Bloodlines (111)

[Anda]

this episode was nnice because teal'c had to take a hard decision:to let his son to became a goau'ld or to save him with a risk that he coud die.

[RononXSpecialist]

Dont'cha just hate when they change actresses ? Good episode overall I like how bra'tec took down O'Neill lols ;D

[danzig70]

I am surprised people are so forgiving of Jackson for killing the gou'ld. Carter is pretty "by the book" and seems to show disgust for Jackson for a second but thats it. He probably never carried a machine gun before and seemed to have some kind of blood lust when he had the opportunity. Even after Carter speaks to him, he still does it. I realize that Shauri was recently taken, however he had a look on his face like he enjoyed it. Just seems to show lack of military training and experience that Carter seems to have. Overall, a very important scene in the series for me.

[gateship15]

good episode i like the whole Teal'c and his son thing

[Butlersgate]

I was watching Bloodlines tonight, and I didn't realize - did you guys know that the actress that played Drey'auc in this episode is Allison Blake in Eureka? I looked her up - I was curious, because I'd always preferred this Drey'auc to the 2nd Drey'auc.

me too, bra'tac is funny in this episode imo

[Descent]

Bra'tac was pretty great in this episode. Him taking down the priests by himself was the highlight of the episode for me.

Also, Salli Richardson was a pretty good Drey'auc. Much better than whoever they got to be her in the later episodes.

7/10 from me! Or...**1/2 out of ****. Yep.

[amconway]

I am surprised people are so forgiving of Jackson for killing the gou'ld. Carter is pretty "by the book" and seems to show disgust for Jackson for a second but thats it. He probably never carried a machine gun before and seemed to have some kind of blood lust when he had the opportunity. Even after Carter speaks to him, he still does it. I realize that Shauri was recently taken, however he had a look on his face like he enjoyed it. Just seems to show lack of military training and experience that Carter seems to have. Overall, a very important scene in the series for me.

I agree with you. This is a tremendously important character scene. It shows that while Daniel is idealistic, he can also be quite ruthless when he decides that something is the right thing to do (there's a reason that Absolute Power was both believable and scary. Daniel, corrupted by Goa'uld genetic memory, would be very scary indeed). And that look on his face was really something-an terrific bit of acting from Michael Shanks.

We later find that he was completely correct. The Goa'uld are corrupted from birth by the genetic memory, but he didn't know that at this point.
At the same time, he did know that all those larval Goa'uld would be used to create more Jaffa, and then to take hosts like his wife. My feeling has always been that it was both hatred and a legitimate concern for the results of leaving the Goa'uld alive, that made his decision.

I actually have a harder time understanding Carter's attitude. She knows what the larval Goa'uld will be used for. She knows they are parasites. There is no benign Goa'uld, even without knowing about the genetic memory. Some have suggested that she is influenced by the need for stealth, but I don't buy that. All she mentions is that killing them when they are helpless is wrong.

What is the alternative? There are only two. One, to kill it when it's in a Jaffa. Two, to kill it when it's in a host, again taking two lives. At this point they had no other options. I see Sam's thinking as extremely shortsighted.

(Yippie! This post made me a Major!)

[EvenstarSRV]

I agree with you. This is a tremendously important character scene. It shows that while Daniel is idealistic, he can also be quite ruthless when he decides that something is the right thing to do (there's a reason that Absolute Power was both believable and scary. Daniel, corrupted by Goa'uld genetic memory, would be very scary indeed). And that look on his face was really something-an terrific bit of acting from Michael Shanks.

We later find that he was completely correct. The Goa'uld are corrupted from birth by the genetic memory, but he didn't know that at this point.
At the same time, he did know that all those larval Goa'uld would be used to create more Jaffa, and then to take hosts like his wife. My feeling has always been that it was both hatred and a legitimate concern for the results of leaving the Goa'uld alive, that made his decision.

I see Daniel's motivations in the scene a little differently, though I agree it is an important moment for the character. He has every reason to hate even larval Goa'uld, since two of them took his wife and brother-in-law as hosts. I don't think the idea of all Goa'uld being corrupt from birth even entered his mind, he was seeking revenge for Sha're and Skarra IMO, and took the opportunity to strike back at the Goa'uld.

I actually have a harder time understanding Carter's attitude. She knows what the larval Goa'uld will be used for. She knows they are parasites. There is no benign Goa'uld, even without knowing about the genetic memory. Some have suggested that she is influenced by the need for stealth, but I don't buy that. All she mentions is that killing them when they are helpless is wrong.

What is the alternative? There are only two. One, to kill it when it's in a Jaffa. Two, to kill it when it's in a host, again taking two lives. At this point they had no other options. I see Sam's thinking as extremely shortsighted.

I do think the need for stealth was important though, since Daniel's actions likely alerted the Jaffa on Chulak to their presence, which led to them getting chased back to the gate and could have jeopardized Teal'c's mission. I saw Sam prioritizing the mission objectives in that scene, while Daniel, lacking the military discipline and very understandably influenced by his emotions, was not able to do the same.

Also, since they have no idea of even the concept of Goa'uld genetic memory at this point, I can see Sam seeing the infant Goa'uld along similar lines as the children of an enemy force, probably not inherently evil or bad themselves, but in an environment where they'll most likely end up being bad.

So I'd say in this instance it was Sam who was the idealistic one for believing that there could be non-evil Goa'uld, which did later turn out to be somewhat true with the discovery of the Tok'ra.

(Yippie! This post made me a Major!)

Congrats on the promotion!

[Descent]

I see Sam's thinking as extremely shortsighted.

Agreed. The whole "we would be no better than them!" argument made no sense at all. Daniel was totally right in what he did. I feel that her reluctance was really just there to add a bit more weight to that scene... ohhh well.

[amconway]

I see Daniel's motivations in the scene a little differently, though I agree it is an important moment for the character. He has every reason to hate even larval Goa'uld, since two of them took his wife and brother-in-law as hosts. I don't think the idea of all Goa'uld being corrupt from birth even entered his mind, he was seeking revenge for Sha're and Skarra IMO, and took the opportunity to strike back at the Goa'uld.

Oh, I agree! But I also think the was aware of the implications of leaving them alive, and had no intention of letting them take hosts. That doesn't negate the fact that he enjoyed it immensely.

I do think the need for stealth was important though, since Daniel's actions likely alerted the Jaffa on Chulak to their presence, which led to them getting chased back to the gate and could have jeopardized Teal'c's mission. I saw Sam prioritizing the mission objectives in that scene, while Daniel, lacking the military discipline and very understandably influenced by his emotions, was not able to do the same.

While that may have been the end result, I don't think that was actually a factor here, or Sam would have mentioned it at the same time she raised her other objection. The need for stealth might actually have swayed Daniel, where as mercy toward even an infant Goa'uld did not. The need for stealth was important, but I don't think it factored into this choice.

Also, since they have no idea of even the concept of Goa'uld genetic memory at this point, I can see Sam seeing the infant Goa'uld along the same lines as the children of an enemy force, probably not inherently evil or bad themselves, but in an environment where they'll most likely end up being bad.

I think this is exactly what she did, and I really think it was misguided, as it doesn't take into account their parasitic nature. There is nothing that can happen with those larval Goa'uld that isn't bad.

So I'd say in this instance it was Sam who was the idealistic one for believing that there could be non-evil Goa'uld, which did later turn out to be somewhat true with the discovery of the Tok'ra.

I agree, but not for the same reasons. (I wasn't saying that Daniel was being idealistic, here. I was saying that he is generally idealistic, but can also be ruthless, and this is an example of the ruthlessness coming out to play.) I don't see this as being very clear thinking on Sam's part. For one thing, I don't think she was thinking that good Goa'uld might be able to exist. All they knew was that they were evil parasites, and the notion of willing hosts, given what they knew, was a pretty big stretch. I think she just doesn't want to go the 'ends justify the means' route. This would, in fact, be pretty darn idealistic when dealing with parasites--a lot more idealistic than Daniel. The juxtaposition of the usual character roles is very interesting!

And thank you for your congratulations!

Agreed. The whole "we would be no better than them!" argument made no sense at all. Daniel was totally right in what he did. I feel that her reluctance was really just there to add a bit more weight to that scene... ohhh well.

Not really. Her objections were very important as they made clear exactly what Daniel was doing, and how different his actions were than some of his others. It showed a clear delineation in his ideas about 'worth saving' and 'not worth saving', and the fact that he has no problem killing when he thinks it's a good idea. (We see this again when he is going to shoot the 'child' Adria, although that probably would have bothered him more if he had been able to do it. She looked like a child, even if she wasn't.) It created a much more complex picture of the character, and made him rather different than how he had been seen before. Without Sam's objections, we would have just thought 'Oh yeah, Goa'uld are bad, no big deal' and the scene would have lost most of it's meaning.

[EvenstarSRV]

While that may have been the end result, I don't think that was actually a factor here, or Sam would have mentioned it at the same time she raised her other objection. The need for stealth might actually have swayed Daniel, where as mercy toward even an infant Goa'uld did not. The need for stealth was important, but I don't think it factored into this choice.

I feel the characters' actions can be as significant a factor as what they do or not say. By just following the Jaffa to the temple, Sam was risking breaking cover, so I kinda see her desire to not fire her gun to be a sort of damage control for not following Jack's orders to stay by the gate.

And I think even if she didn't say it, Sam was thinking from military standpoint, which would be concerned with stealth on an undercover mission. Even if she'd wanted to kill the Goa'uld, she'd know gunfire would draw attention, and taking a knife to each one would take a while and they needed to get back to the gate to support Jack and Teal'c.

And I personally do not think any argument would have persuaded Daniel to not kill the Goa'uld, I think his mind was set on revenge and he relished the chance to have even a little bit of it.

I think this is exactly what she did, and I really think it was misguided, as it doesn't take into account their parasitic nature. There is nothing that can happen with those larval Goa'uld that isn't bad.

But I think that presumes that parasites are inherently bad, and scientifically speaking they aren't always so.

And I would liken it to a team going undercover into an enemy's camp where they perhaps see young children being trained to become fighters. More than likely these children will become their enemy, and killing them now would probably save the lives of innocents they may kill in the future, but you would be killing beings who haven't yet committed those acts.

I agree, but not for the same reasons. (I wasn't saying that Daniel was being idealistic, here. I was saying that he is generally idealistic, but can also be ruthless, and this is an example of the ruthlessness coming out to play.) I don't see this as being very clear thinking on Sam's part. For one thing, I don't think she was thinking that good Goa'uld might be able to exist. All they knew was that they were evil parasites, and the notion of willing hosts, given what they knew, was a pretty big stretch. I think she just doesn't want to go the 'ends justify the means' route. This would, in fact, be pretty darn idealistic when dealing with parasites--a lot more idealistic than Daniel. The juxtaposition of the usual character roles is very interesting!

Oh I agree that Daniel was by no means being idealistic here. I personally saw him as a man caught up in his emotions at that moment, and using the Goa'uld larva as an outlet for his anger and frustrations.

But I do think Sam was a bit idealistic by essentially saying that to her the ends do not justify the means, which is a line of thinking I personally found to be more clear-sighted than Daniel's, even though I understood his motivations.

The juxtaposition for roles is quite interesting, and to me helped establish both Daniel and Sam as more complex and rounded and not stereotypical characters.

[amconway]

Thanks for the wonderful conversation! It's especially interesting, because while we while we see events in a fairly similar manner, our conclusions are very different, almost opposite, and I think would stay that way, no matter how many arguments we present- not unlike the characters, themselves. I suppose that's why this episode continues to be so good, and generate so much discussion!

Darn! I still can't green you! And I have been spreading it around!

[EvenstarSRV]

Thanks for the wonderful conversation! It's especially interesting, because while we while we see events in a fairly similar manner, our conclusions are very different, almost opposite, and I think would stay that way, no matter how many arguments we present- not unlike the characters, themselves. I suppose that's why this episode continues to be so good, and generate so much discussion!

Darn! I still can't green you! And I have been spreading it around!

Thank you as well! Conversations like these are why I finally signed up with GW after a few months of lurking.

The fridge is locked for me too at the moment, so consider this an IOU green.

[amconway]

The fridge is locked for me too at the moment, so consider this an IOU green.

Indeed!

[Descent]

Without Sam's objections, we would have just thought 'Oh yeah, Goa'uld are bad, no big deal' and the scene would have lost most of it's meaning.

Hmm... yes, good point! I was just agreeing with you in saying that her objections were short-sighted and I didn't buy it. But! Evenstar had a great point in saying that, to Sam, they were undercover and she did not want to draw any attention. Daniel was very much driven by his emotions and wanted his chance at revenge.

Great stuff, you two.