|
Post by KMInfinity on Jul 28, 2009 8:19:57 GMT -5
The public will want to know why the hell you didn't start figuring this out, how to defeat them and all, before. I thought about this too. So someone somewhere in the bowels of the *middleman* hierarchy has been sitting on this 456 file for decades. And Torchwood also knew (at least Jack knew) that there was the chance they'd return. And no one planned anything? They just had smarmy guy listening in on the 456 wavelength? This is a major weakness of the whole CoE, especially upon repeat viewing. I understand the story purpose of the 1965 flashback, but I think it was a mistake. Fandom seems to be equally divided about CoE. There's an excellent article comparing Ianto's death with Tara's here: www.afterelton.com/TV/2009/7/buffy-versus-torchwoodIt's generating quite a good discussion on Whedonesque.
|
|
|
Post by artemis on Jul 28, 2009 9:59:55 GMT -5
The public will want to know why the hell you didn't start figuring this out, how to defeat them and all, before. I thought about this too. So someone somewhere in the bowels of the *middleman* hierarchy has been sitting on this 456 file for decades. And Torchwood also knew (at least Jack knew) that there was the chance they'd return. And no one planned anything? They just had smarmy guy listening in on the 456 wavelength? This is a major weakness of the whole CoE, especially upon repeat viewing. I understand the story purpose of the 1965 flashback, but I think it was a mistake. I agree. And I still feel like there was more to the story of the smarmy guy, as Lola called him, than we saw. It felt as if they had intended to show more of his story and changed their minds. Thanks for posting the article, KMInfinity; this quote from it sums up a pretty large portion of why I found Ianto's death and the majority of the subsequent story so pointless and unsatisfying (emphases as in original): And, like the column's writer, I find RTD's explanations of the plot point (one of which was quoted in the column) to just further confuse me as to what he as a writer was trying to express. I read the initial comments (many of which were about RTD's behavior at ComicCon this past week) and it seems that RTD's attitude is continuing to upset a lot of fans.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Jul 29, 2009 22:25:15 GMT -5
Well, I generally liked CoE. ;D I liked the "come full circle from where we started with TW" and so on. (Gwen brought us into TW, gaining her entrance partly due to a death of one of the team members. Then we've seen the danger of the TW work, not just with all the team members now die, but the history of it as well. And finally, the only ones left standing are Jack - who can't die physically but is wrecked emotionally and has given into death the only way he can, by giivng up - and Gwen - who represents life and moving forward and all that, what with her pregnancy and still being all "don't give up" and all.) I liked the visuals and the action. Lots of emotional oomph and thinky stuff too, which I always love. Yeah, it had the usual DW / TW "don't look too close" faux-science stuff and a few hand wavey "don't look too close at this either 'cuz it's not all totally logical" moments, but generally I liked the drama and the angst. Also, it had the TW tradition of human slog thru badness rather than the DW tradition of technological and/or heroic triumph. And did I mention the tasty angst? Not too much surprise that I liked the series, I'm sure, if you know me, eh? As to the item causing so much discussion . . . I actually don't have a problem with Ianto's death. It seems to fit right in with the other TW staff deaths we've seen. Noble, foolish, heart in the right place, plan that is bold but also with deep flaws so that you know it was 50/50 chance (or worse) of leading to triumph or tragedy, painful and loving.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Jul 30, 2009 20:24:01 GMT -5
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. Yeah, it seems that in Jack's original time period, people don't really even have a conception of "sexual orientation." And it seems like a pretty common SF theme, too - I don't only mean exploring whether everyone is bisexual, but more generally exploring different ways that sexuality and sexual identity (be it sexual orientation or not) could be if they weren't the way they are in our own society. Well, 30 centuries allows for plenty of evolution in any direction... Nah, actually, 3000 years is an eyeblink in evolutionary time. For a shift of that magnitude to occur, it would take enormous selective pressure or else some human tinkering with the system.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Jul 30, 2009 20:38:48 GMT -5
Well, I generally liked CoE. ;D I liked the "come full circle from where we started with TW" and so on. (Gwen brought us into TW, gaining her entrance partly due to a death of one of the team members. Then we've seen the danger of the TW work, not just with all the team members now die, but the history of it as well. And finally, the only ones left standing are Jack - who can't die physically but is wrecked emotionally and has given into death the only way he can, by giivng up - and Gwen - who represents life and moving forward and all that, what with her pregnancy and still being all "don't give up" and all.) I liked the visuals and the action. Lots of emotional oomph and thinky stuff too, which I always love. Yeah, it had the usual DW / TW "don't look too close" faux-science stuff and a few hand wavey "don't look too close at this either 'cuz it's not all totally logical" moments, but generally I liked the drama and the angst. Also, it had the TW tradition of human slog thru badness rather than the DW tradition of technological and/or heroic triumph. And did I mention the tasty angst? Not too much surprise that I liked the series, I'm sure, if you know me, eh? As to the item causing so much discussion . . . I actually don't have a problem with Ianto's death. It seems to fit right in with the other TW staff deaths we've seen. Noble, foolish, heart in the right place, plan that is bold but also with deep flaws so that you know it was 50/50 chance (or worse) of leading to triumph or tragedy, painful and loving. Also, I think it illustrated Jack's increasing...carelessness?...with the lives of others. When you can't die, you maybe forget that everyone else isn't immortal, too, over time. Hence walking into that building with Ianto, and not considering overly closely what might happen. The biggest problem Torchwood (the organization) has is a lack of good planning. They do tend to make these world-saving plans with huge glitches in them - I haven't decided, yet, if that's deliberate, or bad writing. But, as for example, the prison break. Bits of that were very useful, but, really, some parts were downright stupid. Like not realizing the sequential shutting down of cameras would bring guards. Or realizing it, but not caring. Since they apparently knew already which cell Jack was in, why the need for the big charade anyway? How did Ianto's part of the plan require Gwen's part? If she was merely a distraction, she should have NOT disabled the cameras. But they've gotten steadily better since season 1, so I tend to believe the intermittent stupidity is deliberate writing, designed to show a team getting better over time. Unfortunately, they're now back to Square 1. Jack...is an interesting problem. Morally ambiguous in the extreme, immortal and with an attitude about other human life that vacillates between carelessness and extreme care. Who knows how your psyche would change after thousands of years of life, countless deaths and resurrections, and watching everyone you love die? I'm amazed he still CAN form bonds with mortal humans and be sane. Was it easier, or more difficult, for him to sacrifice his grandson than if he'd not been immortal? On the one hand, you might think he'd have a harder time because of all the people he'd watched die...but, on the other, he always knew he'd have to watch his grandson die someday, so the real mental adjustment was being the cause of it himself, not the fact of it. And, well - he can always make more grandchildren. *sigh* Jack's life is forever - it really does make him godlike. I think Erin has an excellent point about the continuing parallels to the Judeo-Christian god and his distant, scary, and sometimes unfathomable love for humanity.
|
|
|
Post by beccaelizabeth on Jul 31, 2009 3:41:11 GMT -5
The plan in Day Two - I think you're misreading it. Gwen's plan and Ianto's plan were necessarily seperate because they could not communicate. They only met up because they were both trying to rescue Jack, they couldn't phone each other or anything before then. So Ianto knew which cell Jack was in and that he was in concrete, but Gwen thought he was just in a cell in a body bag. They expected him to still be dead, that was the reason Rhys said he needed to be there, to carry him. But they didn't expect the concrete, and if they'd talked to Ianto they would have.
|
|
|
Post by artemis on Jul 31, 2009 11:32:59 GMT -5
Also, I think it illustrated Jack's increasing...carelessness?...with the lives of others. When you can't die, you maybe forget that everyone else isn't immortal, too, over time. Hence walking into that building with Ianto, and not considering overly closely what might happen. Yeah, I think it was a good illustration of that, though I'm not sure that RTD meant it that way, from some of his comments in interviews. I'm not sure either. I think that some of the plot points could go either way in the debate. Like Becca said, I don't think they knew they both had plans or even that they were both in the same place at the same time - I think they were just both focusing on getting Jack out, and that they just happened to be there at the same time. I do agree that Gwen's plan seemed pretty stupid, though. Perhaps we were supposed to assume that she thought they'd be able to get out before the military reacted, but I don't know why she would think that. Yeah, I have no idea; I suppose none of us can really know. Me, too. It would be interesting if they did more explicit stuff on this subject and the one just above. Perhaps he felt both? I continue to think that Erin's point is a good one, too.
|
|
|
Post by artemis on Jul 31, 2009 11:36:08 GMT -5
Nah, actually, 3000 years is an eyeblink in evolutionary time. For a shift of that magnitude to occur, it would take enormous selective pressure or else some human tinkering with the system. It could also have been a huge cultural shift. Or maybe a mix of all of these possibilities. I wonder how differently (or if at all) humans would relate to culture when spread out amongst the stars. I wonder whether individual cultures would feel more important or less so.
|
|
|
Post by artemis on Jul 31, 2009 11:41:49 GMT -5
As to the item causing so much discussion . . . I actually don't have a problem with Ianto's death. It seems to fit right in with the other TW staff deaths we've seen. Noble, foolish, heart in the right place, plan that is bold but also with deep flaws so that you know it was 50/50 chance (or worse) of leading to triumph or tragedy, painful and loving. Honestly, it seems like a lot more fans are at least as upset, if not more, about a lot of what RTD has said about it all than about the death itself. Personally, the more comments from him I read, the less I understood what he was trying to say in that scene and the ones that came after. It seemed to me like it worked better as a plot point before I started reading his own reasons for it. (Though I do still think Jack's plan was a pretty stupid one for someone who's had a lot more alien experience than the others in CoE, I think that Gareth made a good point in his interview that Ianto could have been at peace with it, regardless of that.)
|
|
|
Post by beccaelizabeth on Jul 31, 2009 13:31:05 GMT -5
As to the item causing so much discussion . . . I actually don't have a problem with Ianto's death. It seems to fit right in with the other TW staff deaths we've seen. Noble, foolish, heart in the right place, plan that is bold but also with deep flaws so that you know it was 50/50 chance (or worse) of leading to triumph or tragedy, painful and loving. Honestly, it seems like a lot more fans are at least as upset, if not more, about a lot of what RTD has said about it all than about the death itself. Personally, the more comments from him I read, the less I understood what he was trying to say in that scene and the ones that came after. It seemed to me like it worked better as a plot point before I started reading his own reasons for it. (Though I do still think Jack's plan was a pretty stupid one for someone who's had a lot more alien experience than the others in CoE, I think that Gareth made a good point in his interview that Ianto could have been at peace with it, regardless of that.) RTD's latest word on the whole thing is that Jack had no plan because war is confusing and in war people don't have plans. www.afterelton.com/TV/2009/7/russeltdavies?page=0%2C2Also that the Doctor is better than everyone and that they would both have had to improvise but only the Doctor could have thought of something. Personally I think 'bring a gas mask' is not a very difficult improvisation, given the givens. and he's really deeply wrong about war. and his attitude to the Doctor devalues everyone that is not the Doctor, and devalues the Doctor too.
|
|
|
Post by artemis on Jul 31, 2009 15:24:28 GMT -5
RTD's latest word on the whole thing is that Jack had no plan because war is confusing and in war people don't have plans. www.afterelton.com/TV/2009/7/russeltdavies?page=0%2C2Also that the Doctor is better than everyone and that they would both have had to improvise but only the Doctor could have thought of something. Personally I think 'bring a gas mask' is not a very difficult improvisation, given the givens. and he's really deeply wrong about war. and his attitude to the Doctor devalues everyone that is not the Doctor, and devalues the Doctor too. Wow, that interview left me speechless - literally. If you had been in the room with me you would have heard me sputtering at the screen. It seems like it says a lot more about RTD's conceptions than about TW's fans. I thought it was particularly interesting that he assumed that the interviewer was complaining about Jack and Ianto's sex life and that he assumed that anyone who has the time to voice unhappiness over RTD's previous interviews doesn't also have the time to do anything meaningful in the world (and that he apparently assumes that everyone that's complained is an hysterical, young, straight woman). I agree with you, Becca. Of course unforseen things happen in war, but the fact that the 456 had advance knowledge of a flu and had a vaccine already prepared certainly indicates that they were technologically advanced in biological issues back in 1965, and it seems like if the humans hadn't come up with a plan in case they came back (though I still don't get why they didn't do that...), the least they could have done was take precautions in case they used a virus or other biological warfare, most especially when being confronted! Though at least RTD's absurd comments about the Doctor finally seem to show why he felt the need to address that issue in episode 5.
|
|
|
Post by KMInfinity on Jul 31, 2009 19:34:26 GMT -5
RTD strikes me as being defensive and not as introspective as I would think a good writer needs to be. No second guessing himself, not the slightest hint that he's given opposing views a hypothetical airing "for the sake of argument."
So, he equates fandom with 200 internet complaints, teen girls with no real world experience, and 9 hysterical women. hummph...
I think what I really disliked was his attitude that fans should be less concerned about Ianto's death and more concerned about real problems, making a difference protesting prop 8 and such - as if we're wasting our time being viewers and and aren't out living life, doing good in the world. Excuse me, I have a real life, with lots in it, including me making the impact I choose to make.
Funny how he doesn't want to engage in differing POV regarding TW but feels he had to drag in his *cred* with Queer as Folk. which was not really germane to the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by artemis on Aug 1, 2009 10:41:13 GMT -5
RTD strikes me as being defensive and not as introspective as I would think a good writer needs to be. No second guessing himself, not the slightest hint that he's given opposing views a hypothetical airing "for the sake of argument." I thought it was especially telling that he implied that the only way he could think of as a writer to get Jack to a very dark place was to kill off Jack's romantic partner. I don't really get how any writer could really believe there was literally only one way to get to an end point in a plot. If he had said, say, "I thought of other possibilities, but felt the best way was to do this," then it wouldn't bug me so much. But it seems from the several interviews that I've read as if he believes that the way he wrote the story (the whole CoE story, not just Ianto's death) was The Only Way To Write It, and thus, that anyone who is criticizing him is criticizing drama as a genre rather than criticizing his particular storytelling choices. (Not to even get into how a lot of people are criticizing his behavior more than any storytelling choices.) This sort of logic would make sense to someone who really believes they were dictated by the story rather than making plot choices, but I think a lot of fans do see them as choices, regardless of whether they liked CoE or not. I wonder how much of his attitude stems from his not understanding the difference. Exactly! He makes it sound like everyone who watches any television at all is doing nothing all day but sitting around watching television. And I still don't get why he sees it as a bad thing that fans are passionate about the show. Defending and/or explaining your choices as a writer is one thing, but his attitude about it all strikes me as something totally different. And though I haven't watched the show myself, according to some of the comments on the article, it seems he also misrepresented the ending of that show as being happier than it really was. Which, if true, is pretty funny. Another thing that gets me is that over and over he's responded to questions about whether Ianto's death is final with stuff like, "When you're dead on Torchwood, you're really dead. It's realistic." - which is so ridiculous given past plots that some of the writers/columnists quoting it have even pointed that out.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Aug 12, 2009 5:45:41 GMT -5
That was very compelling and thought provoking. Well done. If they keep this up the show may become one of those I actually buy on DVD rather than a show I watch only once.
|
|