The McCullough-Mitchell Effect

[Dream-a-Little]

Every character has had their share of "stupid" episodes, so I'm not going to worry about Mitchell just yet.

I know the character was probably created by "committee" and it was difficult for Browder to voice opinions towards a show that had been on for 8 seasons. Now that he has completed his "rookie" season, I think Browder will be more apt to speak up about Mitchell as a character - what he feels is right or wrong.

At least I hope so.

This is very true FoolishPleasure. Thank you for bringing some perspective to the conversation. Every character does have their share of episodes that their actor would probably really rather forget happened, it's not specifically a Mitchell phenomenon by any way, shape or form. If Ben has been feeling pressure to be overly diplomatic then hopefully he will be comfortable enough now at Bridge to be brutally honest if that is what the situation requires. And hopefully if he is, people will actually listen. It can't always be about making the day less traumatic for your co-workers. Sometimes they are just going to have to survive being a little stressed. They are all big boys and girls after all.

[smurf]

We don’t know what kind of conversations Ben had with the producers before shooting began. Mikita noted that Ben does bring ideas to the table; he just seemed more interested in the fact that in the end Ben wasn’t going to be a production problem for him. Again, to be fair to the production team, there was really no way they could let any actor "create" a new regular main character on his own. The show represents a dollar value to far too many people to allow that. Ben was never going to get that expensive a toy to play with. It would have been nice if they would have let him have input given that he is the one who has to play him, but the final decisions for who Mitchell should be were always going to rest with the “power people” within the show. Who Mitchell was going to be is, in the end, a business decision not an artistic one and that doesn’t surprise me. What does surprise me is that none of the "power people" seem to have wanted to be the one to make that final decision.

I wouldn't expect them to allow him to create his character from scratch but I would expect him to have some say in how the character should develop in regards to allowing him to act and grow Mitchell consistantly. I've said before that in a series such as Stargate with many writers and directors the person closest to the character is the actor. They are the only one who has that regular contact with the character.
I guess I'm basing my expectations on what has gone before within the setup of Stargate (taken from the DVD extras and a number of interviews). I'll take Corin Nemec as the best example because positionally and experience wise he is the closest to Ben's situation.

In the Redemption behind the scenes he talks about what he wants to do with the character. He talks about how it will be about how Jonas will fit into the team, how after we get past the initial excitment and enthusiam we will start get to know who this character is. He also wants to develop Jonas in a way that he is well assimilated by he end of the season, so that you couldn't tell he was an alien.
Like Ben he brought some ideas on to set - the whole eating thing was his idea until they told him to stop.

In interviews he has said he had wanted the character to become more "cowboy", a bit more action orientated, go to type, someone who we, the fans, would find credible as the lead for SGA (the original plan). In a recent interview he states that he had a great relationship with Joe Mallozzi to achieve this character redesign.
All this I can see within the character over the course of the season, and the character is very consistant (although I would have moved Prophesy earlier in the season for the development of the Jack/Jonas dynamic, but meh I'm not a PTB).

Someone in a position of power within the show has to draw a narrower definition of the character and be willing to commit to that definition. That someone also needs to be in a position to enforce the other producers’ and writers’ adherence to that definition on a consistent basis. IMO, the only person that is in a position to do that is RCC unless Brad Wright is willing to take control of SG-1 as well as Atlantis. I kind of wish BW would do just that. BW was the one who first approached BB in connection with joining Stargate and BB has mentioned several times that he really likes him. Maybe we can trade RCC to Atlantis in exchange for BW.

If no one at the top is willing to commit why not let Ben do it? It's not going to harm them, in fact wouldn't it make their life easier?
Back to Redemption's behind the scenes, RCC is interviewed explaining how the development of the character is helped by what they see the actors do.

Or maybe MS stopped acting innocent Daniel because they stopped writing innocent Daniel. Isn't it kind of like what came first, the chicken or the egg? I actually think the bigger problem here was that not enough elements were already locked down. It would have been better if they had been.

I got that tidbit about MS no longer acting innocent Daniel from an interview with Joe Mallozzi (I won't be able to find it cos I've read too many, but I think it is dated from the time of the big hoo-hah. ).

I do also actually think directors have a great deal of control, particularly when the director is also a producer, which PD is. (Andy Mikita is also a producer for that matter. Neither one of these guys were hired guns brought in for a one off. They are involved with the creative end of the show on a day to day basis from the season's start to finish.) Of the three people involved in these outings, AM, BB, and PD, PD is actually the highest up the food chain. As a show producer, as well as the director in these episodes, he has veto power over both "new guys" BB and AM. In the end I'm always going to hold the person with the most power responsible for the final result. I believe the price you pay for power is responsibility. JMHO of course.

The implication of the commentaries I've heard (up to the end S7) is that they don't get final cut, sometimes they don't even know if someone has added whole new shots to the edit. Everything lies in the hands of the showrunners and previously RDA and Michael Greenburg.

As a show producer as well as an actor, RDA would have had a guaranteed place at the table in creative decisions for his character and the show in general. That's something that none of the current actors possess. I think the freedom for the TPTB to do what they want without being obligated to accommodate an actor’s influence may very well have left them kind of power giddy.

What I meant from losing RDA as a PTB is the lack of actor view point, and actor weight that having someone like RDA stand with them (the actors) on character decisions would bring.
MS said in a recent con that the actors have lost bargaining power, because the ultimate PTB (moneymen) can see that the Stargate franchise can run without a name attached.

At the end of the day no one, be it PTB or actor, is prepared to take the blame (if that's not too harsh a word) for a character who is inconsistant and just plain daft as a leader. Everyone is just doing their job and no one is looking at the big picture.
Shame that the character who appeared in Avalon part 1 ended up not as an interesting deep character with human doubts about his place in the team and the universe, but as a wise-cracking good ol' boy.


Guess my expectations are too high, I probably should have known better after season 8.

[RealmOfX]

Arthur's Mantle another McCullough script. I actually liked this episode, not great but watchable - except for (you guessed it!) Mitchell.

Now for the first half of the ep, it wasn't too bad. I like humour, I even appreciated most of the jokes that came out of Mitchell. It just seemed that, umm..... that was all Mitchell did - clowned around.

Then came the second half and the reappearance of "cowboy" Mitchell. Sigh, it was a pity that he was out of phase and Teal'c didn't connect with that head shot.

[Skydiver]

yep,another A&P episode.


here's hoping that that combo stops in s10 so that some other pairing of writer and director can do a job that more find acceptible

[esoap524]

I have to say, I'm not a fan of renegade Mitchell. For one thing, it seems inconsistent with the type of leader he was shown to be. Here's a guy who led a squadron into battle and almost lost his own life doing it, a guy who idolizes his father and wants to live up to him. It doesn't make sense to me that he would do the stupid thing like press a button he shouldn't, pose as a drug buyer to try to get information from a crime syndicate, especially when he's already acknowledged his enthusiasm and respect for SG1.

It almost seems to me that many times they use him as the plot device because someone has to do the dumb thing to propel the story forward and Vala's not around to do it and we know the rest of SG1 knows better. Seriously, those are things she would do and would be completely in character for her to do them. Mitchell really should/would know better. He's read the files and knows them well.

I've liked Mitchell overall but when they write him badly, as in Off the Grid, for example,they really go "off the rails". It's a shame because Ben Browder is a good actor; I forget how good he is until I go back and watch some angsty Farscape episodes.

Sometimes I think the writers are trying to write John Crichton part 2 but are leaving out the emotional piece of that character, the guy with doubts and hopes and fears and relationships, who made mistakes and understood the ramifications of those mistakes. It's too bad because that's what made the character interesting. Yeah, he's good looking and funny but the emotional center was what kept me watching (Crichton's and all the other characters' for that matter).

As far as Mary Sue Mitchell goes, I don't think any of our team has any real weak spots anyway--as far as I can see, they all seem pretty Mary Sue to me.

[the fifth man]

Personally, I guess I just read Mitchell differently from a lot of people. Overall, I've really liked him this season. I don't believe his character has been as "all over the place" as some have stated previously and in other threads. And in "Arthur's Mantle", I really didn't see much to nitpick about with him. But, that is just my opinion.

[akimbo]

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.

I find this interesting as I watch Mitchell. They can only cut in what BB does in the takes. If he gives them different viewpoints into Mitchell, only the director/editor/TPTB get the choice of which Mitchell we see. Perhaps BB gave them the choice of the "not so over-the-top" Mitchell and they thought "over the top" Mitchell was funnier. :shrug:

Actually, I thought that it wasn't just RDA that didn't give them the take that they wanted. I though that others (MS was mentioned, maybe AT) that didn't always give the directors the take that they wanted. Hopefully, it was in defense of their character's continuity (something that BB may still be learning for Mitchell -- being new to the set).

[Dani347]

I don't know much about directing, so my focus outside of the actor is always on the writer (not that I know much about script writing either, but more than about directing). But, take one problem that's been mentioned about Mitchell -his running off on his own. Mitchell going without waiting for backup in Stronghold. Would that have been something written into the script by the writer? And, if so, would it be part of the director's job to change that? And, if the director doesn't get to change what's in the writer's script, how could a director fix something like that to make it work better (for those who disliked that aspect)? Or do people see a different problem when it comes to the direction in the episodes?

[DEM]

Mitchell going without waiting for backup in Stronghold. Would that have been something written into the script by the writer?

Yes, of course.

And, if so, would it be part of the director's job to change that?

In general, no. The director would have to find it completely unworkable and then talk to the EP about it. As a Head Writer pal said to me once, "Television is a writers' medium; film is a directors' medium." Film directors can rewrite entire sections of a script. In teevee, only the writers have a vision of the seasonal and character arcs, so it's incumbent upon the directors not to do anything that may impinge upon those.

And, if the director doesn't get to change what's in the writer's script, how could a director fix something like that to make it work better (for those who disliked that aspect)?

Direct the actor to show a moment of hesitation, indecision, or feeling like he's stuck between a rock and a hard place. Or make the cut of the character's 'moment of decision' relatively long so that it looks less impetuous. If the EP looks at the dailies and decides he doesn't want that, he'll make a note. The Producer's cut of an ep supercedes the Director's cut.

An example from Affinity *shudder*: AT complained about Carter kissing Pete on the job. Peter *cough*, however, did not have the time or resources to move the action to a different location. What he could have done was minimise the salience of the location by, say, fading out on the close-up -- anything other than what he did do, which was to PULL BACK and pointedly remind the audience of where the scene was taking place. Perhaps PdL thought he was accentuating the 'romance' of the scene: Carter is so swept up all else fades away. Problem is, Carter wasn't going anywhere. That is, Pete was not going to transform Carter's life in so profound a way that her job or duty would become less important to her. PdL had to have known that there were no plans for Carter to get hitched, leave the SGC, or anything else equally Big, so it's unclear to me what he thought he was accomplishing.

All that said, a director is going to have fewer options if a character element is central to the story (such as was Mitchell's hotheadedness in Stronghold) or turns up in scripts week after week. IMO, it's incumbent upon the director to stay true to the script while also keeping the characters 'sympathetic'.

[aAnubiSs]

I would like a more subtle switch in 'personalities' in regards to the people he's with. Much more like O'Neill was. When he was with Generals he was much more serious and when he was with Carter and the others he was layed back, but still wasn't acting like he was high on speed screaming and bouncing around. O'Neill still had some military-mind to him, even on his spare time.

Granted Mitchell shouldn't be a O'Neill-clone, but I find the changes in personality much, much too great. I personally loved Mitchell in the first scene with Landry.

Besides, being the new guy would force you to be 'all work and no play' the first couple of months until you know your way with all the different people.

[scarimor]

I suspect that the writers aren't giving enough attention to the difference between a plot-driven maverick and a character-driven maverick. Granted SG-1 is an action show, but something like a maverick or hothead has to come from character. So far Mitchell's reckless and/or impetuous moves have tended to serve the purpose of moving or playing with the plots; e.g. getting the team captured in Off the Grid; tying two non-related stories (dimension-shifting and Sodan-carnage) together in Arthur's Mantle. So his loose behaviour has no reason behind it, which makes him look worse.

The exception was his race for the mothership in Stronghold: we knew why he was firing on half cylinders with that - his "bad mood" over his dying buddy. And it was used well imo - showing Carter adapting and making tactical command decisions to direct his energy where it would be put to best use. Interesting to note that Mitchell's run for the rings wasn't necessary to move the Teal'c-rescue story along (they could have got there anyway) but it furnished the story with character moments (both for Carter and for Mitchell).

If Mitchell is going to be impulsive or maverick, then it's essential that they:

a) don't make the plots dependent on his impulsive behaviour

b) do provide a sympathetic character-based rationale for each instance of such behaviour

... otherwise he comes off looking like a liability and a fool.

edit: there's always an outside chance the writers are deliberately developing an insubordination story-arc for Mitchell. While remote, that would be interesting.

[Fargater]

I have read this thread with great interest. I`ve had a lot of questions and concerns about the creation and development of the Mitchell character. Thankyou, Dream-a-Little and Shards of Glass, for your very informative posts. It`s been ages since I`ve read any interviews with BB, but from what I`m reading here it seems like the flaws in the character are not BB`s doing. It begs the question of just what suggestions he might have come up with and how well they would have played. I`d be willing to bet he`d have developed a much better Mitchell than we`ve been seeing.

BB is a very sharp guy and loves SF. After getting the part he did his homework and watched all the previous seasons of SG-1 so he`d know what it was all about going in. I remember him saying that in what must be the last of his interviews I read. From what I`m reading here it sounds like TPTB at Stargate aren`t used to letting actors do much, if anything, to protect the integrity of their characters if they think something`s out of line, like the kiss AT objected to. Like someone else said, BB isn`t going to bite the hand that feeds his family and he just doesn`t badmouth people anyway, so I don`t expect him to badmouth TPTB, even years from now, but I have to wonder if there`s not at least a little frustration on his part in having to make Mitchell such an idiot.

Even if they come to their senses and make this character more believable as belonging in SG-1, it`ll be hard to overcome his past actions, but I`d be willing to develop selective amnesia if they can just start writing a Mitchell I can accept as deserving to be with "the best". It`s not too late. As John Crichton would say, "I have HOPE."

[scarimor]

Back again (good morning)

I'm bringing this is in from my post on another thread:

If TPTB do write Mitchell as a maverick who does his own thing, it's important that when he ignores an order or flouts protocol that he does it in plain sight.

In the past both O'Neill and Carter disobeyed direct orders. O'Neill took his team through the Gate in Serpent's Grasp in direct contradiction to Hammond's order, and Carter went back down the elevator to Cassie in Singularity in direct contradiction to O'Neill's order. Crucially, they were up-front about it, taking a principled stand because they had good reason to believe their actions were right and important; and events bore out their decisions.

Our characters should not be yes-men; that would make them boring and unsympathetic. Mitchell shouldn't be a yes-man either. But good writing makes a character sympathetic in dramatic conflict, not ridiculous. If Mitchell and gone into the compound in Off the Grid because he was right and had good reason to believe so, it would have made all the difference. But not only was he wrong, his comrades and the audience could all see that he was wrong... so he came off looking foolish and arrogant instead. Worse still, he told Carter, Daniel and Teal'c that he was going in to do one thing - "... ask a few questions, find out what I can, get out of there..." and when he was out of their sight he did something else: posed as a big drug-dealer for seven planets and tried to set up a meet with the Lucien Alliance's off-world Mr Big. As a result he came of looking deceitful too.

Maverick behaviour has to be principled and open. It's a question of how it's handled by the writing.

edit: unless he's secretly a compromised character and a double agent!

[Kelso]

Alan MucCullough's episodes have been among the best of the season.

[reiella]

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.

Well, Daniel's character has moved on from the 'Non-Military' guy whose lack of military background keeps endangering the team. I suspect Vala is supposed to restore that, not that Mitchell isn't doing a good of job of it on his own (in some episodes/in some opinions).

I'm just hoping that Mitchell is just going through his growing pains and the attempts to define a character lead that isn't Jack.