As to the aliens negotiating, it could be becaue they're smart and realize that 10% is a farmable amount -- they can come back later and get another 10% either of what's left or humanity's restored children. Take 'em all, and we'll either be extinct when they run out or we'll be that much more motivated to find a solution to the aliens.
And to be fair to Jack, it's not clear that modern-day people are really people to him. Imagine you found yourself on the savannah, surrounded by, say, H. Habilis. You would certainly want to avoid their extinction, and you might grow fond of some of them, but would your moral stance against killing fully extend to them?
There wasn't really an indication on the alien's part that they were trying to set up a long-term tithing kind of a thing. Because yes, this way there are humans left, but by forcing the governments to kowtow, none of these administrations will be in power in the future. Had they made another camouflagable demand, then they could keep dealing with the same people and use secrecy as leverage. With such a big demand, they've made it much harder for them to get anything if and when they come back. I'm still going with the "they're high and not thinking straight" explanation. Though I did love the alien drug dealers angle, which seems so much more possible than the evil alien overlords of most shows
( ... )
Jack is the anti-thesis of your normal sci fi hero. The opposite of John Sheppard on SGA, who has repeatedly shown that he will allow the galaxy to get fucked over to save one teammate. But both extremes--Sheppard making decisions that lead to the deaths of millions to save the cast members, Captain Jack chosing to sacrifice cast members to save millions--aren't really viable models for heros on a tv show in the long term. Because both make it impossible to continue to sympathize and care about the character over the course of a series.
Before I get into a longer response here, let me at least address this. I agree with you about Jack, but I would not agree with you on the opposite side. I don't know SGA, but the ethical decision, when one is told to make the awful choice--10% or everyone--is to kill everyone. It's not necessarily the easy choice, but it's the ethical one because it does not presume inherent superiority of people. The Doctor could have killed the Daleks, once, twice, many times over. He never did. Nine could have
( ... )
I agree with you about Jack, but I would not agree with you on the opposite side. I'm not sure I quite parse that... My problem with SGA is that the characters routinely make decisions that adversely effect millions of people for purely selfish reasons. Often to save people who were reckless when they got into their current situation. What they are doing, as one episode pointed out, is unilaterally making decisions that affect the lives of everyone in the galaxy--a galaxy they are visitors in--without consultation. Which makes it hard, after all, to buy them as heroes.
you are willing to kill for the greater good, what would be left is not worth saving. Better that all should die. I see that you're one of the ones that would walk away from Omelas.
Yeah, having finally caught up, I agree with a lot of your comments. I didn't have a problem with the virus, though--I didn't hear them say it was the flu virus, just that it was *a* virus, so I assumed it was something like sarin gas.
The thing that bugged me was that Jack has been brave to the point of foolhardiness for three seasons--and why not, when you can't die?--and at the end of this he just runs away. Why? Because he can't face his daughter for killing her son? He's done far worse to many, many people. And this time at least he felt bad about it, which is some character growth, though not much. So yeah, it definitely felt like a "you can't have my toys!" fit from RTD.
I loved Alice! And Lois was great. If they want to bring back Torchwood by having Gwen recruit the two of them and the hardcore military chick, I'd be all for that. It'd be like Charlie's Angels in the Whoverse!
Jack running away at the end was one of the few things that made sense to me. Cause his character arc through three series has been more and more towards cold, distanced pragmatism. Killing his own grandson for the good of the planet is the epitome of that. As I said, he doesn't seem to have a great emotional attachment to the kid in the first place. But if I could give the character more credit than the show does, I think it would be that action that wakes him up to the fact that he has become capable of anything in the name of the greater good. And he does not want to be someone capable of that, however necessary
( ... )
See, I don't buy it. They showed in the flashbacks that he was willing to kill kids in the sixties, and you've already pointed out several other instances where he'll sacrifice people for the greater good, so this doesn't feel like an increase--if anything, he showed more remorse this time. But if he's gotten cold, why would he care enough to run away? If he doesn't care, he can stay and get the job done and be even more effective.
Begin at the beginningtrinityvixenJuly 24 2009, 15:22:37 UTC
Things I liked: a sense that everyone has a life outside of Torchwood, not just Gwen. I am loathe to accept characters out of nowhere, but to the writers' credit, I was so easily able to believe both Jack and Ianto's heretofore unseen families. It made sense that Jack would be distant from his daughter, and it made sense that Ianto would keep both family and work friends separate from each other. (How incredibly lonely is it that he couldn't confide the whole truth to anyone? I can see fandom fairly exploding about this if it hadn't been sidelined by him dying.)
The fact that ordinary people and even questionably moral people can be awesome was fantastically Who-ian. Ianto's family protecting the entire estate's kids; the military chick turning on her employers; even Frobisher's secretary managed to make sure that the worst thing she couldn't prevent would not disappear into history. I stop short of saying I forgave Frobisher for all his doings, but I did sympathize and approve of his last actions. Not until the PM punished him for
( ... )
Incidentally, I believe BBCA ran episodes for an hour and 15 minutes, so they didn't have to cut anything. I don't know if they bleeped anything out or not.
Comments 23
And to be fair to Jack, it's not clear that modern-day people are really people to him. Imagine you found yourself on the savannah, surrounded by, say, H. Habilis. You would certainly want to avoid their extinction, and you might grow fond of some of them, but would your moral stance against killing fully extend to them?
Reply
Reply
Before I get into a longer response here, let me at least address this. I agree with you about Jack, but I would not agree with you on the opposite side. I don't know SGA, but the ethical decision, when one is told to make the awful choice--10% or everyone--is to kill everyone. It's not necessarily the easy choice, but it's the ethical one because it does not presume inherent superiority of people. The Doctor could have killed the Daleks, once, twice, many times over. He never did. Nine could have ( ... )
Reply
I'm not sure I quite parse that... My problem with SGA is that the characters routinely make decisions that adversely effect millions of people for purely selfish reasons. Often to save people who were reckless when they got into their current situation. What they are doing, as one episode pointed out, is unilaterally making decisions that affect the lives of everyone in the galaxy--a galaxy they are visitors in--without consultation. Which makes it hard, after all, to buy them as heroes.
you are willing to kill for the greater good, what would be left is not worth saving. Better that all should die.
I see that you're one of the ones that would walk away from Omelas.
Reply
The thing that bugged me was that Jack has been brave to the point of foolhardiness for three seasons--and why not, when you can't die?--and at the end of this he just runs away. Why? Because he can't face his daughter for killing her son? He's done far worse to many, many people. And this time at least he felt bad about it, which is some character growth, though not much. So yeah, it definitely felt like a "you can't have my toys!" fit from RTD.
I loved Alice! And Lois was great. If they want to bring back Torchwood by having Gwen recruit the two of them and the hardcore military chick, I'd be all for that. It'd be like Charlie's Angels in the Whoverse!
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
The fact that ordinary people and even questionably moral people can be awesome was fantastically Who-ian. Ianto's family protecting the entire estate's kids; the military chick turning on her employers; even Frobisher's secretary managed to make sure that the worst thing she couldn't prevent would not disappear into history. I stop short of saying I forgave Frobisher for all his doings, but I did sympathize and approve of his last actions. Not until the PM punished him for ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment