't need television and film to deal with dark and heavy topics, that we want it to provide us with escape from those vey issues.
IMO, the very fact that so many people are actually discussing issues of ethics and morality is a great step forward from debating JLo and Ben.____________

[malachi42]

"The whole baby killing works against the six character. How can you EVER sympathize with a baby killer? How can you feel empathy for her? How can you like her after that scene?

I think that scene seriously kills the future of Six. What can you do with a character after she has snapped off a baby's head? You can't make her a romantic lead. You can't make her vulnerable, or funny, or sweet. You can't ever redeem her. Basically she can only be a character the audience hates now. And she can only cause trouble, and be killed."


Maybe she won't be a good guy. Maybe she will be unsympatehtic. maybe ahe won't be vulnerable, funny or sweet. But that description would apply to contless numbers of fictional chacters. Why would we neccesarily need 6 to become any of those things?"

[The Rain]

"The whole baby killing works against the six character. How can you EVER sympathize with a baby killer? How can you feel empathy for her? How can you like her after that scene?

I think that scene seriously kills the future of Six. What can you do with a character after she has snapped off a baby's head? You can't make her a romantic lead. You can't make her vulnerable, or funny, or sweet. You can't ever redeem her. Basically she can only be a character the audience hates now. And she can only cause trouble, and be killed."


Maybe she won't be a good guy. Maybe she will be unsympatehtic. maybe ahe won't be vulnerable, funny or sweet. But that description would apply to contless numbers of fictional chacters. Why would we neccesarily need 6 to become any of those things?"
We wouldn't. SHE'S A CYLON!
We're supposed to hate her.

[callsignfalcon]

"Well Mr. Callsignfalcon..." It'd be Miss :P

ANyway...

"We wouldn't. SHE'S A CYLON!
We're supposed to hate her."

Are we supposed to hate Boomer too then?

[malachi42]

ANyway...

"We wouldn't. SHE'S A CYLON!
We're supposed to hate her."

Are we supposed to hate Boomer too then?


Maybe, or maybe not. That end scene was a cliffhanger. Seems to me there is more to come in that storyline.

[callsignfalcon]

I hope so

[Jeeper]

I dunno if we can hate Boomer yet....we're not positive she's a cylon....it was shown that there is a cylon Boomer model...what we don't know if it's the real Boomer (the one the copy was made from) or a cylon there.....

[dec5]

She may be able to keep herself and her humanity after being immersed in human culture for so long......And if she is the imperious leader.....than it may be the end of the Cylon empire if she begins to fight for the humans.....

Kinda like the Oracle in the Matrix.

[baafan]

CallsignFalcon said:... However I'll get back to what I believe was the topic of this thread.

In the scene where six snaps the babies neck, although horrid, shows another side to this creature. It has her wondering how its neck can sustain the weight so she tries to see how much it can hold, or something to that affect. Perhaps she never meant to actually kill the babie at that time, she just meant to see how such a fragile thing could hold the weight....

conundrum said:...On Eick- I'm sure he basically was caught with his pants down and tried to say something that came out horribly wrong. I'm sure he doesn't condone baby killing in any way. I just think his tongue made an arse of himself. Big oops....

As for what Eick was quoted as saying, I totally agree with conundrum. Eick "spoke with fork'ed tongue" and screwed up.

As for Six, given that she is a Cylon and "artificially" created, kind of begs the question of whether or not Cylons can have morals or for that matter ethics and a soul. So from a Cylon perspective, was this act evil or not. In fact, I like the point that CallSignFalcon made in that Six may not have even intended to kill the baby. The expression on her face afterwards indicated to me that was surprised at what she had just done. I think she was just curious about these "humans" that the Cylons were about to destroy.

As for whether this scene was critical to the overall plot/story, I sort of understand why Moore may have done it, for the shock value, but I really would have rathered Moore had shocked us in a different manner. While the scene may have been effective in accomplishing what Moore wanted (an emotional attachment / empathy for the baby and hatred for Six), as a matter of good taste, he should have challenged himself to find a better way to accmplish his objective.