Trial by Fire (314)

[Alex Rubit]

Stargate: Horizon - Season Three
"Trial by Fire"

"Trial by Fire"
Ep: 3.14
Release Date: March 15, 2007
Story by Vincent Dedoyard & Alex Rubit
Teleplay by Alex Rubit

As the Vorian Command Council begins to lose faith in the Horizon mission, Callen agrees to send Horizon-1 to assist with an experiment that could quite possibly have disastrous consequences.

[Alex Rubit]

Another Thursday, another new episode. "Trial by Fire" is now available!

http://www.stargatehorizon.com

Enjoy!

[Lt. Colonel Ryu Gaia]

The episode was decent, although I didn't really like it very much. The first two acts were good, but I felt like it really missed out on focusing on the team, even though it very well could have. The Christine/Sivea scenes didn't sell me. They might have if either of the two had been well developed characters, but I've never felt it possible to really understand how either of them think. Sivea maybe got a tiny bit of development - an excuse for not really being a outwardly emotional character - but Christine had nothing and still has nothing. (Looking forward to "Omen," though; that might actually make her something more than just the translator.)

Overall, eh. Grant, Callen, Lenori, and Se'ral felt more like the force of the episode than the actual people in peril.

**1/2

[Alex Rubit]

The Christine/Sivea scenes didn't sell me. They might have if either of the two had been well developed characters, but I've never felt it possible to really understand how either of them think.

Actually I think Sivea is one of the most developed characters on the show. Check out episodes like "Equilibrium," "The Cold and Distant Stars," or "My Enemy's Enemy" just to name a few.

As for Christine, she's also had her share of developments. Looking at those comments -- neither of the two being well developed characters -- I really don't think you understand what "character developments" is.

Sivea maybe got a tiny bit of development - an excuse for not really being a outwardly emotional character - but Christine had nothing and still has nothing. (Looking forward to "Omen," though; that might actually make her something more than just the translator.)

That's really odd, I have to say again. If you feel that way, that's fine, of course. Everyone can have their opinions. But just look at how far Christine has come from the early days of the series to now; she's pretty much a different person, while at the same time she isn't. I've seen shows on television where there's been characters that were litterly the same for several seasons, with no development whatsoever.

So both Sivea and Christine are very well developed characters, in my oppinion. After all, this show itself is all about characters. More than any of the two Stargate TV shows, this series is first and foremost a character drama. And if none of the characters were well developed after three seasons, we might as well put an end to the series. Because we'd have really done a pretty bad job, being a "character driven" series.

But again, feel free to have your own oppinions. If to you Christine is nothing but "the translator," then that's fine with me. I just honestly don't think you understand what "character driven" means; and I'm just saying that judging from those comments.

So feel free to not like the episode. But that's different than saying that two well developed and three dimensional characters, aren't well developed characters. Maybe you should re-read some older episodes to see what I'm talking about.

[Lt. Colonel Ryu Gaia]

It's really all just a matter of perspective. I can't get inside these character's heads - therefore, I'm just really not sold on them getting 'development.' To me, development is more than just stuff happening to them - it's them being real people, with definite personalities, reactions, opinions. More than just in relation to the events that happen to them.

Not to be defensive, but I'm pretty sure that I understand quite well what character development is and what a character-driven series is. But I do believe that most of Horizons main-characters are underdeveloped in that while things happen to them and we know some of their histories, we don't know who they are. Sivea is a perfect example of this, to me. We know what happenned to her. There are a lot of episodes where things happen to her. But let's take a random ambiguous moral issue and see if we can figure out how she'd respond to it. If she'd even think about it. And I just can't find that sort of depth in many of Horizon's characters. Most of this fault lies in Grant, Sivea, and Christine - although Grant has had a few shining moments this season ("The Circle," "...Shall We Not Revenge?", "Mediation," this very episode). The best developed character, I think, is Callen, in spite of the fact that he has very little actual history. He really is a person - we know what sort of things he stands for (maybe it's the result of him being played by the "That's Allstate's stand" guy? ), we know his conviction and drive. We know how he feels and how he thinks.

[Alex Rubit]

It's really all just a matter of perspective. I can't get inside these character's heads - therefore, I'm just really not sold on them getting 'development.' To me, development is more than just stuff happening to them - it's them being real people, with definite personalities, reactions, opinions. More than just in relation to the events that happen to them.

They do have definite personalities, reactions and opinions. They're both well developed, but in all fairness I think out of the two Sivea is the more developed character. Again I recommend you check out those episodes I mentioned above, if you want to know about her opinions, reactions and her personality.

Some good episodes centering around Christine would be "Convergence," "Parti Pris," or the early "Starship Lost." Again, you'll find out a few things about her personality, opinions and her reactions to certain things.

There's more in store for both of these characters later this season.

Not to be defensive, but I'm pretty sure that I understand quite well what character development is and what a character-driven series is. But I do believe that most of Horizons main-characters are underdeveloped in that while things happen to them and we know some of their histories, we don't know who they are.

Well, I don't agree with that.

Sivea is a perfect example of this, to me. We know what happenned to her. There are a lot of episodes where things happen to her. But let's take a random ambiguous moral issue and see if we can figure out how she'd respond to it. If she'd even think about it. And I just can't find that sort of depth in many of Horizon's characters.

That's one possible way to develop a character, but by all means, not the only way. Again, I'd point you to the episodes I mentioned above.

Most of this fault lies in Grant, Sivea, and Christine - although Grant has had a few shining moments this season ("The Circle," "...Shall We Not Revenge?", "Mediation," this very episode).

Okay. Now, where's the difference between what's happened to Grant in "The Circle" compared to say what's happened to Sivea in "The Cold and Distant Stars?" Looks like the same thing to me.

And Grant didn't have any shining moments in "...Shall We Not Revenge?" in my honest oppinion. He was there, but so was the rest of the team. That episode, to me, was about Bay'lar, Sivea and Callen. So I wouldn't know what you mean by a shining moment for Grant in that one.

The best developed character, I think, is Callen, in spite of the fact that he has very little actual history. He really is a person - we know what sort of things he stands for (maybe it's the result of him being played by the "That's Allstate's stand" guy? ), we know his conviction and drive. We know how he feels and how he thinks.

That's very true. But we know that about a lot of the other characters too. Maybe you don't. And of course there's nothing wrong with that.

And I don't mean to sound harsh, I just think I do have the right to be honest, just like everyone else. And your definition of character development just doesn't match the official definion, that you can find in all sorts of screenwriting books.

[Lt. Colonel Ryu Gaia]

Eh, understandable if you sound harsh. You're the guy who created these people, I'm the one who reads - and criticizes - them. You must understand though, you have a unique perspective. It's very likely that you can see things about them that I don't.

As for Grant in "...Shall We Not Revenge," I was referring to the "To hell with your council!" bit. It's those sorts of things that define characters.

If screenwriting books class character developments as things that happen to characters and not how they react in accordance with who they are and what they stand for, then I think that they're wrong. But to me, character development is most certainly more than just stuff happenng.

EDIT: Oh, in regards to the episode you mentioned... I did very much enjoy episodes like "Equilibrium," "The Cold and Distant Stars," and "The Enemy of my Enemy," but to be perfectly honest with you, I think that overall, they were great primarily because of expert storytelling, as opposed to expert character development. I honestly do not remember how the characters reacted in those episodes (well, aside from The Enemy of my Enemy, because that was rather recent) - they didn't leave an impression on me. I remember the intrigue of the episode, wanting to know what happened next.

[Alex Rubit]

Eh, understandable if you sound harsh. You're the guy who created these people, I'm the one who reads - and criticizes - them. You must understand though, you have a unique perspective. It's very likely that you can see things about them that I don't.

There's definitely no doubt about that. But most of these things I find out while actually writing the characters. I can only speak for myself here, not for all of the writers. And honestly, everything I know about them I know from episodes that we've done.

What I think is that it just makes a huge difference if you're on television, and have the strength of the actor's performances. We do have a difficult task here, because in all honesty, on television and film characters are really just names on papers, and it's the actors that bring them to life. Here all we can do is try and do that by "describing" how we think an actor would bring a certain character to life.

And in all honesty, I think a lot of small details end up getting forgotten in our case. I'm constantly looking over previous episodes when writing new ones, just to make sure we're not contradicting something we've already established.

As for Grant in "...Shall We Not Revenge," I was referring to the "To hell with your council!" bit. It's those sorts of things that define characters.

Yeah, I can see what you mean. But I don't think it defines a character like having an entire episode focusing on this particular character.

If screenwriting books class character developments as things that happen to characters and not how they react in accordance with who they are and what they stand for, then I think that they're wrong. But to me, character development is most certainly more than just stuff happenng.

I never said character development is just things happening to characters. Character development is putting a character in a certain situation, and through that learning something new about this character. In other words, see how they react to a situation. Which is what we do all the time.

For example: what happens if we put Sivea and Bay'lar on a mission together, and they spend time all by themselves in a shuttle? What does that mean for their relationship? How do both of these characters feel about each other, given their history?

Or what would happen if Tom -- after his experience with the Enoly -- were confronted with an Enoly, who seems to be not only peaceful, but almost like an innocent child? How would he react? What emotions would that bring to the foreground? Would he even go as far as crossing the line?

Or how would Sivea react, being confronted with Sonak again after he's betrayed her twice -- even litterly used her for his own purposes the second time around? How does she feel about him now? How does he feel about her?

The list goes on. But those are all examples for what officially goes through as character driven stories. I don't know where you got the idea from that anyone said character development was about "things happening to people."

[Lt. Colonel Ryu Gaia]

I never said character development is just things happening to characters. Character development is putting a character in a certain situation, and through that learning something new about this character. In other words, see how they react to a situation. Which is what we do all the time.

For example: what happens if we put Sivea and Bay'lar on a mission together, and they spend time all by themselves in a shuttle? What does that mean for their relationship? How do both of these characters feel about each other, given their history?

Or what would happen if Tom -- after his experience with the Enoly -- were confronted with an Enoly, who seems to be not only peaceful, but almost like a innocent child? How would he react? What emotions would that bring to the foreground? Would he even go as far as crossing the line?

Or how would Sivea react, being confronted with Sonak again after he's betrayed her twice -- even litterly used her for his own purposes the second time around? How does she feel about him now? How does he feel about her?

The list goes on. But those are all examples for what officially goes through as character driven stories. I don't know where you got the idea from that anyone said character development is about things happening to people.

What does Sivea think of abortion? It's easy to think in terms of isolated scenarios when you can just make up a way that the character would react as long as it doesn't conflict with the ways they've reacted to similar situations, but really, who is Sivea? What characteristics define her? What makes her who she is?

I had said what I thought should be the definition of character development, and you informed me that it was not the 'official' definition. I assumed, therefore, that it would be the only other logical choice - what happens to the characters. Feel free to inform me what the official definition, is, though.

[Alex Rubit]

What does Sivea think of abortion? It's easy to think in terms of isolated scenarios when you can just make up a way that the character would react as long as it doesn't conflict with the ways they've reacted to similar situations, but really, who is Sivea? What characteristics define her? What makes her who she is?

Hey, once again -- check out those episodes I recommended earlier.

And I'm serious. We know about her from when she was a little child. I don't know if you've read "Equilibrium" -- I remember you saying you haven't read Season One. So we know about her history with the Cai'nan, what happened to her as a child. We know about her history with her father, from when her mother had died (happened also when she was a child). We know about her history with Bay'lar, her history with Sonak.

We know she has a hard time trusting people and getting close to people, because of what's happened to her in the past. We've now -- as of this episode -- found out that she's come to think of everyone on Horizon in a different way, in that she's gotten closer to them than she would have ever expected.

We also know she has a fondness for spicy desserts ("Power Play"), and I'm sure I'm forgetting a couple of things.

So yeah... just who is this person? What does make her who she is?

And about "making up scenarios," that's what we do all the time. It's what writers get paid for. We just make up stuff. Of course we here on Horizon don't actually get paid for it. But the procedure is the same.

I had said what I thought should be the definition of character development, and you informed me that it was not the 'official' definition. I assumed, therefore, that it would be the only other logical choice - what happens to the characters. Feel free to inform me what the official definition, is, though.

I think that's what I just did in my post above.

[SierraGulf1]

Okay, time for my own two cents regarding character development and what not.

I think what is essentially being debated in here is what definition "character development" falls under. And now that I've stated the obvious, I have to say that character development is not either one of these things, but rather a mix of them both. I'll try to explain things as good as I can, and perhaps break down some specific examples.

Firstly, here are two definitions I found of character development on Google:

-The unfolding or growth of a character as the plot develops. This can be seen not only through what they say, but also how they act, and react to situations.

-The gradual revelation of information about a character that the audience needs to know in order to understand the character’s motivations and intent.

Now, to me it seems that you're leaning toward the second definition, Alex, while you, Ryu, seem to believe more in the first. Essentially, the first definition can be considered how well you know a character. If this character were a real person, who he or she be like a best friend of yours, who you know inside and out, or would he or she kind of be that person you've seen around and you nod hello to when your paths cross. We know this person's attitude, perhaps way of speaking, and how they will react in any given situation.

The second defintion is an equally important component to character development. This is learning about the character's past, information, and background. What has brought them to this point now? Who makes them who they are? Yes, it is interesting to know a person, but it is equally important to know their backgrounds, their mannerisms, and how they have grown and developed as a character/person in the course of their lives.

Now, let's look at things in Horizon's case. Nobody here is claiming that any character has no development, and we all realize that. So the question lies in whether or not certain characters are underdeveloped. Since Sivea's been one of the main characters that came up, we'll take a look at her.

As far as the first definition, we know a bit about Sivea. She is often quiet and all-business, although she possesses a slight sense of humor that she's developed around humans. I think what Ryu seeks here is more... He mentioned getting inside a character's head. We know Sivea will be hurt when she is betrayed by Sonak, we know she'll be serious and down-to-business in a dangerous situation, and we know she'll be conflicted in her relationships with Bay'lar and perhaps her father. But what how does she react in leisure? Or when she is presented with an extremely ambiguous situation. How does she think?

On the other hand, we do know a good deal about Sivea. Part of her character is mysterious and shrouded in mystery, and indeed she is down to business. We know plenty about her; her relationship with her father, her past. We know she is a human being (or Vorian), and we know she is smart, intelligent, etc. What Ryu seeks is to dig deeper. Not for stuff to happen to her, but for her to happen to stuff. Of course, we are in our third season, and if this were not a virtual series I believe the actress would add so much more depth to Sivea. And yet, whatever can be done, should.

So is Sivea developed? Or Christine? Definitely, but only on the terms of the second definition. Now, with eight regulars it might be difficult to round them all out at once, and this is something season four should endeavor to do, especially if people do not believe it has been done already.

Now, Ryu, you mentioned that Callen is significantly more developed, and you've also mentioned David and Tom as being quite developed in the past. Why do you feel that way? I believe we have seen a more rounded point of view with them. They say that true colors emerge when a character is put alone or in an ambiguous situation. The ultimate definition of one's character is how he or she reacts to adversity - adversity that stretches beyond the physical adversity such as an Enoly attack. We see David deal with adversity through his familial relations, his time spent alone confronting himself in "Amazing Grace," and his interactions with Tom. We saw Tom deal with adversity throughout his post-"Judgement Day" storyline (a storyline I hope is far from over). And Callen often deals with ambiguous situations full of political adversity. I believe the greatest example of adversity would be his dilemma with his son and his own people... His loyalties.

Now, without contradicting earlier points, I do believe Sivea is quite developed by both definitions. Perhaps not as much so as David, Callen, Tom, Lenori, etc. However, we have seen her react to lots of adversity with Bay'lar, Sonak, her father, etc. The only difference here is that, as I said before, these are situations that most people would react to the same way: distressed. So I would say Sivea is more developed than perhaps Chase and Christine, but does not yet compare to those more developed in terms of both definitions, like Tom, Callen, David, and so on.

I could go on more, but perhaps I'll save it for later posts. In conclusion, I believe that true character development coincides with both nifty Google definitions: History and change as well as response to adversity and emtional response. I can't argue that some characters are developed in both ways, while others so far have been somewhat lacking. However, I do believe they are developed enough to tell great stories as they continue growing.

Now that I've either bored/entertained you all, I shall finally end this post.

[Alex Rubit]

-The unfolding or growth of a character as the plot develops. This can be seen not only through what they say, but also how they act, and react to situations.

-The gradual revelation of information about a character that the audience needs to know in order to understand the character’s motivations and intent.

Now, to me it seems that you're leaning toward the second definition, Alex, while you, Ryu, seem to believe more in the first.

Oh, no. I'm not leaning in any particular direction. It's definitely a combination of both. And actually I think you couldn't have explained it better. That's definitely all very true.

And I like the point about the actors adding more depth to characters. As I said myself, that's the difficulty with a virtual series. It doesn't make a big difference to me, because I personally can easily see all of the actors in these roles. But it's a little more difficult if you're not familiar with all of them, or if you have a different take on things.

But it shouldn't be too much of a problem, since you get to know the characters more like you would if this were a novel. However, there's no doubt about it -- actors always add a great deal of depth to characters. The fun thing there is that you -- as writer -- get to start picking up on things the actors may have done in certain scenes. And that contributes greatly to defining a character. The little moments, that you can't really predict, but that just evolve naturally on the day.

[jmm]

I liked the first two acts, but acts 3 and 4 were two predictable and frankly I feel that Sivea is still, I don't know... not able to function as a person outside her job.
Act 5 felt a bit rushed to my taste. Its nice to get some background on Grant (Act 4) and exploiting a bit of déj?* vu on him, but the feeling that all was solved too easy was felt through the entire act. (I have to admit that if Horizon was actually shot, with some good VFX the escape could look dangerous)

I have to agree with the opinion that the direness of the cargo ship situation was lost (Some "visual" feedback of time running out could have helped). For instance from being almost frozen and without O2, Chase, Yusuf and Tom dissapear from the story (sans three small comments: going faster, what was that?, something good/horrible). A single dialog from Lenori giving a status report on Christine et al would have sufficed.

**

[Alex Rubit]

I liked the first two acts, but acts 3 and 4 were two predictable and frankly I feel that Sivea is still, I don't know... not able to function as a person outside her job.

If you I understand that correctly, then that's exactly what the episode tried to achieve. She does still not feel too "comfortable" with interacting outside of work. And we've seen very few moments where that actually happens, throughout the series so far. So if that's what you mean, that was the intension.

Act 5 felt a bit rushed to my taste. Its nice to get some background on Grant (Act 4) and exploiting a bit of déj?* vu on him, but the feeling that all was solved too easy was felt through the entire act. (I have to admit that if Horizon was actually shot, with some good VFX the escape could look dangerous)

There's no doubt about that. Another limitation you have as a virtual series. You wouldn't necessarily if you're lucky enough to have some CG designers who actually design something, but so far we just haven't found the right people in that area. Still looking, though.

I have to agree with the opinion that the direness of the cargo ship situation was lost (Some "visual" feedback of time running out could have helped). For instance from being almost frozen and without O2, Chase, Yusuf and Tom dissapear from the story (sans three small comments: going faster, what was that?, something good/horrible).

There's an entire scene with Chase, Tom and Yusuf that was cut from the final draft for length/time and also just pacing -- it slowed down the episode too much. In that scene, we had some nice character moments where they're all aware that they're running out of time. And Yusuf -- keeping up the hope -- ultimately gets up to go and pray. We all loved those moments, because they revealed something about Yusuf that we didn't know.

At the end of the day, I stand by having deleted that scene. Because it slowed things down too much, and it would have gone way over time.

A single dialog from Lenori giving a status report on Christine et al would have sufficed.

If you mean at the end, I woudn't agree with that. It was about Sivea and Christine, so that needed to be wrapped up with the two of them. And readers should know us well enough by now that things like this don't just end up being forgotten. So you can be sure that their relationship in the future will be a different one than it has been so far.

[jmm]

If you mean at the end, I woudn't agree with that. It was about Sivea and Christine, so that needed to be wrapped up with the two of them. And readers should know us well enough by now that things like this don't just end up being forgotten. So you can be sure that their relationship in the future will be a different one than it has been so far.

You are absolutely right about the ending being a Sivea and Christine moment, I meant the line about the status report being between the beaming out and before going to Horizon.