Foreign Food Source?

[webmouse]

In a couple of episodes, we find characters who have been alone on empty planets for months, even years. Earnest was been abandoned for 50 years in "Torment of Tantalus" in a building that doesn't appear to have access to the outside.

Similarly, the boy in "The Light" had been alone after his parents died -- long enough for their bodies to be reduced to skeletons.

So, what did these guys do for food? No one has ever mentioned a Goa'uld food replicator (hmmm, "replicator" has an entirely different context in SG-1 from that used in Star Trek)

Plot hole or just plain laziness on the writing team?

Enquiring mousies want to know. :rolly2:

 

[Hatshepsut]

Ravens.

Or an interdimensional portal into the 'fridge?

Best wishes,
Hatshepsut :wave:

P.S. I think the smart money's on lazy writing...

 

[webmouse]

Yeah, I think lazy writing is the most likely explanation.

Or there's the way-cool, Ancient-devised snack machine in the alcove that was just off-screen . . .

 

[Dave]

I always thought Earnest Littlefield looked like a fisherman. The castle appeared to have a window and he could simply throw a line out there into the sea (maybe a nice scene with Jack was missed there.) But I think that it was really meant to be a 'locked room', otherwise if it were me, I think I might have got sick of fish and gone exploring. In which case, the only explanation would be the Ancient's Food Processor that wasn't shown.

As for Loran, the boy, he could leave the temple, he just had to return there periodically. He could have learnt how to hunt and fish. Or, his parents may had left him a well-stocked larder. Or, maybe he ate his parents with a nice Chianti...slislislisslish!

 

[McHorde-Trooper]

In addition to Dave's fishing suggestion I think
Earnest may have also eaten Funguses and similar items
that don't need a lot of soil or light to grow.

>Plot hole or just plain laziness on the writing team?

It's not laziness. Earnest was just skin and bones. It's
pretty believable that he lived by scrounging what food he
could. Earnest was a smart guy too.

The kid lived in a Goa'uld pleasure place. I bet there vast
were food stores. Plus it would be highly believable that some
service would keep delivering food to a Goa'uld pleasure place
long after it has been abandon. That kind of thing happens.

Also ask you're self what is important to the story?
The plot or mundane details that do not advance the plot.

 

[webmouse]

Originally posted by McHorde-Trooper
It's not laziness. . . . Also ask you're self what is important to the story? The plot or mundane details that do not advance the plot.

Good writing prevents the viewer's mind from wandering from the plot to mundane details. A line here or an image there supplies the details without hampering the plot. It all has to do with that critical element of all theatre: the willing suspension of disbelief.

Putting in the line that there was no way out of the temple where Earnest lived left our heroes grippingly trapped on the edge of a precipice, but equally caused me to wonder how Earnest survived for 50 years. Is the water below fresh or salinated? Outside he might have found fruit trees, vegetables and small animals to eat. Better to have left out that line and let the peril to the stargate itself keep the team trapped.

Loran (?) in "The Light" could have said that his parents left him well-supplied or that the food machines have good food, if a bit limited. Or SG1 could have found the graves rather than the skeletons of his parents. The moment I saw the skeletons I realized how long the boy had been left unattended -- another blow to the willing suspension of disbelief.

When the action is done, if a viewer is left with the feeling that it just didn't "read" right, then the fault lies in the writing. Viewers who are willing to fill in details that were never even made plausible are doing the writers job for them and that only promotes more lazy writing.

I did enjoy both episodes, but I didn't have to dig too deep to find a plot hole. :blush:

 

[Dave]

I don't want to appear to be an apologist for poor writing, but I'm amazed at how the writers of these weekly TV shows can write episodes on such a short turnaround and NOT make more mistakes.

Compare them with the time a writer of a film or a book has to get it perfectly right.

This was discussed on a List I belong to. Someone asked who would write a hard SF book at all, when they know that there are hundreds of thousands of readers out there just waiting to take the science apart into small pieces. But authors like that kind of response. It shows how intelligent their readers are, and sometimes they even incorporate the error corrections into a sequel.

Even films with months of editing can have small inconsistencies, so I can live with a few mistakes in a weekly TV series. Of course gaping plot holes are annoying, especially if they are a frequent occurrence, and a failure to stick to their own created Canon is inexcusable.

But sometimes it is fun to nitpick the mistakes and to make fun of them (which I thought was the idea of this thread!)

 

[webmouse]

I agree that short turnaround means mistakes in plots -- and rarely have I found a plot hole so bad that I can't stand to watch the episode again (although I can name a few in the several Star Trek franchises I never want to see again)

And yes, the food is just a minor nitpick. Every show has got gaffs -- some greater than others.

 

[McHorde-Trooper]

webmouse what do you think of my theory about
Earnest's food source in "Torment of Tantalus"? Don't you
think Earnest's malnourished appearance makes things
pretty believable in that case?

Now it's harder to argue about "The Light". Maybe
a throw away line would have helped explain things
with out wasting time.

Yet it's pretty easy to imagine such a detail.
The location was a Goa'uld vacation spot. I'm sure the
Goa'uld got the munchies from the light so I'm sure
that the temple was well supplied with food.

Since the imagination can fill in such details and they are
not story critical it seems kind of unimportant.

What's more important is detailes like time line. Now
I'm not saying anything about SG1's time line, but . .

. . I know other shows where the time line is a key element
to the story, but what may be contradiction's aren't
explained away in show. This casted a shadow on my
enjoyment of some really good episodes.

 

[PTeppic]

IF there was a constant stream of rain collecting somewhere in the building, he might have a chance, but I don't think there'd be enough fungus to grow to keep him going for 50 years.

 

[webmouse]

Pteppic has a good point on Earnest. I didn't see much fungal growth on the walls. Considering the appearance of those starved over a few months in famine or in war, Earnest is looking pretty good after 50 years.

Rainwater and fish might do it, though. Just a brief shot of Earnest offering to share his "sandwich" with Daniel.
Earnest: "Bit of fish -- no bread -- wrapped in kelp."
Daniel: "Sushi, my favorite. (pause) You've lived on this for 50 years?" Earnest nods.

The odd thing is that "Tantalus" is hampered by the addition of a line (SG1 confirming that there is no other way out of the building than the stargate). Leave out that line and we can assume that Earnest found food outside.

"Light" is hampered by the lack of a line -- no mention at all of how Loran has survived for months without his parents, or for that matter before when they were addicted. Why isn't Loran more emaciated?

It may be that the writers considered all these possibilities -- even had them in the script -- and the shooting schedule and run time precluded their inclusion. Its still a hole, but a forgivable one.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by webmouse
"Light" is hampered by the lack of a line -- no mention at all of how Loran has survived for months without his parents, or for that matter before when they were addicted. Why isn't Loran more emaciated?

It may be that the writers considered all these possibilities -- even had them in the script -- and the shooting schedule and run time precluded their inclusion. Its still a hole, but a forgivable one.

From what I've read about the way they write, that's probably exactly what did happen. The way Loran appeared you would be left to guess what he was -- a human boy, a Goa'uld, some other alien in human form, a hallucination, a spirit/ghost, etc. If he was emanciated it would be more obvious that he was a human boy. They may have had something in the script originally, but after several re-writes by different writers they forgot why the line was necessary at all, and then cut it to make the right run time.

 

[webmouse]

And if upon a later review -- with the show in the can, as they say -- TPTB probably said that only a handful of nitpickers (hmmm, that would be us, of course) would notice.