Very disappointing ER
La...@la.com
disjointed thoughts about it.
It was supposed to be centered on Doug Ross and why he is leaving but
his character was at best peripheral to what was going on.
Another indictment of the writing was the number of scenes that were
talked about and not shown. Dr. Ross resigns from the ER and we don't
see it but have to hear about it? What was that about?
It also felt like some of what he was doing was out of character.
Particularly, his last scene with Carol sounded like it was coming out
of a psychology manual and not out of his character and only George
Clooney's performance made it halfway palatable.
John Stone
>
> In article <36cd181e...@news.pacificnet.net>, La...@LA.com suggested:
> >I must say I was quite disappointed by today's ER. Here's a few
> >disjointed thoughts about it.
>
>
> It was a disgrace, plain and simple, and possibly the worst episode ever not
> featuring the annoying Lucy Knight character. I was close to giving up on
> the show anyway, because it's been so boring this year, but I think this
> just about does it.
>
> --------
> Scott Cantor In the beginning the Universe was created.
> cant...@osu.edu This has made a lot of people very angry and
> Univ Tech Services been widely regarded as a bad move.
> The Ohio State Univ - Douglas Adams
It was bad.
Ian J. Ball
wrote:
> Scott Cantor wrote:
> >
> > In article <36cd181e...@news.pacificnet.net>, La...@LA.com suggested:
> > >I must say I was quite disappointed by today's ER. Here's a few
> > >disjointed thoughts about it.
> >
> > It was a disgrace, plain and simple, and possibly the worst episode ever not
> > featuring the annoying Lucy Knight character. I was close to giving up on
> > the show anyway, because it's been so boring this year, but I think this
> > just about does it.
>
> It was bad.
I realize that it's almost as in vogue now to bash "ER" as it is to bash
Congressional Republicans, but I thought last night's episode was great,
especially the first 30 minutes, which gave us the non-stop adrenaline
rush we used to get a lot more of in "ER".
I agree that the last 3-5 minutes of the show with Dr. Ross was a rather
abrupt way to end things (but how many people think that Carol will be
joining Doug out West when her contract is up next season?!), but I
thought the episode was pretty good aside from that. (And Clooney's
departure was no more abrupt than Sheryy Stringfield's.)
All in all, people keep talking about how 'bad' "ER" has become, but I
don't see it. I guess some people are just tired of the formula, but it
still works for me.
--
Ian J. Ball | "When it comes to dating, *I'm* the Slayer!"
Ph.D. Chemist, | -Cordelia Chase, "Buffy The Vampire Slayer"
& TV lover | Want to get my FAQs or TV episode guides? Try:
IJB...@aol.com | http://members.aol.com/IJBall/WWW/TV.html
Dancer
wrote:
>All in all, people keep talking about how 'bad' "ER" has become, but I
>don't see it. I guess some people are just tired of the formula, but it
>still works for me.
You're right- the bashing of ER is now in style. I used to be a huge
fan of ER, then for whatever reason, I just lost interest. I've
watched every episode since day 1, looked forward to it every
week. Now, I've seen 3 episodes this season, all in the
beginning, I didn't even watch Clooney's last.
I don't think its because the show is worse, it seems the same
as always. Like you said above, I think I'm tired of the formula
and the fact no one's life really seems to go anywhere in the
show. I will say that Carter went from being a really interesting
character to an extremely boring one.
Brad
Heather Garvey
>
>I agree that the last 3-5 minutes of the show with Dr. Ross was a rather
>abrupt way to end things (but how many people think that Carol will be
>joining Doug out West when her contract is up next season?!), but I
The thing that irritated me was the way Doug insisted on
leaving the entire region of the country. What, there are at least
12 more good hospitals within a stone's throw? And over a hundred
within commuting distance? What about private practice? I thought
the "I must leave" part was *very* lame and had no reason at all
behind it. To give Carol an ultimatum like that proves that they
aren't even remotely close to being ready to marry.
--
Heather Garvey (ra...@xnet.com) | So really, all I need to do is kick a
| fundie in the nuts, and say: "Sorry,
http://www.xnet.com/~raven/ | pal. You ain't gonna ever meet God now."
The Lady with the LART | -- Wabewalker <r...@best.com>
K in Cali
Ian J. Ball wrote in message ...
:I realize that it's almost as in vogue now to bash "ER" as it is to bash
:Congressional Republicans, but I thought last night's episode was great,
:especially the first 30 minutes, which gave us the non-stop adrenaline
:rush we used to get a lot more of in "ER".
:
:I agree that the last 3-5 minutes of the show with Dr. Ross was a rather
:abrupt way to end things (but how many people think that Carol will be
:joining Doug out West when her contract is up next season?!), but I
:thought the episode was pretty good aside from that. (And Clooney's
:departure was no more abrupt than Sheryy Stringfield's.)
Except that Sherry Stringfield's exit was better written and stayed true to
character.
K in Cali
:
:All in all, people keep talking about how 'bad' "ER" has become, but I
:don't see it. I guess some people are just tired of the formula, but it
:still works for me.
:
:--
:
ti...@enteract.bottblock.com
> I realize that it's almost as in vogue now to bash "ER" as it is to bash
> Congressional Republicans, but I thought last night's episode was great,
> especially the first 30 minutes, which gave us the non-stop adrenaline
> rush we used to get a lot more of in "ER".
::emphatic nod:: I loved the first thirty minutes. The high-speed trauma
drama is one of the things I enjoy most about the show.
> I agree that the last 3-5 minutes of the show with Dr. Ross was a rather
> abrupt way to end things (but how many people think that Carol will be
> joining Doug out West when her contract is up next season?!), but I
> thought the episode was pretty good aside from that. (And Clooney's
> departure was no more abrupt than Sheryy Stringfield's.)
I had some serious problems with the final Doug/Carol scene, and the whole
thing left me actually mad at Ross. There has been some mention of it in
other threads, but someone else reminded me of this one - when Doug's
looking at - *right at* - Carol, and says "There's nothing for me here" I
just wanted to shoot him.
Tirya
--
The Magnificent Seven | Giles: If you want to criticize my methods,
Fridays at 9pm ET on CBS | fine. But you can keep your snide remarks
http://www.magnificent7.com | to yourself. And while you're at it, don't
remove bottblock to reply | criticize my methods. - BtVS
Ian J. Ball
<kaliforn...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> Ian J. Ball wrote in message ...
>
> :I agree that the last 3-5 minutes of the show with Dr. Ross was a rather
> :abrupt way to end things (but how many people think that Carol will be
> :joining Doug out West when her contract is up next season?!), but I
> :thought the episode was pretty good aside from that. (And Clooney's
> :departure was no more abrupt than Sheryy Stringfield's.)
>
> Except that Sherry Stringfield's exit was better written and stayed true to
> character.
You mean her cold brush off of Greene at the train station which
contradicted the previous 1 1/2 seasons, and was designed (IMHO) to reduce
audience sympathy with the character?! Not hardly!
Like I said, Clooney's abrupt kiss-off was nearly the same as
Stringfield's, in so many ways.
Barry Margolin
<IJBall-1902...@pool004-max14.ds19-ca-us.dialup.earthlink.net>,
IJB...@aol.com (Ian J. Ball) wrote:
>I realize that it's almost as in vogue now to bash "ER" as it is to bash
>Congressional Republicans, but I thought last night's episode was great,
>especially the first 30 minutes, which gave us the non-stop adrenaline
>rush we used to get a lot more of in "ER".
That's precisely what I was thinking. Ignoring the subplot about Doug
Ross, the rest of the episode was as classic as they get.
>I agree that the last 3-5 minutes of the show with Dr. Ross was a rather
>abrupt way to end things (but how many people think that Carol will be
>joining Doug out West when her contract is up next season?!), but I
>thought the episode was pretty good aside from that. (And Clooney's
>departure was no more abrupt than Sheryy Stringfield's.)
And I thought Doug's conversation with Carol was quite in character. It
was the same old selfish Doug we got to know years ago. Notice that he
didn't even consider staying in Chicago (presumably going to another
hospital or into private practice) so he could be with Carol. Either she
follows him or they're through. He didn't even try proposing to her. He
expects her to give up everything for him, while he's not willing to do
anything for her.
We all thought Doug had grown, but this episode shows that he hasn't
really changed much at all.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Burlington, MA
Orac
<IJBall-1902...@pool004-max14.ds19-ca-us.dialup.earthlink.net>,
IJB...@aol.com (Ian J. Ball) wrote:
>I realize that it's almost as in vogue now to bash "ER" as it is to bash
>Congressional Republicans, but I thought last night's episode was great,
>especially the first 30 minutes, which gave us the non-stop adrenaline
>rush we used to get a lot more of in "ER".
It all seemed very forced to me. Personally, I hate it when ER has one of
these over the top disasters, like this week's school bus crash or the
chemical spill last season. Lots of the usual fast camera pans and shots,
lots of people running around, throw in a little blood and gore (in this
episode, a severed hand), and after a while it settles into a prolonged,
mind-numbing drone.
These sorts of intense scenes work much better when they're done in
shorter bursts and don't take up half an episode.
>I agree that the last 3-5 minutes of the show with Dr. Ross was a rather
>abrupt way to end things (but how many people think that Carol will be
>joining Doug out West when her contract is up next season?!), but I
>thought the episode was pretty good aside from that. (And Clooney's
>departure was no more abrupt than Sheryy Stringfield's.)
I think the problem was more that it didn't seem convincing.
>All in all, people keep talking about how 'bad' "ER" has become, but I
>don't see it. I guess some people are just tired of the formula, but it
>still works for me.
I guess that's the problem, isn't it? ER has settled into a rather
predictable formula. Some formula is necessary for any long-running TV
show, but ER's formula has become tired, IMHO. When ER was first on the
air, it wasn't formula. It was new and exciting. Now it's formula, and it
seems clear that the writers are running out of ideas about what to do
with the formula.
Of course, this all may have something to do with the fact that I'm a
surgeon and have worked trauma in real ERs. (I still do on a part-time
basis.) A longtime problem I've had with ER is that, while they usually
get the medical terminology and procedures right, the writers don't seem
to have a feel for how a real hospital works in the real world. I mean,
although they get some aspects right, surgery residency by and large
doesn't work the way it's portrayed in ER (other than the hours--although
I note that the docs, with the exception of Benton, always seem to have
time for extracurricular activity).
But don't get me started on this topic. My wife already gets annoyed
enough when I start pointing these things out while watching. :-)
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."--Orac
a.k.a. |
David Gorski|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"--Orac again
La...@la.com
>In article <36CD89...@pilot.msu.edu>, John Stone <sto...@pilot.msu.edu>
>wrote:
>
>> Scott Cantor wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <36cd181e...@news.pacificnet.net>, La...@LA.com suggested:
>> > >I must say I was quite disappointed by today's ER. Here's a few
>> > >disjointed thoughts about it.
>> >
>> > It was a disgrace, plain and simple, and possibly the worst episode ever not
>> > featuring the annoying Lucy Knight character. I was close to giving up on
>> > the show anyway, because it's been so boring this year, but I think this
>> > just about does it.
>>
>> It was bad.
>
>I realize that it's almost as in vogue now to bash "ER" as it is to bash
>Congressional Republicans, but I thought last night's episode was great,
>especially the first 30 minutes, which gave us the non-stop adrenaline
>rush we used to get a lot more of in "ER".
>
>I agree that the last 3-5 minutes of the show with Dr. Ross was a rather
>abrupt way to end things (but how many people think that Carol will be
>joining Doug out West when her contract is up next season?!), but I
>thought the episode was pretty good aside from that. (And Clooney's
>departure was no more abrupt than Sheryy Stringfield's.)
>
>All in all, people keep talking about how 'bad' "ER" has become, but I
>don't see it. I guess some people are just tired of the formula, but it
>still works for me.
But then again you like Kellie Martin!!! ;))
Actually I think a lot of the frustration with ER, for ma, has to do
with her as she kills every scene she's on AFAIC.
Otherwise, the writing in yesterday's ep was pretty awful,
surprisingly coming from John Wells who should (and I'm sure does)
know better than tell the viewers about major events instead of
showing them.
La...@la.com
>Ian J. Ball <IJB...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>I agree that the last 3-5 minutes of the show with Dr. Ross was a rather
>>abrupt way to end things (but how many people think that Carol will be
>>joining Doug out West when her contract is up next season?!), but I
>
> The thing that irritated me was the way Doug insisted on
>leaving the entire region of the country. What, there are at least
>12 more good hospitals within a stone's throw? And over a hundred
>within commuting distance? What about private practice? I thought
>the "I must leave" part was *very* lame and had no reason at all
>behind it. To give Carol an ultimatum like that proves that they
>aren't even remotely close to being ready to marry.
I guess that's one of the many things Ross did that were out of
character and pretty much bad writing. Almost every scene between
them felt contrived by the "his contract is finished, not hers
situation" and his leaving town was completely without any rationale.
La...@la.com
>In rec.arts.tv Ian J. Ball <IJB...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> I realize that it's almost as in vogue now to bash "ER" as it is to bash
>> Congressional Republicans, but I thought last night's episode was great,
>> especially the first 30 minutes, which gave us the non-stop adrenaline
>> rush we used to get a lot more of in "ER".
>
>::emphatic nod:: I loved the first thirty minutes. The high-speed trauma
>drama is one of the things I enjoy most about the show.
>
>> I agree that the last 3-5 minutes of the show with Dr. Ross was a rather
>> abrupt way to end things (but how many people think that Carol will be
>> joining Doug out West when her contract is up next season?!), but I
>> thought the episode was pretty good aside from that. (And Clooney's
>> departure was no more abrupt than Sheryy Stringfield's.)
>
>I had some serious problems with the final Doug/Carol scene, and the whole
>thing left me actually mad at Ross. There has been some mention of it in
>other threads, but someone else reminded me of this one - when Doug's
>looking at - *right at* - Carol, and says "There's nothing for me here" I
>just wanted to shoot him.
As I said, no one would say that. It was bad writing in action.
Rather sad really.
La...@la.com
>In article
><IJBall-1902...@pool004-max14.ds19-ca-us.dialup.earthlink.net>,
>IJB...@aol.com (Ian J. Ball) wrote:
>
>>I realize that it's almost as in vogue now to bash "ER" as it is to bash
>>Congressional Republicans, but I thought last night's episode was great,
>>especially the first 30 minutes, which gave us the non-stop adrenaline
>>rush we used to get a lot more of in "ER".
>
>That's precisely what I was thinking. Ignoring the subplot about Doug
>Ross, the rest of the episode was as classic as they get.
>
>>I agree that the last 3-5 minutes of the show with Dr. Ross was a rather
>>abrupt way to end things (but how many people think that Carol will be
>>joining Doug out West when her contract is up next season?!), but I
>>thought the episode was pretty good aside from that. (And Clooney's
>>departure was no more abrupt than Sheryy Stringfield's.)
>
>And I thought Doug's conversation with Carol was quite in character. It
>was the same old selfish Doug we got to know years ago. Notice that he
>didn't even consider staying in Chicago (presumably going to another
>hospital or into private practice) so he could be with Carol. Either she
>follows him or they're through. He didn't even try proposing to her. He
>expects her to give up everything for him, while he's not willing to do
>anything for her.
>
>We all thought Doug had grown, but this episode shows that he hasn't
>really changed much at all.
IMHO it just shows a writer changing the characters to suit his plot.
Steve Bartman
>Ian J. Ball <IJB...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>I agree that the last 3-5 minutes of the show with Dr. Ross was a rather
>>abrupt way to end things (but how many people think that Carol will be
>>joining Doug out West when her contract is up next season?!), but I
>
> The thing that irritated me was the way Doug insisted on
>leaving the entire region of the country. What, there are at least
>12 more good hospitals within a stone's throw? And over a hundred
>within commuting distance? What about private practice? I thought
>the "I must leave" part was *very* lame and had no reason at all
>behind it. To give Carol an ultimatum like that proves that they
>aren't even remotely close to being ready to marry.
I've been reading dozens of Doug-bashing posts (the majority by females) who
question that his actions were "in character" or try to apply logic to the
situation, as you do above.
For what it's worth my wife had the same reaction you did--"Why doesn't he stay
with the woman he loves and find another job?" My reaction was the opposite,
perhaps male-oriented one. He has just been emasculated. Had his professional
nuts cut off. Doug has never been good at realizing he's at fault, and he's VERY
good at running away. His child, his family, his past, his first whirl with
Carol (before season one), etc. To want to GET AWAY is totally in character IMO.
He thinks everything will be different in Portland. That's his fatal flaw, from
a writing standpoint. Characters never "change"--they only evolve. But they
never really change their spots. Readers/viewers don't want them to. And running
from humiliation, even at great personal cost, is totally in character for this
guy. (Especially when he was "beaten" in large measure by a female--Weaver.)
I don't buy the romantic argument that Love Conquers All and he could go work in
a suburban clinic. Never happen with this guy. Carol never had a chance BECAUSE
the writers know their craft, not despite it.
Steve
La...@la.com
>ra...@typhoon.xnet.com (Heather Garvey) wrote:
>
>>Ian J. Ball <IJB...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>I agree that the last 3-5 minutes of the show with Dr. Ross was a rather
>>>abrupt way to end things (but how many people think that Carol will be
>>>joining Doug out West when her contract is up next season?!), but I
>>
>> The thing that irritated me was the way Doug insisted on
>>leaving the entire region of the country. What, there are at least
>>12 more good hospitals within a stone's throw? And over a hundred
>>within commuting distance? What about private practice? I thought
>>the "I must leave" part was *very* lame and had no reason at all
>>behind it. To give Carol an ultimatum like that proves that they
>>aren't even remotely close to being ready to marry.
>
>I've been reading dozens of Doug-bashing posts (the majority by females) who
>question that his actions were "in character" or try to apply logic to the
>situation, as you do above.
>
>For what it's worth my wife had the same reaction you did--"Why doesn't he stay
>with the woman he loves and find another job?" My reaction was the opposite,
>perhaps male-oriented one.
Well, I'm a guy too and I side wholeheartedly with your wife. Maybe
you'll remember the episodes where he was offered a job in a rich
private practice. There was no expressed reason why he could not
stay.
> He has just been emasculated. Had his professional
>nuts cut off. Doug has never been good at realizing he's at fault, and he's VERY
>good at running away. His child, his family, his past, his first whirl with
>Carol (before season one), etc. To want to GET AWAY is totally in character IMO.
IMHO, what would have been in character is his resigning before
talking to Carol, which he didn't quite do. His wanting to go away
from Chicago was completely unjustified and out of character as his
character had evolved (I wouldn't have bought it either if the same
thing had happened the first season either though).
>He thinks everything will be different in Portland. That's his fatal flaw, from
>a writing standpoint. Characters never "change"--they only evolve. But they
>never really change their spots. Readers/viewers don't want them to. And running
>from humiliation, even at great personal cost, is totally in character for this
>guy. (Especially when he was "beaten" in large measure by a female--Weaver.)
Once again, there was no reason proposed for his going to the Pacific
Northwest, except ofr a job offer that I could not remember had been
planted. Face it, they changed the character to suit the plot. :)
>
>I don't buy the romantic argument that Love Conquers All and he could go work in
>a suburban clinic.
Who said he would be in a suburban clinic. He had been offered a
plush job before. There's NO reason why he'd get another one in
Seattle rather than Chicago.
> Never happen with this guy. Carol never had a chance BECAUSE
>the writers know their craft, not despite it.
Being a writer myself, I have to disagree with you. The whole exit
was poorly plotted. I might have gone for it if he had been offered a
great job in Seattle and had been agonizing over it in the previous
episodes. But no, no planting, no foreshadowing. As someone else
puts it, it was handled like George Clooney told them last month he's
leaving.
>
>Steve
Jennifer Hardy
La...@LA.com wrote in article <36ce4b25...@news.pacificnet.net>...
> sbar...@ix.netcom.com (Steve Bartman) wrote:
>
> >I've been reading dozens of Doug-bashing posts (the majority by females)
who
> >question that his actions were "in character" or try to apply logic to
the
> >situation, as you do above.
> >
> >For what it's worth my wife had the same reaction you did--"Why doesn't
he stay
> >with the woman he loves and find another job?" My reaction was the
opposite,
> >perhaps male-oriented one.
>
> Well, I'm a guy too and I side wholeheartedly with your wife. Maybe
> you'll remember the episodes where he was offered a job in a rich
> private practice. There was no expressed reason why he could not
> stay.
Well, I'm not a guy (i.e. I'm female - could ya guess from my name?) and I
completely understood Doug's motives in wanting to get as far away from
Chicago as possible. His friends and colleagues no longer trusted him, he
was primarily responsible for the damage done to their careers.....if
that's not reason enough to want a fresh start, I'm not sure what is!
> > He has just been emasculated. Had his professional
> >nuts cut off. Doug has never been good at realizing he's at fault, and
he's VERY
> >good at running away. His child, his family, his past, his first whirl
with
> >Carol (before season one), etc. To want to GET AWAY is totally in
character IMO.
>
> IMHO, what would have been in character is his resigning before
> talking to Carol, which he didn't quite do. His wanting to go away
> from Chicago was completely unjustified and out of character as his
> character had evolved (I wouldn't have bought it either if the same
> thing had happened the first season either though).
I don't understand why so many people think that leaving Chicago is such an
evil act that is completely out of character. As far as it being
unjustified, I know Chicago is a big city but most professions are very
"incestuous" (for want of a better word). I've worked for many charities
here in Toronto and we all know not only each other but the relevant
medical experts in each field through the entire province of Ontario
(further clarification - Ontario equals approx. 5-6 *large* states in land
area). I'm fairly certain the same dynamic exists in the States. Doug
mentioned that he liked the Pacific Northwest during his
residency/internship (can't really remember - I just know he's been there
before). Why wouldn't he go somewhere he enjoys and has been offered a
job?
> >He thinks everything will be different in Portland. That's his fatal
flaw, from
> >a writing standpoint. Characters never "change"--they only evolve. But
they
> >never really change their spots. Readers/viewers don't want them to. And
running
> >from humiliation, even at great personal cost, is totally in character
for this
> >guy. (Especially when he was "beaten" in large measure by a
female--Weaver.)
>
> Once again, there was no reason proposed for his going to the Pacific
> Northwest, except ofr a job offer that I could not remember had been
> planted. Face it, they changed the character to suit the plot. :)
Completely disagree - see above post.
> >I don't buy the romantic argument that Love Conquers All and he could go
work in
> >a suburban clinic.
>
> Who said he would be in a suburban clinic. He had been offered a
> plush job before. There's NO reason why he'd get another one in
> Seattle rather than Chicago.
Except for the fact that he had been implicated in case where a young boy
died (justified, I know) and it was about to be revealed that he had
deliberately screwed up a federal drug study. Do you honestly think he
would have had job offers rolling in from his colleagues in Chicago?
> > Never happen with this guy. Carol never had a chance BECAUSE
> >the writers know their craft, not despite it.
>
> Being a writer myself, I have to disagree with you. The whole exit
> was poorly plotted. I might have gone for it if he had been offered a
> great job in Seattle and had been agonizing over it in the previous
> episodes. But no, no planting, no foreshadowing. As someone else
> puts it, it was handled like George Clooney told them last month he's
> leaving.
As a writer yourself, I'm surprised at you. For the past five years, one
of the most obvious and consistent aspects of Doug's personality has been
his impulsiveness. And yet you say this is out of character?
Sorry, I just don't get all these complaints, especially by writers who I
would expect would understand the motiviations of the character in
question.
Jennifer
P. A. Behrer
[snipped]
> As a writer yourself, I'm surprised at you. For the past five years, one
> of the most obvious and consistent aspects of Doug's personality has been
> his impulsiveness. And yet you say this is out of character?
>
> Sorry, I just don't get all these complaints, especially by writers who I
> would expect would understand the motiviations of the character in
> question.
Simply stated, Doug has changed in his personal life and his commitment
to Carol. Surely you don't suggest that his character is the same now as
it was during season 1? His personal life changed, his professional
dealings have yet to change as much.
Can you imagine Season 5 Doug slugging a parent or being unfaithful to
Carol? I'm not a writer, but I can still see that Wells simply went
overboard and expected us to forget the transformation we've seen in
Doug. Not with regard to his disregard for rules, I don't have a
problem with that, but certainly in his actions in the past episode
toward Carol. More coming soon in the Summary/Review for ALT.TV.ER.
--
Phyl ~~ beh...@flash.net
~ Michael Jordan ~
~ Best that ever was ~
~ Best that ever will be ~
La...@la.com
La...@la.com
>Sorry guys, I'm not snipping as much as usual so this is going to be long!
>
>La...@LA.com wrote in article <36ce4b25...@news.pacificnet.net>...
>> sbar...@ix.netcom.com (Steve Bartman) wrote:
>>
>> >I've been reading dozens of Doug-bashing posts (the majority by females)
>who
>> >question that his actions were "in character" or try to apply logic to
>the
>> >situation, as you do above.
>> >
>> >For what it's worth my wife had the same reaction you did--"Why doesn't
>he stay
>> >with the woman he loves and find another job?" My reaction was the
>opposite,
>> >perhaps male-oriented one.
>>
>> Well, I'm a guy too and I side wholeheartedly with your wife. Maybe
>> you'll remember the episodes where he was offered a job in a rich
>> private practice. There was no expressed reason why he could not
>> stay.
>
>
>Well, I'm not a guy (i.e. I'm female - could ya guess from my name?) and I
>completely understood Doug's motives in wanting to get as far away from
>Chicago as possible. His friends and colleagues no longer trusted him, he
>was primarily responsible for the damage done to their careers.....if
>that's not reason enough to want a fresh start, I'm not sure what is!
Then why didn't he say so? :)
>
>
>> > He has just been emasculated. Had his professional
>> >nuts cut off. Doug has never been good at realizing he's at fault, and
>he's VERY
>> >good at running away. His child, his family, his past, his first whirl
>with
>> >Carol (before season one), etc. To want to GET AWAY is totally in
>character IMO.
>>
>> IMHO, what would have been in character is his resigning before
>> talking to Carol, which he didn't quite do. His wanting to go away
>> from Chicago was completely unjustified and out of character as his
>> character had evolved (I wouldn't have bought it either if the same
>> thing had happened the first season either though).
>
>
>I don't understand why so many people think that leaving Chicago is such an
>evil act that is completely out of character.
It's not an evil act, but is out of character IMO. He just says he's
leaving, but never explains why.
> As far as it being
>unjustified, I know Chicago is a big city but most professions are very
>"incestuous" (for want of a better word). I've worked for many charities
>here in Toronto and we all know not only each other but the relevant
>medical experts in each field through the entire province of Ontario
>(further clarification - Ontario equals approx. 5-6 *large* states in land
>area). I'm fairly certain the same dynamic exists in the States.
That's bad writing because it demands in order to be "understood" a
leap of explanation to fill in the monstrously huge blanks. This may
very well be what John Wells had in mind, but it did not come across,
at least not to my satisfaction.
> Doug
>mentioned that he liked the Pacific Northwest during his
>residency/internship (can't really remember - I just know he's been there
>before). Why wouldn't he go somewhere he enjoys and has been offered a
>job?
Also, none of this was planted and used before, they were just quick
rationalizations (too quick - I had a;lready forgotten about him
having studied there) that were not so much out of character as out of
a magic hat.
>
>
>> >He thinks everything will be different in Portland. That's his fatal
>flaw, from
>> >a writing standpoint. Characters never "change"--they only evolve. But
>they
>> >never really change their spots. Readers/viewers don't want them to. And
>running
>> >from humiliation, even at great personal cost, is totally in character
>for this
>> >guy. (Especially when he was "beaten" in large measure by a
>female--Weaver.)
>>
>> Once again, there was no reason proposed for his going to the Pacific
>> Northwest, except ofr a job offer that I could not remember had been
>> planted. Face it, they changed the character to suit the plot. :)
>
>
>Completely disagree - see above post.
You can believe what you want and rationalize away what they've done
to make it make sense a posteriori, but it does not erase that the
writing was terrible, at least in my not so humble view. :)
>
>
>> >I don't buy the romantic argument that Love Conquers All and he could go
>work in
>> >a suburban clinic.
>>
>> Who said he would be in a suburban clinic. He had been offered a
>> plush job before. There's NO reason why he'd get another one in
>> Seattle rather than Chicago.
>
>
>Except for the fact that he had been implicated in case where a young boy
>died (justified, I know) and it was about to be revealed that he had
>deliberately screwed up a federal drug study. Do you honestly think he
>would have had job offers rolling in from his colleagues in Chicago?
I wouldn't know. It's something a bit of screen time should have been
devoted to. That's something that would have allowed us to go deeper
into the character and understand his motivation. That's what John
Wells would have done a few years back.
>
>
>> > Never happen with this guy. Carol never had a chance BECAUSE
>> >the writers know their craft, not despite it.
>>
>> Being a writer myself, I have to disagree with you. The whole exit
>> was poorly plotted. I might have gone for it if he had been offered a
>> great job in Seattle and had been agonizing over it in the previous
>> episodes. But no, no planting, no foreshadowing. As someone else
>> puts it, it was handled like George Clooney told them last month he's
>> leaving.
>
>
>As a writer yourself, I'm surprised at you. For the past five years, one
>of the most obvious and consistent aspects of Doug's personality has been
>his impulsiveness. And yet you say this is out of character?
Absolutely, I might have bought if he had just ran off, never to be
seen again until in a phone call to Hattaway five weeks later, but he
faced her reasoned with her (traces of what his character had become)
and then proceeded to leave. BTW, it was also awful writing that
Carol is the one who gave us the information that he was leaving right
away. How did she know? Another key conversation that was not shown?
>
>Sorry, I just don't get all these complaints, especially by writers who I
>would expect would understand the motiviations of the character in
>question.
Well, maybe I do and you don't :))
Seriously, sorry to be so argumentative, but that episode was very
lame in the writing department and represents to me one of the (if not
the) cardinal sins that a show should never do, which is to change the
characters to fit the plot, a sin commited many times by The X-Files.
I sincerely hope that ER is not going down the same path.
>
>Jennifer
Shelwood
>>Well, I'm not a guy (i.e. I'm female - could ya guess from my name?) and I
>>completely understood Doug's motives in wanting to get as far away from
>>Chicago as possible. His friends and colleagues no longer trusted him, he
>>was primarily responsible for the damage done to their careers.....if
>>that's not reason enough to want a fresh start, I'm not sure what is!
>
i agree... one thing that hasn't been mentioned is Ross' scene with the boy's
father. my take was that one big reason Ross wanted to run away was because he
had finally realized that he was, in fact, wrong. when it finally sunk in that
the father was upset because he couldn't be there when the boy died, all of
Doug's denial went down the drain. he couldn't justify his actions anymore,
and the reality of the situation hit him in the face -- that there was no way
he could fight whatever was coming at him (punishment, lawsuit). so the
logical thing, from his viewpoint, was to get away while he still could get a
decent job, somewhere where his reputation wouldn't dog him.
i really didn't think it was out of character. despite all of Doug's "growth",
he's a pretty tunnel-visioned person. with the boy, with the drug-addicted
baby, once he made a decision, that's that, even when people tried to dissuade
him or point out the consequences. in his head, he was probably sure Carol
would come with -- she's in hot water, too, after all. the only thing i found
surprising was that he wasn't more disappointed that she wasn't going along
with the program.
Shelley
"and praise will come to those whose kindness/leaves you without debt"
-- Neil Finn
Dennis Handly
: The thing that irritated me was the way Doug insisted on
Maybe the cops told him to get out of town or they would get Andy to
"tune him up"? :-)
I almost thought that that distraught father had killed Doug when I saw
that dark shadow in a room that turned out to be the janitor.
Dennis Handly
: this all may have something to do with the fact that I'm a
: surgeon and have worked trauma in real ERs.
It's the same with my ER resident brother. My dad and I try to ask him
about the show and compare him to Dr Carter, but it is just ho hum to him.
La...@la.com
>
>>>Well, I'm not a guy (i.e. I'm female - could ya guess from my name?) and I
>>>completely understood Doug's motives in wanting to get as far away from
>>>Chicago as possible. His friends and colleagues no longer trusted him, he
>>>was primarily responsible for the damage done to their careers.....if
>>>that's not reason enough to want a fresh start, I'm not sure what is!
>>
>
>i agree... one thing that hasn't been mentioned is Ross' scene with the boy's
>father. my take was that one big reason Ross wanted to run away was because he
>had finally realized that he was, in fact, wrong.
How did you get that. I understood that scene as meaning that he saw
there were consequences to what he had done that he had not thought
about (again..!) not that he was wrong. BTW, the father's character
was also quite strange as he was presented as someone not present in
his son's life at all and then like a caring father. Not exactly
convincing (it would have needed a lot more screen time to become so).
> when it finally sunk in that
>the father was upset because he couldn't be there when the boy died, all of
>Doug's denial went down the drain. he couldn't justify his actions anymore,
>and the reality of the situation hit him in the face -- that there was no way
>he could fight whatever was coming at him (punishment, lawsuit). so the
>logical thing, from his viewpoint, was to get away while he still could get a
>decent job, somewhere where his reputation wouldn't dog him.
A very nice explanation. Wish John Wells had given us one like that.
It would have felt a lot less arbitrary.
>
>i really didn't think it was out of character. despite all of Doug's "growth",
>he's a pretty tunnel-visioned person. with the boy, with the drug-addicted
>baby, once he made a decision, that's that, even when people tried to dissuade
>him or point out the consequences. in his head, he was probably sure Carol
>would come with -- she's in hot water, too, after all. the only thing i found
>surprising was that he wasn't more disappointed that she wasn't going along
>with the program.
Pretty much you're saying it's in line with the "old" Ross (which I
would not quite agree with), so it's in character. That's exactly the
problem I have with it, this screenplay erased months of what had
taken place before. As I said shoddy writing in all its glory. :)
Orac
Handly) wrote:
Part of what has always bothered me about ER is that they portray ER
physicians doing all sorts of procedures that would rarely, if ever, be
done by a real ER physician in a real hospital, mainly because they aren't
trained to do them and wouldn't have time to do them anyway, given the
typical patient load in an ER. For instance, I've seen Mark Greene and the
others do such procedures as: esophagogastroscopy (a.k.a. "upper
endoscopy) for a GI bleed. You'd pretty much NEVER see an ER doctor doing
that. Maybe such a bird as an ER physician trained in endoscopy exists,
but I've never met him. They'd call in a gastroenterologist or a surgeon
trained in endoscopy. I've also seen ER docs do angiography to remove a
pulmonary embolus. That'd NEVER happen, unless the ER doc also happened to
be an invasive radiologist or cardiovascular surgeon. They also seem to do
ER thoracotomies at a much higher rate than I've ever seen in a trama
center, but I can deal with that, because I'm sure the writers do it
because it's more exciting.
I guess the most egregious example of ER physicians was the episode a
couple of seasons back where Mark Greene tried to manage a prolonged,
complicated delivery of a baby in the ER, with disastrous results. Sure,
it was dramatic television, but in a big city hospital, there's no way
that'd happen. That woman would have been whipped up to Labor and Delivery
faster than a wink, regardless of whether or not their was a resident to
come down to evaluater her. If the OB staff was tied up it wouldn't have
taken much to transfer the patient to another nearby hospital. I mean, the
series is set in Chicago, not the middle of Montana, fercrissake! There
are lots of good hospitals within a few miles of each other.
I guess there's such a thing as knowing too much. And, despite all that,
ER still comes closest to getting things right, which is probably why I
get even more irritated by the frequency with which they get things wrong.
Steve Bartman
>>I've been reading dozens of Doug-bashing posts (the majority by females) who
>>question that his actions were "in character" or try to apply logic to the
>>situation, as you do above.
>>
>>For what it's worth my wife had the same reaction you did--"Why doesn't he stay
>>with the woman he loves and find another job?" My reaction was the opposite,
>>perhaps male-oriented one.
>
>Well, I'm a guy too and I side wholeheartedly with your wife. Maybe
>you'll remember the episodes where he was offered a job in a rich
>private practice.
Money does not, and never has, motivated either him or Green.
There was no expressed reason why he could not
>stay.
It's built into the character. Staying has no conflict, no emotional cost. It's
bad drama, and bad writing. Would he have stayed "in real life"? Probably. But
if you're a writer as you say you know that "real life" makes for boring
fiction.
>> He has just been emasculated. Had his professional
>>nuts cut off. Doug has never been good at realizing he's at fault, and he's VERY
>>good at running away. His child, his family, his past, his first whirl with
>>Carol (before season one), etc. To want to GET AWAY is totally in character IMO.
>
>IMHO, what would have been in character is his resigning before
>talking to Carol, which he didn't quite do.
He told management he was gone, which amounts to the same thing. Whether
medicine requires 2-weeks as regular businesses do I'm unsure of, but he'd made
the decision to leave the hospital already.
His wanting to go away
>from Chicago was completely unjustified and out of character as his
>character had evolved (I wouldn't have bought it either if the same
>thing had happened the first season either though).
I argue that what people here are calling evolution was really a thin patina of
"change" overlaid on a structure of narcissism and immaturity. Just as Green is
fundamentally a martyr, and Weaver a controller, Doug is a little boy. He fights
it (some) but when the going gets tough he flees, usually clutching a bottle.
That he's a wonderful doctor who cares deeply about his patients only makes the
character mix better.
>>He thinks everything will be different in Portland. That's his fatal flaw, from
>>a writing standpoint. Characters never "change"--they only evolve. But they
>>never really change their spots. Readers/viewers don't want them to. And running
>>from humiliation, even at great personal cost, is totally in character for this
>>guy. (Especially when he was "beaten" in large measure by a female--Weaver.)
>
>Once again, there was no reason proposed for his going to the Pacific
>Northwest, except ofr a job offer that I could not remember had been
>planted.
The reason is that it isn't Chicago, scene of his total meltdown. That's enough,
for him. He has deep, deep wounds going back to childhood relating to failure
and "not being good enough" (recall his father and Doug's reactions to his sorry
life.) A few months of emotional stroking by Carol aren't going to heal those
kind of phobias, not in the face of the muti-faceted screw-up we've seen the
last four eps.
Face it, they changed the character to suit the plot. :)
Disagree. I'll agree they declined to film a Harlequin novel, complete with
brown sugar ending.
>>I don't buy the romantic argument that Love Conquers All and he could go work in
>>a suburban clinic.
>
>Who said he would be in a suburban clinic. He had been offered a
>plush job before. There's NO reason why he'd get another one in
>Seattle rather than Chicago.
Location, location, location.
>> Never happen with this guy. Carol never had a chance BECAUSE
>>the writers know their craft, not despite it.
>
>Being a writer myself, I have to disagree with you. The whole exit
>was poorly plotted.
I myself have a novel with an agent now, and am deeply into number two. I'll
agree that the writers had a tough job--the whole world has known he was leaving
the show for a year. Would any approach have satisfyed all? No. What's to be
gained by easing him into a nice, green pasture and leaving us to imagine Carol
going home to nuptual bliss? Bad drama again. This is a show all about stress
and pain. Happy endings are easy; I'm glad they didn't choke.
I might have gone for it if he had been offered a
>great job in Seattle and had been agonizing over it in the previous
>episodes. But no, no planting, no foreshadowing.
Good writing doesn't always require foreshadowing. In fact, it's often done to
help lazy readers/viewers. This was a crisis point for Doug--in his mind there
was no time to dwaddle, with his pants around his ankles and a big spotlight on
his failure--so he bolted. Why is it so hard to consider logic may not be at
play here? Not all decisions are logical--spend some time selling shoes if you
disbelieve me. <g>
As someone else
>puts it, it was handled like George Clooney told them last month he's
>leaving.
The build-up began when the terminal child (Joi's son) was introed. What's that,
four eps? I forget. But hardly sudden. Of course he didn't know he was going to
be up on murder charges when Joi walked in, so the writers could hardly have
begun discussing a move to Portland then, right? Sudden twist of fate, coupled
with inherent behavior patterns displayed over five years. Works for me.
I expect I'm in the minority, which is fine. It's certainly arguable, and I
imagine it was the topic of a lot of script meetings. But one of the reasons I
like ER more than other shows is they're willing to hang it out and NOT give the
sugar-coated resolution. Life is like that sometimes.
Steve
john merrill
FOR? DOES ANYBODY KNOW mrbigjohn
Kritter
P. A. Behrer wrote:
> La...@LA.com wrote:
> >
> > sbar...@ix.netcom.com (Steve Bartman) wrote:
> >
> > >La...@LA.com wrote:
> > >
> > >>>I've been reading dozens of Doug-bashing posts (the majority by females) who
> > >>>question that his actions were "in character" or try to apply logic to the
> > >>>situation, as you do above.
> > >>>
> > >>>For what it's worth my wife had the same reaction you did--"Why doesn't he stay
> > >>>with the woman he loves and find another job?" My reaction was the opposite,
> > >>>perhaps male-oriented one.
> > >>
> > >>Well, I'm a guy too and I side wholeheartedly with your wife. Maybe
> > >>you'll remember the episodes where he was offered a job in a rich
> > >>private practice.
> > >
> > >Money does not, and never has, motivated either him or Green.
> > >
> > > There was no expressed reason why he could not
> > >>stay.
> > >
> > >It's built into the character. Staying has no conflict, no emotional cost. It's
> > >bad drama, and bad writing. Would he have stayed "in real life"? Probably. But
> > >if you're a writer as you say you know that "real life" makes for boring
> > >fiction.
> >
> > So you're saying that he would have left if his contract hadn't been
> > up? I don't think so... :)
> >
> > >
> > >>> He has just been emasculated. Had his professional
> > >>>nuts cut off. Doug has never been good at realizing he's at fault, and he's VERY
> > >>>good at running away. His child, his family, his past, his first whirl with
> > >>>Carol (before season one), etc. To want to GET AWAY is totally in character IMO.
>
> After his total devotion to Carol, after his willingness to put up with
> her stalling, her faux pas with Greg Powell, his rock steady
> companionship, there's no way that this Doug would run away from Carol.
> No way. The writers tried to set us up for this possibility, putting
> Heather on the screen (a sexual partner from season 3), talking to Mark
> about "old restlessness" but they were mere ploys and unbelievable.
> There was nothing in this character that I've seen since the day he
> brought Nadine Wilkes into the hospital dying that would convince me
> that he could walk away from Carol as she's sobbing with sadness.
See other post about Doug bieng heartbroken too, and dealing with it this way.
> It wasn't just the thing with Carol, though. The Doug Ross I've seen
> professionally, though he is rash and does not act with forethought,
> would never have been party to hastening the death of a child. Plain
> and simple. That was a stretch for me. Again, it's not because I'm a
> woman that I say this, it's because the writers created him and I
> believed them when they created him, when they made certain adjustments
> to him, and then over the past two weeks it was as though they said,
> "Oh, forget about the last few years, okay? Forget what we told you
> about Doug through over 100 episodes. We just need to change that a
> bit."
It seemed perfectly in character to me. Doug didn't start out to prolong children's
lives, he tried to make them as pain free as possible. Remember the cystic fibrosis kis
in season 3 (I think)? If what you're saying is true, Doug would have had that kid
intubated against his wishes and not pressure the mother for a DNR. That boy was going
to die, no matter what Doug did, and he didn't want to subject the kid to painful,
unnecassary procedures to prolong his life. And, DOUG DID NOT KILL RICKY ABBOTT
(directly). He gave the mother the means to kill him.
You say "hasting the death of a child." Look at Cystic Fibrosis kid (and don't tell me
he was almost 18, I know, and that makes little to no difference here). Getting a DNR
order would haten his death. Holding off the intubation probably hastened his death.
When the kid is worth saving, of course Doug does everything in his power to save the
kid, but, with the two above mentioned cases, both of those kids were gonna die, no
matter what Doug or anyone else did. He wanted them, if he could save them, to go
through as little pain as possible. The whole Ricky thing was in character. Unless I'm
missing something.
> >>
> > >>IMHO, what would have been in character is his resigning before
> > >>talking to Carol, which he didn't quite do.
> > >
> > >He told management he was gone, which amounts to the same thing. Whether
> > >medicine requires 2-weeks as regular businesses do I'm unsure of, but he'd made
> > >the decision to leave the hospital already.
> > >
> > > His wanting to go away
> > >>from Chicago was completely unjustified and out of character as his
> > >>character had evolved (I wouldn't have bought it either if the same
> > >>thing had happened the first season either though).
> > >
> > >I argue that what people here are calling evolution was really a thin patina of
> > >"change" overlaid on a structure of narcissism and immaturity. Just as Green is
> > >fundamentally a martyr, and Weaver a controller, Doug is a little boy. He fights
> > >it (some) but when the going gets tough he flees, usually clutching a bottle.
> > >That he's a wonderful doctor who cares deeply about his patients only makes the
> > >character mix better.
> > >
> > >>>He thinks everything will be different in Portland. That's his fatal flaw, from
> > >>>a writing standpoint. Characters never "change"--they only evolve. But they
> > >>>never really change their spots.
>
> Are you saying then that we can expect this character to cheat on Carol
> in the future, becaause he's never changed?
No, evolved means basically the same thing as change, with the exception that the
"original" is still under there and the person can still de-evolve.
>
>
> Readers/viewers don't want them to. And running
> > >>>from humiliation, even at great personal cost, is totally in character for this
> > >>>guy. (Especially when he was "beaten" in large measure by a female--Weaver.)
>
> I certainly wanted him to change, and he did, personally, from a
> drunken, womanizing cad to a faithful partner, in love with Carol.
> That's phase one. He needs to address his professional life next. As
> for your other statement, I don't buy it. He's not "running" away as
> much as he's leaving so he doesn't cause any more damage to Mark, Carol,
> or the hospital.
>
> > >>Once again, there was no reason proposed for his going to the Pacific
> > >>Northwest, except ofr a job offer that I could not remember had been
> > >>planted.
> > >
> > >The reason is that it isn't Chicago, scene of his total meltdown. That's enough,
> > >for him. He has deep, deep wounds going back to childhood relating to failure
> > >and "not being good enough" (recall his father and Doug's reactions to his sorry
> > >life.) A few months of emotional stroking by Carol aren't going to heal those
> > >kind of phobias, not in the face of the muti-faceted screw-up we've seen the
> > >last four eps.
>
> Actually, the "reason" is because we can't go to Carol's house for any
> scenes if he's supposed to be working in Chicago, unless they do the old
> "talking to Doug behind the bathroom door" lame kind of thing. So, the
> reason isn't as much character-driven as it is logistically-driven.
Huh? Say again please! :-) I missed that.
Live long and prosper,
Kritter :-)
Kritter
P. A. Behrer wrote:
Kritter wrote:
[snipped]
>
> > It wasn't just the thing with Carol, though. The Doug Ross I've seen
> > professionally, though he is rash and does not act with forethought,
> > would never have been party to hastening the death of a child. Plain
> > and simple. That was a stretch for me. Again, it's not because I'm a
> > woman that I say this, it's because the writers created him and I
> > believed them when they created him, when they made certain adjustments
> > to him, and then over the past two weeks it was as though they said,
> > "Oh, forget about the last few years, okay? Forget what we told you
> > about Doug through over 100 episodes. We just need to change that a
> > bit."
>
> It seemed perfectly in character to me. Doug didn't start out to prolong children's
> lives, he tried to make them as pain free as possible. Remember the cystic fibrosis kis
> in season 3 (I think)? If what you're saying is true, Doug would have had that kid
> intubated against his wishes and not pressure the mother for a DNR. That boy was going
> to die, no matter what Doug did, and he didn't want to subject the kid to painful,
> unnecassary procedures to prolong his life. And, DOUG DID NOT KILL RICKY ABBOTT
> (directly). He gave the mother the means to kill him.
Hmm, I have to watch that again. :-)Well, no, it was out of character. Doug was willing to "not" intubate
when it seemed that Jad was an adult and made his own decision regarding
DNR. Once he found out he was legally a child, he intubated him. Kerry
had to prod Doug then to talk to Mrs. Hueston about removing him from
life support.
There's an ethical difference between removing aI'll say it agian. Doud DID NOT inject the pain killers, his mother did.
breathing tube and injecting enough pain killer to cause breathing to
stop. I know it's a matter of semantics, but Doug when Doug extubated
Jad, he did so because Jad had finally turned 18 and decided he didn't
want artificial means to live.
Days. If there was a way to give Ricky days, I would totally agree with you. But, there was no way, NO WAY Doug could have given Ricky more time. With Chia Chia, he had a chance (a very small one) to prolong his life. Doug uses those "hopes" and tries for those miracles. But, Ricky was not going to do that, there was no chance at all, and Doug saw that. It's really an ethical question, and those depends wholly on the circumstances. In this particular situation, I see no fault with the characterization.There's the matter of Chia-Chia, the little boy with AIDS whom Doug
wanted to keep alive at any cost. He wanted to give him high doses of
antibiotics through his spinal tract to give his mother a few days more
with her child. Mark put an end to it, saying Doug was hoping for a
miracle. Doug retorted, "If it was your kid you would bet on a miracle."So, it seemed wholly out of character for Doug to do this.
>
> You say "hasting the death of a child." Look at Cystic Fibrosis kid (and don't tell me
> he was almost 18, I know, and that makes little to no difference here).
DOUG DID NOT DO ANYTHING TO RICKY ABBOTT!!!!! (Sorry, but I'm getting tired of repeating myself :-)) He gave the mother the means to do so. He gave her , at most, the oppurtunity to, as you say "hasten Ricky's death" and we do not know if she took it or not. *Grrrrr at the writers*[snipped]
Again, there's a difference between using extraordinary means to prolong
life versus hastening death.
> > > >I argue that what people here are calling evolution was really a thin patina of
> > > >"change" overlaid on a structure of narcissism and immaturity. Just as Green is
> > > >fundamentally a martyr, and Weaver a controller, Doug is a little boy. He fights
> > > >it (some) but when the going gets tough he flees, usually clutching a bottle.
> > > >That he's a wonderful doctor who cares deeply about his patients only makes the
> > > >character mix better.
> > > >
> > > >>>He thinks everything will be different in Portland. That's his fatal flaw, from
> > > >>>a writing standpoint. Characters never "change"--they only evolve. But they
> > > >>>never really change their spots.
> > Are you saying then that we can expect this character to cheat on Carol
> > in the future, becaause he's never changed?
>
> No, evolved means basically the same thing as change, with the exception that the
> "original" is still under there and the person can still de-evolve.
Depends on the situation. Like you said above, it's a matter of semantics. "Evolve" and "change" mean essintally the same thing, but under certain circumstances, part of themselves that they have gained may wear away and expose what used to be. The core of them, if you will. Mabye, if circumstances were right (I don't know what would cause this right now, but I'll figure it out if you want) he might cheat on Carol. I wouldn't necessarrly (I've used about 5 different spellings for this word now :-)) *expect* it, but it's a plausible event ( I sincerly hope not, I love D/C, but it's a possibility).The question still stands unanswered. The whole point someone made was
that we could have expected the behavior we saw from Doug because
characters don't change. I disagree. So, would you expect him to
"devolve" and sleep with someone else, cheating on Carol?
We saw that behaviour
> > Actually, the "reason" is because we can't go to Carol's house for any
> > scenes if he's supposed to be working in Chicago, unless they do the old
> > "talking to Doug behind the bathroom door" lame kind of thing. So, the
> > reason isn't as much character-driven as it is logistically-driven.
>
> Huh? Say again please! :-) I missed that.
Yea! Takes me a litle while, but I gets it! Hehehe.Okay, I'll try again. There is no "character-driven" reason for Doug to
have chosen to move to Portland. It is because for the show's sake,
Doug *has* to be gone so we don't wonder where he is. Therefore, the
character's motives had to fit into what the show needed. They
re-molded Doug to fit the show's needs, and they remolded him in a way I
find to be unrealistic. I didn't feel this way when Susan left because
they didn't have to remold her, it was a natural progression. However,
with Doug, the progression was forced and unnatural.Get it now? :)
I don't think Portland is unnatural for Doug. He wants to run
as far away as he can from this whole thing. With Susan, she had
a clear, solid reason (Baby Susie) to go to Phoenix. Doug had more
of an emotional reason. I don't find the arc to be "un-realistic,"
I find it to be an arc about the "core" of him, what he is and always will
be in a way. I've said it before, but.....
Doug Ross is a character that is, and will always be, somewhat reckless, impulsive, and scared of commitment. I didn't see anything out of character for him here.And the character is still impulsive, look at the Josh McNeil case or Ricky (giving meds not considering the risk to the hospital if found out). He made his decision, and he hoped (mabye even believed) that the hospital wouldn't find out, or Mark and Kerry wouldn't find him, or that Carol would come with him. All of these happened, and he was unprepared to deal with the reprucussions.
La...@la.com
>La...@LA.com wrote:
>
>>>I've been reading dozens of Doug-bashing posts (the majority by females) who
>>>question that his actions were "in character" or try to apply logic to the
>>>situation, as you do above.
>>>
>>>For what it's worth my wife had the same reaction you did--"Why doesn't he stay
>>>with the woman he loves and find another job?" My reaction was the opposite,
>>>perhaps male-oriented one.
>>
>>Well, I'm a guy too and I side wholeheartedly with your wife. Maybe
>>you'll remember the episodes where he was offered a job in a rich
>>private practice.
>
>Money does not, and never has, motivated either him or Green.
>
> There was no expressed reason why he could not
>>stay.
>
>It's built into the character. Staying has no conflict, no emotional cost. It's
>bad drama, and bad writing. Would he have stayed "in real life"? Probably. But
>if you're a writer as you say you know that "real life" makes for boring
>fiction.
So you're saying that he would have left if his contract hadn't been
up? I don't think so... :)
>
They elected instead to film an incoherent pile of manure, full of
illogical out-of-character actions..
>
>>>I don't buy the romantic argument that Love Conquers All and he could go work in
>>>a suburban clinic.
>>
>>Who said he would be in a suburban clinic. He had been offered a
>>plush job before. There's NO reason why he'd get another one in
>>Seattle rather than Chicago.
>
>Location, location, location.
Remeber there's a good reason for him to stay in Chicago, the love of
his life. There truly is nothing for him elsewhere, another reason
why the dialogue was absurd.
>
>>> Never happen with this guy. Carol never had a chance BECAUSE
>>>the writers know their craft, not despite it.
>>
>>Being a writer myself, I have to disagree with you. The whole exit
>>was poorly plotted.
>
>I myself have a novel with an agent now, and am deeply into number two. I'll
>agree that the writers had a tough job--the whole world has known he was leaving
>the show for a year. Would any approach have satisfyed all? No. What's to be
>gained by easing him into a nice, green pasture and leaving us to imagine Carol
>going home to nuptual bliss? Bad drama again.
Why would that be bad drama? Is every Hollywood movie with a happy
ending bad drama. I don't think so. To turn you're argument around,
I do not see what was gained by having him behave in what I would
describe as out of character. They could have taken the same incident
and taken it to a logical conclusion instead of that tripe.
> This is a show all about stress
>and pain. Happy endings are easy; I'm glad they didn't choke.
But they did... Badly. Someone else mentioned Dr. :Lewis' departure
and I thought that was a good example of what to do. I never once
questionned her character's motivations as they were anchored in a
year's worth of events. Unfortunately, the writers failed to plan for
Ross' departure even with three years' notice.
>
> I might have gone for it if he had been offered a
>>great job in Seattle and had been agonizing over it in the previous
>>episodes. But no, no planting, no foreshadowing.
>
>Good writing doesn't always require foreshadowing. In fact, it's often done to
>help lazy readers/viewers. This was a crisis point for Doug--in his mind there
>was no time to dwaddle, with his pants around his ankles and a big spotlight on
>his failure--so he bolted. Why is it so hard to consider logic may not be at
>play here? Not all decisions are logical--spend some time selling shoes if you
>disbelieve me. <g>
:)
Sorry, but I'll have to disagree with you here. Forshadowing, while
not indispensible is a trademark of good writing and allows you to do
something very useful in a long-running TV show, keep the characters
in character. When you foreshadow, you have to plan your plot, not
change your characters to fit your plot.
>
> As someone else
>>puts it, it was handled like George Clooney told them last month he's
>>leaving.
>
>The build-up began when the terminal child (Joi's son) was introed. What's that,
>four eps? I forget. But hardly sudden. Of course he didn't know he was going to
>be up on murder charges when Joi walked in, so the writers could hardly have
>begun discussing a move to Portland then, right?
Of course they could have. His move to Portland would have been a lot
more believable if the seed of his being interested in a different
position has been sown ten eps ago. Actually, now that I think of it,
something really cool they could have done is plant a couple more
hints as to why he might leave (red herrings as it were) to would have
kept the audience guessing (kind of his destiny calling him away from
Chicago).
> Sudden twist of fate, coupled
>with inherent behavior patterns displayed over five years. Works for me.
I wouldn't describe it that way (obviously) and it really didn't work
for me. They're lucky they have such great actors as I think you'd
have seen what idiotic plot this was if say, Kellie Martin had
delivered the lines :)
>
>I expect I'm in the minority, which is fine. It's certainly arguable, and I
>imagine it was the topic of a lot of script meetings.
Probably one of the reasons of the fiasco. Too many cooks...
P. A. Behrer
After his total devotion to Carol, after his willingness to put up with
her stalling, her faux pas with Greg Powell, his rock steady
companionship, there's no way that this Doug would run away from Carol.
No way. The writers tried to set us up for this possibility, putting
Heather on the screen (a sexual partner from season 3), talking to Mark
about "old restlessness" but they were mere ploys and unbelievable.
There was nothing in this character that I've seen since the day he
brought Nadine Wilkes into the hospital dying that would convince me
that he could walk away from Carol as she's sobbing with sadness.
It wasn't just the thing with Carol, though. The Doug Ross I've seen
professionally, though he is rash and does not act with forethought,
would never have been party to hastening the death of a child. Plain
and simple. That was a stretch for me. Again, it's not because I'm a
woman that I say this, it's because the writers created him and I
believed them when they created him, when they made certain adjustments
to him, and then over the past two weeks it was as though they said,
"Oh, forget about the last few years, okay? Forget what we told you
about Doug through over 100 episodes. We just need to change that a
bit."
> >>
> >>IMHO, what would have been in character is his resigning before
> >>talking to Carol, which he didn't quite do.
> >
> >He told management he was gone, which amounts to the same thing. Whether
> >medicine requires 2-weeks as regular businesses do I'm unsure of, but he'd made
> >the decision to leave the hospital already.
> >
> > His wanting to go away
> >>from Chicago was completely unjustified and out of character as his
> >>character had evolved (I wouldn't have bought it either if the same
> >>thing had happened the first season either though).
> >
> >I argue that what people here are calling evolution was really a thin patina of
> >"change" overlaid on a structure of narcissism and immaturity. Just as Green is
> >fundamentally a martyr, and Weaver a controller, Doug is a little boy. He fights
> >it (some) but when the going gets tough he flees, usually clutching a bottle.
> >That he's a wonderful doctor who cares deeply about his patients only makes the
> >character mix better.
> >
> >>>He thinks everything will be different in Portland. That's his fatal flaw, from
> >>>a writing standpoint. Characters never "change"--they only evolve. But they
> >>>never really change their spots.
Are you saying then that we can expect this character to cheat on Carol
in the future, becaause he's never changed?
Readers/viewers don't want them to. And running
> >>>from humiliation, even at great personal cost, is totally in character for this
> >>>guy. (Especially when he was "beaten" in large measure by a female--Weaver.)
I certainly wanted him to change, and he did, personally, from a
drunken, womanizing cad to a faithful partner, in love with Carol.
That's phase one. He needs to address his professional life next. As
for your other statement, I don't buy it. He's not "running" away as
much as he's leaving so he doesn't cause any more damage to Mark, Carol,
or the hospital.
> >>Once again, there was no reason proposed for his going to the Pacific
> >>Northwest, except ofr a job offer that I could not remember had been
> >>planted.
> >
> >The reason is that it isn't Chicago, scene of his total meltdown. That's enough,
> >for him. He has deep, deep wounds going back to childhood relating to failure
> >and "not being good enough" (recall his father and Doug's reactions to his sorry
> >life.) A few months of emotional stroking by Carol aren't going to heal those
> >kind of phobias, not in the face of the muti-faceted screw-up we've seen the
> >last four eps.
Actually, the "reason" is because we can't go to Carol's house for any
scenes if he's supposed to be working in Chicago, unless they do the old
"talking to Doug behind the bathroom door" lame kind of thing. So, the
reason isn't as much character-driven as it is logistically-driven.
> >
> > Face it, they changed the character to suit the plot. :)
> >
> >Disagree. I'll agree they declined to film a Harlequin novel, complete with
> >brown sugar ending.
>
> They elected instead to film an incoherent pile of manure, full of
> illogical out-of-character actions..
LAGuy, I feel the same way as you do. I could have dealt with the fact
that they're not "together" right now, I didn't expect a happy ending at
this point in time, but my whole complaint is that in years past, when
something like this happened, you'd look back and say, "Yup, I can see
it."
Susan Lewis had been unhappy since she lost her niece and she was wholly
dissatisfied at work since the arrival of Kerry Weaver. She knew that
she had feelings for Mark, but we never got the idea that she was madly
in love with him. When she left, I was sad, but the writers had enough
forethought to "restrain" Susan's emotions so I never once thought, "How
could she leave him!" I know Mark was heartbroken, and that's sad, but
it was totally believable.
This time, I didn't buy it for a minute.
P. A. Behrer
[snipped]
>
> > It wasn't just the thing with Carol, though. The Doug Ross I've seen
> > professionally, though he is rash and does not act with forethought,
> > would never have been party to hastening the death of a child. Plain
> > and simple. That was a stretch for me. Again, it's not because I'm a
> > woman that I say this, it's because the writers created him and I
> > believed them when they created him, when they made certain adjustments
> > to him, and then over the past two weeks it was as though they said,
> > "Oh, forget about the last few years, okay? Forget what we told you
> > about Doug through over 100 episodes. We just need to change that a
> > bit."
>
> It seemed perfectly in character to me. Doug didn't start out to prolong children's
> lives, he tried to make them as pain free as possible. Remember the cystic fibrosis kis
> in season 3 (I think)? If what you're saying is true, Doug would have had that kid
> intubated against his wishes and not pressure the mother for a DNR. That boy was going
> to die, no matter what Doug did, and he didn't want to subject the kid to painful,
> unnecassary procedures to prolong his life. And, DOUG DID NOT KILL RICKY ABBOTT
> (directly). He gave the mother the means to kill him.
Well, no, it was out of character. Doug was willing to "not" intubate
when it seemed that Jad was an adult and made his own decision regarding
DNR. Once he found out he was legally a child, he intubated him. Kerry
had to prod Doug then to talk to Mrs. Hueston about removing him from
life support. There's an ethical difference between removing a
breathing tube and injecting enough pain killer to cause breathing to
stop. I know it's a matter of semantics, but Doug when Doug extubated
Jad, he did so because Jad had finally turned 18 and decided he didn't
want artificial means to live.
There's the matter of Chia-Chia, the little boy with AIDS whom Doug
wanted to keep alive at any cost. He wanted to give him high doses of
antibiotics through his spinal tract to give his mother a few days more
with her child. Mark put an end to it, saying Doug was hoping for a
miracle. Doug retorted, "If it was your kid you would bet on a miracle."
So, it seemed wholly out of character for Doug to do this.
>
> You say "hasting the death of a child." Look at Cystic Fibrosis kid (and don't tell me
> he was almost 18, I know, and that makes little to no difference here).
[snipped]
Again, there's a difference between using extraordinary means to prolong
life versus hastening death.
> > > >I argue that what people here are calling evolution was really a thin patina of
> > > >"change" overlaid on a structure of narcissism and immaturity. Just as Green is
> > > >fundamentally a martyr, and Weaver a controller, Doug is a little boy. He fights
> > > >it (some) but when the going gets tough he flees, usually clutching a bottle.
> > > >That he's a wonderful doctor who cares deeply about his patients only makes the
> > > >character mix better.
> > > >
> > > >>>He thinks everything will be different in Portland. That's his fatal flaw, from
> > > >>>a writing standpoint. Characters never "change"--they only evolve. But they
> > > >>>never really change their spots.
> > Are you saying then that we can expect this character to cheat on Carol
> > in the future, becaause he's never changed?
>
> No, evolved means basically the same thing as change, with the exception that the
> "original" is still under there and the person can still de-evolve.
The question still stands unanswered. The whole point someone made was
that we could have expected the behavior we saw from Doug because
characters don't change. I disagree. So, would you expect him to
"devolve" and sleep with someone else, cheating on Carol?
> > Actually, the "reason" is because we can't go to Carol's house for any
> > scenes if he's supposed to be working in Chicago, unless they do the old
> > "talking to Doug behind the bathroom door" lame kind of thing. So, the
> > reason isn't as much character-driven as it is logistically-driven.
>
> Huh? Say again please! :-) I missed that.
Okay, I'll try again. There is no "character-driven" reason for Doug to
have chosen to move to Portland. It is because for the show's sake,
Doug *has* to be gone so we don't wonder where he is. Therefore, the
character's motives had to fit into what the show needed. They
re-molded Doug to fit the show's needs, and they remolded him in a way I
find to be unrealistic. I didn't feel this way when Susan left because
they didn't have to remold her, it was a natural progression. However,
with Doug, the progression was forced and unnatural.
Get it now? :)
--
Steve Bartman
>>It's built into the character. Staying has no conflict, no emotional cost. It's
>>bad drama, and bad writing. Would he have stayed "in real life"? Probably. But
>>if you're a writer as you say you know that "real life" makes for boring
>>fiction.
>
>So you're saying that he would have left if his contract hadn't been
>up? I don't think so... :)
I think we're talking past each other here. By "real life" I was rejecting GC
and the contract and even the show altogether. I was speaking of the average
person placed in this situation "in real life." Not telescoped into a dramatic
scene with only the data we've been shown as subtext. A real-life, complex,
non-time-stressed decision. In that case he might have stayed, but it would have
been boring, as real-life often is.
>> Face it, they changed the character to suit the plot. :)
>>
>>Disagree. I'll agree they declined to film a Harlequin novel, complete with
>>brown sugar ending.
>
>They elected instead to film an incoherent pile of manure, full of
>illogical out-of-character actions..
We're just going to disagree on this I guess. To me, the character of Doug Ross
was formed, by explict promise (a writer knows what that is), five years ago
when he appeared roaring drunk at 0300 in the ER and Mark Greene was awakened
from a sound sleep to bring him down. That's his character. The other majors
were similarly sketched in that show as well. After that you can't change the
core. All actions have to be seen through that looking-glass. And since then
we've certainly seen Doug act in grossly irresponsible ways (showing up drunk at
Carol's door with flowers while Tag was there), as well as touching and even
heroic ways. But always, just below the surface of the action, that Doug from
Season 1, Ep. 1 is there. He has to be, if the character is to have any
validity.
>>Location, location, location.
>
>Remeber there's a good reason for him to stay in Chicago, the love of
>his life. There truly is nothing for him elsewhere, another reason
>why the dialogue was absurd.
No, the dialogue pretty clearly showed he thought she would go with him. I'd
argue he had as much right to think that, from his character's world-view, as
she did to think him nuts from hers. They fundamentally are different people, no
matter the degree of cooing and nuzzling lately. They've given Carol several
tight-jawed, glaring-at-Doug's-screw-up scenes in the past weeks. She knew. She
loved him, yes, but she knew he was semi-loony. I certainly saw that, and don't
feel bushwhacked by the writers.
If you keep applying logic to the scene you'll continue to be disappointed.
Emotion isn't logic, by definition. Cause and effect rules don't apply, so long
as the emotional reaction of the character is true to the character's basis. I
think this was. You don't.
>>>> Never happen with this guy. Carol never had a chance BECAUSE
>>>>the writers know their craft, not despite it.
>>>
>>>Being a writer myself, I have to disagree with you. The whole exit
>>>was poorly plotted.
>>
>>I myself have a novel with an agent now, and am deeply into number two. I'll
>>agree that the writers had a tough job--the whole world has known he was leaving
>>the show for a year. Would any approach have satisfyed all? No. What's to be
>>gained by easing him into a nice, green pasture and leaving us to imagine Carol
>>going home to nuptual bliss? Bad drama again.
>
>Why would that be bad drama? Is every Hollywood movie with a happy
>ending bad drama. I don't think so.
If the implicit promise made in the first reel allows a happy ending, then of
course not. Would we still be watching Casablanca today if she had refused to
get on the plane though? I doubt it.
Turn you're argument around,
>I do not see what was gained by having him behave in what I would
>describe as out of character. They could have taken the same incident
>and taken it to a logical conclusion instead of that tripe.
Again with the logic. Not logical, but very in character. In fact, this ep. and
ep.#1 five years ago are book-ends. He goes out the way he came in (a bit more
sober, but still impulsive.) As to what is gained, part of that answer depends
on where they take Carol now. If he'd stayed a large part of HER character's
options would have been on railroad tracks to an unseen Doug Ross. Now the
writers have freedom to take her in many, many new directions.
>> This is a show all about stress
>>and pain. Happy endings are easy; I'm glad they didn't choke.
>
>But they did... Badly. Someone else mentioned Dr. :Lewis' departure
>and I thought that was a good example of what to do. I never once
>questionned her character's motivations as they were anchored in a
>year's worth of events. Unfortunately, the writers failed to plan for
>Ross' departure even with three years' notice.
A four show arc is good enough for me. He's only one character. Also, if you
look back at the shows since he got his Peds clinic, and became submerged in
paperwork, he hasn't been a happy camper in lots of scenes. The war with Weaver
is years long now. They've tried to cut his funding. It's all cumulative.
>> I might have gone for it if he had been offered a
>>>great job in Seattle and had been agonizing over it in the previous
>>>episodes. But no, no planting, no foreshadowing.
Foreshadowing is often the mark of weak writing, and always is if overused. The
classic of playwriting applies: "Look at the speargun on the wall! By the end of
Act 3 someone will be shot with it!"
>>Good writing doesn't always require foreshadowing. In fact, it's often done to
>>help lazy readers/viewers. This was a crisis point for Doug--in his mind there
>>was no time to dwaddle, with his pants around his ankles and a big spotlight on
>>his failure--so he bolted. Why is it so hard to consider logic may not be at
>>play here? Not all decisions are logical--spend some time selling shoes if you
>>disbelieve me. <g>
>
>:)
>
>Sorry, but I'll have to disagree with you here. Forshadowing, while
>not indispensible is a trademark of good writing
It's a tool among many. It certainly isn't required in every case. I think here
the PR around GC's leaving was the 500-pound foreshadowing. They had a pretty
small list of ways to go here.
and allows you to do
>something very useful in a long-running TV show, keep the characters
>in character. When you foreshadow, you have to plan your plot, not
>change your characters to fit your plot.
You can plan the plot without on-screen Post-It notes too. Just put real ones on
the wall of your writing room. If you need a character to drop hints about
events coming in five weeks you need to improve your filing system.
>> As someone else
>>>puts it, it was handled like George Clooney told them last month he's
>>>leaving.
>>
>>The build-up began when the terminal child (Joi's son) was introed. What's that,
>>four eps? I forget. But hardly sudden. Of course he didn't know he was going to
>>be up on murder charges when Joi walked in, so the writers could hardly have
>>begun discussing a move to Portland then, right?
>
>Of course they could have. His move to Portland would have been a lot
>more believable if the seed of his being interested in a different
>position has been sown ten eps ago. Actually, now that I think of it,
>something really cool they could have done is plant a couple more
>hints as to why he might leave (red herrings as it were) to would have
>kept the audience guessing (kind of his destiny calling him away from
>Chicago).
By doing that you would have been stating he WAS thinking of it all along, and
I'm sayng I don't think he really was. I think he might have gotten on the phone
after the police got through with him and asked, "Is the job still open?" Just
that quickly, just that impulsively. Your way demands the writers make him do
something that may not have been their intention, just to solve your concerns
with logical behavior. He bolted. It happens. It happened to me once, so I know
it happens.
>> Sudden twist of fate, coupled
>>with inherent behavior patterns displayed over five years. Works for me.
>
>I wouldn't describe it that way (obviously) and it really didn't work
>for me. They're lucky they have such great actors as I think you'd
>have seen what idiotic plot this was if say, Kellie Martin had
>delivered the lines :)
The scene was well acted, yes, but suffered from the weight of us knowing the
outcome, due to PR. Unfortunate, but that's TV.
>>I expect I'm in the minority, which is fine. It's certainly arguable, and I
>>imagine it was the topic of a lot of script meetings.
>
>Probably one of the reasons of the fiasco. Too many cooks...
Maybe, if you think it was broken. To me, not in the top five ER scenes, but
certainly servicable.
Steve
La...@la.com
[major snip[
>> Are you saying then that we can expect this character to cheat on Carol
>> in the future, becaause he's never changed?
>
>No, evolved means basically the same thing as change, with the exception that the
>"original" is still under there and the person can still de-evolve.
>
I'm sorry but that means to me that you give a blanket licence to the
writers to disregard anything they've written in the past about a
character whenever they feel the need (and without any explanation).
That's just not good writing if you do that. :)
La...@la.com
[major snip]
> Doug Ross is a character that is, and will always be, somewhat reckless,
>impulsive, and scared of commitment. I didn't see anything out of
>character for him here.
It is not the character he had become. He's the one who wanted to
marry Carol now. She;s the one who was (logically and justifiably)
afraid. The character had changed. They just ignored that fact.
>
><P>Live long and prosper,
><BR>Kritter :-)</HTML>
>
>--------------3DE8B6F9F68A6E0C051C7C2B--
>
La...@la.com
>La...@LA.com wrote:
>
>>>It's built into the character. Staying has no conflict, no emotional cost. It's
>>>bad drama, and bad writing. Would he have stayed "in real life"? Probably. But
>>>if you're a writer as you say you know that "real life" makes for boring
>>>fiction.
>>
>>So you're saying that he would have left if his contract hadn't been
>>up? I don't think so... :)
>
>I think we're talking past each other here. By "real life" I was rejecting GC
>and the contract and even the show altogether. I was speaking of the average
>person placed in this situation "in real life." Not telescoped into a dramatic
>scene with only the data we've been shown as subtext. A real-life, complex,
>non-time-stressed decision. In that case he might have stayed, but it would have
>been boring, as real-life often is.
Sorry, I understood you as saying that because of his character, he
would have left no matter what, when it is obvious that they
manufactured (and not too well IMHO) an exit for him. They had done a
great job with Susan, but botched it with Doug.
>
>>> Face it, they changed the character to suit the plot. :)
>>>
>>>Disagree. I'll agree they declined to film a Harlequin novel, complete with
>>>brown sugar ending.
>>
>>They elected instead to film an incoherent pile of manure, full of
>>illogical out-of-character actions..
>
>We're just going to disagree on this I guess. To me, the character of Doug Ross
>was formed, by explict promise (a writer knows what that is),
Sorry. Never heard of that expression. :)
> five years ago
>when he appeared roaring drunk at 0300 in the ER and Mark Greene was awakened
>from a sound sleep to bring him down. That's his character. The other majors
>were similarly sketched in that show as well. After that you can't change the
>core. All actions have to be seen through that looking-glass.
I'm sorry but that's absurd. Following that logic there would never
be any character development in any show. Granted some shows do not
change the characters as the show is not about character development
(Nash Bridges, which I like is like that for the most part), but there
is such a thing as character development where they are affected by
events and learn from them. That's what was very well done by ER
until recently (Carter's transformation from wide-eyes student into
almost-wise teacher was one)
>And since then
>we've certainly seen Doug act in grossly irresponsible ways (showing up drunk at
>Carol's door with flowers while Tag was there), as well as touching and even
>heroic ways. But always, just below the surface of the action, that Doug from
>Season 1, Ep. 1 is there. He has to be, if the character is to have any
>validity.
And it was as he had evolved into someone who recognized what he
really wanted out of life... a commited relationship with the woman
he's always loved.
>
>>>Location, location, location.
>>
>>Remeber there's a good reason for him to stay in Chicago, the love of
>>his life. There truly is nothing for him elsewhere, another reason
>>why the dialogue was absurd.
>
>No, the dialogue pretty clearly showed he thought she would go with him.
Sorry I didn't hear that.
>I'd
>argue he had as much right to think that, from his character's world-view, as
>she did to think him nuts from hers.
I thought his expecting that was as absurd as his "decision" to leave.
IOW bad writing :)
>They fundamentally are different people, no
>matter the degree of cooing and nuzzling lately. They've given Carol several
>tight-jawed, glaring-at-Doug's-screw-up scenes in the past weeks. She knew. She
>loved him, yes, but she knew he was semi-loony. I certainly saw that, and don't
>feel bushwhacked by the writers.
I'm sure they're happy someone liked their work :)
>
>If you keep applying logic to the scene you'll continue to be disappointed.
>Emotion isn't logic, by definition. Cause and effect rules don't apply, so long
>as the emotional reaction of the character is true to the character's basis. I
>think this was. You don't.
>
But it wasn't. As I pointed out to someone else, what you're doing is
giving a blanket licence to the writers to pretty much do whatever
they want. They can change a character and ascribe it to character
development and change him back and call it reverting to the core
character without any rhyme or reason. And yes, emotions are different
from logic, but I (and I'm sure you disagree) do not see that any
human being as described by the writers in 100+ episodes would react
that way.
>>>>> Never happen with this guy. Carol never had a chance BECAUSE
>>>>>the writers know their craft, not despite it.
>>>>
>>>>Being a writer myself, I have to disagree with you. The whole exit
>>>>was poorly plotted.
>>>
>>>I myself have a novel with an agent now, and am deeply into number two. I'll
>>>agree that the writers had a tough job--the whole world has known he was leaving
>>>the show for a year. Would any approach have satisfyed all? No. What's to be
>>>gained by easing him into a nice, green pasture and leaving us to imagine Carol
>>>going home to nuptual bliss? Bad drama again.
>>
>>Why would that be bad drama? Is every Hollywood movie with a happy
>>ending bad drama. I don't think so.
>
>If the implicit promise made in the first reel allows a happy ending, then of
>course not. Would we still be watching Casablanca today if she had refused to
>get on the plane though? I doubt it.
Once again you'll have to explain implicit promise. :)
>
>Turn you're argument around,
>>I do not see what was gained by having him behave in what I would
>>describe as out of character. They could have taken the same incident
>>and taken it to a logical conclusion instead of that tripe.
>
>Again with the logic. Not logical, but very in character.
See above, having emotions that do not fit with the character. You're
using semantics on me here :)
> In fact, this ep. and
>ep.#1 five years ago are book-ends. He goes out the way he came in (a bit more
>sober, but still impulsive.) As to what is gained, part of that answer depends
>on where they take Carol now. If he'd stayed a large part of HER character's
>options would have been on railroad tracks to an unseen Doug Ross. Now the
>writers have freedom to take her in many, many new directions.
>
>>> This is a show all about stress
>>>and pain. Happy endings are easy; I'm glad they didn't choke.
>>
>>But they did... Badly. Someone else mentioned Dr. :Lewis' departure
>>and I thought that was a good example of what to do. I never once
>>questionned her character's motivations as they were anchored in a
>>year's worth of events. Unfortunately, the writers failed to plan for
>>Ross' departure even with three years' notice.
>
>A four show arc is good enough for me. He's only one character. Also, if you
>look back at the shows since he got his Peds clinic, and became submerged in
>paperwork, he hasn't been a happy camper in lots of scenes. The war with Weaver
>is years long now. They've tried to cut his funding. It's all cumulative.
They could have done everything I suggested in four episodes. The
point is, they had tons of time and did not take advantage of it.
>
>>> I might have gone for it if he had been offered a
>>>>great job in Seattle and had been agonizing over it in the previous
>>>>episodes. But no, no planting, no foreshadowing.
>
>Foreshadowing is often the mark of weak writing, and always is if overused. The
>classic of playwriting applies: "Look at the speargun on the wall! By the end of
>Act 3 someone will be shot with it!"
Actually I think the Russian writer whom you quote (and whose name I
forgot) was explaining how to use foreshadowing in a good way (as in
don't show a spear on the wall if you're not going to use it).
>
>>>Good writing doesn't always require foreshadowing. In fact, it's often done to
>>>help lazy readers/viewers. This was a crisis point for Doug--in his mind there
>>>was no time to dwaddle, with his pants around his ankles and a big spotlight on
>>>his failure--so he bolted. Why is it so hard to consider logic may not be at
>>>play here? Not all decisions are logical--spend some time selling shoes if you
>>>disbelieve me. <g>
>>
>>:)
>>
>>Sorry, but I'll have to disagree with you here. Forshadowing, while
>>not indispensible is a trademark of good writing
>
>It's a tool among many. It certainly isn't required in every case. I think here
>the PR around GC's leaving was the 500-pound foreshadowing. They had a pretty
>small list of ways to go here.
>
> and allows you to do
>>something very useful in a long-running TV show, keep the characters
>>in character. When you foreshadow, you have to plan your plot, not
>>change your characters to fit your plot.
>
>You can plan the plot without on-screen Post-It notes too. Just put real ones on
>the wall of your writing room. If you need a character to drop hints about
>events coming in five weeks you need to improve your filing system.
As it happens, a show that has a continuing story and does not play
that way, The X-Files, also fell victim to that problem, changing the
characters every four episodes to fit whatever plot they had come up
with. I hope ER won't be like that, but my patience is wearing thin
at this point.
>
>>> As someone else
>>>>puts it, it was handled like George Clooney told them last month he's
>>>>leaving.
>>>
>>>The build-up began when the terminal child (Joi's son) was introed. What's that,
>>>four eps? I forget. But hardly sudden. Of course he didn't know he was going to
>>>be up on murder charges when Joi walked in, so the writers could hardly have
>>>begun discussing a move to Portland then, right?
>>
>>Of course they could have. His move to Portland would have been a lot
>>more believable if the seed of his being interested in a different
>>position has been sown ten eps ago. Actually, now that I think of it,
>>something really cool they could have done is plant a couple more
>>hints as to why he might leave (red herrings as it were) to would have
>>kept the audience guessing (kind of his destiny calling him away from
>>Chicago).
>
>By doing that you would have been stating he WAS thinking of it all along, and
>I'm sayng I don't think he really was. I think he might have gotten on the phone
>after the police got through with him and asked, "Is the job still open?" Just
>that quickly, just that impulsively. Your way demands the writers make him do
>something that may not have been their intention, just to solve your concerns
>with logical behavior. He bolted. It happens. It happened to me once, so I know
>it happens.
Well, the "real life" argument raises its ugly head again. :) As you
know, because it happens in real life does not make it dramatically
sound (and I am talking about dramatic writing here, the only kind I
can speak of with any "authority")
>
>>> Sudden twist of fate, coupled
>>>with inherent behavior patterns displayed over five years. Works for me.
>>
>>I wouldn't describe it that way (obviously) and it really didn't work
>>for me. They're lucky they have such great actors as I think you'd
>>have seen what idiotic plot this was if say, Kellie Martin had
>>delivered the lines :)
>
>The scene was well acted, yes, but suffered from the weight of us knowing the
>outcome, due to PR. Unfortunate, but that's TV.
>
Yes it did.
>>>I expect I'm in the minority, which is fine. It's certainly arguable, and I
>>>imagine it was the topic of a lot of script meetings.
>>
>>Probably one of the reasons of the fiasco. Too many cooks...
>
>Maybe, if you think it was broken. To me, not in the top five ER scenes, but
>certainly servicable.
Very much. In a million little pieces. Unfortunately.
>
>Steve
P. A. Behrer
> Doug Ross is a character that is, and will always be, somewhat
> reckless, impulsive, and scared of commitment. I didn't see anything
> out of character for him here.
>
> Live long and prosper,
> Kritter :-)
Is that because it's how you *want* him to be? If the guy is so scared
of commitment on a personal level, prove it to me. He's trying to have
a baby with a woman he's in love with, gave up his apartment, asked her
to come with him to the Pacific Northwest, so now, knowing all that
information, are you suggesting he's 1) going to go have an affair with
someone? 2) afraid of committing to Carol?
Most of the "Doug has never changed" comments have thus far come from
people who can't stand the character. I'm not saying that's you, but I
find the trend interesting. To say that people will never change and
that we can expect them to "devolve" really makes no sense at all, in
either real life or fictional television. Has Peeter Benton changed?
At all? Sure, he finally commits to SOMEONE in his family (his son,
Reese) and he's learned you don't have to humiliate someone to teach
them (See Carter vs. Lucy). But, I guess according to the logic of
some, Peter will turn to his work and leave his son in the dust, thus
devolving.
Kritter
P. A. Behrer wrote:
Kritter wrote:
Is that because it's how you *want* him to be? If the guy is so scared
of commitment on a personal level, prove it to me. He's trying to have
a baby with a woman he's in love with, gave up his apartment, asked her
to come with him to the Pacific Northwest, so now, knowing all that
information, are you suggesting he's 1) going to go have an affair with
someone? 2) afraid of committing to Carol?
I'm not suggesting it, I'm saying it's possible for the first one, and I don't like the option (I'd probably go hunt down the writers in LA if this happened and wring their litle neck).I'm gonna put something I out in another letter, because I think it explains my point well.
I'm gonna play with my italics key too, so you can see the part I feel are the best.
"He didn't do anything to Carol intentionally, they were effects that
his other
actions had. He didn't try to close her clinic, and he seemed
genuinly shocked
when he heard. And after everything he had done lately backfired,
he got
scared, and reverted to what he used to be, and still is inside.
Doug is, and
will always be, a somewhat reckless, impulsive person who has fears
of
commitment. Those qualities can be lessened or more prevalent,
but they are
always there, no matter how small.
He is scared of committment, but he overcame his fear enough to give
himself to
Carol, and it brings back that fear to have her do something
like kiss Greg
Powell. He had made his decision, and he expected that she
loved him enough to
come with him. And then she said no, and it brought back that
old fear. That
fear, which was plainly shown in the first seasons, is what drove
him away.
It's an ingrained part of his personality, and he can't hide it
anymore.
I'll say it again, he didn't mean to hurt her, it just happened.
And that, at
least from my point of view, is something Doug does. He screws
things up
accidentilly, and then he runs from them."
Most of the "Doug has never changed" comments have thus far come from
people who can't stand the character. I'm not saying that's you, but I
find the trend interesting. To say that people will never change and
that we can expect them to "devolve" really makes no sense at all, in
either real life or fictional television. Has Peter Benton changed?
At all? Sure, he finally commits to SOMEONE in his family (his son,
Reese) and he's learned you don't have to humiliate someone to teach
them (See Carter vs. Lucy). But, I guess according to the logic of
some, Peter will turn to his work and leave his son in the dust, thus
devolving.
First, do you understand what I mean by "devolve?" What I mean, and mabye I didn't put it so well, but basically, what I mean by that, is when put under extremley trying circumstances,it is possible for that person to "revert" to the, well., let's call it the core of a person.And it basically all depends on the circumstances. In Doug's case, I can see it. His fiancee, the one person he's really been able to commit to, has just told him, in essence, she doesn't love him enough, or it seems that way to him. He has, basically, destroyed himself professionally, and is trying to escape with the one person who he thinks will come. When she says no, it scares him and, I think, it brings out that core, and re-affirms his fear of committment.
Thing that make you go Hmmmmm. With the Peter thing, I hear what you're saying, and yes, if you're being really literal, it COULD happen. POSSIBLE, not defanite. Under the right circumstances, and I don't know what they are.
I was reading Michelle's temple reviews for "Union Station," and it
occured to me that we ARE saying a lot of the same things about Doug.
Now change the words. Changw Susan to Doug, Phoenix to Portland, Mark to Carol, and use your own judgement about what to put for the baby, beause his reasons are purely emotional. It's a;most the same things we've been saying here about Doug's leaving and why some people don't find it plausible.Lost Sheep Of The Week: Susan Lewis. OK, so she loves that baby. But I still wonder about the wisdom of actually moving all the way to Phoenix, and being a part of her sister's life like that, especially when it means leaving Mark. "She has no life here," says Carol - well she's got Mark. He couldn't leave because of his daughter - but Rachel *is* his daughter, and of an age to need him in her life. Baby Suzie is someone else's child, and I always rather wondered how Chloe felt about Susan moving in. Susan herself expressed reservations. What if Chloe decided to move somewhere else, is Susan going to spend the next twenty years following her sister around? What about Susan's own life, her own chance of a husband and children? It's not like she can't visit Phoenix. And, unlike Rachel Greene, Baby Suzie isn't old enough to have formed a bond to Susan. Rachel needs Mark, but Suzie doesn't need Susan.
I don't think I wrote this too well, but.........what can you do?
Live long and prosper,
Kritter :-)
P.S. We may just have to agree to disagree here, but it's kinda fun
seeing what you think! :-)
P. A. Behrer
[snipped, because I couldn't make heads or tails of it!}
> I don't think I wrote this too well, but.........what can you do?
Honestly, at this point, I can't distinguish what's newly written in
this post. So, I'll need to drop out of the debate because it's too
confusing for me to read!
Kritter
P. A. Behrer wrote:
> Kritter wrote:
>
> [snipped, because I couldn't make heads or tails of it!}
>
> > I don't think I wrote this too well, but.........what can you do?
>
> Honestly, at this point, I can't distinguish what's newly written in
> this post. So, I'll need to drop out of the debate because it's too
> confusing for me to read!
Sorry, I jusr re-read it, and, oops. :-)
Basically, what I was trying to say is....
(in a nutshell)
I don't think it's likely for him to have an afair, I think it might be
plausible. I hpe it doesn't come to that, but I can see it as being in
character.
He's always had a fear of committment, you can see it plainly in the
first seasons, and he overcame that fear to commit to Carol. When she
said that she wasn't coming with him, it brought back that old fear and
he dealt with it like he did, and will probably always do to some
extent, walk away.
I like the charater of Doug Ross. And what you said about Peter, I can
see it happening. I can see him so totally engrossed in his work that
he forgets to get Reese from Carla or daycare. And that would be a
devolution in a sense.
Sorry about the confusing post. Little sleep and annoying cat on the
desk will do that to you. :-)
Live long and prosper,
Kritter :-)
P.S. You have really good points, and I'm sorry about that post.
eli...@email.com
>BTW, it was also awful writing that
>Carol is the one who gave us the information that he was leaving right
>away. How did she know? Another key conversation that was not shown?
Do you mean the "I don't want to wake up alone tomorrow" line? I've
seen a lot of complaints about how Doug wouldn't just leave that day
or whatever. I thought Carol meant that more figuratively --
"tomorrow" not meaning *literally* tomorrow, as in the day after
today, but just in the future in general.
I could be totally wrong, but that was just my first impression.
elisa
eli...@email.com
wrote:
>There's the matter of Chia-Chia, the little boy with AIDS whom Doug
>wanted to keep alive at any cost. He wanted to give him high doses of
>antibiotics through his spinal tract to give his mother a few days more
>with her child. Mark put an end to it, saying Doug was hoping for a
>miracle. Doug retorted, "If it was your kid you would bet on a miracle."
>
>So, it seemed wholly out of character for Doug to do this.
I agree with a lot of your points, but I don't know that I agree that
the whole Ricky thing was "wholly out of character." The Chia-Chia
matter was a looooooonnnnnng time ago. I just saw it for the first
time in syndication a month or so ago -- it must have been late season
1 or early season 2? Isn't it just possible that in the more than
three years since that incident, Doug has changed somewhat? Perhaps he
learned something from his experience with Chia-Chia and other
terminally ill children and is now less willing to keep them alive at
any cost and more willing to let them die a more pain-free death?
Another important difference between Chia-Chia and Ricky: their
mothers. Chia-Chia's mother wasn't begging Doug to kill him. Ricky's
mother was. Chia-Chia's mother hadn't already endured the death of a
son from the same disease. Ricky's mother had. Chia-Chia's mother
didn't have any other children, if I remember correctly. Ricky's
mother had a very healthy daughter to take care of as well.
elisa
eli...@email.com
>>He thinks everything will be different in Portland. That's his fatal flaw, from
>>a writing standpoint. Characters never "change"--they only evolve. But they
>>never really change their spots. Readers/viewers don't want them to. And running
>>from humiliation, even at great personal cost, is totally in character for this
>>guy. (Especially when he was "beaten" in large measure by a female--Weaver.)
>
>Once again, there was no reason proposed for his going to the Pacific
>Northwest, except ofr a job offer that I could not remember had been
>planted. Face it, they changed the character to suit the plot. :)
Quoting from the summary/review for "Nobody Doesn't Like Amanda Lee":
"Amanda tells Doug early in the day that she received a call from a
Portland HMO looking for someone to set up pediatric emergency clinics
around the country. Doug doesn't know what she is talking about, and
tells her "I'm not going anywhere". Later, after the truth is
discovered about Amanda, Doug wonders if the job offer was real."
If that's not foreshadowing, I don't know what is. Obviously the
prospect of a job in Portland got Doug thinking, since he didn't just
forget that Amanda mentioned it but remembered it later. So this job
offer has been in the back of his head for the last month and a half.
Back then he wasn't going anywhere, but then things get a bit out of
control at the hospital, he almost ruins the careers of half of his
colleagues (incl. his fiancee and his best friend), and suddenly
Portland is sounding *mighty* good...
elisa
Steve Bartman
A pickin' and a trimmin'
>>We're just going to disagree on this I guess. To me, the character of Doug Ross
>>was formed, by explict promise (a writer knows what that is),
>
>Sorry. Never heard of that expression. :)
An explicit promise is something novelists talk about. I don't know what kind of
writing you do, so maybe it's not lingo in your arena. Basically, it's any
highly overt action, settnig element, or internal monolouge that establishes a
foundation for behavior. If in Chapter One we see the protag. at a whore house,
then in Chap. Two we see him leading the church choir we assume the author made
the juxtaposition on purpose, for a reason. We've been promised that the seeming
dilemma will be explored, or at least explained, in later events.
Introducing characters the FIRST time is critical because that meetng is the
base of the character promise, and ER's writers aren't beginners at this. The
footprint laid down in Ep. 1 is irrevocable later, and they were very careful in
that show, and in expanding each of the majors' in season one, to give us ground
rules as to what each would and wouldn't do, and to show the stuff of which each
is made. This is why Ross' actions in this latest ep. ring true. He behaved as
laid down five years ago, and in the way periodic events have reinforced since.
I share the view of another poster who speculated that many "antis" are
practicing selective memory in making a case for Ross to act romantically rather
than impulsively. The "Joi arc" wasn't out of character for a guy who left an
unsmoked joint laying on his car seat, or who slept with his father's girlfriend
(and possible mob operative.)
>> five years ago
>>when he appeared roaring drunk at 0300 in the ER and Mark Greene was awakened
>>from a sound sleep to bring him down. That's his character. The other majors
>>were similarly sketched in that show as well. After that you can't change the
>>core. All actions have to be seen through that looking-glass.
>
>I'm sorry but that's absurd. Following that logic there would never
>be any character development in any show.
For a writer you don't appear to grasp the difference between character
"evolution" and character "change." All adult humans consist of strata of
experiences; we're the sum of what we've been through. But the core personality
is always there, and rarely changes significantly after the teen years. Perhaps
with significant therapy, but it's rare. In times of crisis I believe most of us
revert to deeper, older habits wired in long ago, rather than "higher brain"
habits learned recently, and in a more surface way. The fight-or-flight instinct
is deep in the animal brain, while the concept of romantic love is a recent
social construct. Doug had a classic f-or-f situation that went to the core of
his self-image, yet you argue that "the love of a good woman" canceling that
programming makes for better drama. I disagree, but I do conceed that for some
segments of the audience (largely female--sorry, but the data is right here on
the ng) that outcome is distasteful.
Granted some shows do not
>change the characters as the show is not about character development
>(Nash Bridges, which I like is like that for the most part), but there
>is such a thing as character development where they are affected by
>events and learn from them. That's what was very well done by ER
>until recently (Carter's transformation from wide-eyes student into
>almost-wise teacher was one)
OK, let's consider Carter. You argue he has developed, and I agree with you. But
he hasn't changed.
I'm perhaps not saying this well, so let me try a different way. Consider the
Carter of Season 5, and the Carter of Season 1. The 5 is older, has been through
several semi-weird romances, has had his core relationship to his extended
family altered, had the whole Chase thing happen, and has watched hundreds of
episodes of life and death success and failure in the ER, with increasing
ability to contribute to the successful outcomes. All forces to "develop" a
character, yes, and the writers are good enough to let him behave in word and
deed to demonstrate these evolutions. But what of Carter's core personality? Has
it changed? No.
When I think of the Carter we met in Ep. 1 I think of characteristics like:
"optimistic", "polite", "team-player", "sensitive to others' pain", "curious",
and "honest." Have any of those changed as his skill levels have increased and
his personal relationships come about? No. The kind of out-of-character change
you seem to want in Ross would be equivalent to Carter suddenly acting, at his
core, like Dale the surgical resident. We would reject that change; we would
feel cheated. Good writers DON'T do that. Yet you want the core foundations of
Ross, laid down long ago as "impulsive", "narcissistic", "brooding", "impatient
with structure", and "valuing male bonding over romance" to suddenly be tossed
aside to fit your pre-concieved notion of how this should have been resolved.
And you'd call that good writing. I don't see it.
>>>>Location, location, location.
>>>
>>>Remeber there's a good reason for him to stay in Chicago, the love of
>>>his life. There truly is nothing for him elsewhere, another reason
>>>why the dialogue was absurd.
>>
>>No, the dialogue pretty clearly showed he thought she would go with him.
>
>Sorry I didn't hear that.
I don't have a tape, but I remember at least two pleading bits along the lines
of, "Come with me, Carol."
>>I'd
>>argue he had as much right to think that, from his character's world-view, as
>>she did to think him nuts from hers.
>
>I thought his expecting that was as absurd as his "decision" to leave.
>IOW bad writing :)
He was selfish enough as far back as Ep.1 to thrust his drunken, loutish
behavior into his best friend's precious sleep, so why would you find this bout
of self-centeredness "absurd"?
>>They fundamentally are different people, no
>>matter the degree of cooing and nuzzling lately. They've given Carol several
>>tight-jawed, glaring-at-Doug's-screw-up scenes in the past weeks. She knew. She
>>loved him, yes, but she knew he was semi-loony. I certainly saw that, and don't
>>feel bushwhacked by the writers.
>
>I'm sure they're happy someone liked their work :)
It is a Usenet truism that nothing posted, pro or con, need represent the views
of the unwashed masses. <g> Amazing as it seems here, there ARE at least two
dozen Americans whose life does not revolve around the travails of Doug Ross.
>>If you keep applying logic to the scene you'll continue to be disappointed.
>>Emotion isn't logic, by definition. Cause and effect rules don't apply, so long
>>as the emotional reaction of the character is true to the character's basis. I
>>think this was. You don't.
>>
>But it wasn't. As I pointed out to someone else, what you're doing is
>giving a blanket licence to the writers to pretty much do whatever
>they want.
On the contrary, I'm requiring writers to be true to their characters' core
construction. Which the ER writers happily were in this case.
They can change a character and ascribe it to character
>development and change him back and call it reverting to the core
>character without any rhyme or reason.
But there was rhyme or reason--a four-show arc that put Ross under repeated,
major body-blows to his position in the ER world. Threatened Murder One charges,
remember? That would get my attention and make me look a bit harder at my recent
behavior. What kind of shock do YOU think it would take? Pretty tough room here
if you ask me.
And yes, emotions are different
>from logic, but I (and I'm sure you disagree) do not see that any
>human being as described by the writers in 100+ episodes would react
>that way.
And you keep ignoring all the other periodic Ross screw-ups that have been
interlaced into those 100+ eps. You can't get tunnel-vision on the Carol thing.
>>>Why would that be bad drama? Is every Hollywood movie with a happy
>>>ending bad drama. I don't think so.
>>
>>If the implicit promise made in the first reel allows a happy ending, then of
>>course not. Would we still be watching Casablanca today if she had refused to
>>get on the plane though? I doubt it.
>
>Once again you'll have to explain implicit promise. :)
The implicit promise is another novel phrase, often called instead "the story
question." It's the promise the author makes very early to the reader that by
the end of the book a core question will have been answered. "Will he get the
girl? Will she have the baby? Will Darth Vader defeat Luke?" If that question is
not resolved readers feel cheated and become angry. In literary fiction a
similar question is asked, but the readership is assumed to be at a high enough
level that they can digest a partial answer, or a detour, in the interests of
higher moral questioning. In genre fiction you take your life in your hands if
you don't answer the question directly. One reason I don't read romances--there
IS no question. The iron-bound rules of the genre require not only a happy
ending but the female lead to be romanticaly happy with the male lead. No other
outcome is acceptable. I know there are other reasons romance books are popular,
but that central requirement makes them uninteresting to me personally.
Movies can make the implicit promise with other tools: tone and manner,
lighting, music, casting, etc. and the viewer usually has a pretty good idea in
reel one if a happy ending is possible. Not assured, but possible. Compare
"Sophie's Choice" to "Working Girl." Then there's the middle ground as well,
with some wins, some losses. "Alien", "Kramer Vs. Kramer", and again,
"Casablanca" have this, which is some of why they're classics.
>>>But they did... Badly. Someone else mentioned Dr. :Lewis' departure
>>>and I thought that was a good example of what to do. I never once
>>>questionned her character's motivations as they were anchored in a
>>>year's worth of events. Unfortunately, the writers failed to plan for
>>>Ross' departure even with three years' notice.
>>
>>A four show arc is good enough for me. He's only one character. Also, if you
>>look back at the shows since he got his Peds clinic, and became submerged in
>>paperwork, he hasn't been a happy camper in lots of scenes. The war with Weaver
>>is years long now. They've tried to cut his funding. It's all cumulative.
>
>They could have done everything I suggested in four episodes. The
>point is, they had tons of time and did not take advantage of it.
Again, what you're calling for was only one way they could have resolved his
leaving, and you're unhappy they didn't choose your way. You wanted a slow,
steady trickle of clues that he was history, with foreshadowing, hints, easing
toward the cliff. But that's only one way to go, and, I continue to argue, not
true to Ross' essential nature. The way they did it was far more realistic to
his core patterns than lots of coffeeshop conversations with Carol exploring the
pros and cons of a Portland move. Boring, and not being true to his character.
And remember, his exit is only one thread in an ensemble show. I think they gave
him plenty of attention, to some extent at the expense of other characters'
stories. Several major sub-plots have been marking time while the Doug and Carol
circus played out.
>>Foreshadowing is often the mark of weak writing, and always is if overused. The
>>classic of playwriting applies: "Look at the speargun on the wall! By the end of
>>Act 3 someone will be shot with it!"
>
>Actually I think the Russian writer whom you quote (and whose name I
>forgot) was explaining how to use foreshadowing in a good way (as in
>don't show a spear on the wall if you're not going to use it).
I always thought it was Noel Coward. You learn something every day. In any
event, since they never foreshadowed Portland the "speargun" was missing, and we
were saved being bashed over the head with even more "Doug is leaving!" messages
than we already got from the media. To me, a good thing.
>>By doing that you would have been stating he WAS thinking of it all along, and
>>I'm sayng I don't think he really was. I think he might have gotten on the phone
>>after the police got through with him and asked, "Is the job still open?" Just
>>that quickly, just that impulsively. Your way demands the writers make him do
>>something that may not have been their intention, just to solve your concerns
>>with logical behavior. He bolted. It happens. It happened to me once, so I know
>>it happens.
>
>Well, the "real life" argument raises its ugly head again. :) As you
>know, because it happens in real life does not make it dramatically
>sound (and I am talking about dramatic writing here, the only kind I
>can speak of with any "authority")
Again, if you write fiction, and you think foreshadowing plot shifts is required
.. . . well, OK. I'm a mature enough fiction consumer that I don't need every
single action that leads to a plot fork displayed in detail. That's the freedom
well-defined and disciplined characters give you. After five years we should
have known how he'd behave; we don't need lots of extraneous, molasses-like back
and forth on the Portland issue. Viewers who are paying attention, and not so
blinded by romantic notions as to be inflexible, should have easily made that
impulsive-Ross jump with the writers. In a way it's a compliment to us, the
viewers, that they think we can.
Steve
Ian J. Ball
mrbi...@webtv.net (john merrill) wrote:
> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT NBC ON SATURDAY MORNING WHAT DOES TNBC STAND
> FOR? DOES ANYBODY KNOW mrbigjohn
T-NBC stands for, roughly, "Teen NBC". It's NBC's Saturday morning lineup
of shows aimed at teens (12-17).
(And you can stop yelling now... ;> )
--
Ian J. Ball | "When it comes to dating, *I'm* the Slayer!"
Ph.D. Chemist, | -Cordelia Chase, "Buffy The Vampire Slayer"
& TV lover | Want to get my FAQs or TV episode guides? Try:
IJB...@aol.com | http://members.aol.com/IJBall/WWW/TV.html
La...@la.com
>On Sat, 20 Feb 1999 05:48:58 GMT, La...@LA.com wrote:
>
>>>He thinks everything will be different in Portland. That's his fatal flaw, from
>>>a writing standpoint. Characters never "change"--they only evolve. But they
>>>never really change their spots. Readers/viewers don't want them to. And running
>>>from humiliation, even at great personal cost, is totally in character for this
>>>guy. (Especially when he was "beaten" in large measure by a female--Weaver.)
>>
>>Once again, there was no reason proposed for his going to the Pacific
>>Northwest, except ofr a job offer that I could not remember had been
>>planted. Face it, they changed the character to suit the plot. :)
>
>Quoting from the summary/review for "Nobody Doesn't Like Amanda Lee":
>
>"Amanda tells Doug early in the day that she received a call from a
>Portland HMO looking for someone to set up pediatric emergency clinics
>around the country. Doug doesn't know what she is talking about, and
>tells her "I'm not going anywhere". Later, after the truth is
>discovered about Amanda, Doug wonders if the job offer was real."
Thanks for the info.
>
>If that's not foreshadowing, I don't know what is.
It is. Except it's bad foreshadowing in that I had all but forgotten
about it. The reason it's bad is that it only elicited a one-liner
from Doug. Also, the safe assumption was that the job was not real
and it was never brought up again. Once again, shoddy writing.
> Obviously the
>prospect of a job in Portland got Doug thinking,
There's nothing obvious about. It was never mentioned again and
nobody would have thought about it again if they hadn't brought it up
as the place he'll go. It's what I call bad writing (especially
coming from people who spoiled us into expecting more)..
La...@la.com
>La...@LA.com wrote:
>
>A pickin' and a trimmin'
>
>>>We're just going to disagree on this I guess. To me, the character of Doug Ross
>>>was formed, by explict promise (a writer knows what that is),
>>
>>Sorry. Never heard of that expression. :)
>
>An explicit promise is something novelists talk about. I don't know what kind of
>writing you do, so maybe it's not lingo in your arena.
I write screenplays :)
Thanks for the explanation though. It's quite interesting.
You're right, there's absolutely no difference for me.
>All adult humans consist of strata of
>experiences; we're the sum of what we've been through. But the core personality
>is always there, and rarely changes significantly after the teen years. Perhaps
>with significant therapy, but it's rare. In times of crisis I believe most of us
>revert to deeper, older habits wired in long ago, rather than "higher brain"
>habits learned recently, and in a more surface way. The fight-or-flight instinct
>is deep in the animal brain, while the concept of romantic love is a recent
>social construct.
I think I know where our difference of opinion comes from. You assume
a lot of things that I don't, and I'm sure vice-versa. I don't see
love as a social construct for instance.
> Doug had a classic f-or-f situation that went to the core of
>his self-image, yet you argue that "the love of a good woman" canceling that
>programming makes for better drama.
What I argue is that following the way the character had developped
would have made for good writing, or, if they wanted to change the
character "back", more screen time would have been necessary to be
intelligible without reverting to having to fill in the blanks.
> I disagree, but I do conceed that for some
>segments of the audience (largely female--sorry, but the data is right here on
>the ng) that outcome is distasteful.
Regardless of whether it is distasteful, to me the problem is that it
was written in an unconvincing manner.
One of the problams in writing (at least for screenplays) is that the
writer is aware of a lot of things and is often tempted not to put all
the siugnificant details in his/her work because they seem painfully
obvious to him/her. I can imagine the writers having many discussions
about the character and writing something that makes sense to them,
but unfortunately not to a part of the audience. Or it could just be
that they didn't care ;)
>
> Granted some shows do not
>>change the characters as the show is not about character development
>>(Nash Bridges, which I like is like that for the most part), but there
>>is such a thing as character development where they are affected by
>>events and learn from them. That's what was very well done by ER
>>until recently (Carter's transformation from wide-eyes student into
>>almost-wise teacher was one)
>
>OK, let's consider Carter. You argue he has developed, and I agree with you. But
>he hasn't changed.
Well, maybe if you told me what the difference is for you, I'd know
what I'm disagreeing with :)
>
>I'm perhaps not saying this well, so let me try a different way. Consider the
>Carter of Season 5, and the Carter of Season 1. The 5 is older, has been through
>several semi-weird romances, has had his core relationship to his extended
>family altered, had the whole Chase thing happen, and has watched hundreds of
>episodes of life and death success and failure in the ER, with increasing
>ability to contribute to the successful outcomes. All forces to "develop" a
>character, yes, and the writers are good enough to let him behave in word and
>deed to demonstrate these evolutions. But what of Carter's core personality? Has
>it changed? No.
>
>When I think of the Carter we met in Ep. 1 I think of characteristics like:
>"optimistic", "polite", "team-player", "sensitive to others' pain", "curious",
>and "honest." Have any of those changed as his skill levels have increased and
>his personal relationships come about? No.
It's YOUR list :) I already told you how he changed. Although I
would say he's a lot less sensitive to others' pain.
> The kind of out-of-character change
>you seem to want in Ross
I don't want it, that's what the writers did :)
>would be equivalent to Carter suddenly acting, at his
>core, like Dale the surgical resident. We would reject that change; we would
>feel cheated. Good writers DON'T do that.
Exactly, yet that's what they did with Ross.
>Yet you want the core foundations of
>Ross, laid down long ago as "impulsive", "narcissistic", "brooding", "impatient
>with structure", and "valuing male bonding over romance" to suddenly be tossed
>aside to fit your pre-concieved notion of how this should have been resolved.
Actually the only thing that changed in your list is narcissistic and
they had him change again, pretty suddenly. Too suddenly to be
convincing to me.
>And you'd call that good writing. I don't see it.
That's what good writing is to me. Writing something that the
audience will feel and think of as realistic (emotionally and
otherwise) and logical within the confines of what your canvass is.
To digress, I always thought that the exit of a major character was
the hardest thing to write as every detail is going to be examined by
the audience more closely than would be a "normal" occurence.
Unfortunately, that's where a lot of writers fail.
>
>>>>>Location, location, location.
>>>>
>>>>Remeber there's a good reason for him to stay in Chicago, the love of
>>>>his life. There truly is nothing for him elsewhere, another reason
>>>>why the dialogue was absurd.
>>>
>>>No, the dialogue pretty clearly showed he thought she would go with him.
>>
>>Sorry I didn't hear that.
>
>I don't have a tape, but I remember at least two pleading bits along the lines
>of, "Come with me, Carol."
There's a long way from the man who wanted to have a chil with her to
the man who's ready to leave the next minute and would be happy if she
dropped everything to come with him. Way too much for my blood.
>
>>>I'd
>>>argue he had as much right to think that, from his character's world-view, as
>>>she did to think him nuts from hers.
>>
>>I thought his expecting that was as absurd as his "decision" to leave.
>>IOW bad writing :)
>
>He was selfish enough as far back as Ep.1 to thrust his drunken, loutish
>behavior into his best friend's precious sleep, so why would you find this bout
>of self-centeredness "absurd"?
Because that was episode one, this is episode (what 120?). He
changed. I didn'r make him change, the writers did. I don't want to
go into the argument whether people can change in real life, but in ER
life that's what happened.
>
>>>They fundamentally are different people, no
>>>matter the degree of cooing and nuzzling lately. They've given Carol several
>>>tight-jawed, glaring-at-Doug's-screw-up scenes in the past weeks. She knew. She
>>>loved him, yes, but she knew he was semi-loony. I certainly saw that, and don't
>>>feel bushwhacked by the writers.
>>
>>I'm sure they're happy someone liked their work :)
>
>It is a Usenet truism that nothing posted, pro or con, need represent the views
>of the unwashed masses. <g> Amazing as it seems here, there ARE at least two
>dozen Americans whose life does not revolve around the travails of Doug Ross.
That many? ;)
>
>>>If you keep applying logic to the scene you'll continue to be disappointed.
>>>Emotion isn't logic, by definition. Cause and effect rules don't apply, so long
>>>as the emotional reaction of the character is true to the character's basis. I
>>>think this was. You don't.
>>>
>>But it wasn't. As I pointed out to someone else, what you're doing is
>>giving a blanket licence to the writers to pretty much do whatever
>>they want.
>
>On the contrary, I'm requiring writers to be true to their characters' core
>construction. Which the ER writers happily were in this case.
Once again, I see that as a cop-out for the writers to change the
character whichever way they please without any internal logic or
structure.
>
> They can change a character and ascribe it to character
>>development and change him back and call it reverting to the core
>>character without any rhyme or reason.
>
>But there was rhyme or reason--a four-show arc that put Ross under repeated,
>major body-blows to his position in the ER world. Threatened Murder One charges,
>remember? That would get my attention and make me look a bit harder at my recent
>behavior. What kind of shock do YOU think it would take? Pretty tough room here
>if you ask me.
He had been in hot water so often that this wasn't quite enough for
me. And once again, they could have handled it with the same result
(I'm really not vested in where he ends up), but in a satisfying
manner.
Actually, in "classical" three-act structure, the goal (which sounds
similar to what you're describing) is central and usually in mosr
well-written script, the protagonist will look at the audience dirctly
in the eyes (well, through another character :) and tell you in no
uncertain term what his or her goal is (sometimes accompanied with the
now cliched "this time it's personal" ;)
>Not assured, but possible. Compare
>"Sophie's Choice" to "Working Girl." Then there's the middle ground as well,
>with some wins, some losses. "Alien", "Kramer Vs. Kramer", and again,
>"Casablanca" have this, which is some of why they're classics.
>
>>>>But they did... Badly. Someone else mentioned Dr. :Lewis' departure
>>>>and I thought that was a good example of what to do. I never once
>>>>questionned her character's motivations as they were anchored in a
>>>>year's worth of events. Unfortunately, the writers failed to plan for
>>>>Ross' departure even with three years' notice.
>>>
>>>A four show arc is good enough for me. He's only one character. Also, if you
>>>look back at the shows since he got his Peds clinic, and became submerged in
>>>paperwork, he hasn't been a happy camper in lots of scenes. The war with Weaver
>>>is years long now. They've tried to cut his funding. It's all cumulative.
>>
>>They could have done everything I suggested in four episodes. The
>>point is, they had tons of time and did not take advantage of it.
>
>Again, what you're calling for was only one way they could have resolved his
>leaving, and you're unhappy they didn't choose your way.
Not quite, I am only suggesting a way that would have worked better.
i'd have been delighted if they had come up with something that worked
ANd was not what I would have thought up.
>You wanted a slow,
>steady trickle of clues that he was history, with foreshadowing, hints, easing
>toward the cliff. But that's only one way to go, and, I continue to argue, not
>true to Ross' essential nature. The way they did it was far more realistic to
>his core patterns than lots of coffeeshop conversations with Carol exploring the
>pros and cons of a Portland move. Boring, and not being true to his character.
>
>And remember, his exit is only one thread in an ensemble show. I think they gave
>him plenty of attention, to some extent at the expense of other characters'
>stories. Several major sub-plots have been marking time while the Doug and Carol
>circus played out.
Well, that reminds me of questions on what an ensemble show really is
and if it should have "leads". Personally I have rarely seen a true
ensemble, and the ones I've seen have not been successful. ER, in my
view has two leads and a great number of supporting players (sort of
like L.A. Law had Harry Hamlin, Susan Dey and Jimy Smits' characters
as the leads and the other characters as supporting) that occasionally
get a lead story. It would have been better to spend time on Doug as
he was one of the two leads of the show.
Funny how we have the same premise but come to a different conclusion.
I think on the other side of the argument that we knew well enough who
Doug had become that to have him bahave like that would have required
a lot more exposition to be convincing.
> Viewers who are paying attention, and not so
>blinded by romantic notions as to be inflexible, should have easily made that
>impulsive-Ross jump with the writers. In a way it's a compliment to us, the
>viewers, that they think we can.
In a way. But I rather see it as shoddy writing that forgets to
explain what is clear to them, but not to a large part of the
audience.
>
>Steve
Paula
Kritter wrote in message <36CF8E42...@erols.com>...
>I'll say it agian. Doud DID NOT inject the pain killers, his mother did.
>DOUG DID NOT DO ANYTHING TO RICKY ABBOTT!!!!! (Sorry, but I'm getting
tired of repeating
>myself :-)) He gave the mother the means to do so. He gave her , at most,
the oppurtunity
>to, as you say "hasten Ricky's death" and we do not know if she took it or
not. *Grrrrr at
>the writers*
Sorry for the interruption, but unless I missed something, we don't know
that for sure. We know what Joi said, we know what the DA surmised (sp?),
but we were not witnesses to the event and we were not told by both parties
(Joi and Doug).
-Paula
Free your mind, and the rest will follow...
Shannon Stelly Cavell
> It is. Except it's bad foreshadowing in that I had all but forgotten
> about it. The reason it's bad is that it only elicited a one-liner
> from Doug. Also, the safe assumption was that the job was not real
> and it was never brought up again. Once again, shoddy writing.
>
So foreshadowing is judged good or bad based on whether you remember
it. The Portland job offer was mentioned *twice*. How many times do
they have to mention it for it to be "good" and memorable???
Foreshadowing is supposed to be a *hint*. If they mention something
much more than twice, it's gone way beyond being a hint, IMO.
And as someone else mentioned, there's really no reason to assume the
job offer was fake. Amanda only lied about herself--I can't imagine why
she'd lie about a phone call. Indeed, her need to present herself as
super-capable would give her a strong disincentive to do such a thing.
Shannon
--
Shannon Stelly Cavell
mailto:sca...@bellsouth.net
La...@la.com
>
>Kritter wrote in message <36CF8E42...@erols.com>...
>>I'll say it agian. Doud DID NOT inject the pain killers, his mother did.
>
>>DOUG DID NOT DO ANYTHING TO RICKY ABBOTT!!!!! (Sorry, but I'm getting
>tired of repeating
>>myself :-)) He gave the mother the means to do so. He gave her , at most,
>the oppurtunity
>>to, as you say "hasten Ricky's death" and we do not know if she took it or
>not. *Grrrrr at
>>the writers*
>
>
>Sorry for the interruption, but unless I missed something, we don't know
>that for sure. We know what Joi said, we know what the DA surmised (sp?),
>but we were not witnesses to the event and we were not told by both parties
>(Joi and Doug).
Damn!! Another thing we were told about and not shown...
La...@la.com
>La...@LA.com wrote:
>
>> It is. Except it's bad foreshadowing in that I had all but forgotten
>> about it. The reason it's bad is that it only elicited a one-liner
>> from Doug. Also, the safe assumption was that the job was not real
>> and it was never brought up again. Once again, shoddy writing.
>>
>So foreshadowing is judged good or bad based on whether you remember
>it.
Exactly. That might sound strange to you, but as an audience, I (as
well as most people who do not have perfect recall) often need to be
told something several times. That's one of the most difficult parts
of screenwriting. How to balance giving the information often enough
without hitting people over the head with it.
A good example of that is making people's names known to the audience.
If you don't do it often enough and have a big conversation about
people who are not there, the audience's eyes will glaze over,
wondering who the hell they are talking about. So yes, from my
perspective, the planting of the Seattle thing was not effective. It
did not even ring a bell when it came out.
> The Portland job offer was mentioned *twice*. How many times do
>they have to mention it for it to be "good" and memorable???
Obviously at least once more, or maybe if it had been mentionned in a
context that had some meaning instead of just being mentionned off the
cuff.
>Foreshadowing is supposed to be a *hint*. If they mention something
>much more than twice, it's gone way beyond being a hint, IMO.
You remembered it, so it worked for you. I can only say that it
didn't work for me, and the goal of the writer is to be as clear as
possible.
>
>And as someone else mentioned, there's really no reason to assume the
>job offer was fake. Amanda only lied about herself--I can't imagine why
>she'd lie about a phone call. Indeed, her need to present herself as
>super-capable would give her a strong disincentive to do such a thing.
I would go with that. :)
ma...@sfu.ca
>they have to mention it for it to be "good" and memorable???
Obviously at least once more, or maybe if it had been mentionned in a
context that had some meaning instead of just being mentionned off the
cuff.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
No way. Once is good enough. If YOU didn't get it, tough. What I love about
movies, books and yes, television (Law and Order, especially), is when I
return to that source I pick up on things I didn't notice before, which
gives me greater appreciation on the entire piece. And I don't know
how you didn't get it. It was so blatant that that piece of info would
tie into Ross' departure.
Lewis, who still can't see why people think Doug's behaviour in the last
episode was not unlike him (you did see Double Blind, didn't you?).
La...@la.com
As I said, what's blatant to you, may not be blatant to someone else.
That's the reason you have to repeat important information in a
screenplay. You can't have an important piece of information only be
there once. What if the audience isn't paying attention at that
point, what if the actor doesn't say the line in a clear enough way?
Watch any movie you like and you'll be surprised how often important
information is repeated.
Another interesting tidbit is that at some point (at least in plot
intensive movies) someone will recapitulate what's happened so far.
The reason for that is that if the chracters on screen don't do it,
the audience does and loses part of the ensuing plot as they sort
things out for themselves.
Jennifer Hardy
> As I said, what's blatant to you, may not be blatant to someone else.
> That's the reason you have to repeat important information in a
> screenplay. You can't have an important piece of information only be
> there once. What if the audience isn't paying attention at that
> point, what if the actor doesn't say the line in a clear enough way?
> Watch any movie you like and you'll be surprised how often important
> information is repeated.
> Another interesting tidbit is that at some point (at least in plot
> intensive movies) someone will recapitulate what's happened so far.
> The reason for that is that if the chracters on screen don't do it,
> the audience does and loses part of the ensuing plot as they sort
> things out for themselves.
Ah, art for the attention span challenged.
God forbid the audience should think while viewing a movie/television show,
they may be forced to "sort things out for themselves" and as a result,
"lose part of the ensuing plot". I'm not entirely sure what school of
writing you're from....but I assure you, patronizing your audience ain't
gonna win you many fans.
I myself appreciate it when writers credit me with a modicum of
intelligence and the ability to follow along. I neither need nor want to
be spoonfed all along the way. We had been told in a previous episode that
there was a potential job for Doug in Portland. Do we need a scene
spelling out for us that o.k., the fake Doc who told Doug about it was a
wacko, but see, the job really does exist and they really want Doug. Or
are the writers instead relying on us to connect the dots and come to the
conclusion that, yes, the job is legitimate. Not a great leap considering
that any concerns we may have had regarding the veracity of the job offer
were pretty much nullified when Doug *told* Carol he was taking the job.
I apologize if this post is unduly harsh and I really mean no offense, but
I gravely mourn the loss of subtlety in writing. The days when we were
"shown", not "told".
Cheers,
Jennifer
--
"Last night I played a blank tape at full blast. The mime next door went
nuts." Stephen Wright
ma...@sfu.ca
That's the reason you have to repeat important information in a
screenplay. You can't have an important piece of information only be
there once. What if the audience isn't paying attention at that
point, what if the actor doesn't say the line in a clear enough way?
Watch any movie you like and you'll be surprised how often important
information is repeated.
Another interesting tidbit is that at some point (at least in plot
intensive movies) someone will recapitulate what's happened so far.
The reason for that is that if the chracters on screen don't do it,
the audience does and loses part of the ensuing plot as they sort
things out for themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Come on, say if I don't understand Shakespeare, does that make him a
bad writer? Or what if I fell asleep during Citizen Kane, does that make
it a bad movie?
I could see your point if it was stated that another hospital (with no
place/city identified) was interested in Doug ONCE. But it was stated
TWICE in an episode in which the most important piece of info in regards
to Doug was the Portland job.
And as for movies recapitulating the plot, name some good ones: certainly
not The Usual Suspects, LA Confidential (until the final scenes), or Lone
Star, some of the most critically acclaimed films of the last few years that
are also heavily plot-driven.
Lewis.
P. A. Behrer
> Ah, art for the attention span challenged.
Well, there's a friendly statement.
> God forbid the audience should think while viewing a movie/television show,
> they may be forced to "sort things out for themselves" and as a result,
> "lose part of the ensuing plot". I'm not entirely sure what school of
> writing you're from....but I assure you, patronizing your audience ain't
> gonna win you many fans.
Since so many otherwise intelligent people have commented on this, I'd
guess it was not a lack of attention nor intelligence, but poor writing.
>
> I myself appreciate it when writers credit me with a modicum of
> intelligence and the ability to follow along.
We *all* followed along, what we're saying is that it certainly did seem
that up until the last three days or so that he spent at County, Doug
was chugging happily along with his job as ER attending and would have
had no reason to even interview, let along have a "job offer" when he
apparently didn't even interview with the company.
I neither need nor want to
> be spoonfed all along the way. We had been told in a previous episode that
> there was a potential job for Doug in Portland. Do we need a scene
> spelling out for us that o.k., the fake Doc who told Doug about it was a
> wacko, but see, the job really does exist and they really want Doug. Or
> are the writers instead relying on us to connect the dots and come to the
> conclusion that, yes, the job is legitimate. Not a great leap considering
> that any concerns we may have had regarding the veracity of the job offer
> were pretty much nullified when Doug *told* Carol he was taking the job.
He made the decision to leave in less than two days. Had he been
thinking about leaving all along? Uh uh. Did he run out to Portland and
interview when we weren't looking? Uh uh. So the whole thing by the
writers was as "Oh, by the way...." as the "Julian stuck up for me with
the cops....they're not going to prosecute." Lame, lame, lame.
>
> I apologize if this post is unduly harsh and I really mean no offense, but
> I gravely mourn the loss of subtlety in writing. The days when we were
> "shown", not "told".
There's a great difference between subtelty in writing and poor writing.
We were neither told nor were we shown. We knew there was a potential
job offer, of course. It would have been much more credible if Doug had
said to Carol something like, "I can't believe it was true!" or "That
idiot from Portland keeps calling me." The way the writers left it with
us was that someone called Amanda, not Doug, she "downplayed" him, and
Doug said, "I have no idea what you're talking about" and "I'm not going
anywhere." No where did we get the suspicion he'd even talked to these
guys.
Jennifer Hardy
<36D28F...@flash.net>...
> Jennifer Hardy wrote:
As I said, I truly meant no offense by my post. I'm just so frustrated at
the "dumbing down" of my favourite shows that I can't seem to control my
vitriol. :-) It's especially painful when this happens to intelligent
shows like "ER" and "Homicide" - shows whose audiences are intelligent and
alert (at the very least).
LaGuy's comments about audiences needing to be told important information
several times because they may not have been paying attention or were
trying to follow along and thus may miss other plot developments raised my
ire, which led to this statement (which I don't consider unfriendly - I
think it's an accurate description of what LaGuy had just described):
> > Ah, art for the attention span challenged.
>
> Well, there's a friendly statement.
I honestly can't think of a friendlier way to say it. Perhaps "art for the
chronically distracted"?
> Since so many otherwise intelligent people have commented on this, I'd
> guess it was not a lack of attention nor intelligence, but poor writing.
<snip>
> There's a great difference between subtelty in writing and poor writing.
> We were neither told nor were we shown. We knew there was a potential
> job offer, of course. It would have been much more credible if Doug had
> said to Carol something like, "I can't believe it was true!" or "That
> idiot from Portland keeps calling me." The way the writers left it with
> us was that someone called Amanda, not Doug, she "downplayed" him, and
> Doug said, "I have no idea what you're talking about" and "I'm not going
> anywhere." No where did we get the suspicion he'd even talked to these
> guys.
You're absolutely correct that Doug's exit was not written well. Too many
people have justifiably complained for me try to defend it and I do accede
to your argument. I *did* like the episode and I thought it allowed for
some great acting by GC, but the entire episode was too hectic and more
time should have been spent on the Doug storyline. I was especially
disappointed with the resolution (or lack thereof) of the investigation and
the seemingly about face of Mark's feelings for Doug as evidenced by that
final scene (although I loved the scene in and of itself). I do feel
Doug's "meltdown" and the Carol/Doug separation were handled and acted
excellently. I'm glad GC's exit (i.e. he didn't die) allows for guest
appearances and what I believe will be his eventual redemption and reuinion
with Carol.
My comments from my previous post would have been better suited to a
general discussion of writing and not to this particular epsiode. Cuz I
get awfully het up when I feel the writers are not giving their audience
any credit and tend to run off at the mouth!
Once again, I apologize for any offense taken. I will try to rein in my
"enthusiasm" (o.k. - temper, bitterness, frustration, etc.etc.etc., you
fill in the blank) in future posts. :-)
La...@la.com
>La...@LA.com wrote in article <36d274aa...@news.pacificnet.net>...
>
>> As I said, what's blatant to you, may not be blatant to someone else.
>> That's the reason you have to repeat important information in a
>> screenplay. You can't have an important piece of information only be
>> there once. What if the audience isn't paying attention at that
>> point, what if the actor doesn't say the line in a clear enough way?
>> Watch any movie you like and you'll be surprised how often important
>> information is repeated.
>> Another interesting tidbit is that at some point (at least in plot
>> intensive movies) someone will recapitulate what's happened so far.
>> The reason for that is that if the chracters on screen don't do it,
>> the audience does and loses part of the ensuing plot as they sort
>> things out for themselves.
>
>Ah, art for the attention span challenged.
>
>God forbid the audience should think while viewing a movie/television show,
>they may be forced to "sort things out for themselves" and as a result,
>"lose part of the ensuing plot". I'm not entirely sure what school of
>writing you're from....but I assure you, patronizing your audience ain't
>gonna win you many fans.
What you don't see, is that it has nothing to do with patronizing the
audience. It's called good writing. I understand your view though as
you probably have never tried to write a screenplay. But spend a fun
hour or two and watch a tape of one of your favorite shows or movies
and watch it with the intent of taking a look at what I was talking
about. You'll be surprised at the redundancy of information, at the
recapitulation of information and (always a big hit at parties :) at
the protagonist voicing his/her goal very clearly in the first third
of the show.
Another related example I like a lot is the movie Aliens. Watch it
and count the number of times you are told (in essence) "we have to
hurry, we're out of time". You'll be amazed. And that is part of
good writing. The point was made over and over again and made the
whole experience more effective . By the way when I say telling the
audience, that doesn't mean telling them through dialogue necessarily.
In Aliens for instance, the effect was soemtimes achieved through
dialogue, sometimes through the use of clocks counting down, etc...
>
>I myself appreciate it when writers credit me with a modicum of
>intelligence and the ability to follow along. I neither need nor want to
>be spoonfed all along the way. We had been told in a previous episode that
>there was a potential job for Doug in Portland. Do we need a scene
>spelling out for us that o.k., the fake Doc who told Doug about it was a
>wacko, but see, the job really does exist and they really want Doug. Or
>are the writers instead relying on us to connect the dots and come to the
>conclusion that, yes, the job is legitimate. Not a great leap considering
>that any concerns we may have had regarding the veracity of the job offer
>were pretty much nullified when Doug *told* Carol he was taking the job.
There, you're getting all superior on me because that line struck you.
It didn't strike me and therefore didn't work for me and I think from
what I read here that it was one of the reasons the whole thing gave a
bad smell to a good part of the audience.
>
>I apologize if this post is unduly harsh and I really mean no offense, but
>I gravely mourn the loss of subtlety in writing. The days when we were
>"shown", not "told".
There you must have suffered terribly in that episode. What with
being told that Carol had resigned from the clinic, that Doug had
resigned from the hospital and I forgot the third instance I caught :)
La...@la.com
"P. A. Behrer" <beh...@flash.net> wrote:
>Jennifer Hardy wrote:
>
>> Ah, art for the attention span challenged.
>
>Well, there's a friendly statement.
>
>
>> God forbid the audience should think while viewing a movie/television show,
>> they may be forced to "sort things out for themselves" and as a result,
>> "lose part of the ensuing plot". I'm not entirely sure what school of
>> writing you're from....but I assure you, patronizing your audience ain't
>> gonna win you many fans.
>
>Since so many otherwise intelligent people have commented on this, I'd
>guess it was not a lack of attention nor intelligence, but poor writing.
>>
>> I myself appreciate it when writers credit me with a modicum of
>> intelligence and the ability to follow along.
>
>We *all* followed along, what we're saying is that it certainly did seem
>that up until the last three days or so that he spent at County, Doug
>was chugging happily along with his job as ER attending and would have
>had no reason to even interview, let along have a "job offer" when he
>apparently didn't even interview with the company.
>
> I neither need nor want to
>> be spoonfed all along the way. We had been told in a previous episode that
>> there was a potential job for Doug in Portland. Do we need a scene
>> spelling out for us that o.k., the fake Doc who told Doug about it was a
>> wacko, but see, the job really does exist and they really want Doug. Or
>> are the writers instead relying on us to connect the dots and come to the
>> conclusion that, yes, the job is legitimate. Not a great leap considering
>> that any concerns we may have had regarding the veracity of the job offer
>> were pretty much nullified when Doug *told* Carol he was taking the job.
>
>He made the decision to leave in less than two days. Had he been
>thinking about leaving all along? Uh uh. Did he run out to Portland and
>interview when we weren't looking? Uh uh. So the whole thing by the
>writers was as "Oh, by the way...." as the "Julian stuck up for me with
>the cops....they're not going to prosecute." Lame, lame, lame.
>
>
>>
>> I apologize if this post is unduly harsh and I really mean no offense, but
>> I gravely mourn the loss of subtlety in writing. The days when we were
>> "shown", not "told".
>
>There's a great difference between subtelty in writing and poor writing.
>We were neither told nor were we shown. We knew there was a potential
>job offer, of course. It would have been much more credible if Doug had
>said to Carol something like, "I can't believe it was true!" or "That
>idiot from Portland keeps calling me." The way the writers left it with
>us was that someone called Amanda, not Doug, she "downplayed" him, and
>Doug said, "I have no idea what you're talking about" and "I'm not going
>anywhere." No where did we get the suspicion he'd even talked to these
>guys.
>
La...@la.com
>P. A. Behrer <beh...@flash.net> wrote in article
><36D28F...@flash.net>...
>> Jennifer Hardy wrote:
>
>As I said, I truly meant no offense by my post.
None taken. You just sounded, well, maybe a tad "superior", but no
big deal :)
> I'm just so frustrated at
>the "dumbing down" of my favourite shows that I can't seem to control my
>vitriol. :-) It's especially painful when this happens to intelligent
>shows like "ER" and "Homicide" - shows whose audiences are intelligent and
>alert (at the very least).
>
>LaGuy's comments about audiences needing to be told important information
>several times because they may not have been paying attention or were
>trying to follow along and thus may miss other plot developments raised my
>ire,
I think I may not have explained enough what I was saying (see I
should have said it twice :). There are really two parts. One is we
need to be told important information several times. You may not
believe me, but all movies do it so routinely (and artfully) that it's
really a given. Another unrelated example is political discourse.
notice how, within the same speech, the speaker will repeat his/her
main argument several times.
In any case, what I was saying about needing to recapitulate the plot
at some point has little to do with it. It's something I found when I
was watching poorly scripted movies. I would pretty much drop out of
the film for two minutes, trying to figure out where we were in the
script. Since I don't think I'm anything special, I would venture
that it is something we all do when presented with an intricate plot,
and indeed I then found out that most films have such a device whereby
we are presented with a succinc reminder of what went on (often in the
form of I can't believe that so far I have been stabbed, kicked,
laughed at, had to fill out ten IRS forms...) When it is well done,
it is prety much invisible because it happens at the proper moment and
in such a guise that you do not feel like saying "thank you mister
exposition" to the character. Keep an eye out for it in the next
movies you see (assuming they're dramatic) and you'll be amazed.
> which led to this statement (which I don't consider unfriendly - I
>think it's an accurate description of what LaGuy had just described):
>
>> > Ah, art for the attention span challenged.
That's where I part ways with you. Most of us do not have perfect
recall and stories need to be told in a way that is compatible with
the average human brain.
>>
>> Well, there's a friendly statement.
>
>I honestly can't think of a friendlier way to say it. Perhaps "art for the
>chronically distracted"?
>
>> Since so many otherwise intelligent people have commented on this, I'd
>> guess it was not a lack of attention nor intelligence, but poor writing.
>
><snip>
>
>> There's a great difference between subtelty in writing and poor writing.
>> We were neither told nor were we shown. We knew there was a potential
>> job offer, of course. It would have been much more credible if Doug had
>> said to Carol something like, "I can't believe it was true!" or "That
>> idiot from Portland keeps calling me." The way the writers left it with
>> us was that someone called Amanda, not Doug, she "downplayed" him, and
>> Doug said, "I have no idea what you're talking about" and "I'm not going
>> anywhere." No where did we get the suspicion he'd even talked to these
>> guys.
>
>You're absolutely correct that Doug's exit was not written well. Too many
>people have justifiably complained for me try to defend it and I do accede
>to your argument. I *did* like the episode and I thought it allowed for
>some great acting by GC,
As I mentioned earlier, I believe great acting goes a long way towards
making bad writing appear good.
>but the entire episode was too hectic and more
>time should have been spent on the Doug storyline. I was especially
>disappointed with the resolution (or lack thereof) of the investigation
That was the last essential thing we were told not shown. :)
>and
>the seemingly about face of Mark's feelings for Doug as evidenced by that
>final scene (although I loved the scene in and of itself).
Strangely, I sort of bought it as being in line with Mark saying that
he loved Doug like a brother but couldn't stand to work with him, and
which had been a theme to their relationship.
> I do feel
>Doug's "meltdown" and the Carol/Doug separation were handled and acted
>excellently. I'm glad GC's exit (i.e. he didn't die) allows for guest
>appearances and what I believe will be his eventual redemption and reuinion
>with Carol.
>
>My comments from my previous post would have been better suited to a
>general discussion of writing and not to this particular epsiode. Cuz I
>get awfully het up when I feel the writers are not giving their audience
>any credit and tend to run off at the mouth!
>
>Once again, I apologize for any offense taken. I will try to rein in my
>"enthusiasm" (o.k. - temper, bitterness, frustration, etc.etc.etc., you
>fill in the blank) in future posts. :-)
Thanks for the apology. It is gladly accepted :)
ch...@ix.netcom.com
La...@LA.com wrote:
> I must say I was quite disappointed by today's ER. Here's a few
> disjointed thoughts about it.
>
> It was supposed to be centered on Doug Ross and why he is leaving but
> his character was at best peripheral to what was going on.
>
> Another indictment of the writing was the number of scenes that were
> talked about and not shown. Dr. Ross resigns from the ER and we don't
> see it but have to hear about it? What was that about?
>
> It also felt like some of what he was doing was out of character.
> Particularly, his last scene with Carol sounded like it was coming out
> of a psychology manual and not out of his character and only George
> Clooney's performance made it halfway palatable.
>
I totally agree. I couldn't believe they gave the doug
Ross character such short shrift (? sp). I said this
elsewhere:
I was very disappointed with the last episode -- Doug
Ross’ departure. I couldn’t believe it. It was a real
insult to the Doug Ross character (and his fans), who
more than any other character is responsible for the
series’ success. Here are my complaints: (1) that so little
time was devoted to him, (1a) that he had no lines or
actions to go out in a blaze of glory or dignity, no lofty
speeches, no real defense, (2) that so many interesting
actions and reflections would occur off-screen, like his
escaping arrest, his talks with the hospital brass,
quitting, etc. (3) that he could get into a stupid,
unrelated, ignominious traffic accident (this hero!)
without any explanation of how, why, etc. , (4) that no
comment would be made about/to the ungrateful mother
who shamefully implicated Ross in the mercy killing;
some thanks!, (5) that Ross couldn’t have thought of a
more clever way for the mercy killing without him
getting implicated, and (6) of course, the sudden and
thoughtless walking out on Carol; so much for the great
show and character development. Another small point:
he probably could have found another job in the
Chicago area as he did in the Hell and High Water
(rescue in the sewer drain) episode (easier work and
more pay than in the ER).
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own