The McCullough-Mitchell Effect

[RealmOfX]

SNIP

Anyone see things the way I do?

Yep - sure do. But I think you should also consider the director in this discussion.

So far this season, for me, there have been three episodes that had some aspects that really ticked me off - yep they all were "Mitchell" incidents. They were Babylon, Stronghold and Off The Grid. All were directed by PD. 2 out of 3 were an AM / PD combo. YIKES!! tune in ep 918 ..........

Maybe it's just the way AM writes Mitchell, I didn't seem to have a problem with his episodes apart from the way Mitchell was portrayed. Except Off The Grid - that's one I reaalllllyyyyy didn't like and is on my "Don't watch ever again" list.

To be fair, I will point out that I seem to have a love/hate relationship with PD's directing. I'll either like his episodes or not, with absolutely no middle ground.

Oh well, I guess I'll just have to wait for Arthur's Mantle and see how that ep pans out.

[Skydiver]

i do think it's a combo of writer and director.

yes, the writer does have an obligation - for the lack of a better word - to write the charcter right...but it's up to the director to make sure that the character is played right.

teh director directs the actors in tone of voice, action, which can insinuate mood and tone

take OTG for example and cam's little 'let's play durg buyer'...if his tone of voice was less 'happy go lucky' adn more wry or non-chalant then maybe it wouldn't be sees as OTT as it has been by some.

PdL, as great of a guy as he is, does have a rather...immature mindset. He likes to have fun and, sometimes, that having fun can lead to characters, well being a bit more flip than they should be

if you combine a writer that writes cam flip and irresponsible, with a director that enjoys having fun and larking off....well you end up with a character that, to many, ends up acting like a 15 year old

the 'blame' might not rest solely on one set of shoulders but be a combination multiple things

[Dani347]

Once I get around to noticing who writes what episodes, I tend to pay attention to them more. Maybe because of my literary aspirations *sticks nose in the air* I don't notice directors, but you're right, they have as much of a hand in things as the writer.

[Carterslave]

Heck, just the fact that an entire thread is devoted to a screenwriter by name seems like some kind of huge step forward. Stargate is the show that really sensitized me to the individual writer's contribution in episodic TV and I have my own personal pantheon of best SG:1/SGA writers (and a doghouse for the really bad ones, too), although various uncredited rewrites can muddy the authorial waters.
I've liked two of Alan M.'s scripts a great deal. Stronghold ... not so much. He definitely writes a different Mitchell. Maybe that's what happens when you don't keep a 'show bible' (unless you're Peter DeLuise, continuity fanatic).

[Piratejenna]

Heck, just the fact that an entire thread is devoted to a screenwriter by name seems like some kind of huge step forward. Stargate is the show that really sensitized me to the individual writer's contribution in episodic TV and I have my own personal pantheon of best SG:1/SGA writers (and a doghouse for the really bad ones, too), although various uncredited rewrites can muddy the authorial waters.
I've liked two of Alan M.'s scripts a great deal. Stronghold ... not so much. He definitely writes a different Mitchell. Maybe that's what happens when you don't keep a 'show bible' (unless you're Peter DeLuise, continuity fanatic).

There does seem to be a 'cult of the writer' in Sci-fi which doesn't happen so much with other genres (does anyone know or care who writes Soaps?). I guess it probably started with Gene Roddenberry, and then became stronger with JMS and B5. But I really think that the Stargate writers get too much credit for the good and too much blame for the bad. A TV show is the ultimate collaborrative process and the end result is a mixture of writing, acting, directing and editing. I also like Alan M's work - I think his scripts are quite sophisticated and stylish, with good character moments. The key to whether those character moments play on screen lies with the director and actors, and with the final edit.

I'm certainly looking hard at the directing at the moment, because I think theres a bit of a problem there. I suspect the 'different Mitchell' is more a result of PdL's directing than the writing. As has been said, PdL isn't always subtle! And he really doesn't seem to get the character dynamics right in recent episodes. The fact that he's directed 4 out of 5 episodes (when we include Arthur's Mantle) baffles me, especially as he's also been directing SGA. It's too much for one director at the best of times, and PdL doen't seem to have adjusted yet to the new dynamics of SG-1.

We also know that BB has been trying different things in various takes (Ben has said this in interviews) in order to give the director/editor a choice. I think he would be better off deciding for himself who the 'definitive Mitchell' is because he's not being well-served by some of the final cuts. I remember in commentaries PdL complaining that RDA wouldn't give him the take he wanted. RDA, to his credit, doesn't seem to have used his star power to dictate the final cut, but I think he did try to protect O'Neill in more subtle ways when he thought the director was wrong.

[MediaSavant]

There does seem to be a 'cult of the writer' in Sci-fi which doesn't happen so much with other genres (does anyone know or care who writes Soaps?).

I disagree. Primetime scripted TV is very "writer-driven". The top showrunners are millionaires and networks sign them to "holding deals" to develop new shows. Law & Order=Dick Wolf. Desperate Housewives=Marc Cherry. Boston Legal=David E. Kelley(his eleventh show). Gilmore Girls=Amy Sherman-Palladino. And so on.

And I've been to some soap opera boards where the writers are written about and referred to by name.

[Scyld]

I have a question: are we actually supposed to like Mitchell?

He wanted to 'get the band back together,' but he doesn't really work with them all that well. I'm sure they've noticed by now. I hope they call him on it in future episodes. I suspect that the biggest reason people dislike him is that he's not Jack O'Neill, but still, many of the things he does just don't endear him to ... well, anyone, really. He's undoubtedly a great pilot, but a great pilot does not a great SG team member make.

If the writers see this and address it in the context of the show, then all is well. If *they* think that all is sunshine and daisies in the world of Mitchell and SG-1, then things are not looking up.

[smurf]

It's interesting that we have a tendency to blame the writers and directors for the inconsistancies of a character, and yet, barring Piratejenna's last post, no one considers an actor's input into the process.
If the actor was a relative newbie (say first major role) I would accept more that the problem can be left swaddled in a blanket at the door of the writers/directors, but in the current case I think BB should take some of the heat for the inconsistancy of Mitchell.

In a series you are going to get a number of different writers and directors each with a different view of who the character is, so in these situations the person who is be closest to the character is the actor.
In a show which is plot led, run by a showrunner who is less than interested in character development, and without a show bible, it is up to the actor to decide who this character is, what is true to their character's personality, and stick to it.
If they have to act a certain way to further the episode that's fine, but the underlying character should be consistant - there is a point they can return to. If they have to act in a way that is far, far out of character, then they have to fight their corner (even if they sometimes lose) for the greater good of the character and show.

It has been said repeatedly, on Stargate, that the development of the characters goes hand in hand with what the writers see the actors doing, and if Ben is giving them too many different choices it is no surprise that they can't get a handle on Mitchell's personality.

I would argue that both PDL and McCollough have been fairly consistant in their view of who Mitchell is. Unfortunately it doesn't match everyone else's view.

Ultimately, I will say I am somewhat disappointed in BB. If he was relatively new to acting then I probably wouldn't expect him to be able to stand his ground and develop the character the way he wants, but he isn't new. He was brought in as a lead, as a known quantity, as an experienced and respected sci-fi actor and writer. He could have made Mitchell anything he wanted (within reason), but I'm not getting the impression he knows the character or even really cares about the character.
It's a shame that I'm left with the distinct feeling that I can't see what is so special about this actor that everyone else raves about.

Sorry Ben fans.

[jckfan55]

AM seems to have some good story ideas. I'm all for new blood in the writing department for that alone. I'm not sure who to blame for OTT Mitchell--probably a combination of writer, director and actor.

[valaCB]

It's interesting that we have a tendency to blame the writers and directors for the inconsistancies of a character, and yet, barring Piratejenna's last post, no one considers an actor's input into the process.
If the actor was a relative newbie (say first major role) I would accept more that the problem can be left swaddled in a blanket at the door of the writers/directors, but in the current case I think BB should take some of the heat for the inconsistancy of Mitchell.

In a series you are going to get a number of different writers and directors each with a different view of who the character is, so in these situations the person who is be closest to the character is the actor.
In a show which is plot led, run by a showrunner who is less than interested in character development, and without a show bible, it is up to the actor to decide who this character is, what is true to their character's personality, and stick to it.
If they have to act a certain way to further the episode that's fine, but the underlying character should be consistant - there is a point they can return to. If they have to act in a way that is far, far out of character, then they have to fight their corner (even if they sometimes lose) for the greater good of the character and show.

It has been said repeatedly, on Stargate, that the development of the characters goes hand in hand with what the writers see the actors doing, and if Ben is giving them too many different choices it is no surprise that they can't get a handle on Mitchell's personality.

I would argue that both PDL and McCollough have been fairly consistant in their view of who Mitchell is. Unfortunately it doesn't match everyone else's view.

Ultimately, I will say I am somewhat disappointed in BB. If he was relatively new to acting then I probably wouldn't expect him to be able to stand his ground and develop the character the way he wants, but he isn't new. He was brought in as a lead, as a known quantity, as an experienced and respected sci-fi actor and writer. He could have made Mitchell anything he wanted (within reason), but I'm not getting the impression he knows the character or even really cares about the character.
It's a shame that I'm left with the distinct feeling that I can't see what is so special about this actor that everyone else raves about.

Sorry Ben fans.

Someone said what i think at last.
Sorry

[Skydiver]

i don't think that there's any one place to lay the blame on mitch and his wide and varied portrayals.

i do agree that the fact that adam wrote and pdl directed two of, what i see, the worst mitch eps does bring something into it. either adam likes to write him as a flippant mess or peter likes to portray and direct him that way. unless we're on the set we'll never know for sure.

I do also think that ben has some input, but i'm not sure how much. yes, he's an experienced actor...but just how much input does he have? i mean, lookat amanda. 7 years on the show and she doesn't want sam to kiss pete in affinity and she's overruled and 'forced' to do things the director's way.

I do think that the kids at bridge need to sit down and craft a bible. to not onlhy brief the new writers but maybe to remind the existing ones jsut what characters they've been working with these past few years

a bible would - hopefully - bring some consistency to the show, and man o man does it need it.

especially considering this upcoming year and the fact that they have yet another new character to handle.

[valaCB]

i don't think that there's any one place to lay the blame on mitch and his wide and varied portrayals.

i do agree that the fact that adam wrote and pdl directed two of, what i see, the worst mitch eps does bring something into it. either adam likes to write him as a flippant mess or peter likes to portray and direct him that way. unless we're on the set we'll never know for sure.

I do also think that ben has some input, but i'm not sure how much. yes, he's an experienced actor...but just how much input does he have? i mean, lookat amanda. 7 years on the show and she doesn't want sam to kiss pete in affinity and she's overruled and 'forced' to do things the director's way.

I do think that the kids at bridge need to sit down and craft a bible. to not onlhy brief the new writers but maybe to remind the existing ones jsut what characters they've been working with these past few years

a bible would - hopefully - bring some consistency to the show, and man o man does it need it.

especially considering this upcoming year and the fact that they have yet another new character to handle.

I don't know...maybe we DO need to be on the set to know... but someting is wrong and i really hope that season 10 will be more improvable .

[Skydiver]

for me? it's taken them SEVENTEEN episodes to get cam 'right'

i personally found his attitudes and behaviours in scourge to be what i'd deem acceptible as an officer in the us air force and as leader of SG-1.

if it's gonna take them this long to get a handle on a new character (and hey, these guys are professionals, they're supposed to know what they're doing) then it kinda makes me dread s10 simply because they've barely got a handle on mitch, it took them 80% of the season to do so...and they have another new character to deal with next season.

maybe they'll do what i see as a better job since thehy all seem to be in love with vala...i just hope that their love affaire doesn't blind them to the need to write the character well and make her fit the show, not make the show warp itself to fit her

[ShardsofGlass]

I think Vala was easier for TBTB. She was a brand new character so there wasn't the baggage that Mitchell has of replacing a beloved character (trying to keep the magic of what made Jack gell with the team so well yet make Mitchell different enough that he's not a Jack II). Vala's just someone new and can just be who she is. Plus, since she started out as a guest star, the writers could take chances and just go for what they thought was fun about her. If it didn't work out, oh well, she's only there for a short time. If she does, great.

With Mitchell, they're stuck with him for at least a season, and they were probably thinking of two seasons from the way they were talking about ending this season with a cliff-hanger almost from the start. So they had to be careful with him and introduce him slowly.

What'll be challenging, though, is writing Vala as someone who meshes with the team. Personally, I don't think it would be good to have her stealing things and slapping bracelets on people for a whole season. How would she fit in in an ep like Ethon, for instance? I have no idea.

But as far as personality goes, I think they have her down pretty well. With Mitchell, it seems like they were experimenting a little. And I agree with Skydiver, I think (hope!) that they've settled on Mitchell's personality with The Scourge because he was great in this ep.

Isn't next week another PDL directed ep? If so, I'm keeping my fingers crossed that Mitchell remains the guy from The Scourge.

[valaCB]

for me? it's taken them SEVENTEEN episodes to get cam 'right'

i personally found his attitudes and behaviours in scourge to be what i'd deem acceptible as an officer in the us air force and as leader of SG-1.

Agree.
i liked him for the first time in this episode. well... started to like him. I think this is the right path for Cam. About dear Vala i agree with every word that ShardsofGlass said and i hope (Really really hope) that she will merge even faster than Cam.