Who should lead SG1?(Spoilers)

[Dani347]

It is not at all obvious to me that he expected Sam and Daniel to compromise their positions. I took his question to be rhetorical and a way to release some tension in a difficult situation.

That's the way I saw his response, too. I don't think he was consciously thinking that they would come after him, and was taking them to task for being slow. It was just something to say. A quip, mostly.

Arthur's Mantle - I really am dumbfounded that Mitchell's actions are considered foolhardy, dangerous and rash. I would consider them calculating and somewhat risky--much like many of the past SGC missions.

Just my opinions, I guess.

I would consider it an idea that sounded pretty good on the surface (well, his idea sounded good to me) but after it got thought out more thoroughly, the flaws would have been seen. So, impulsive, but not bad. There was no reason to believe that Sam and Daniel would have been able to translate everything fast enough to bring him out of phase before the check in. I don't know how much time had passed when Mitchell told Sam he was going to go check on Teal'c, but I think some time had, and they had only just started to finish the first sentence. It's only because Dr. Lee sent Daniel out of phase that they were able to speed things up, and only because Dr. Lee messed things up somehow that they needed to speed things up. Not things that could have been predicted. So, I think his plan wasn't really a good one when all the angles were thought out, but that the fact that he was brought back into phase while he was still on the planet wasn't something that could have been anticipated.

And, I also don't see it as an issue of trust (responding to earlier criticisms) because I would like to think that if any of SG1 was in trouble, that their teammates would feel the need to go help even if they had the entire Air Force on the job. And, that what would stop them wouldn't be simply trusting other people to handle it (even if you do trust them) but circumstances like understanding that you really can't help, or having a mission or a problem that you can't get out of (then, they'd worry about the other person, which still doesn't imply a lack of trust in the people who can go help).

I also don't see evidence that his teammates don't trust him. I was surprised when I read that MS thinks Daniel doesn't trust Mitchell, because that's not what I saw in his performance. I see them as responding to specific actions, to acknowledging that he can be impulsive, and not always liking that (and Sam and Daniel's reactions at the end of Off the Grid, I saw as more being in a bad mood. I think they would have rolled their eyes at anyone who was peppy, because they felt so grouchy after all the trouble they had been in), but not that they don't trust or respect him. At least, from what I see.

[the dancer of spaz]

Hmmm--I don't agree that all of these are necessarily mistakes. I certainly didn't take them as such when I first saw the episodes.

Collateral Damage - Droops has some interesting points in the episode thread regarding this--and he does have experience with diplomatic missions, so I take him at his word.

I don't see how Droops could possibly justify Cameron going away to a woman's house without telling anyone, when his obvious intent was to get some action. It's not his fault that he was framed for murder because of her ex-husband's jealousy (whoa, I just got a major soap opera vibe there... must be channeling BSG...), but it WAS his fault that he was in that situation.

The only reason why he got out of it so quickly was because (a) their government had faulty morals, and didn't care so much that her murderer was found as long as they were able to continue with their research and (b) the writers wanted us to believe that it was the leader of their government who'd killed her.

Stronghold - Given the fast moving battle, I'm not convinced that Cam didn't do the right thing. He saw an opening and he took it. It is not at all obvious to me that he expected Sam and Daniel to compromise their positions. I took his question to be rhetorical and a way to release some tension in a difficult situation.

How is, "What took you so long?" only rhetorical, when he heard Sam tell him to wait for back-up? And clearly, judging by Sam's later statement, the tension wasn't released at all.

Cameron saw an opening that would've most definitely been closed had Sam and Daniel not taken out those Jaffa for him. And the rings weren't operational, so even if the Jaffa hadn't cornered him, he would have had no way of getting up, and would've had to either turn right back around and go back the way he came, so he could help them all out, OR he would've had to wait until Sam and the rest of them made their way to his position.

Either way, the "opening" that Cameron saw was a mere crack at best, and he would've been eliminated or useless had Sam and Daniel not shown up.

Off the Grid - Uh, Cam wasn't responsible for the Stargate being stolen. At the rate they were gathering intelligence, they would have been stranded there, capture or no. Obviously, he wound up not staying under the radar--but they'd been doing that for a while with no success; Mitchell thought it better to adjust the plan. It didn't go so well, but people can disagree on whether he should have tried or not. Did Landry say "TRY to stay under the radar."?

Cameron wasn't responsible for the Stargate being stolen, of course. But he was responsible for the team being in a hostile situation WHILE the Stargate was stolen. It would've been completely different if the team had found that the Stargate was gone while they were staying low and out of the way. They would've been able to bide time and wait for the Odyssey to get them later on. Instead, they were found out and captured, and surely would've died had the Odyssey's timing hadn't (natch) been impeccable.

They wouldn't have been in that situation, if Cameron had stuck to the boundaries of the mission.

Arthur's Mantle - I really am dumbfounded that Mitchell's actions are considered foolhardy, dangerous and rash. I would consider them calculating and somewhat risky--much like many of the past SGC missions.

Just my opinions, I guess.

Again, Mitchell seemed bored, agitated and he wanted to do something to help. And that can be an endearing trait if the character knows that there are times when you simply can't help, and the only thing you can do is hit a solitary button for a couple of hours, so that the OTHER people who actually CAN do something can get their job done. That's just life, and that's totally the way SG-1 has had to operate over the course of nine years. Mitchell could not have predicted the future, and his decision to venture off-world in the hopes of being able to help anyone was completely baseless. It was ONLY after he found out that he could communicate with Teal'c that he began serving a purpose, but no one knew that he could do that. His logic for going off-world was non-existent, which was only further proven by the way Sam and Daniel reacted to him going.

The thing is, Cameron likes to act like a one-man show. Many of the risky and calculating actions that SG-1 took in the past were taken AS A TEAM. Cameron doesn't realize that the team mentality is essential, despite his experience as the commander of a team of 302s. Shouldn't we expect more from someone whose whole career has been based on working as a team? Or does he only remember these details when he's in the air?

[LORD MONK]

I can see both sides of how you can compare early season Sam to Mitchell and how you can't. And, I am also confused as to all the military strategies and things and what works and doesn't and all that stuff.

So, I think I'll jump over to the food portion of the discussion. Cheesecake, yuck. It's an oxymoron! But, I'm willing to let others eat it. As long as I can have chocolate cake. And, pie! Lemon meringue pie!

(I'm not even sure why food is being discussed, but since it is I have to put my vote in)

I'll trade my Chocolate Pie for your Cheese Cake.

[Dani347]

I'll trade my Chocolate Pie for your Cheese Cake.

DEAL!


the dancer of spaz

And clearly, judging by Sam's later statement, the tension wasn't released at all.

Which says to me that it didn't work. It doesn't say to me that his intent wasn't still to release tension. But, that might still be too direct a point on what he was doing. I don't think he was actively trying to do anything with the line, it was just something that was said when someone gets you out of something at just the right moment. I don't think there was any big meaning or intent behind the words. Like someone saying, "It was nothing" after doing some big impressive thing.

[LORD MONK]

Über pretty much summed it up right there. The writers have portrayed Cameron as a loose canon, who's not wholly respected by his team members. It's odd that they've decided to go this route, and once again brings up the question of whether or not it's deliberate...

That's for sure. Even Alternate Teal'c has no problem hitting Mitch.

[ShardsofGlass]

It is not striking to me. I just don't see this. It seems as if once the notion that Mitchell is a reckless character given to making mistakes has taken root, any instance, no matter how otherwise explained or mitigated, is taken as proof of his deficiencies. I don't know how else to take it. And I don't mean to cause offense--first impressions are powerful things. My first and continuing impressions are obviously much different than most here.

I totally agree with you! It seems that when given two ways to interpret a situation, or maybe more than two ways, the people arguing against Mitchell on this forum, always pick the one that is most damaging to him. I see things much differently than that.

[ShardsofGlass]

That's the way I saw his response, too. I don't think he was consciously thinking that they would come after him, and was taking them to task for being slow. It was just something to say. A quip, mostly.

Yes, totally agree.

I would consider it an idea that sounded pretty good on the surface (well, his idea sounded good to me) but after it got thought out more thoroughly, the flaws would have been seen. So, impulsive, but not bad.

I see your point, but I don't even think it's impulsive. When he went to Sam, it was clear that he'd already thought this through and weighed the risks and decided to go. Impulsive would've been him just going through the gate then and there without even discussing it with her.

There was no reason to believe that Sam and Daniel would have been able to translate everything fast enough to bring him out of phase before the check in. I don't know how much time had passed when Mitchell told Sam he was going to go check on Teal'c, but I think some time had, and they had only just started to finish the first sentence. It's only because Dr. Lee sent Daniel out of phase that they were able to speed things up, and only because Dr. Lee messed things up somehow that they needed to speed things up. Not things that could have been predicted. So, I think his plan wasn't really a good one when all the angles were thought out, but that the fact that he was brought back into phase while he was still on the planet wasn't something that could have been anticipated.

There were risks with his plan but there are risks with everything they do. I didn't have a problem with him wanting to do this.

And, I also don't see it as an issue of trust (responding to earlier criticisms) because I would like to think that if any of SG1 was in trouble, that their teammates would feel the need to go help even if they had the entire Air Force on the job. And, that what would stop them wouldn't be simply trusting other people to handle it (even if you do trust them) but circumstances like understanding that you really can't help, or having a mission or a problem that you can't get out of (then, they'd worry about the other person, which still doesn't imply a lack of trust in the people who can go help).

I agree. I don't get the trust thing at all. If they didn't trust him, they wouldn't have followed his orders in TS or Ethon, for instance.

I also don't see evidence that his teammates don't trust him. I was surprised when I read that MS thinks Daniel doesn't trust Mitchell, because that's not what I saw in his performance. I see them as responding to specific actions, to acknowledging that he can be impulsive, and not always liking that (and Sam and Daniel's reactions at the end of Off the Grid, I saw as more being in a bad mood. I think they would have rolled their eyes at anyone who was peppy, because they felt so grouchy after all the trouble they had been in), but not that they don't trust or respect him. At least, from what I see.

I'm not sure about the accuracy of what you've read. I heard from someone who went to the con where MS mentioned Daniel not trusting TEal'c, and the comment was about OTG where Mitchell said he could be a convincing drug dealer. Well, in that instance, of course Daniel didn't trust him. But in general, I think he does. Otherwise, why did he trust that Mitchell would listen to him in Ethon and not blow up the satellite just on Daniel's word?

[Lightsabre]

Are you serious?

"Collateral Damage" was the first one. Cameron went off alone with a pretty lady, and then was framed for murder. It's a good thing their government's morals were WAY off, otherwise Cameron would have been in serious trouble.

I seem to recall MITCHELL getting himself out of this one. SAm, Daniel and Teal'c did squat.
Doesn't fit.

"Stronghold" was next. Cameron went into heavily armed, enemy territory without back-up, blindly expecting to be able to defend himself, but obviously knew that his actions would require Sam and Daniel to leave their positions to help him (as evidenced by his brilliant question, "What took you so long?").

Again, doesn't fit. Unless you intend to penalise anyone who's ever had a comrade shoot an enemy off their back.
Mitchell made his run, Sam and Daniel bailed him out but this is not a case of him getting himself into trouble, it was Cam pursing the mission goals.
Doesn't fit.

(As to the 'what took you so long' comment, clearly he was trying to distract the Jaffa)

"Off The Grid" came after that, where Cameron's actions almost got himself killed, sure. But his actions also lead to the team being stranded offworld with enemies on their tails. At least if they'd "stayed under the radar," they wouldn't have been stranded on enemy terrain. The fact that he demanded attention is what ultimately screwed them over in the long-run.

Off THe Grid was specificall EXCLUDED. The fact you and others keep including it tells me this is a weak argument.

"Arthur's Mantle" is the last chapter in this little saga, significantly less damaging than its predecessors.

How did he get himself into trouble and need to be bailed out?

[Lightsabre]

I totally agree with you! It seems that when given two ways to interpret a situation, or maybe more than two ways, the people arguing against Mitchell on this forum, always pick the one that is most damaging to him. I see things much differently than that.

I agree and I also notice that things that mitigate Carter's actions don't seem to be able to applied to Cam.
I posted a little while ago about how Cam fits all the criteria given for mitigation for Carter.
Cam is apparently such a screw up, but no one has been able to rebut that post.

[Lightsabre]

Erm...sorry. Having a bad impulse is not limited to the young and immature.

Everyone has bad impulses at some time or another, young and old and everyone in between.

And there is a difference between not giving in to it and not giving in because you have been threatened.

The difference is that some people choose to not give into that impulse (they recognize the consequences for their actions are greater than the satisfaction gained by giving into the impulse) and other people don't care and do whatever they want regardless of the consequences.

That's not to say that this is true all the time of course...sometimes people choose to wisely avoid doing something stupid and sometimes they give in to temptation. Your nephew...for instance...didn't give into the temptation to act out because he recognized that he'd get it if he did. That doesn't mean that the next time he'd think things through as well and make the same decision.

Exactly my point. Simply because someone made the right decison under the threat of force, doesn't mean that they would make the same decision again, sans force.

We can nitpick specific wrongdoings of each character...and with Sam there are of course a few over a 9 year period...but what's so striking is that there are more "wrongdoings" tallied against Mitchell than there are for Sam and he's just gotten there.

If we agree that what you label wrongdoings are in fact, mistakes.
I don't agree with most of them.

And I'm not necessarily speaking about one bad choice or another. I'm talking about patterns. What the writers seem to want to show us is that he is an impetuous flyboy who gets an idea in his head and tends to reject the wisdom of those who are more experienced.

There is ONE time he does that. IT's hardly a pattern.

What I'm talking about is a matter of character. Sam is prone to not give into stupid impulses and Mitchell is prone to fly by the seat of his pants...a trait that might be endearing if it wasn't so wreckless in his supposed position of authority.

Again, this is just your opinion.

[PizzaCelebration]

It is impossible for people to be completely unbiased.

That said, I agree with both sides. Cam does have some problems that he needs to work out, but it is my opinion that he will become a great team leader and very soon.

[Dani347]

I see your point, but I don't even think it's impulsive. When he went to Sam, it was clear that he'd already thought this through and weighed the risks and decided to go. Impulsive would've been him just going through the gate then and there without even discussing it with her.

Well, I would say it was not thinking the plan through completely. The fact that he couldn't do anything with the information was something that could have been anticipated with more thinking. So, I would say there was a degree of impulsiveness, but not as much as there would have been if he went off without saying anything.

Now, the fact that he was brought back into phase while he was still on the planet wasn't something I would have expected him to be able to anticipate, because a whole set of circumstances had to be put into place for that to happen.

[smurf]

Über pretty much summed it up right there. The writers have portrayed Cameron as a loose canon, who's not wholly respected by his team members. It's odd that they've decided to go this route, and once again brings up the question of whether or not it's deliberate...

But why in the galaxy would they do that?
Why make a leader who is incapable of leading, an inexperienced team member who doesn't want to learn, and a hero who needs saving?

If it is deliberate then they are taking way too long to get to the point.

[Strix varia]

Oh and I did NOT post YOUR extrapolations

I fail to see the point of this???

Holding his position would kill him.

Okay, first of all, "holding his position would kill him" is a far cry from "waiting is stupid," which was your original assertion upon which I based my argument. It makes a significant difference in how one interprets his actions. And sorry, but I'm not a mind reader. You've dramatically changed your premise.

But I'm game for that.

Please explain why holding his position will kill him.

On screen, it appeared the SGC was getting the upper hand. (Do you refute this?) To my mind, this made the possibility of him being cut off at that moment very slim. The fact that Sam and Daniel were able to pursue him supports that conclusion.

To me it appeared it was, in fact, safe for him to momentarily stay put as evidenced by Sam telling him to wait... (I will also point out that she did not tell him to retreat.) So, please explain why staying put in the context of what was shown on the screen would kill him. And while you're at it, please explain why it wouldn't kill Sam and Daniel (or present a significant threat to them) when they followed him.

As to him abandoning them because tehy are pushed back, what?
If he was not there when it happened, how could he possibly know they need him?

It was your potential scenario, not mine.

If they were not in danger of being pushed back, there was no danger of him being cut off.

If he didn't know one way or the other, he made a terrible mistake in getting himself into a position that he didn't know what was happening around him. It forced him to make decisions based on no intel whatsoever, separated from his unit, on his own, in enemy territory. In which case, he might as well have flipped a coin as to the best possible action. And you'd think he might have listened to the one bit of information he did have: Sam's command to wait for backup.

DId Mitchell KNOW the rings were inoperative, I'd agree.
But there was no way and knowing and it's NOT a reasonable assumption.

Excuse me? It's as reasonable as him assuming he would be able to get to the rings in the first place and then make them work. The point is, he didn't know either way. He made a huge (and very optimistic) assumption that he could, in fact, succeed. And it just so happens that it actually turned out he would have been toast if he'd taken this course of action given your potential scenario.

[the dancer of spaz]

I totally agree with you! It seems that when given two ways to interpret a situation, or maybe more than two ways, the people arguing against Mitchell on this forum, always pick the one that is most damaging to him. I see things much differently than that.

No one expects you to see things exactly the way that they do. That's a no-win situation if I've ever heard of one.

But please know that this conversation wouldn't exist if TPTB hadn't deliberately provided ammunition and evidence this season. I can honestly tell you that I've been willing to give Cameron a chance every episode. Each episode is a clean slate, because honestly I'm just wanting this crappy season to be over with - but I don't want to be miserable the whole time, either. IF there's a light at the end of the tunnel, I'm willing to be directed to it.

I know you're not directing this only at me, but I am one of the Cameron-naysayers, so... At any rate, I've always said that I'd have been 1000% more likely to accept Cameron Mitchell if he'd been a Colonel from another team, Lt. Colonel or otherwise. Then there'd be no justifiable reason for them to write Cameron the way they have, except for obvious character suicide. If he'd been experienced, no one would've been able to fall upon that excuse, and his credentials would have been right on the money.

But that's not how they've done it. And the damaging evidence is there, episode after episode. It's not like we're pulling it out of thin air here.