The McCullough-Mitchell Effect

[RealmOfX]

SNIP
I suspect that the writers aren't giving enough attention to the difference between a plot-driven maverick and a character-driven maverick. SNIP

Very good points - I hadn't considered plot vs character driven before

[Fargater]

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.

Exactly!


Hmm. I wish there were more clapping smilies.

[Dream-a-Little]

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).

Actually I think this is probably a good example of what a new actor to the series ought not to do, since Corin didn’t make it past his first year. Apparently actors trying to contribute to their character on this show can be fatal. Something that Ben is probably quite well aware of.

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.

But IMO a character should be defined first and then cast to fit the definition. Watching what your actor does with that character might persuade you to emphasis some things more and some things less, but you shouldn’t have to draw your character from watching your actor.

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. ).

Again an argument against an actor trying to impose his will on the character since MS then parted ways with the show and much name calling and nastiness and inferences by RCC that they wouldn’t recommend MS if asked to future employers followed. This is something that Ben has to be well aware of.

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.

Fair enough, then the blame would be more appropriately shifted to the show runner. The consequence of having power is responsibility. This show has lacked the supervision and guidance of someone in a position of power to impose continuity of character and story on all of his subordinates.

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.

I agree with you that the character has been inconsistently written, but I’ll differ with you on the “just plain daft as a leader”. You have given me two examples of actors in this show who attempted to control the characterizations of their characters. The end result was both actors ended up off the show. In the case of the first one, they won’t even mention his name. In the case of the second one, the situation got rather nasty and vindictive. I think maybe Ben has probably figured out that this is the kind of battle he can’t win, and rightly so. Just like AT realized that in the end, you better just go kiss Pete.

[Dream-a-Little]

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.

IMO it was Teal'c who was playing the cowboy here, not Mitchell. Mitchell's actions here were actually something that I could quite easily see Jack doing.

[Dream-a-Little]

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.

The "dumb thing" plot device is a pretty persistent element of Allan M. scripts. Vala will in fact probably fill this function in his season 10 scripts.

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.

And when people refer to Mary Sue Mitchell it always makes me laugh. It's fans of the pot calling the kettle black!

[Dream-a-Little]

Yes, of course.
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.

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'.

But to what extent would that hold true if the director is also a producer? PDL is also credited this year anyways as Supervising Producer.

[DEM]

But to what extent would that hold true if the director is also a producer? PDL is also credited this year anyways as Supervising Producer.

He's not the showrunner, and (as an SP) he's even lower on the totem pole than Mallozzi & Mullie. From what I can discern, PDL's producer credit is the result of his position as a 'staff director', so to speak, rather than a staff writer. So, yes, PdL may have more power than your average 'modern' television director, but in the end it's the writing staff -- as directed by the showrunner -- that calls the shots.

Or should be, at least. I'm a tad concerned about whether there is a strong showrunner presence this season.

FOLLOW-UP explanation: My concern or suspicion is due to my belief that one shouldn't see such strong effects of a new staff writer at this point in a series. Early in a series, it's understandable because staff are still working out the kinks, firming up vision, etc. Also, I wasn't that impressed with S7-8 overall, but at least I felt a strong guiding hand over those seasons. I'm not feeling that same sense of clarity and direction this season.

[Skydiver]

it's like there's no control. they don't have a good beta for thier stories. it seems that no one sits down and reads them critically and goes 'um, ok, so you want colonel mustard to shoot captain peacock....but you can't do it in the drawing room, the gun is kept in the parlor'

IMHO, these guys are cranking stuff out at a frantic rate (doing 40 eps instead of 20) adn don't have or don't make the time to pick stuff apart. never really proof it, either that or rob simply rubber stamps everything - and when/if the director catches it, well it'll be too expensive to fix so they just let it go

of course, i think also we have a lack of control over the directors. each person seems to be allowed to do as his 'vision' directs...and since there is no unifying control, we get everything from caring angst to slapstick because the overall tone of the show changes with a director and his mood

it's creating massive plot holes and a level of inconsistency that's very off-putting. it's hard to get into a show when you never know from week to week what you're gonna get

[scarimor]

... it's creating massive plot holes and a level of inconsistency that's very off-putting. it's hard to get into a show when you never know from week to week what you're gonna get

Tell me about it. Each week now I ask someone to give me a score for the latest ep before I get round to seeing it a few days later, because I like to have some warning of whether it's a general hit or miss. That wouldn't have been necessary in previous seasons. There is no consistency and I don't like to be too disappointed.

[Skydiver]

yeah. they need quality control. they need someone who's either got a better, more even keeled 'taste' for the show, or they need someone who's not so busy writing himself that he can sit down and go over things and stand up to the writers and say 'um, no you're not doing this'

[Dream-a-Little]

He's not the showrunner, and (as an SP) he's even lower on the totem pole than Mallozzi & Mullie. From what I can discern, PDL's producer credit is the result of his position as a 'staff director', so to speak, rather than a staff writer. So, yes, PdL may have more power than your average 'modern' television director, but in the end it's the writing staff -- as directed by the showrunner -- that calls the shots.

Or should be, at least. I'm a tad concerned about whether there is a strong showrunner presence this season.

FOLLOW-UP explanation: My concern or suspicion is due to my belief that one shouldn't see such strong effects of a new staff writer at this point in a series. Early in a series, it's understandable because staff are still working out the kinks, firming up vision, etc. Also, I wasn't that impressed with S7-8 overall, but at least I felt a strong guiding hand over those seasons. I'm not feeling that same sense of clarity and direction this season.

Thanks for clarifying that. IMO your concerns seem well founded. BSG has Ron Moore and Desperate Housewives has Marc Cherry as their guiding force. Ultimately they are the ones that are accountable for each of those shows. So who is Stargate’s Ron Moore or Marc Cherry? And if there isn’t one, why isn’t there? Lack of one would seem to be a pretty obvious receipe for disaster. Who ultimately is Stargate’s show runner?

[gopher65]

Granted Mitchell shouldn't be a O'Neill-clone, but I find the changes in personality much, much too great.

You know, some people are just like that *points to himself*. I am vastly different around different people. I am one way around my boss, one way around my manager, one way around my coworks, one way with a group, one way with one friend and one way with another, and yet a different way around my parents.

Everything changes from my use of language to my posture. And everyone else is like this too. Some people are just a bit more extreme.

[smurf]

Actually I think this is probably a good example of what a new actor to the series ought not to do, since Corin didn’t make it past his first year. Apparently actors trying to contribute to their character on this show can be fatal. Something that Ben is probably quite well aware of.




But IMO a character should be defined first and then cast to fit the definition. Watching what your actor does with that character might persuade you to emphasis some things more and some things less, but you shouldn’t have to draw your character from watching your actor.




Again an argument against an actor trying to impose his will on the character since MS then parted ways with the show and much name calling and nastiness and inferences by RCC that they wouldn’t recommend MS if asked to future employers followed. This is something that Ben has to be well aware of.




Fair enough, then the blame would be more appropriately shifted to the show runner. The consequence of having power is responsibility. This show has lacked the supervision and guidance of someone in a position of power to impose continuity of character and story on all of his subordinates.




I agree with you that the character has been inconsistently written, but I’ll differ with you on the “just plain daft as a leader”. You have given me two examples of actors in this show who attempted to control the characterizations of their characters. The end result was both actors ended up off the show. In the case of the first one, they won’t even mention his name. In the case of the second one, the situation got rather nasty and vindictive. I think maybe Ben has probably figured out that this is the kind of battle he can’t win, and rightly so. Just like AT realized that in the end, you better just go kiss Pete.

I doubt Corin was removed from the show for forward planning the character in a way that would work best for a lead of a spin-off. At the time Brad was showrunning and for him the most important aspect of the show was the characters. I'm sure he would have said something if he wanted something different. They had no trouble telling him to stop the eating thing.
Why he was not asked to return full time we won't know for some time (I give it another couple of years, I've noticed Corin doesn't always remember to engage his white lie chip. ). I suspect there were things happening over and above whatever Corin was doing - Brad Wright walked away in S7, and Jonas was his character.
Michael Shanks left the show, his choice. He didn't like where the character was going and left. I would argue with the personality change his character has undertaken in the last few years, he has pretty much got what he wanted.

Sure, Ben may have decided it would be smarter to shut his mouth and just do his job. But unfortunately a bad character reflects badly on him (better hope the show doesn't get cancelled), and no involvement leaves me with the impression that he doesn't care. He must be able to see that the character is completely outside the naturalistic character style that we have seen in 8 years of Stargate.
I'm sure he does care about his work, I just don't feel it when all he ever says is that he's only there to do his job.
(That said, I'm getting the same impression from most of the actors. Something is obviously not right in the Stargate universe.)

Plan daft as leader. A character who has no gate experience in a base full of well qualified people, who appears to be slowly losing the respect of his team, who appears not to be able to understand the seriousness of whatever situation he is in, who has a lack of respect for his more experienced team members. Honestly, the character works better outside of the leadership position. Unfortunately, they decided they couldn't have Ben as an enthusiatic new team member.

We know they (TPTB) no longer have a show bible. It appears that they haven't even got a paragraph of character information. All I want is someone to take control of the character. I'd prefer it to be Ben since RCC doesn't really care as much about the characters as he does about story arcs, and no one else has to live as close to the character as he does. (And personally I don't think RCC is a very good showrunner.)

Every character should have a base personaility that we understand so we have somewhere to draw their motivations from. At the moment, like people have said, Mitchell is too inconsistant, or worse his core personality is one that has me preparing for 6 hours of prostration.


ETA: The reason I want the feeling that the people who make the show (writer, director, actor, showrunner) care is because I care about Stargate. To be left with the feeling that it's just a job, whatever, is like being told I'm a dupe for having liked something that doesn't even matter to them.

(Reminds me of Gerald Ratner. For non-brits, Ratner owned a large chain of jewelry shops and at a meeting he held up one of his best selling products and said it was crap. Result; Ratners as a company is now kaput.)

[Dani347]

He must be able to see that the character is completely outside the naturalistic character style that we have seen in 8 years of Stargate.

I don't mind that. If that's the style they want for the character, as long as it's thought out and planned, I don't care if it's different from the others.

Unfortunately, they decided they couldn't have Ben as an enthusiatic new team member.

That's because they hired him as the lead actor, so they made his character the lead character.

Every character should have a base personaility that we understand so we have somewhere to draw their motivations from.

Exactly.

[LaCroix]

If I may, a little OT, then back on track.

While Buffy/Angel were on and a new character was going to be introduced, Joss Whedon himself was the one who wrote, directed, and produced the episode when that character entered. He wrote Angel, Spike, Wes, Faith, well you get the drift.

Now since Cameron Mitchell is a new character. You as a Showrunner want your new person to look just as good as the old ones. If RCC wanted to make sure that character/actor/fans well received this "new person", as Showrunner
he should have taken apon himself to write the introduction himself.

After all RCC was and still is a writer and has written a great many good episodes in the past.

The one thing that really bothers me is that McCullough is an actor turned writer. Has he been writing the character from a writers point of view or an
actor's point of view?

Well that was long.

ETA: Contrary to popular opinoin, I like Ben Browder the actor, Mitchell the character the way he has been written has been poor.