Comments | neadods: Torchwood - Adrift & Fragments

neadods

Torchwood - Adrift & Fragments

Mar 22, 2008 21:31

It's either pay the bills or spam LJ. Well, what would you do?

Having caught up on Torchwood, my thoughts. This season continues to mop the floor with last season.

( Adrift )

torchwood

Comments 11

kradical March 23 2008, 03:38:43 UTC

I liked Owen's flashback more than you did, and Jack and Ianto groping naked did precisely nothing for me, but otherwise, I agree with every single word you said. *grin*

neadods March 23 2008, 13:14:44 UTC

It's not that I didn't like Owen's flashback, it's that I found it fairly predictable compared to the others, and thus have little to say for good or ill.

lizbee March 23 2008, 04:25:43 UTC

You've actually made me feel better about The UNIT Thing. On the other hand, now I like Tosh even less than usual.

neadods March 23 2008, 13:21:56 UTC

I have been so, so frustrated about this! Because I was so behind on my watching, I knew about people being incredibly upset about "What they did to UNIT" before I watched, and I was worrying about it. When I got to that part, I wanted to bang my head against a wall ( ... )

thanatos_kalos March 23 2008, 11:14:43 UTC

I have to disagree with you a bit about Ianto not meshing between Fragments, s1, and s2-- I interpreted it like this. He's clearly feeling a powerful attraction to Jack by the end of his fragment (::rereads that; ignores Freud::) which explains the repression-- he's afraid of being disloyal to Lisa by being attracted to anyone, really. So, he retreats into staff-backed reserve in order to not betray his girlfriend, all the while betraying people he works closely with (and at least one of whom he's attracted to). In order to minimise guilt/cognitive dissonance/loyalty division, he retreats from all the others. That's the transition to s1. between 'End of Days' and s2, I'm seeing it as a consequence of losing his leader/mentor/lover/friend to unknown circumstances, though they obviously have learned that Jack left voluntarily (though obviously everything else that happened to him during that year wasn't). Ianto's angry, confused, lonely, sad...I think the dam broke on the reserve (as it was threatening to do) and he's better for it ( ... )

neadods March 23 2008, 13:43:11 UTC

In order to minimise guilt/cognitive dissonance/loyalty division, he retreats from all the others.

Hmmm.... Let me think on that.

Ten to one it gets chopped from the BBCA version, though...

My bet is that they keep half the scene - show the first initial kisses, but cut to Gwen before Ianto shoves his hand down Jack's pants.

thanatos_kalos March 23 2008, 13:57:18 UTC

In order to minimise guilt/cognitive dissonance/loyalty division, he retreats from all the others.

Hmmm.... Let me think on that.

Also, potentially to avoid any possibility of giving away what's in the basement, now that I think about it.

Ten to one it gets chopped from the BBCA version, though...

My bet is that they keep half the scene - show the first initial kisses, but cut to Gwen before Ianto shoves his hand down Jack's pants.

Might do, though it may also depend on what time BBCA run it. I seem to recall eps of s1 running on Saturday afternoons, which hurt my brain... :P

aligoestonz March 23 2008, 22:27:22 UTC

The thing that annoyed me most about the end of Tosh's segment was the fact it made no sense. "They're gonna make an example of you... They're going to keep you here without charge forever." How can she be an example if hardly anyone knows what she's done and what's happened to her? A high profile trial - admittedly with shedloads of the hearing held in camera because of the security implications - now that'd be making an example of her.

neadods March 23 2008, 23:01:11 UTC

How can she be an example if hardly anyone knows what she's done and what's happened to her?

Really good point.

The more I argue this, the more it's annoying me that they didn't have a trial, for two reasons.

1) The lack of trial is the real inhumanity charge that can be laid at UNIT's door, not the sentence.

2) They could have won the trial easily.

The biggest hint that there is no case against the men in Gitmo is that everyone keeps saying that there doesn't need to be a case made against them. If guilt is clear, then guilt is CLEAR - fingerprints on a forbidden keypad, plans in an apartment, witnesses to a handover and recruitment for other jobs.

calapine March 27 2008, 00:00:38 UTC

It's that the people in Gitmo haven't had trials or even solid evidence against them. That standard doesn't apply here.

Except that it does. Simply because there is compelling evidence available means absolutely nothing to a person's guilt or innocence until it is tried and tested in a court of law. And that is such a fundamental part of the legal history of this country, and of evidence procedures, that to defend the idea that it's okay not to have a trial cause it's obvious someone is guilty I find disturbing, to say the least.

neadods March 27 2008, 01:31:34 UTC

to defend the idea that it's okay not to have a trial cause it's obvious someone is guilty I find disturbing, to say the leastThat's not what I'm arguing. (Oh HELL no I'm not arguing that in a country that had lynchings because they were "guilty of something ( ... )