Mitchell Open Forum

[Dream-a-Little]

I suspect TPTB thought Ben Browder was too young to be a full colonel and a lt. colonel was the highest rank they could give him. Also, I believe one of TPTB said that by making Sam and Mitchell the same rank they didn't have to hear either of them refer to the other as "sir" the way Sam had to do all the time with O'Neill.

I always just assumed that they made them both the same rank because they wanted to be able to write a more relaxed character dynamic between Mitchell/Carter than the more structured Sam/Jack relationship.

I blame Allan McCullough (?). He's a new writer, and other than his scripts, Mitchell is the same mature, level-headed guy in the second half of the season that he was in the first half. Take The Scourge, Ethon, Camelot, Crusade, Collateral Damage, TFH2, and Ripple Effect. In all of these, Mitchell was just fine. AM wrote OTG and Stronghold. He also wrote Arthur's Mantle. Personally, I think Mitchell is fine in Arthur's Mantle, but I know that his going off to help Teal'c bothers some people. Notice the pattern with who wrote those eps.

And in addition to blaming AM, I blame RCC for not being a good showrunner and making sure Mitchell was consistent.

That pretty much sums it up for me too. LOL, Mitchell doesn't come across to me like a frat boy, but I suppose that's a subjective thing. Personally, I didn't find any contradictions or inconsistencies in the character until Stronghold. I think you probably have a new writer here that could have used a bit more supervision, especially when it comes to a newer character. AM would have had the opportunity to view previous Stargate episodes in order to get an understanding of the older characters. His interpretation of a newer character would have relied more heavily on his own input. Without someone providing quality control to his scripts, he was more likely to get off track with a newer character than an older one.

BW seems to be exerting a stronger presence in season 10 than season 9. (Or perhaps that’s just wishful thinking on my part.) It's quite possible that other people also felt that the show needed a stronger hand at the wheel than the one RCC was providing. I’m under the impression that BW's strength is character development and relationships. If that is true, then I'm curious to see what that means for Mitchell as a character and also for his relationships with the other characters in season 10.

[FoolishPleasure]

I suspect TPTB thought Ben Browder was too young to be a full colonel and a lt. colonel was the highest rank they could give him.

He is also too old to be a Captain (sorry BB. )

I blame Allan McCullough (?). He's a new writer, and other than his scripts, Mitchell is the same mature, level-headed guy in the second half of the season that he was in the first half.

McCullough doesn't seem to understand Mitchell at all, and it makes Mitchell look almost cartoonish. I think a beating or two from the other writers should get him on track.

I didn't have any problems with Mitchell's consistency with any other writers.

[Skydiver]

and i think some of us noticed a correlation between mccullough eps and immature cam, and pdl directing, which may also be a contributing factor.

PDL as fun as he is, is a fan of the immature and MAY be directing mitch to be more fun and goofy.....without realizing that this behavior is completely discrediting him as a leader.

Leading is responsibility and there is a certain degree of seriousness and accountability that goes with it. Yet we really don't get that from mitch. More often than not, we get the image of the happy go lucky dude out on a lark and having fun.

perfectly great if they're making a pirate show or adventure show, not really appropriate for the leader of a crack commando team

over all, most of hte issues i've seen people having with mitch do trace back to him immaturity and inconsistent writing.

[Lightsabre]

I can't believe that PDL, who is a good director, cannot see what his eps do to Mitchell. But then, I can't believe that AM's scripts get past either. The ideas are good, the characterisations, fine. However, it seems if a mistake needs to be made or something needs to happen to move the story forward, he uses the same three devices.
1)It's Mitchell's fault
2)The others will, among themselves, castigate Mitchell.
3)The others will always be blameless for Mitchell's mistakes.

It's getting beyond a joke. The others are human too and they stuff up at times. Lately it seems they only screw up if Mitchell's not around.

As to goofy, O'Neill came out with all kinds of stuff without lessening his leadership. It's not so much the goofiness, it's that BB is not getting the lines that allow him to act authoritive. When you couple that with the jokes, you get someone who looks rather ineffectual in those episodes.

I think TPTB need to sit down, watch S9 and work just a little harder to be consistent.
One ep, Teal'c is agreeing with Mitchell rather emphatically (We are indeed suitably employed) and the next, he belts him without hesitation.
WHat's all this about?
In one ep, Daniel and Mitchell are having a chat after basketball, in another, Daniel insults him in chinese(Loved that scene BTW), but still. Where's the respect?
THAT is the biggest thing, I think. The other characters just don't respect him.

[ReganX]

he bores me because i don't really know him. i don't really know him because he's written all over the place. he started off earnest and sincere, then became fratboy and unpredictable.

how could he be improved? stop writing him as a caricature, and write the character. make him serious. stop writing him jack-lite.

I agree. Mitchell needs to be written more consistently. I think that the writers need to sit down and talk amongst themselves about the character; what personality they see him having, his background, his goals, his thought processes, his feelings, how they would like to see him develop. If they have already done so, they need to do it again, because it doesn't show.

and i *don't* want him shipped with sam!

Under no circumstances whatsoever.

the biggest issue i have with mitchell, though, is him having command of sg1. it should have stayed sam's. it's bad enough that the writers had sam leave and mitchell bring the group back together again, but it's another when he's so out of his league LEADING it. (just my opinion)

Mitchell having command of SG-1 is a major problem for me and, in all honesty, it has probably lowered my opinion of the character even more than under other circumstances.

I also dislike the storyline about Mitchell bringing the band back together. It was no more than a plot device to fit him into the team and to endear him to the audience and, as far as I am concerned, it failed miserably in both respects.

To me, Mitchell’s motives for getting SG-1 back together come across as selfish and his badgering them back into jobs that they apparently left of their own free will as childish. His primary motive for wanting Sam, Daniel and Teal’c to return seems to be that he wanted to work with them.

As far as leadership goes, Mitchell has thus far not proven himself to be somebody that I would ever want in command of SG-1, or responsible for the safety of characters that I like, quite the reverse.

In all honesty, I don’t think that he is ever going to mature as a commander while he is on the same team as Sam, Daniel and Teal’c. They already know their jobs so well and are so experienced when it comes to ‘gate travel that they really don’t need a leader the way they would have in Season One. Their missions would probably progress just as (if not more) smoothly without Mitchell’s presence, which leaves him free to indulge the childish, reckless side of his personality.

As well as that, I don’t think that he fully grasps the seriousness of what they are doing and how dangerous it is. It’s possible that he subconsciously thinks of SG-1 as having charmed lives – and, in fairness, each of them should probably have been dead at least several times over by now – and that by joining the team, he will be covered by this and that everything will always turn out okay in the end, no matter what. If that is the case, it would make sense for him to have asked for the posting after the injuries he suffered in Antarctica.

I think that for Mitchell to develop as a leader, he needs to be taken out of SG-1 and given a team of young, inexperienced, reckless officers. As it stands, the team he is supposedly leading must act as a steadying influence over him but only when he is put in a position where he must be the steady one and guide others will be able to mature as a leader.

[ParadoxRealities]

As well as that, I don’t think that he fully grasps the seriousness of what they are doing and how dangerous it is. It’s possible that he subconsciously thinks of SG-1 as having charmed lives – and, in fairness, each of them should probably have been dead at least several times over by now – and that by joining the team, he will be covered by this and that everything will always turn out okay in the end, no matter what. If that is the case, it would make sense for him to have asked for the posting after the injuries he suffered in Antarctica.

which is another thing that bugs me. no seasoned military officer (or, for that matter, no sane adult) should EVER think something that naive.

as for O'Neill compared to Mitchell. good leaders don’t need to say authoritative things to make them good leaders. Mitchell simply does not give the impression of being a leader in any episodes (or he never give the impression of being a good leader, and it carries over). Jack has always seemed like an effective and strong leader, and he didn’t need to order people or call himself SG-Leader to do it. his humor, while goofy, never took away from his air leadership. mitchell's humor is not 'goofy', but rather frat-boy and immature.

[Lightsabre]

which is another thing that bugs me. no seasoned military officer (or, for that matter, no sane adult) should EVER think something that naive.

Dude, just let me stop you there. While I agree, this is simply ReganX's opinion.
It's not fact. Are you saying you share his opinion?
Cause I actaully don't see this displayed in Mitchell.

as for O'Neill compared to Mitchell. good leaders don’t need to say authoritative things to make them good leaders. Mitchell simply does not give the impression of being a leader in any episodes (or he never give the impression of being a good leader, and it carries over). Jack has always seemed like an effective and strong leader, and he didn’t need to order people or call himself SG-Leader to do it. his humor, while goofy, never took away from his air leadership. mitchell's humor is not 'goofy', but rather frat-boy and immature.

A good leader does need to own their leadership. This includes being authoritive where it is warranted. Jack quite often overrode debate, issued orders and made mistakes. Jack's goofy humor didn't take away from his air of leadership, I agree.
Please cite some examples of how Mitchell's humor is 'immature'? I don't get this or really see much difference with what Mitchell comes out with and what Jack did.

[ReganX]

Dude, just let me stop you there. While I agree, this is simply ReganX's opinion.
It's not fact. Are you saying you share his opinion?

Her.

[Lightsabre]

Her.

My apologies. Her opinion.

[Dani347]

Okay, I said I was going to post about Mitchell in relation to the others. I don't see this incredible disrespect or even contempt from Daniel/Sam/Teal'c that others do. I've heard Daniel advertantly insult Jack. Menace. It could be chalked up to emotional distress, but there's no mistaking that when he called Jack a "stupid son of a b*tch" it wasn't just friendly teasing. I've seen Daniel unintentionally insult Jack. I forget which episode, but it was in the first or second season, when Jack made some astronomy term. Daniel's complete shock that Jack would know a term like that wasn't a deliberate attempt to say anything about Jack's intelligence, but I don't think it came off as flattering. But, I think Daniel respects Jack. Daniel can be a snarky guy with more people than Jack. So, Daniel saying that they were still teaching Mitchell didn't come across as terrible. Maybe saying it in a foreign language would earn a slap with a wet noodle, but I don't think this is a matter of disrespect. And, Daniel and Sam's reactions at the end of Off the Grid? I don't think it had anything in particular to do with Mitchell or how they felt about him. But, they had been captured, "beaten" (okay, badly filmed, but I'll just say it like that), and had a generally rough day. And, they were grouchy. Understandable. And, Mitchell wasn't. He was happy and exuberant. Which, if you're grouchy can be annoying. As for Teal'c, some people cite Ripple Effect as evidence of a latent desire of Teal'c's to whallop Mitchell. But, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the alternate Teal'c who found hitting our Mitchell so satisfying? And, while the AU versions share enough characteristics and backgrounds that our characters can figure out how they think, they are not exactly our characters. AU Teal'c might have the same desire that Teal'c does, but it's not a sure thing. Plus, I haven't seen Teal'c spend all his time glowering at Mitchell, and he seems pretty friendly in most cases (and who's friendly all the time?) so I don't think Teal'c wakes up with a smile on his face after visons of a bloody Mitchell dance through his head. I think they like him, and sometimes they get annoyed with him, and sometimes they get mad at him. Just like anyone.

On the flip side, some criticisms that people have given saying Mitchell doesn't care or respect the team, I don't see either. Mitchell saying he was right and lets leave it at that to Daniel in The Scourge? I didn't see it as demeaning Daniel or deliberately trying to shut him down. I saw it as just a not so good method of arguing. I don't think it was anything in particular about Daniel, and I don't think he meant Daniel couldn't continue (which either Daniel felt the same way, or just decided to ignore it) just that his (Mitchell's) position hadn't changed, but he didn't have a compelling argument to back it up with at the time, so he fell on an old chestnut. Add to that the fact that I think the scene wasn't supposed to give a full account of both positions, but to introduce it, well, they needed to cut it off, and to have the image of Teal'c not wanting to get into the squabbling between them. And, another thing that gets people up in arms. Mary Poppins. To me, calling Sam Mary Poppins isn't saying she's not a capable soldier or intelligent, or able to handle a job. It's saying Sam looked too clean cut and good to be a believable drug dealer. Which still doesn't say anything about her ability as either a soldier or a scientist. At worst, I saw it as a case of the pot calling the kettle black, because I wouldn't peg Mitchell for a drug dealer either.

I don't expect everyone to always say the tactful thing, to have a friendly demeanor, to not get angry or annoyed, or cut people off. But, that doesn't mean that these people don't like each other.

[ParadoxRealities]

Dude, just let me stop you there. While I agree, this is simply ReganX's opinion.
It's not fact. Are you saying you share his opinion?
Cause I actaully don't see this displayed in Mitchell.

yes, i agree with her. and i'll assume that 'dude' in this case is feminine.

A good leader does need to own their leadership. This includes being authoritive where it is warranted. Jack quite often overrode debate, issued orders and made mistakes. Jack's goofy humor didn't take away from his air of leadership, I agree.

wow, did i ever say a good leader must own their leadership and isn't authoritative when its warranted? mitchell doesn't seem like a leader to me. i hope it changes, but considering how much TPTB LOVE him the way he is, i doubt it will.

Please cite some examples of how Mitchell's humor is 'immature'? I don't get this or really see much difference with what Mitchell comes out with and what Jack did.

that is completely opinion. and while i respect yours, i will find it harder to respect you after i find and cite all my examples only to have you say 'that's not the way i see it' (hopfully as kindly). i know its not, we both do. if that seems unfair, i apologize.

[Lightsabre]

yes, i agree with her. and i'll assume that 'dude' in this case is feminine.

Yup, I use it for both.

wow, did i ever say a good leader must own their leadership and isn't authoritative when its warranted? mitchell doesn't seem like a leader to me. i hope it changes, but considering how much TPTB LOVE him the way he is, i doubt it will.

You said this

as for O'Neill compared to Mitchell. good leaders don’t need to say authoritative things to make them good leaders.

I responded by saying part of being a good leader is to make authoritive statements.
Mitchell does act like a leader. In the Scourge, Ethon, Collateral DAmage, Off the Grid.
I don't see it needs to change, I just think we need to see it more.

that is completely opinion. and while i respect yours, i will find it harder to respect you after i find and cite all my examples only to have you say 'that's not the way i see it' (hopfully as kindly). i know its not, we both do. if that seems unfair, i apologize.

Sorry, but you seem to be saying you will find it harder to respect me if I disagree with you? I'm sure I've got it wrong, but could you expand on this, please?
Could you provide some examples of what YOU consider 'frat boy' humor then?

[Tracy Jane]

Wow. Guess I shoulda seen this coming. And now we have the "Who Should Lead" Thread Mark II.

[Lightsabre]

Wow. Guess I shoulda seen this coming. And now we have the "Who Should Lead" Thread Mark II.

One of the most contentious Mitchell issues is leadership.
Maybe you should edit your first post to exclude leadership as a discussion point??

[Tracy Jane]

One of the most contentious Mitchell issues is leadership.
Maybe you should edit your first post to exclude leadership as a discussion point??

Nah, I originally wrote that in there, but changed my mind about posting it, because it is such a big issue. I suppose it's fine talking about Cameron's abilities as a leader, because that is a huge bone of contention. However, I don't want this to turn into a mudslinging match between (predominantly) the Sam and Cam camps. That's all. As long as it is discussion about Cameron and it's done in a mature and adult way, I have no problem with it.