'Life' (109) General Discussion

[senatorincitatus]

Then it's not realistic. Regardless of the fiction if a story is about character development that it's not about things happening then it's not a real story.

Huh. I'm sure that Salinger would be startled to learn that Catcher in the Rye isn't a real story. Great Expectations, Jane Eyre, Little Women, A Tree Grows In Brooklyn, A Separate Peace, Ulysses - where should we categorize these now? They'd have to rearrange the bookstores and add a "Not A Real Story" section. By that definition, it would probably take up half the store. Oh, and someone should call AFI and tell them to take Citizen Kane, It's a Wonderful Life, and The Shawshank Redemption off their top 100 movies list, before people realize those aren't really stories. Seriously?

Frankly, I'm disturbed that you're only willing to accept one type of storytelling as valid. Isn't the entire point of fiction to broaden one's own perspective by showing things outside one's personal experience? I should think that a broadened perspective would be able to accept that different people tell different stories in different ways, and that this is a good thing.

I've observed people most of my life. What I've found is that there are very very few people that makes things happen. Have you ever heard of the 80 Percentile Rule? (Pareto's Principle, the 80-20 rule) If not do a little research.It's fascinating, but suffice to say 80 percent of us are bystandards. Things happen to us or we watch while things happen and the remaining 20 percent are instigators or responders or victims.

The truth is most people don't have the motivation to cause things to just happen. We walk through our lives feeling helpless, aimless as though there is no control at all. We get sick and we trust when we are told we will die. Some people don't trust that, they find another way.

On SGU, there is only one person of the 20 percentile on the show. Rush.
But is he a responder, victim or instigator?

What, you mean the law of the vital few, how 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes? Yeah, that doesn't really refute my point. Being a bystander doesn't mean that you don't have a story to tell. A character's emotional journey is a perfectly valid and long-used storytelling device, and doesn't require that character to be the "cause" of anything.

I too must be honest. I think it's fairly obvious.
The similarity is that they are all character driven shows.

And you don't like them, either, except for B5 (which is arguably not that much of a character-driven show, considering JMS had exits planned for every major character in case the actors weren't available for the entire series). So basically you just don't like character-driven shows. That's fine, but then I have to wonder - why are you continuing to watch this character-driven show?

You like most people live in a world of have and have not's.
If you have a little, then you have.
If you don't have everything, then you have not. I don't think by the same standards.

Actually, I live in a world of trying not to judge anything by the standards of something else. I've got this bizarre hangup about not criticizing a thing for failing to be something that it's not. I won't vilify SGU for not being SG-1 or SGA or B5, and I won't criticize Life for not being Time.

I do not think a show must be heavy on anything. I only require balance.

And that's a perfectly valid concern with this show - has it struck the proper balance? But it seems your idea of proper balance involves a fairly rigid formula of plot and an inability to accept that character development for its own sake is a valid thing to be spending time on. I think it's patently clear that this is not a view shared by TPTB in regards to this show. I fear that you will only continue to be disappointed.

Personally, I think the balance can only be judged when looking at the work as a whole. Not every episode has to be a perfect mesh of plot and character. A lot of shows do a "day in the life" episode sooner or later to offset more plot-heavy episodes. That's why I have no problem with Life. It wasn't trying to be about the plot. It was about the characters and how they're coping, or not, in their various ways. It succeeded in telling its own story, and it contributed to the overall story of the show. That's the only thing I figure I have the right to expect from any episode of this show, and so far, it hasn't let me down.

[Saquist]

And that was for... How long exactly?

I previously responded to your post and it was regarded as an insult.
I have received an infraction as a result. So I'd like to apologize to you personally if my words were insulting to you in any way. It was not my intent but I don't think your argument is valid. Perhaps that is all that should be said.

You're calling the later seasons of Lost "neverending, repetitious drama....soap"? Seriously? It's probably been one of the fastest-paced shows around for most of the past season or two...!


Are you kidding? So Rush, Young and Eli (for examples) are all handling this the same way?

I admit I haven't given Lost much of a try but then I don't think I'm going to. From what everyone's told me...it's not worth it. That's including people that rave about it.

[Saquist]

Huh. I'm sure that Salinger would be startled to learn that Catcher in the Rye isn't a real story. Great Expectations, Jane Eyre, Little Women, A Tree Grows In Brooklyn, A Separate Peace, Ulysses - where should we categorize these now? They'd have to rearrange the bookstores and add a "Not A Real Story" section. By that definition, it would probably take up half the store. Oh, and someone should call AFI and tell them to take Citizen Kane, It's a Wonderful Life, and The Shawshank Redemption off their top 100 movies list, before people realize those aren't really stories. Seriously?

None of those stories would fit under the same classification.
TheY are full stories, they had a purpose, a goal and a resolution.
(EDIT: I SHOULD SAY OF THE STORIES I HAVE SEEN OR READ)

Frankly, I'm disturbed that you're only willing to accept one type of storytelling as valid. Isn't the entire point of fiction to broaden one's own perspective by showing things outside one's personal experience? I should think that a broadened perspective would be able to accept that different people tell different stories in different ways, and that this is a good thing.

Correction: I'm only willing to accept stories. A complete story. Even most biographies tell more of a complete story than SGU. And I don't like most Biographies for the same reason...

For example: The Movie-Where the Heart is.
There was nothing wrong with it but like some biographies it was aimless. There was no goal but the goal of being happy. Likewise there is no goal in SGU save getting off the ship, survival. It's very snoozing. Nothing really drives these people to do anything not even survival. Since they're all experiencing exactly the same thing because they can't go anywhere else.

What, you mean the law of the vital few, how 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes? Yeah, that doesn't really refute my point. Being a bystander doesn't mean that you don't have a story to tell. A character's emotional journey is a perfectly valid and long-used storytelling device, and doesn't require that character to be the "cause" of anything.

Being a bystander means you're telling everyone elses story.
Sure you're adding your own emotional equivocation but why is that interesting?

And you don't like them, either, except for B5 (which is arguably not that much of a character-driven show, considering JMS had exits planned for every major character in case the actors weren't available for the entire series). So basically you just don't like character-driven shows. That's fine, but then I have to wonder - why are you continuing to watch this character-driven show?

Really you should let me tell you what I like.
I actually like Heroes but it has become boring like SGU. Their situations are repetitive, the characters never grow. Same with Smallvile. The pattern is self evident on SGU.

I know exactly what I like.
So trust me when I say that it's not how the story is driven that I don't like.

Actually, I live in a world of trying not to judge anything by the standards of something else. I've got this bizarre hangup about not criticizing a thing for failing to be something that it's not. I won't vilify SGU for not being SG-1 or SGA or B5, and I won't criticize Life for not being Time.

I'm the opposite. I will hold everything to one objective standard.
Nothing is off limits.

And that's a perfectly valid concern with this show - has it struck the proper balance? But it seems your idea of proper balance involves a fairly rigid formula of plot and an inability to accept that character development for its own sake is a valid thing to be spending time on. I think it's patently clear that this is not a view shared by TPTB in regards to this show. I fear that you will only continue to be disappointed.

Appearances can be deceiving. You can never be too sure untill you have evident demonstration and in order to have that, you need time and patience.

Personally, I think the balance can only be judged when looking at the work as a whole. Not every episode has to be a perfect mesh of plot and character. A lot of shows do a "day in the life" episode sooner or later to offset more plot-heavy episodes. That's why I have no problem with Life. It wasn't trying to be about the plot. It was about the characters and how they're coping, or not, in their various ways. It succeeded in telling its own story, and it contributed to the overall story of the show. That's the only thing I figure I have the right to expect from any episode of this show, and so far, it hasn't let me down.

I can not look at SGU as a whole season so logically I must look at them as whole episodes. Air I-III. Darkness, Light and so forth. Are they telling a story? Is a goal being accomplished, the use of time, the progress of the characters. Most episodes of SGU aren't telling a story, they make poor use of the time and the characters don't grow...they barely have anything to interact with so how could they grow?

It maybe that by the end of the season these bad episodes will contribute to a great season...that has never happened in my experience but...I'm not incredulous about the possibilities that it will happen. I just wait and observe.

[The Mighty 6 platoon]

Correction: I'm only willing to accept stories. A complete story. Even most biographies tell more of a complete story than SGU. And I don't like most Biographies for the same reason...

.

Why are you watching tv shows then? At the very least if you like a story laid out for you, from beginning to end, shouldn’t you wait till the show is finished before watching. The point of a tv show is the plot is ongoing, you aren’t going to get the complete story till the very end of sgu.

[AdamTM]

Why are you watching tv shows then? At the very least if you like a story laid out for you, from beginning to end, shouldn’t you wait till the show is finished before watching. The point of a tv show is the plot is ongoing, you aren’t going to get the complete story till the very end of sgu.

I think his point is that he doesnt like how the story in SGU isnt going anywhere at the moment.

Its cluttered up with mediocre melodrama, its not that it shouldnt have drama, but the drama needs to be leading somewhere.

Like in BSG the drama around the Chief and his wife (and child) ultimately led to something (aka he snaps and breaks the treaty between the cylons when he learns nr4 killed her), i cant imagine the drama around Young and his wife leading into something plot related.

If it does, feel free to point and laugh at me at that point in time.

[MattSilver 3k]

I think his point is that he doesnt like how the story in SGU isnt going anywhere at the moment.

Its cluttered up with mediocre melodrama, its not that it shouldnt have drama, but the drama needs to be leading somewhere.

Like in BSG the drama around the Chief and his wife (and child) ultimately led to something (aka he snaps and breaks the treaty between the cylons when he learns nr4 killed her), i cant imagine the drama around Young and his wife leading into something plot related.

If it does, feel free to point and laugh at me at that point in time.

Copied, pasted, dated, noted and saved. Will do if need be, boss!

That said, the character arc of Young and his whole wife/TJ dilemma is a plot in its own, that probably won't lead back to the main plot as Chief's little neck-snapping episode did. It's a character arc, a plot based on the actions of the character of Young to further develop his inherent flaws and general craziness. If him and his wife have a resolution of sorts that furthers his character - great. It doesn't have to be that his wife is secretly a spy and tries to get onboard the Destiny and does stuff. Not on a show like this one that seems to be, at its core, about the characters.

[Saquist]

Why are you watching tv shows then? At the very least if you like a story laid out for you, from beginning to end, shouldn’t you wait till the show is finished before watching. The point of a tv show is the plot is ongoing, you aren’t going to get the complete story till the very end of sgu.

Episode: a happening that is distinctive in a series of related events

I am watching because I am looking for the distinctive story in the series. I'm not looking for the saga.

[Saquist]

I think his point is that he doesnt like how the story in SGU isnt going anywhere at the moment.

Its cluttered up with mediocre melodrama, its not that it shouldnt have drama, but the drama needs to be leading somewhere.

Like in BSG the drama around the Chief and his wife (and child) ultimately led to something (aka he snaps and breaks the treaty between the cylons when he learns nr4 killed her), i cant imagine the drama around Young and his wife leading into something plot related.

If it does, feel free to point and laugh at me at that point in time.

Bravo, very, VERY astute and accurate.
I could not have worded better myself...in fact I couldn't even put that thought into words.

[AdamTM]

Copied, pasted, dated, noted and saved. Will do if need be, boss!

That said, the character arc of Young and his whole wife/TJ dilemma is a plot in its own, that probably won't lead back to the main plot as Chief's little neck-snapping episode did. It's a character arc, a plot based on the actions of the character of Young to further develop his inherent flaws and general craziness. If him and his wife have a resolution of sorts that furthers his character - great. It doesn't have to be that his wife is secretly a spy and tries to get onboard the Destiny and does stuff. Not on a show like this one that seems to be, at its core, about the characters.

Yeah, but is the character arc necessary? Did we learn anything new about Young in this arc?

At least in "Time" Greers character arc made sense, we actually learned what he was underneath that grimness, that he cared deeply for others and hated weakness in himself (might even relate later into the plot, like Greer volunteering for the chair, and we would understand his choice better).
Even Scotts character arc in Air pt3 made more sense, so did Youngs in Water, Chloes in Air pt2, or Elis in Time.

In Life we didnt get any insight, just melodrama (both young and camille), while Scotts made sense it was unnecessarily drawn out, as was Elis and Chloes in Earth.

[MattSilver 3k]

Yeah, but is the character arc necessary? Did we learn anything new about Young in this arc?

At least in "Time" Greers character arc made sense, we actually learned what he was underneath that grimness, that he cared deeply for others and hated weakness in himself (might even relate later into the plot, like Greer volunteering for the chair, and we would understand his choice better).
Even Scotts character arc in Air pt3 made more sense, so did Youngs in Water, Chloes in Air pt2, or Elis in Time.

In Life we didnt get any insight, just melodrama (both young and camille), while Scotts made sense it was unnecessarily drawn out, as was Elis and Chloes in Earth.

It'll only make sense in times to come. I noted in another thread that we may look back on the characters we see now differently years down the line when we've stuck with them and they've grown in different directions. We're nine episodes in so far. Nine out of a possible forty or more (I assume a second season is a given at this point). I don't have any visions of the future, but I'm going to assume that retrospect will shed light on which arcs were there for insight and which were there for 'melodrama' or 'filler'.

And in this episode specifically? We learnt Young is... well, nuts. Unbalanced, even. His wife is probably more pissed than ever, and Telford will be doing all he can to get Young back. Maybe Young will get a comeuppance or somesuch. Maybe Telford will piss Young off enough to do something insane-like - that's for the future, and that's where I'm looking.

I'd argue that Camille's bit in Life was short enough to be just a framing of her character and what's important to her (Because we've had little to go on thus far, excepting Earth and Light) - the best of that relationship with Sharon and how it affects Camille, is probably still to come.

[AdamTM]

It'll only make sense in times to come. I noted in another thread that we may look back on the characters we see now differently years down the line when we've stuck with them and they've grown in different directions. We're nine episodes in so far. Nine out of a possible forty or more (I assume a second season is a given at this point). I don't have any visions of the future, but I'm going to assume that retrospect will shed light on which arcs were there for insight and which were there for 'melodrama' or 'filler'.

That is no excuse for it. I can always make the argument of "maybe it will be resolved next week", thats what writers call a literary skyhook. Lost is using this technique because Jar Jar Abrams is bat**** insane (if you dont believe me, watch this http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/j...stery_box.html he basically admits that in Lost nothing will be resolved EVER.)

Also im not excluding other shows from this criticism, i didnt like SG1 season 1 exactly for the same reason, i dont say in retrospect i like it, no i still dont.

But SGU is not the first show in this category (not Stargate, i mean the format of a character driven show) and it shouldnt be too hard to do it right.

Where SG1 was first to invent a certain formula for a show (namely military sci fi action adventure comedy), SGU is only building on other shows (Like Lost, BSG, Heroes etc.) without bringing anything new.
And thats ok, they are playing it safe that way, but at least do it right.

And in this episode specifically? We learnt Young is... well, nuts. Unbalanced, even. His wife is probably more pissed than ever, and Telford will be doing all he can to get Young back. Maybe Young will get a comeuppance or somesuch. Maybe Telford will piss Young off enough to do something insane-like - that's for the future, and that's where I'm looking.

I'd argue that Camille's bit in Life was short enough to be just a framing of her character and what's important to her (Because we've had little to go on thus far, excepting Earth and Light) - the best of that relationship with Sharon and how it affects Camille, is probably still to come.

Thats speculation, and at this point irrelevant, i can make up some way that Youngs character arc makes sense in the plot, the fact would still be that it would be contrived at that point.

[pjt]

I previously responded to your post and it was regarded as an insult.
I have received an infraction as a result. So I'd like to apologize to you personally if my words were insulting to you in any way. It was not my intent but I don't think your argument is valid. Perhaps that is all that should be said.

Apology accepted.
On the other hand playing the age card without telling your age is not a valid argument. You've shared a lot about you, and by that I have (mis)judged your age, and found you too young to actually fill this "all your life" with content.

I admit I haven't given Lost much of a try but then I don't think I'm going to. From what everyone's told me...it's not worth it. That's including people that rave about it.

You have judged something again without making the slightest effort to actually watch it, experience it. I'm really sorry but it's just not the way that if you declare something then we have to accept it. Either you can prove something or you have just lost the argument.

[MattSilver 3k]

[Stuff...]
Thats speculation, and at this point irrelevant, i can make up some way that Youngs character arc makes sense in the plot, the fact would still be that it would be contrived at that point.

Hey, I typed my peace. If you see my comment as making excuses, so be it. I'm just thinking ahead - if this were my story, I'd be thinking about the future and the present, or how the present impacts the future and how the future plays off of the present. I'm well aware I'm just a viewer here, but that's how my mind works - enjoy what's being seen so much that I'll want to think about how it can change and bend, twist and flow.

J.J. Abrams has little to nothing to do with Lost at the moment, and I never said anything about every mystery or storyline being tied up or finished up. Having watched Lost from Season 1 to Season 5 thus far, I'll say there have been some mysteries that were resolved, so whatever he said in that video is moot.

And speculation isn't that irrelevant - they're theories on where the story goes, which again, is all about thinking for the future. Either or - Whatever resolution to Young's arc that may or may not occur may be "contrived". Contrived or not, it doesn't mean it won't be relevant to the story or characters of SGU.

And considering that it has been drilled into our heads many times by now - Life basically laid it all out - that this show's only main plot is just the characters. "Their only mission is survival", as the show's been tagged. Survival, as in living day to day - just surviving - in a challenging environment. And who's doing the surviving? The characters!

[The Mighty 6 platoon]

Episode: a happening that is distinctive in a series of related events

I am watching because I am looking for the distinctive story in the series. I'm not looking for the saga.

Might I suggest then that you don’t watch arc based tv series then. The entire point of shows like SGU, the Wire, the Shield is to use the tv format to their advantages and tell a story over the course of time and episodes. TPTB have been quite clear that SGU will be arc based and not wrap up everything neatly ala SGA.

[senatorincitatus]

None of those stories would fit under the same classification.
TheY are full stories, they had a purpose, a goal and a resolution.
(EDIT: I SHOULD SAY OF THE STORIES I HAVE SEEN OR READ)

Half the stories on that list are bildungsromans. There's no goal or resolution to getting older. As far as purpose goes, their purpose was to follow a character or characters through occasionally extraordinary but often mundane events - the same purpose as SGU, except SGU's events are usually on the extraordinary side.

Correction: I'm only willing to accept stories. A complete story. Even most biographies tell more of a complete story than SGU. And I don't like most Biographies for the same reason...

Biographies would tend to tell more complete stories, seeing as they are not by nature serial entertainment and therefore have a definitive end.

Being a bystander means you're telling everyone elses story.
Sure you're adding your own emotional equivocation but why is that interesting?

No, being a bystander means that you're telling your reaction to someone else's story. And I find that worth exploring. Chloe and Eli were bystanders to Scott finding out about his son. I didn't find their different reactions uninteresting in the slightest. Not only did we learn more about them and their characters, they influenced the way Scott was coping with the situation.

Really you should let me tell you what I like.
I actually like Heroes but it has become boring like SGU. Their situations are repetitive, the characters never grow. Same with Smallvile. The pattern is self evident on SGU.

I don't think it's at all fair to compare a 4-season show and a 9-season show to a 9-episode show in this regard.

I'm the opposite. I will hold everything to one objective standard.
Nothing is off limits.

This explains much. This will probably sound sarcastic, but I mean it sincerely - how much enjoyment do you really get out of your entertainment by measuring it all on the same yardstick?

Appearances can be deceiving. You can never be too sure untill you have evident demonstration and in order to have that, you need time and patience.

Whoa, sorry. Are you advocating patience? In the same thread where you're criticizing a 9-episode show for not telling a complete story? I must be misreading that.

I can not look at SGU as a whole season so logically I must look at them as whole episodes. Air I-III. Darkness, Light and so forth. Are they telling a story? Is a goal being accomplished, the use of time, the progress of the characters. Most episodes of SGU aren't telling a story, they make poor use of the time and the characters don't grow...they barely have anything to interact with so how could they grow?

I'm starting to think that the whole crux of this is based on semantics. When I say "story", do you think "plot"? Because that's not what I mean. A story doesn't require plot. A story is merely a fiction designed to entertain or interest. It doesn't need a beginning, a middle, and an end; it can just be a sequence of events with no actual conclusion. To that end, I find an episode like Life to have very little plot, but still be an engaging story.

I'm just thinking ahead - if this were my story, I'd be thinking about the future and the present, or how the present impacts the future and how the future plays off of the present. I'm well aware I'm just a viewer here, but that's how my mind works - enjoy what's being seen so much that I'll want to think about how it can change and bend, twist and flow.

<snip>

And speculation isn't that irrelevant - they're theories on where the story goes, which again, is all about thinking for the future. Either or - Whatever resolution to Young's arc that may or may not occur may be "contrived". Contrived or not, it doesn't mean it won't be relevant to the story or characters of SGU.

And considering that it has been drilled into our heads many times by now - Life basically laid it all out - that this show's only main plot is just the characters. "Their only mission is survival", as the show's been tagged. Survival, as in living day to day - just surviving - in a challenging environment. And who's doing the surviving? The characters!

Agreed, 100%, and very well said.