(spinoff) Story or Shock? - Page 2

beeker · December 26th, 2003, 07:37 AM

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 · December 26th, 2003, 09:26 AM

Quote:

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 · December 26th, 2003, 03:52 PM

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 · December 26th, 2003, 07:38 PM

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 · December 26th, 2003, 07:51 PM

" 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 · December 26th, 2003, 07:52 PM

Quote:

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 · December 26th, 2003, 07:53 PM

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

BST · December 26th, 2003, 08:18 PM

Quote:

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 · December 26th, 2003, 08:28 PM

Quote:

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 · December 26th, 2003, 09:09 PM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · December 26th, 2003, 09:09 PM

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

Dennis · December 26th, 2003, 09:19 PM

Quote:

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 · December 26th, 2003, 09:23 PM

Oh brother.

callsignfalcon · December 26th, 2003, 09:35 PM

: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....

lol

beeker · December 26th, 2003, 09:35 PM

Quote:

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 · December 26th, 2003, 09:42 PM

Quote:

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....

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 · December 26th, 2003, 10:01 PM

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 · December 26th, 2003, 10:11 PM

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 · December 26th, 2003, 10:32 PM

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 · December 27th, 2003, 05:38 AM

Quote:

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 · December 27th, 2003, 08:51 AM

Quote:

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 · December 27th, 2003, 09:29 AM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

(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 · December 27th, 2003, 09:33 AM

"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 · December 27th, 2003, 09:43 AM

"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 · December 27th, 2003, 10:25 AM

Quote:

"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 · December 27th, 2003, 11:38 AM

"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 · December 27th, 2003, 11:48 AM

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 · December 27th, 2003, 12:08 PM

I hope so

Jeeper · December 27th, 2003, 02:22 PM

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 · December 27th, 2003, 07:23 PM

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.