Torchwood Children of Earth Ending: What would you have done?

[Sci]

Yes, stj, Children of Earth was just another anti-revolutionary, pro-establishment piece of propaganda. Just like everything not written by Che Guvera or Lenin.

What are the school league tables for? To identify winners and losers.

And that's what marks the Prime Minister and his cabinet as villains: They responded to the 456 crisis by using it as an opportunity to wage class warfare upon the poor and the working class.

How is science fiction gibberish that declares it is necessary for the hero to sacrifice an innocent child to save millions true of real life?

I don't think that the point of the series was "sometimes it is necessary to sacrifice an innocent person to save others." I think the point of the series was that we humans are often monsters, far more immoral than those we have nighmares about -- that even the so-called "heroes" are no such thing.

It's like Gwen said at the beginning of "Day Five:"

"I always wanted to ask Jack about that Doctor of his. The man who appears from out of nowhere to save the world... except sometimes he doesn't. Where was the Doctor all those times in history when we needed him and he was nowhere to be found? But I know now. Sometimes, the Doctor must look at our world and turn away in shame."

 

[stj]

I think the point of the series was that we humans are often monsters, far more immoral than those we have nighmares about -- that even the so-called "heroes" are no such thing.

Even if you don't realize this is just cheap cynicism, it ignores the climax: Captain Jack Harkness, the hero, bravely sacrifices his own grandson, unlike the secondary selfish cowards who would sacrifice someone else's children, to defeat real monsters. While the likes of Gwen and Reece, and Ianto, and Lois and Bridget can't really accomplish anything. Even what's-his-name, the civil servant, can't save his own family. What happens in the story is part of the message. Ignoring that is the same as flat out lying about what it means.

I say that to accept what really is true in this sloppy scifi means regarding the absurd victory of Captain Jack as an undoing of the real drama in the planning meeting.

 

[Sci]

I think the point of the series was that we humans are often monsters, far more immoral than those we have nighmares about -- that even the so-called "heroes" are no such thing.

Even if you don't realize this is just cheap cynicism,

It's cheap cynicism if RTD tells a story about how people are monsters on Torchwood, and it's cheap self-congratulation if RTD tells a story about how people are awesome on Doctor Who. Poor guy just loses no matter what kind of story he tells!

It's a story. It's one experience of the world; it's not claiming to be telling the One Absolute Truth of How Things Really Are And Always Will Be, especially when Children of Earth is taken in context with numerous Doctor Who episodes about the greatness of humanity.

it ignores the climax: Captain Jack Harkness, the hero, bravely sacrifices his own grandson,

If you thought that the point of that scene was that Jack was "brave" to sacrifice his grandson, then you, once again, just didn't get it, and have resorted to making stuff up about it in order to shoehorn it into your political ideology.

You're not supposed to come away from that scene thinking that Jack is brave or more admirable than the other characters. You're supposed to come away form that scene sick to your stomach and wondering if Jack even is a decent guy.

 

[Jim Steele]

You really have to take a good look at your critical thinking skills if you see an immortal man sacrificing his defenceless young grandson's life (greater good or not) and interpret it as a depiction of chisel-jawed bravery.

absurd victory of Captain Jack

Captain Jack defeated the alien threat, but not until he'd lost Torchwood, his lover, his self respect and his own grandson.

You call that a victory?

He scraped through the ordeal and ended up with nothing. Not even the love of his daughter. That's kinda why he pissed off at the end. It wasn't a victory for him any more than The Battle of the Somme was for Britain.

 

[CmdrAJD]

I don't see any good solutions to the situation. Jack's was the best of several bad options, and even it may only be a temporary victory. The fact that the children were being shipped to military bases for pick-up indicates to me that either humans selected the place or that the 456 knew where the bases were. Either way it means that the 456 are not limited in where they can do mass transports from. Even if humanity collectively said that they would not give up the children and the 456 were bluffing about being able to wipe out the Earth, there would be nothing to stop them from locating a school or schools and just taking the children directly. Showing the 456 that humanity can hurt them was possibly the only way to get the 456 to backoff. We have no idea what the range on their teleport system is, though. Even if it's short range and there's a ship in the solar system, there is nothing Earth can do about it. If the 456 are really just a small group of thugs, Jack's actions may be enough to end the threat. If, however, the 456 are a larger force, Earth's victory could be very short-lived.

 

[Starkers]

What makes you think there would even be someone to replace the government? Frankly, I'm arguing that that kind of continuous treason against their populations would probably plunge the entire planet into one giant civil war. There wouldn't even be governments anymore to be making those decisions. The 456s would have no one to talk to because the Humans would all be too busy shooting each other. The world's states would cease to exist.

Yes but how long would it take for humanity to get to that point? Would the second 456 encounter do it? I'd doubt it, sure you would get a change of government, perhaps even a forced through election, maybe a military coup (although the military didn't have much good will after this likely). I think it would take at least another visit by the 456 to start any kind of downward spiral, enough time for Green's replacement (and the new leaders world wide) to fail to stop the 456. One can almost imagine the rightgeous indicnation. "You promised you'd be different." etc etc.

Ps good call about Harriet, and yes she would have been different I suspect--if only she'd still been in charge. Nice one Doctor you hypocritial bar steward (although if all the world's powers have agreed to give in what could the UK, or any other country, do?)

 

[Snaploud]

The fact that the children were being shipped to military bases for pick-up indicates to me that either humans selected the place or that the 456 knew where the bases were. Either way it means that the 456 are not limited in where they can do mass transports from. Even if humanity collectively said that they would not give up the children and the 456 were bluffing about being able to wipe out the Earth, there would be nothing to stop them from locating a school or schools and just taking the children directly.

They were probably limited by the number of beams at any given moment, and we don't know how long it takes to calibrate the beams for individual locations. Sure, they could grab children from a number of different playgrounds, but people would be hoarding their children inside before long.

 

[Sci]

The fact that the children were being shipped to military bases for pick-up indicates to me that either humans selected the place or that the 456 knew where the bases were. Either way it means that the 456 are not limited in where they can do mass transports from. Even if humanity collectively said that they would not give up the children and the 456 were bluffing about being able to wipe out the Earth, there would be nothing to stop them from locating a school or schools and just taking the children directly.

They were probably limited by the number of beams at any given moment, and we don't know how long it takes to calibrate the beams for individual locations. Sure, they could grab children from a number of different playgrounds, but people would be hoarding their children inside before long.

I for one am not convinced that the 456s' teleportation technology was advanced enough to pick up kids from more than a few locations at a time. If they were advanced enough to just pick up kids from the world's schools, why didn't they just do that one day instead of contacting the British government first? They obviously needed the government as a dealer, otherwise they'd cut out the middle man.

 

[stj]

You really have to take a good look at your critical thinking skills if you see an immortal man sacrificing his defenceless young grandson's life (greater good or not) and interpret it as a depiction of chisel-jawed bravery.

absurd victory of Captain Jack

Captain Jack defeated the alien threat, but not until he'd lost Torchwood, his lover, his self respect and his own grandson.

You call that a victory?

He scraped through the ordeal and ended up with nothing. Not even the love of his daughter. That's kinda why he pissed off at the end. It wasn't a victory for him any more than The Battle of the Somme was for Britain.

Neglecting the contrast between Jack's success (aka victory) versus Gwen and Reece's failure, Bridget's failure, Lois' failure, Frobisher's failure and Ianto's failure means you're not even making the slightest effort to look objectively at what the story is. They failed, not Jack. A suffering hero is not defeated, he's suffering. There are lots of people who think winning is the only thing.

It wasn't even Jack's plan, but Dekker's. The only reason Dekker and that woman didn't carry out Dekker's plan on their own, is because it's Torchwood the series, and Jack Harkness is the hero. He's supposed to be the one who steps up to the plate. The point of the story killing off Jack's grandson was not to portray him in a dubious light: Killing off one of the guard's children would have made that point even more obviously, making him like one of the officials who were going to sacrifice someone else's children. The falseness of writing that none of the guards brought their children to safety, so that it would have to be Jack's grandson alone shows that the point was to make Jack suffer.

Also, Jack, after decades and decades and decades of lovers was shown to reciprocate Ianto's feelings. In fictional context, an immortal couldn't invest into a love affair the way the youngster does. But showing Ianto as loving Jack more would in fact put Jack into an unflattering light.

Jack's moral villainy was already showed when he refused to resist their plans by releasing the tapes of the meetings. The show quite carefully skated over his motivation for this with some lame dialogue. The plausible reason, his grandson, was not alluded to precisely because the show did not intend to paint Jack as immoral or bad in any ordinary way. His immorality was arranged by contrived plotting to be successful at defeating the primary villains; at personal sacrifice, unlike the secondary villains, and, most of all, necessary, right down to the choice of victim.

Of course, a lot of this was already explained, if not perfectly obvious on viewing. Ignoring it is falsifying the story. Rudeness is no substitute for a sound argument. It does serve well in place of an honest one.

If you thought that the point of that scene was that Jack was "brave" to sacrifice his grandson, then you, once again, just didn't get it, and have resorted to making stuff up about it in order to shoehorn it into your political ideology.

You're not supposed to come away from that scene thinking that Jack is brave or more admirable than the other characters. You're supposed to come away form that scene sick to your stomach and wondering if Jack even is a decent guy.

Missing the points mentioned above means you just didn't get it. You're the one whose political ideology is blinding you to the obvious. For the very least thing, if Jack had refused to sacrifice his grandson, and Ianto's niece and nephew and all the other children had been transported away, who would think Jack was brave or more admirable, and have no question if even is a decent guy? Jack was very much meant to contrast with the Greens. Winning, instead of losing like Frobisher, was also meant to contrast.

The fundamental dishonesty is pretending that such far fetched dilemmas reflect something about real life, so that Jack's decision is somehow seen as tragedy. Such nonsense may resonate with your personal political ideology, obviously. But critiquing the ideological assumptions is any viewer's privilege. Making stuff up to counter the critique is not.

 

[Sci]

Neglecting the contrast between Jack's success (aka victory) versus Gwen and Reece's failure, Bridget's failure, Lois' failure, Frobisher's failure and Ianto's failure means you're not even making the slightest effort to look objectively at what the story is.

No, it means that we have a different opinion about whether or not Jack actually had a success or victory. In fact, Allyn Gibson, whom I often disagree with, made a very strong argument that part of the point of Children of Earth was at least in part about how genuinely incompetent the Torchwood crew were.

They failed, not Jack. A suffering hero is not defeated, he's suffering. There are lots of people who think winning is the only thing.

I'm sure there are. That doesn't mean that any of us, or that the characters on Torchwood, or that the writers of Torchwood are amongst them, nor does it mean that the intention of the writing was to communicate or advocate the idea that winning is the only thing.

Also, Jack, after decades and decades and decades of lovers was shown to reciprocate Ianto's feelings. In fictional context, an immortal couldn't invest into a love affair the way the youngster does.

Um, maybe you don't think so, but obviously RTD disagrees. Find me an immortal being to test it on, and then we'll talk. Till then, your opinion of how an immortal entity would invest into a love affair is no more valid than anyone else's.

Rudeness is no substitute for a sound argument.

You're one to talk. I have yet to see you make an argument to anyone that wasn't built on a foundation of condescension and rudeness.

For the very least thing, if Jack had refused to sacrifice his grandson, and Ianto's niece and nephew and all the other children had been transported away, who would think Jack was brave or more admirable, and have no question if even is a decent guy?

I for one would have found Jack much more brave, and much more decent, had he not murdered his grandson.

 

[stj]

^^^Your first post commenting on mine is quoted below. There's no point there other than rudeness.

[Yes, stj, Children of Earth was just another anti-revolutionary, pro-establishment piece of propaganda. Just like everything not written by Che Guvera or Lenin.

 

[Kelthaz]

I for one would have found Jack much more brave, and much more decent, had he not murdered his grandson.

He would be more brave by taking the easy option that dooms tens of millions of children to hellish torture for centuries and reduces the world to anarchy rather than make a personal sacrifice? I'm not quite following your logic on this one.

 

[David cgc]

Jack didn't make a personal sacrifice. Steven is the one who died, and his life was no more Jack's to give up than the lives of the low-performing children were for the government. Never mind the fact that it was the fact that his grandson was handy was the only thing that meant he was used. If Jack could've used another kid, any other kid, he would've, so there wasn't any nobility or sacrifice in his choice to use his own flesh and blood, because it wasn't a choice at all.

 

[stj]

^^^The scripting leaves no choice, even at the price of falsifying the ficitonal situation. The fact that none of the people there, who have an idea what's going on, have brought their children to safety is just one. Leaving Jack no real choice is a way of taking real guilt away from him, just as the issue of commitment to Ianto gets lost in a teary death bed and Jack's refusal to openly (i.e., effectively) oppose the government, do. The script set it up so it was Steven or millions. Jack was damned if he did and if he didn't.

That's a false dilemma, which is what I object to. It isn't the way the world really works. It serves as apologetics if you take it seriously, even in a provisional science fictional speculative sort of way. But if you don't take it seriously, it's pompous and sleazy. The valid drama was in the cabinet room but the climax undermined it.

By the way, Jack does make a personal sacrifice of his own grandson and his daughter's remaining affection. And his reborn moral integrity, for what that's worth. Your point should be that it doesn't compare to what Steven lost. Except the show is determined to dwell upon Jack's loss! That's because in the end, despite real drama in the cabinet room, the show degenerated in to trite Captain Jack angst. Which is also something else I object to.

 

[David cgc]

To be fair, it's difficult to dramatize the suffering of what a dead person has lost, on account of their being dead.

 

[Sci]

I for one would have found Jack much more brave, and much more decent, had he not murdered his grandson.

He would be more brave by taking the easy option that dooms tens of millions of children to hellish torture for centuries and reduces the world to anarchy rather than make a personal sacrifice?

He would have been braver to release the video of the British government selling out the children of the United Kingdom and thereby incite a rebellion against both the government and the 456. And far more moral, to boot.

 

[Starkers]

And how many would have died then?

Really is easy to moralise outside of the real world isn't it?

 

[Sci]

And how many would have died then?

And how many more will die at the hands of a treasonous government and a set of aliens willing to use them as murderous middlemen?

This is, after all, the same government that decided that not only would it hand over 10% of its own citizens under the age of 18, but that it would specifically target the children of certain socio-economic classes to do so. The same government that decided that it would rather engage in state terrorism by murdering Jack and two innocent people in order to keep a decision made forty years prior secret. The same government that decided to lie to its own people. The same government that decided to betray one of its own civil servants by seeking to force him to hand over his own children to the 456 -- and this after he had already proven himself a loyal lapdog by being willing to commit murder and terrorism on the government's behalf. The same government that wouldn't even stand up for its own damn sovereignty but let a foreign military walk all over them so they'd have a scapegoat.

The British government in Children of Earth was fundamentally corrupt and needed to be removed. Period.

I don't tend to agree with most of stj's conclusions about the political meanings of a given work as applied to the real world. But stj is dead right when he notes that Jack takes the utterly immoral, coward's way out by not exposing the government's crimes and then by murdering his own grandchild.

Really is easy to moralise outside of the real world isn't it?

No, I never once said or implied it would be easy. In fact, I specifically said it would have been very brave of Jack to so go against the British government. Meaning, it would be hard and dangerous and in no way easy.

But it would also have been far more moral than to collude with a state terrorist regime as Jack did.

 

[stj]

Lest fears of impending apocalypse run rampant because Sci and I agree, let me clarify. I agree that Jack's moral course was to effectively oppose the government.

Where we still differ is that I say the show deliberately deemphasized Jack's guilt in agreeing to keep the tapes secret because it holds that mass opposition to the government (aka revolution) is in itself futile and wrong. And that while the climax enjoys Jack angst over doing something immoral, it also is written so that Jack was also justified. Namely, the plan wasn't his; his grandson was the only child available; doing nothing would have left millions of children to a fate worse than death; it worked.

Real life doesn't present such false dilemmas. By posing such a scenario, the show implies that the Jacks, while immoral in one way, are also heroic in another. I say that's just kind of silly and kind of nasty and adolescent. But in real life govenments use the school league tables (or the non-UK equivalent) to determine the losers, who will get plugged into a system that uses them like machinery, for the system's benefit. In the cabinet meeting, the show touched on the real world. That was far more gripping than Jack Harkness suffering yet again. But the series turned away from real drama to melodrama.

 

[Starkers]

I don't see how anyone could see Jack's decision to sacrifice Steven was brave. It was nasty, vicious, cowardly, yet ultimately neccesary--but not remotely brave. As for the choice not to release the tapes, again not brave, it was the easy option. So many people had died, what would be the point in stirring up open rebellion once the 456 were defeated? And remember, Sci, if the British government deserved to fall then every government on the planet deserved to fall, because they were all guilty of the same actions. I'd quibble as well about the government ordering the murder of innocents worth remembering those innocents, like Jack, had delivered truly innocent children into the hands of the 456. State sponsered murder can't be condoned, but lets not kid oursevles these were sweet old age pensioners.

Green's ultimate toppling as PM wasn't nearly payback enough for what he'd done, but it was more punishment than likely the American President, German Chancellor, Russian president etc would have gotten.

Is the ending slightly dissapointing? Maybe, but then this is RTD, so I was expecting it. The man writes great set up but, in the past, his resolutions haven't always been well considered. Frankly though compared to the button flipping of journey's end I found the end of CoE brilliant. It was still somewhat pulled out of thin air, but at least it came with some cost.

Just out of interest, stj, how would you have ended it?

Like I said, i'm self aware enough to realise I'm taking a very pragmatic stance over the decision not to release the tapes, but frankly I think certain people are being equally naive about the same decision, as if reducing the world to death filled anarchy is somehow ok because it's the moral thing to do?