Originally posted by ForeverSg1
i think, for *me*, the reason this isn't happening is of two reasons. 1 - the writing isn't going in that direction. the writers aren't trying to make us jell with this group. and 2 (the sore spot for me AND the reason number 1 isn't happening) - it ain't working because they've got mitchell as leader instead of sam.
mitchell doesn't only not have the experience to *lead* these ppl, he doesn't have the presense that jack did. with jack, you felt his presense of leadership. with mitchell... i think they had two ways of going with this. either make him another jack type character (a larger than life and 'clearly' the lead), or make him at the same level as sam, daniel, and teal'c, with 'all' of them basically having a say in how things were going down. i believe the writers took the latter, which i think is hurting the team 'and' show. it was almost like a lose/lose situation.
the only scenario(s) i could see this working in is:
1 - better writing. hands down.
2 - have him larger than life/*obvious* leader (like jack).
or
3 - have sam lead.
because, *to me*, mitchell doesn't have the leadership presense, the team can't jell together anymore. sam, daniel, and teal'c don't love this man. they won't follow him to hell and back. they don't *know* him like they knew jack. they either should have had mitchell cast with an older actor, or they should have left things alone and let sam be the leader again.
all the scenes that have come into my mind on *really* having this group feel like a team; they all take place with sam leading the group. because daniel and teal'c *would* follow *sam* to hell and back. the trust and intimacy is already there with sam in the leadership spot. it's not there with mitchell. and if mitchell were played by an older actor, at least the others would feel the pull of his presense (of course depending on the casting *tom selleck*, or even beau bridges).
of course, this is all just personal taste.
sally
Comment