|
|
Post by Queen E on Jul 10, 2009 16:10:57 GMT -5
How will it all end?
|
|
|
|
Post by beccaelizabeth on Jul 10, 2009 17:02:39 GMT -5
You ever see something where you want to run everywhere and break spoiler policy because you don't want anyone else to hurt the way you do?
I thought CoE was an adventure story, that they'd have a problem and a solution and win.
It is a Tragedy. Old school. Kinda biblical. Killing your own children is biblical. Kinda Greek too, they kill kids a lot, it's usually what starts the horror and tragedy.
Jack kills his grandson to save all the other children in the world.
The writers tried to force him into a choice corner.
But to do it they had the aliens give out a secret superweapon to be recorded and used against them, which is implausible past the bounds of possibility.
And they had children be used to broadcast. Which makes no sense. Even within the setup of the episodes it makes no sense.
So they failed to set up the choice, and they just made him do it.
And I don't see why they made this story.
Captain Jack Harkness is a character kids stop in the street, is a hero, is someone who saves people. Torchwood complicated that a lot. But this? Breaks it.
There was a warning in front of the episode that children should not watch it.
Yes.
And neither should anyone who actually cares.
We had one gay couple saving the world on TV. One.
And now one is dead and the other is... gone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Jul 11, 2009 8:59:37 GMT -5
It would have been better if Stephen at least had been given a choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by beccaelizabeth on Jul 11, 2009 13:23:07 GMT -5
It would have been better if Stephen at least had been given a choice. No, that would be a different kind of creepy. Kids too young to know what is choosing. |
|
|
|
Post by mjames on Jul 12, 2009 11:17:48 GMT -5
I thought this series is/was brilliant. Forget the nitpicking, it was epic TV for adults. We are all collateral damage. The only happy endings happen in Hollywood. One of the crunch centres of the drama is the fact that those who rule have absolutely no compunction in sacrificing anyone to save themselves. The really damaged members of society are those who rule it. I did not agree that Capt Jack had to sacrifice his grandson and completely freak out his daughter but this is classic 'Drama Macabre'. BBC is wonderfully brave in showing this. This format and storyline would never have been made by any other TV company in the world. People are sacrificed daily in their hundreds of thousands, adults and children alike. This is just one way of getting that message over to us all in a way we can identify with on a personal level. Capt. Jack is not gay by the way. He is truly bisexual. Ianto may well have been gay but that was never made completely clear. It is possible he was a closet gay in the process of coming out. A few screen kisses do not a gay man make. Trust me I should know I've kissed thousands of men in my life and not all of them are/were gay. Tehehe!
|
|
|
|
Post by beccaelizabeth on Jul 12, 2009 11:30:47 GMT -5
re: Jack and Ianto being gay
I said 'gay couple' because that's the words in my head for two guys dating
I didn't mean either had that identity.
like a het couple would be a m/f relationship even if both were bisexual
|
|
|
|
Post by spacecat1974 on Jul 14, 2009 1:32:17 GMT -5
Ianto was edging into bi territory but was definitely NOT gay. He mentioned when talking to his sister that it wasn't *men* he was interested in it was just Jack himself. The concept of being attracted to a person, rather than a gender, has been explored elsewhere (STTNG being the example that comes to mind. Dr. Crusher being involved with that Trill who went from being in a male body to a female body.) but is more effective here.
I just felt really horrible that Jack was put in that position. I'm *sure* that if they had been given enough time that they could've found an alternative. I'm sure that if Jack hadn't done it, then the other guy would have.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Jul 24, 2009 21:09:31 GMT -5
Okay, so here's the thing(s):
First, they won't either eliminate the species if they don't get what they want. Who knows where they'd stop, but they clearly need something we have. If they're intergalactic narcotics dealers, and children are their product, then they need a source for that product. If they can take the children themselves, without assistance, they would - unless they've got a reason not to.
So, what is that reason? Either they can't support their own breeding colonies elsewhere, or they don't want to - one way or another, they need earth to survive to keep breeding their product for them. It's POSSIBLE that the fallback position is to kill all the adults after taking the children by force, I suppose, and it's just less convenient.
And that brings me to my second point - they also won't go away and not come back later. They need the product, and if they can't produce it themselves, they'll be back. Over and over. Earth will become a breeding planet for them, nothing more.
I'm amazed that no one in the government has seen this.
Also? Ick. It smacks of pedophilia, just like Smile Time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Jul 24, 2009 21:18:56 GMT -5
And did you really think, John, that you could trust the people who sat in a closed room and decided to hand over the world's poor and lower-class children to keep their word to you? After having told you flat out that you were on the front lines because the "first man down" is expendable?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Jul 24, 2009 21:30:42 GMT -5
She's very optimistic, isn't she?
"When the histories are written...."
Ah, the human capacity for self-delusion. THERE WILL BE NO HISTORIES WRITTEN. If this goes down as I figure it would, over the next few generations, it means the end of civilization as we know it. Okay, there might be a history written in the next 40 years, but that will be the last one....
And I knew what he was going to do. It's not what I would have done, though. I would probably have tried to run. And gotten caught.
|
|
|
|
Post by artemis on Jul 24, 2009 21:37:24 GMT -5
My first thought upon this episode was actually that the writers seem to still not be fully sure of what to do with the characterization of Jack. Why would Jack be willing to sacrifice his own grandson but not to so much as threaten the children of someone he was working against? That plot hole alone has kind of broken my brain.
|
|
|
|
Post by artemis on Jul 24, 2009 21:40:39 GMT -5
Okay, so here's the thing(s): First, they won't either eliminate the species if they don't get what they want. Who knows where they'd stop, but they clearly need something we have. If they're intergalactic narcotics dealers, and children are their product, then they need a source for that product. If they can take the children themselves, without assistance, they would - unless they've got a reason not to. Yeah, I agree. And I thought it was odd that the Colonel was the first person who asked the question directly to them, as far as I remember. I don't know, maybe others just assumed they wouldn't respond. But they did, right away. And perhaps knowing the answer in advance would have made the governments act differently... Or perhaps not; who knows. Yeah, I was curious about this as well. Indeed. Well, perhaps if someone had asked earlier...  No kidding! It really creeped me out. |
|
|
|
Post by artemis on Jul 24, 2009 21:46:45 GMT -5
I thought CoE was an adventure story, that they'd have a problem and a solution and win. Yeah, it definitely seemed to be set up this way. I actually spent the first three episodes thinking this was what they were going to do with the plot. Yeah. Even though they attempted to explain it, their "explanation" never really made any sense to me. And after finishing all of it, I still don't really understand why they killed Clem! Indeed. I still don't really understand that, either. Me, either. I feel kind of like I had "bait and switch" played on me. And yet at the end, RTD said in his interview that he thought this episode would make an awesome last episode ever for the show if it wasn't renewed. And I know, what else is he going to say, but still. There wasn't here. There wasn't even a "Some viewers may find this disturbing" or a "This program is intended for mature audiences" like airs on other networks sometimes (and maybe sometimes on BBCA too; I can't remember for sure). But apparently it's not a statement on sexual orientation... Sigh. Sometimes I wonder why showrunners never seem to anticipate controversy. Maybe they're just faking surprise.  |
|
|
|
Post by artemis on Jul 24, 2009 21:59:42 GMT -5
She's very optimistic, isn't she? "When the histories are written...." Well, she's looking at it from within the 'Verse, right? If Jack is a 51st century human, then in Gwen's head, there will be somebody to someday write the history of that 'dark period.' And yet, the amount of optimism in these times is, well, impressive. Me, too, and me, too. And when they did the sort of closeup shot of Miss Spears' eyes shortly after she left Lois, I was sure she'd gotten the contacts. Frightening that the woman who came up with the specific plan to cull the children is apparently gunning for the PM spot in Britain... |
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Jul 24, 2009 22:12:14 GMT -5
Ianto was edging into bi territory but was definitely NOT gay. He mentioned when talking to his sister that it wasn't *men* he was interested in it was just Jack himself. The concept of being attracted to a person, rather than a gender, has been explored elsewhere (STTNG being the example that comes to mind. Dr. Crusher being involved with that Trill who went from being in a male body to a female body.) but is more effective here. I just felt really horrible that Jack was put in that position. I'm *sure* that if they had been given enough time that they could've found an alternative. I'm sure that if Jack hadn't done it, then the other guy would have. The words "gay" and "straight" aren't really at all relevant when it comes to Jack - not even "bisexual". He's omnisexual, sort of - like everyone from his time period, according to the Doctor. The series has explored the idea that humans aren't inherently "straight" or "gay" or even bisexual since the beginning. My science tells me that they're just wishing for things that aren't so, at least where the vast majority of men are concerned, but it's science fiction. We can explore ideas and "what-ifs" even if they're impossible in today's world. Who knows - by Jack's day, we might have evolved away from the bimodal sexuality that's typical of males of our species. Ianto, though, was always far-fetched - which is why it's all the more impressive that they made me believe it. On the other front - we've no actual evidence that there would have been another way. Maybe...and maybe that was the only option. |
|
