'Sabotage' (116) General Discussion

[Spimman]

You think TPTB does it that way to throw people off not knowing who the main cast is vs recurring characters? Or just for contract negotiations?

[LtColCarter]

Of course writing is an art form. Art takes many forms.
However. Even writing is less of an art form when you're getting paid to to not only do it but to do it as some one else wants...then it's just a service...a skill.

The same with all the other forms mentioned.



I don't agree with general rationalization.
And I don't see how that makes it less offensive.

So, if I'm commissioned to do a painting or a sculpt...I'm less of an artist because I'm providing a service? What about a musician? What if they're paid to play? Your logic seems faulty here.

I made no generalization. I made a statement of fact. No matter what you do...someone is bound to be offended by it. And on the other side of the coin...some may not. Some people were offended by Scott's sex scenes...some where not. Some just said it was over the top. The degree to which one is offended depends on the individual and his/her experiences, morals, values, and beliefs.

[jelgate]

You think TPTB does it that way to throw people off not knowing who the main cast is vs recurring characters? Or just for contract negotiations?

Contracts. The first one makes no sense. I think orginally they just wanted Wray to be a pain in Young's backside but they were blown away by Ming's acting

[Spimman]

That does make more sense, she is a good character. Not one you fall in love with necessarily for typical reasons, you like her because she is sort of an antagonist but in a good way. She plays the part really well and her goal is to make you sorta dislike her, sorta not trust her but on the other hand you sorta do and she pulls it off really well! She really adds to the overall cast nicely!

[SG7]

Contracts. The first one makes no sense. I think orginally they just wanted Wray to be a pain in Young's backside but they were blown away by Ming's acting

No surprise there. I watched her when she was on ER and she was brilliant on there as well. I remember for ER one of the PTB saw the actress "Julianna Marguliese" and she was billed as only being in the pilot. (and was to have died from suicide in the pilot) and one of the big wigs loved her so much that they had her cast into the show where she originally wasn't.

[SG7]

That does make more sense, she is a good character. Not one you fall in love with necessarily for typical reasons, you like her because she is sort of an antagonist but in a good way. She plays the part really well and her goal is to make you sorta dislike her, sorta not trust her but on the other hand you sorta do and she pulls it off really well! She really adds to the overall cast nicely!

Yes. It definately does add to the dynamic of the cast. We have a richer cast when we have a combination of talents, likes and dislikes. Think of how boring it would be if we just absolutely loved every character. And if every character was "perfect" or "good"? That is what makes this show different from the rest. The variety of personalities that play off of each other.

[xxxevilgrinxxx]

Yes. It definately does add to the dynamic of the cast. We have a richer cast when we have a combination of talents, likes and dislikes. Think of how boring it would be if we just absolutely loved every character. And if every character was "perfect" or "good"? That is what makes this show different from the rest. The variety of personalities that play off of each other.

*shudder*

[kymeric]

Of course writing is an art form. Art takes many forms.
However. Even writing is less of an art form when you're getting paid to to not only do it but to do it as some one else wants...then it's just a service...a skill.

The same with all the other forms mentioned.

I oddly agree with this....

[Saquist]

So, if I'm commissioned to do a painting or a sculpt...I'm less of an artist because I'm providing a service? What about a musician? What if they're paid to play? Your logic seems faulty here.

In order for logic to be faulty it must be contradictory.

Musicians are paid to play their work, not someone else's work.
If you're being paid to play work other than your own then that creativity doesn't belong to you, you're not being paid for your artistic expression you're being paid to reproduce some else's artistic expression. You're providing a service, like a wedding singer or the like.

All you're adding is your voice.
So yes, I would call singing someone elses music...less artistic.

I made no generalization. I made a statement of fact. No matter what you do...someone is bound to be offended by it. And on the other side of the coin...some may not. Some people were offended by Scott's sex scenes...some where not. Some just said it was over the top. The degree to which one is offended depends on the individual and his/her experiences, morals, values, and beliefs.

I didn't say it wasn't a fact, sir.
The fact doesn't not provide a contradiction to my statement. In reply I ask what is the relevance?
I didn't say someone would not be offended something. So, I'm curious how you were attempting to justify SGU.

In effect you're saying that since someone some where is going to be offended then what SGU did in the first half is "OKAY". That's a rationalization by generalization. "Since you can't satisfy everyone then there is not a need to satisfy anyone."

That's not logical, or ethical.
But it's not the goal of most TV shows to be ethical let alone logical.
No one in the corporate office sits around wondering what's ethical to put on TV. TV is inherently unethical. The only thing that keeps them in check is the public and laws. They will go to any length to capture our attention.

That is why I voice my displeasure at the1.5 season.
My voice tells them not everyone is into sexual voyeurism.
If I don't speak up this would become the norm for the public and there would be no refuge for those that are attempting to follow biblical christian standards.

My standards shouldn't offend you or anyone else.
Differing is okay as long as it doesn't lead to a negative action.

[Spimman]

Yes. It definately does add to the dynamic of the cast. We have a richer cast when we have a combination of talents, likes and dislikes. Think of how boring it would be if we just absolutely loved every character. And if every character was "perfect" or "good"? That is what makes this show different from the rest. The variety of personalities that play off of each other.

This is why I think so many people don't like Wray or one of the other characters. This is why SGU is so different from SG-1 and SG-A, of the main cast of those shows I like them all and I also Loved those shows...but I also Love SGU. It is different, but I'm really enjoying it. I think it is a little more grown up.

[Petra]

This may have been addressed by others and since I won't go back 275 posts...........
I am curious about why Wray didn't contact anybody while she was on earth to discuss the issue of the attemted coup, and update the supreriors. She certainly had plenty of time. They could at least have shown someone coming to see her and the fade to black. Or did I miss something

Huh, I just assumed that not making contact with the IOA was a deliberate choice on her part. I thought she was tired of all the politics and plotting and backstabbing and being under constant pressure and just wanted to come home to her SO to have a break. To feel loved, to relax (notice how different she is in her private life to what she's like at work/Destiny), to stop thinking about it all for a while and most importantly to spend some time with her partner/wife.

Maybe it's a sign that she grows tired of IOA's games and being a pawn?

Yes. It definately does add to the dynamic of the cast. We have a richer cast when we have a combination of talents, likes and dislikes. Think of how boring it would be if we just absolutely loved every character. And if every character was "perfect" or "good"? That is what makes this show different from the rest. The variety of personalities that play off of each other.

I'm starting to think that I'm really odd, because I see pretty much the same in SG-1 (seasons 1-8). I never saw any of them as perfect or always right, and all 5 had distinct personalities, likes, dislikes, faults etc. SGU differs from SG-1 in showing consequences of the actions of its characters (as in: SG-1 did it only if it directly served the plot, SGU does it as a rule) and bigger focus on the faults, but that's it. *shrugs*

[Daro]

Hmm...
I didn't intend for you to understand that the compromise the money of art as exclusively a skill and not art, rather I intended to communicate that accepting money for your work does lessen it's status as art AS WELL as taking being directed or purposed. At this point the art has been cheapen down to a monetary value and actually turned into their art and not yours.

That is why I term it a skill at this point because the expression is not your own.
You could say that is not a true expression of the artist.



I have never seen art under bondage as true art.
Getting paid for work...such as writing a book, doesn't diminish the artwork. The artist came to his own inspiration full on his or her own. However getting paid to produce a work under direction simply isn't art.

Think of an author that uses a secretary. Just because she's doing the typing...knows all the proper punctuation, sentence structure, syntax, grammar and doesn't mean she is the artist, she or he is just the tool...and instrument for the true expression behind the work.

While TV show writers do get some freedom they are directed.
This is not like a collaboration. You don't have a choice...that's when it becomes more skill than art.
The world is so capitalistic, every thought is toward how you can get paid.
But that' not what the focus of art is. Getting paid and appreciated for your art isn't a bad thing.

But a true Artist knows that gettting paid is not the essence of true appreciation, it's possession.
True appreciation of Artist is being inspired even mimicry.



You misunderstand.
The Sistine Chapel was work done by Michaelangelo but the inspiration came from the Vatican. The Ceiling represents the doctrine of the church. However he did override the original concept of the project from the "12 apostles" to something truely artistic to "Man's Fall From Grace" which the entire Theme for the Sanctuary.

So I call it his work and his art.
Not the use of a skill but the use of an artist and a creative mind.

I can see how you'd think that. I have to ask, do you do any art? Regularly? Do you write? Your opinion seems sort of like one that someone who has never done these things as a lifestyle might have.

When I did work 'under direction,' I didn't take it on unless I loved the concept and it inspired me. Most artists I know in the business are the same way. Yes, there are professional illustrators who work for companies, and professional writers who work for shows. But even having boundries and limits doesn't mean their work is lessened. Actually, it can be made greater; learning to push out a great piece of work through great ingenuity, which you would not have come up with on your own perhaps while just working in your comfort zone, is as rewarding and as much a part of being a good writer or artist as creating only the stuff you think up. Improving and excelling in any art form is all about the practice of challenging yourself.

I would not dare to judge whether or not someone who was a doctor, for example, did better work while volunteering or while making a paycheck. That'd be ludicrous, and wrong, to expect him to devote his time and skill to healing people without recieving something to let him live on. If we did it your way, we'd never have had such great commercial artists as Andy Worhol. And we wouldn't have Stargate, for sure.

[icsteffi]

This is why I think so many people don't like Wray or one of the other characters. This is why SGU is so different from SG-1 and SG-A, of the main cast of those shows I like them all and I also Loved those shows...but I also Love SGU. It is different, but I'm really enjoying it. I think it is a little more grown up.

There were people in SG-1 and SG-A that we were not suppose to like so much at first, and grow on you. Woolsey pops into mind. Blah to him for 3/4 of his tenure! I get your point, for sure, but I don't want to just straight out not like someone! I was so stressed out as a viewer when I hated Greer. It feels much better to see good and redeeming qualities in all our regulars. All in all---writers: Please don't turn Rush into an ass again!

[Saquist]

I can see how you'd think that. I have to ask, do you do any art? Regularly? Do you write? Your opinion seems sort of like one that someone who has never done these things as a lifestyle might have.

I've drawn all my life. Pencil mostly (black and white) and graduated to colored pencil. I drew cars at 8 years old. portraits at 12 and 13 and I can reproduce anything in any medium whether paint, clay, or zinc etchings.

But, it's funny you should ask. The reasons I came to my conclusions on art is because I am not an artist in the tradition concept as one who creates. In High School they call me Xerox because I reproduced exactly what was in front of me high extremely high fidelity. But I'd rarely create something that was truly my own. I was always editing and altering others work so I often wondered just what type of artist I was. I concluded that having the skill to create works OF art doesn't make you artistic. Artistic is originality it's individualism and spontaneous. My approach to "art" was drawing what I see so I guess that why I'm a drafter.

When I did work 'under direction,' I didn't take it on unless I loved the concept and it inspired me. Most artists I know in the business are the same way. Yes, there are professional illustrators who work for companies, and professional writers who work for shows. But even having boundries and limits doesn't mean their work is lessened. Actually, it can be made greater; learning to push out a great piece of work through great ingenuity, which you would not have come up with on your own perhaps while just working in your comfort zone, is as rewarding and as much a part of being a good writer or artist as creating only the stuff you think up. Improving and excelling in any art form is all about the practice of challenging yourself.

But is it yours?
I wonder...
It doesn't seem like it. Is an artist an artist if he's being confined?
Sure he might create some original and fantastic because of someone elses direction but is it actually his...does he own it?

I would not dare to judge whether or not someone who was a doctor, for example, did better work while volunteering or while making a paycheck. That'd be ludicrous, and wrong, to expect him to devote his time and skill to healing people without recieving something to let him live on. If we did it your way, we'd never have had such great commercial artists as Andy Worhol. And we wouldn't have Stargate, for sure.

That's an interesting comparison. Do you see a physician as expression..or skill?
I know what you mean, though it's a task and a job...and I don't mind it...nothing wrong I guess. Just my need to define the world.

[LtColCarter]

In order for logic to be faulty it must be contradictory.

not necessarily...there just has to be a false connection. For example, there's an argument that says because Bill Clinton supports gun-control and fascists support gun-control Bill Clinton must be a fascist. If you look closely at this argument you'll see that it suffers from faulty logic.

Musicians are paid to play their work, not someone else's work.
If you're being paid to play work other than your own then that creativity doesn't belong to you, you're not being paid for your artistic expression you're being paid to reproduce some else's artistic expression. You're providing a service, like a wedding singer or the like.

All you're adding is your voice.
So yes, I would call singing someone elses music...less artistic.

Yet each musician who plays someone else's music plays in their own style. Unless they're specifically trying to copy another musician's style...then I would agree with you. If they are playing someone else's music and putting their own spin on it...then it is artistic.

In effect you're saying that since someone some where is going to be offended then what SGU did in the first half is "OKAY". That's a rationalization by generalization. "Since you can't satisfy everyone then there is not a need to satisfy anyone."

Again...its not a generalization...and I made neither of those comments. Some people were ok with it...some people were not....some didn't care either way. Personally, I didn't care either way. It didn't have an effect on my enjoyment of the episode.

That's not logical, or ethical.
But it's not the goal of most TV shows to be ethical let alone logical.
No one in the corporate office sits around wondering what's ethical to put on TV. TV is inherently unethical. The only thing that keeps them in check is the public and laws. They will go to any length to capture our attention.

I disagree with the inherently unethical part. The function of television is to entertain and disemminate information.

I can see how you'd think that. I have to ask, do you do any art? Regularly? Do you write? Your opinion seems sort of like one that someone who has never done these things as a lifestyle might have.

When I did work 'under direction,' I didn't take it on unless I loved the concept and it inspired me. Most artists I know in the business are the same way. Yes, there are professional illustrators who work for companies, and professional writers who work for shows. But even having boundries and limits doesn't mean their work is lessened. Actually, it can be made greater; learning to push out a great piece of work through great ingenuity, which you would not have come up with on your own perhaps while just working in your comfort zone, is as rewarding and as much a part of being a good writer or artist as creating only the stuff you think up. Improving and excelling in any art form is all about the practice of challenging yourself.

I would not dare to judge whether or not someone who was a doctor, for example, did better work while volunteering or while making a paycheck. That'd be ludicrous, and wrong, to expect him to devote his time and skill to healing people without recieving something to let him live on. If we did it your way, we'd never have had such great commercial artists as Andy Worhol. And we wouldn't have Stargate, for sure.