Scott, as a character, was completely mishandled by the writers?

[Pizerer]

Personally, I never felt anything for him as a character. There was nothing interesting about him and his relationship with James was confusing. Were they a couple at one point? Were they just friends with benefits?
As far as we know he's only been with three women. His first being when he was sixteen, then years later when he was assigned to Icarus (James) and finally Chloe.

In 'Cloverdale' in his pre-wedding nerves he seems to be expressing anxiety towards the commitment he is about to make to Chloe; Eli -rather Scott's own subconscious- telling him that he isn't a one woman man. In fairness, he's only been with three women we know off. Is that really enough to deem someone a womanizer and not the monogamous type? I've also read in an interview that Smith also thinks Scott has only ever been with three women.

This confusion caused me to lose interest in his own story. It didn't make sense to me so I abandoned it as a character trait. I had nothing else to identify him as an individual character with his own story and sense of self. I literally know nothing about him beyond that he is a Christian whose parents are dead and he was raised by an alcoholic priest, and this seems to go over the top dramatically and becomes unbelievable melodrama. He seemed so generic to me. He could be shoved out an air lock and beyond me feeling sympathy for other characters that did care for him, I feel it would have changed nothing to the dynamic of the character interactions. However, I have to give the writers credit for his relationship with Young and that scene they had in 'Trial and Error'. This scene stands out in my mind as great character moment for Scott and Young.

What do you think?

[LtColCarter]

Personally, I never felt anything for him as a character. There was nothing interesting about him and his relationship with James was confusing. Were they a couple at one point? Were they just friends with benefits?
As far as we know he's only been with three women. His first being when he was sixteen, then years later when he was assigned to Icarus (James) and finally Chloe.

In 'Cloverdale' in his pre-wedding nerves he seems to be expressing anxiety towards the commitment he is about to make to Chloe; Eli -rather Scott's own subconscious- telling him that he isn't a one woman man. In fairness, he's only been with three women we know off. Is that really enough to deem someone a womanizer and not the monogamous type? I've also read in an interview that Smith also thinks Scott has only ever been with three women.

This confusion caused me to lose interest in his own story. It didn't make sense to me so I abandoned it as a character trait. I had nothing else to identify him as an individual character with his own story and sense of self. I literally know nothing about him beyond that he is a Christian whose parents are dead and he was raised by an alcoholic priest, and this seems to go over the top dramatically and becomes unbelievable melodrama. He seemed so generic to me. He could be shoved out an air lock and beyond me feeling sympathy for other characters that did care for him, I feel it would have changed nothing to the dynamic of the character interactions. However, I have to give the writers credit for his relationship with Young and that scene they had in 'Trial and Error'. This scene stands out in my mind as great character moment for Scott and Young.

What do you think?

Wow...I never saw Lt. Scott as a blank piece of paper...which is pretty much what you described him as. Of course, we are all entitled to our own opinions.

On the womanizer front, it seemed that is where the writers wanted to go at one point. However, for whatever reason, that line of thinking was stopped. Possibly because too many people were "offended" by the risque nature of the scenes between Lt. Scott and Lt. James in the store room. It seemed that once Matt got with Chloe that seemed to calm down.

You also have to realize that Lt. Scott was a young officer on Icarus base. Then he gets thrust through the stargate and onto Destiny. There was no officer rank between Lt. Scott and Col. Young. So, he was thrust into being 2nd in command rather he wanted to or not. He was always taking charge of away missions, which is usually what the 2nd in command does.

I also think that Eli and Scott had a good friendship. Eli at times did act as Matt's conscious, but that is what friends do for one another.

I do agree about the scene in Trial and Error that was an excellent scene between Col. Young and Lt. Scott.

[themeatcleaver]

Completely agree. I never much cared for Scott, there was just something "off" about his whole character. I really cant put a finger on it other than describe him as being an empty uniform and a goodie two shoes aside from the whole sleeping around thing. Also, I'm sorry but you generally dont get into the broom closet with a girl like Lt. James unless you've been with plenty before that point so I dont buy that he was only with one prior to her. Not a chance in hell.

[LtColCarter]

Completely agree. I never much cared for Scott, there was just something "off" about his whole character. I really cant put a finger on it other than describe him as being an empty uniform and a goodie two shoes aside from the whole sleeping around thing. Also, I'm sorry but you generally dont get into the broom closet with a girl like Lt. James unless you've been with plenty before that point so I dont buy that he was only with one prior to her. Not a chance in hell.

Generally, no you don't get it on in a broom closet. However, there are times I do things that I don't generally do as well. I think we all have.

I'd just like to see how one of us would react if we were thrust across the universe to a new galaxy and see how we react.

[Rosehawk]

Personally, I never felt anything for him as a character. There was nothing interesting about him and his relationship with James was confusing. Were they a couple at one point? Were they just friends with benefits?

I think Scott was to be the one character who we could have seen have the most character growth by the time the series would have ended if it had ended on the writers/producers terms and not SyFy/Spyglass terms.

He was a young kid who did not have alot of good adult figure heads in his life.

They never did get a chance to fully define his relationship with James. It was obvious to us fans that the relationship meant more to James then it did to Scott. I think that given how they were telling the story, it would have eventually come out - Scott and James discussing it and James telling him how she felt - it's just a story that never got told. It's not all that unusual for men and women to differ on how they see a relationship, especially if they didn't talk about it and I get the sense that they didn't really discuss it, Scott may very well as seen it as a physcial relationship. I think that if Scott knew how James felt, that he might have backed off or at least made sure they talked about it. I don't think he intended to hurt James.

As far as we know he's only been with three women. His first being when he was sixteen, then years later when he was assigned to Icarus (James) and finally Chloe.
In 'Cloverdale' in his pre-wedding nerves he seems to be expressing anxiety towards the commitment he is about to make to Chloe; Eli -rather Scott's own subconscious- telling him that he isn't a one woman man. In fairness, he's only been with three women we know off. Is that really enough to deem someone a womanizer and not the monogamous type? I've also read in an interview that Smith also thinks Scott has only ever been with three women.

I never saw Scott as a womanizer. If he was a true womanizer, he would not have been able to stay committed to Chloe and once he was with Choloe we didn't see him flirting with other woman or try going back to James. He stayed with Chloe.

And young men with healthy libido's having sex at sixteen and then being able to be in committed relationships later in life is not all that unusual.

This confusion caused me to lose interest in his own story. It didn't make sense to me so I abandoned it as a character trait. I had nothing else to identify him as an individual character with his own story and sense of self. I literally know nothing about him beyond that he is a Christian whose parents are dead and he was raised by an alcoholic priest, and this seems to go over the top dramatically and becomes unbelievable melodrama. He seemed so generic to me. He could be shoved out an air lock and beyond me feeling sympathy for other characters that did care for him, I feel it would have changed nothing to the dynamic of the character interactions. However, I have to give the writers credit for his relationship with Young and that scene they had in 'Trial and Error'. This scene stands out in my mind as great character moment for Scott and Young.

What do you think?

I don't think they had enough time to tell all of Scott's story..they took to long to tell the story in the begining and they way they started Scott's story was confusing. It would have made sense eventually if they could have told all the stories they wanted to tell.

[Pharaoh Atem]

scott was a great character IMO

[LtColCarter]

I think Scott was to be the one character who we could have seen have the most character growth by the time the series would have ended if it had ended on the writers/producers terms and not SyFy/Spyglass terms.

He was a young kid who did not have alot of good adult figure heads in his life.

They never did get a chance to fully define his relationship with James. It was obvious to us fans that the relationship meant more to James then it did to Scott. I think that given how they were telling the story, it would have eventually come out - Scott and James discussing it and James telling him how she felt - it's just a story that never got told. It's not all that unusual for men and women to differ on how they see a relationship, especially if they didn't talk about it and I get the sense that they didn't really discuss it, Scott may very well as seen it as a physcial relationship. I think that if Scott knew how James felt, that he might have backed off or at least made sure they talked about it. I don't think he intended to hurt James.


I never saw Scott as a womanizer. If he was a true womanizer, he would not have been able to stay committed to Chloe and once he was with Choloe we didn't see him flirting with other woman or try going back to James. He stayed with Chloe.

And young men with healthy libido's having sex at sixteen and then being able to be in committed relationships later in life is not all that unusual.




I don't think they had enough time to tell all of Scott's story..they took to long to tell the story in the begining and they way they started Scott's story was confusing. It would have made sense eventually if they could have told all the stories they wanted to tell.

Very good post...and I agree...I don't think that Scott was given time to fully develop. There was a lot of potential there had the show been given time to go on.

[Perelandra]

scott was a great character IMO

Same here. I thought he saw tremendous growth from Air pt 1 through Gauntlet.
He was one of my favorites.

[LtColCarter]

Same here. I thought he saw tremendous growth from Air pt 1 through Gauntlet.
He was one of my favorites.

I concur...and I think he would've continued to grow had the show gone on.

[Lythisrose]

If you are interested, a portion of an interview BJS did a few months ago promoting his movie Red Faction. He mentions his character, Scott:

"MediaBlvd: What did you think of the development of Lt. Scott over the two years, and where do you think he would have gone if it would have come back?

Brian: Yeah, I did. We were shooting an episode called “The Hunt: and Joe Malozzi came up to me while we were eating lunch. It was a great conversation, and we thought we were coming back at that point. The numbers weren’t great, but we thought we were seeing some good movement in the demographics and stuff like that. We were still positive. He was asking me if I had any ideas of where I saw Scott going in the next season. I thought that was fantastic that one of the writers and producers was coming to me. I thought, “Wow, that’s pretty cool.” And I had some specific ideas like certain relationships with certain people. What I would have like to have seen happen, was some of the revelations and the ideas that people have kind of get spread around more. At the end it kind of became, “Eli saves the day again.” I think they had enough interesting people on that ship that they could come up with some solutions that would be helpful with the show. I wanted to see Scott have a really defined role on the show, besides the guy that goes out and says, “Yes Sir!” and salutes and gets the job done. I wanted to see all of the characters find this thing that only he can do well. I think that’s what a team is and you had that really well with the first two Stargates. Everyone had a really defined role and I never felt that Scott; besides being the guy who could fly the shuttle and being the guy who went to off world missions, and the guy who had a relation with Chloe and broke the gamer kid’s heart every single episode; he didn’t have something that made him feel integral to the plot every single week. That’s something I would have like to have seen more and more, and would have insisted on for the third season."

Here is the original link, which seems now to be broken (I'll try to find a better one):
http://www.mediablvd.com/magazine/th...106032524.html

another portion of this interview was posted here: http://antipodalarapaima.blogspot.co...gazine_04.html

[LtColCarter]

If you are interested, a portion of an interview BJS did a few months ago promoting his movie Red Faction. He mentions his character, Scott:

"MediaBlvd: What did you think of the development of Lt. Scott over the two years, and where do you think he would have gone if it would have come back?

Brian: Yeah, I did. We were shooting an episode called “The Hunt: and Joe Malozzi came up to me while we were eating lunch. It was a great conversation, and we thought we were coming back at that point. The numbers weren’t great, but we thought we were seeing some good movement in the demographics and stuff like that. We were still positive. He was asking me if I had any ideas of where I saw Scott going in the next season. I thought that was fantastic that one of the writers and producers was coming to me. I thought, “Wow, that’s pretty cool.” And I had some specific ideas like certain relationships with certain people. What I would have like to have seen happen, was some of the revelations and the ideas that people have kind of get spread around more. At the end it kind of became, “Eli saves the day again.” I think they had enough interesting people on that ship that they could come up with some solutions that would be helpful with the show. I wanted to see Scott have a really defined role on the show, besides the guy that goes out and says, “Yes Sir!” and salutes and gets the job done. I wanted to see all of the characters find this thing that only he can do well. I think that’s what a team is and you had that really well with the first two Stargates. Everyone had a really defined role and I never felt that Scott; besides being the guy who could fly the shuttle and being the guy who went to off world missions, and the guy who had a relation with Chloe and broke the gamer kid’s heart every single episode; he didn’t have something that made him feel integral to the plot every single week. That’s something I would have like to have seen more and more, and would have insisted on for the third season."

Here is the original link, which seems now to be broken (I'll try to find a better one):
http://www.mediablvd.com/magazine/th...106032524.html

another portion of this interview was posted here: http://antipodalarapaima.blogspot.co...gazine_04.html

Thanks for the post and link...very enlightening. Its interesting to see how BJS saw his character. I can see where he's coming from.

[Pizerer]

On the womanizer front, it seemed that is where the writers wanted to go at one point. However, for whatever reason, that line of thinking was stopped. Possibly because too many people were "offended" by the risque nature of the scenes between Lt. Scott and Lt. James in the store room. It seemed that once Matt got with Chloe that seemed to calm down.

Perhaps. I think it would have been beneficial for his character for this type of arch to have continued. It would have given him a little more to be defined by.

You also have to realize that Lt. Scott was a young officer on Icarus base. Then he gets thrust through the stargate and onto Destiny. There was no officer rank between Lt. Scott and Col. Young. So, he was thrust into being 2nd in command rather he wanted to or not. He was always taking charge of away missions, which is usually what the 2nd in command does.

I don't see what this has to do with the confusion and lack of development in the character. Sure, he was thrust into an extreme situation and he had to step up to that. However, nothing really pops into mind -besides 'Trial and Error' - about how he dealt with that, how it affected him or how it brought out other, possibly more interesting, character traits. My memory isn't perfect though, maybe there's a scene which I've forgotten.

Completely agree. I never much cared for Scott, there was just something "off" about his whole character. I really cant put a finger on it other than describe him as being an empty uniform and a goodie two shoes aside from the whole sleeping around thing.

I feel the same. It's like we were told things about his past and life, but we were never really told anything specific about himself. It's like when you're talking to a friend about someone you've never met:

Friend: Have you met Dave?
Me: Whose Dave?
Friend: He's the guy whose parents died when he was four, was raised by an alcoholic priest who died and now has a son he can never see.
Me: Oh. No, I haven't. What's he like?
Friend: Oh, I've no idea. I've never met him either.

There probably are some scenes where we get a hint of who he is, but they don't pop to mind.

Also, I'm sorry but you generally dont get into the broom closet with a girl like Lt. James unless you've been with plenty before that point so I dont buy that he was only with one prior to her. Not a chance in hell.

Well, maybe we could pass that one off as a fluke

I think Scott was to be the one character who we could have seen have the most character growth by the time the series would have ended if it had ended on the writers/producers terms and not SyFy/Spyglass terms.

I'd agree with this. It would have been nice to see, too.

They never did get a chance to fully define his relationship with James. It was obvious to us fans that the relationship meant more to James then it did to Scott. I think that given how they were telling the story, it would have eventually come out - Scott and James discussing it and James telling him how she felt - it's just a story that never got told. It's not all that unusual for men and women to differ on how they see a relationship, especially if they didn't talk about it and I get the sense that they didn't really discuss it, Scott may very well as seen it as a physcial relationship. I think that if Scott knew how James felt, that he might have backed off or at least made sure they talked about it. I don't think he intended to hurt James.

They did touch on it a little bit in 'Epilogue', I think. Scott is about to marry Chloe, but before it happens James and Scott have short conversation about it. It hints at a type of relationship they may have had before or during Icarus, but doesn't really give any concrete evidence into what that relationship was since their conversation was kind of ambiguous.

Like you said, had they had more time to tell his story, we may have found out.

I never saw Scott as a womanizer. If he was a true womanizer, he would not have been able to stay committed to Chloe and once he was with Choloe we didn't see him flirting with other woman or try going back to James. He stayed with Chloe.

Scott obviously felt something like a womanizer though. His own subconscious comments on it:

Eli: Look, nobody who knows you at all thinks of you as a one-girl guy. It's not a criticism. Okay? It's just who you are. If you're having cold feet, I think that—
[Scott turns to face him, angry.]

SCOTT
(intensely)
No, listen, listen. I'm going to marry Chloe. We're going to have a half dozen kids, buy a house on my dad's street. We're going to renovate it together, play catch with the kids in the front yard, and go to Brody's every Friday night. You can videotape the whole danged thing.

ELI
Well a), that's a lot of tape, and b), I don't think you believe that yourself.

The question is: why does he feel this way? Bad writing or just an untold story? I would prefer to believe the latter, but I guess we'll never know.

Same here. I thought he saw tremendous growth from Air pt 1 through Gauntlet.
He was one of my favorites.

I loved to hear more of your thoughts on this. Why do you think he showed the most growth?

Brian: Yeah, I did. We were shooting an episode called “The Hunt: and Joe Malozzi came up to me while we were eating lunch. It was a great conversation, and we thought we were coming back at that point. The numbers weren’t great, but we thought we were seeing some good movement in the demographics and stuff like that. We were still positive. He was asking me if I had any ideas of where I saw Scott going in the next season. I thought that was fantastic that one of the writers and producers was coming to me. I thought, “Wow, that’s pretty cool.” And I had some specific ideas like certain relationships with certain people. What I would have like to have seen happen, was some of the revelations and the ideas that people have kind of get spread around more. At the end it kind of became, “Eli saves the day again.” I think they had enough interesting people on that ship that they could come up with some solutions that would be helpful with the show. I wanted to see Scott have a really defined role on the show, besides the guy that goes out and says, “Yes Sir!” and salutes and gets the job done. I wanted to see all of the characters find this thing that only he can do well. I think that’s what a team is and you had that really well with the first two Stargates. Everyone had a really defined role and I never felt that Scott; besides being the guy who could fly the shuttle and being the guy who went to off world missions, and the guy who had a relation with Chloe and broke the gamer kid’s heart every single episode; he didn’t have something that made him feel integral to the plot every single week. That’s something I would have like to have seen more and more, and would have insisted on for the third season."

Thanks for this interview, that's kinda similar to how I felt about Scott. If we were getting a season three it would have been great to see him develop into someone that would be easier to identify with.

[Lythisrose]

Another interview where Brian talks about Scott:

AK:Throughout the second season,Lt Scott was forced to face various unique challenges in terms of his relationship with Chloe who was dealing the effects of her encounter with the aliens,having to deal with Colonel Young’s poor leadership as well as maintaining a relationship with his son on Earth.

What are your thoughts on the suitability of the character’s development over the course of the show?How satisfied were you with this development and had SGU continued,which character dynamics would you have liked to see explored and how would you have liked for his function to have evolved?

BJS:I just wanted Scott to have a more defined and inclusive role in what happened in the story,and I actually think most of the cast felt that way about their own characters at some point.It’s not about screen-time or stuff like that,but I think we could have explored the unique talents of the crew and really put those talents to use so that if something happened to someone, their death wouldn’t just have sentimental value but would actually be crippling to the mission.I’m not saying he should save the day every time,but I always wondered what his critical contribution was and I think fans did too.I remember once at a convention or something some guy came up and was like,“I don’t think you’re a bad actor, but I don’t get Scott.He doesn’t do anything useful.”I can’t say I disagree.I don’t think emotional impact is enough. They really did a bang up job handling the death of Riley and making his death and the way he died important in the unraveling of Colonel Young.I always had the uneasy feeling that if Scott died,sure the crew would be sad for a few episodes, but ultimately there wasn’t anything that he was doing that fifteen other people couldn’t do just as well, if not better.It wouldn’t have affected the course of the mission.And yeah, looking back on it,I’d consider that to be a problem.But I was confident going into Season 3 that this would start to shift, but as you know we nevergot to explore it further.I honestly thought the show went out with a whimper,and it’s a shame because there was so much left undone.

http://abbaskarimjee.wordpress.com/

[Kassian]

Scott in one word? Boring.

That´s hard to say, but Greer would be much better as right hand to Young than our Sunnyboy.

[LtColCarter]

Scott in one word? Boring.

That´s hard to say, but Greer would be much better as right hand to Young than our Sunnyboy.

Greer was too "off the cuff" And Matthew was far from boring.