Which kind of episode structure do you prefer?
Anne
something I don't know <g>).
It is, of course, highly individual, and quality of a story doesn't (at
least, directly) relate to its structure. But still, what did you think
suited and served B7 episodes better - A-B (occasionally, C) stories woven
together, like in Powerplay, Killer and Time Squad, or singular plot, along
the lines of Spacefall, Duel and Hostage?
Discuss, if you're in the mood ;-)
Anne (who did find that TV Zone edition with Blake's 7 feature - and it was
most certainly *not* a duplicate of what we'll see on DVDs, for better or
for worse. And though quotes were chosen from previous editions, at least
they were chosen well, first of all Keating's and Thomas'... though PD's
isn't too bad either. Besides, I never knew before that Darrow tried for
Blake... now THAT is enough to give me surrealistc shocks for months <eg>).
Frankymole
"Anne" <fa...@fain.homechoice.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ar82dl$g3qul$1...@ID-142859.news.dfncis.de...
I'm not bothered whether there were one or two or three suspense situations:
Killer: 2 separate suspense situations
Gambit: ditto
Bounty: ditto
etc
Anyway, I need a mystery (Avon: I don't like an unsolved mystery). whether that
is due to human or alien manipulation, so long as it VERY gradually reaches
resolution, I love it. Even Travis II sometimes made that mystery....
--
Frank
"There is a charge of two work units for this information. Never mind, you can
pay me later."
Kevin McCully
<fa...@fain.homechoice.co.uk> wrote:
>It is, of course, highly individual, and quality of a story doesn't (at
>least, directly) relate to its structure. But still, what did you think
>suited and served B7 episodes better - A-B (occasionally, C) stories woven
>together, like in Powerplay, Killer and Time Squad, or singular plot, along
>the lines of Spacefall, Duel and Hostage?
>
<snip TV Zone>
Personally, i prefer the episodes to have the story arc running
through it. The strength of most of B7 is that it does this admirably
well. Whilst dealing with a smaller narrative within the episode, the
characters develop and change, their bond strengthens, whilst the
tensions within grow, ie Avon's cold logic vs. Blake's emotion in
Seasons 1 and 2; Avon vs. Tarrant in Season 3; Avon "becoming" Blake
in Season 4. For me, even if a story is predominately a stand-alone
narrative, the characters should be affected; other stories set up or
reference the episode's events.
There are no true stand-alones in the first two seasons IIRC, but in
S3 we have Ultraworld, the events of which are never referenced. The
characters don't change, despite two of them being seperated from
their brains (ewww!) two having to reverse the situation, and one
being scared witless whilst reciting riddles to Orac.
Other stand-alone narrarives in S3 are "City...", "Harvest...",
"Dawn...", and arguably "Moloch". Each is a narrative "dead-end"; by
which i mean that although the characters bring their history into the
story, nothing of the events portrayed is carried forward from the
narrative of that episode into the main narrative of the story arc.
IMO, there are no stand-alone episodes in Season 4.
The series is necessarily episodic, rather like a soap opera, and like
a soap, each episode has a self-contained narrative, conisiting of a
beginning, middle and ending, even where the episode segues directly
into the next episiode. Examples are Deliverence/Orac/Redemption, Star
One/Aftermath/Powerplay, Terminal/Rescue and Warlord/Blake. In fact,
one convention of the soap opera genre, the "cliff-hanger ending" is
used here to great effect," hooking" the viewer into wanting to
continue watching the next installment of the narrative.
So, to answer the question, i think the episodic structure served the
B7 story arc very well. The "seperate narrative with the main
narrative running strongly through it" episodes are necessary, because
the crew won't always be doing the same thing. As in "real life", they
are stories within stories, and the seperate events of each story
links to form a "chain" of events, creating the story-arc which runs
through the entire series, whereas the "stand-alone" episodes are
arguably weaker because the do not serve the story arc by carrying it
forward.
Cheers,
kevs, using the ng for essay practice ;-)
Anne
"Frankymole" <Frank@Ask for it on the group.com> wrote in message
news:ar8ri1$jlf$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Anne" <fa...@fain.homechoice.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ar82dl$g3qul$1...@ID-142859.news.dfncis.de...
Stands to reason. I like it too, though (to me, at least) suspense doesn't
always require mystery (albeit the more the merrier). But you just confirmed
what I was feeling. It's not quantity of the questions to solve / goals to
reach, it's how intense / intricate they are. (Though sometimes, even one
lesser puzzle more helps to pump the tension up, like in Powerplay).
>so long as it VERY gradually reaches
> resolution, I love it.
OK, now I know one more reason why people hate Dawn of the Gods <eg>. (Me, I
probably watched too many of current genre shows, which lowered my
standards. It was one of the last episodes I caught, and by hearsay, I was
expected something way worse than how it actually turned out to my eyes... )
>Even Travis II sometimes made that mystery....
Especially lately, yes. (But the first entrance was somewhat of a shock... I
can see why viewers were SO angry - even if I think that, despite Grief
being much better actor, Croucher actually fitted the character's premise
more tightly).
Anne
vi...@xtra.co.nz
> And yes, I know, I have too much time on my hands and no
David
Your life hasn't been lived before.
Anne
> It is, of course, highly individual, and quality of a story doesn't
> (at least, directly) relate to its structure. But still, what did
> you think suited and served B7 episodes better - A-B (occasionally,
> C) stories woven together, like in Powerplay, Killer and Time Squad,
> or singular plot, along the lines of Spacefall, Duel and Hostage?
David
A-B-C. In general, the complicated structures serve it better than the
simple. Moreover, the A-B-C sometimes further sub-divide into sevenfold
plots, and these serve B-Seven even better.
Take Shadow as an example.
On the one side is the Federation, the Terra Nostra, and Largo with his
radioactive tainting of the Shadow he supplies. On the other side is
the bulk of the crew of the Liberator, Cally, and Hanna+Bek. And in the
middle is the Dark trying to cross. The episode is enhanced through
this sevenfold plot.
Take Warlord as another example.
On the one side is Commisioner Sleer, Zukan, and Finn with his
informing Zukan. On the other side is the Rebel Alliance,
Tarrant+Zeeona, Soolin and her anti-Zukan intention. And in the middle
are the radioactive airbourne virus trying to kill everyone in the
complex and the plant that grows wild on Betaphile (or doesn't grow).
Take Dawn of the Gods:
The Thaarn+Cally, the bulk of the crew, Orac+Zen;
The Thaarn+Caliph, Groff, Cally;
and Gravity or the Black Hole coming in between them.
Games is the most obvious Sevener:
Avon+Soolin,
Tarrant and Gerren et al,
Vila (+Gambit);
Belkov in the middle;
Orbiter (+Gambit),
the Mercronians,
Sleer and underlings.
These structures are satisfying.
Sometimes the division is not formalised quite enough. Take Mission.
There are: the Federation, the fungus, the neutrotope (all which could
be viewed separately but probably shouldn't be); Sara, Kendall et al,
the deceased; And the Liberator crew stumbling upon them.
Star Drive is difficult to categorise. The episode falls into three
distinct sections -- Scorpio reaches Caspar; Plaxton confronts Atlan;
Scorpio leaves Caspar -- but each section doesn't enter the time space
of another. The plot is two-dimensional almost like a maze.
On the other hand, those episodes without complicated plots contribute
something else. Orbit, for example, couldn't and shouldn't be
intertwined with some other plot. Redemption's single issue is huge
enough to disallow a second plot mixing with itself. Spacefall would
have benefited from a view of the combatants in the battle witnessed by
the London, but Series One (and Redemption) would have been all the
weaker as a consequence.
So, a complicated plot is what I prefer and serves B7 better than a
simple one where there isn't some over-arching issue.
Anne
(snipped TVZ)
> Besides, I never knew before that Darrow tried for
> Blake... now THAT is enough to give me surrealistic
> shocks for months <eg>).
David
I didn't know that, not sure what to say to it.
DC
Anne
news:3dd7fa0...@news.btinternet.com...
> On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 12:35:01 -0000, "Anne"
> <fa...@fain.homechoice.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >It is, of course, highly individual, and quality of a story doesn't (at
> >least, directly) relate to its structure. But still, what did you think
> >suited and served B7 episodes better - A-B (occasionally, C) stories
woven
> >together, like in Powerplay, Killer and Time Squad, or singular plot,
along
> >the lines of Spacefall, Duel and Hostage?
> >
> <snip TV Zone>
>
> Personally, i prefer the episodes to have the story arc running
> through it. The strength of most of B7 is that it does this admirably
> well. Whilst dealing with a smaller narrative within the episode, the
> characters develop and change, their bond strengthens, whilst the
> tensions within grow, ie Avon's cold logic vs. Blake's emotion in
> Seasons 1 and 2; Avon vs. Tarrant in Season 3; Avon "becoming" Blake
> in Season 4.
Ah, that's an interesting division I didn't put into equation. When a story
is part of an arc (even indirectly, like Avon's execution vs Cally's mercy
mission in "Children of Auron") it *is* already an interwoven narrative,
whether or not there's B-story to it. That's probably why some "singular"
stories on B7 appear so rich.
>For me, even if a story is predominately a stand-alone
> narrative, the characters should be affected;
Agreed. "Events-only" story isn't nearly that interesting. (And that's why I
have problem with antology shows - with all due respect to Twilight Zone and
Outer Limits. It's somehow bothers me that we'll never see how what's
happened in the show will reflect on its characters - when we're talking of
long-running series format).
> There are no true stand-alones in the first two seasons IIRC,
Well, in a way, "Web" and "Bounty" are... (the latter COULD be a part of the
future, but never became one).
>but in
> S3 we have Ultraworld, the events of which are never referenced. The
> characters don't change,
...at least, not overtly. (I see Season 4 as a result of everything that
come before, and definitely every depression, every shock comes into that).
But yes, it was one of "gee, we find ourself in yet another sucky pit - what
else is new?" stories. Occasionally, I don't mind them. B7 is one of these
few shows where time and time again it's enough to just watch characters
interact...
>despite two of them being seperated from
> their brains (ewww!) two having to reverse the situation, and one
> being scared witless
Certainly "what else is new?" variety... ;-)
> Other stand-alone narrarives in S3 are "City...", "Harvest...",
> "Dawn...", and arguably "Moloch". Each is a narrative "dead-end"; by
> which i mean that although the characters bring their history into the
> story, nothing of the events portrayed is carried forward from the
> narrative of that episode into the main narrative of the story arc.
"Moloch" is, indeed, arguable here ;-) - but only in the above sense of
weighing on the relationships further. (But as far as overt narrative
concerned, agreed). Otherwise, no argument.
> IMO, there are no stand-alone episodes in Season 4.
If we go by strict narrative rule, then "Sand" might be one. But, as you
already noticed ;-), I'm perfectly willing to bend that rule right, left and
center. Atmosphere-wise and in load-is-heavying way, it's all connected,
yes.
> The series is necessarily episodic, rather like a soap opera, and like
> a soap, each episode has a self-contained narrative, conisiting of a
> beginning, middle and ending,
Well, almost ;-) (Aftermath being one exception, for starters... and Star
One having its own way to end, too). Besides, soaps are heavy on
cliffhangers these days.
>Deliverence/Orac/Redemption, Star
> One/Aftermath/Powerplay, Terminal/Rescue and Warlord/Blake. In fact,
> one convention of the soap opera genre, the "cliff-hanger ending" is
> used here to great effect,
That'll teach me to read further before answering <g>. Seriously, though, if
I understand you right, you value the (mostly) ideal balance between
stand-alone and interconnected quality B7 reaches as much as I do...
The only example of modern series that did it I can think of is, strangely,
Star Trek - but most un-Star Trek-ish of them all. Yes, DS9, I am looking at
you <g>. (I don't bring up B5, because there, standalones are almost
non-existent, the further into the story, the more).
> So, to answer the question, i think the episodic structure served the
> B7 story arc very well. The "seperate narrative with the main
> narrative running strongly through it" episodes are necessary, because
> the crew won't always be doing the same thing. As in "real life", they
> are stories within stories, and the seperate events of each story
> links to form a "chain" of events, creating the story-arc which runs
> through the entire series,
Couldn't say it better myself.
>whereas the "stand-alone" episodes are
> arguably weaker because the do not serve the story arc by carrying it
> forward.
But substract them off the series, and see if the show doesn't suffer for
it. Diversity is the king ;-)
> Cheers,
> kevs, using the ng for essay practice ;-)
And well, I must say. (Is there any hope that at least one of these essays
will have to do something with the show? I found amazingly small amount of
B7 reviews on the Net - Sue Clerc's page apparently being gone for good -
and could do with some views sharing. And yes, I know the show is over 20
years' old...)
Anne
Anne
<vi...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:3DD895D7...@xtra.co.nz...
> Anne wrote
> > And yes, I know, I have too much time on my hands and no
> > life. Now tell me something I don't know.
>
> David
> Your life hasn't been lived before.
Anne: I seem to remember it from somewhere... ;-)
> Anne
> > what did
> > you think suited and served B7 episodes better - A-B (occasionally,
> > C) stories woven together, like in Powerplay, Killer and Time Squad,
> > or singular plot, along the lines of Spacefall, Duel and Hostage?
>
> David
> A-B-C.
I see. The more, the merrier... ;-)
Seriously, though, I see multi-plotted stories as a greater risk, but with
higher potential rewards. (Though, when there's too much going on,
characters could get overshadowed by the events).
> In general, the complicated structures serve it better than the
> simple. Moreover, the A-B-C sometimes further sub-divide into sevenfold
> plots, and these serve B-Seven even better.
Considering it has an overarching story, yes, it probably does.
> Take Shadow as an example.
> On the one side is the Federation, the Terra Nostra, and Largo with his
> radioactive tainting of the Shadow he supplies. On the other side is
> the bulk of the crew of the Liberator, Cally, and Hanna+Bek. And in the
> middle is the Dark trying to cross. The episode is enhanced through
> this sevenfold plot.
Yes, though Dark remains a cipher. (Although I never minded when B7
sometimes didn't explain certain details - it added to the realism, in a
way. Overexposition isn't your friend...)
> Take Warlord as another example.
> On the one side is Commisioner Sleer, Zukan, and Finn with his
> informing Zukan. On the other side is the Rebel Alliance,
> Tarrant+Zeeona, Soolin and her anti-Zukan intention. And in the middle
> are the radioactive airbourne virus trying to kill everyone in the
> complex and the plant that grows wild on Betaphile (or doesn't grow).
Ah, but I always have taken it as a one story: B7 crew trying to achieve a
goal, while being deceived and having to work to save their lives. There are
players, counter-players and behind-the-scene players, plus tools used by
each, but they are all united in the same knot of goings-on all the way.
What I mean by A-B-C stories is when there are several plots running
concurrently, with only one or two "cross-sections". I used Powerplay as an
example, because we have two lines of conflicts / adventures simultaneously:
while Avon and Dayna go through their trials and tribulations onboard the
Liberator, Vila (for a while alone) faces his own problems on the planet,
and Cally meets Servalan on a "rescue" ship... This sort of thing.
> Take Dawn of the Gods:
> The Thaarn+Cally, the bulk of the crew, Orac+Zen;
> The Thaarn+Caliph, Groff, Cally;
> and Gravity or the Black Hole coming in between them.
That's closer (as Cally is separated from the others, even though she fights
the same opponent, only more directly). BTW, I'm glad to hear (if I
understand you correctly) that I'm not the only one who isn't repulsed by
this episode through and through. It (much more than Duel) could be a "B7
does Star Trek", but it still does it better... (Then again, the more I
watch the show, the more I think I'm easy to please: so far only one episode
with Worst-Ever <tm> reputation lived down to it in my eyes, that being
Animals. Even Harvest Of Kairos gave me quite some enjoyment, and is at
worst a mixed bag, IMO. Probably because I couldn't help laughing whenever
Jarvik strutted his stuff, and still strongly suspect that Ben Steed got
quite a send-up both from directing and acting staff).
> Games is the most obvious Sevener:
> Avon+Soolin,
> Tarrant and Gerren et al,
> Vila (+Gambit);
> Belkov in the middle;
> Orbiter (+Gambit),
> the Mercronians,
> Sleer and underlings.
That's always was something between singular and multiple plotting for me.
On one hand, they're all after one and the same thing, all connected by the
same manipulator (Belkov). On the other, like you said, they meet different
sides of the challenge, going separate ways and (in case of the crew and
Servalan) not even meeting each other...
> Sometimes the division is not formalised quite enough.
Exactly what I meant above. And sometimes, it's even more fun...
>Take Mission.
> There are: the Federation, the fungus, the neutrotope (all which could
> be viewed separately but probably shouldn't be);
That's the thing. Some things that are on the surface of it (even
physically) separate, really aren't. That's the case in many B7's stories.
Volcano is another example. There's Federation (encompassing, in different
manifestations, both Liberator and planetside), there's natives (having, as
we find out along the way, their own internal conflict), and then there's
divided - first in two, then even further - Seven team. But it's all part of
the same story, same ground being sought and fought for, with "ground"
itself having some say in the matter...
> Star Drive is difficult to categorise. The episode falls into three
> distinct sections -- Scorpio reaches Caspar; Plaxton confronts Atlan;
> Scorpio leaves Caspar -- but each section doesn't enter the time space
> of another. The plot is two-dimensional almost like a maze.
Yes, it is. I would even say it's one plot viewed from different sides /
perspectives... Including what's happening *inside* Seveners (first and
foremost Avon). Which sort of add at least half a dimension.
> On the other hand, those episodes without complicated plots contribute
> something else. Orbit, for example, couldn't and shouldn't be
> intertwined with some other plot.
Absolutely. It's an example of how singular story may be as worthy as a
multithreaded one. Which is why I agree with Kevin here: depending on the
subject, either structure may be better. (Still, overall, probably for B7,
it is the more complicated, the better suited).
>Redemption's single issue is huge
> enough to disallow a second plot mixing with itself.
Yes, though looking further into the "other side" might make it better. Then
again, going into details here could mar the story and drag the pace down.
>Spacefall would
> have benefited from a view of the combatants in the battle witnessed by
> the London, but Series One (and Redemption) would have been all the
> weaker as a consequence.
Which adds another dimension to the evaluation system: not just the episode
itself, but how it affects the context...
> Anne
> (snipped TVZ)
> > Besides, I never knew before that Darrow tried for
> > Blake... now THAT is enough to give me surrealistic
> > shocks for months <eg>).
>
> David
> I didn't know that, not sure what to say to it.
Anne
What printable to say to it, you mean? <eg> (Kidding aside, that made me
realise yet again how important the viewing habits are. There are several
"cross-trials" mentioned in this feature, all involving quite capable - not
to say downright great - actors who ended up in different roles than they
were auditioned for in the first place. I know they can do much. I even can
see - going by pure reason - that they had what the part demanded. And yet
now that I see them, and only them, in their eventual parts, any change
strikes me as just wrong...)
Anne
vi...@xtra.co.nz
Anne wrote >
That's closer (as Cally is separated from the others, even though she
fights the same opponent, only more directly). BTW, I'm glad to hear
(if I understand you correctly) that I'm not the only one who isn't
repulsed by this episode through and through. It (much more than Duel)
could be a "B7 does Star Trek", but it still does it better...
David
I am not repulsed by Dawn of the Gods. I wrote his back-story here
http://groups.google.co.nz/groups?as_umsgid=3CD46BA1.E92CAD2F%40xtra.co.nz
http://groups.google.co.nz/groups?as_umsgid=3CD46BD0.3E33BB1A%40xtra.co.nz
http://groups.google.co.nz/groups?as_umsgid=3CD46BFE.3C23832%40xtra.co.nz
http://groups.google.co.nz/groups?as_umsgid=3CD46C1F.B98DB15C%40xtra.co.nz
http://groups.google.co.nz/groups?as_umsgid=3CD46C3C.3BBC8C7C%40xtra.co.nz
http://groups.google.co.nz/groups?as_umsgid=3CD46C55.D4284F69%40xtra.co.nz
http://groups.google.co.nz/groups?as_umsgid=3CD46C6C.B0887B65%40xtra.co.nz
http://groups.google.co.nz/groups?as_umsgid=3CD46C8A.6B2166B0%40xtra.co.nz
http://groups.google.co.nz/groups?as_umsgid=3CD46CBF.97A32269%40xtra.co.nz
And there is a short Anna Grant back-story, if you are interested
http://groups.google.co.nz/groups?as_umsgid=3CC6750B.B2FE9E43%40xtra.co.nz
Anne >
(Then again, the more I watch the show, the more I think I'm easy to
please: so far only one episode with Worst-Ever <tm> reputation lived
down to it in my eyes, that being Animals.
David
Animals is good. The only bad thing is some poor animal is being
tormented, which I, being an ex-farmer, dislike.
Anne >
Even Harvest Of Kairos gave me quite some enjoyment, and is at worst a
mixed bag, IMO. Probably because I couldn't help laughing whenever
Jarvik strutted his stuff, and still strongly suspect that Ben Steed
got quite a send-up both from directing and acting staff).
David
Harvest is good. Servalan liked Jarvik. That explains why he is that
way. A man's man was what attracted her in the first place. She likes
nearly all types.
DC
Anne
<vi...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:3DDAE7CE...@xtra.co.nz...
> (snipped struct v. plot times seven)
>
> Anne wrote >
> (if I understand you correctly) that I'm not the only one who isn't
> repulsed by this episode through and through. It (much more than Duel)
> could be a "B7 does Star Trek", but it still does it better...
>
> David
> I am not repulsed by Dawn of the Gods. I wrote his back-story here
> And there is a short Anna Grant back-story, if you are interested
Thank you for the links. I'll certainly have a look (when and if I've done
that dern report... grrr). And yes, it's nice to know I'm not the only one
who breaks the statistics in terms of supposedly-universally hated eps...
> Anne >
> so far only one episode with Worst-Ever <tm> reputation lived
> down to it in my eyes, that being Animals.
>
> David
> Animals is good.
Anne
...Which shows that in truth there are NO universally-hated episodes (I know
of at least one more viewer who agrees with you, even though it's not me).
Which actually isn't half bad, methinks... But AFAIC, it's
"easily-switchable Dayna" and yet another "look how callous Vila is" that
undid the story for me, first and foremost.
David
>The only bad thing is some poor animal is being
> tormented, which I, being an ex-farmer, dislike.
Anne
Well, as a human being I have some issues with *people* being tormented, but
for the story's sake... <own callous mode on powersave>. Besides, it could
be worse: we could be forced to see them being eaten... <ducks>
> Anne >
> Even Harvest Of Kairos gave me quite some enjoyment, and is at worst a
> mixed bag, IMO. Probably because I couldn't help laughing whenever
> Jarvik strutted his stuff, and still strongly suspect that Ben Steed
> got quite a send-up both from directing and acting staff).
>
> David
> Harvest is good. Servalan liked Jarvik. That explains why he is that
> way. A man's man was what attracted her in the first place. She likes
> nearly all types.
Anne
Oh, Servalan liking Jarvik didn't bother me in the slightest: it was, IMO,
logical in every possible way, from emotional to mental. (She was, after
all, a tyrant - the flipside of which is always a slave). It's the *author*
liking Jarvik a tad too much that I had a problem with. But, like I said,
said author got such a rough deal overall (in terms of his apparent views
being twisted, turned and even mocked in the end), that I'm almost perfectly
OK with the episode. The only (but noticeable) real detraction being
aforementioned Cally Just Standing There <tm>...
(And no, I didn't forget what I said in earlier message about regular
directorial glitches. But in this context it didn't look like a glitch -
rather, like furthering of the agenda. They could make it like Cally was
afraid to harm Dayna in the process. They didn't: Jarvik's back was exposed
like on a platter: anyone with Cally's strength, training and experience
would take him out like nobody's business...)
Anne
Igenlode Wordsmith
> "Kevin McCully" <spam_...@com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:3dd7fa0...@news.btinternet.com...
[snip]
>
> > IMO, there are no stand-alone episodes in Season 4.
>
> If we go by strict narrative rule, then "Sand" might be one.
"Sand", as I recall, is a fairly prime example of something that
*should* have had repercussions (at least on Tarrant) and was totally
ignored by following episodes. Personally, I'm grateful... but it is a
little improbable, with hindsight.
[snip]
> >whereas the "stand-alone" episodes are
> > arguably weaker because the do not serve the story arc by carrying it
> > forward.
>
> But substract them off the series, and see if the show doesn't suffer for
> it. Diversity is the king ;-)
Ideally, 'stand-alone' episodes will reference - and be referenced in -
small things, such as a mention of adrenalin and soma, or character
developments, even if the events therein never affect subsequent
activities.
Personally, I don't care overmuch for television series which are
arc-heavy, since it makes it almost impossible to keep up with them in
a casual way. I've just given up on Farscape, having discovered that
I've now missed so many episodes that I no longer feel any real
involvement with the characters - they have different obsessions and
demons to those with which I was familiar. (While, on the other hand,
Scorpius is getting *really* stale...)
> > Cheers,
> > kevs, using the ng for essay practice ;-)
>
> And well, I must say. (Is there any hope that at least one of these essays
> will have to do something with the show? I found amazingly small amount of
> B7 reviews on the Net - Sue Clerc's page apparently being gone for good -
> and could do with some views sharing.
I archived all my Synchro-Watch posts (although not those of others,
nor the discussion which sometimes ensued) - each of these is
essentially a medium-length essay. See sig.
--
Igenlode Wordsmith
Blake's 7 Reviews online - http://curry.250x.com/Tower/B7.html
Anne
"Igenlode Wordsmith" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:2002112115261...@gacracker.org...
> On 19 Nov 2002 Anne wrote:
>
> > "Kevin McCully" <spam_...@com.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:3dd7fa0...@news.btinternet.com...
>
> [snip]
> >
> > > IMO, there are no stand-alone episodes in Season 4.
> >
> > If we go by strict narrative rule, then "Sand" might be one.
>
> "Sand", as I recall, is a fairly prime example of something that
> *should* have had repercussions (at least on Tarrant)
I'm not sure (but then again, I like season 4, so what do I know? <g>). It
was a surreal offering in and of itself. Plus "we'll die anyway" kind of
thing permeated the fling through and through. Lent a lot (for me) to the
overall downbeat atmosphere. (Or do you mean the others would keep nagging
him about that?)
> > > the "stand-alone" episodes are
> > > arguably weaker because the do not serve the story arc by carrying it
> > > forward.
> >
> > But substract them off the series, and see if the show doesn't suffer
for
> > it. Diversity is the king ;-)
>
> Ideally, 'stand-alone' episodes will reference - and be referenced in -
> small things, such as a mention of adrenalin and soma, or character
> developments, even if the events therein never affect subsequent
> activities.
It is a nice thing to have, but is it obligatory for each and every episode
that transpired? (Besides, some references aren't even possible to put a
finger on - yet somehow, they are here... Character developments are a good
example, yes, but sometimes, changes are so subtle that they don't even
occur to you until you suddenly realise that "he / she would never do / say
anything like that a season ago". At least, it happened to me more than
once).
> Personally, I don't care overmuch for television series which are
> arc-heavy, since it makes it almost impossible to keep up with them in
> a casual way.
I don't mind arc-heavy shows per se - it's just I have to REALLY be mad
about a series like that to watch and follow. Didn't encounter much in the
way of that... (And then, there's all "arc for arc's sake" kind - from "look
how cool we are" to making characters pawns of the Overarching Plot <tm>,
where events are more important than those to whom they happen).
>I've just given up on Farscape, having discovered that
> I've now missed so many episodes that I no longer feel any real
> involvement with the characters - they have different obsessions and
> demons to those with which I was familiar. (While, on the other hand,
> Scorpius is getting *really* stale...)
I tried to get into Farscape, and the above - characters getting more and
more secondary - drove me away.
> > I found amazingly small amount of
> > B7 reviews on the Net - Sue Clerc's page apparently being gone for
good -
> > and could do with some views sharing.
>
> I archived all my Synchro-Watch posts (although not those of others,
> nor the discussion which sometimes ensued) - each of these is
> essentially a medium-length essay. See sig.
Thank you - but I have been scurrying the Web for B7 reviews for some time,
so I did find your archive already and read it. With great interest, I might
add ;-). But it's not full (not even full three seasons) from what I can
see... and I *am* a glutton this way.
Best,
Anne
Frankymole
>
> "Frankymole" <Frank@Ask for it on the group.com> wrote in message
> news:ar8ri1$jlf$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >Even Travis II sometimes made that mystery....
>
> Especially lately, yes. (But the first entrance was somewhat of a shock... I
> can see why viewers were SO angry - even if I think that, despite Grief
> being much better actor, Croucher actually fitted the character's premise
> more tightly).
>
An advantage of being born in 1968. At the age of 10, a year before was a long
way away in the past - I barely remembered the original Travis. I thought
they'd just changed his eyepatch!
Anne
>
> "Anne" <fa...@fain.homechoice.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ar8vpe$g8cil$1...@ID-142859.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > "Frankymole" <Frank@Ask for it on the group.com> wrote in message
> > news:ar8ri1$jlf$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> > >Even Travis II sometimes made that mystery....
> >
> > Especially lately, yes. (But the first entrance was somewhat of a
shock... I
> > can see why viewers were SO angry - even if I think that, despite Grief
> > being much better actor, Croucher actually fitted the character's
premise
> > more tightly).
> >
> An advantage of being born in 1968.
Not much of advantage on me in terms of time (7 years only) ;-P - but big
advantage in terms of geography. Where I come from, "genre TV" was an alien
concept quite literally - as in "in a Galaxy far, far away" <g>. Not to
mention "foreign TV" per se (Forsythe Saga was the only example, as far as I
remember). So by the time I got around to B7, I could watch it as a whole
(speaking of different perspective I mentioned before).
>At the age of 10, a year before was a long
> way away in the past - I barely remembered the original Travis.
Ah THAT is an advantage alright... though mine is second-best, at least
being (somewhat) ready, with foreknowledge and all...
> I thought
> they'd just changed his eyepatch!
But did you *like* the new eyepatch? <eg>
Alan Smith
together" stories are among my favourites. I think the quality of B7
lies in the characterisation and plot, and the series was aimed at the
sort of audience that like complex plot-lines and involved strands,
rather than some other SF where the audience like a simple, linear
plot and easy to follow special effects.
Having said that, both "Spacefall" and "Duel" work simply because of
their simplicity. For example, entwining the plot of "Duel" with a
sub-plot would have meant the time constraints of a single episode
meant that full attention could not be given to both stories.
Posibly my least favourite of B7 plots are what I call "interludes",
where the story is self-contained and doesn't do much to push the plot
along... ie Gambit. I like the idea of references to events that have
happened previously... one weakness of the show was that characters
were rarely refered to after they died... (Apart from Gan, where they
paid lip service to his memory for one episode afterwards).. in series
four, Cally is never mentioned. Surely Vila would have missed her.
The story was a continuing series, and "one offs" gave, to me, the
impression that the scriptwriters were marking time through lack of
ideas as to where they wanted the show to go. Series three was
particularly prone to this.
But sorry Anne I seem to have wandered off your question so I'll shut
up now. Don't want you getting tetchy like ORAC :^)
Anne
"Alan Smith" <alan...@ihug.com.au> wrote in message
news:3e25b909.02120...@posting.google.com...
> Certainly for me, all of the episodes you mentioned as "woven
> together" stories are among my favourites.
I would say it's the same for me, but there's not many eps which are not my
favourites <g>. B7 is one of only two such shows for me. But if I try really
hard, I'll find those I dislike more often among one-story types. (Though,
OTOH, others of those I positively *love*).
What I *really* agree with, however, is
I think the quality of B7
> lies in the characterisation and plot,
...which are *equally important* - yet another unique quality of this show.
(Though I must admit some partiality to characters: I can forgive some
simplified / less-than-original plot if characters are done well. Vice
versa, it doesn't work for me... That's probably why I didn't hate Dawn Of
Gods / Harvest Of Kairos nearly as much as others seem to).
>and the series was aimed at the
> sort of audience that like complex plot-lines and involved strands,
> rather than some other SF where the audience like a simple, linear
> plot and easy to follow special effects.
...and even easier-to-define personalities, with people's actions being
always logical and consistent - regardless of circumstances... <sigh>
> For example, entwining the plot of "Duel" with a
> sub-plot would have meant the time constraints of a single episode
> meant that full attention could not be given to both stories.
Whereas one existing filled the screen quite nicely, without needless hurry
("Web" did drag a bit, however... but it, too, had its moments).
> Posibly my least favourite of B7 plots are what I call "interludes",
> where the story is self-contained and doesn't do much to push the plot
> along... ie Gambit.
See above - I could live with that. I even liked Sarcophagus <ducks>, though
I could do without the first bit (now, if something ever screamed
"padding"... regardless whether it was meant as such, or they earnestly
tried to create an "atmosphere"). But stories that gave us sense of overall
arc were absolutely needed there, yes. It's not like this was "wandering
around, occasionally doing a good deed or two" kind of show - we know which
franchise we should leave it to <eg> - this story needed (and generally had)
a purpose.
> one weakness of the show was that characters
> were rarely refered to after they died...
Well, it depends on *how* they are not mentioned. Blake's absence, while not
all too often referred to, felt (by me, at least) as weighing heavily in
Season 3. Even newcomers seemed to be influenced by it somehow. Whereas...
> in series
> four, Cally is never mentioned. Surely Vila would have missed her.
...it was at times handled clumsily (though I can see how they'd shut it
out - and *especially* Vila - in Rescue: denial aside, when your own life is
in dire straits, future gravely uncertain, you do tend to take your mind off
death and dying... and the closer the dead one was to you, the more so. It
happens. Still, there *was* some excessive chipperness - is that a word? -
about it). But Cally did get mentioned in season 4. Thrice, actually. (In
Power, in Sand - more than just fleetingly - and in Blake. All times, bar
one, by Vila, at that. So I guess, he did miss her).
> The story was a continuing series, and "one offs" gave, to me, the
> impression that the scriptwriters were marking time through lack of
> ideas as to where they wanted the show to go. Series three was
> particularly prone to this.
Hip, hip, hooray! So far I met (a lot of) Season 4 haters, Season 2 lovers,
Season 1 flag-wavers, those who have S3 as their favourites and some, like
me, who have not a problem with Season 4. Now I meet someone who actually
dislikes the third year. The set is almost complete. Diversity rules!!! ;-)
(All in good fun and no offence to anyone, of course).
Kidding aside: me, I sort of liked the respites. I think I already mentioned
somewhere that I didn't at all mind to just observe this bunch of
characters, not just when they were busy rescuing / escaping, but just
leading their lives / interacting... But I can only say it again: this kind
of stories alone wouldn't sustain this show.
> But sorry Anne I seem to have wandered off your question
Actually, as long as we get to discuss / talk about the series and bring
this group at least partly back alive, I'm happy. (Should I have put
"wandering is permitted" sign on the topic? <g>)
> Don't want you getting tetchy like ORAC :^)
Do I look like one? Is it because I tend to respond (verbosely) to nearly
any post here? <Tries to feign looking insulted, fails miserably...>
;-P
Anne
Alan Smith
> this group at least partly back alive, I'm happy. (Should I have put
> "wandering is permitted" sign on the topic? <g>)
Well, although I always considered myself fairly web-savvy, I guess I've
never really investigated Newsgroups, and it is with real delight I find
that there is a B7 group at all. - so count me in as an enthusiastic new
member. I'll do what I can not to let apathy do what the federation
couldn't!
>there's not many eps which are not my
> favourites <g>.
Oh come now. Even "Blake"...
>I must admit some partiality to characters: I can forgive some
> simplified / less-than-original plot if characters are done well. Vice
> versa, it doesn't work for me... That's probably why I didn't hate Dawn Of
> Gods / Harvest Of Kairos nearly as much as others seem to).
>
Actually, originality of plot is (IMO) not absolutely neccessary. Would
you, for example, criticise Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliette" because it
was based on "Pyramus and Thisbee"? if a story makes an
interesting/enjoyable/challenging twist on a theme I feel it's legit.
"Dawn..." for me was one of my least favourite episodes, trouble is I can't
exactly give a good reason why... it just kinda left me feeling unsatisfied.
>I even liked Sarcophagus <ducks>, though
> I could do without the first bit (now, if something ever screamed
> "padding"... regardless whether it was meant as such, or they earnestly
> tried to create an "atmosphere").
Well, the first time I saw it, I found myself thinking "Well, I ought to
like this"... I guess because of the mysticism and mythology I ws
predisposed to like it - unfortunately the presentation was spoiled by some
awful special effects (I KNOW in B7 it's normal to ignore the cheapo sets
and concentrate on the plots, this was one of the few times I wasn't able to
manage it). Now, my aged memory might be at fault here (I saw it once, in
1982, a first-release Australian showing) but wasn't it written by Tanith
Lee? And if so, could there be a whole new thread here about how writers
who weren't regular contributors tended to spoil the running tension of the
series. OK, most B7 fans have knocked off the occasional fanfic (I thank
fate that none of mine is available on-line, lol) but generally speaking, to
write an episode you really had to have a good knowledge of the characters.
As for the "padding" - it was the sort of thing a novelist would do, rather
than a scriptwriter. see my para above.
>But stories that gave us sense of overall
> arc were absolutely needed there, yes. It's not like this was "wandering
> around, occasionally doing a good deed or two" kind of show - we know
which
> franchise we should leave it to <eg> - this story needed (and generally
had)
> a purpose.
And also, I guess there's a case for saying that telling of how the
Liberator's crew found themselves DEVOID of purpose is also a story-line.
EG, I have just watched "Trial" on Foxtel (B7 is currently showing in repeat
on cable and I am falling in love with it all over again) and I found that I
remembered Blake's meeting with Zil as a chance encounter... t'wasn't till I
saw it again I recalled that he was down there because of Gan's death. This
attempt to overcome his mental crisis was, I feel, a good underpinning motif
for the episode, and the idea of having two simultaneous trials happening
(Travis' more conventional trial, and Blake's mental self-test) was a good
literary device. After all, there's plenty of great novels with the premise
"The hero finds he's going nowhere and tries to re-evaluate his life" -
though as an Existentialist I think I have read more of these than is
typical <grin>
Incidentally, this episode contains one of my favourite Avonisms - "It must
be interesting to meet a philosophical flea"
> > one weakness of the show was that characters
> > were rarely refered to after they died...
>
> Well, it depends on *how* they are not mentioned. Blake's absence, while
not
> all too often referred to, felt (by me, at least) as weighing heavily in
> Season 3. Even newcomers seemed to be influenced by it somehow. Whereas...
It makes sense (ie, is internally consistent) that Blake would be "missed",
even by newcomers. After all, this is the famous Rog Blake, revolutionary
extraordinaire, legend in his own lunchtime we're speaking of. To come
across the crew and realise "hey, this lot are Blake's former followers"
would make you react in a certain way, not the least might be dissapointment
that the man himself was no longer alive. Incidentally, one thing I always
felt was strange about the series was the title... if they knew beforehand
that Blake was going to be written out for a good 30% of it, why call it
"Blake's Seven" - and for that matter, even the "Seven" of the title is a
bit misleading. First, there are Blake, Vila, Jenna, Gan and Avon. Then
Zen. Then Cally. Then Orac... Series 4 should really have been called
"Avon's 5"... do we count computers or not? Do we count ORAC (which isn't
really a computer), but not Zen?
> > in series
> > four, Cally is never mentioned. Surely Vila would have missed her.
>
> ...it was at times handled clumsily (though I can see how they'd shut it
> out - and *especially* Vila - in Rescue: denial aside, when your own life
is
> in dire straits, future gravely uncertain, you do tend to take your mind
off
> death and dying... and the closer the dead one was to you, the more so.
I might have thought that the poor creature still might have got a mention
or two. But, as you point out below, we have no way of knowing whether or
not she was discussed "off duty"... we mainly saw the crew at moments of
crisis. In fact, apart from an occasional shot of a cabin we have no way of
knowing how the crew spent most of their time - but I think I'm wandering
again.
> Hip, hip, hooray! So far I met (a lot of) Season 4 haters, Season 2
lovers,
> Season 1 flag-wavers, those who have S3 as their favourites and some, like
> me, who have not a problem with Season 4. Now I meet someone who actually
> dislikes the third year. The set is almost complete. Diversity rules!!!
;-)
LOL. Sorry to dissapoint you, but... well, there's no series I like or
dislike more than any other as far as enjoyment goes. My statement re
Series 3 was more a comment on the conception as a whole... in general (and
I admit this is highly personal) my reactions to the four series were:
Series 1 - WOW. The friend who recomended this to me was right - what a
brilliant show.
Series 2 - shown butting immediately onto the end of series 1 when first
aired in Oz. Regarded it as continuation of S1.
Series 3 - Immediate sense of loss of tension, and after each episode
thinking "Well, that was an interesting story - I wonder when they are going
to get back to the story of what Avon and his remaining followers do now
Blake is gone" - this is what I mean by loss of direction. Twasn't so much
that the crew had lost it, if the writers had ADMITTED that it was about
loss of direction it could have been a really great season - it was more I
got the impression the scriptwriters were marking time!
Series 4 - by the time this was shown I had already read (with horror and
shock) that the BBC were killing off the series. Since we were so far
behind in the Antipodes, I thought that meant that this was at the end of
S3! So I was so relieved to get another series I wasn't in a mood to
criticise anything. Having said that, "Scorpio" was a bucket of junk. And
Slave was a pain... the girls were nice though :^) (I know, trust a male to
mention that)
> Kidding aside: me, I sort of liked the respites. I think I already
mentioned
> somewhere that I didn't at all mind to just observe this bunch of
> characters, not just when they were busy rescuing / escaping, but just
> leading their lives / interacting... But I can only say it again: this
kind
> of stories alone wouldn't sustain this show.
I think it's fair to say that there were no absolute atrocities in any of
the series. Some were stronger than others... and the "respite" ones were
certainly watchable.
> > Don't want you getting tetchy like ORAC :^)
>
> Do I look like one? Is it because I tend to respond (verbosely) to nearly
> any post here? <Tries to feign looking insulted, fails miserably...>
(I was going to say it's the whining noise you make when we pull your key
out, but I don't know you well enough to get away with that, lol) - so...
Well, I can't comment on your looks, cyber-communication being what it is,
but you seem to possess a most un-Oracian (hoorah for neologisms) charm,
poise and sense of humour. If I see you as resembling any of the B7
characters at such short aquintance, it's Cally. but I guess I better stop
this train of thought, don't want you blushing :^P
Anne
> Well, although I always considered myself fairly web-savvy, I guess I've
> never really investigated Newsgroups, and it is with real delight I find
> that there is a B7 group at all. - so count me in as an enthusiastic new
> member.
Oh great. Another soul corrupted into *not* giving up on the show. Now it's
that close to world domination! <Insert an evil manic laughter here>.
Seriously, I was relieved myself to discover that, while slowly, the trickle
of life on this group is continuing... (and looks like we are making it go
faster - B7's team had a point: one small thing DOES make a difference).
>I'll do what I can not to let apathy do what the federation
> couldn't!
And we all know that it couldn't. We just weren't let to see how its
apparent victory blew in its collective face. (Bitter? In denial? Still
holding out for this elusive movie? Moi? Well, actually, yes <bg>).
> >there's not many eps which are not my
> > favourites <g>.
>
> Oh come now. Even "Blake"...
"Blake", in fact, I like mucho - despite (or maybe, partly because of) the
pain. Firstly, as you know by now, I'm a sucker for well-written character
stuff - and the crew interactions for the most part just *sang* in that ep.
There was a lot of what B7 does best, too: *non-spoken* relations (even
probably some sort of reconciliations: call me crazy, but I always saw in
the way Avon and Vila conversed in this one as a better way to follow upon
Malodaar issue than any fanfic I ever read on the subject... and they didn't
even mention the "incident"). Secondly, this version of Blake (following
whatever happened to him) felt somehow just right. (Can you tell I'm not in
the "clone" camp?) A lot of jadedness (is that a word?), more of a hard edge
(which *was* there to begin with, BTW), but charisma's still here, and very
characteristic inability to do "I-don't-trust-anyone" stuff well. (No WONDER
he blew it so spectacularly). Thirdly, it WAS a brave thing to do. Fourthly,
curiosity is something I'm unable to resist: they meant to continue the show
(just as they didn't expect continuation by Terminal, they didn't "full
stop" by "Blake") - so how the HECK were they going to get themselves out of
that one? And last - but by no means the least - what helps me to deal with
such a finale is my favourite river in Egypt. They did plan to continue. So
no way it was all the way it seemed. (Heck, I even wrote my first-ever PGP -
Post Gauda Prime - fanfic for this recently, and that's saying something,
knowing what I think of fanfics in general! And yes, the way I find for them
to live as as lame as anything else ;-P). So here's my "How I learned to
stop worrying (as if!) and love "Blake" version...
> >I must admit some partiality to characters: I can forgive some
> > simplified / less-than-original plot if characters are done well. Vice
> > versa, it doesn't work for me... That's probably why I didn't hate Dawn
Of
> > Gods / Harvest Of Kairos nearly as much as others seem to).
> Actually, originality of plot is (IMO) not absolutely neccessary.
And it would suck if it was, considering how much of a chance for
originality is left these days <eg>. There are only 14 plots in the whole
world anyway, they say (and most of those are covered in the Bible
already) - just like there's only seven (roughly ;-P) notes in the music. So
it's combination and execution which matters...
> "Dawn..." for me was one of my least favourite episodes, trouble is I
can't
> exactly give a good reason why... it just kinda left me feeling
unsatisfied.
I heard a lot of bad things about it (and "Kairos") before I saw it, which
probably helped (lowered expectations and all). But again, characters
responding, ORAC behaving badly <eg> and some clever things done by the team
(instead of JUST lucking out) worked for me. Yes, and the fact that they
made good on their promise to get a word to the engineer's family... (I'm a
sucker for stuff like that, too). The main baddie being a big softie (as far
as Cally was concerned) might have spoiled things a bit, but it wasn't
completely without ground. Besides, despite laughable "scenery" and props,
they got the surreal feel right. Perhaps what also contributed to my
satisfaction is that A Grand Stuff (a la, say, Trek's Borg) isn't a
requirement for me...
> >I even liked Sarcophagus <ducks>, though
> > I could do without the first bit (now, if something ever screamed
> > "padding"... regardless whether it was meant as such, or they earnestly
> > tried to create an "atmosphere").
>
> Well, the first time I saw it, I found myself thinking "Well, I ought to
> like this"... I guess because of the mysticism and mythology I ws
> predisposed to like it - unfortunately the presentation was spoiled by
some
> awful special effects (I KNOW in B7 it's normal to ignore the cheapo sets
> and concentrate on the plots, this was one of the few times I wasn't able
to
> manage it).
Actually, it's only natural. If you know and love this sort of thing, then
it's done not up to par (and visuals there weren't - and the outward beauty
IS an integral part of this) *really* hurts. Like opera sung by... I don't
know - S Club 7? Britney? <ducks>.
As for me, again, I didn't expect much - and was looking past presentation
(which is why the start irritated me so: there was NOTHING there but
presentation, and that was exactly what allocated money couldn't buy ;-P).
But when it came to them *dealing* with the things, to unspoken (at first)
and unexplained (in a way, to the very end) threat, when weaving threads of
time and realities (so to speak) together started, when I saw them NOT
spelling everything out (or going for full-out baddies - the enemy did have
the chance to be heard here) - I was sucked right in. Maybe (most likely)
the rituals and notions of the Lost World in question was what Tanith Lee
really aimed for, but for me, the unknown, the shadows, the reflections
(translations?) from one "life dimension" to another (I didn't mind
characters' "avatars", be that Avon, Tarrant or Vila one bit) was what in
the end ruled this game... and won it. IMO. Oh yes, and finding one's way in
the darkness by discerning - and sticking to - what you know (yes, I'm
talking of Avon working it out ;-P). It was a wandering from the path, as
was - you're right - quite a chunk of the whole season, but a well-done one,
and (considering the vastness and depth of space) more or less warranted, at
that.
> wasn't it written by Tanith
> Lee?
It was.
>And if so, could there be a whole new thread here about how writers
> who weren't regular contributors tended to spoil the running tension of
the
> series.
Now I'm going to play a Devil's Advocate and Contrary Mary at once ;-) and
venture that there could be another thread, about how even the writers who
weren't all that suited to B7, when coming in contact with it, got
positively affected and produced an interesting (and usually not too
characteristic for themselves) mix. I read some stuff by Lee - who I respect
but not exactly enamoured with. Both Sarcophagus and Sand seem somehow...
different from her normal fare. Less solemn (despite looks and gestures
<g>). More irreverent and even off-the-cuff (thanks much to the characters,
of course). All in all, exactly what I wish I could find in her books...
Besides, Ben Steed *was* a regular (or at least, he was associated with the
series), and produced eps for almost every season. And while - like I
already said - I don't harbour nearly as much vile for those as most do, I
still think that they turned out way better than his writing (and agenda)
allowed for. I'll take a newcomer material over his, thank you... ;-)
> As for the "padding" - it was the sort of thing a novelist would do,
rather
> than a scriptwriter. see my para above.
But where all these script editors / doctors were looking while Lee did her
padding, eh? At their watches? <eg>
> >But stories that gave us sense of overall
> > arc were absolutely needed there, yes. It's not like this was "wandering
> > around, occasionally doing a good deed or two" kind of show - we know
> which
> > franchise we should leave it to <eg> - this story needed (and generally
> had)
> > a purpose.
>
> And also, I guess there's a case for saying that telling of how the
> Liberator's crew found themselves DEVOID of purpose is also a story-line.
They could turn almost anything into one, I'd wager... ;-) (Only half-joking
here. That is another asset of this show we don't often - if ever - find in
the field).
> EG, I have just watched "Trial" on Foxtel (B7 is currently showing in
repeat
> on cable and I am falling in love with it all over again)
Rewatchability value of it is just striking, isn't it?
<snip>
> attempt to overcome his mental crisis was, I feel, a good underpinning
motif
> for the episode, and the idea of having two simultaneous trials happening
> (Travis' more conventional trial, and Blake's mental self-test) was a good
> literary device.
And - one more time - a proof that you don't have to proclaim everything out
loud in a Big Speech <tm> to make the point and let audience know what is
happening. As Blake understands / partly adopts Zil's approach to life (and
partly reaffirms his inner resolve), it becomes clear without saying what he
went through and how he was able to deal with what transpired... and would
yet transpire.
> there's plenty of great novels with the premise
> "The hero finds he's going nowhere and tries to re-evaluate his life" -
> though as an Existentialist I think I have read more of these than is
> typical <grin>
And Relative Relativist in me (for I do consider some things inacceptable
regardless of culture <eg>) wonders what "typical" is... ;-)
> Incidentally, this episode contains one of my favourite Avonisms - "It
must
> be interesting to meet a philosophical flea"
I liked (meanly) what came after Vila's interjection just as well...
> > Blake's absence, while
> not
> > all too often referred to, felt (by me, at least) as weighing heavily in
> > Season 3. Even newcomers seemed to be influenced by it somehow.
Whereas...
>
> It makes sense (ie, is internally consistent) that Blake would be
"missed",
> even by newcomers. After all, this is the famous Rog Blake, revolutionary
> extraordinaire, legend in his own lunchtime we're speaking of. To come
> across the crew and realise "hey, this lot are Blake's former followers"
> would make you react in a certain way, not the least might be
dissapointment
> that the man himself was no longer alive.
Yes, it absolutely makes sense. But, in and of itself, it wouldn't create
this feel / atmosphere: one has to work to produce it. And somehow, nearly
without outward references or Meaningful Looks, just by some small things
(and even that aimlessness you point out) they managed to bring it across...
>Incidentally, one thing I always
> felt was strange about the series was the title... if they knew beforehand
> that Blake was going to be written out for a good 30% of it, why call it
> "Blake's Seven"
I'm not sure when GT announced he was going to leave, but almost certain
that it didn't happen before S2 rolled along. So they had the title by then
already... and how many shows do you know that would retitle themselves
during the run? It *is* called showbusiness, after all: the name is sort of
a trademark you can't shade easily. Besides, I think it provided a nice
continuity... and sadness, when appropriate. And added even more distinction
to the whole shebang ;-), turning it into a unique brand of the genre.
Almost "Waiting for Godot" in space...
>- and for that matter, even the "Seven" of the title is a
> bit misleading.
Yes... they're GOOD at it, aren't they? <purrs> Seriously, the whole first
ep is misleading, from the genre it makes us believe it falls into, to the
main characters (seemingly obvious applicants for which parts die almost in
their entirety before credits even roll).
>First, there are Blake, Vila, Jenna, Gan and Avon. Then
> Zen. Then Cally. Then Orac...
He arrived too late: all characters' places were taken by then <g>
>Series 4 should really have been called
> "Avon's 5"...
Doesn't have the same ring to it, though, does it? ;-) Kidding aside, in
that Blake's shadow still loomed over them, and his absence continued to
hurt (and provide competition / something to live up to / fuel to go on),
the title still was sort-of appropriate.
>do we count computers or not? Do we count ORAC (which isn't
> really a computer), but not Zen?
Actually, it was other way around: see above. Once Cally was aboard, Blake
outwardly *proclaimed* Zen as the seventh member of the crew (much to Avon's
chagrin <g>).
> > > Cally is never mentioned. Surely Vila would have missed her.
> >
> > ...it was at times handled clumsily (though I can see how they'd shut it
> > out - and *especially* Vila - in Rescue: denial aside, when your own
life
> is
> > in dire straits, future gravely uncertain, you do tend to take your mind
> off
> > death and dying... and the closer the dead one was to you, the more so.
>
> I might have thought that the poor creature still might have got a mention
> or two.
Probably, I was too much impressed when she *did* get her mention (and by
the time when all hope for that should - and WOULD, in any other show - be
forfeited: in "Sand"). But the thing is, I also loved how it was done: the
size (in this case, amount of words / length of speech) DOES matter less
than the content / execution. When Vila was - at the same time - almost
crying AND fiercely leaping to her memory's protection in shutting Soolin up
on the matter... whew, that hit, and hard. I'm still grateful for this (not
so, coming to think of it) small mercy. Same in "Blake": his quiet yet
intense "Cally didn't get out" worked just fine for me... It WASN'T his
regular fearing for his life / pointing out the danger, you could tell that,
even if on the surface of it, it could look that way.
> we mainly saw the crew at moments of
> crisis. In fact, apart from an occasional shot of a cabin we have no way
of
> knowing how the crew spent most of their time - but I think I'm wandering
> again.
Pity, isn't it? Like I said, I wanted more...
>
> > Hip, hip, hooray! So far I met (a lot of) Season 4 haters, Season 2
> lovers,
> > Season 1 flag-wavers, those who have S3 as their favourites and some,
like
> > me, who have not a problem with Season 4. Now I meet someone who
actually
> > dislikes the third year. The set is almost complete. Diversity rules!!!
> ;-)
>
> LOL. Sorry to dissapoint you, but... well, there's no series I like or
> dislike more than any other as far as enjoyment goes.
You think it disappoints me? After all complaints & deriding I heard
(especially for the last season)?
> I admit this is highly personal)
Always ;-)
>my reactions to the four series were:
>
> Series 1 - WOW. The friend who recomended this to me was right - what a
> brilliant show.
I saw it after some later seasons, and was pleasantly surprised: they could
do optimistic stuff just as well and convincingly as they could
depressing... and I STILL could recognise these characters! ;-)
> Series 2 - shown butting immediately onto the end of series 1 when first
> aired in Oz. Regarded it as continuation of S1.
Which it was... (though I found S3 flowing rather naturally from the second,
all things considered).
> Series 3 - Immediate sense of loss of tension,
Even in Powerplay? <eg>. Seriously, for me, tension comes in many guises.
There's a strain. And then, there's a shock. And then, there's a constant
heavy weight on the shoulders... Not that they weren't wandering off the
path (see above). But for me it wasn't *all* that aimless: there was a
search, just different from one we had before. Blake sought (with a good
reason) to put an end to Federation's almighty tyranny (and in a way, he -
and the crew - did: I had an impression it never recovered to its full
"glory", not even by Year Last). His "orphans" (if you don't mind my
expression) sought their place in life which strangely appeared to go on
even they didn't expect it to... And they didn't do too bad for themselves,
considering some effects they had on certain planets (Auronar? City on the
Edge? These warring factions in DeathWatch, even?) Truly, old habits die
hard: they helped around and contained the poision even when they
(consciously) didn't mean to... <rrreg> If they just soldiered on in exact
way as they did "under" Blake, it would be worse / less convincing, I think
(as well as harming Blake's uniquiness and being needed).
>and after each episode
> thinking "Well, that was an interesting story - I wonder when they are
going
> to get back to the story of what Avon and his remaining followers do now
> Blake is gone"
Talk about highly personal - I felt like it was exactly the story of the
year...
>-Twasn't so much
> that the crew had lost it, if the writers had ADMITTED that it was about
> loss of direction it could have been a really great season
Perhaps, it could be more pronounced. (Then again, I'm not sure a) that the
other extreme would be better and b) how could you make it more pronounced.
As we both agree, it isn't Star Trek where they could either discuss things
in a mess hall, or pour their hearts out to each other or handy counselor
<eg>). But I don't think it was completely absent. There was sense of
feeling lost (to me, again) - and *pretending* not to think of alternatives
(whereas, by that time, emotionally and mentally, there simply weren't any
for most of them... or physically weren't, for Dayna and Tarrant). And yes,
I know it sounds confusing. I'm funny that way: even what I have as a clear
image in my head, comes out... um... surreal <g>.
> Series 4 - by the time this was shown I had already read (with horror and
> shock) that the BBC were killing off the series. Since we were so far
> behind in the Antipodes, I thought that meant that this was at the end of
> S3!
It was meant to, in fact. That they were getting another season was like a
bomb dropped on their heads. In the last possible moment (talk about life
imitating art). Which is partly why they had to hastily write Cally out: the
actress wasn't prepared to change her plans on the fly, and I hardly can
blame her for that... (Some in the know say that it was her who was meant to
feature in Animals, instead of Dayna - and I already mentioned that, even
with unsavoury moments brought about by resulting "affair", Dayna being SO
much younger than Justin, I am relieved that she didn't. I had enough of
"weak Cally" in Harvest, thankyouverrrymuch...)
> So I was so relieved to get another series I wasn't in a mood to
> criticise anything. Having said that, "Scorpio" was a bucket of junk.
It was meant to, though. Fit the disaster / catastrophe / running out of
resources (inner and outer alike) air of this year (talk about overarching
topic). It's like with Blake: you don't just *replace* Liberators... And
defeats on B7 were always of a lasting kind (though victories didn't
disappear overnight, either).
>And
> Slave was a pain...
It may be a female thing to say ;-), but, irritating as he (it?) was, I kind
of pitied him quite a few times. (Gan could be such a pupil as Slave was a
computer. A "not-his-fault" hopeless sort). Dorian was sick - if we still
needed additional proof of that...
>the girls were nice though :^) (I know, trust a male to
> mention that)
Not to worry - I can swoon at Avon (and melt at Vila) right back <mmmeg>.
But I liked the ladies - especially Soolin. (THAT'S how you show a
convincingly tough woman without her, um, assets obscuring everything else
about her... and yes, Voyager / Enterprise creators, I'm looking at you!)
> I think it's fair to say that there were no absolute atrocities in any of
> the series.
YESSS! (Finally, I heard this from someone beside myself ;-)). Even if
"Animals" did come close...
> > > Don't want you getting tetchy like ORAC :^)
> >
> > Do I look like one? Is it because I tend to respond (verbosely) to
nearly
> > any post here? <Tries to feign looking insulted, fails miserably...>
>
> (I was going to say it's the whining noise you make when we pull your key
> out, but I don't know you well enough to get away with that, lol) - so...
If you don't like the whine, don't try to pull the key out! Well, coming to
think of that, don't try to pull the key out, period! I warn you! I become
even WHINIER as the result! (Hey, I'm the only child and the only daughter -
I'm a *champion* whiner!) ;-)
> Well, I can't comment on your looks, cyber-communication being what it is,
*Steals a look in the mirror*. Good...
> but you seem to possess a most un-Oracian (hoorah for neologisms)
Always loved these. Used to get my teachers all jumpy... <mg>
>charm,
> poise and sense of humour.
Are you saying that now I have to live up to this image? What kind of life
is it going to be for me - and what size of disappointment for you? Ah, what
the heck: live in the now and suffer the disasters as they come and not a
second before, I say. PURRRR.... ;-P
>If I see you as resembling any of the B7
> characters at such short aquintance, it's Cally.
<purring grows decidedly louder>. I wish... (and some of those powers of
hers, please... with more luck in terms of *not* getting possessed, mind).
>but I guess I better stop
> this train of thought, don't want you blushing :^P
I guess, there's no harm in virtual blushing... ;-) Besides, it's too late
<vbg>
Best,
Anne
>
Alan Smith
> Oh great. Another soul corrupted into *not* giving up on the show. Now
it's
> that close to world domination! <Insert an evil manic laughter here>.
> Seriously, I was relieved myself to discover that, while slowly, the
trickle
> of life on this group is continuing... (and looks like we are making it go
> faster - B7's team had a point: one small thing DOES make a difference).
It's also that B7 is finding itself in the same position as a make of car.
A fifteen year old car is "an old banger" - a twenty five year old car is a
"Classic". Nostalgia doesn't work for a show that isn't old enough, and it
is regarded as boring or ridiculous. After the requisite amount of time has
elapsed, its virtues become more evident (though, having said that, B seemed
to stand the test of being 10-25 years old pretty well, and was never mocked
the way other shows were)...
> >I'll do what I can not to let apathy do what the federation
> > couldn't!
>
> And we all know that it couldn't. We just weren't let to see how its
> apparent victory blew in its collective face. (Bitter? In denial? Still
> holding out for this elusive movie? Moi? Well, actually, yes <bg>).
Ah, whole acres of speculation here. Myself, I am a convinced survivalist -
Avon and Vila CERTAINLY got away, and I am sure a convincing case could be
made for the other characters too. But please, let's pretend that the awful
"Afterlife" was actually a piece of propoganda put out by the federation :^)
> "Blake", in fact, I like mucho - despite (or maybe, partly because of) the
> pain. Firstly, as you know by now, I'm a sucker for well-written character
> stuff - and the crew interactions for the most part just *sang* in that
ep.
> There was a lot of what B7 does best, too: *non-spoken* relations (even
> probably some sort of reconciliations: call me crazy,
Hi, crazy <weg>
>but I always saw in
> the way Avon and Vila conversed in this one as a better way to follow upon
> Malodaar issue than any fanfic I ever read on the subject... and they
didn't
> even mention the "incident"). Secondly, this version of Blake (following
> whatever happened to him) felt somehow just right. (Can you tell I'm not
in
> the "clone" camp?) A lot of jadedness (is that a word?), more of a hard
edge
> (which *was* there to begin with, BTW), but charisma's still here, and
very
> characteristic inability to do "I-don't-trust-anyone" stuff well. (No
WONDER
> he blew it so spectacularly).
In actual fact, what a shame that such a brilliant episode had to be the
last.
>Thirdly, it WAS a brave thing to do. Fourthly,
> curiosity is something I'm unable to resist: they meant to continue the
show
> (just as they didn't expect continuation by Terminal, they didn't "full
> stop" by "Blake") - so how the HECK were they going to get themselves out
of
> that one?
See about 9,657,456,324,456 fanfics and pick the version you like best.
>And last - but by no means the least - what helps me to deal with
> such a finale is my favourite river in Egypt.
LOL - I like you more and more for puns like that
>They did plan to continue. So
> no way it was all the way it seemed. (Heck, I even wrote my first-ever
PGP -
> Post Gauda Prime - fanfic for this recently, and that's saying something,
> knowing what I think of fanfics in general! And yes, the way I find for
them
> to live as as lame as anything else ;-P). So here's my "How I learned to
> stop worrying (as if!) and love "Blake" version...
Can't wait to see it actually... but I also feel that if there HAD been a
series 5, the way they escaped would have been different from any that fans
came up with.
> > Actually, originality of plot is (IMO) not absolutely neccessary.
>
> And it would suck if it was, considering how much of a chance for
> originality is left these days <eg>. There are only 14 plots in the whole
> world anyway, they say (and most of those are covered in the Bible
> already) - just like there's only seven (roughly ;-P) notes in the music.
So
> it's combination and execution which matters...
As someone who writes stories about a female executive who has trouble with
her clothing in public (don't ask!) and about an alternate world where the
state of Queensland did not join the rest of Australia at federation, I
think I can be said to have done my bit to disprove that one. But your
point is valid - of all the stories ever writen, I doubt 1% of them have
introduced a genuine original plot... and are none the worst for it.
> I heard a lot of bad things about (Dawn of the Gods) (and "Kairos") before
I saw it, which
> probably helped (lowered expectations and all). But again, characters
> responding, ORAC behaving badly <eg> and some clever things done by the
team
> (instead of JUST lucking out) worked for me. Yes, and the fact that they
> made good on their promise to get a word to the engineer's family... (I'm
a
> sucker for stuff like that, too). The main baddie being a big softie (as
far
> as Cally was concerned) might have spoiled things a bit, but it wasn't
> completely without ground.
In fact (WARNING: politically incorrect bit coming up) it was typical of a
female writer. Before you set your blaster to "annihilate" I am not saying
this makes it inferior or weaker... just that women and men often handle
ideas in different ways.
> > >I even liked Sarcophagus <ducks>, though
> > > I could do without the first bit (now, if something ever screamed
> > > "padding"... regardless whether it was meant as such, or they
earnestly
> > > tried to create an "atmosphere").
More by good acting than good set design though!>
> > Well, the first time I saw it, I found myself thinking "Well, I ought to
> > like this"...
> Actually, it's only natural. If you know and love this sort of thing, then
> it's done not up to par (and visuals there weren't - and the outward
beauty
> IS an integral part of this) *really* hurts. Like opera sung by... I don't
> know - S Club 7? Britney? <ducks>.
What a horrible thought. Please don't... (and in Australia we have Little
Nikki Webster, which is even worse!)
> But when it came to them *dealing* with the things, to unspoken (at first)
> and unexplained (in a way, to the very end) threat, when weaving threads
of
> time and realities (so to speak) together started, when I saw them NOT
> spelling everything out (or going for full-out baddies - the enemy did
have
> the chance to be heard here) - I was sucked right in. Maybe (most likely)
> the rituals and notions of the Lost World in question was what Tanith Lee
> really aimed for, but for me, the unknown, the shadows, the reflections
> (translations?) from one "life dimension" to another (I didn't mind
> characters' "avatars", be that Avon, Tarrant or Vila one bit) was what in
> the end ruled this game... and won it.
I guess it was a case of one huge flaw drowning the good things for me. As
soon as you start unntentionally laughing at a thing (ie laughing at a story
meant to be serious) then the suspension of disbelief slips away.
>IMO. Oh yes, and finding one's way in
> the darkness by discerning - and sticking to - what you know (yes, I'm
> talking of Avon working it out ;-P). It was a wandering from the path, as
> was - you're right - quite a chunk of the whole season, but a well-done
one,
> and (considering the vastness and depth of space) more or less warranted,
at
> that.
OK, so it worked in part. And had there been 500 episodes of B7 instead of
a paltry 50 or so, could have been accomodated.
> Now I'm going to play a Devil's Advocate and Contrary Mary at once ;-) and
> venture that there could be another thread, about how even the writers who
> weren't all that suited to B7, when coming in contact with it, got
> positively affected and produced an interesting (and usually not too
> characteristic for themselves) mix. I read some stuff by Lee - who I
respect
> but not exactly enamoured with. Both Sarcophagus and Sand seem somehow...
> different from her normal fare. Less solemn (despite looks and gestures
> <g>). More irreverent and even off-the-cuff (thanks much to the
characters,
> of course). All in all, exactly what I wish I could find in her books...
A fantasy of mine is a B7 episode written by either Phillip K Dick, Simon
Raven or Ian Banks (as in "Ian", not "Iain", ie his non-SF stuff)... imagine
what might have come out! Like you I find Lee readable without her being in
the top flight... then again, someone whose novels don't do it for you
sometimes turn out to write scripts you like.
for the "padding" - it was the sort of thing a novelist would do,
> rather
> > than a scriptwriter. see my para above.
>
> But where all these script editors / doctors were looking while Lee did
her
> padding, eh? At their watches? <eg>
Either (a) over-awed by her reputation and unwilling to tamper, or (b) had a
story all ready to go and, for some reason, it fell through and they had to
call on a substitute at the last minute. (this can happen, of course) -
incidentally, I am not anti-Lee by any means. "Sand" was close to
brilliant.
> > I guess there's a case for saying that telling of how the
> > Liberator's crew found themselves DEVOID of purpose is also a
story-line.
>
> They could turn almost anything into one, I'd wager... ;-) (Only
half-joking
> here. That is another asset of this show we don't often - if ever - find
in
> the field).
I guess, in a way the B7 scriptwriters were lucky - they already had a cast
of well-developed and interesting multi-faceted characters to work with, so
stories that might not have worked in other series could fly in B7.
> > attempt to overcome his mental crisis was, I feel, a good underpinning
> motif
> > for the episode, and the idea of having two simultaneous trials
happening
> > (Travis' more conventional trial, and Blake's mental self-test) was a
good
> > literary device.
>
> And - one more time - a proof that you don't have to proclaim everything
out
> loud in a Big Speech <tm> to make the point and let audience know what is
> happening. As Blake understands / partly adopts Zil's approach to life
(and
> partly reaffirms his inner resolve), it becomes clear without saying what
he
> went through and how he was able to deal with what transpired... and would
> yet transpire.
And the show also makes a point (missed by many) that the search to keep and
retain individuality (as Zil helped him to do on planet) was EXACTLY what
the crew were doing in a wider sense in their fight against the Federation.
As above, so below...
> > Incidentally, this episode contains one of my favourite Avonisms - "It
> must
> > be interesting to meet a philosophical flea"
>
> I liked (meanly) what came after Vila's interjection just as well...
LOL - great minds...
> >Incidentally, one thing I always
> > felt was strange about the series was the title... if they knew
beforehand
> > that Blake was going to be written out for a good 30% of it, why call it
> > "Blake's Seven"
>
> I'm not sure when GT announced he was going to leave, but almost certain
> that it didn't happen before S2 rolled along. So they had the title by
then
> already... and how many shows do you know that would retitle themselves
> during the run? It *is* called showbusiness, after all: the name is sort
of
> a trademark you can't shade easily. Besides, I think it provided a nice
> continuity... and sadness, when appropriate. And added even more
distinction
> to the whole shebang ;-), turning it into a unique brand of the genre.
> Almost "Waiting for Godot" in space...
With Vila as Lucky????
Actually, thinking it over, I can't help feeling that whoever chose the
series had a half idea about Rog Blake being a mystic/freethinker/idealist
in the same way as his namesake, William. And the "7" of course has mystic
ramifications... like many great stories, be them TV series, movies, books
or whatever, the resonance that's under the surface is what makes good
mythology. (ie the name of Kryton in "Red Dwarf", an obvious J M Barrie
reference)... (or "Dorian" ebing almost an Avatar of Wilde's "Dorian Gray")
what also impressed me is that the show deliberately avoided a
cosmic-sounding name (ie STAR Trek, Andromeda) - if you hadn't seen it you
could never know it was a space opera. And someone could describe it to you
as "Well, it's about a bunch of crims on the run from society who decide to
strike back. Oh, by the way, this takes place in the future and they have
this brilliant spaceship..."
>(mention of poor Cally)
> Probably, I was too much impressed when she *did* get her mention (and by
> the time when all hope for that should - and WOULD, in any other show - be
> forfeited: in "Sand"). But the thing is, I also loved how it was done: the
> size (in this case, amount of words / length of speech) DOES matter less
> than the content / execution. When Vila was - at the same time - almost
> crying AND fiercely leaping to her memory's protection in shutting Soolin
up
> on the matter... whew, that hit, and hard. I'm still grateful for this
(not
> so, coming to think of it) small mercy. Same in "Blake": his quiet yet
> intense "Cally didn't get out" worked just fine for me... It WASN'T his
> regular fearing for his life / pointing out the danger, you could tell
that,
> even if on the surface of it, it could look that way.
Well, OK - remember this is a guy who hasn't seen many of these episodes
since the early 1980s talking and it is quite feasable I misremember some
things. (pause to polish up zimmer frame and recharge hearing aid) - Even
when I began to buy B7 videos I tended to concentrate on series 1-3... since
you've seen them much more recently I have to bow to your judgement.
> > we mainly saw the crew at moments of
> > crisis. In fact, apart from an occasional shot of a cabin we have no
way
> of
> > knowing how the crew spent most of their time - but I think I'm
wandering
> > again.
>
> Pity, isn't it? Like I said, I wanted more...
Hey, I LIKE this gal! :^)
> > Series 3 - Immediate sense of loss of tension,
>
> Even in Powerplay? <eg>.
Well, taken in context - yes.
>Seriously, for me, tension comes in many guises.
> There's a strain. And then, there's a shock. And then, there's a constant
> heavy weight on the shoulders... Not that they weren't wandering off the
> path (see above). But for me it wasn't *all* that aimless: there was a
> search, just different from one we had before. Blake sought (with a good
> reason) to put an end to Federation's almighty tyranny (and in a way, he -
> and the crew - did: I had an impression it never recovered to its full
> "glory", not even by Year Last).
No - and had the Blakeites been merely trying to win a war against the
federation you could count them very successful. It is only when you try to
add a moral dimension to their actions - they are fighting tyranny - that
the dissapointment sets in. The federation's leaders have been replaced by
another set equally evil and tyrannical so what's been achieved? Ok, there
ARE hopeful and optimistic answers to this question (providing a symbol,
undermining the foundations, etc)... but one could hardly call it total
victory. The ending of B7 reminds me of "1984" in which the struggle of
Winston Smith is a victory, only in the sense that he has proved that the
systen's conditioning is not infallible.
>His "orphans" (if you don't mind my
> expression)
I love it, sort of reminiscent of "John Brown's Lambs"...
sought their place in life which strangely appeared to go on
> even they didn't expect it to... And they didn't do too bad for
themselves,
> considering some effects they had on certain planets (Auronar? City on the
> Edge? These warring factions in DeathWatch, even?) Truly, old habits die
> hard: they helped around and contained the poision even when they
> (consciously) didn't mean to... <rrreg> If they just soldiered on in exact
> way as they did "under" Blake, it would be worse / less convincing, I
think
> (as well as harming Blake's uniquiness and being needed).
Kind of having heroism thrust upon them. Avon would sooner be making
millions, Vila would like to be somewhere safe, Cally would prefer to be
back on Auron... fate had thrust them by the scruffs of their colelctive
necks into being revolutionaries, and they were stuck with it.
> As we both agree, it isn't Star Trek where they could either discuss
things
> in a mess hall, or pour their hearts out to each other or handy counselor
> <eg>). But I don't think it was completely absent. There was sense of
> feeling lost (to me, again) - and *pretending* not to think of
alternatives
> (whereas, by that time, emotionally and mentally, there simply weren't any
> for most of them... or physically weren't, for Dayna and Tarrant). And
yes,
> I know it sounds confusing. I'm funny that way: even what I have as a
clear
> image in my head, comes out... um... surreal <g>.
But kinda cute (ducks for cover!)
> > Series 4 - by the time this was shown I had already read (with horror
and
> > shock) that the BBC were killing off the series. Since we were so far
> > behind in the Antipodes, I thought that meant that this was at the end
of
> > S3!
>
> It was meant to, in fact. That they were getting another season was like a
> bomb dropped on their heads.
There are, of course, certain advantages in writing for the BBC - you can
write interesting, credible plots with decent characterisation instead of
lowest-common-denominator cr*p... the disadvantage is that just because a
show is popular doesn't mean it will survive. The Beeb have a long history
of pulling shows at the apex of their popularity, almost as if they
considered commercial acclaim to be a bit vulgar. Had B7 been on ITV (Do
they still have that - I left England in 1973) the show's popularity would
have ensured (a) that they began series 4 without any radical changes, and
(b) that the show would have continued for at least 2 more series.
>(Some in the know say that it was her who was meant to
> feature in Animals, instead of Dayna - and I already mentioned that, even
> with unsavoury moments brought about by resulting "affair", Dayna being SO
> much younger than Justin, I am relieved that she didn't. I had enough of
> "weak Cally" in Harvest, thankyouverrrymuch...)
certainly it would have been much better with Cally. As to the age
difference, while I am as disgusted as anyone about pedophilia, child
molestation etc, I don't get really squiffy about age differences between
consenting partners in a romantic involvement. Either Dayna or Cally were
quite able to make their own decisions... what I'd have loved to have seen,
in a broader sense, was for Cally to have stayed in the show and Tarrant
written out. Cally replacing Tarrant in "Sand'... interesting idea...
> > Slave was a pain...
>
> It may be a female thing to say ;-), but, irritating as he (it?) was, I
kind
> of pitied him quite a few times. (Gan could be such a pupil as Slave was a
> computer. A "not-his-fault" hopeless sort). Dorian was sick - if we still
> needed additional proof of that...
Hmmm - well, as a computer (albeit conscious) Slave might well not have had
a sense of shame about having to kowtow to the humans. "He" would simply
adopt it as a preference of "his" owners. I confess, my own mobile phone
greets me with "Hello Alan" every time I turn it on, and i have occasionally
thought about replacing this with "Hello, O great Alan at whose command the
stars move" - just joshin' honestly!
> >the girls were nice though :^) (I know, trust a male to
> > mention that)
>
> Not to worry - I can swoon at Avon (and melt at Vila) right back <mmmeg>.
(suddenly starts wondering how I'd look in studded leather) <weg>
> But I liked the ladies - especially Soolin. (THAT'S how you show a
> convincingly tough woman without her, um, assets obscuring everything else
> about her... and yes, Voyager / Enterprise creators, I'm looking at you!)
I remember holding a conversation about the Vila/Soolin dynamic with the
friend who originally brought B7 to my attention (thrice bless him) - he
said "I can't believe Vila has a thing about Soolin - look at it, he's
TERRIFIED of her" - to which I replied with the 1982 version of the phrase
"And your point IS?!"
(Anne as ORAC)
> > (I was going to say it's the whining noise you make when we pull your
key
> > out, but I don't know you well enough to get away with that, lol) -
so...
>
> If you don't like the whine, don't try to pull the key out! Well, coming
to
> think of that, don't try to pull the key out, period! I warn you! I become
> even WHINIER as the result! (Hey, I'm the only child and the only
daughter -
> I'm a *champion* whiner!) ;-)
I'm an only child too... my mum really wanted a poodle! (And let me tell
you, it's kinda uncomfortable having to eat your dinner out of a bowl on the
floor) :^)
> > but you seem to possess a most un-Oracian> >charm,
> > poise and sense of humour.
>
> Are you saying that now I have to live up to this image? What kind of life
> is it going to be for me - and what size of disappointment for you? Ah,
what
> the heck: live in the now and suffer the disasters as they come and not a
> second before, I say. PURRRR.... ;-P
Purrrr like that again and I'm YOURS!
:^)
> >If I see you as resembling any of the B7
> > characters... it's Cally.
>
> <purring grows decidedly louder>. I wish... (and some of those powers of
> hers, please... with more luck in terms of *not* getting possessed, mind).
Yes, the poor thing did seem rather prone to it didn't she... but if you
really did have telepathic powers, think of the typing it would save you.
We could all be exchanging these threads by direct mental communication...
on second thoughts, maybe not a good idea, my mind being even more chaotic
than my hard drive!
> I guess, there's no harm in virtual blushing... ;-) Besides, it's too late
> <vbg>
Er, did I mention I find blushing REALLY cute. Oops, better stop now I
guess...
next posting will be right on topic! I promise...
Be well all
Alan
Anne
>
> After the requisite amount of time has
> elapsed, its virtues become more evident (though, having said that, B
seemed
> to stand the test of being 10-25 years old pretty well, and was never
mocked
> the way other shows were)...
Well, maybe the other shows were mocked way worse (I can easily believe
THAT!), but alas, B7 did (and still does) have its fair share. When
(relatively recently) I discovered the show for myself (Blessed Be The Net!
<g>), I positively *excavated* anything and anywhere (first of all, the Web,
of course) related to it - discussion forums, sites (most of which, alas,
now-defunct), review pages (as usual, being late for many: Sue Clerc's
"Adrenalin and Soma" appears to have vanished into cyberspace as well) - and
yes, newsgroups, too. Quite a few references I found were... let's say, it
ranged from misinformed to downright malicious. Plus a lot of explanation
how and where the show fell on its face. Now I realize that Blake's 7 fans
are a discerning bunch. But there is a point where criticism is transcended,
and comments of "why are you a fan, again, if it all was that bad with a
rare exception?" variety start... Plus that ridiculous (IMNSHO) rivalry /
war between "Whovians" and "Blake-ites", from which no one ever has
benefitted. (Resurrected in "B5 / DS9" version of today). There's small
enough amount of good shows like that for them to *fighting* each other!
But I like your car analogy. And will raise you a wine one... ;-) Indeed,
now, upon rewatching, even the shortcomings and laughable visuals instil
some tenderness and sentimentality in me <g>. (And that's me, who almost
NEVER is able to look past the way genre shows look!)
> > We just weren't let to see how its
> > apparent victory blew in its collective face. (Bitter? In denial? Still
> > holding out for this elusive movie? Moi? Well, actually, yes <bg>).
>
> Ah, whole acres of speculation here.
Sure are... I am just sulky that I can't come up with anything matching the
challenge. (And yes, I know it was *supposed* to be that way, that's why
them, and not us, made this show, but since when logic prevents anyone from
complaining? I whine, therefore I am <mg>).
>Myself, I am a convinced survivalist -
> Avon and Vila CERTAINLY got away, and I am sure a convincing case could be
> made for the other characters too.
<AOL> Me too </AOL>. "Realistic" can go wherever it wants - they beat the
odds before, and it's not exact reflection of our world and our chances,
so... It's more unbelievable for me that it was the end of them, than their
survival.
>But please, let's pretend that the awful
> "Afterlife" was actually a piece of propoganda put out by the federation
:^)
Was that a book or radio play? I am not very much into "post-Blake Blake"
stuff. (And at the same time immensely irked that it never caught on the way
Trek or Dr Who did: among such amount of books, there sure could be
something worthy... maybe, even written by the *real* authors <sigh>). It's
like most "Trek" movies for me - not quite the same thing, more like
merchandise.
> > There was a lot of what B7 does best, too: *non-spoken* relations (even
> > probably some sort of reconciliations: call me crazy,
>
> Hi, crazy <weg>
It takes the like to know the like... <emeg>
> In actual fact, what a shame that such a brilliant episode had to be the
> last.
SO case in point...
> >Thirdly, it WAS a brave thing to do. Fourthly,
> > curiosity is something I'm unable to resist: they meant to continue the
> show
> > (just as they didn't expect continuation by Terminal, they didn't "full
> > stop" by "Blake") - so how the HECK were they going to get themselves
out
> of
> > that one?
>
> See about 9,657,456,324,456 fanfics and pick the version you like best.
I've seen just a little smidgen less - and still didn't find this one (what
do you think drove me to finally try my own?)
> >And last - but by no means the least - what helps me to deal with
> > such a finale is my favourite river in Egypt.
>
> LOL - I like you more and more for puns like that
We are Borg. We aim to please. (And nick other people's puns like nobody's
busines...)
> >(Heck, I even wrote my first-ever
> PGP -
> > Post Gauda Prime - fanfic for this recently, and that's saying
something,
> > knowing what I think of fanfics in general! And yes, the way I find for
> them
> > to live as as lame as anything else ;-P). So here's my "How I learned to
> > stop worrying (as if!) and love "Blake" version...
>
> Can't wait to see it actually...
Careful here, sir. You can *just* get you wish... and then face finding a
way to avoid speaking about the wretched thing, having discovered that you
hated it! <g> (Seriously, no worries if you don't like it - as long as you
don't go into meticulous and painful detail about *why*... ;-P) Are you sure
you're up to trying? (LOL).
>but I also feel that if there HAD been a
> series 5, the way they escaped would have been different from any that
fans
> came up with.
And that's the most frustrating thing - that we have such a fat chance of
knowing what it would be... (Though I heard distressing rumours that Chris
Boucher still thinks of "last-second, high-level medical intervention" which
does remind of so many fans' ideas. Then again, we know that this team could
make a candy out of all-but-hopeless raw material, so...)
> > There are only 14 plots in the whole
> > world anyway, they say (and most of those are covered in the Bible
> > already) - just like there's only seven (roughly ;-P) notes in the
music.
> So
> > it's combination and execution which matters...
>
> As someone who writes stories about a female executive who has trouble
with
> her clothing in public (don't ask!)
<Asking (for trouble)>. Ally McBeal? <ducks VERY quickly>
>and about an alternate world where the
> state of Queensland did not join the rest of Australia at federation,
Sliders... (yes, I know - I won't end well).
>I
> think I can be said to have done my bit to disprove that one.
Kidding aside, I wouldn't mind reading these either...
>But your
> point is valid - of all the stories ever writen, I doubt 1% of them have
> introduced a genuine original plot... and are none the worst for it.
Exactly. Better well-stolen than ill-invented, I always say. And since
originality *is* hard to make (and harder by a decade ;-P), it tends to
drain resources from quite a few authors, too. (Not that I say it's
downright impossible to make it both original and good).
> > characters
> > responding, ORAC behaving badly <eg> and some clever things done by the
> team
> > (instead of JUST lucking out) worked for me. Yes, and the fact that they
> > made good on their promise to get a word to the engineer's family...
(I'm
> a
> > sucker for stuff like that, too). The main baddie being a big softie (as
> far
> > as Cally was concerned) might have spoiled things a bit, but it wasn't
> > completely without ground.
>
> In fact (WARNING: politically incorrect bit coming up)
I am *so* scared... not <g>.
>it was typical of a
> female writer.
Them keeping their word or the baddie being sentimental sap? <mmmg> (In
which case - do you think Mr Steed was secretly... oh no, that is too
horrible a thought. But his big bullies were *so* vulnerable, in the end of
the day... <eeeeg>).
>Before you set your blaster to "annihilate" I am not saying
> this makes it inferior or weaker... just that women and men often handle
> ideas in different ways.
Come on - next thing you'd suspect me of will be arguing against differences
in male and female anatomy <eg>. Of course they do - though I do believe
that on some level of talent / perception it stops mattering. (Just like
that "Heaven Level" in Shaolin arts). But that's statistically negligible
(if not quality-wise negligible). Whatever is behind the differences (even
if I think conditioning plays WAY bigger part in them than common perception
leads us to think), they're there, and no two ways around it... However,
male or female way of telling story, what really matters is whether it's
well done.
> > > >I even liked Sarcophagus <ducks>, though
> > > > I could do without the first bit (now, if something ever screamed
> > > > "padding"... regardless whether it was meant as such, or they
> earnestly
> > > > tried to create an "atmosphere").
>
> More by good acting than good set design though!>
No. By set design, they, as I said, *tried*. By good acting, they
succeeded... <g>
> > > Well, the first time I saw it, I found myself thinking "Well, I ought
to
> > > like this"...
>
> > Actually, it's only natural. If you know and love this sort of thing,
then
> > it's done not up to par (and visuals there weren't - and the outward
> beauty
> > IS an integral part of this) *really* hurts. Like opera sung by... I
don't
> > know - S Club 7? Britney? <ducks>.
>
> What a horrible thought. Please don't...
To utlise another (not too bad) show: "Sometimes I'm callous and strange.
Marshmallows?" <reg>
>(and in Australia we have Little
> Nikki Webster, which is even worse!)
There's no bottom. We're just prevented to go any further. (S. E. Letz).
> > Maybe (most likely)
> > the rituals and notions of the Lost World in question was what Tanith
Lee
> > really aimed for, but for me, the unknown, the shadows, the reflections
> > (translations?) from one "life dimension" to another (I didn't mind
> > characters' "avatars", be that Avon, Tarrant or Vila one bit) was what
in
> > the end ruled this game... and won it.
> I guess it was a case of one huge flaw drowning the good things for me.
As
> soon as you start unntentionally laughing at a thing (ie laughing at a
story
> meant to be serious) then the suspension of disbelief slips away.
I can see this happening. (Which is why, in a way, for me it was *good* that
this introduction scene was gotten out of the way first-thing. Matter of
perception, again, I believe: for some, it set the mood for the whole ep;
for me, it was "the worst is behind us" situation. I don't even view this
one as so much of a part of the episode any longer - more like a foreward to
a book).
> OK, so it worked in part. And had there been 500 episodes of B7 instead
of
> a paltry 50 or so, could have been accomodated.
Stop rubbing that salt in ;-) - between the endless amount of time,
celluloid and budget wasted on TV atrocities (or mediocricity) that run
forever, it's almost unbearable to think how much more could be done with
B7...
> A fantasy of mine is a B7 episode written by either Phillip K Dick, Simon
> Raven or Ian Banks (as in "Ian", not "Iain", ie his non-SF stuff)...
imagine
> what might have come out!
Oh yes... (Though alas, two pluses don't necessarily make a positive in
showbusiness: there are two mediums which require different approaches kind
of hurdle - I don't think discrepancy Lee faced would be so easily beaten by
others - and one author's distinctive world / style, no matter how good,
could well come to blows with the one established in different Universe...
Yup, that's me, an eternal optimist <g>).
> then again, someone whose novels don't do it for you
> sometimes turn out to write scripts you like.
Exactly.
> > But where all these script editors / doctors were looking while Lee did
> her
> > padding, eh? At their watches? <eg>
>
> Either (a) over-awed by her reputation and unwilling to tamper,
Get them through Blake's crash course, quickly, then! ;-)
>or (b) had a
> story all ready to go and, for some reason, it fell through and they had
to
> call on a substitute at the last minute. (this can happen, of course) -
And, most likely, DID happen. I mean, yes, mythic qualities, fantasy
atmosphere, yadda, yadda - but to have such a balletic / operatic /
pantomime-like schtick running for this long a time on a TV show... nah.
Can't believe it wasn't a covering-up / last-minute-fix-of-disaster kind of
thing.
> incidentally, I am not anti-Lee by any means. "Sand" was close to
> brilliant.
I liked it much, too (talking about surreal).
> I guess, in a way the B7 scriptwriters were lucky - they already had a
cast
> of well-developed and interesting multi-faceted characters to work with,
so
> stories that might not have worked in other series could fly in B7.
Agreed - though credit where credit is due: the writers did well with what
they had. One can (and does, all too frequently) destroy even a great set of
characters played extremely well by most fortunate set of actors. It means A
LOT to get your hands on such an asset, but to keep them that way, and do
them justice, is not a mean feat to pull. Which the makers did. (I can think
of no more than two or three out-of-character moments in the entire show -
and yes, I know most of people think differently ;-P).
> > As Blake understands / partly adopts Zil's approach to life
> (and
> > partly reaffirms his inner resolve), it becomes clear without saying
what
> he
> > went through and how he was able to deal with what transpired... and
would
> > yet transpire.
>
> And the show also makes a point (missed by many) that the search to keep
and
> retain individuality (as Zil helped him to do on planet) was EXACTLY what
> the crew were doing in a wider sense in their fight against the
Federation.
And in this regard, what happened on the ship paralleled what happened on
the planet quite nicely. They *thought* they could get away from it all...
but the "curse" of becoming Blake's Seven, so to speak, has already set in.
(Or, if you will, that was when they missed their last chance to
"dissolve").
> With Vila as Lucky????
And why not? <g>
> Actually, thinking it over, I can't help feeling that whoever chose the
> series had a half idea about Rog Blake being a mystic/freethinker/idealist
> in the same way as his namesake, William. And the "7" of course has
mystic
> ramifications... like many great stories, be them TV series, movies, books
> or whatever, the resonance that's under the surface is what makes good
> mythology. (ie the name of Kryton in "Red Dwarf", an obvious J M Barrie
> reference)... (or "Dorian" ebing almost an Avatar of Wilde's "Dorian
Gray")
Oh yes. They never aimed small - and always went for audience's
intelligence, sometimes risking narrowing the viewership for it: the show
was *brimming* with such things ("Avon" sounded rather Shakespearean, too
;-)). However, even for those who missed the references, I think, it had a
certain impact. (And, as a result, they became themselves quite a point of
reference: for the freshest example see "Gamma" books in DS9 "season 8 on
paper" series. The Bajoran history now has a famous rebel hero Ayvon, who
used to say: "I'm not Federation, I'm not stupid and I'm not going"... I
must admit, it made me all warm and fuzzy inside. But then again, such is
the female perception <eg>).
> what also impressed me is that the show deliberately avoided a
> cosmic-sounding name (ie STAR Trek, Andromeda) - if you hadn't seen it you
> could never know it was a space opera. And someone could describe it to
you
> as "Well, it's about a bunch of crims on the run from society who decide
to
> strike back. Oh, by the way, this takes place in the future and they have
> this brilliant spaceship..."
"...but that's not the point"... <mg> (And it sort of wasn't. Though them
travelling around was). Yet another example of the series not going for the
obviouis.
> > When Vila was - at the same time - almost
> > crying AND fiercely leaping to her memory's protection in shutting
Soolin
> up
> > on the matter... whew, that hit, and hard. I'm still grateful for this
> (not
> > so, coming to think of it) small mercy. Same in "Blake": his quiet yet
> > intense "Cally didn't get out" worked just fine for me... It WASN'T his
> > regular fearing for his life / pointing out the danger, you could tell
> that,
> > even if on the surface of it, it could look that way.
>
> Well, OK - remember this is a guy who hasn't seen many of these episodes
> since the early 1980s talking and it is quite feasable I misremember some
> things.
So much the better: you can now view a lot of it as new...
>(pause to polish up zimmer frame and recharge hearing aid)
Welcome to the club <eg> (I may well be a dinosaur on this group).
>- Even
> when I began to buy B7 videos I tended to concentrate on series 1-3...
Aha! So THAT's the season you truly dislike, after all - the much-maligned
season 4! Gotcha! <evil manic chuckle>. Serioiusly, though, far be it from
me to inflict or impose anything on you (no, honest! <g>), but you might be
surprised if you take another look. Like I said, my prospect was unique and
fortunate - I came into it armed with foreknowledge how bad, wrong and
two-dimensional everything there is, how much character assassination was
going on, etc., etc. So when I saw the actual thing, I was surprised at how
well (and logical, all things considered) it was done and how much our
downtrodden heroes actually manage to do (OK, I come from the-then USSR, I
have learned well to expect the worst!) - and how much more dimensions /
nuances were preserved than I expected by the hearsay...
since. Mind you, it's not like the depressing stuff couldn't get through my
thick skin (it did alright), I just found it par for the course...
> > > In fact, apart from an occasional shot of a cabin we have no
> way
> > of
> > > knowing how the crew spent most of their time - but I think I'm
> wandering
> > > again.
> >
> > Pity, isn't it? Like I said, I wanted more...
>
> Hey, I LIKE this gal! :^)
The feeling, Your Excellency, is mutual. Just in case you wanted to know...
;-P
> > > Series 3 - Immediate sense of loss of tension,
> >
> > Even in Powerplay? <eg>.
>
> Well, taken in context - yes.
Perhaps. But it's still a huge sigh of relief by the end for me (remember
what I said about rewatchability... and me being a sap). And Avon's dismayed
"It's MY ship!" still ranks highly on my Pleasuremeter...
> > Blake sought (with a good
> > reason) to put an end to Federation's almighty tyranny (and in a way,
he -
> > and the crew - did: I had an impression it never recovered to its full
> > "glory", not even by Year Last).
>
> No - and had the Blakeites been merely trying to win a war against the
> federation you could count them very successful. It is only when you try
to
> add a moral dimension to their actions - they are fighting tyranny - that
> the dissapointment sets in. The federation's leaders have been replaced
by
> another set equally evil and tyrannical so what's been achieved? Ok,
there
> ARE hopeful and optimistic answers to this question (providing a symbol,
> undermining the foundations, etc)...
Precisely. Diminishing the influence and cutting supremity (to coin a word
again) of the rule, too. Federation was still bad, no question about it -
however, its clutches amounted for *far* less victims by the two later
seasons. It didn't hold nearly as much water as it used to... and after
Traitor (and possibly even DeathWatch) the restarted spread was disrupted
again.
>but one could hardly call it total
> victory.
Oh, by no means it was one, of course. That was at least part of the show's
drive in its later years. And there was some truth in it: is there even such
a thing as total victory? (And should there be? In some cases, the answer is
probably "yes", but...)
>The ending of B7 reminds me of "1984" in which the struggle of
> Winston Smith is a victory, only in the sense that he has proved that the
> systen's conditioning is not infallible.
There are similarities. But "1984"'s end is way more definite - and the
system is not nearly as on defensive as Feds are (big picture-wise) by
"Blake". (Yep, that's me, a split-personality, pessimistic optimist type...)
> >His "orphans" (if you don't mind my
> > expression)
>
> I love it, sort of reminiscent of "John Brown's Lambs"...
;-)
> > Truly, old habits die
> > hard: they helped around and contained the poision even when they
> > (consciously) didn't mean to... <rrreg> If they just soldiered on in
exact
> > way as they did "under" Blake, it would be worse / less convincing, I
> think
> > (as well as harming Blake's uniquiness and being needed).
>
> Kind of having heroism thrust upon them.
And how... <sadistic grin>
>Avon would sooner be making
> millions, Vila would like to be somewhere safe, Cally would prefer to be
> back on Auron... fate had thrust them by the scruffs of their colelctive
> necks into being revolutionaries, and they were stuck with it.
So much so, in fact, that those preferable alternatives had become something
to which lip service was paid by them, rather than something they really
strove for. I often encountered a complaint that by Season 4, there was no
good enough reason for this "band of brothers" (and sisters <eg>) to still
fight the Feds together: the circumstances allowed them (and some of them,
positively *nudged*) to go after what they claimed they always wanted. But
to me, it was always sort of a point: they no longer were doing it for the
lack of choice (no matter what they claimed). I won't go so far as to say
that they *wanted* to do what they were doing (though, coming to think of
it, why not?) - but I will say that it has become the only way for them.
Just like with that bond Dorian was talking about it: love it or hate it
(and hate it they did quite often ;-P), but it's there. Fact of life, and
that's that.
> >And
> yes,
> > I know it sounds confusing. I'm funny that way: even what I have as a
> clear
> > image in my head, comes out... um... surreal <g>.
>
> But kinda cute (ducks for cover!)
Not to worry. I'm a lousy shot <checks her cybernetic, ultra-precise
headgear>. Aww, but who am I kidding? I was never able to resist being
called cute (probably because nothing could be further from the truth <g>).
> There are, of course, certain advantages in writing for the BBC - you can
> write interesting, credible plots with decent characterisation instead of
> lowest-common-denominator cr*p...
Insert past tense here <sigh>. Period drama is name of the game today,
unless it's sports, soaps or "gritty reality" cop / office shows (the latter
being in a decided minority, too). Not that I mind genres in itself (though
I DO mind soaps), it's just "your typical fare" feel which makes me queasy
and all senile-nostalgic about Good Old Days <tm>...
>the disadvantage is that just because a
> show is popular doesn't mean it will survive. The Beeb have a long
history
> of pulling shows at the apex of their popularity,
I know I already used up my quota of applying the word "surreal" for one
post. However, these are extenuating circumstances...
>almost as if they
> considered commercial acclaim to be a bit vulgar.
Should it be so, I wouldn't still have to hide in my room from the TV set
and sulk as Yet Another Eternal Soap comes on... (And no, alternatives are
not always there, especially in so-called prime-time).
>Had B7 been on ITV (Do
> they still have that - I left England in 1973)
They do. And it's still (marginally) better. (But when it's worse, my IS it
worse...)
>the show's popularity would
> have ensured (a) that they began series 4 without any radical changes, and
> (b) that the show would have continued for at least 2 more series.
Now it's my "please don't" turn...
> >(Some in the know say that it was her who was meant to
> > feature in Animals, instead of Dayna - and I already mentioned that,
even
> > with unsavoury moments brought about by resulting "affair", Dayna being
SO
> > much younger than Justin, I am relieved that she didn't. I had enough of
> > "weak Cally" in Harvest, thankyouverrrymuch...)
>
> certainly it would have been much better with Cally.
<Stubbornly> Not with this "switchable feelings" part of the plot, it
wouldn't. I mentioned in another topic that I wasn't too happy with Dayna
manipulated with a press of the button (no matter how sophisticated the
device behind it) - seeing Cally succumbing to that (after weathering away
Travis' torture, no less) would have been unbearable. It *is* possible to
care for a character enough to *not* want to see them in some stories. (Did
I already say "Animals" is unique in being NOT my favourite? Oh. Never mind,
then. But you're *sure* I mentioned it? ;-P).
>As to the age
> difference, while I am as disgusted as anyone about pedophilia, child
> molestation etc, I don't get really squiffy about age differences between
> consenting partners in a romantic involvement. Either Dayna or Cally were
> quite able to make their own decisions...
<Sigh of relief> I thought, I was only one like that. (It was NOT the age
thing which I had real problems with, as far as the ep is concerned). Though
<mean mode on> I'd like to see a story where said difference was
gender-reversed. Watching / listening to the viewers squirm after that one
would be a worthwhile experience in and of itself <mean mode on powersave>.
>what I'd have loved to have seen,
> in a broader sense, was for Cally to have stayed in the show and Tarrant
> written out.
I know, I know. Nobody Loves Tarrant (how's that for a show idea? <mean mode
turns into a sadistic one>). I'm out of fingers counting my blessings for
going into the show late and having lowered expectations. Now don't get me
wrong: I was rooting against the self-important poser most of the time
(though he did have certain air of naivity about him which also extorted a
few chuckles out of me). I just a) found him convincing as such; b) really
suspect that we were *meant* to feel that way (don't you forget - B7's
authors are devious and insidious bunch: I can well see them pulling a twist
of putting "Traditional Hero" into such a position / role, whereas in
"normal" shows it happens without intention ;-P); and c) seeing him having
this pompous pretense deflated (which it was, if not nearly enough) was
rather enjoyable. Besides, it did provide a new dynamic, love it or hate it.
Different approaches to fighting, to rebelling, to managing life on the
ship, outsider (and, for a change, mostly *wrong*) perspective - it has its
merit. And seeing *him* care (in those rarest moments when it happened) was
even bigger a jolt than seeing Avon do so! Not to mention the delight of
seeing him put in his place...
>Cally replacing Tarrant in "Sand'... interesting idea...
You mean... taking his place with Servalan? Ewww! (And I'm not at all
opposed to non-traditional orientation, even). <Dissolves into the mists,
leaving an illusory image of her for everybody to concentrate on shooting>
> > > Slave was a pain...
> >
> > It may be a female thing to say ;-), but, irritating as he (it?) was, I
> kind
> > of pitied him quite a few times. (Gan could be such a pupil as Slave was
a
> > computer. A "not-his-fault" hopeless sort). Dorian was sick - if we
still
> > needed additional proof of that...
>
> Hmmm - well, as a computer (albeit conscious) Slave might well not have
had
> a sense of shame about having to kowtow to the humans. "He" would simply
> adopt it as a preference of "his" owners.
For me, it's as much of "maybe, maybe not" as it was about "is Zen an
individual"? (With ORAC, I doubt that was ever even a question, regardless
of what Avon said... and even he seemed to relent somehow as the time
passed). In SF especially, it's "where's the treshold" kind of thing. When
quantity grows into quality? When imitation becomes something more? (And the
last-ever word uttered by Slave - even if it did make quite a few cringe or
have a laugh not meant for the moment - does make one wonder. And does
rhyme, thematically, with Zen's first-ever "I" before its demise...)
>I confess, my own mobile phone
> greets me with "Hello Alan" every time I turn it on, and i have
occasionally
> thought about replacing this with "Hello, O great Alan at whose command
the
> stars move" - just joshin' honestly!
Why do I have this nagging feeling that you also watched "Lexx"? <eg> (I
liked this show, even if I think they overdid it quite a few times... and
most of Second Season was lacklustre and repetitive. Hey, I have to put all
that vile I saved on B7's S4 *somewhere*!) Returning from kidding zone
again, having such a greeting would be fun - but are you sure you would feel
comfortable with more convincing, detailed and attuned-to-every-occasion
"slave" responses?
> > >the girls were nice though :^) (I know, trust a male to
> > > mention that)
> >
> > Not to worry - I can swoon at Avon (and melt at Vila) right back
<mmmeg>.
>
> (suddenly starts wondering how I'd look in studded leather) <weg>
Do you have M & S in Australia? ;-))) (With all these fashion changes still
might be a problem <mmmg>).
> I remember holding a conversation about the Vila/Soolin dynamic with the
> friend who originally brought B7 to my attention (thrice bless him) - he
> said "I can't believe Vila has a thing about Soolin - look at it, he's
> TERRIFIED of her" - to which I replied with the 1982 version of the phrase
> "And your point IS?!"
Speaking of liking someone's responses... ;-). (And having a point always
helps <g>. Looking around at current shows, the closest descendant from
Vila - character-wise - would be, I guess, Harper on "Andromeda". "But she
has nothing for you but contempt! -So what? She's still hot! And apparently,
a good judge of character". Chuckling Out Loud. Though Harper is so much
luckier than Vila in more than one respect, it's not even funny...)
> (Anne as ORAC)
> > If you don't like the whine, don't try to pull the key out! Well, coming
> to
> > think of that, don't try to pull the key out, period! I warn you! I
become
> > even WHINIER as the result! (Hey, I'm the only child and the only
> daughter -
> > I'm a *champion* whiner!) ;-)
>
> I'm an only child too... my mum really wanted a poodle! (And let me tell
> you, it's kinda uncomfortable having to eat your dinner out of a bowl on
the
> floor) :^)
Ouch. Was the collar comfortable, at least? ;-) (But, if your misery likes
company, it could be worse: *my* mum - and dad - apparently wanted a
genius...)
> > PURRRR.... ;-P
>
> Purrrr like that again and I'm YOURS!
>
> :^)
You still have time to bail out while I'm considering that... ;-)
> > > it's Cally.
> >
> > I wish... (and some of those powers of
> > hers, please... with more luck in terms of *not* getting possessed,
mind).
>
> Yes, the poor thing did seem rather prone to it didn't she... but if you
> really did have telepathic powers, think of the typing it would save you.
> We could all be exchanging these threads by direct mental communication...
Well, "Australian" DOES sound a little similar to "Auronar"... <g>
> on second thoughts, maybe not a good idea, my mind being even more chaotic
> than my hard drive!
Then we would sure be on the same mental wavelength...
> > I guess, there's no harm in virtual blushing... ;-) Besides, it's too
late
> > <vbg>
> Er, did I mention I find blushing REALLY cute. Oops, better stop now I
> guess...
*Innocently* What was that screeching sound I just heard?
> next posting will be right on topic! I promise...
...Or we'll die trying? <veg>
Best,
Anne
Alan Smith
>>B7
> >seemed
> > to stand the test of being 10-25 years old pretty well, and was never
>> mocked
> > the way other shows were)...
> Well, maybe the other shows were mocked way worse (I can easily believe
> THAT!), but alas, B7 did (and still does) have its fair share. When
> (relatively recently) I discovered the show for myself (Blessed Be The
Net!
> <g>), I positively *excavated* anything and anywhere (first of all, the
Web,
> of course) related to it - discussion forums, sites (most of which, alas,
> now-defunct), review pages (as usual, being late for many: Sue Clerc's
> "Adrenalin and Soma" appears to have vanished into cyberspace as well) -
and
> yes, newsgroups, too. Quite a few references I found were... let's say, it
> ranged from misinformed to downright malicious. Plus a lot of explanation
> how and where the show fell on its face. Now I realize that Blake's 7 fans
> are a discerning bunch. But there is a point where criticism is
transcended,
> and comments of "why are you a fan, again, if it all was that bad with a
> rare exception?" variety start...
I've always felt that one thing that saved B7 from a lot of mockery was that
the show wasn't well enough known for this to develop. It's far esier to
write a parody of "Star trek" (or its million or so spin-offs) simple
because there is so much raw material. There is little mileage in making
fun of a show for which no new episode has been shown for 20 years!
>Plus that ridiculous (IMNSHO) rivalry /
> war between "Whovians" and "Blake-ites", from which no one ever has
> benefitted. (Resurrected in "B5 / DS9" version of today). There's small
> enough amount of good shows like that for them to *fighting* each other!
Frankly I feel any such division into camps childish and stupid, and can
apply this to any field. Look, for example, I hate country and western
music, Harlequin Romances and golf. But there's no way I'd mock those that
do like it, if only because of the "glass houses and stones" syndrome. Any
gold fan I mocked could equally take the hit-and-miss out of my liking for
B7, cricket, Chelsea football club, antique Jaguars, mint-sauce on beef or a
million other things. Live and let live I say...
Having said that, I cna see the point of some of the sniping by Who-ites,
since on the newsgroup devoted to that show there was a lot of B7 material,
which was definitely off-topic. Must have been as big a pain for them as it
would be if someone persisted on posting reams of material about "The Bill"
or "Friends" on this group.
> But I like your car analogy. And will raise you a wine one... ;-)
Ah, but that doesn't apply to whites :^P (duck)
>Indeed,
> now, upon rewatching, even the shortcomings and laughable visuals instil
> some tenderness and sentimentality in me <g>. (And that's me, who almost
> NEVER is able to look past the way genre shows look!)
>
As this group's version of Cally, I am you don't find tenderness THAT hard
to produce. (hee hee blushing again)
> >Myself, I am a convinced survivalist -
> > Avon and Vila CERTAINLY got away, and I am sure a convincing case could
be
> > made for the other characters too.
>
> <AOL> Me too </AOL>. "Realistic" can go wherever it wants - they beat the
> odds before, and it's not exact reflection of our world and our chances,
> so... It's more unbelievable for me that it was the end of them, than
their
> survival.
Well, for me too. You have to remember that this is a hard-bitten group of
survivalists. Hey, how's this for an idea - Terry Nation DELIBERATELY made
the episode showing their deaths unbelievable as a protest against the plug
being pulled...
> >But please, let's pretend that the awful
> > "Afterlife" was actually a piece of propoganda put out by the federation
>
> Was that a book or radio play? I am not very much into "post-Blake Blake"
> stuff. (And at the same time immensely irked that it never caught on the
way
> Trek or Dr Who did: among such amount of books, there sure could be
> something worthy... maybe, even written by the *real* authors <sigh>).
It's
> like most "Trek" movies for me - not quite the same thing, more like
> merchandise.
It was a book by somebody called Atwood, whch featured, amongst other
rubbish, a computer that ran on wine and a trip through a black hole into
the most boring alternate world imaginable. Very much NOT in the spirit of
B7 - I know some fanfic is rubbish, but much of it is better than that!
> > Hi, crazy <weg>
>
> It takes the like to know the like... <emeg>
Hey, no denial here. Or even de Zambizi for that matter.
how the HECK were they going to get themselves
> out
> > of
> > > that one?
> >
> > See about 9,657,456,324,456 fanfics and pick the version you like best.
>
> I've seen just a little smidgen less - and still didn't find this one
(what
> do you think drove me to finally try my own?)
I guess most fanfic I have read was written in the period 1982-1985, when
fans were still reeling at the end of the show and the topic of "how did
they get out" was very much a big part of the B7 Zeitgeist. There days a
fanfic writer is more likely to set his/her story at a specific point, ie
"This story takes place just after "Killer"...
> > >(Heck, I even wrote my first-ever
> > PGP -
> > > Post Gauda Prime - fanfic for this recently,
> > Can't wait to see it actually...
> Careful here, sir. You can *just* get you wish... and then face finding a
> way to avoid speaking about the wretched thing, having discovered that you
> hated it! <g> (Seriously, no worries if you don't like it - as long as you
> don't go into meticulous and painful detail about *why*... ;-P) Are you
sure
> you're up to trying? (LOL).
WARNING: When reading other people's stuff, I am more likely to go into
detail if I DON'T like it. The way I see it, even if someone hates
something, to give a detailed criticism as to why at least proves they have
read the thing - and their criticisms may be useful. On t'other hand I
rarely (I hope) slag off at a work for its own sake... I'll give it a fair
shake.
So I'd love to see it - and I think you can send it direct to my email from
this group. If you can't, my email is
remove the first six letters before sending :^)
> >but I also feel that if there HAD been a
> > series 5, the way they escaped would have been different from any that
> fans
> > came up with.
>
> And that's the most frustrating thing - that we have such a fat chance of
> knowing what it would be... (Though I heard distressing rumours that Chris
> Boucher still thinks of "last-second, high-level medical intervention"
which
> does remind of so many fans' ideas. Then again, we know that this team
could
> make a candy out of all-but-hopeless raw material, so...)
Well, for me it is highly significant that ORAC was able to work the
teleport, and therefore Avon was quite capable of vanishing instantaneously,
as were other stunned characters.
> > As someone who writes stories about a female executive who has trouble
> with
> > her clothing in public (don't ask!)
>
> <Asking (for trouble)>. Ally McBeal? <ducks VERY quickly>
LOL, I asked for that. Actually the nearest I have to literary fame is my
stories about a klutzy office girl called Rochelle who - ah, how can I put
this delicately - tends to have trouble with her outfits. Totally off-topic
for this newsgroup, (written to pander to my unusual fetish, so now you
know, lol) - but if anyone is interested feel free to drop me a line. Anne,
if you want to read my stuff feel free to ask - you might not now you know
it's -er- fetish stuff, if so no offense.
> >and about an alternate world where the
> > state of Queensland did not join the rest of Australia at federation,
>
> Sliders... (yes, I know - I won't end well).
LOl - actually when I saw "Sliders" it intrigued me for just this reason -
but I started writing stories about MY alternate universe before I ever saw
the show.
> Exactly. Better well-stolen than ill-invented, I always say.
You might be a Cally type, but I see Vila-ish elements in there too :^P
> >it was typical of a
> > female writer.
>
> Them keeping their word or the baddie being sentimental sap? <mmmg> (In
> which case - do you think Mr Steed was secretly... oh no, that is too
> horrible a thought. But his big bullies were *so* vulnerable, in the end
of
> the day... <eeeeg>).
Well, I really meant the sentimentality of the villains - but the emphasis
on keeping their word was also, I guess, typical of a fairly sensitive
writer (of which women, on the whole, tend to be more likely candidates, if
that makes sense)
> >Before you set your blaster to "annihilate" I am not saying
> > this makes it inferior or weaker... just that women and men often handle
> > ideas in different ways.
>
> Come on - next thing you'd suspect me of will be arguing against
differences
> in male and female anatomy <eg>.
I thought it was just that boys are better at football. You do learn
fascinating things on newsgroups these days...
Of course they do - though I do believe
> that on some level of talent / perception it stops mattering. (Just like
> that "Heaven Level" in Shaolin arts). But that's statistically negligible
> (if not quality-wise negligible). Whatever is behind the differences (even
> if I think conditioning plays WAY bigger part in them than common
perception
> leads us to think), they're there, and no two ways around it... However,
> male or female way of telling story, what really matters is whether it's
> well done.
Well, for what it's worth I feel there are essential differences in the
mind-sets of females and males. NOT, I hasten to add, that this makes
either gender superior or inferior. of course, conditioning builds on this
to a great extent...
("Sarcophogus") > > I guess it was a case of one huge flaw drowning the good
things for me.
> As
> > soon as you start unntentionally laughing at a thing (ie laughing at a
> story
> > meant to be serious) then the suspension of disbelief slips away.
>
> I can see this happening. (Which is why, in a way, for me it was *good*
that
> this introduction scene was gotten out of the way first-thing. Matter of
> perception, again, I believe: for some, it set the mood for the whole ep;
> for me, it was "the worst is behind us" situation. I don't even view this
> one as so much of a part of the episode any longer - more like a foreward
to
> a book).
To use a musical anology, the overture...
>>had there been 500 episodes of B7 instead
> of
> > a paltry 50 or so...
>
> Stop rubbing that salt in ;-) - between the endless amount of time,
> celluloid and budget wasted on TV atrocities (or mediocricity) that run
> forever, it's almost unbearable to think how much more could be done with
> B7...
So, let's hope the movie (or series of movies) DOES happen, yeah?
> > A fantasy of mine is a B7 episode written by either Phillip K Dick,
Simon
> > Raven or Ian Banks (as in "Ian", not "Iain", ie his non-SF stuff)...
> imagine
> > what might have come out!
>
> Oh yes... (Though alas, two pluses don't necessarily make a positive in
> showbusiness: there are two mediums which require different approaches
kind
> of hurdle - I don't think discrepancy Lee faced would be so easily beaten
by
> others - and one author's distinctive world / style, no matter how good,
> could well come to blows with the one established in different Universe...
> Yup, that's me, an eternal optimist <g>).
True enough - but significantly, all of the writers I mentioned are fairly
versatile - and could well have been skilled and professional enough to do
an ace job.
>> (maybe) they had
> to
> > call on a substitute at the last minute. (this can happen, of course) -
>
> And, most likely, DID happen. I mean, yes, mythic qualities, fantasy
> atmosphere, yadda, yadda - but to have such a balletic / operatic /
> pantomime-like schtick running for this long a time on a TV show... nah.
> Can't believe it wasn't a covering-up / last-minute-fix-of-disaster kind
of
> thing.
Well, even old Bill Shakespeare had "Titus and Andronicus" and "Merry Wives
of Windsor" - both of which were produced as commissions and were dire...
> > I guess, in a way the B7 scriptwriters were lucky - they already had a
> cast
> > of well-developed and interesting multi-faceted characters to work with,
> so
> > stories that might not have worked in other series could fly in B7.
>
> Agreed - though credit where credit is due: the writers did well with what
> they had. One can (and does, all too frequently) destroy even a great set
of
> characters played extremely well by most fortunate set of actors. It means
A
> LOT to get your hands on such an asset, but to keep them that way, and do
> them justice, is not a mean feat to pull. Which the makers did. (I can
think
> of no more than two or three out-of-character moments in the entire show -
> and yes, I know most of people think differently ;-P).
And remember, to have a character always act in -er- character makes them
one-dimensional. having Avon occasionally do something sentimental, or Vila
something brave, makes the characters a lot more rounded. (and when I say
"more rounded" I aam not thinking of Roy Kinnear's appearance in S4!!)
> > And ("Trial") also makes a point (missed by many) that the search to
keep
> and
> > retain individuality (as Zil helped him to do on planet) was EXACTLY
what
> > the crew were doing in a wider sense in their fight against the
> Federation.
>
> And in this regard, what happened on the ship paralleled what happened on
> the planet quite nicely. They *thought* they could get away from it all...
> but the "curse" of becoming Blake's Seven, so to speak, has already set
in.
> (Or, if you will, that was when they missed their last chance to
> "dissolve").
Or also the fact that just as the eggs of Zil's people could survive the
absorbtion process, so the Liberator crew were tough enough to survive the
federation's attempts to bring them back to heel!
> > Actually, thinking it over, I can't help feeling that whoever chose the
> > series had a half idea about Rog Blake being a
mystic/freethinker/idealist
> > in the same way as his namesake, William. And the "7" of course has
> mystic
> > ramifications... (more such rambling of mine snipped)
> Oh yes. They never aimed small - and always went for audience's
> intelligence, sometimes risking narrowing the viewership for it: the show
> was *brimming* with such things ("Avon" sounded rather Shakespearean, too
> ;-)). However, even for those who missed the references, I think, it had a
> certain impact. (And, as a result, they became themselves quite a point of
> reference: for the freshest example see "Gamma" books in DS9 "season 8 on
> paper" series. The Bajoran history now has a famous rebel hero Ayvon, who
> used to say: "I'm not Federation, I'm not stupid and I'm not going"... I
> must admit, it made me all warm and fuzzy inside. But then again, such is
> the female perception <eg>).
Come on guys, let's pick up on that. Why is it always ME that has to make
fun of Anne's sentimental moments? Come on - guy power rules...
> >- Even
> > when I began to buy B7 videos I tended to concentrate on series 1-3...
>
> Aha! So THAT's the season you truly dislike, after all - the much-maligned
> season 4! Gotcha! <evil manic chuckle>.
Well, yes, but more because I knew the episodes were leading to defeat and
loss - NOT because they were less intrinsically entertaining.
>Serioiusly, though, far be it from
> me to inflict or impose anything on you (no, honest! <g>),
Hu! You might have tried... :^)
>but you might be
> surprised if you take another look. Like I said, my prospect was unique
and
> fortunate - I came into it armed with foreknowledge how bad, wrong and
> two-dimensional everything there is, how much character assassination was
> going on, etc., etc. So when I saw the actual thing, I was surprised at
how
> well (and logical, all things considered) it was done and how much our
> downtrodden heroes actually manage to do
I think too, it was a case of having seen ALL of S4 recently (at the time),
whereas there were many episodes of Series1-3 I had missed, or not seen for
a long time.
>(OK, I come from the-then USSR, I
> have learned well to expect the worst!) -
Well, this is a public newsgroup, so I therefore (reluctantly) refrain from
a detailed description of the image this conjours up - Anne in a furry hat
and bearskin coat trailing a toy Katushka along on a string and swigging
from a vodka bottle!
>and how much more dimensions /
> nuances were preserved than I expected by the hearsay...
> since. Mind you, it's not like the depressing stuff couldn't get through
my
> thick skin (it did alright), I just found it par for the course...
Hey, if only Dostoevsky could have been persuaded to do an episode or two...
>>had the Blakeites been merely trying to win a war against the
> > federation you could count them very successful. It is only when you
try
> to
> > add a moral dimension to their actions - they are fighting tyranny -
that
> > the dissapointment sets in. The federation's leaders have been replaced
> by
> > another set equally evil and tyrannical so what's been achieved? Ok,
> there
> > ARE hopeful and optimistic answers to this question (providing a symbol,
> > undermining the foundations, etc)...
>
> Precisely. Diminishing the influence and cutting supremity (to coin a word
> again) of the rule, too. Federation was still bad, no question about it -
> however, its clutches amounted for *far* less victims by the two later
> seasons. It didn't hold nearly as much water as it used to... and after
> Traitor (and possibly even DeathWatch) the restarted spread was disrupted
> again.
But so powerful was the Federation that one can't help thinking its chances
of reform were good. Still, simply by existing and striking so many blows,
the Blakeites (or their memory0 proved a good rallying point for future
rebellion.
> >Avon would sooner be making
> > millions, Vila would like to be somewhere safe, Cally would prefer to be
> > back on Auron... fate had thrust them by the scruffs of their colelctive
> > necks into being revolutionaries, and they were stuck with it.
>
> So much so, in fact, that those preferable alternatives had become
something
> to which lip service was paid by them, rather than something they really
> strove for. I often encountered a complaint that by Season 4, there was no
> good enough reason for this "band of brothers" (and sisters <eg>) to still
> fight the Feds together: the circumstances allowed them (and some of them,
> positively *nudged*) to go after what they claimed they always wanted.
Except that many of their dreams - I refer especially to Avon and Vila
here - were less likely to be fulfilled in the chaos that the Federation had
become. For criminals of any kind to flourish they really need a settled
society, which, by this stage, the federation wasn't... as Blake said
"You're a civilised man, Avon"...
>But
> to me, it was always sort of a point: they no longer were doing it for the
> lack of choice (no matter what they claimed). I won't go so far as to say
> that they *wanted* to do what they were doing (though, coming to think of
> it, why not?) - but I will say that it has become the only way for them.
> Just like with that bond Dorian was talking about it: love it or hate it
> (and hate it they did quite often ;-P), but it's there. Fact of life, and
> that's that.
And there is also the syndrome that if you put people who don't initially
have much in common together, especially if they go through some "times"...
after a while they will bond. The mlitary regimental system is based on
this of course...
> even what I have as a
> > clear
> > > image in my head, comes out... um... surreal <g>.
> >
> > But kinda cute (ducks for cover!)
>
> Not to worry. I'm a lousy shot <checks her cybernetic, ultra-precise
> headgear>. Aww, but who am I kidding? I was never able to resist being
> called cute (probably because nothing could be further from the truth
<g>).
Well, feel free to melt and fall into my - AAAGH get back on topic Alan!!
>>
> > There are, of course, certain advantages in writing for the BBC - you
can
> > write interesting, credible plots with decent characterisation instead
of
> > lowest-common-denominator cr*p...
>
> Insert past tense here <sigh>. Period drama is name of the game today,
> unless it's sports, soaps or "gritty reality" cop / office shows (the
latter
> being in a decided minority, too). Not that I mind genres in itself
(though
> I DO mind soaps), it's just "your typical fare" feel which makes me queasy
> and all senile-nostalgic about Good Old Days <tm>...
Oh, be fair. There's some decent stuff on BBC these days... seen "Foyle's
War"??
> >almost as if (the beeb)
> > considered commercial acclaim to be a bit vulgar.
>
> Should it be so, I wouldn't still have to hide in my room from the TV set
> and sulk as Yet Another Eternal Soap comes on... (And no, alternatives are
> not always there, especially in so-called prime-time).
well, there's videos, books, DVDs, computers, magazines, hobbies, kinky sex,
sport, travel, socialising, eating out, etc etc... also, if there is really
NOTHING else to do, one can watch the soaps with the sound turned down and
make up your own dialogue - this is often totally hilarious (especially if
there's a group of you and you have some good alcohol to hand) - in fact
it's possibly the best fun you can have without needing lubricant.
> > >(Some in the know say that it was her who was meant to
> > > feature in Animals, instead of Dayna - and I already mentioned that,
> even
> > > with unsavoury moments brought about by resulting "affair", Dayna
being
> SO
> > > much younger than Justin, I am relieved that she didn't. I had enough
of
> > > "weak Cally" in Harvest, thankyouverrrymuch...)
> >
> > certainly it would have been much better with Cally.
>
> <Stubbornly> Not with this "switchable feelings" part of the plot, it
> wouldn't. I mentioned in another topic that I wasn't too happy with Dayna
> manipulated with a press of the button (no matter how sophisticated the
> device behind it) - seeing Cally succumbing to that (after weathering away
> Travis' torture, no less) would have been unbearable. It *is* possible to
> care for a character enough to *not* want to see them in some stories.
(Did
> I already say "Animals" is unique in being NOT my favourite? Oh. Never
mind,
> then. But you're *sure* I mentioned it? ;-P).
LOl, only about a gazillion times, I prolly missed it ;^)
>
> >As to the age
> > difference, while I am as disgusted as anyone about pedophilia, child
> > molestation etc, I don't get really squiffy about age differences
between
> > consenting partners in a romantic involvement. Either Dayna or Cally
were
> > quite able to make their own decisions...
>
> <Sigh of relief> I thought, I was only one like that. (It was NOT the age
> thing which I had real problems with, as far as the ep is concerned).
Though
> <mean mode on> I'd like to see a story where said difference was
> gender-reversed. Watching / listening to the viewers squirm after that one
> would be a worthwhile experience in and of itself <mean mode on
powersave>.
How so. Surely you realise that these days, a young toy-boy and an older
woman is quite a fashionable pairing. Love to see Tarrant pursued by an
older woman... (hee hee fanfic ideas here)...
biggest prob for me was the obvious aim of having him as a "Blake
replacement"...
> >Cally replacing Tarrant in "Sand'... interesting idea...
>
> You mean... taking his place with Servalan? Ewww! (And I'm not at all
> opposed to non-traditional orientation, even). <Dissolves into the mists,
> leaving an illusory image of her for everybody to concentrate on shooting>
Did I hear you say "Jenna, get me out - QUICKLY" then?
>>- well, as a computer (albeit conscious) Slave might well not have
> had
> > a sense of shame about having to kowtow to the humans. "He" would
simply
> > adopt it as a preference of "his" owners.
>
> For me, it's as much of "maybe, maybe not" as it was about "is Zen an
> individual"? (With ORAC, I doubt that was ever even a question, regardless
> of what Avon said... and even he seemed to relent somehow as the time
> passed).
I always think of Zen as an individual - not so sure about Slave though.
> >I confess, my own mobile phone
> > greets me with "Hello Alan" every time I turn it on, and i have
> occasionally
> > thought about replacing this with "Hello, O great Alan at whose command
> the
> > stars move" - just joshin' honestly!
>
> Why do I have this nagging feeling that you also watched "Lexx"?
LOl, just discovered the show actually - thanks, Foxtel Cable!!
>Returning from kidding zone
> again, having such a greeting would be fun - but are you sure you would
feel
> comfortable with more convincing, detailed and attuned-to-every-occasion
> "slave" responses?
Prolly not, but then I wasn't serious. What I'd really like is a desktop
gif of a beautiful girl that played with her hair and blushed every time I
fired up the puter... and NO jokes about going down, please!!!
> > (suddenly starts wondering how I'd look in studded leather) <weg>
>
> Do you have M & S in Australia? ;-))) (With all these fashion changes
still
> might be a problem <mmmg>).
No, but my mum still speaks of "Marks and Sparks" fondly...
>
> Speaking of liking someone's responses... ;-). (And having a point always
> helps <g>. Looking around at current shows, the closest descendant from
> Vila - character-wise - would be, I guess, Harper on "Andromeda". "But she
> has nothing for you but contempt! -So what? She's still hot! And
apparently,
> a good judge of character". Chuckling Out Loud. Though Harper is so much
> luckier than Vila in more than one respect, it's not even funny...)
well, you have the advantage of me there... Andromeda is shown on weekends
when I am often away from the cable. I'lls et the VCR and check it out, OK?
> > I'm an only child too... my mum really wanted a poodle!
> (But, if your misery likes
> company, it could be worse: *my* mum - and dad - apparently wanted a
> genius...)
And they had to settle for a charming wonderful goddess - poor things.
> > > PURRRR.... ;-P
> >
> > Purrrr like that again and I'm YOURS!
> >
> > :^)
>
> You still have time to bail out while I'm considering that... ;-)
(Ostentatiously walks away from the teleport and takes off bracelet) - now
the ball's in your court, sweetie, lol.
(getting back on topic for once) - seriously, it's hard for me to say my
favourite episodes at the moment, partly because I have to divide them into
ones I haven't seen for 20 years and ones I have seen recently. And there's
also my "friends"-like habit of thinking of shows as "The one where Servalan
clones herself" or "The one where Cally gets possessed" rather than by their
correct titles. As soon as I get a DVD player (I'm not really happy with
the technical aspects of the medium yet) I plan to get hold of the complete
series (or at least fill in the gaps) - then I guess I can make a better
stab at answering this thread.
Best to all
Alan
Anne
>
> >>B7
> > >seemed
> > > to stand the test of being 10-25 years old pretty well, and was never
> >> mocked
> > > the way other shows were)...
>
>
>
> > Well, maybe the other shows were mocked way worse (I can easily believe
> > THAT!), but alas, B7 did (and still does) have its fair share. When
> > (relatively recently) I discovered the show for myself (Blessed Be The
> Net!
> > <g>), I positively *excavated* anything and anywhere (first of all, the
> Web,
> > of course) related to it - discussion forums, sites (most of which,
alas,
> > now-defunct), review pages (as usual, being late for many: Sue Clerc's
> > "Adrenalin and Soma" appears to have vanished into cyberspace as well) -
> and
> > yes, newsgroups, too. Quite a few references I found were... let's say,
it
> > ranged from misinformed to downright malicious.
> I've always felt that one thing that saved B7 from a lot of mockery was
that
> the show wasn't well enough known for this to develop.
"The thunderbolt doesn't strike in the valleys"? <g> Obscurity to escape
malice? THAT is a philosophical question worthy of Zil: is it better to be
big, clumsy, much-maligned yet all-known name like Star Trek - with
franchise, and staying power, and all - or keep your dignity in a small
village, being (mostly) out of Insult Zone at the price of exposure / chance
to return?
> >Plus that ridiculous (IMNSHO) rivalry /
> > war between "Whovians" and "Blake-ites", from which no one ever has
> > benefitted. (Resurrected in "B5 / DS9" version of today). There's small
> > enough amount of good shows like that for them to *fighting* each other!
>
> Frankly I feel any such division into camps childish and stupid, and can
> apply this to any field.
As do I.
>Look, for example, I hate country and western
> music, Harlequin Romances and golf. But there's no way I'd mock those
that
> do like it, if only because of the "glass houses and stones" syndrome.
But this simple fact normally goes over the heads of fans' warring factions.
Because, as we know all too well, "there are only two kinds of taste - good
one and the one which doesn't agree with mine". We Are Always Right
mentality springs eternal...
> Having said that, I cna see the point of some of the sniping by Who-ites,
> since on the newsgroup devoted to that show there was a lot of B7
material,
> which was definitely off-topic.
Oh, they were totally within their rights to claim offence, no question
about this. But how about some nobility and solidarity in allowing a seat in
their boat to the shripwreck escapees? <eg>. Their show was (still is) much
bigger with media, commanded higher respect, had (has) a chance for return,
a merchandise in droves, book series (some of which are actually *good*),
the newsgroup was very much alive (and NOT courtesy of spam or even
irrelevant posts - however many there were, they didn't comprise even a
third of all content). Blake-ites had nothing - and what they did have
amounted to "worse than nothing" most of the time (you brought up AfterLife
yourself). By no means do I imply that Whovians owed anything to them - you
don't "owe" grace or generocity: it's something you choose (or not) to do.
But it just saddens me to see such a division and animosity among those who
are, in the end of the day, in the same camp... and under the same fire.
Every good genre TV (which is rare as it is) is our gain, every time its
life is cut short is our common loss... And we have too much of it now as it
is, to afford being at each other's throats.
>Must have been as big a pain for them as it
> would be if someone persisted on posting reams of material about "The
Bill"
> or "Friends" on this group.
I don't think it really compares. If only because it's much harder to
imagine crossover between "Friends" and Good Doctor's adventures... ;-)
> > But I like your car analogy. And will raise you a wine one... ;-)
>
> Ah, but that doesn't apply to whites :^P (duck)
It's all about nuances... <mg> (Speaking of whites: would be nice to taste
being one for a change, having been Jewish in Russia, "Russian" in Israel,
and now no-idea-who in UK... but I doubt it'll ever happen in my lifetime...
;-P)
> >Indeed,
> > now, upon rewatching, even the shortcomings and laughable visuals instil
> > some tenderness and sentimentality in me <g>. (And that's me, who almost
> > NEVER is able to look past the way genre shows look!)
> As this group's version of Cally, I am you don't find tenderness THAT hard
> to produce. (hee hee blushing again)
<Having fought the blush back inside> THEN it must be one tough and hard
group... (Yes, I do have a penchant of stating the obvious. How did you
know? ;-P)
> > It's more unbelievable for me that it was the end of them, than
> their
> > survival.
>
> Well, for me too. You have to remember that this is a hard-bitten group
of
> survivalists.
That, and there were too many loose ends hanging around.
>Hey, how's this for an idea - Terry Nation DELIBERATELY made
> the episode showing their deaths unbelievable as a protest against the
plug
> being pulled...
And here I have a bit of trivia for you, for which you better get yourself
cushioned: sources (including the interviews by the man himself) state that
he wasn't anywhere near the production of "Blake" the episode - and was
extremely unhappy with it (the end, first and foremost). He insisted,
repeatedly and publicly, that he knew how it really turned out - and why
they were all alive... but the thing is, the wasn't talking, not to his very
death. So - and I know it must be a blow if you didn't know it before - we
most likely will never know (unless there's a hidden manuscript somewhere,
or a VERY discreet confidante staying in the shadows). At least we have it
on the highest possible authority that they survived..
> > > "Afterlife" was actually a piece of propoganda put out by the
federation
> > Was that a book or radio play? I am not very much into "post-Blake
Blake"
> > stuff. (And at the same time immensely irked that it never caught on the
> way
> > Trek or Dr Who did: among such amount of books, there sure could be
> > something worthy... maybe, even written by the *real* authors <sigh>).
> It's
> > like most "Trek" movies for me - not quite the same thing, more like
> > merchandise.
>
> It was a book by somebody called Atwood, whch featured, amongst other
> rubbish, a computer that ran on wine
As Napoleon was once rumoured to say: "No need to continue". Even Terry
Pratchett had the decency to use *cheese* for that purpose... <g>
>and a trip through a black hole into
> the most boring alternate world imaginable.
Uh-oh. "Funny" and "touching" meetings abound...
> I know some fanfic is rubbish, but much of it is better than that!
To be fair, from your description, not all that mean trick to pull...
> > > Hi, crazy <weg>
> >
> > It takes the like to know the like... <emeg>
>
> Hey, no denial here. Or even de Zambizi for that matter.
;-)
> how the HECK were they going to get themselves
> > out
> > > of
> > > > that one?
> > >
> > > See about 9,657,456,324,456 fanfics and pick the version you like
best.
> >
> > I've seen just a little smidgen less - and still didn't find this one
> (what
> > do you think drove me to finally try my own?)
>
> I guess most fanfic I have read was written in the period 1982-1985, when
> fans were still reeling at the end of the show and the topic of "how did
> they get out" was very much a big part of the B7 Zeitgeist. There days a
> fanfic writer is more likely to set his/her story at a specific point, ie
> "This story takes place just after "Killer"...
Actually, my "didn't find" related to your "like the best" (or at all, for
that matter - other than, partly, Cross The Border I found on Ashton Press
site). I dug out a lot of PGPs - some of them gloomy, some cheerful, some
just slash ;-P - but none felt, shall I say, authentic (with the above
exception). And yes, I know it's rich of me to say so after having made a
shot at it myself...
> > Careful here, sir. You can *just* get you wish... and then face finding
a
> > way to avoid speaking about the wretched thing, having discovered that
you
> > hated it! <g> (Seriously, no worries if you don't like it - as long as
you
> > don't go into meticulous and painful detail about *why*... ;-P) Are you
> sure
> > you're up to trying? (LOL).
>
> WARNING: When reading other people's stuff, I am more likely to go into
> detail if I DON'T like it.
Way to go at making me all jumpy... <g> But there's no return now - you were
promised it, so you shall have it. At least, I come prepared, and if you
hate it, I'll just pretend nothing ever happened. It's not like I have to
learn it, being a B7 fan, and all... ;-)
> The way I see it, even if someone hates
> something, to give a detailed criticism as to why at least proves they
have
> read the thing -
That's one upside...
>and their criticisms may be useful.
If the criticised one is up to applying the criticism in question. Which is
quite a big if in my case, as I tend to give what I write my all (rewrites
run mad: I'll never stop until I at least somewhat satisfied), so it's drain
time afterwards. Nevertheless, you're welcome to try ;-P
>On t'other hand I
> rarely (I hope) slag off at a work for its own sake...
<Shades of "Godfather"> Nothing personal - just business? ;-) Seriously,
fire away - I'm OK with it as long as you don't call me names and don't
insist on dwelling on the whole sorry business!
> So I'd love to see it - and I think you can send it direct to my email
from
> this group. If you can't, my email is
>
> nospama...@ihug.com.au
> remove the first six letters before sending :^)
I did get the mail address - but I waited for your validation (how's that
for the Federation speak?) Now you can't file a Spam Suit against me, neener
neener! <g> (But I'll still use the regular e-mail - Outlook sometimes
behaves funny with me... or I with it). Just remember - as you've been
warned: my idea of getting around the whole disaster is REALLY lame and
unoriginal. And not much happens <reg>.
> > I heard distressing rumours that Chris
> > Boucher still thinks of "last-second, high-level medical intervention"
> which
> > does remind of so many fans' ideas. Then again, we know that this team
> could
> > make a candy out of all-but-hopeless raw material, so...)
>
> Well, for me it is highly significant that ORAC was able to work the
> teleport, and therefore Avon was quite capable of vanishing
instantaneously,
And he was the last who "saw" the Mean Machine, too. Though his face at the
moment didn't look like he had any intention to disappear anywhere... OTOH,
it went way too easy (on the surface) for Arlene and the Feds, for me not to
suspect something fishy. I mean, have these rebel bases no guards of their
own?
> as were other stunned characters.
Not to mention that we still don't know what it was that happened to Blake
"not-on-Earth", as he put it. Yes, what he got from Avon was enough to
finish him once and for all... as he was *before* that post-Star-One times.
How much (and what) changed could be a good question...
>the nearest I have to literary fame is my
> stories about a klutzy office girl called Rochelle who - ah, how can I put
> this delicately - tends to have trouble with her outfits.
Firstly, it's infinitely closer than *I* will ever get to such a fame.
Secondly, klutzy is the way to go - I still wonder when will these TV bosses
wake up, smell the coffee and recognise how horribly passe all this
"superhuman / stunning / magazine-cover-looks" thing is, and go for the real
star stuff! We already have quite a few entrants to such a new Gallery:
Vila, Harper, Ally, Bridget Jo... no, scratch that one <eg>. And thirdly -
do the outfits fall off at once, or just part-by-part? <rreg>
> Anne,
> if you want to read my stuff feel free to ask - you might not now you know
> it's -er- fetish stuff, if so no offense.
Go ahead - if anything, I'd be interesting to know if our notions of fetish
even coincide a bit! ;-) Just remember - when it comes to criticism, I'm
your direct opposite: if I don't like something, I feel awfully awkward, and
lost for words (unless it's Tribune Entertainment messing with my favourite
show ;-)) and try again to pretend I'm not there. So don't expect anything
coherent in such an occasion <g>. And yes, don't use the address on the
newsgroup - this mailbox died untimely and messy death, so go for
nospam...@hotmail.com (and I don't think I have to explain which part to
trim...)
>
> > >and about an alternate world where the
> > > state of Queensland did not join the rest of Australia at federation,
> >
> > Sliders... (yes, I know - I won't end well).
>
> LOl - actually when I saw "Sliders" it intrigued me for just this reason -
It was not too bad for about two seasons...
> but I started writing stories about MY alternate universe before I ever
saw
> the show.
That's the evil of copyrighting and patents - they steal our ideas just as
we invent them (and sometimes even before! ;-P)
> > Exactly. Better well-stolen than ill-invented, I always say.
>
> You might be a Cally type, but I see Vila-ish elements in there too :^P
Stop it. You'll be spoiling me beyond any reas... Oh, wait. Too late. I'm
way beyond there already. Please continue <mg>.
> > >it was typical of a
> > > female writer.
> >
> > Them keeping their word or the baddie being sentimental sap? <mmmg> (In
> > which case - do you think Mr Steed was secretly... oh no, that is too
> > horrible a thought. But his big bullies were *so* vulnerable, in the end
> of
> > the day... <eeeeg>).
>
> Well, I really meant the sentimentality of the villains - but the emphasis
> on keeping their word was also, I guess, typical of a fairly sensitive
> writer (of which women, on the whole, tend to be more likely candidates,
if
> that makes sense)
Sentimental big baddies, I grant you (though it still leaves this piquant
question of Big Manly Mr Steed ;-P), but as far as keeping one's word is
concerned... <Dons her personal Female Chauvinist Pig suit>. If it's so
femininely sensitive, then what all this blabbing about Keeping Your Honour
in very-much-male-written stories (since the ancient times, in fact) is
about? <ducks>
> > >Before you set your blaster to "annihilate" I am not saying
> > > this makes it inferior or weaker... just that women and men often
handle
> > > ideas in different ways.
> >
> > Come on - next thing you'd suspect me of will be arguing against
> differences
> > in male and female anatomy <eg>.
>
> I thought it was just that boys are better at football.
So far... (No, I'm not stubborn. And not obssessive. And STOP looking at me
that way! Yes, all of you! You're *not* scaring me with you white coats, ya
hear?)
>You do learn
> fascinating things on newsgroups these days...
That's what Borgs... err, discussions are for <g>.
> > Whatever is behind the differences (even
> > if I think conditioning plays WAY bigger part in them than common
> perception
> > leads us to think), they're there, and no two ways around it... However,
> > male or female way of telling story, what really matters is whether it's
> > well done.
>
> Well, for what it's worth I feel there are essential differences in the
> mind-sets of females and males. NOT, I hasten to add, that this makes
> either gender superior or inferior.
Rather, makes us stronger and more rounded as the whole species (like I
said, diversity rules ;-P). Yes, I agree. It's just that I don't see these
differences as all that clear-cut / falling-into-the-category / predictable
/ consistent. There are some currents running against the overall flow. And
what did Nature (or whatever deity there is) mean by that, still remains to
be seen (if we ever do).
>of course, conditioning builds on this
> to a great extent...
And adds to it, too.
> > for me it was *good*
> that
> > this introduction scene was gotten out of the way first-thing. Matter of
> > perception, again, I believe: for some, it set the mood for the whole
ep;
> > for me, it was "the worst is behind us" situation. I don't even view
this
> > one as so much of a part of the episode any longer - more like a
foreward
> to
> > a book).
>
> To use a musical anology, the overture...
I quite like a good ouverture, so let's not compare it to *that* <g> (Though
I can see how they aimed for such a thing).
> > between the endless amount of time,
> > celluloid and budget wasted on TV atrocities (or mediocricity) that run
> > forever, it's almost unbearable to think how much more could be done
with
> > B7...
>
> So, let's hope the movie (or series of movies) DOES happen, yeah?
Couldn't afford not to. We all here know that giving up is not an option -
and just what to answer when being told that odds are laughably
unsurmountable...
> > two pluses don't necessarily make a positive in
> > showbusiness: there are two mediums which require different approaches
> kind
> > of hurdle - I don't think discrepancy Lee faced would be so easily
beaten
> by
> > others - and one author's distinctive world / style, no matter how good,
> > could well come to blows with the one established in different
Universe...
> > Yup, that's me, an eternal optimist <g>).
>
> True enough - but significantly, all of the writers I mentioned are fairly
> versatile - and could well have been skilled and professional enough to do
> an ace job.
That could be great, indeed... as long as two sides' ideas for the story
don't clash. What we really don't need is another Roddenberry / Ellison
saga... Then again, things of such magnitude are mercifully rare ;-).
> > Can't believe it wasn't a covering-up / last-minute-fix-of-disaster kind
> of
> > thing.
>
> Well, even old Bill Shakespeare had "Titus and Andronicus" and "Merry
Wives
> of Windsor" - both of which were produced as commissions and were dire...
Do you feel about the two the absolutely same way? I mean, "Wives" at least
have something funny (though much of humour falls rather flat...)
> > the writers did well with what
> > they had. One can (and does, all too frequently) destroy even a great
set
> of
> > characters played extremely well by most fortunate set of actors. It
means
> A
> > LOT to get your hands on such an asset, but to keep them that way, and
do
> > them justice, is not a mean feat to pull. Which the makers did. (I can
> think
> > of no more than two or three out-of-character moments in the entire
show -
> > and yes, I know most of people think differently ;-P).
>
> And remember, to have a character always act in -er- character makes them
> one-dimensional. having Avon occasionally do something sentimental, or
Vila
> something brave, makes the characters a lot more rounded.
Oh, I never count such moments as "out-of-character" - just as another
example of "running against the flow" I talked about before, another facet
of the same character we simply don't get to see too often. I like it very
much, in fact. What I meant is when character's behaviour doesn't feel
"natural", like they're clearly forced to do / say something by the authors.
Vila easily dismissing Dayna's fate in "Animals" is one such example. Cally
just standing stupidly by as Jarvik tackles Dayna and takes his sweet time
to teleport her with him, is another. As Father Brown once said: anyone can
do just about anything under the right circumstances - but they'll do it *in
their own way*! Thankfully, such moments are a real rarity on the show.
>(and when I say
> "more rounded" I aam not thinking of Roy Kinnear's appearance in S4!!)
Was he ever less rounded? <g>
> > what happened on the ship paralleled what happened on
> > the planet quite nicely. They *thought* they could get away from it
all...
> > but the "curse" of becoming Blake's Seven, so to speak, has already set
> in.
> > (Or, if you will, that was when they missed their last chance to
> > "dissolve").
>
> Or also the fact that just as the eggs of Zil's people could survive the
> absorbtion process, so the Liberator crew were tough enough to survive the
> federation's attempts to bring them back to heel!
There's that, too. Which makes a final explosion on the planet rather a
frightening foreshadowing, in the context. OTOH, it puts (inadvertently, but
some stories just tend to tell themselves, author or no author <g>) a rather
interesting light on "Blake": after all, dear Roj *did* get out in time from
the "Trial" planet. Pulled off from what would look to an uninformed eye
like a certain death. In the very last moment...
> > see "Gamma" books in DS9 "season 8 on
> > paper" series. The Bajoran history now has a famous rebel hero Ayvon,
who
> > used to say: "I'm not Federation, I'm not stupid and I'm not going"... I
> > must admit, it made me all warm and fuzzy inside. But then again, such
is
> > the female perception <eg>).
>
> Come on guys, let's pick up on that. Why is it always ME that has to make
> fun of Anne's sentimental moments?
Because no one else can be bothered? <mg> To be fair, we probably did talk
them all to death by now... ;-)
>Come on - guy power rules...
...But Indifferent Power prevails over all <mean screech>
> > So THAT's the season you truly dislike, after all - the much-maligned
> > season 4! Gotcha! <evil manic chuckle>.
>
> Well, yes, but more because I knew the episodes were leading to defeat and
> loss
In my case, it was paradoxically the direct opposite: foreknowledge could
helped me deal and just enjoy it while it lasted. If I didn't know how it
was destined to end and kept hoping / waiting for them to finally break
through all the way, I might have turned out to be among the most bitter
complainers (not necessarily, though ;-P). As it was, every shred of success
was a nice surprise.
>- NOT because they were less intrinsically entertaining.
Then you don't qualify for the proper S4 hater's mantle. The memo says that
you have to cry "bad / lazy writing", accuse Paul Darrow of hamming it up
and being woefully two-dimensional (if that), deem the stories implausible
and primitive, and overall proclaim the whole thing a travesty which has
nothing to do with the Show Proper <tm>. (See, I read my FAQs!) As it is,
you're just craving for more, is all. (Just like every single one of us...)
And could just as well be watching... ;-)
> >Serioiusly, though, far be it from
> > me to inflict or impose anything on you (no, honest! <g>),
>
> Hu! You might have tried... :^)
Do you mean I've missed my chance? <eg>
> > when I saw the actual thing, I was surprised at
> how
> > well (and logical, all things considered) it was done and how much our
> > downtrodden heroes actually manage to do
>
> I think too, it was a case of having seen ALL of S4 recently (at the
time),
> whereas there were many episodes of Series1-3 I had missed, or not seen
for
> a long time.
That only goes to show further that we all have our internal clock set in
different ways. For some, "in order" is obligatory (not that I would mind
getting them this way all the time). For others, there's no way to enjoy it
unless they get at least their daily portion. And I, like I said, feel
fortunate in seeing the last year first, and then working up to it...
> >(OK, I come from the-then USSR, I
> > have learned well to expect the worst!) -
>
> Well, this is a public newsgroup, so I therefore (reluctantly) refrain
from
> a detailed description of the image this conjours up - Anne in a furry hat
...with a big flap ears, don't you forget...
> and bearskin coat trailing a toy Katushka along on a string
<Indiginantly> Why toy? You think I couldn't handle the real thing?
>and swigging
> from a vodka bottle!
Don't you get me started on what they say about Aussies... <reg>
> > Mind you, it's not like the depressing stuff couldn't get through
> my
> > thick skin (it did alright), I just found it par for the course...
>
> Hey, if only Dostoevsky could have been persuaded to do an episode or
two...
No thanks. Then they would all most likely survived... but we'd wish that
they didn't. Take it from me - it's a first-hand experience talking (you
don't get through Russian school without going through *some* Dostoyevsky!)
> > there
> > > ARE hopeful and optimistic answers to this question (providing a
symbol,
> > > undermining the foundations, etc)...
> >
> > Precisely. Diminishing the influence and cutting supremity (to coin a
word
> > again) of the rule, too. Federation was still bad, no question about
it -
> > however, its clutches amounted for *far* less victims by the two later
> > seasons. It didn't hold nearly as much water as it used to... and after
> > Traitor (and possibly even DeathWatch) the restarted spread was
disrupted
> > again.
>
> But so powerful was the Federation that one can't help thinking its
chances
> of reform were good.
You mean "restoration" (or my English still needs some polishing - which I
can easily believe). In my mind, reform means something more positive - as
in "reformed character". Anyway, yes, there were VERY serious dangers of
things returning to status quo - which made Our Team felt really needed (and
alleviated at least some of this stress for me).
>Still, simply by existing and striking so many blows,
> the Blakeites (or their memory0 proved a good rallying point for future
> rebellion.
Not to mention getting quite a few rather threatening toys out of Feds'
eager hands (even if they were unable to put them to their own use... which
might not be such a bad thing all the time. Tarrant might have acted rashly
in "Headhunter", but he did have a point for once).
> > I often encountered a complaint that by Season 4, there was no
> > good enough reason for this "band of brothers" (and sisters <eg>) to
still
> > fight the Feds together: the circumstances allowed them (and some of
them,
> > positively *nudged*) to go after what they claimed they always wanted.
>
> Except that many of their dreams - I refer especially to Avon and Vila
> here - were less likely to be fulfilled in the chaos that the Federation
had
> become.
Ah, but by that time, a "non-Federation" option arose (a slim shot when it
all started: the outworlds looked like they had precious little time before
being "herded in"). They could use it alright, if they *really* put their
minds to it. Which only proves to me that said minds were too far into very
different territories by then...
>For criminals of any kind to flourish they really need a settled
> society, which, by this stage, the federation wasn't... as Blake said
> "You're a civilised man, Avon"...
You mean, it should have been "civilised criminal"? <g> Hmm, civilised
people running off to run amok because it's not proper enough a society for
them in the fold... Works for me (especially when I deal with British public
transport... <mg>)
> > it has become the only way for them.
> > Just like with that bond Dorian was talking about it: love it or hate it
> > (and hate it they did quite often ;-P), but it's there. Fact of life,
and
> > that's that.
>
> And there is also the syndrome that if you put people who don't initially
> have much in common together, especially if they go through some
"times"...
> after a while they will bond. The mlitary regimental system is based on
> this of course...
And even without a deterrent of being *forced* to do what they do. (Oh, they
were forced - by circumstances, by what happened before, you-name-it - but
you know the difference. Deserting from the army is one thing, but deserting
from the escape haven?)
> > > But kinda cute (ducks for cover!)
> >
> > Not to worry. I'm a lousy shot <checks her cybernetic, ultra-precise
> > headgear>. Aww, but who am I kidding? I was never able to resist being
> > called cute (probably because nothing could be further from the truth
> <g>).
>
> Well, feel free to melt and fall into my - AAAGH get back on topic Alan!!
Topic is relative <eg>. But a sight of me melting is a VERY acquired taste
(actually, even sight of me in a normal, solid state... but let's not stray
off <g>).
> > > There are, of course, certain advantages in writing for the BBC - you
> can
> > > write interesting, credible plots with decent characterisation instead
> of
> > > lowest-common-denominator cr*p...
> >
> > Insert past tense here <sigh>. Period drama is name of the game today,
> > unless it's sports, soaps or "gritty reality" cop / office shows (the
> latter
> > being in a decided minority, too). Not that I mind genres in itself
> (though
> > I DO mind soaps), it's just "your typical fare" feel which makes me
queasy
> > and all senile-nostalgic about Good Old Days <tm>...
>
> Oh, be fair.
Ah, what's the fun in that? <reg>
>There's some decent stuff on BBC these days... seen "Foyle's
> War"??
Yes, I agree. But "some" is still an operative word...
> > >almost as if (the beeb)
> > > considered commercial acclaim to be a bit vulgar.
> >
> > Should it be so, I wouldn't still have to hide in my room from the TV
set
> > and sulk as Yet Another Eternal Soap comes on... (And no, alternatives
are
> > not always there, especially in so-called prime-time).
>
> well, there's videos,
...made from the TV shows...
>books,
...to which I REALLY should get back... anything interesting recently on
that front? <g>
>DVDs,
Don't remind me. I'm just now wrestling with my new rewriteable DVD driver
(didn't I tell you to stop looking at me like that?) which positively
refuses to write on non-rewriteable DVD discs (DVD+R, that is).
>computers,
And what do you think am I doing here?
>magazines,
"Forbidden Planet" will soon ban me from entrance for reading all the
interesting stuff just there...
>hobbies, kinky sex,
Oh, so you *do* divide the two? <eg>
> sport,
<Looks again in the mirror> Nah...
>travel,
...money...
>socialising,
That's for those who have a life...
...eating out,
Hey! I just mentioned mirror! No need to make it worse! ;-)
> also, if there is really
> NOTHING else to do, one can watch the soaps with the sound turned down and
> make up your own dialogue - this is often totally hilarious (especially if
> there's a group of you and you have some good alcohol to hand) - in fact
> it's possibly the best fun you can have without needing lubricant.
But you still have to withstand their contorted *faces* on the screen -
which sort of spoils the whole experience. (Yes, I want too much from life.
And? <reg>)
> (Did
> > I already say "Animals" is unique in being NOT my favourite? Oh. Never
> mind,
> > then. But you're *sure* I mentioned it? ;-P).
>
> LOl, only about a gazillion times, I prolly missed it ;^)
OK, happy to oblidge. That was a mess and a dud (save from the ship-based
moments - IF we substract Vila's "see-ya-don't-wanna-be-ya" remark about
Dayna).
> > (It was NOT the age
> > thing which I had real problems with, as far as the ep is concerned).
> Though
> > <mean mode on> I'd like to see a story where said difference was
> > gender-reversed. Watching / listening to the viewers squirm after that
one
> > would be a worthwhile experience in and of itself <mean mode on
> powersave>.
>
> How so. Surely you realise that these days, a young toy-boy and an older
> woman is quite a fashionable pairing.
Care to name any - beyond Elizabeth Taylor's realm? ;-)
>Love to see Tarrant pursued by an
> older woman... (hee hee fanfic ideas here)...
Now see what you've done? <Sadistic mode goes switching on all by itself> I
DEMAND THAT SAID WOMAN BE LWAXANNA TROY AND NO ONE ELSE! Bwa-ha-ha-haa!!!
(Bet you Servalan can't do that). Then I'll probably even be able to forgive
him. I'm not totally averse to redemption throught the great suffering...
> >: I was rooting against the self-important poser most of the time
> > (though he did have certain air of naivity about him which also extorted
a
> > few chuckles out of me). I just a) found him convincing as such; b)
really
> > suspect that we were *meant* to feel that way (don't you forget - B7's
> > authors are devious and insidious bunch: I can well see them pulling a
> twist
> > of putting "Traditional Hero" into such a position / role, whereas in
> > "normal" shows it happens without intention ;-P); and c) seeing him
having
> > this pompous pretense deflated (which it was, if not nearly enough) was
> > rather enjoyable. Besides, it did provide a new dynamic, love it or hate
> it.
> > Different approaches to fighting, to rebelling, to managing life on the
> > ship, outsider (and, for a change, mostly *wrong*) perspective - it has
> its
> > merit. And seeing *him* care (in those rarest moments when it happened)
> was
> > even bigger a jolt than seeing Avon do so! Not to mention the delight of
> > seeing him put in his place...
>
> biggest prob for me was the obvious aim of having him as a "Blake
> replacement"...
I'm not so sure it was. (And if it was, they really blew it, as no one ever
bought him as such - but I really doubt that was the idea). I mean, just
look. Blake: an idealst, whose dissent is purely political, the one who
served as the whole gang's good conscience (at least at the start). Tarrant:
a smuggler (and that's just what we know). Blake: refused to kill Travis in
the fairest of fights (on *his* part, at least) because "I would enjoy it
too much". Tarrant: shoots and stabs people in the back. Blake: runs into
great danger on a slim chance that a crew member could still be alive back
there. Tarrant: pushes Vila (alone!) into unknown risks for a material gain
(and prevents Dayna from saving Gerren in "Games", being too worried for his
own precious bacon). Blake: has a real cause. What does Tarrant have, other
than curls and overinflated sense of self? Blake's authority was all but
unquestioned. And we all know how well Tarrant's sorry attempts to lead
ended - WAY before the show did. The opposites here are too pronounced for
me to believe that they were all the result of overlooking. I think that it
was rather the viewing public that overlooked them all, misled by the youth
and the hairdo... It looks more to me like Tarrant's arrival was to
underline that Blake was no longer with them - and that things were looking
down, more and more.
> > >Cally replacing Tarrant in "Sand'... interesting idea...
> >
> > You mean... taking his place with Servalan? Ewww! (And I'm not at all
> > opposed to non-traditional orientation, even). <Dissolves into the
mists,
> > leaving an illusory image of her for everybody to concentrate on
shooting>
>
> Did I hear you say "Jenna, get me out - QUICKLY" then?
No, it was just a telepathic muffed scream...
> > For me, it's as much of "maybe, maybe not" as it was about "is Zen an
> > individual"? (With ORAC, I doubt that was ever even a question,
regardless
> > of what Avon said... and even he seemed to relent somehow as the time
> > passed).
>
> I always think of Zen as an individual - not so sure about Slave though.
There were some hints, I think - from an occasional sulky tone, to that very
final "Tarrant", to a VERY interesting effect Sand had on the poor thing -
which at least make me *really* wonder.
> > > and i have
> > occasionally
> > > thought about replacing this with "Hello, O great Alan at whose
command
> > the
> > > stars move" - just joshin' honestly!
> >
> > Why do I have this nagging feeling that you also watched "Lexx"?
>
> LOl, just discovered the show actually - thanks, Foxtel Cable!!
If it's just starting there, you're in for a treat: the very first season,
the one consisting of TV movies, is the best they can offer. (Not to say
it's THE ONLY good thing about the series, though).
> > you sure you would
> feel
> > comfortable with more convincing, detailed and attuned-to-every-occasion
> > "slave" responses?
>
> Prolly not, but then I wasn't serious. What I'd really like is a desktop
> gif of a beautiful girl that played with her hair and blushed every time I
> fired up the puter... and NO jokes about going down, please!!!
So what's stopping you? It's not like the notion is SO beyond our times...
Don't tell me, let me guess: no girl pretty enough for you? <reg>
> > Do you have M & S in Australia? ;-))) (With all these fashion changes
> still
> > might be a problem <mmmg>).
>
> No, but my mum still speaks of "Marks and Sparks" fondly...
So Avon (and Vila, for that matter) DOES have some taste, after all...
> > Looking around at current shows, the closest descendant from
> > Vila - character-wise - would be, I guess, Harper on "Andromeda". "But
she
> > has nothing for you but contempt! -So what? She's still hot! And
> apparently,
> > a good judge of character". Chuckling Out Loud. Though Harper is so much
> > luckier than Vila in more than one respect, it's not even funny...)
>
> well, you have the advantage of me there... Andromeda is shown on weekends
> when I am often away from the cable. I'lls et the VCR and check it out,
OK?
Just make it sure it's first season-and-a-half that you're watching (OK, the
last half of the second one still has an occasional worthy of watching
moment). I mean, I'm not going to prevent you to see the third one as well,
but don't complain afterwards that I caused you to endure a whole load of TV
rubbish. Year 3 of Andromeda is a different show (if with the same actors) -
literally. You see, somewhere in the middle of second year, they got unhappy
with the show's creator, producer and author - the one who came up with the
idea, invented the characters, wrote down the Bible and overarching story -
Robert H Wolfe (the one who used to work on DS9). They decided that he
produces too complicated and not merry / action-y enough stories. So they
booted him out. I kid you not - they threw out *the author* - while securing
two more seasons! (By the way interviews are going, the main star - and,
unfortunately, the co-producer - Kevin "Hercules" Sorbo himself - had
something to do with it, unsatisfied with being a part of ensemble show
instead of being The Lynchpin Stud. Seeing how this is all-Super-Dylan-Hunt
all the time now, I tend to believe the rumours). So it used to be
interesting, different, filled with actual characters story that went
somewhere. Now it's bang, sound and fury signifying... very little, and way
too familiar. Imagine B7 with Nation and Boucher banished, the crew of Blake
just whirling around the galaxy doing good deeds, putting right what was
wrong... oops wrong show... and always being in the Moral Right. Somebody
stun me.
> > (But, if your misery likes
> > company, it could be worse: *my* mum - and dad - apparently wanted a
> > genius...)
>
> And they had to settle for a charming wonderful goddess - poor things.
My classmates would be most surprised with such a description of me. But who
am I to argue? ;-)
> > > Purrrr like that again and I'm YOURS!
> > >
> > > :^)
> >
> > You still have time to bail out while I'm considering that... ;-)
>
> (Ostentatiously walks away from the teleport and takes off bracelet) -
now
> the ball's in your court, sweetie, lol.
So you're OK with what I might send to your crewmates afterwards? <evil
chuckle> (Remember, Servalan could purr too - and not THAT badly...)
> (getting back on topic for once) - seriously, it's hard for me to say my
> favourite episodes at the moment, partly because I have to divide them
into
> ones I haven't seen for 20 years and ones I have seen recently. And
there's
> also my "friends"-like habit of thinking of shows as "The one where
Servalan
> clones herself"
<Pedantic mode on> Children of Auron...
>or "The one where Cally gets possessed"
You have to be more specific, here... <g>
> As soon as I get a DVD player (I'm not really happy with
> the technical aspects of the medium yet)
Are any of us? <sigh>
>I plan to get hold of the complete
> series (or at least fill in the gaps) - then I guess I can make a better
> stab at answering this thread.
Come on, don't let not having a worse stab prevent you from talking! ;-) As
Sergey Eisenshtein once said, "If you don't know a squat about something -
start teaching it!" (Worked for me more than once...)
Be well,
Anne
Igenlode Wordsmith
[snip]
> Series 3 - Immediate sense of loss of tension, and after each episode
> thinking "Well, that was an interesting story - I wonder when they are going
> to get back to the story of what Avon and his remaining followers do now
> Blake is gone" - this is what I mean by loss of direction. Twasn't so much
> that the crew had lost it, if the writers had ADMITTED that it was about
> loss of direction it could have been a really great season - it was more I
> got the impression the scriptwriters were marking time!
Yes; I spent the whole of Series Three *and* Four waiting, episode by
episode, for Blake to turn up again, although after a while it began
to dawn that, actually, he wasn't *coming* back... and then when he did,
I didn't enjoy it very much :-(
When I discovered, long afterwards, that Gareth Thomas had actively
repudiated the part, I felt somehow betrayed. I don't know... I just
feel very strongly that characters in a story have their own existence,
their own feelings and hopes and demons to face; their own lives to
carry on with, when we 'the audience' aren't looking. And from that, I
suppose, comes a feeling that those responsible for them - authors,
actors, even fan-fiction writers - shouldn't behave towards them like
puppeteers in order to make them do what is convenient for *them*.
I can't see that it was in character for Blake to go off like that
without a word; but I certainly don't think it should have happened just
because the actor in question was afraid of being pigeonholed in the
part.
Yes, I've long since forgiven Mr Thomas :-) But I still remember the
initial pain of that disillusionment - believe it or not, it was the
chief reason why I didn't buy "The Inside Story" when it was originally
on the shelves!
--
Igenlode Wordsmith
The Gentleman's guide to Usenet - see http://curry.250x.com/Tower/GENTLE.TXT
Igenlode Wordsmith
No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
--------------------------------------------------------
On 4 Dec 2002 Anne wrote:
>
> "Alan Smith" <alan...@ihug.com.au> wrote in message
> news:ask1on$5ao$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> >
> > After the requisite amount of time has
> > elapsed, its virtues become more evident (though, having said that, B
> > seemed to stand the test of being 10-25 years old pretty well, and was
> > never mocked the way other shows were)...
>
> Well, maybe the other shows were mocked way worse (I can easily believe
> THAT!), but alas, B7 did (and still does) have its fair share.
The classic line has always been 'shaky sets', which is one thing I
haven't ever noticed in any of the episodes I can think of. (Apart from
the flight-deck table in 'Orac', which did wobble a bit when Blake
slammed the video cartridge or what-have-you down onto it; but that
wasn't exactly supposed to be a sturdy piece of scenery, although I
suspect it should have been sturdier than that!)
The spider in 'Harvest of Kairos' and the Phibians in 'Orac' are perhaps
examples of the sort of thing the show did worst, and mainly had the
good sense to eschew. Terry Nation had the sense to set up a universe
where *humanity* was our heroes' enemy, not 'the Borg' or 'the
Klingons'.
[snip]
[re Sarcophagus]
> I mean, yes, mythic qualities, fantasy atmosphere, yadda, yadda - but
> to have such a balletic / operatic / pantomime-like schtick running for
> this long a time on a TV show... nah. Can't believe it wasn't a
> covering-up / last-minute-fix-of-disaster kind of thing.
Now, *that's* the best explanation for that episode I've ever heard...
>
> > incidentally, I am not anti-Lee by any means. "Sand" was close to
> > brilliant.
>
> I liked it much, too (talking about surreal).
.. while I don't remember much about it, other than absolutely hating
it :-(
I think it was the 'sex and Servalan' angle that really killed that
episode for me. It was written, by her own account, for Jacqueline
Pearce by her good friend Tanith Lee, using some of Jackie's plot ideas
- and, forgive me, but it doesn't half show.
Has anyone here ever seen Paul Darrow's unused fourth-season script "Man
of Iron"? I suspect (without any proof!) that it was just such a
self-indulgent project.
[snip]
> > And someone could describe it to you
> > as "Well, it's about a bunch of crims on the run from society who decide
> > to strike back. Oh, by the way, this takes place in the future and they
> > have this brilliant spaceship..."
>
> "...but that's not the point"... <mg> (And it sort of wasn't. Though them
> travelling around was).
Actually, that *was* - more or less - the original pitch line :-)
Anne
"Igenlode Wordsmith" <fu...@redneck.gacracker.org> wrote in message
news:2002120609285...@gacracker.org...
> NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway.
> No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> On 4 Dec 2002 Anne wrote:
>
> > Well, maybe the other shows were mocked way worse (I can easily believe
> > THAT!), but alas, B7 did (and still does) have its fair share.
>
> The classic line has always been 'shaky sets', which is one thing I
> haven't ever noticed in any of the episodes I can think of. (Apart from
> the flight-deck table in 'Orac', which did wobble a bit when Blake
> slammed the video cartridge or what-have-you down onto it; but that
> wasn't exactly supposed to be a sturdy piece of scenery, although I
> suspect it should have been sturdier than that!)
I always considered the "shaky" accusation an example of vague ways of
expression which gets more and more around... as in not exactly "shaky" in
literal sense - rather "shabby", maybe, or "unconvincing". Because, indeed,
you can see a lot of things there positively SCREAMING: "Low Budget!" - but
as far as managing what they had, the only problem I remember is a mike
shadow ;-). (BTW, as I mentioned above already, in my old age I'm getting
sentimental about this low budget <g>. Perhaps because I saw too much
rubbish with a GREAT budget).
> Terry Nation had the sense to set up a universe
> where *humanity* was our heroes' enemy, not 'the Borg' or 'the
> Klingons'.
If anything, a (almost) lack of the aliens proved one thing: you CAN do an
interesting AND meaningful story in SF settings without resorting to "guys
in latex and funny costumes". (Joss Whedon is now proving it again with
Firefly, but alas, looks like times when such shows had a shot are well past
us. Now granted, it's US, not UK, but it's not even a season - forget four -
as the series' fate looks definitely grim).
> [re Sarcophagus]
>
> > I mean, yes, mythic qualities, fantasy atmosphere, yadda, yadda - but
> > to have such a balletic / operatic / pantomime-like schtick running for
> > this long a time on a TV show... nah. Can't believe it wasn't a
> > covering-up / last-minute-fix-of-disaster kind of thing.
>
> Now, *that's* the best explanation for that episode I've ever heard...
Even if it was meant as an explanation for the teaser alone, not the whole
ep <g>. As you know by now, I'm easy <rrreg> - I didn't hate S4, didn't hate
almost every ep others did (except That One - and maybe, there's couple that
I loved less than others) - but Sarcophagus (bar the multi-coloured
pantomime of the start) is among those I actively adore. And that's while it
had everything I normally despise: PURELY stand-alone, not really
complicated plot (to put it mildly), a lot of decorative posturing in terms
of settings and enemy, and costuming...
But the responses of the characters were *right* (always a great plus on
B7 - and Tarrant-haters, of which I am not exactly one, got their joys at
watching him beaten, twice at least! ;-P). And, pushy as scenery was, there
was NO spelling-out of what the alien's world was like, why she ended up
like that, or even what the avatars of Our Team were and how they came
about: give me a room to interpret, and I'm happy, I guess... And on top of
it all - despite cheap light effects and firework-like sparks, they did
manage (to me) to create a spooky, quietly-preying-on-you, mindtrick-laden
atmosphere. Darkness, silence, hints (never quite proven, though) that there
was some influence on the crewmembers' behaviour, forcing them to act on
usually-suppressed impulses (now THAT how you do a Naked-Now type show!) -
it all worked for me. Just like some sympathy (in the end, and only under
condition that she's beaten <g>) for the baddie.
Oh yes, and Avon won. Convincingly. <rrrreg>.
But the introductory chapter has to go.
> > > "Sand" was close to
> > > brilliant.
> >
> > I liked it much, too (talk about surreal).
>
> .. while I don't remember much about it, other than absolutely hating
> it :-(
>
> I think it was the 'sex and Servalan' angle that really killed that
> episode for me.
I can see where you come from, but - probably because I am less averse to
this sort of stuff, probably because the candidate was exactly right one,
Deeta or no Deeta <eg> (and no, I don't think it would work better with
Avon, all previous "tensions" notwithstanding), or because it fit right in
with the absurd, "lost", nightmarish air of the whole thing (and, in part,
of all season) - I could swallow it alright. Right down to the end of
Tarrant actually *telling* them (and them not trying to at least beat him
into pulp, if not downright pushing him out of the airlock - much as many
would cheer for this ;-P). And hate it, but don't tell me it didn't add to
the downcast, foreboding, desperate feel to this well-underway overall
catastrophe. Being sucked into, unable to get out, struck by "it isn't
happening - ah, what the heck" feeling, was reflected by this monstrous (in
any sense of the word) affair well enough.
Besides, it's where Cally get her (brief but convincing and intense)
mourning. I couldn't hate it for that reason alone (even if the rest
wouldn't be to my liking).
> Has anyone here ever seen Paul Darrow's unused fourth-season script "Man
> of Iron"? I suspect (without any proof!) that it was just such a
> self-indulgent project.
No, only heard of that. And really can't comment, knowing nothing of Mr
Darrow as a person. The book wasn't too kind to Avon, though, so maybe the
script wasn't all that flattering, either <mg>.
> [snip]
> > > And someone could describe it to you
> > > as "Well, it's about a bunch of crims on the run from society who
decide
> > > to strike back. Oh, by the way, this takes place in the future and
they
> > > have this brilliant spaceship..."
> >
> > "...but that's not the point"... <mg> (And it sort of wasn't. Though
them
> > travelling around was).
>
> Actually, that *was* - more or less - the original pitch line :-)
And we can't accuse him of misleading, then... <bg>
Anne
"Igenlode Wordsmith" <fuku AT redneck DOT gacracker DOT org> wrote in
message news:2002120522470...@gacracker.org...
>I spent the whole of Series Three *and* Four waiting, episode by
> episode, for Blake to turn up again, although after a while it began
> to dawn that, actually, he wasn't *coming* back...
That's exactly what I meant by saying I was fortunate to come in the whole
thing later, and armed with foreknowledge. For me the Blake-less part was a
done deal - it was only the matter of *how* they were doing it. I might be
angry and unreceptive otherwise myself (though... looking at some Blake's
traits, surfacing along the way, I could be worried about what he might turn
into, if I didn't know it wasn't to pass). As it was, I was just impressed
with them "boldly going" for no-classic-good-guy at the center type of show
(they could, after all, recast Blake or made Avon into idealistic,
altruistic, all-out noble Case Pursuer as a way of replacement: just imagine
<mean mode off>). Still am impressed, in fact.
> When I discovered, long afterwards, that Gareth Thomas had actively
> repudiated the part, I felt somehow betrayed.
I know the feeling, though the cynical part of me can by now tell actors
from their screen personas very well. (Which is why I try to know as little
of them as people as possible <eg>). And I do think it was a blow to the
authors. But in my eyes, they weathered it brilliantly and turned a
catastrophe into a victory: renouncing the formula lent much into what made
the series unique.
>I just
> feel very strongly that characters in a story have their own existence,
> their own feelings and hopes and demons to face; their own lives to
> carry on with, when we 'the audience' aren't looking.
Here, we don't disagree. Good story tells itself (I think, I also mentioned
it in this thread already). And as such, is often powerless against its
selfish creators on all levels <eg>. But it also means that (if this story
is REALLY good) it occasionally turns out *really* hard to destroy... (There
was that joke: an old conjuror shows an apprentice how to secretly replace a
match you break in public with a new, untouched one, so they think you
magically "healed" it... and then says: "but if a conjuror is a TRUE one,
he'll produce the original match, unbroken, as well!" That's in my eyes,
what happened to B7 - despite all odds and obvious freefall, the story got
told... if not to its end <denial mode on full power and running>).
>And from that, I
> suppose, comes a feeling that those responsible for them - authors,
> actors, even fan-fiction writers - shouldn't behave towards them like
> puppeteers in order to make them do what is convenient for *them*.
See above: I think, puppeteers, every once in a while, get in over their
heads with that <g>. Besides, I am sort of grateful to those coming up with
the story to begin with (probably because I can't make plots / write a
story, especially an original one, worth squat), so even when I dislike what
the author of my beloved story is doing, I allow them the right to do it:
*they* made it. (It's a bit different with actors, though <rrrreg>).
> I can't see that it was in character for Blake to go off like that
> without a word;
Me, I like that the writers had a decency to at least *hint* (if in the very
last ep - which wasn't supposed to be the last, AFAIK) that said going-off
wasn't entirely on his own volition. I probably read too much into that
"whatever happened to me, it wasn't on Earth". But whatever grudge we may
hold against GT, he is a *good* actor. His tone there was SO laden with
meaning, it merited a monologue (to me). And after that I can well believe
that whatever Blake landed into by "Aftermath" was a) BIG and b) not so easy
to just leave behind...
>but I certainly don't think it should have happened just
> because the actor in question was afraid of being pigeonholed in the
> part.
That's the collective nature of business, though. Short of legalised
slavery, blackmail or hostage-taking <g>, what could be done about that? And
would you like recasting? (I seriously suspect that Travis-swap was enough -
and I don't even harbour any ill-feelings towards Mr Croucher...)
Best,
Anne
Igenlode Wordsmith
[snip]
> What I meant is when character's behaviour doesn't feel
> "natural", like they're clearly forced to do / say something by the authors.
> Vila easily dismissing Dayna's fate in "Animals" is one such example. Cally
> just standing stupidly by as Jarvik tackles Dayna and takes his sweet time
> to teleport her with him, is another.
This one made psychological sense to me, actually; it's that 'honour'
thing again :-)
That wasn't a fight, it was a duel - if you see what I mean. Jarvik
demanded their teleport bracelets, under prompting from Servalan of
course, as a symbol of surrender. Most of the crew simply shrugged and
acquiesced, as they'd lost the teleport system that made the bracelets
of any use to them. Dayna, being hot-headed, retorted to the effect of
"If you want mine you'll have to come and get it!"
Essentially, she's challenging Jarvik to single combat, with Cally
acting as her second.
Cally doesn't intervene because under those conditions, to intervene on
Dayna's side would be cheating. Dayna isn't in any danger of anything
other than a loss of face if she loses; if Jarvik had been *intending*
to carry her off back to the ship as some kind of trophy, Cally would
have taken him down in a shot.
Jarvik only ends up teleporting Dayna in order to 'save' her from the
Kairopan spider. It's the same quixotic element in his nature that saves
him from being totally unbearable, and eventually leads to his death. A
gentleman doesn't leave his defeated opponent to be eaten by alien life
forms, let alone allow his commanding officer to execute her in cold
blood :-)
The major flaw in this scene is the way that the fight arrangers
obviously fixed it in Jarvik's favour! Dayna is clearly winning all
along (not to speak of kicking him in the unmentionables, I believe, at
one stage) until the final scene when for plot reasons Dayna is suddenly
seen to be on the ground and presumably pinned.
Frankly, I think the plot would have worked *better* if Dayna had won
that fight. Jarvik would still have called for teleport when they saw
the spider approaching, with the same motivation and the same result
(Dayna ends up a prisoner on board the ship), but he would then have had
a better motivation for intervening later on (he's a chivalrous type,
she won the fight fair and square but was deprived of victory through no
fault of her own, so he owes her one). It also makes sense that Jarvik
can out-fox Tarrant, whose hand-to-hand fighting record is practically
zero, but underestimates Dayna, who specialises in this sort of thing,
because of her sex.
However, Ben Steed clearly had an agenda of his own when writing that
one, which didn't include ironically balanced sex politics :-)
[snip]
> > Well, this is a public newsgroup, so I therefore (reluctantly) refrain from
> > a detailed description of the image this conjours up - Anne in a furry hat
>
> ...with a big flap ears, don't you forget...
>
> > and bearskin coat trailing a toy Katushka along on a string
>
> <Indiginantly> Why toy? You think I couldn't handle the real thing?
Now I'd pictured you *as* the doll - life-size, naturally, and
completely wrapped-up and bescarved :-P
[snip]
> > biggest prob for me was the obvious aim of having him as a "Blake
> > replacement"...
>
> I'm not so sure it was. (And if it was, they really blew it, as no one ever
> bought him as such - but I really doubt that was the idea). I mean, just
> look. Blake: an idealst, whose dissent is purely political, the one who
> served as the whole gang's good conscience (at least at the start). Tarrant:
> a smuggler (and that's just what we know).
And a deserter - we know that too! (Or do we? But I'm sure he *has* been
in the Federation navy at some stage, and he clearly isn't now...)
> Blake: refused to kill Travis in the fairest of fights (on *his* part, at
> least) because "I would enjoy it too much". Tarrant: shoots and stabs people
> in the back. Blake: runs into great danger on a slim chance that a crew member
> could still be alive back there. Tarrant: pushes Vila (alone!) into unknown
> risks for a material gain (and prevents Dayna from saving Gerren in "Games",
> being too worried for his own precious bacon). Blake: has a real cause. What
> does Tarrant have, other than curls and overinflated sense of self?
Ask the Tarrant Nostra...
He does have That Smile. It really is very infectious :-)
(Did you see those excellent mini-film-biographies the BBC ran a week or
so ago - 'Living Famously'? I caught the one on Clark Gable, and when I
saw that famous grin, I couldn't help it: I thought 'Tarrant!')
[snip]
> Just make it sure it's first season-and-a-half that you're watching (OK, the
> last half of the second one still has an occasional worthy of watching
> moment). I mean, I'm not going to prevent you to see the third one as well,
> but don't complain afterwards that I caused you to endure a whole load of TV
> rubbish. Year 3 of Andromeda is a different show (if with the same actors) -
> literally.
Did Channel 4 drop it, or did I just miss the rest of the first seaosn
run, then? I'd been assuming a second season was going to arrive at some
point...
Frankymole
But Dr Who and B7 shared creators/writers/producers (David Maloney, Terry
Nation, Robert Holmes), actors both principal and secondary (Michael Keating got
Vila purely because of a Who role, then there was Avon, Servalan etc going back
n' forth; almost every B7 story has Who actors, many of whom were in several
stories in both series - Kevin Stoney for instance), not to mention technical
bods (Mat Irvine, Peter Pegrum, Andy Lazell etc), music (dear Dud), production
crew (Viktors Ritelis et al)... not to mention socialising between the personnel
(Tom Baker and Gareth Thomas etc)... do Friends and The Bill have so much
cultural crossover influence on each other???
Frank
Alan Smith
Just got back from sunny Mooloolaba to find some good news and bad for me.
The GOOD is that people seem to have picked up on my posting, the bad is
that those that did, without exception, were all not only more lucid and
grammatical than me but also had much better B7 knowledge as well! How
embarrassing...
Just shooting off to see my mum in the mountains now (dutiful son and all
that) - so when I get back, I'll answer William, Anne and Igenlode's points
in proper detail. Thanks all for making my homecoming so interesting... ...
Death (or at least all sorts of nastiness) to the federation
Alan...
Anne
> On 5 Dec 2002 Anne wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
> > What I meant is when character's behaviour doesn't feel
> > "natural", like they're clearly forced to do / say something by the
authors.
> > Vila easily dismissing Dayna's fate in "Animals" is one such example.
Cally
> > just standing stupidly by as Jarvik tackles Dayna and takes his sweet
time
> > to teleport her with him, is another.
>
> This one made psychological sense to me, actually; it's that 'honour'
> thing again :-)
Well, that sort of makes sense, especially as it was *Cally* we're talking
about (the last remaining pillar of honour in the group <eg>) - and it
wasn't yet the level of desperation and looming depravity coming about in
the last year. Still, ever since Season 2 ("Shadow", when she did go with
Blake's plan - and even with him concealing the idea from the others till
the last possible minute), even Cally hasn't been all that averse to taking,
shall we say, less-than-arrow-straight roads. I can take her not
interfering in the fair fight (especially since Dayna was the instigator -
BTW, you can see in another thread that we don't disagree too much about her
hot-headedness). And probably, if the spider were a bit faster (yeah, I
know, and if BBC allocated for the show a bit more, and if the ocean was a
bit drier), the whole thing would have gone easier for me. As it went,
however, Cally just *waiting* for things to happen reminded me too much of
how Tom Sawyer and his schoolmate played "Robin Hood": "so what if you are
beating me? The book says Robin won, and I am Robin, so turn your back and
let me deal this death blow, and play dead properly!" <mg>. Plus,
considering the pressing nature of the situation by the time (they were in a
hurry, the way things would go for the whole crew depended on this moment),
I am not sure Cally would stick to the rules to the bitter end. See above:
when she believed that the circumstances demanded it, she could, and would,
use less-than-conventional means. And I think it was warranted in this
case - especially as the camp Jarvik was working for used the sneak tactics
first.
> Jarvik only ends up teleporting Dayna in order to 'save' her from the
> Kairopan spider. It's the same quixotic element in his nature that saves
> him from being totally unbearable, and eventually leads to his death.
Yes, as the result of such qualities he came about as a complex character
(more complex than likely was intended - see below). Though I still overall
agree with Avon's version of "eulogy" <eg>.
> The major flaw in this scene is the way that the fight arrangers
> obviously fixed it in Jarvik's favour! Dayna is clearly winning all
> along (not to speak of kicking him in the unmentionables, I believe, at
> one stage) until the final scene when for plot reasons Dayna is suddenly
> seen to be on the ground and presumably pinned.
Abso-frellin-lutely. And we have Jarvik's "woman" gloating, to clinch it for
those who STILL didn't get it: aforesaid "Tom Sawyer" situation rears its
head again. *He was meant to win regardless*. Due to his (stronger by
default, no matter the circumstances / individuality factor) gender alone.
And it doesn't just apply to this particular fight. The way this story goes
(if you take acting / directing / pre-history off), Jarvik was absolutely,
clearly, humourlessly meant to be something of an ideal. A perfection
personified. Someone to admire and root for, in every respect (sort of male
version of Mary Poppins as she sees herself <rrreg>). But fortunately (yes,
sometimes it's for the better! ;-P), as I probably already mentioned
somewhere, you CAN NOT take acting / directing, etc., out of final result
when it comes to showbusiness. And because of them interfering (and I
strongly suspect, not without *some* intention on the crew's part), said
final result mostly ended up as a purrrfect send-up to what Mr Steed had in
mind. I don't know if Brunt did it on purpose, or was it the director's
idea, but I for one couldn't stop laughting when he was strutting his stuff
(from the first second of his "hands-on-the-hip" entrance, for that matter).
His falling for every Servalan's trick (plus TARRANT being able to push his
buttons, for pity's sake!) added to the entertainment value. And the fact
that not a single lady other than pervie Servie (sorry, I won't do it
again... I hope <g>) so much as swooned once over him, turned "women liked
to be treated rough" message into "petty tyrants like / understand treatment
like that only" rather nicely. And then, to cap it, Avon cutting Tarrant's
lyrical waxing in mid-flight. Perfect...
So, instead of anthem to a Man's Man (copyright by Kevin McCully, in this
context ;-P), The True Child Of Nature (to speculate about Ben Steed's
intentions) it all turned out to be a story of a rather dim, overly
self-reliant (much like Dayna, actually), totally misguided puppet of a guy,
prone to big talk and underestimation of others. With a few redeeming
qualities. Pitiable in his naivity rather than admirable in his strength...
and using the latter for the good of none (hence the "thug" part). Well done
shooting yourself in the foot Mr author. <reg>
> Frankly, I think the plot would have worked *better* if Dayna had won
> that fight.
Much better - for all the reasons you state, and yes, without harming the
plot one bit (and adding to the author's beloved character one more
sympathetic / respectable trait of ability to lose gracefully AND sticking
to his principles, whether he likes it or not: like you said, him defending
her victory later on board would be *truly* chivalrous). But big fat chance
of agenda-blinded person noticing THAT. I have rarely met such blatance even
in media, even at the time (20-something years ago): short of being about 10
years old, Mr Steed must have had a real big insecurity problems...
> However, Ben Steed clearly had an agenda of his own when writing that
> one, which didn't include ironically balanced sex politics :-)
To put it *extremely* mildly <g>.
> > > Well, this is a public newsgroup, so I therefore (reluctantly) refrain
from
> > > a detailed description of the image this conjours up - Anne in a furry
hat
> >
> > ...with a big flap ears, don't you forget...
> >
> > > and bearskin coat trailing a toy Katushka along on a string
> >
> > <Indiginantly> Why toy? You think I couldn't handle the real thing?
>
> Now I'd pictured you *as* the doll - life-size, naturally, and
> completely wrapped-up and bescarved :-P
Actually, I meant the tank, not the doll <reg> (We *are* all wild and
savagely fierce, coming from there, remember? ;-P). And I don't like
scarves - not on principle, mind, but after the string of miserable failures
in trying, without a dsiaster, I have come to positively hating to WEAR
them, myself... <g>
> > > biggest prob for me was the obvious aim of having him as a "Blake
> > > replacement"...
> >
> > I'm not so sure it was. (And if it was, they really blew it, as no one
ever
> > bought him as such - but I really doubt that was the idea). I mean, just
> > look. Blake: an idealst, whose dissent is purely political, the one who
> > served as the whole gang's good conscience (at least at the start).
Tarrant:
> > a smuggler (and that's just what we know).
>
> And a deserter - we know that too! (Or do we? But I'm sure he *has* been
> in the Federation navy at some stage, and he clearly isn't now...)
I think, we do know. If you weren't so busy hating Season 4 (trying to
surreptitiously sneak in my own agenda? me? where did you get *this* idea?
<batting eyelashes innocently>), you might remember this little bit in
"Games", where Tarrant's *Federation Academy* knowledge for once comes in
handy (I just knew he went to the same institution as Wesley Crusher! ;-P).
So he was reared to be a Fed officer, with all that implies. But I haven't
heart to regard desertion from *Fed* army as a crime / wrongdoing, even if
we're speaking about Tarrant. In fact, for me it makes him one half-step
more decent than Jarvik who remained a good little servant to the end, all
his big freedom proclamations notwithstanding. (And no, I don't for a second
believe that Tarrant defected for any noble reasons of being disgusted with
their methods... though, coming to think of it, I'm not sure why else: I
doubt life as a smuggler was that much richer, not to mention
high-positioned. But still, this is one situation where fleeing appeals more
to me than standing one's ground).
> >Blake: has a real cause. What
> > does Tarrant have, other than curls and overinflated sense of self?
>
> Ask the Tarrant Nostra...
I did - sort of. (As I said, I roamed every obscure corner of the Net in
search of the related places). And I still didn't find the answer that would
satisfy me <meg>.
> He does have That Smile. It really is very infectious :-)
Cute, rather, I would say ;-P. But that alone wouldn't be enough for me not
to hate him. I didn't do so (NOT the same as not being irritated by him /
angry with him quite a few times!) because he still had some sort of
shame... and even a shred of loyalty. Plus, a lot of his less-than-savoury
traits (though not of him) stemmed from youth and, well, lack of wisdom
often associated with it. (Which is why I found the fact that he and Dayna
stuck together so often rather convincing. Well, besides the obvious reasons
<rrreg>).
> (Did you see those excellent mini-film-biographies the BBC ran a week or
> so ago - 'Living Famously'? I caught the one on Clark Gable, and when I
> saw that famous grin, I couldn't help it: I thought 'Tarrant!')
In fact, Steven Pacey could have missed his Star Time - when it was era of
Gable, he had quite a chance... but strangely, despite these looks, he's
really not that bad of an actor (what proved it to me finally and clearly,
was "Death-Watch"... it took more than hairdo to make them so different, and
he did).
> > Year 3 of Andromeda is a different show (if with the same actors) -
> > literally.
>
> Did Channel 4 drop it, or did I just miss the rest of the first seaosn
> run, then? I'd been assuming a second season was going to arrive at some
> point...
I wouldn't be surprised if they just dropped the thing (not much of a
breaking the trend in this respect, is it?), but I can't say anything on the
matter. Being a spoiled brat who splashed budget to the cable (breaking it
in several other places <eg>), I'm a Sky One addict in terms of genre TV, so
I saw it all earlier... and got disgusted enough by the recent events *not*
to follow the show elsewhere.
Best,
Anne
Igenlode Wordsmith
> "Igenlode Wordsmith" <fuku AT redneck DOT gacracker DOT org> wrote in
> message news:2002120802121...@gacracker.org...
> >
[snip Cally not interfering in Jarvik vs Dayna]
> I can take her not
> interfering in the fair fight (especially since Dayna was the instigator -
> BTW, you can see in another thread that we don't disagree too much about her
> hot-headedness). And probably, if the spider were a bit faster (yeah, I
> know, and if BBC allocated for the show a bit more, and if the ocean was a
> bit drier), the whole thing would have gone easier for me.
[snip]
>
> considering the pressing nature of the situation by the time (they were in a
> hurry, the way things would go for the whole crew depended on this moment),
> I am not sure Cally would stick to the rules to the bitter end.
I think I may have missed your point. Is it Cally not intervening
against *the spider* that sticks in your craw?
I don't recall the episode in unerring detail, but unless I have the
order of events wrong, the bracelets were an irrelevant issue at this
point. The escape plan was via the landing module. Was Cally sent to
fetch Dayna back so that they could take off? I simply remember her
watching the fight from the start; I don't remember Avon getting the
module working until later. Doesn't he fall asleep over it at one point,
suggesting a considerable lapse of time?
[snip]
> *He was meant to win regardless*. Due to his (stronger by
> default, no matter the circumstances / individuality factor) gender alone.
What, against Tarrant? :-)
[snip]
> > Frankly, I think the plot would have worked *better* if Dayna had won
> > that fight.
>
> Much better - for all the reasons you state, and yes, without harming the
> plot one bit (and adding to the author's beloved character one more
> sympathetic / respectable trait of ability to lose gracefully AND sticking
> to his principles, whether he likes it or not: like you said, him defending
> her victory later on board would be *truly* chivalrous).
Well, I'm glad *someone* agrees with my pet theory... :-)
> But big fat chance of agenda-blinded person noticing THAT. I have rarely
> met such blatance even in media, even at the time (20-something years
> ago): short of being about 10 years old, Mr Steed must have had a real
> big insecurity problems...
He seems to have had an obsession about the War of the Sexes, for a
start. One episode might have been a bright idea gone wrong, but *two*
is really pushing it.
Heaven knows, I'm more than half a mysogynist myself, but Ben Steed is
just, well, a bit of a twit in that direction.
[snip]
> > Now I'd pictured you *as* the doll - life-size, naturally, and
> > completely wrapped-up and bescarved :-P
>
> Actually, I meant the tank, not the doll <reg> (We *are* all wild and
> savagely fierce, coming from there, remember? ;-P). And I don't like
> scarves - not on principle, mind, but after the string of miserable failures
> in trying, without a disaster, I have come to positively hating to WEAR
> them, myself... <g>
Very practical for the ears; they cut the wind-chill factor, I believe.
However, they do have the disadvantage of making even the youngest
female appear positively middle-aged!
You may picture me than, if you will, in full academicals and
ink-stained fingers, looking down a long nose with a supercilious
expression...<g>
[snip Tarrant as deserter]
> But I haven't heart to regard desertion from *Fed* army as a crime /
> wrongdoing, even if we're speaking about Tarrant. In fact, for me it
> makes him one half-step more decent than Jarvik who remained a good
> little servant to the end, all his big freedom proclamations
> notwithstanding. (And no, I don't for a second believe that Tarrant
> defected for any noble reasons of being disgusted with their methods...
> though, coming to think of it, I'm not sure why else: I doubt life as a
> smuggler was that much richer, not to mention high-positioned.
I rather fancy he had to get out in a hurry. He may well have spoken
rather too freely about a superior officer, exceeded his orders on a
long shot that didn't come off, or even become mixed up in smuggling
while still in uniform and got caught.
>
> > >Blake: has a real cause. What
> > > does Tarrant have, other than curls and overinflated sense of self?
> >
> > Ask the Tarrant Nostra...
>
> I did - sort of. (As I said, I roamed every obscure corner of the Net in
> search of the related places). And I still didn't find the answer that would
> satisfy me <meg>.
I don't know if they have an FAQ, but I know there was at least one
website dedicated to the defence of Tarrant. I gather that if it still
existed you would have found it?
(What is an meg? A "monstrously evil grin"?)
>
> > He does have That Smile. It really is very infectious :-)
>
> Cute, rather, I would say ;-P.
Oh no. Infectious!
I don't smile much as a rule; but there are a handful of actors - no
actresses; it seems to be a male thing - who have the uncanny knack of
compelling an answering grin. Burt Lancaster is one - Steven Pacey is
another :-)
> But that alone wouldn't be enough for me not to hate him. I didn't do so
> (NOT the same as not being irritated by him / angry with him quite a few
> times!) because he still had some sort of shame... and even a shred of
> loyalty. Plus, a lot of his less-than-savoury traits (though not of him)
> stemmed from youth and, well, lack of wisdom often associated with it.
> (Which is why I found the fact that he and Dayna stuck together so often
> rather convincing. Well, besides the obvious reasons <rrreg>).
Obvious? If you mean sex-appeal, I didn't see any between them; I don't
think Dayna thinks of herself that way (though I'm certain Tarrant
does <g>). What they clearly have in common is a tendency to act first
and think later, a touching faith in the efficacy of violence, and, as
you say, a general youthful bounciness.
>
> > (Did you see those excellent mini-film-biographies the BBC ran a week or
> > so ago - 'Living Famously'? I caught the one on Clark Gable, and when I
> > saw that famous grin, I couldn't help it: I thought 'Tarrant!')
>
> In fact, Steven Pacey could have missed his Star Time - when it was era of
> Gable, he had quite a chance... but strangely, despite these looks, he's
> really not that bad of an actor (what proved it to me finally and clearly,
> was "Death-Watch"... it took more than hairdo to make them so different, and
> he did).
I've never seen him on stage; I've only heard him in various BBC Radio
productions, and indeed I owe him a debt for that. Had it not been for
the 'B7 connection', I should never otherwise have troubled to listen to
a number of excellent plays. But all the 'regulars' are pretty talented,
as were many of the 'guest' actors. I believe they used to get quite big
names in - anyone who happened to be drifting around the BBC at the
right moment, in those days before franchising and farming-out of TV
production :-(
Actually, Gable wasn't a half bad actor either. The studio system could
manufacture stars out of good looking nonentities; what it couldn't do
was endow them with an appeal to last beyond the ephemera of their day.
Those whom we still remember, like those black and white films that we
still watch, were those with genuine talent. It's not the case that all
B&W films were timeless classics - merely that those which do not bear
revival have not been revived. For what it's worth, I've only ever seen
one 'bad' pre-colour-era film, and that was a Western I watched in error
for another, superior Western of the same name. From that banal
experience I can agree that however he performed as President, Ronald
Reagan really *was* a bad actor :-)
>
> > > Year 3 of Andromeda is a different show (if with the same actors) -
> > > literally.
> >
> > Did Channel 4 drop it, or did I just miss the rest of the first season
> > run, then? I'd been assuming a second season was going to arrive at some
> > point...
>
> I wouldn't be surprised if they just dropped the thing (not much of a
> breaking the trend in this respect, is it?), but I can't say anything on the
> matter. Being a spoiled brat who splashed budget to the cable (breaking it
> in several other places <eg>), I'm a Sky One addict in terms of genre TV, so
> I saw it all earlier... and got disgusted enough by the recent events *not*
> to follow the show elsewhere.
Ah. Well, I'm still regularly watching television on a 12"
black-and-white set - hence the fondness for old films, they tend to
have decent contrast! Well, and a few other things as well...
My experience is actually that recent SF looks *better* in black and
white; so much so that when I have on occasion been forced to tape
episodes on video, using a borrowed colour set, I have turned the colour
off before watching the tape. This makes the aliens and the landscapes
look much more realistic :-)
Igenlode Wordsmith
No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
--------------------------------------------------------
On 6 Dec 2002 Anne wrote:
>
> "Igenlode Wordsmith" <fuku AT redneck DOT gacracker DOT org> wrote in
> message news:2002120522470...@gacracker.org...
[snip]
> > When I discovered, long afterwards, that Gareth Thomas had actively
> > repudiated the part, I felt somehow betrayed.
[snip]
> > I can't see that it was in character for Blake to go off like that
> > without a word;
>
> Me, I like that the writers had a decency to at least *hint* (if in the very
> last ep - which wasn't supposed to be the last, AFAIK) that said going-off
> wasn't entirely on his own volition. I probably read too much into that
> "whatever happened to me, it wasn't on Earth". But whatever grudge we may
> hold against GT, he is a *good* actor.
Oh yes; as I said, I've long since forgiven him for that little
contretemps. Not only a good actor, but a charming chap and an excellent
raconteur :-)
[snip]
> That's the collective nature of business, though. Short of
> legalised slavery, blackmail or hostage-taking <g>, what could be done
> about that? And would you like recasting? (I seriously suspect that
> Travis-swap was enough - and I don't even harbour any ill-feelings
> towards Mr Croucher...)
>
Mr Greif, surely...? it was he who took up alternative filming
commitments in preference to B7 second season... :-)
I think I'd prefer re-casting, actually, given that choice. The BBC had
no qualms about re-casting the original Dr Who for their multiple-Doctor
specials; although William Hartnell[*] had died, they simply cast
another actor of not dissimilar appearance with the ability to give a
convincing performance as the same character. Nowadays no-one would
dream of doing this, which I feel is rather a pity.
[*] Hartnell was also a talented actor, who did a lot of film work
which has sadly now been forgotten in favour of the 'Dr Who' role. "The
Mouse that Roared", for example, (also features Peter Sellers...) is
well worth anyone's time.
Anne
> On 8 Dec 2002 Anne wrote:
>
> > "Igenlode Wordsmith" <fuku AT redneck DOT gacracker DOT org> wrote in
> > message news:2002120802121...@gacracker.org...
> > >
> [snip Cally not interfering in Jarvik vs Dayna]
> > I can take her not
> > interfering in the fair fight (especially since Dayna was the
instigator -
> > BTW, you can see in another thread that we don't disagree too much about
her
> > hot-headedness). And probably, if the spider were a bit faster (yeah, I
> > know, and if BBC allocated for the show a bit more, and if the ocean was
a
> > bit drier), the whole thing would have gone easier for me.
> [snip]
> >
> > considering the pressing nature of the situation by the time (they were
in a
> > hurry, the way things would go for the whole crew depended on this
moment),
> > I am not sure Cally would stick to the rules to the bitter end.
>
> I think I may have missed your point. Is it Cally not intervening
> against *the spider* that sticks in your craw?
Actually, I may have missed yours... ;-) but, to avoid further confusion:
a) It is Cally not intervening, period, that messes with my aforementioned
part <g> - but I don't mean "intervention" as only plain simple playing
Dayna's hand (see below): it could be, say, trying to get Dayna away from
Jarvik - not helping her beating him - or, yes, moving against that
spider... SOMETHING;
b) I would have swallowed it easier if everything was going on faster / in
less laborious way (i.e., the fight not being rigged, as you so aptly put
it, Jarvik's actions LOOKING - and not only *meant to be* - spontaneous
enough - with which spider's speed could indeed help, - Cally at least
*trying* to respond somehow: again, not necessarily intervening in fight on
Dayna's behalf)...
> I don't recall the episode in unerring detail, but unless I have the
> order of events wrong, the bracelets were an irrelevant issue at this
> point.
Sounds unerring enough to me <g>. And I'm not at all against Cally letting
Jarvik have these bracelets (or even beat Dayna). What I have problem with,
is letting him get Dayna, herself. Because, even if the idea was that the
teleport wasn't planned by either part, Cally *looked* well and truly
passive. Like, helpless-passive. Not even a shred of impulse to act to get
the crew's plan working (once again: not the same as making sure Dayna wins
regardless).
>The escape plan was via the landing module. Was Cally sent to
> fetch Dayna back so that they could take off?
It sure looked like that to me. I seem to remember that Avon and Tarrant
plainly told her to get Dayna - and quickly.
>I simply remember her watching the fight from the start;
I can't be sure about the details myself (a full month since the ep was
shown on Gold again <g>), but I do remember Cally returning to Avon & Co.,
all flustered and a bit guilty-looking, getting asked impatiently where
Dayna is and "reporting" that The Mission Has Failed <tm>.
>I don't remember Avon getting the
> module working until later. Doesn't he fall asleep over it at one point,
> suggesting a considerable lapse of time?
There was that scene, yes. But I doubt that Jarvik and Dayna fought for
*hours*... <g>
> [snip]
> > *He was meant to win regardless*. Due to his (stronger by
> > default, no matter the circumstances / individuality factor) gender
alone.
>
> What, against Tarrant? :-)
<Anal-retentive> No, against Dayna </Anal-retentive> ;-). Against Tarrant,
he wasn't meant to win due to his gender, but due to his General Superiority
<tm>.
> > > Frankly, I think the plot would have worked *better* if Dayna had won
> > > that fight.
> >
> > Much better - for all the reasons you state, and yes, without harming
the
> > plot one bit (and adding to the author's beloved character one more
> > sympathetic / respectable trait of ability to lose gracefully AND
sticking
> > to his principles, whether he likes it or not: like you said, him
defending
> > her victory later on board would be *truly* chivalrous).
>
> Well, I'm glad *someone* agrees with my pet theory... :-)
Nice to feel like someone, too... <g>
> > short of being about 10 years old, Mr Steed must have had a real
> > big insecurity problems...
>
> He seems to have had an obsession about the War of the Sexes, for a
> start.
AND for a finish, considering the diversity of the subjects that interested
him <g>. That's what I actually meant by insecurity: when you need to win in
every virtual fight (and start it all over again), people are bound to start
doubt how sure you are about winning the real one... (Actually, when you
feel like said fight / establishing of superiority, is needed to begin
with... but I digress ;-P).
>One episode might have been a bright idea gone wrong, but *two*
> is really pushing it.
Not to mention the pushing factor in the very literal sense of the world -
if at least he knew where the subtlety lives...
> Heaven knows, I'm more than half a mysogynist myself, but Ben Steed is
> just, well, a bit of a twit in that direction.
Well, I'm both mysogynist and misandrist, depending on which kind of
banner-waving I encounter (does it make me a misanthrope? <g>). But Ben
Steed's being a slave of an agenda (and it really doesn't matter which, in
the end) simply harms him as a writer. AND cast more than a little shadow
over his credibility.
> [snip]
> > I don't like
> > scarves - not on principle, mind, but after the string of miserable
failures
> > in trying, without a disaster, I have come to positively hating to WEAR
> > them, myself... <g>
>
> Very practical for the ears; they cut the wind-chill factor, I believe.
That's what my mum STILL keeps telling me <eg>
> However, they do have the disadvantage of making even the youngest
> female appear positively middle-aged!
I tend to question scarf-wearing people's *humanity*, the way they look, not
just their age... <ducks> But at least, this way, there are few nice
surprises in store for unbiased observer <rrreg>
> You may picture me than, if you will, in full academicals and
> ink-stained fingers, looking down a long nose with a supercilious
> expression...<g>
Don't get my hopes up ;-) (Among the people I met, Jarvik lookalikes weren't
exactly the most endearing-for-me types, if you didn't notice yet).
> [snip Tarrant as deserter]
> > I don't for a second believe that Tarrant
> > defected for any noble reasons of being disgusted with their methods...
> > though, coming to think of it, I'm not sure why else: I doubt life as a
> > smuggler was that much richer, not to mention high-positioned.
>
> I rather fancy he had to get out in a hurry. He may well have spoken
> rather too freely about a superior officer,
Good point. Which still doesn't lower his credit with me ;-)
>exceeded his orders on a
> long shot that didn't come off,
Let's hope it wasn't in a Travis kind of way...
>or even become mixed up in smuggling
> while still in uniform and got caught.
For food or for sport? <eg>
> > > Ask the Tarrant Nostra...
> >
> > I did - sort of. (As I said, I roamed every obscure corner of the Net in
> > search of the related places). And I still didn't find the answer that
would
> > satisfy me <meg>.
>
> I don't know if they have an FAQ, but I know there was at least one
> website dedicated to the defence of Tarrant. I gather that if it still
> existed you would have found it?
Yes, I did - just like I did a page that defends "Animals". With pretty
similar results. (Like I said, I'm not all that much into extremes...
normally <g>. Which is why I neither am inclined to join "burn Tarrant on a
stake" movement", nor "Tarrant can do no wrong" line of defence. For me, he
is (much like most of the rest of the gang) just a person, with quite
noticeable failings, but not at all devoid of redeeming qualities - able to
irritate greatly, but (again, unlike many's view) not too bad to have on
board.
> (What is an meg? A "monstrously evil grin"?)
A good revision, actually ;-) (it was "mean, evil grin" originally, but I
might go with your suggestion, after all).
> > > He does have That Smile. It really is very infectious :-)
> >
> > Cute, rather, I would say ;-P.
>
> Oh no. Infectious!
That depends on the eye of the beholder, of course, but me, he always struck
as sort of a puppy <mg>. The one around which you better be careful or wear
a REALLY tough gloves, of course...
> I don't smile much as a rule; but there are a handful of actors - no
> actresses; it seems to be a male thing - who have the uncanny knack of
> compelling an answering grin. Burt Lancaster is one - Steven Pacey is
> another :-)
In that regard, I always preferred Peter O'Toole (*him*, unlike Pacey, I'd
never prompted after attempt at such an "answer" to actually *answer*
<g>)... but that's just me. (Though at some of his smiles, of course, I
would react with a heavy blunt object ;-P)
> > I found the fact that he and Dayna stuck together so often
> > rather convincing. Well, besides the obvious reasons <rrreg>).
>
> Obvious? If you mean sex-appeal, I didn't see any between them; I don't
> think Dayna thinks of herself that way (though I'm certain Tarrant
> does <g>).
Well, they're both young, not unattractive and share quite a few character
traits; that's *bound* to produce SOME, um, mutual attention. But not enough
for a chance of acting on it (unless in REALLY dire straits and nothing else
to do), no.
>What they clearly have in common is a tendency to act first
> and think later, a touching faith in the efficacy of violence, and, as
> you say, a general youthful bounciness.
Exactly.
> > > (Did you see those excellent mini-film-biographies the BBC ran a week
or
> > > so ago - 'Living Famously'? I caught the one on Clark Gable, and when
I
> > > saw that famous grin, I couldn't help it: I thought 'Tarrant!')
> >
> > In fact, Steven Pacey could have missed his Star Time - when it was era
of
> > Gable, he had quite a chance... but strangely, despite these looks, he's
> > really not that bad of an actor (what proved it to me finally and
clearly,
> > was "Death-Watch"... it took more than hairdo to make them so different,
and
> > he did).
>
> I've never seen him on stage; I've only heard him in various BBC Radio
> productions, and indeed I owe him a debt for that. Had it not been for
> the 'B7 connection', I should never otherwise have troubled to listen to
> a number of excellent plays.
Talk about one good thing bringing on another... ;-)
>But all the 'regulars' are pretty talented,
> as were many of the 'guest' actors.
No arguments about that (though Colin Baker as Bayban - and whoever played
his henchman - could use a scenery-chewing-preventing brace... <mean mode
off>)
<snip>
> Actually, Gable wasn't a half bad actor either.
I didn't say he was - and I don't think that era of movies precluded good
acting. It's just "different times - different perception / appeal" thing.
Which is ostensibly not fair (yeah, that's news), but the fact remains:
quite a few of very talented actors and actresses didn't get the fame they
deserved - and still don't - not only because of showbusiness' luck, but
because of public's general tastes. I can't see Mary Pickford becoming the
major star she used to be, in our times. OTOH, Dustin Hoffman wouldn't have
a prayer when Clark Gable ruled supreme...
But I do think that looks mattered (even) more back then than they do now -
especially for men. And should Gable, having the same talent, look like -
oh, I don't know, Jean Gabin? <eg> - he wouldn't go far.
>The studio system could
> manufacture stars out of good looking nonentities; what it couldn't do
> was endow them with an appeal to last beyond the ephemera of their day.
Agree. Time is a good (if not infallible) way to check the real substance...
<snip>
>I can agree that however he performed as President, Ronald
> Reagan really *was* a bad actor :-)
Good thing he realized it in time... <g>
<Andromeda>
> > > Did Channel 4 drop it, or did I just miss the rest of the first season
> > > run, then? I'd been assuming a second season was going to arrive at
some
> > > point...
> >
> > I wouldn't be surprised if they just dropped the thing (not much of a
> > breaking the trend in this respect, is it?), but I can't say anything on
the
> > matter. Being a spoiled brat who splashed budget to the cable (breaking
it
> > in several other places <eg>), I'm a Sky One addict in terms of genre
TV, so
> > I saw it all earlier... and got disgusted enough by the recent events
*not*
> > to follow the show elsewhere.
>
> Ah. Well, I'm still regularly watching television on a 12"
> black-and-white set - hence the fondness for old films, they tend to
> have decent contrast!
Talk about perception and quality <g>. In fact, the size of screen doesn't
matter much for me either (or didn't before too much time with computer
started to show in terms of my sight) - and, since I am a B7 fan, you decide
how important the outwards bells and whistles are to me. (Well, they are, in
a way - I don't mind good-looking genre shows at all - but between "effects
are good but nothing else is" and "effects are not good but everything else
is" I sort of tend to pick the latter version). But I think I understand
what you're saying and I agree: it's not so much what you have as what you
do with the available stuff. By the time of the medium's demise,
professionals had REALLY got a knack on using B&W. (I wonder, when natural
location will become obsolete <shudder> - will the use of it finally turn
perfect?)
> My experience is actually that recent SF looks *better* in black and
> white;
Kinda like a make-believe documentary... <g>
Best,
Anne
Anne
> NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway.
> No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> On 6 Dec 2002 Anne wrote:
> >
> > whatever grudge we may
> > hold against GT, he is a *good* actor.
>
> Oh yes; as I said, I've long since forgiven him for that little
> contretemps. Not only a good actor, but a charming chap and an excellent
> raconteur :-)
Which kind of hints just *why* did they cast him as Blake, doesn't it? I
mean, only with a charm like that could he get this roguish bunch into the
whole mess <eg> (I'd watch Captain Picard making *anything* in terms of crew
out of THAT material... and I like Picard. Mostly... ;-P)
> [snip]
> > Short of
> > legalised slavery, blackmail or hostage-taking <g>, what could be done
> > about that? And would you like recasting? (I seriously suspect that
> > Travis-swap was enough - and I don't even harbour any ill-feelings
> > towards Mr Croucher...)
> >
> Mr Greif, surely...? it was he who took up alternative filming
> commitments in preference to B7 second season... :-)
No, no, you're talking from a completely different dimension here - the one
where reason and fairness have a say in what people do, how they perceive
things and the way they treat others (can you give me some pointers as to
where you found the place, BTW?) <g>. In ours, the amount of bile I saw
directed at Brian Croucher for not being Stephen Grief, could be enough to
make a few Servalans and ten Travises out of. Mind you, on me, Grief's
rendition of the part also made a more lasting impression than Croucher's,
overall - but to take it out on the latter is, IMO, inappropriate at best...
(And I still think that in respect of the way character was *conceived*,
Croucher's interpretation makes more sense, after all).
> I think I'd prefer re-casting, actually, given that choice. The BBC had
> no qualms about re-casting the original Dr Who for their multiple-Doctor
> specials; although William Hartnell[*] had died, they simply cast
> another actor of not dissimilar appearance with the ability to give a
> convincing performance as the same character.
Well, in that context, they had a bit more leeway, we must admit -
reincarnation came in SO handy, there... ;-) And while I myself played with
recasting (for today's bring-back stint) of B7's characters (yes, including
Blake and <blasphemy> even Avon </blasphemy>), I don't think it would fly
back then, all things considered. Too soap-operatic. I'd rather see someone
else (but NOT Tarrant, thank you! <g>) taking the vacated spot. It would too
need work, of course, both in terms of writing and, yes, casting too, still.
But it *was* possible - unlike "it's still Blake, just with a different face
/ temper / charisma" kind of thing. (There's always a plastic surgery way
out, of course <extremely mean mode off>).
>Nowadays no-one would
> dream of doing this, which I feel is rather a pity.
In terms of cheek, yes, it is a pity such things are mostly past us (as is a
screeching format-change Blake's 7 merrily pulled on the viewers: from
"1984" to... well, "1984 in space"? ;-P And nearly not a single principle
character properly introduced until the ep 2). And, like I said,
reincarnation was a good idea. But it is also - under the circumstances we
had in Blake - a much too-easy road. To the point of being a cop-out...
Best,
Anne
Julia Jones
<fa...@fain.homechoice.co.uk> writes
>"Igenlode Wordsmith" <fu...@redneck.gacracker.org> wrote in message
>news:200212090250...@gacracker.org...
[re Gareth Thomas}
>> Not only a good actor, but a charming chap and an excellent
>> raconteur :-)
>
>Which kind of hints just *why* did they cast him as Blake, doesn't it? I
>mean, only with a charm like that could he get this roguish bunch into the
>whole mess <eg> (I'd watch Captain Picard making *anything* in terms of crew
>out of THAT material... and I like Picard. Mostly... ;-P)
Having recently had the pleasure of seeing Patrick Stewart on stage,
presenting the Nemesis trailer at Worldcon, I am pleased to report that
he also appears to be a charming chap and excellent raconteur.
He is also well aware of the effect it is likely to have on a goodly
portion of the audience when he takes his leather jacket off to reveal a
clinging shirt underneath...
Julia Jones
Redemption 03, 21-23 February 2003, Ashford, Kent
Celebrating 25 years of Blake's 7 and 10 years of Babylon 5
http://www.smof.com/redemption
Anne
"Julia Jones" <jajone...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:stLDtBFC...@jajones.demon.co.uk...
> In article <at2m3t$107sm9$1...@ID-142859.news.dfncis.de>, Anne
> <fa...@fain.homechoice.co.uk> writes
> >"Igenlode Wordsmith" <fu...@redneck.gacracker.org> wrote in message
> >news:200212090250...@gacracker.org...
>
> [re Gareth Thomas}
> >> Not only a good actor, but a charming chap and an excellent
> >> raconteur :-)
> >
> >Which kind of hints just *why* did they cast him as Blake, doesn't it? I
> >mean, only with a charm like that could he get this roguish bunch into
the
> >whole mess <eg> (I'd watch Captain Picard making *anything* in terms of
crew
> >out of THAT material... and I like Picard. Mostly... ;-P)
>
> Having recently had the pleasure of seeing Patrick Stewart on stage,
> presenting the Nemesis trailer at Worldcon, I am pleased to report that
> he also appears to be a charming chap and excellent raconteur.
Oh, but I was talking of *Picard*, not Stewart <g>. (In fact, much as I
liked the character - and the idea WAS a nice change from Kirk, no offence
to *his* fans - I often regretted that the actor's excellent sense of
humour, AND fun, was almost untapped in the part. I know the actors are
supposed to be versatile, and different roles requires different qualities,
but still...)
> He is also well aware of the effect it is likely to have on a goodly
> portion of the audience when he takes his leather jacket off to reveal a
> clinging shirt underneath...
I SO believe you... <wg>
Best,
Anne
Julia Jones
<fa...@fain.homechoice.co.uk> writes
>
>"Julia Jones" <jajone...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:stLDtBFC...@jajones.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <at2m3t$107sm9$1...@ID-142859.news.dfncis.de>, Anne
>> <fa...@fain.homechoice.co.uk> writes
>> >"Igenlode Wordsmith" <fu...@redneck.gacracker.org> wrote in message
>> >news:200212090250...@gacracker.org...
>>
>> [re Gareth Thomas}
>> >> Not only a good actor, but a charming chap and an excellent
>> >> raconteur :-)
>> >
>> >Which kind of hints just *why* did they cast him as Blake, doesn't it? I
>> >mean, only with a charm like that could he get this roguish bunch into
>the
>> >whole mess <eg> (I'd watch Captain Picard making *anything* in terms of
>crew
>> >out of THAT material... and I like Picard. Mostly... ;-P)
>>
>> Having recently had the pleasure of seeing Patrick Stewart on stage,
>> presenting the Nemesis trailer at Worldcon, I am pleased to report that
>> he also appears to be a charming chap and excellent raconteur.
>
>Oh, but I was talking of *Picard*, not Stewart <g>. (In fact, much as I
>liked the character - and the idea WAS a nice change from Kirk, no offence
>to *his* fans - I often regretted that the actor's excellent sense of
>humour, AND fun, was almost untapped in the part. I know the actors are
>supposed to be versatile, and different roles requires different qualities,
>but still...)
Well, it was in connection with the comment linking the actor's charm to
the character's - I can't really visualise Patrick Stewart playing
Blake, but he does have that charm.
>
>> He is also well aware of the effect it is likely to have on a goodly
>> portion of the audience when he takes his leather jacket off to reveal a
>> clinging shirt underneath...
>
>I SO believe you... <wg>
>
And will you believe me if I say that I didn't drool?
We nearly didn't go to his session. We expected it to be packed out, and
I was, shall we say, regretting eating a chicken mayonnaise sandwich at
lunchtime and hence reluctant about standing in a queue for an hour. But
the other two members of the B7 contingent said we should just take a
stroll past and see if the line was bearable, and indeed it was. I'm
very glad we did go.
--
Alan Smith
> episode, for Blake to turn up again, although after a while it began
> to dawn that, actually, he wasn't *coming* back... and then when he did,
> I didn't enjoy it very much :-(
>
> When I discovered, long afterwards, that Gareth Thomas had actively
> repudiated the part, I felt somehow betrayed. I don't know... I just
> feel very strongly that characters in a story have their own existence,
> their own feelings and hopes and demons to face; their own lives to
> carry on with, when we 'the audience' aren't looking. And from that, I
> suppose, comes a feeling that those responsible for them - authors,
> actors, even fan-fiction writers - shouldn't behave towards them like
> puppeteers in order to make them do what is convenient for *them*.
> I can't see that it was in character for Blake to go off like that
> without a word; but I certainly don't think it should have happened just
> because the actor in question was afraid of being pigeonholed in the
> part.
One can't blame Gareth of course - regardless of what "Blake" was thinking,
"Gareth" did have a life of his own and was entitled to make his own
decisions. After all, he was simply playing a part, for money - do you
worry about what happens at a place of work after you leave it?
>
Anne
Yes, he does (though... see below). What I meant that for Blake, Thomas'
charm was used to its full. For Picard, anyone's *charm* would apparently be
considered... inappropriate <eg>
However, it's a *different* kind of charm Mr Stewart possesses. Way too
imperious for Blake - like you, I can't see him in the part. He is made to
play kings, not presidents <reg>
> >> He is also well aware of the effect it is likely to have on a goodly
> >> portion of the audience when he takes his leather jacket off to reveal
a
> >> clinging shirt underneath...
> >
> >I SO believe you... <wg>
> >
> And will you believe me if I say that I didn't drool?
When I do, come over with that bridge... ;-P
> We nearly didn't go to his session. We expected it to be packed out, and
> I was, shall we say, regretting eating a chicken mayonnaise sandwich at
> lunchtime
Ouch! What were you *thinking*? These things are just about this side of bad
sushi in terms of lethal! ;-P
> the other two members of the B7 contingent said we should just take a
> stroll past and see if the line was bearable, and indeed it was. I'm
> very glad we did go.
It must have been a great time... Occasionally, I consider going to
conventions, myself. Then I remember my attempt to attend Guy Fawkes'
bonfire session at Hampstead... <g>
Best,
Anne
Proximity
Julia Jones
<fa...@fain.homechoice.co.uk> writes
>> We nearly didn't go to his session. We expected it to be packed out, and
>> I was, shall we say, regretting eating a chicken mayonnaise sandwich at
>> lunchtime
>
>Ouch! What were you *thinking*? These things are just about this side of bad
>sushi in terms of lethal! ;-P
I wasn't thinking "I am in the US, where the default is mayonnaise with
everything". It said "chicken" on the price list, not "chicken and
mayonnaise". I discovered the additional ingredient by getting a
mouthful of it...
Apart from the salmonella sandwich and then me getting tonsillitis the
next day (it really wasn't my weekend), we had great fun. And Blake's 7
is not completely unknown in the US - Steve Rogerson and I were wearing
Redemption teeshirts a lot of the time, and did get some comments about
"I remember that show!"
Anne
> In article <at7u79$103pcq$1...@ID-142859.news.dfncis.de>, Anne
> <fa...@fain.homechoice.co.uk> writes
> >> We nearly didn't go to his session. We expected it to be packed out,
and
> >> I was, shall we say, regretting eating a chicken mayonnaise sandwich at
> >> lunchtime
> >
> >Ouch! What were you *thinking*? These things are just about this side of
bad
> >sushi in terms of lethal! ;-P
>
> I wasn't thinking "I am in the US, where the default is mayonnaise with
> everything". It said "chicken" on the price list, not "chicken and
> mayonnaise". I discovered the additional ingredient by getting a
> mouthful of it...
Nothing can be taken on trust these days - Avon had a point... ;-). (Great!
I coined myself a codename! From now on, I'm going to call all these things
which you better ask twice about and check the reverse of the tag, just in
case - "Avon product!" <g>)
> Apart from the salmonella sandwich and then me getting tonsillitis the
> next day (it really wasn't my weekend), we had great fun.
With real stars like this (and, apparently, without all-out destruction
which often comes with such events), I'm not at all surprised... A rare and
fortunate combination, no doubt. *Remembers sadly the day when she
unwittingly turned out to check new stuff at "Forbidden Planet" at the exact
day when David Boreanaz from "Angel" was signing the photographs*
>And Blake's 7
> is not completely unknown in the US - Steve Rogerson and I were wearing
> Redemption teeshirts a lot of the time, and did get some comments about
> "I remember that show!"
Yes, it's interesting how this "little show" turned out to be one of those
to cross the pond ;-) (on rec.arts.sf.tv quite a few know what B7 is, as
well, and the majority there come from US and Canada) - and that's even
without decades-long franchise to it! (Though, by today's standards, Blake's
7 was EXTREMELY long-lived: four full seasons! To make it to the end of
*one* without getting an axe is something of a feat in our times, as far as
the genre is concerned...)
Best,
Anne
Stewart Tolhurst
>(Though, by today's standards, Blake's
>7 was EXTREMELY long-lived: four full seasons! To make it to the end of
>*one* without getting an axe is something of a feat in our times, as far as
>the genre is concerned...)
Firefly has just been cancelled - and I haven't even seen a single episode
yet! I think Fox are paying for the 13 episodes comissioned and nothing
more - so not even a full season!
I doubt it will even get show in th UK :/
Stewart
--
"Don't believe everything you're foretold." Angel (Angel: To Shashu In LA)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stewart Tolhurst
http://www.foxbasealpha.co.uk ICQ: 22636339
Anne
"Stewart Tolhurst" <ne...@stolhurst.freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:slrnavkeq...@timerotor.foxbasealpha.co.uk...
> On Thu, 12 Dec 2002 22:44:16 -0000, Anne <fa...@fain.homechoice.co.uk>
wrote:
> >(Though, by today's standards, Blake's
> >7 was EXTREMELY long-lived: four full seasons! To make it to the end of
> >*one* without getting an axe is something of a feat in our times, as far
as
> >the genre is concerned...)
>
> Firefly has just been cancelled - and I haven't even seen a single episode
> yet!
Read the news. Hated it. Chose to stay in denial (maybe syndication? Maybe
UPN? Yes, I *know* how fat a chance is... then again, whoda thunk, as far as
B7 is concerned, about next year <crosses fingers, toes and all available
parts of the body>. And yes, I *know* that if Firefly follows the gap, it's
going to be a LONG wait...)
> I think Fox are paying for the 13 episodes comissioned
15. Tim Minear said they didn't retract the order for the additional two.
>and nothing
> more - so not even a full season!
Case in point. Sometimes I SO don't want to be right...
> I doubt it will even get show in th UK :/
I'm afraid, MIRC is the name of the day here. Or Kazaa...
Anne
Stewart Tolhurst
fa...@fain.homechoice.co.uk says...
>
> "Stewart Tolhurst" <ne...@stolhurst.freeuk.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnavkeq...@timerotor.foxbasealpha.co.uk...
> > On Thu, 12 Dec 2002 22:44:16 -0000, Anne <fa...@fain.homechoice.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > >(Though, by today's standards, Blake's
> > >7 was EXTREMELY long-lived: four full seasons! To make it to the end of
> > >*one* without getting an axe is something of a feat in our times, as far
> as
> > >the genre is concerned...)
> >
> > Firefly has just been cancelled - and I haven't even seen a single episode
> > yet!
>
> Read the news. Hated it. Chose to stay in denial (maybe syndication? Maybe
> UPN? Yes, I *know* how fat a chance is... then again, whoda thunk, as far as
> B7 is concerned, about next year <crosses fingers, toes and all available
> parts of the body>. And yes, I *know* that if Firefly follows the gap, it's
> going to be a LONG wait...)
I had my doubts about the show, but it seemed to be a fun idea. While
there have been times when JW and ME could do no wrong the last seasons
of Buffy and Angel shook my faith in a very big way. Angel was a
rollercoaster-ride of monumental highs to incrediblly depressing lows -
sometimes within the same episode, while Buffy was just depressing soap-
opera-with-vampires :/
Tangentially crossing into another thread....
Buffy/Angel fans go on and on about how wonderful JW is at arc - I
really can't see it myself. Season 2 of Buffy is about the only time
when they have sucsessfully done a 22 episode arc that actually had any
kind of cohesion. Arc is difficult to do well - especially over the 22
episode season you get in the US - it takes a lot to keep the pacing
right and not make the story seem drawn out (S5 of Buffy suffered from
this a lot).
IMO what works best is an ongoing story driven by character development
rather than some despatch-the-baddie-in-a-season nonsense (which is why
I feel that Angel S2 works so well - you get a collection of arc-ettes
all held together by the ongoing character development). This is what
B7 generally does - even S2, which is the most arc heavy of the lot, is
driven by the characters rather than the characters being driven by the
story.
> > I think Fox are paying for the 13 episodes comissioned
>
> 15. Tim Minear said they didn't retract the order for the additional two.
Ah yes - as I hadn't seen the show I hadn't kept up too much with
exactly how much had been comissioned.
> >and nothing
> > more - so not even a full season!
>
> Case in point. Sometimes I SO don't want to be right...
>
> > I doubt it will even get show in th UK :/
>
> I'm afraid, MIRC is the name of the day here. Or Kazaa...
Over dialup?
I live in the land of the nice lifestyle, with cows and trees and
countryside. But no broadband :/
Stewart
--
Either those curtains go or I do. (Oscar Wilde)
Stewart Tolhurst
IQC 22636339 http://www.foxbasealpha.co.uk
Anne
> In article <atdd1n$12j9cj$1...@ID-142859.news.dfncis.de>,
> fa...@fain.homechoice.co.uk says...
> >
> > "Stewart Tolhurst" <ne...@stolhurst.freeuk.com> wrote in message
> > > Firefly has just been cancelled - and I haven't even seen a single
episode
> > > yet!
> >
> > Read the news. Hated it. Chose to stay in denial (maybe syndication?
Maybe
> > UPN? Yes, I *know* how fat a chance is... then again, whoda thunk, as
far as
> > B7 is concerned, about next year <crosses fingers, toes and all
available
> > parts of the body>. And yes, I *know* that if Firefly follows the gap,
it's
> > going to be a LONG wait...)
>
> I had my doubts about the show, but it seemed to be a fun idea.
Having watched some, I can tell you that execution (even in the lesser
efforts, of which I consider only Train Job - which, ironically, the suits
decided to air first - to be one) was even more of that. (OK, my tastes may
not be a good gauge for you - see below about our differences on "Buffy" and
probably "Angel" ;-P - but if you like B7, you won't complain about this
one... even though they don't have an Avon to match. To make up for that,
there's not a single one "less compelling" character in the whole cast).
> there have been times when JW and ME could do no wrong
I never thought so (even Glorious Season 2 <tm> produced couple of outings
that I personally am happy never rewatching). And I do suspect (though, of
course, it's thoroughly personal opinion ;-P) that it's this belief which
undermined enjoyment of everything that came later from them.
Over-expectations and all that <g>. JW and his team are people, and they
work in showbusiness, and these are two big enough reasons to miss a shot
every once in a while, and have an "off" day (or longer), etc. But when they
hit the mark, they hit it BIG (again, IMO), which is worth the wait. And
every single show they produced so far was more interesting than the rest of
the stuff around. Much more interesting, for that matter - blunders or no
blunders... And, with all that I'm going to say about "Buffy" (below), I
like(d? <sniff>) Firefly more than BTVS and AtS combined. Of course, they
could have run out of steam after the same amount of years - but I'd rather
like to check it out for myself (and I do doubt it... I've never felt Joss
*so* knowing what he was doing before. Not even in "When She Was Bad").
>the last seasons
> of Buffy and Angel shook my faith in a very big way.
Matter of taste, I suppose. Nothing shook my faith in BTVS as much as Season
4 did (which wasn't entirely ME's fault, all external circumstances
considered) - and even that particular year, I think, they did the best (and
then some) out of bad situation. As for Angel, I had a big hopes for these
series based on the ideas and the starting point - but felt that this
potential got soundly squandered very early on (at times I even think it
started as early as Joss got a script back with suggestion to tone down the
darkness... Doyle's departure, whatever the reasons, didn't help matters.
And, while I'm on it, RIP Glenn Quinn - I *loved* his acting, whatever
whoever would say). The premise of the show started to trickle away and
change palpably somewhere by the end of Season 1 (IMO, IMO, IMO ;-P) - and
it became merely entertaining rather often, instead of profound (while
*still* being entertaining) as it could have been. And I wonder if that is
the reason that not a single arc (with one possible exception) was resolved
satisfactorily there. Season 2 in particular hurt me as a viewer in this
respect - because it got VERY ambitious at some point... and then all but
had swept it all under the rug.
> Buffy was just depressing soap-
> opera-with-vampires :/
While I wouldn't dream of denying your right of opinion (and even can see
where you're coming from: I didn't hate it at all, but it *was* depressing
alright) - I have come to see "soap opera" accusation these days a bit broad
and overused, at least in relation to genre shows. It's like whenever
viewers don't like something about such (other than bad science <g>), they
call it soap opera. And before you tell me that it's overused because
authors overuse soap opera mores ;-): just these mores fit very nicely with
the whole big story of Season 2 of Buffy. (One episode - and one of the
best, at that - was called *Passion*, for crying out loud! <mbg>). The
reason why Big Bad wasn't dispatched to the last possible moment was pure
soap in nature: the Superhero wuvs him...
It is a VERY risky territory Joss ventured in BTVS' 6th year - and again, I
understand people who didn't like it - but it wasn't a soap. It was (how
succesful, YMMV) "hybrid-ising" the action / adventure / superhero stuff
with day-to-day, decidedly un-romantic "scenery". Squeezing what is supposed
to be larger than life to try and fit... well, life. It wasn't pretty by any
stretch, no. I don't think it was supposed to be, though.
> Tangentially crossing into another thread....
>
> Buffy/Angel fans go on and on about how wonderful JW is at arc -
You're luckier than I if you encountered these laudations a lot. In many
boards and forums I frequented, complaints about lack of "good old
stand-alones" is way more common... ;-)
> Arc is difficult to do well - especially over the 22
> episode season you get in the US - it takes a lot to keep the pacing
> right and not make the story seem drawn out (S5 of Buffy suffered from
> this a lot).
Not making this even a farther-drawn discussion about later "Buffy" quality
;-), I'll say that I agree that well-done arc - when it's an ostensible,
involved-to-the-hilt kind of arc - is not just a rare breed, but comes close
to non-existent. If only because in case of such arc "well-done" pretty much
equals "perfectly done" - as every failing in such conditions becomes
glaringly obvious. When each bit effects the whole, there's no escaping the
domino effect, though some are more minor than others. (And yes, I did watch
B5. To me, it's not exactly an exception to this rule).
> IMO what works best is an ongoing story driven by character development
> rather than some despatch-the-baddie-in-a-season nonsense
That, yes. Or some sort of mix - when quite a few "arc" eps also work just
as well as standalones (or at least nearly-standalones <g>) - and some are
just separate adventures.
>(which is why
> I feel that Angel S2 works so well - you get a collection of arc-ettes
> all held together by the ongoing character development).
...Until what the story was building up to - mightily and intensely, I might
add, with a nice reflections even in standalones - gets "resolved" with one
heartfelt speech, one obvious plot contrivance and one (as it felt to me)
rather hokey Moment Of Clarity. And it hits Pyleah big-time. (Mind you, in
any other context, these eps would be a well-done light - most of the time -
entertainment. They still are for me... when I try and forget the context).
>This is what
> B7 generally does
Absolutely - and most of the time, it strikes a good balance between
"overall" and "story-by-story" parts.
>- even S2, which is the most arc heavy of the lot, is
> driven by the characters rather than the characters being driven by the
> story.
Once more, no argument here. That's what I loved about this show - that they
almost *never* forced the characters to do anything.
Besides, somehow, even when ongoing plots were interwoven into each
particular story (where they were) so that they advanced it without
intruding the adventure / situation they were dealing with at the moment. So
they never felt obligatory. (Once, "Voyager" tried to do something like
that, with arc as a "B-story"... my, what a disaster).
But that's exactly what I loved about Firefly, too - and why (among other
reasons) it reminded me of Blake's 7 (those others being, for instance, a
downbeat atmosphere, the not-exactly-heroic heroes, and overall ambiguity of
situation). This is the first time in Joss' show that, whenever arc elements
were introduced, they didn't (well, almost never did <g>) have even a hint
of a big neon sign flashing "Just You Wait For What We Are Going To Do With
This One"!) People just went about their lives, their relationships grew and
changed (subtly, at that), their stories and peculiarities got gradually
revealed, and their problems and adventures sort of stemmed from that. Just
as their whole world's picture. All that without a single "to be continued"
in sight: the ongoing importance of things became clear *after* they were
revisited. Sigh...
> > > I doubt it will even get show in th UK :/
> >
> > I'm afraid, MIRC is the name of the day here. Or Kazaa...
>
> Over dialup?
:-(. I know what you mean. Though some Real Player files aren't too bad in
that regard, but a) you have to pay for that in quality of visuals and b) I
didn't find any of them in according channel.
> I live in the land of the nice lifestyle, with cows and trees and
> countryside. But no broadband :/
Only shows how spoilt I have got - not a year that I have one, and can't
imagine the life without it already... *Thinks of getting her old CD-writer
to work to help - but feels a bit scared of whether she'll be hunted down by
copyright enforcers*.
Anne
Stewart Tolhurst
S2 certainly has it's dodgy moments, but they are few and far between
and don't detract from an overall very sucessfull season.
> And I do suspect (though, of
> course, it's thoroughly personal opinion ;-P) that it's this belief which
> undermined enjoyment of everything that came later from them.
This is true - Buffy post season-3 gets a lot of flack from a certain
kind of fan.
> Over-expectations and all that <g>. JW and his team are people, and they
> work in showbusiness, and these are two big enough reasons to miss a shot
> every once in a while, and have an "off" day (or longer), etc. But when they
> hit the mark, they hit it BIG (again, IMO), which is worth the wait. And
> every single show they produced so far was more interesting than the rest of
> the stuff around. Much more interesting, for that matter - blunders or no
> blunders... And, with all that I'm going to say about "Buffy" (below), I
> like(d? <sniff>) Firefly more than BTVS and AtS combined. Of course, they
> could have run out of steam after the same amount of years - but I'd rather
> like to check it out for myself (and I do doubt it... I've never felt Joss
> *so* knowing what he was doing before. Not even in "When She Was Bad").
>
> >the last seasons
> > of Buffy and Angel shook my faith in a very big way.
>
> Matter of taste, I suppose. Nothing shook my faith in BTVS as much as Season
> 4 did (which wasn't entirely ME's fault, all external circumstances
> considered) - and even that particular year, I think, they did the best (and
> then some) out of bad situation.
There is much to love in Buffy S4. Ignore the arc, the best stories are
character driven - Hush, the Willow/Oz/Tara love triangle, the Faith
Quartet (including the Angel crossovers). The potential of The
Innitative wasn't really realised (it could have been a top background
evil similar to Wolfram and Hart in Angel) but even the brainless Adam
episodes were fun and Primeval was a great swansong for the fight
coordination team.
> As for Angel, I had a big hopes for these
> series based on the ideas and the starting point - but felt that this
> potential got soundly squandered very early on (at times I even think it
> started as early as Joss got a script back with suggestion to tone down the
> darkness... Doyle's departure, whatever the reasons, didn't help matters.
> And, while I'm on it, RIP Glenn Quinn - I *loved* his acting, whatever
> whoever would say).
I dunno, S1 was a different show and I'm not sure how it would have
panned out if Doyle hadn't left. I couldn't imagine Reunion or Reprise
with Doyle.......
> The premise of the show started to trickle away and
> change palpably somewhere by the end of Season 1 (IMO, IMO, IMO ;-P) - and
> it became merely entertaining rather often, instead of profound (while
> *still* being entertaining) as it could have been.
S1 started off life as an anthology show - you're not being consistant
here ;-)
> And I wonder if that is
> the reason that not a single arc (with one possible exception) was resolved
> satisfactorily there. Season 2 in particular hurt me as a viewer in this
> respect - because it got VERY ambitious at some point... and then all but
> had swept it all under the rug.
But it wasn't, really. I keep having arguments with people about
Angel's Epiphany. S3 seems to be 'all about Angel' - instead of being
about 'a single act of kindness' or 'the big fight'. Angel's obsession
moved from trying to atone to trying to win to trying to protect his
'family'. I guess what I liked about S2 was that the characters
developed belivably (particulary Cordy and Wes) - where S3 seems to have
bent the characters to the needs of the story, rather than the other way
now.
> > Buffy was just depressing soap-
> > opera-with-vampires :/
>
> While I wouldn't dream of denying your right of opinion (and even can see
> where you're coming from: I didn't hate it at all, but it *was* depressing
> alright) - I have come to see "soap opera" accusation these days a bit broad
> and overused, at least in relation to genre shows. It's like whenever
> viewers don't like something about such (other than bad science <g>), they
> call it soap opera. And before you tell me that it's overused because
> authors overuse soap opera mores ;-):
Maybe I should clarify. It felt like Eastenders. The wit and the
humour that has always been an important part of Buffy evaporated
overnight. Characters that I had once loved became dis-likeable and I
really didn't care about any of the main cast any more.
> just these mores fit very nicely with
> the whole big story of Season 2 of Buffy. (One episode - and one of the
> best, at that - was called *Passion*, for crying out loud! <mbg>). The
> reason why Big Bad wasn't dispatched to the last possible moment was pure
> soap in nature: the Superhero wuvs him...
But it had a pathos that soap rarely has. S6 had *none* of that IMO. I
would call S2 melodrama personally.
> It is a VERY risky territory Joss ventured in BTVS' 6th year - and again, I
> understand people who didn't like it - but it wasn't a soap. It was (how
> succesful, YMMV) "hybrid-ising" the action / adventure / superhero stuff
> with day-to-day, decidedly un-romantic "scenery". Squeezing what is supposed
> to be larger than life to try and fit... well, life. It wasn't pretty by any
> stretch, no. I don't think it was supposed to be, though.
I found *most* of the comedy episodes enjoyable but the serious episodes
didn't work for me. Don't get me started about OMWF.
For the full post mortem see:
http://www.foxbasealpha.co.uk/wibblings/archive/00000028.html
> > Tangentially crossing into another thread....
> >
> > Buffy/Angel fans go on and on about how wonderful JW is at arc -
>
> You're luckier than I if you encountered these laudations a lot. In many
> boards and forums I frequented, complaints about lack of "good old
> stand-alones" is way more common... ;-)
Maybe it is cuase I mainly hang out on umta - I find the Buffy group and
the alt groups hard going.
> > Arc is difficult to do well - especially over the 22
> > episode season you get in the US - it takes a lot to keep the pacing
> > right and not make the story seem drawn out (S5 of Buffy suffered from
> > this a lot).
>
> Not making this even a farther-drawn discussion about later "Buffy" quality
> ;-), I'll say that I agree that well-done arc - when it's an ostensible,
> involved-to-the-hilt kind of arc - is not just a rare breed, but comes close
> to non-existent. If only because in case of such arc "well-done" pretty much
> equals "perfectly done" - as every failing in such conditions becomes
> glaringly obvious. When each bit effects the whole, there's no escaping the
> domino effect, though some are more minor than others. (And yes, I did watch
> B5. To me, it's not exactly an exception to this rule).
I never watched B5. It never really caught my attention.
> > IMO what works best is an ongoing story driven by character development
> > rather than some despatch-the-baddie-in-a-season nonsense
>
> That, yes. Or some sort of mix - when quite a few "arc" eps also work just
> as well as standalones (or at least nearly-standalones <g>) - and some are
> just separate adventures.
>
> >(which is why
> > I feel that Angel S2 works so well - you get a collection of arc-ettes
> > all held together by the ongoing character development).
>
> ...Until what the story was building up to - mightily and intensely, I might
> add, with a nice reflections even in standalones - gets "resolved" with one
> heartfelt speech, one obvious plot contrivance and one (as it felt to me)
> rather hokey Moment Of Clarity. And it hits Pyleah big-time. (Mind you, in
> any other context, these eps would be a well-done light - most of the time -
> entertainment. They still are for me... when I try and forget the context).
Pylea fits themeatically into S2 surprisingly well - it was such a
change of pace at the time. It felt like driving into a brick wall.....
> >This is what
> > B7 generally does
>
> Absolutely - and most of the time, it strikes a good balance between
> "overall" and "story-by-story" parts.
>
> >- even S2, which is the most arc heavy of the lot, is
> > driven by the characters rather than the characters being driven by the
> > story.
>
> Once more, no argument here. That's what I loved about this show - that they
> almost *never* forced the characters to do anything.
>
> Besides, somehow, even when ongoing plots were interwoven into each
> particular story (where they were) so that they advanced it without
> intruding the adventure / situation they were dealing with at the moment. So
> they never felt obligatory. (Once, "Voyager" tried to do something like
> that, with arc as a "B-story"... my, what a disaster).
I'm not sure where the 'temporal cold war' is going in 'Enterprise' -
one of the reasons I like 'Enterprise' is because it does't feel like
Star Trek, people bicker and row and generally don't get on :)
> But that's exactly what I loved about Firefly, too - and why (among other
> reasons) it reminded me of Blake's 7 (those others being, for instance, a
> downbeat atmosphere, the not-exactly-heroic heroes, and overall ambiguity of
> situation). This is the first time in Joss' show that, whenever arc elements
> were introduced, they didn't (well, almost never did <g>) have even a hint
> of a big neon sign flashing "Just You Wait For What We Are Going To Do With
> This One"!) People just went about their lives, their relationships grew and
> changed (subtly, at that), their stories and peculiarities got gradually
> revealed, and their problems and adventures sort of stemmed from that. Just
> as their whole world's picture. All that without a single "to be continued"
> in sight: the ongoing importance of things became clear *after* they were
> revisited. Sigh...
Sounds good.
>
> > > > I doubt it will even get show in th UK :/
> > >
> > > I'm afraid, MIRC is the name of the day here. Or Kazaa...
> >
> > Over dialup?
>
> :-(. I know what you mean. Though some Real Player files aren't too bad in
> that regard, but a) you have to pay for that in quality of visuals and b) I
> didn't find any of them in according channel.
>
> > I live in the land of the nice lifestyle, with cows and trees and
> > countryside. But no broadband :/
>
> Only shows how spoilt I have got - not a year that I have one, and can't
> imagine the life without it already... *Thinks of getting her old CD-writer
> to work to help - but feels a bit scared of whether she'll be hunted down by
> copyright enforcers*.
If I desparately wanted to I could arrange a deal with a man who knows a
man and meetings could be arranged and envelopes could be exchanged.....
I expect I will get to watch it one day......
Stewart
--
"And if I only could, I make a deal with God, and I'd get him to swap
our places........" Kate Bush "Running Up That Hill"
Anne
> In article <atg6hc$149fbo$1...@ID-142859.news.dfncis.de>,
> fa...@fain.homechoice.co.uk says...
> >
> > "Stewart Tolhurst" <ne...@stolhurst.freeuk.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.18652a2ce...@news.claranews.com...
> > > In article <atdd1n$12j9cj$1...@ID-142859.news.dfncis.de>,
> > > fa...@fain.homechoice.co.uk says...
> > > >
> > > > "Stewart Tolhurst" <ne...@stolhurst.freeuk.com> wrote in message
> >
> >
> > I never thought so (even Glorious Season 2 <tm> produced couple of
outings
> > that I personally am happy never rewatching).
>
> S2 certainly has it's dodgy moments, but they are few and far between
> and don't detract from an overall very sucessfull season.
Agreed. And even some blunders are cute to look at <g>. However (to me),
that Season - while a blast - treads the tested waters (except for the
Superhero's gender, which wasn't a commonplace yet by then). Mind you, I see
nothing wrong with that: I said it more than once, and I'll say it again:
originality - especially in our times - is grossly overrated. Some of later
seasons showed, IMO, more daring... though absolutely at a cost of width of
appeal. (And I don't look down my nose on width of appeal - unless it's
lowest common denominator, which Joss hardly ever used, even at his least
successful).
> > And I do suspect (though, of
> > course, it's thoroughly personal opinion ;-P) that it's this belief
which
> > undermined enjoyment of everything that came later from them.
>
> This is true - Buffy post season-3 gets a lot of flack from a certain
> kind of fan.
I would say, it started even with Buffy post-season 2... (Though now,
post-factum, quite a few the-then detractors of 3 year wax all nostalgic
about it... heck, even season 4 gets - partly - the same treatment).
> > Nothing shook my faith in BTVS as much as Season
> > 4 did (which wasn't entirely ME's fault, all external circumstances
> > considered) - and even that particular year, I think, they did the best
(and
> > then some) out of bad situation.
>
> There is much to love in Buffy S4. Ignore the arc, the best stories are
> character driven - Hush, the Willow/Oz/Tara love triangle, the Faith
> Quartet (including the Angel crossovers).
Well, there was Riley *character*... <eg> (Actually, I don't hate him nearly
as much as many seem to - and his storyline even was character-wise,
logical. All in all, my problem with Season 4 was (and again, it's not ME's
fault) aborted developments, not only in arc terms - though it hurt - but in
characters, too (Giles, for one - I was sort of relieved to see him
"revisited" by year 5. And it proved to me that while screen time is
important, it's not the most important thing in character treatment).
>The potential of The
> Innitative wasn't really realised (it could have been a top background
> evil similar to Wolfram and Hart in Angel)
Like I said - external circumstances. If Lindsay Grouse didn't decide to
walk when she did, ME could introduce Adam earlier in the season - and make
use of all his interesting potential (and there WAS one) before the time ran
out. Another example of domino principle (or call it tapestry: pull one
string, and it all unravels).
> and Primeval was a great swansong for the fight
> coordination team.
I too was among those who DIDN'T hate this one. It had scale, and mythology,
and even some pathos, to use your term <g>.
> > As for Angel, I had a big hopes for these
> > series based on the ideas and the starting point - but felt that this
> > potential got soundly squandered very early on (at times I even think it
> > started as early as Joss got a script back with suggestion to tone down
the
> > darkness... Doyle's departure, whatever the reasons, didn't help
matters.
> > And, while I'm on it, RIP Glenn Quinn - I *loved* his acting, whatever
> > whoever would say).
>
> I dunno, S1 was a different show
It was. And I liked this show, blunders notwithstanding.
>and I'm not sure how it would have
> panned out if Doyle hadn't left.
Ah, but we'll never know WHAT would pan out if he didn't... He represented a
lot of murkiness of original premise (saving souls is way less clear-cut
business than saving lives, while still having a Mission - pardon the
triteness).
>I couldn't imagine Reunion or Reprise
> with Doyle.......
Reunion, I could. Reprise... well, we had a few Cordelia-less eps, could
manage with a plausible explanation for Doyle being absent for an hour or
two...
> > The premise of the show started to trickle away and
> > change palpably somewhere by the end of Season 1 (IMO, IMO, IMO ;-P) -
and
> > it became merely entertaining rather often, instead of profound (while
> > *still* being entertaining) as it could have been.
>
> S1 started off life as an anthology show - you're not being consistant
> here ;-)
*Apparent* anthology. You could call B7's season 1 (post-Cygnus Alpha)
anthology too (as was start of DS9) - and yet (just like in both of those)
there was *non*-apparent inner connection. Angel's getting into life instead
of being shut out (Room with a View had a great moment of him with Doyle
exactly about it). Doyle's own secret and inner demons (pardon the pan).
Doyle / Cordelia relationship. Kate (which fizzled out of the show due to
off-screen reasons, again, but she was pushed into backburner even earlier
than that, though Prodigal Son and Somnambulist were nice outings, and she
played well into "Reprise"... I'll better not go into Epiphany though).
> > And I wonder if that is
> > the reason that not a single arc (with one possible exception) was
resolved
> > satisfactorily there. Season 2 in particular hurt me as a viewer in this
> > respect - because it got VERY ambitious at some point... and then all
but
> > had swept it all under the rug.
>
> But it wasn't, really. I keep having arguments with people about
> Angel's Epiphany.
I know... it's one of them irresolvable issues between the sides <g> (Just
like "Xander lied"). So I won't try to convince you (but will insist that
Kate kindly postponing her death until Angel resolves his Darla issues was a
bit much under any interpretation). To me, though, even worse was what
followed. ("And then he bought Cordelia some clothes, and taught her that
non-souled vamps are bad, after all, and it went hunky-dory between them
from there". Not to mention that neither Cordy, nor Wesley, as they were
written before, would never treat Angel so childishly as they did in
Disharmony. Being wary around him - no doubt. Not too happy about the past -
sure. But humiliating him for fun? Yeah riiiight... I felt like we were
*pushed* to pity poor Angel to forget past transgressions as soon as
possible - and for that end, W & C were painted with a broad strokes of
black paint).
>S3 seems to be 'all about Angel' - instead of being
> about 'a single act of kindness' or 'the big fight'. Angel's obsession
> moved from trying to atone to trying to win to trying to protect his
> 'family'.
Absolutely. When was the last time they helped anyone but themselves, not to
mention doing so *not* by accident?
> S3 seems to have
> bent the characters to the needs of the story, rather than the other way
> now.
Quite a few of them, yes. And that's exactly what worries me about arcs in
general.
> > I have come to see "soap opera" accusation these days a bit broad
> > and overused, at least in relation to genre shows. It's like whenever
> > viewers don't like something about such (other than bad science <g>),
they
> > call it soap opera. And before you tell me that it's overused because
> > authors overuse soap opera mores ;-):
>
> Maybe I should clarify. It felt like Eastenders.
Matter of taste again, then ;-). Whatever soaps I had to endure, I never
pitied those characters. Ever. No matter how the authors tried to make me.
In Buffy, season 6, there were more than enough moments when I wanted to
slap "good guys" or shake some sense into them... but I also felt for them.
And did try to put myself in their shoes, and didn't see how would I fare
better. (Though Dawn... grrr <g>. But I suspect it was also intentional).
> The wit and the
> humour that has always been an important part of Buffy evaporated
> overnight.
Now SPOILERS for anyone who doesn't wanna know... miss the next four
paragraphs!
I don't know... You say yourself there was a funny comedy in more than one
ep. And I think that many moments which were dramatic, and sad, and
depressing, was also intentionally funny - but the material prevented quite
a few people (me, for one <g>) to see it, at least at first viewing.
"Smashed" was ironic, I think. (And it had at least one good two-liner: "How
was you? -Rat. And you? -Dead. -Oh").
> > reason why Big Bad wasn't dispatched to the last possible moment was
pure
> > soap in nature: the Superhero wuvs him...
>
> But it had a pathos that soap rarely has. S6 had *none* of that IMO.
Not much in terms of pathos, no. But it was (IMO) *intense*. And scary in a
different way than monsters would offer (or it was different kind of
monsters).
Nerds might have been pathetic. Yet, to me, Warren was one of the most
effective villains in Buffy ever - and NOT just because he had wits to use a
gun. He was deadlier, harder to pin (soul-bearing human, so seemingly funny
that he would appear harmless, and more inventive in inflicting pain, more
consience-less than practicaly any demon on the show, with a possible
exception of Angelus. Small and disgusting is often scarier than big and
nasty).
>I
> would call S2 melodrama personally.
...Which, of course, some would consider insult <mg>. (I don't. Genre is
hardly a quality in and of itself... though soaps do give me pause).
> I found *most* of the comedy episodes enjoyable but the serious episodes
> didn't work for me.
Well, big and dramatic finale (two-parter) had me rolling on the floor when
Anya came to Andrew and Johnatan to explain the situation... (Andrew: "Oh
my god! Warren!" Johnathan: "Oh my god! ME!!!") The fun this season was
mostly of Giles' final laughter variety. Again, not to everybody's liking.
And there was relentless lack of the light at the end of the tunnel (except
when it was the train...)
<end of Spoilers>
Don't get me started about OMWF.
Very well, I won't... ;-) (It's another "love-them-or-hate-them" Joss eps.
The other two being Gift and Body...)
> > > Buffy/Angel fans go on and on about how wonderful JW is at arc -
> >
> > You're luckier than I if you encountered these laudations a lot. In many
> > boards and forums I frequented, complaints about lack of "good old
> > stand-alones" is way more common... ;-)
>
> Maybe it is cuase I mainly hang out on umta - I find the Buffy group and
> the alt groups hard going.
That would be an understatement... but it's addictive, too. Though
sometimes, it puts me off the Net for days.
> I never watched B5. It never really caught my attention.
I yilded to the pressure of the vocal minority ;-). But I am still not mad
about the show. Appreciative of ambition behind it, yes, and it had its
moments (some of them great), but...
> > > I feel that Angel S2 works so well - you get a collection of arc-ettes
> > > all held together by the ongoing character development).
> >
> > ...Until what the story was building up to - mightily and intensely, I
might
> > add, with a nice reflections even in standalones - gets "resolved" with
one
> > heartfelt speech, one obvious plot contrivance and one (as it felt to
me)
> > rather hokey Moment Of Clarity. And it hits Pyleah big-time. (Mind you,
in
> > any other context, these eps would be a well-done light - most of the
time -
> > entertainment. They still are for me... when I try and forget the
context).
>
> Pylea fits themeatically into S2 surprisingly well - it was such a
> change of pace at the time. It felt like driving into a brick wall.....
Yes. But too bright and fluffy brick wall for my tastes <g>. Even despite
the glimpses of hard edges (too few and far between, if you ask me). It says
something that *Groosalug* was one of the redeeming qualities of the whole
thing for me...
> > somehow, even when ongoing plots were interwoven into each
> > particular story (where they were) so that they advanced it without
> > intruding the adventure / situation they were dealing with at the
moment. So
> > they never felt obligatory. (Once, "Voyager" tried to do something like
> > that, with arc as a "B-story"... my, what a disaster).
>
> I'm not sure where the 'temporal cold war' is going in 'Enterprise' -
> one of the reasons I like 'Enterprise' is because it does't feel like
> Star Trek, people bicker and row and generally don't get on :)
Yes, when it feels natural, it's good. (And I wish they do something with
that Temporal Cold War, too - it's nicely subtle and unclear so far - but it
looks like they're ready to either drop it altogether or use as A Seasonal
Attraction, the way Borg became on Voy). Vulcans' own reasons starting to
come to the fore (instead of them being wrong by default) is also nice.
> > But that's exactly what I loved about Firefly, too
<snip my waxing poetic about the show>
> Sounds good.
It *was*.
> > *Thinks of getting her old CD-writer
> > to work to help - but feels a bit scared of whether she'll be hunted
down by
> > copyright enforcers*.
>
> If I desparately wanted to I could arrange a deal with a man who knows a
> man and meetings could be arranged and envelopes could be exchanged.....
>
If it ever comes to that, give me a shout (over the ng - my outlook mail
account kissed me bye-bye... or I can quote my Hotmail address again).
Best,
Anne
Igenlode Wordsmith
> "Igenlode Wordsmith" <fu...@redneck.gacracker.org> wrote in message
> news:200212090250...@gacracker.org...
> > On 6 Dec 2002 Anne wrote:
> > >
> > > whatever grudge we may hold against GT, he is a *good* actor.
> >
> > Oh yes; as I said, I've long since forgiven him for that little
> > contretemps. Not only a good actor, but a charming chap and an excellent
> > raconteur :-)
>
> Which kind of hints just *why* did they cast him as Blake, doesn't it? I
> mean, only with a charm like that could he get this roguish bunch into the
> whole mess <eg>
Well, Judith Proctor likes to say that once you meet Gareth Thomas in
the flesh you can instantly see where Blake's charisma came from :-)
> No, no, you're talking from a completely different dimension here - the one
> where reason and fairness have a say in what people do, how they perceive
> things and the way they treat others (can you give me some pointers as to
> where you found the place, BTW?) <g>.
Well, I always understood it to be a function of education - the ability
to perceive and, if required, to argue both sides of any given question.
But our dear government now informs us that the function of education is
to enable us to walk into white-collar jobs and earn 400,000 pounds extra
over the course of a lifetime - and be charged accordingly for the
privilege - so clearly I was wrong. :-(
> > I think I'd prefer re-casting, actually, given that choice. The BBC had
> > no qualms about re-casting the original Dr Who for their multiple-Doctor
> > specials; although William Hartnell had died, they simply cast
> > another actor of not dissimilar appearance with the ability to give a
> > convincing performance as the same character.
>
> Well, in that context, they had a bit more leeway, we must admit -
> reincarnation came in SO handy, there... ;-)
When Dr Who did it, it was a stunning piece of originality. If anyone
else had tried a similar act, it would have been blatant imitation; I
really wouldn't have wanted Blake to turn out to be an immortal alien
from another universe, say, who had reincarnated himself into another
body after being mortally wounded by Travis in the previous season.
I once read a post-Gauda-Prime story which used a somewhat similar
postulate - *not* aliens - to explain away Avon, Vila and Blake's
impossible survival as part of some scientists' anti-Federation
experiment; while it was otherwise good it left me with the sour taste
of complete cop-out at the end. Other readers may recognise the one I
mean; it starts with Blake waking up in the cargo hold, feeling very
cold. I can't remember its name.
But I wasn't referring to the original 'regeneration' of the Doctor
when Hartnell had to leave the series. I meant later on, some years
after his death, when the script called for a subsequent Doctor to
encounter his former selves. All the original actors were avilable and
willing to reprise their parts except Hartnell, who had died - so they
simply cast someone else as 'the First Doctor'. A very convincing job of
it he did too.
In the context of the part of Blake, given that they presumably knew by
the end of the second series that Gareth Thomas wanted to leave the
show, I've wondered why they didn't simply let Travis kill him off.
Slightly odd to have him *recover* from an almost-lethal wound in one
episode, only to get rid of him in the next episode...
(It would have given a very different feel to 'Star One', though.)
Julia Jones
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes
<snip>
>But I wasn't referring to the original 'regeneration' of the Doctor
>when Hartnell had to leave the series. I meant later on, some years
>after his death, when the script called for a subsequent Doctor to
>encounter his former selves. All the original actors were avilable and
>willing to reprise their parts
(not quite - Tom Baker wasn't too keen)
> except Hartnell, who had died - so they
>simply cast someone else as 'the First Doctor'. A very convincing job of
>it he did too.
And apparently he was cast in the Hartnell role after being spotted in
"Assassin"...
One of my friends used to wind people up by asking them to name all the
doctors. Richard Hurndall was usually missed by people who were fond of
Dr Who but who weren't fen, even if they remembered the cinema films.
Even Dr Who fans don't always remember his name.
I got them all, including names, not just "and that guy who played
William Hartnell's Doctor in the anniversary special" - to which the
response was, "Yes, but you're a B7 geek..."
Igenlode Wordsmith
No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
--------------------------------------------------------
On 9 Dec 2002 Anne wrote:
> "Igenlode Wordsmith" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
> news:200212090226...@gacracker.org...
[snip]
> > Actually, Gable wasn't a half bad actor either.
[snip]
> I don't think that era of movies precluded good acting.
[snip]
> But I do think that looks mattered (even) more back then than they do now -
> especially for men. And should Gable, having the same talent, look like -
> oh, I don't know, Jean Gabin? <eg> - he wouldn't go far.
Charles Laughton? <g> Or even Sydney Greenstreet... You wouldn't get
cast as a romantic hero (although Laughton nearly made it in 'Hunchback
of Notre Dame') but you could still make a name for yourself and get
lead roles. Unlovely *women*, on the other hand, didn't have a
hope - and so far as I know still don't.
There's an interesting anecdote that at one point, early in his career,
when he was being trained to hunt, shoot, ride, etc. and generally
acquire all the skills that a Man's Man (TM) should have, Clark Gable
walked off in a miff saying that he wasn't going to go through with all
this. Whereupon the studio boss (Meyer, it would have been) leaned out
of his office window where he'd overheard the argument and informed
Gable that if he didn't want the job, that young man over there
(pointing at a good-looking chap who happened to be part of the
backstage crew) would jump at it. Gable obviously thought it was a
serious enough threat to back down...
> > Well, I'm still regularly watching television on a 12"
> > black-and-white set - hence the fondness for old films, they tend to
> > have decent contrast!
>
> Talk about perception and quality <g>
No, I mean 'contrast' as in 'clear difference between light and dark' -
the classic example is murky scenes in film noir. In a film that's
*intended* to be seen in black and white, you get fortuitous shafts of
light falling on people's faces, gun-hands, etc, so that the important
areas always stand out. In colour film, it's more common to rely on
human faces being a different *colour* to the background; if the colour
element is subtracted, it is often quite hard to pick anything out from
the gloom.
<end boring technical lecture>
Anne
> NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway.
> No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> On 9 Dec 2002 Anne wrote:
>
> > "Igenlode Wordsmith" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
message
> > news:200212090226...@gacracker.org...
>
> [snip]
>
> > > Actually, Gable wasn't a half bad actor either.
>
> [snip]
> > I don't think that era of movies precluded good acting.
> [snip]
> > But I do think that looks mattered (even) more back then than they do
now -
> > especially for men. And should Gable, having the same talent, look
like -
> > oh, I don't know, Jean Gabin? <eg> - he wouldn't go far.
>
> Charles Laughton? <g> Or even Sydney Greenstreet...
Both didn't have anything missing at least in the *height* department, IIRC.
Till the (relatively) very short time Hollywood mindset operated along the
lines of "it's better to love and lose a short man, than never to have loved
a tall" <eg>. With a really few and specific exceptions (Nosferatu being one
;-P), even a non-romantic non-lead, as long as the part was prominent,
better be, you know, *prominent*. (Which is why I also brought up Hoffman).
>. Unlovely *women*, on the other hand, didn't have a
> hope - and so far as I know still don't.
If you consider, say, oh, Barbra Streisand lovely, I won't contest that
point <reg>. Actually, *I* think she's lovely - but to notice it and bring
it up and out, one had to really LOOK to begin with (and even now, she's
still not much of a cover-mag material - for which I personally am grateful
but casting agents, and especially in the time we're talking about, would
not be). I happen to have read some of at-the-time stuff critics wrote about
how she looked. "Nose that starts above the eyebrows and ends where the
first trombon begins" is among *nicer* things being said... And it was way
past Gable times.
> There's an interesting anecdote that at one point, early in his career,
> when he was being trained to hunt, shoot, ride, etc. and generally
> acquire all the skills that a Man's Man (TM) should have, Clark Gable
> walked off in a miff saying that he wasn't going to go through with all
> this. Whereupon the studio boss (Meyer, it would have been) leaned out
> of his office window where he'd overheard the argument and informed
> Gable that if he didn't want the job, that young man over there
> (pointing at a good-looking chap who happened to be part of the
> backstage crew) would jump at it. Gable obviously thought it was a
> serious enough threat to back down...
And he should know, I suppose... (Poor backstage crew guy, though. Talk
about really brushing shoulders with your chance... <g>).
> > > Well, I'm still regularly watching television on a 12"
> > > black-and-white set - hence the fondness for old films, they tend to
> > > have decent contrast!
> >
> > Talk about perception and quality <g>
>
> No, I mean 'contrast' as in 'clear difference between light and dark' -
> the classic example is murky scenes in film noir. In a film that's
> *intended* to be seen in black and white, you get fortuitous shafts of
> light falling on people's faces, gun-hands, etc, so that the important
> areas always stand out.
But that's exactly what I meant by pointing out afterwards that under the
constant need, level of skills grows, and when there's no other way, the
available means get perfected to the tee... but then some sod goes and
invents some spoiling technology, and out goes the art! <meg>. (Just ask any
computer programmer... ;-P)
Kidding (partly) aside, after trying out quite a few among new genre stuff
on TV (and, alas, it includes "Enterprise" - and I happen to be a bit of a
Trekkie) - with mighty good or at least very decent effects, I started to
wonder whether with this level of development character and depth became
sort of peripheral, and we only could have B7's level under the condition of
Famous Wobbly Scenery <tm>. (Yes, I remember about Farscape - which I didn't
love but respected - and I have done my own Firefly gushing share. Both are
cancelled by now...)
Frankymole
> In article <200212172254...@gacracker.org>, Igenlode Wordsmith
> <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes
>
> <snip>
>
> >But I wasn't referring to the original 'regeneration' of the Doctor
> >when Hartnell had to leave the series. I meant later on, some years
> >after his death, when the script called for a subsequent Doctor to
> >encounter his former selves. All the original actors were avilable and
> >willing to reprise their parts
>
> (not quite - Tom Baker wasn't too keen)
>
> > except Hartnell, who had died - so they
> >simply cast someone else as 'the First Doctor'. A very convincing job of
> >it he did too.
>
> And apparently he was cast in the Hartnell role after being spotted in
> "Assassin"...
>
> One of my friends used to wind people up by asking them to name all the
> doctors. Richard Hurndall was usually missed by people who were fond of
> Dr Who but who weren't fen, even if they remembered the cinema films.
> Even Dr Who fans don't always remember his name.
>
> I got them all, including names, not just "and that guy who played
> William Hartnell's Doctor in the anniversary special" - to which the
> response was, "Yes, but you're a B7 geek..."
Well, Terry Walsh played both 3rd and 4th Doctors... hope you also got David
Banks and Trevor Martin (stage play ersatz third and fourth Doctors, the latter
already being a TV Time Lord), Rowan Atkinson and co. from "Curse of Fatal
Death" and the original stand-in Hartnell (full face and dialogue) Edmund
Warwick....
--
Frankymole
"There is a charge of two work units for this information. Never mind, you can
pay me later."
Graeme
http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7/
Does anybody know anything else about this? The site for BBC7 isn't
very informative. It has information about Blake's 7 and Doctor Who,
but it is a radio station... Anyway, you can listen on the internet
if you're not in the UK.
I DOT Wordsmith
>
> "Igenlode Wordsmith" <fu...@redneck.gacracker.org> wrote in message
> news:2002121812133...@gacracker.org...
> > Charles Laughton? <g> Or even Sydney Greenstreet...
>
> Both didn't have anything missing at least in the *height* department, IIRC.
Well, no, but what about the excess in the *waist* department? <grin>
In one of my favourite Sydney Greenstreet films, 'The Verdict' (not the
courtroom drama of the same name featuring Paul Newman, but the 1946
detective thriller - see my IMDb review from
http://comments.imdb.com/CommentsAuthor?1448185 ) Greenstreet, as the
retiring superintendent, even gets a line on the size of his trousers and
the difficulty his replacement is going to have in filling his place.
Like many other parts of this wry little film, it is in fact a black
joke.
(Peter Lorre is also brilliantly cast here, making the final outcome
truly touching as well as effective.)
[snip]
> > Unlovely *women*, on the other hand, didn't have a
> > hope - and so far as I know still don't.
>
> If you consider, say, oh, Barbra Streisand lovely, I won't contest that
> point <reg>.
I'm afraid I don't actually know what she looks like, although I've
heard she's a singer of the Shirley Bassey school.
[snip]
> Kidding (partly) aside, after trying out quite a few among new genre stuff
> on TV (and, alas, it includes "Enterprise" - and I happen to be a bit of a
> Trekkie) - with mighty good or at least very decent effects, I started to
> wonder whether with this level of development character and depth became
> sort of peripheral, and we only could have B7's level under the condition of
> Famous Wobbly Scenery <tm>.
I think that B7's major asset has always been its ensemble dialogue -
it's why I felt that the BBC's decision to produce further episodes as
radio plays held such great potential (and also, ironically, what sank
them). Almost all the TV episodes managed to produce balanced parts for
a regular cast of six or seven - something neither Star Trek nor Dr Who
even attempted. Dr Who seemed to have enough trouble maintaining
characterisation for more than two companions, and with Star Trek you
got your lead three shoe-horned into every situation (why on earth
decide to make the *doctor* a lead character when half the time there is
no excuse for his being involved in the action at all?!) with everyone
else getting a decent part in one episode in three if they were *lucky*.
Writing dialogue for two is easy. Writing for three or four is much more
difficult (a reason why my stories tend to consist of a large cast
going off into corners in various permutations of pairs and discussing
the rest.) Writing for a regular cast of that size, even using the
time-honoured stratagem of separating the party to increase dramatic
tension, is a remarkable achievement. Almost every episode produces at
least one memorably quotable line into the bargain!
> (Yes, I remember about Farscape - which I didn't love but respected -
> and I have done my own Firefly gushing share. Both are cancelled by
> now...)
>
I'd never heard of Firefly until you mentioned it. I can't say I'm sorry
about Farscape - I'm afraid the increasingly heavy romantic plot-line
put me off. I liked it much better when they were quarrelling *with*
each other instead of quarrelling *over* each other, and I'm sorry, but
I don't find the concept of interspecies sexual attraction that
plausible. I know it's a metaphor for how interracial relationships are
fine, and all that, but it's biological nonsense.
To go back to Cally and Avon for a moment; from Cally's point of view,
she's trapped in a ship full of strange alien life-forms (as John
Creighton might say!). She can talk to them - though in a limited way
that's only a crippled subset of the way that she can communicate with
members of her own kind - she can work with them and eat with them and
feel affection for them while living side-by-side. But the idea of
contact on a sexual level with them is as unthinkable as the idea of
such a thing with your sister - or with your beloved pet dog. They're
not even a sexual *option*. They're the wrong species - they don't have
the right hormonal effect.
Anyway, that wasn't Farscape's real sin in my eyes! What did it for me
was the fact that I just stopped caring about what happened to the
characters. I think the mystical resurrection thing was where it all
went wrong. And the whole wormhole fixation. And the oh-so-clever 'two
Creightons' storyline (*after* they'd already milked the 'three
Creightons' episode). And generally too much Tanith Lee-style stuff and
not enough hard SF - as if they were running out of ideas. I just
stopped being interested in the characters at all. And that's fatal.
Julia Jones
<Fr...@Ask.for.invalid> writes
>Well, Terry Walsh played both 3rd and 4th Doctors... hope you also got David
>Banks and Trevor Martin (stage play ersatz third and fourth Doctors, the latter
>already being a TV Time Lord),
I think it was implicit that we were discussing people who had actually
been listed in the credits for the tv show... (although I did mention
for good measure "plus the stuntmen and the people who've played him on
stage").
> Rowan Atkinson and co. from "Curse of Fatal
>Death" and the original stand-in Hartnell (full face and dialogue) Edmund
>Warwick....
No, because said conversation would have required me to have my own
TARDIS to be able to do so:-)
I think that one put paid to that little game - do you count it or not?
Julia Jones
<mtpl...@aol.com> writes
I got a garbled version just before going off for Christmas, and haven't
been able to check it - it appears that BBC7 is planning to broadcast
the "Blake's Who" radio plays. You know, those Letts things that ought
to have all copies hunted down and burnt, lest the naive think that they
actually are B7 rather than very bad Dr Who scripts with the serial
numbers filed off.
Anne
on the new nick! <eg>
"I DOT Wordsmith" <fuku AT redneck DOT gacracker DOT org> wrote in message
news:2002122800383...@gacracker.org...
> On 20 Dec 2002 Anne wrote:
>
> >
> > "Igenlode Wordsmith" <fu...@redneck.gacracker.org> wrote in message
> > news:2002121812133...@gacracker.org...
>
> > > Charles Laughton? <g> Or even Sydney Greenstreet...
> >
> > Both didn't have anything missing at least in the *height* department,
IIRC.
>
> Well, no, but what about the excess in the *waist* department? <grin>
In your own words, it's somehow easier for men to get past even that - and
onto the screen - than for women, despite it coming a bit more naturally for
*them* ;-P. Seriously, one woman's ugliness is another man's, shall we say,
distinction...
> Greenstreet, as the
> retiring superintendent, even gets a line on the size of his trousers and
> the difficulty his replacement is going to have in filling his place.
> Like many other parts of this wry little film, it is in fact a black
> joke.
Which is a distinction in and of itself. It's like publicity - bad, good,
black, white, doesn't matter as long as it's THERE and gets stuck...
> (Peter Lorre is also brilliantly cast here, making the final outcome
> truly touching as well as effective.)
That's the beauty of unconventional (but the risk of it still outweighs the
benefits in many's minds - and sometimes I wonder whether it became freer or
more restricted around in the fine arts in this respect. Especially in
visual arts. I mean, it's common to think that today more envelope-pushing
is possible - and on the surface of things it probably is - but, coming to
think of it: can you even *imagine* the show like B7 getting its chance, not
to mention lasting four years, in our time?)
> > If you consider, say, oh, Barbra Streisand lovely, I won't contest that
> > point <reg>.
>
> I'm afraid I don't actually know what she looks like, although I've
> heard she's a singer of the Shirley Bassey school.
No offence to Ms Bassey - and not pretending to be an expert on the matter -
but Streisand's singing is far more recognisable to my ears. What she can do
(at least when she really wants) with her voice, goes beyond just hitting
the notes and sounding well, nice and high...
> > I started to
> > wonder whether with this level of development character and depth became
> > sort of peripheral, and we only could have B7's level under the
condition of
> > Famous Wobbly Scenery <tm>.
> I think that B7's major asset has always been its ensemble dialogue -
True enough. Because speaking carries the characters as much (if
occasionally not more) as any action, and B7 lived through its characters
first and foremost. I called it being a truly ensemble show its staple
feature and achievement once here, I think... But I'd also add said
characters being well (and constantly) multi-layered, supplying even the
situations which would otherwise feel cliched and simplistic, with
additional life and flair. (Terry Pratchett, of today's authors, can do this
well in his books - and I find it somehow appropriate that PD played one of
his main characters... the one as far from Avon as humanly possible, at
that). And also, things most of the time rather *happening* than being
forced to happen (occasional personal quirks from Ben Steed excepted <g>).
Somehow, it lent some hope even to its darkest moments - life always being
there, and all.
And now, when so much of life being pushed aside for the looks (I don't mean
prettiness of the players, here), and layers & subtlety found too tiring on
viewers' collective mind, let alone not flashy enough... Ah well.
> Almost all the TV episodes managed to produce balanced parts for
> a regular cast of six or seven - something neither Star Trek nor Dr Who
> even attempted.
Yes, it was at times like there were *no* your regular Main Characters
there, wasn't it? (In ST, even when an occasional ep revolved around a
"secondary regular", it still somehow was noticeable that he / she WAS
secondary...) That's probably how they managed to survive as a story (even
with a strain) after losing Blake. (I'd watch how anyone'd manage Kirk-less
TOS, Picard-less TNG or - hah - Who-less Who... Now Sisko-less DS9 would
probably have a fighting chance - hey, they *are* doing it now in the
books - but I always maintained this particular Trek owed B7 more than any
other... and good for them).
>with Star Trek you
> got your lead three shoe-horned into every situation (why on earth
> decide to make the *doctor* a lead character when half the time there is
> no excuse for his being involved in the action at all?!)
Um... Because De Forest was the best actor of them all? <ducks and runs>.
Kidding aside, that was, indeed, where I was willing to suspend my disbelief
to kingdom come and beyond ;-) - with all (much) due respect to Mr Nimoy, it
was McCoy who came the most alive and compelling for me of the two. (Now why
they didn't make his character's profession more viable for getting
involved, that is another question entirely... but now that it's done, it's
hard to me to imagine him in anything else but this most humane and
compassion-bound, yet hard-fighting-involving, area of work... And in terms
of viability, making Captains main characters - especially *official*
Captains - doesn't offer much, either: after all, sending highest-ranking
officer into the grunt job isn't something that's done on regular basis).
> Writing dialogue for two is easy.
That's why it's called *dia*logue... <g>. No, really, writing even one
convincing and interesting character (and keeping it fleshed out instead of
falling back on winning and reliable formula) is a feat to pull. To do so
with *several*, and not letting any (or even most) fall through the cracks -
now that's a boon... and that's why there is only one B7, with a mere
handful of those which can boast the same.
>Writing for a regular cast of that size, even using the
> time-honoured stratagem of separating the party to increase dramatic
> tension, is a remarkable achievement. Almost every episode produces at
> least one memorably quotable line into the bargain!
Nothing to add here, really, I just wanted it to feature here again... ;-)
(In the other words, me too <g>)
> > (Yes, I remember about Farscape - which I didn't love but respected -
> > and I have done my own Firefly gushing share. Both are cancelled by
> > now...)
> >
> I'd never heard of Firefly until you mentioned it.
You and the whole lot of potential audience. And that's partly responsible
for its premature end. At times, it looks like Fox *wanted* to get rid of
the show, the way they handled it (imagine if the first ep of Blake ever
aired were, oh, "The Web", for instance. With "The Way Back" and "Spacefall"
scheduled for transmission somewhere five-six eps afterwards - on account on
it being "dull", confusing and having not enough sex...) But I shouldn't
speak too badly of Fox - at least, they allowed the author to shop the show
around afterwards... let's think good thoughts (it's Festive Season, after
all) and not suspect them of *hoping* he wouldn't find a home for the failed
goods anyway.
>I can't say I'm sorry
> about Farscape -
I am, but only on principle, so to speak. The show itself interested me at
the start, I felt some potential there - and for a while, even once it
stopped speaking to me on personal level (after my favourite character was
written off - yes, I know it wasn't authors' wishes, though they might come
up with some ideas to accommodate the actress - and, moreover, when I
realised that inventions of plot and outward weirdness became more important
than the characters). I mean, even by then it still appeared that they
maintained integrity... at least in these less-compelling to me aspects.
(Plots with certain consequences, atmosphere, even relationships, to a
point, were consistent if occasionally stale or secondary). But at some
stage it came to just weirdness / convolutedness (is it a word?) for their
own sake. "Look what we can throw in the fray", and all that. With some
tenets of horror genre which tend to put me *off* horror genre... Hmm - it
looks like it was cancelled after stopping being what made it different, so
probably even principle shouldn't make me that sorry about it... but I still
feel greatly for the fans who had their story snatched from them in a
mid-flight.
>I'm afraid the increasingly heavy romantic plot-line
> put me off.
That, too.
>I liked it much better when they were quarrelling *with*
> each other instead of quarrelling *over* each other,
I could live even with less quarrelling if there was no alternative <g>
(albeit I'd love to see it being overcome / developed into something
different, rather than quietly going away, as it was mostly shown... that,
and John's position verging more and more towards "always right" - or rather
"never contested" territory). But yes, when it got to "only you exist to me"
stage... (Yet another reason why I am too glad that onboard pairing was
avoided on B7).
>and I'm sorry, but
> I don't find the concept of interspecies sexual attraction that
> plausible.
Well, I thought Peacekeepers were, essentially, humans. But the rest of
it... ah well. Probably I had enough conditioning by Trek to survive this
;-). What I really didn't like is that this kind of interaction became sort
of obligatory on the show: whenever a new character (especially a recurring
one) appeared, you didn't have to be a Prophet to see him / her becoming
entangled with *someone* on the crew that way a mile away. Alan here might
be right in terms of it being natural and unescapable (or maybe he isn't
<g>), but it sure didn't make for a good storytelling or characters. The
latter turned into just a sort of bells and whistles as the result.
> To go back to Cally and Avon for a moment; from Cally's point of view,
> she's trapped in a ship full of strange alien life-forms (as John
> Creighton might say!).
And even after they stopped being all that strange, they still should have
remained at least *partly* alien... (not to mention that Vila had some point
when saying that Avon is alien to *everybody*... <mg>) Yes, I agree.
> the idea of
> contact on a sexual level with them is as unthinkable as the idea of
> such a thing with your sister -
That, I would argue, applies not only for Cally, but well might for all of
them, what with feeling towards each other (whether they like it or not) in
kinda familial way. Long-term sharing of accommodation and activities, and
especially under common stress, will do that to you... With a possible
exception of Vila, of course <eg>. (But even for him, I'm not sure how well
such "morning-after" would go).
> Anyway, that wasn't Farscape's real sin in my eyes! What did it for me
> was the fact that I just stopped caring about what happened to the
> characters.
BINGO! (Me, I didn't even have time to *start* caring for them properly, but
that, again, is another story).
>I think the mystical resurrection thing was where it all
> went wrong. And the whole wormhole fixation. And the oh-so-clever 'two
> Creightons' storyline (*after* they'd already milked the 'three
> Creightons' episode).
I really couldn't put a finger on what did it for me (other than aforesaid
exit of Zhaan - now, that the mad "comshucking", to utilise a term from
another show, went all the way, I wonder if it wasn't a good thing!) But
somewhere along the way, somehow, I started to feel more and more distant
from the "players". That's what they became to me - "players" rather than
living people of whatever species. Props to the situations and plots...
>And generally too much Tanith Lee-style stuff and
> not enough hard SF -
Now that's where Sarcophagus' merit becomes all loud and clear <reg and
ducks again>. *There*, even despite that baffling / helpless intro ballet,
there was *substance* under all these frills and pretentiousness (well, to
me, there was) - even a certain urgence, coupled with a different
perspective. When later "Farscape" did it, this scenery and tenets, they
were the supposed *substance*. All there was. The end rather than the
means...
>as if they were running out of ideas.
Oh, I think they had plenty - the further the more. It just weren't the
ideas for anything but the scenery. In which the once-characters became
little more than pieces of a puzzle. (I must confess that even hard SF
wouldn't help me as a viewer at that stage). It's not the ideas which ran
dry... it's the original story.
But still, with Mutant X (and mutilated Andromeda) still having a secure
future ahead of them, I'd rather Farscape stayed on...
Anne
Frankymole
"wowfabgroovy" <wowfab...@wowmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e11dfb6...@news.easynews.com...
> Julia Jones <jajone...@nospam.demon.co.uk> went:
>
> >I got a garbled version just before going off for Christmas, and haven't
> >been able to check it - it appears that BBC7 is planning to broadcast
> >the "Blake's Who" radio plays. You know, those Letts things that ought
> >to have all copies hunted down and burnt, lest the naive think that they
> >actually are B7 rather than very bad Dr Who scripts with the serial
> >numbers filed off.
>
> on radio 4, and i remember being a bit disappointed they were just
> pseudo-mid-series-4 rather than a proper continuation, but i don't
> remember them as being complete shite.
Diabolical! Worse than the Pertwee Dr Who ones - and that's saying something.
Barry Letts got the characters completely wrong, and if you thought Darrow was
hammy in season 4....
Kevin McCully
the group.com> wrote:
<snip Julia, BBC 7, B7 radio plays being like Dr. Who eps>
>> they weren't that bad were they? it's been a few years since they were
>> on radio 4, and i remember being a bit disappointed they were just
>> pseudo-mid-series-4 rather than a proper continuation, but i don't
>> remember them as being complete shite.
>
>Diabolical! Worse than the Pertwee Dr Who ones - and that's saying something.
>Barry Letts got the characters completely wrong, and if you thought Darrow was
>hammy in season 4....
*lol* I heard "The Sevenfold Clown", and even got some of the cast to
sign my cassette cover at Deliverence. At first, i enjoyed hearing the
original cast, and thought the replacement voices were well matched.
But on hearing Vila say, "Don't you want that lizard burger?", and
Avon say to Vila, "Vila, you've got tomato ketchup on your chin!", i
sighed and realised that yet again, the fen had been taken as suckers
by the BBC.
Needless to say, i haven't wasted my money on Syndeton, and probably
won't bother.
Happy New Year to all,
kevs
Julia Jones
<wowfab...@wowmail.com> writes
>Julia Jones <jajone...@nospam.demon.co.uk> went:
>
>>I got a garbled version just before going off for Christmas, and haven't
>>been able to check it - it appears that BBC7 is planning to broadcast
>>the "Blake's Who" radio plays. You know, those Letts things that ought
>>to have all copies hunted down and burnt, lest the naive think that they
>>actually are B7 rather than very bad Dr Who scripts with the serial
>>numbers filed off.
>
>on radio 4, and i remember being a bit disappointed they were just
>pseudo-mid-series-4 rather than a proper continuation, but i don't
>remember them as being complete shite.
>
that Letts had watched one or two episodes at most, and that the
director had never watched anything but fourth season and didn't
remember that very clearly. Little things like Vila having a food
obsession instead of being a drunk...
I called it a very bad Dr Who script, because that's exactly what it
was. It was written for main character with one or two "as you know,
Bob/Bobette" sidekicks, and Letts had no idea how to handle the fact
that he was actually writing for an ensemble cast, none of whom (not
even Vila) were intended as infodump fodder. I can't actually remember
the details of what passed for a plot, but I do recall that it struck me
as being a Dr Who plot rather than a B7 plot (and yes, I'm a Who fan,
that's not intended as an insult).
I'm told the second one wasn't quite as bad, but it was broadcast when I
was out of the UK and I didn't wish to spend money on the CD given that
I've never broken the seal on the tape of the first one. The sales
figures suggest that I wasn't the only one to feel that way.
William Kendrick
>
> *lol* I heard "The Sevenfold Clown", and even got some of the cast to
>
> Needless to say, i haven't wasted my money on Syndeton, and probably
> won't bother.
>
Meh. They're enjoyable enough. :^) For the longest time, those were all
the B7 I had! Then I found one (only ONE!) tape I could buy from
Border$ books, and then two more I found at an alternative video store
that was going out of business the night I happened to stop in.
-bill!
Frankymole
> spam_...@com.invalid (Kevin McCully) went:
> or i love both b7 and the radio so much i'm blinded to their
> shortcomings. i can usually spot duff radio drama a mile off.
>
Apparently not!
Use-Author-A...@127.1
> Hello again - Seasonal Greetings, best New Year's wishes and congratulation
> on the new nick! <eg>
I fear the 'new nick' was the symptom of ongoing struggles with my
e-mail address - functioning as outward-bound only, so that the only way
to detect configuration changes was via name changes. However, having
finally resorted in despair to deleting and then recreating it, I hope
all is now well... to be confirmed by an incoming trickle of spam,
doubtless. Unless it's been bouncing for so long that the spammers were
put off :-)
>
> "I DOT Wordsmith" <fuku AT redneck DOT gacracker DOT org> wrote in message
> news:2002122800383...@gacracker.org...
> > On 20 Dec 2002 Anne wrote:
> >
[snip]
>
> > > If you consider, say, oh, Barbra Streisand lovely, I won't contest that
> > > point <reg>.
> >
> > I'm afraid I don't actually know what she looks like, although I've
> > heard she's a singer of the Shirley Bassey school.
>
> No offence to Ms Bassey - and not pretending to be an expert on the matter -
> but Streisand's singing is far more recognisable to my ears. What she can do
> (at least when she really wants) with her voice, goes beyond just hitting
> the notes and sounding well, nice and high...
In fact, I've since been informed that I *am* acquainted with Barbra
Streisand, since she was the performer on "Second-hand Rose", at one
time one of my favourite records. Come to think of it, I haven't heard
that for years...
[snip]
> > Almost all the TV episodes managed to produce balanced parts for
> > a regular cast of six or seven - something neither Star Trek nor Dr Who
> > even attempted.
>
> Yes, it was at times like there were *no* your regular Main Characters
> there, wasn't it? (In ST, even when an occasional ep revolved around a
> "secondary regular", it still somehow was noticeable that he / she WAS
> secondary...) That's probably how they managed to survive as a story (even
> with a strain) after losing Blake.
An interesting point - would Season Three have worked *with* Blake but
losing Avon? Dayna and Tarrant replacing Avon and Jenna?
Hmm... actually, I think think it would :-)
I think Tarrant would have argued *just* as much with Blake as he did
with Avon, though I think Blake and Dayna might have got on rather well.
I also think it might have given Cally more of a chance, though that's
only a gut feeling. And I think the Vila-Blake relationship might have
borne more examination - what's the betting the worm might have turned?
(Blake *did* tend to take him rather for granted...)
The show would have been a different beast without Avon's (and Jenna's,
to be fair) cool self-interest; but *because* it was an ensemble piece,
Avon was never the only one to come out with good lines. I think the
other characters would have taken up the slack, Vila in particular.
[snip]
> > Writing dialogue for two is easy.
>
> That's why it's called *dia*logue... <g>. No, really, writing even one
> convincing and interesting character (and keeping it fleshed out instead of
> falling back on winning and reliable formula) is a feat to pull.
Ah. Sorry - I just find it *so* much easier than writing the bits that
go between; if I get the speed about right (writing in longhand usually
does it), then one character says something, and then by the time I've
written that down the other character has already come up with a
response, and the whole scene starts mapping itself out along a logical
line two or three speeches ahead, and all I have to do is write for dear
life and try to keep up...
I've just read a wonderful description of the process by Lois McMaster
Bujold: "That's one of the reasons I choreograph and script dialogue.
I'll get a piece of it going and get it captured and written down. and
once I have the flow of it, then I can sit down and write the full scene
with all the "he said"s and "she said"s and get all the tags put in and
the actions and the eyebrows and what-not." :-)
[snip]
> >I can't say I'm sorry about Farscape -
>
> I am, but only on principle, so to speak. The show itself interested me at
> the start, I felt some potential there - and for a while, even once it
> stopped speaking to me on personal level (after my favourite character was
> written off - yes, I know it wasn't authors' wishes, though they might come
> up with some ideas to accommodate the actress - and, moreover, when I
> realised that inventions of plot and outward weirdness became more important
> than the characters).
That's it - I think you've put your finger on what I couldn't find words
to say. Not so much that it became weird, but that the weirdness *became
more important than the characters*.
[snip]
> > To go back to Cally and Avon for a moment; from Cally's point of view,
> > she's trapped in a ship full of strange alien life-forms (as John
> > Creighton might say!).
>
> And even after they stopped being all that strange, they still should have
> remained at least *partly* alien... (not to mention that Vila had some point
> when saying that Avon is alien to *everybody*... <mg>)
Well, Avon claims that Cally is more human than he is ('Breakdown',
isn't it?) - but I think that's wishful thinking on his part :-)
I think his point is that she may be *physically* alien, but she is more
'socially normal' than he is prepared to put himself out in order to be.
[snip more Farscape]
> >I think the mystical resurrection thing was where it all
> > went wrong. And the whole wormhole fixation. And the oh-so-clever 'two
> > Creightons' storyline (*after* they'd already milked the 'three
> > Creightons' episode).
>
> I really couldn't put a finger on what did it for me (other than aforesaid
> exit of Zhaan - now, that the mad "comshucking", to utilise a term from
> another show, went all the way, I wonder if it wasn't a good thing!)
That was a *really* big mistake. Basically, it felt like the Dallas
'shower' moment - as if the authors had decided to backpedal really fast
when faced with protests from the audience over the previous season's
ending. Which I have to confess I didn't *like* - that being *my*
favourite character! - but by which I was profoundly shocked and
affected, all of which was then cheapened beyond words.
I mean, how would it have felt if "Blake's 7" had hit such an outcry
over the ending of "Pressure Point" that they decided to bring back Gan
after all on the grounds that Travis was clearly more expendable?!
Anne
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> сообщил/сообщила в новостях следующее:
news:2003012405175...@gacracker.org...
Anne
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> сообщил/сообщила в новостях следующее:
news:2003012405175...@gacracker.org...
> On 29 Dec 2002 Anne wrote:
>
> I fear the 'new nick' was the symptom of ongoing struggles with my
> e-mail address - functioning as outward-bound only, so that the only way
> to detect configuration changes was via name changes.
Ain't those servers grand... *she said, having finally given up on finding
anything allowing REAL access to binary groups... and no, already dishing up
for broadband & cable TV, regular payments for a newsserver would be a bit
much, thanks <G>*
>However, having
> finally resorted in despair to deleting and then recreating it, I hope
> all is now well...
It better be, before your changing nicks becomes a Sacred Tradition you'll
have to uphold religiously ;-)
>to be confirmed by an incoming trickle of spam,
> doubtless.
I'd say "Join the club", if we weren't all there for such a long time
already...
>Unless it's been bouncing for so long that the spammers were
> put off :-)
Dream on <sigh, chuckle>. They'll outlive even that post-humanity era "The
Future Is Wild" is talking about...
> > "I DOT Wordsmith" <fuku AT redneck DOT gacracker DOT org> wrote in
message
> > news:2002122800383...@gacracker.org...
> > > On 20 Dec 2002 Anne wrote:
> In fact, I've since been informed that I *am* acquainted with Barbra
> Streisand, since she was the performer on "Second-hand Rose", at one
> time one of my favourite records. Come to think of it, I haven't heard
> that for years...
See? I told you she was special! <mg>. Seriously, nice to know I was sort of
a trigger for you to dig out and re-enjoy something you love... (Obligatory
B7 reference: that's what I meant when talking about that rare jewel of
quality called "rewatchability", "re-readability", etc.)
> > it was at times like there were *no* your regular Main Characters
> > there, wasn't it? (In ST, even when an occasional ep revolved around a
> > "secondary regular", it still somehow was noticeable that he / she WAS
> > secondary...) That's probably how they managed to survive as a story
(even
> > with a strain) after losing Blake.
>
> An interesting point - would Season Three have worked *with* Blake but
> losing Avon? Dayna and Tarrant replacing Avon and Jenna?
>
> Hmm... actually, I think think it would :-)
If you expected me to blow my head off in Righteous Wrath, tough luck <g>. I
make no secret of being a fan of Avon, and I *do* prefer it the way it
turned out by the obvious reasons, but
a) It doesn't mean that I hate or even dislike Blake (much as the two are
different, I never got why, if you like one, you must *despise* another -
color me dense on the matter);
b) In fact, I would prefer even more if neither was lost and
c) That's exactly what being an ensemble show means - having a "safety net"
of a crew, which will NOT unravel once one or two supposedly "key players"
are out of the picture.
So yes, I can well see how Avon-less B7 would work. (Heck, even Vila-less
would! <reg and ducks>)
> I think Tarrant would have argued *just* as much with Blake as he did
> with Avon,
Oh, they'd find PLENTY to disagree about, and no mistake. I'm just not sure
if Tarrant would be able to stand *up* to Blake quite as much as Avon
could - if only because he was way less skilled as barbs went, for
starters... Not to mention "sneak-around" approach: he sure resorted to
headbutting rather than anything else - and in that field, Blake would have
him where he wanted him. Besides, I have a nagging suspicion he could
*respect* Blake more than he did Avon (at least at the start). Dear old Roj
was a CELEBRITY, to begin with... <eg>
>though I think Blake and Dayna might have got on rather >well.
Oh, absolutely. I can see Blake assuming a father figure role then and there
(hot as she was! ;-P).
> I also think it might have given Cally more of a chance, though that's
> only a gut feeling.
No arguing with guts <g> - but myself, I'm not sure. Didn't help Jenna
during Season 2 (I mean, Sally Knyvette obviously thought there wasn't
nearly enough...)
>And I think the Vila-Blake relationship might have
> borne more examination - what's the betting the worm might have turned?
I believe, *everyone*-Blake relationship would have borne QUITE some, even
if Avon stayed on board. The way things were going during Season 2 was, to
put it mildly, rather portent...
> (Blake *did* tend to take him rather for granted...)
The same went for the whole bunch of them, I'd say. (Maybe with the *slight*
exclusion of Cally). On the other hand, he took them for granted quite often
himself <takes great pains to not mention "Volcano" *yet again*>).
> The show would have been a different beast without Avon's (and Jenna's,
> to be fair) cool self-interest; but *because* it was an ensemble piece,
> Avon was never the only one to come out with good lines.
Again, no disagreement here. Vila and even Blake supplied enough to "B7
aforisms" treasury (and even girls came up with the goods occasionally!
<g>). Like I said, this is one example when authors actually rose to the
occasion of having good characters.
>I think the
> other characters would have taken up the slack, Vila in particular.
Vila is always a good thing (if not necessarily / always for those having to
share an adventures with him! <mg>)
> > > Writing dialogue for two is easy.
> >
> > That's why it's called *dia*logue... <g>. No, really, writing even one
> > convincing and interesting character (and keeping it fleshed out instead
of
> > falling back on winning and reliable formula) is a feat to pull.
>
> Ah. Sorry - I just find it *so* much easier than writing the bits that
> go between; if I get the speed about right (writing in longhand usually
> does it), then one character says something, and then by the time I've
> written that down the other character has already come up with a
> response, and the whole scene starts mapping itself out along a logical
> line two or three speeches ahead, and all I have to do is write for dear
> life and try to keep up...
Ha. That's because you have the ability to *hear* them. Whereas quite some
poor (not literally, mind <g>) authors have to strain themselves trying to
squeeze out of their brains something for their wooden and cliched heroes to
do / say. (And then, of course, there are poor us having to read it... ;-P).
Having read (well, *tried* to read would be more accurate) heaps of genre
literature (especially fantasy) and been forced to put a book down after the
first painful paragraphs, I sort of know what I'm talking about... ;-)
> I've just read a wonderful description of the process by Lois McMaster
> Bujold:
Ah! So you're a fan too? (Sucker bet: "Dozen against a dime that it's
Vorkosigan saga that get you hooked first and foremost..." <g>)
>"That's one of the reasons I choreograph and script dialogue.
> I'll get a piece of it going and get it captured and written down.
And therein lies the rub for oh so many (and that's also what makes the rest
of it meaningless for just as many, in terms of learning the craft). Yes,
you have to have a technique mastered to get it right. Yes, you need to
learn the ways to keep and develop it. But all this only matters as long as
you can do THAT to begin with: this "get-it-going" stuff - no matter how big
a piece. And that's something no one can learn, unfortunately. You either
got it, or you don't...
> [snip]
>
> > >I can't say I'm sorry about Farscape -
> >
> > I am, but only on principle, so to speak. The show itself interested me
at
> > the start, I felt some potential there - and for a while, even once it
> > stopped speaking to me on personal level (after my favourite character
was
> > written off - yes, I know it wasn't authors' wishes, though they might
come
> > up with some ideas to accommodate the actress - and, moreover, when I
> > realised that inventions of plot and outward weirdness became more
important
> > than the characters).
>
> That's it - I think you've put your finger on what I couldn't find words
> to say.
Aw, shucks... <g>
>Not so much that it became weird, but that the weirdness *became
> more important than the characters*.
Yup. To me (and, it looks like, to you), in any story (and especially visual
one), where there's characters, there's life. Where there aren't (those
being replaced by cardboard cutouts or living props), there isn't. And when
there's no life, there's no story...
Alas, for overwhelming majority, living characters which have a say in what
transpires are a minor detail... or sometimes, even a hindrance (as they
require more attention & occasionally - gasp! - even thinking, than said
cliches and props...)
> [snip]
>
> > > To go back to Cally and Avon for a moment; from Cally's point of view,
> > > she's trapped in a ship full of strange alien life-forms (as John
> > > Creighton might say!).
> >
> > And even after they stopped being all that strange, they still should
have
> > remained at least *partly* alien... (not to mention that Vila had some
point
> > when saying that Avon is alien to *everybody*... <mg>)
>
> Well, Avon claims that Cally is more human than he is ('Breakdown',
> isn't it?) - but I think that's wishful thinking on his part :-)
Oh yes, he wishes... Or thinks he wishes ;-). Or, as Blake once said, "now
you're just being modest!" <vmeg>
> I think his point is that she may be *physically* alien, but she is more
> 'socially normal' than he is prepared to put himself out in order to be.
He did have this mental picture of himself-as-a-"cold bastard" (pardon my
Klatchian). An interesting mix of self-deprecation and mania grandiosa, it
was... But then, they were all quite interesting mixes. Even Gan, at
times...
> [snip more Farscape]
>
> > I really couldn't put a finger on what did it for me (other than
aforesaid
> > exit of Zhaan - now, that the mad "comshucking", to utilise a term from
> > another show, went all the way, I wonder if it wasn't a good thing!)
>
> That was a *really* big mistake. Basically, it felt like the Dallas
> 'shower' moment - as if the authors had decided to backpedal really fast
> when faced with protests from the audience over the previous season's
> ending.
Being even more cynical here - I would rather believe that *Spock*'s death
at the end of second ST movie was meant to be permanent (with follwoing
backpedaling) than that Farscape authors seriously meant to "leave ashes to
ashes", here. No way were they going to lose someone so popular and take the
heat. No way were they *consciously* going to break the winning formula.
Their tendency to have their cake and eat it, too, was only further proven
in that "Two Crichtons" scenario. Way to have a Tragic Blow while not
suffering narrative consequences...
>Which I have to confess I didn't *like* - that being *my*
> favourite character! - but by which I was profoundly shocked and
> affected, all of which was then cheapened beyond words.
See above. Geniune feelings of appreciative viewer do not successful show a
make. At least, not in the eyes of most series' producers (not to mention
network bosses...) :-(
> I mean, how would it have felt if "Blake's 7" had hit such an outcry
> over the ending of "Pressure Point" that they decided to bring back Gan
> after all on the grounds that Travis was clearly more expendable?!
Well thank you for the nightmares <g>. (And I didn't dislike Gan nearly as
much as many do. Yes, I would take his demise over... well, practically
everyone in the crew - and some beyond ;-) - but "Shadow" and the very
"Pressure Point", ironically, proved to me that Jackson was more of an actor
he usually gets credit for - he just didn't have enough material that suited
his particular abilities... Breakdown sure wasn't it). Anyway, agreed: B7
was way braver than Farscape proved to be.
Then again, it was way braver than *all* but a mere pittance of TV shows
are. (and in our times it is even more so)...
Best,
Anne
Anne
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> сообщил/сообщила в новостях следующее:
news:2003012405175...@gacracker.org...
> On 29 Dec 2002 Anne wrote:
>
> I fear the 'new nick' was the symptom of ongoing struggles with my
> e-mail address - functioning as outward-bound only, so that the only way
> to detect configuration changes was via name changes.
Ain't those servers grand... *she said, having finally given up on finding
anything allowing REAL access to binary groups... and no, already dishing up
for broadband & cable TV, regular payments for a newsserver would be a bit
much, thanks <G>*
>However, having
> finally resorted in despair to deleting and then recreating it, I hope
> all is now well...
It better be, before your changing nicks becomes a Sacred Tradition you'll
have to uphold religiously ;-)
>to be confirmed by an incoming trickle of spam,
> doubtless.
I'd say "Join the club", if we weren't all there for such a long time
already...
>Unless it's been bouncing for so long that the spammers were
> put off :-)
Dream on <sigh, chuckle>. They'll outlive even that post-humanity era "The
Future Is Wild" is talking about...
> > "I DOT Wordsmith" <fuku AT redneck DOT gacracker DOT org> wrote in
message
> > news:2002122800383...@gacracker.org...
> > > On 20 Dec 2002 Anne wrote:
> In fact, I've since been informed that I *am* acquainted with Barbra
> Streisand, since she was the performer on "Second-hand Rose", at one
> time one of my favourite records. Come to think of it, I haven't heard
> that for years...
See? I told you she was special! <mg>. Seriously, nice to know I was sort of
a trigger for you to dig out and re-enjoy something you love... (Obligatory
B7 reference: that's what I meant when talking about that rare jewel of
quality called "rewatchability", "re-readability", etc.)
> > it was at times like there were *no* your regular Main Characters
> > there, wasn't it? (In ST, even when an occasional ep revolved around a
> > "secondary regular", it still somehow was noticeable that he / she WAS
> > secondary...) That's probably how they managed to survive as a story
(even
> > with a strain) after losing Blake.
>
> An interesting point - would Season Three have worked *with* Blake but
> losing Avon? Dayna and Tarrant replacing Avon and Jenna?
>
> Hmm... actually, I think think it would :-)
If you expected me to blow my head off in Righteous Wrath, tough luck <g>. I
make no secret of being a fan of Avon, and I *do* prefer it the way it
turned out by the obvious reasons, but
a) It doesn't mean that I hate or even dislike Blake (much as the two are
different, I never got why, if you like one, you must *despise* another -
color me dense on the matter);
b) In fact, I would prefer even more if neither was lost and
c) That's exactly what being an ensemble show means - having a "safety net"
of a crew, which will NOT unravel once one or two supposedly "key players"
are out of the picture.
So yes, I can well see how Avon-less B7 would work. (Heck, even Vila-less
would! <reg and ducks>)
> I think Tarrant would have argued *just* as much with Blake as he did
> with Avon,
Oh, they'd find PLENTY to disagree about, and no mistake. I'm just not sure
if Tarrant would be able to stand *up* to Blake quite as much as Avon
could - if only because he was way less skilled as barbs went, for
starters... Not to mention "sneak-around" approach: he sure resorted to
headbutting rather than anything else - and in that field, Blake would have
him where he wanted him. Besides, I have a nagging suspicion he could
*respect* Blake more than he did Avon (at least at the start). Dear old Roj
was a CELEBRITY, to begin with... <eg>
>though I think Blake and Dayna might have got on rather >well.
Oh, absolutely. I can see Blake assuming a father figure role then and there
(hot as she was! ;-P).
> I also think it might have given Cally more of a chance, though that's
> only a gut feeling.
No arguing with guts <g> - but myself, I'm not sure. Didn't help Jenna
during Season 2 (I mean, Sally Knyvette obviously thought there wasn't
nearly enough...)
>And I think the Vila-Blake relationship might have
> borne more examination - what's the betting the worm might have turned?
I believe, *everyone*-Blake relationship would have borne QUITE some, even
if Avon stayed on board. The way things were going during Season 2 was, to
put it mildly, rather portent...
> (Blake *did* tend to take him rather for granted...)
The same went for the whole bunch of them, I'd say. (Maybe with the *slight*
exclusion of Cally). On the other hand, he took them for granted quite often
himself <takes great pains to not mention "Volcano" *yet again*>).
> The show would have been a different beast without Avon's (and Jenna's,
> to be fair) cool self-interest; but *because* it was an ensemble piece,
> Avon was never the only one to come out with good lines.
Again, no disagreement here. Vila and even Blake supplied enough to "B7
aforisms" treasury (and even girls came up with the goods occasionally!
<g>). Like I said, this is one example when authors actually rose to the
occasion of having good characters.
>I think the
> other characters would have taken up the slack, Vila in particular.
Vila is always a good thing (if not necessarily / always for those having to
share an adventures with him! <mg>)
> > > Writing dialogue for two is easy.
> >
> > That's why it's called *dia*logue... <g>. No, really, writing even one
> > convincing and interesting character (and keeping it fleshed out instead
of
> > falling back on winning and reliable formula) is a feat to pull.
>
> Ah. Sorry - I just find it *so* much easier than writing the bits that
> go between; if I get the speed about right (writing in longhand usually
> does it), then one character says something, and then by the time I've
> written that down the other character has already come up with a
> response, and the whole scene starts mapping itself out along a logical
> line two or three speeches ahead, and all I have to do is write for dear
> life and try to keep up...
Ha. That's because you have the ability to *hear* them. Whereas quite some
poor (not literally, mind <g>) authors have to strain themselves trying to
squeeze out of their brains something for their wooden and cliched heroes to
do / say. (And then, of course, there are poor us having to read it... ;-P).
Having read (well, *tried* to read would be more accurate) heaps of genre
literature (especially fantasy) and been forced to put a book down after the
first painful paragraphs, I sort of know what I'm talking about... ;-)
> I've just read a wonderful description of the process by Lois McMaster
> Bujold:
Ah! So you're a fan too? (Sucker bet: "Dozen against a dime that it's
Vorkosigan saga that get you hooked first and foremost..." <g>)
>"That's one of the reasons I choreograph and script dialogue.
> I'll get a piece of it going and get it captured and written down.
And therein lies the rub for oh so many (and that's also what makes the rest
of it meaningless for just as many, in terms of learning the craft). Yes,
you have to have a technique mastered to get it right. Yes, you need to
learn the ways to keep and develop it. But all this only matters as long as
you can do THAT to begin with: this "get-it-going" stuff - no matter how big
a piece. And that's something no one can learn, unfortunately. You either
got it, or you don't...
> [snip]
>
> > >I can't say I'm sorry about Farscape -
> >
> > I am, but only on principle, so to speak. The show itself interested me
at
> > the start, I felt some potential there - and for a while, even once it
> > stopped speaking to me on personal level (after my favourite character
was
> > written off - yes, I know it wasn't authors' wishes, though they might
come
> > up with some ideas to accommodate the actress - and, moreover, when I
> > realised that inventions of plot and outward weirdness became more
important
> > than the characters).
>
> That's it - I think you've put your finger on what I couldn't find words
> to say.
Aw, shucks... <g>
>Not so much that it became weird, but that the weirdness *became
> more important than the characters*.
Yup. To me (and, it looks like, to you), in any story (and especially visual
one), where there's characters, there's life. Where there aren't (those
being replaced by cardboard cutouts or living props), there isn't. And when
there's no life, there's no story...
Alas, for overwhelming majority, living characters which have a say in what
transpires are a minor detail... or sometimes, even a hindrance (as they
require more attention & occasionally - gasp! - even thinking, than said
cliches and props...)
> [snip]
>
> > > To go back to Cally and Avon for a moment; from Cally's point of view,
> > > she's trapped in a ship full of strange alien life-forms (as John
> > > Creighton might say!).
> >
> > And even after they stopped being all that strange, they still should
have
> > remained at least *partly* alien... (not to mention that Vila had some
point
> > when saying that Avon is alien to *everybody*... <mg>)
>
> Well, Avon claims that Cally is more human than he is ('Breakdown',
> isn't it?) - but I think that's wishful thinking on his part :-)
Oh yes, he wishes... Or thinks he wishes ;-). Or, as Blake once said, "now
you're just being modest!" <vmeg>
> I think his point is that she may be *physically* alien, but she is more
> 'socially normal' than he is prepared to put himself out in order to be.
He did have this mental picture of himself-as-a-"cold bastard" (pardon my
Klatchian). An interesting mix of self-deprecation and mania grandiosa, it
was... But then, they were all quite interesting mixes. Even Gan, at
times...
> [snip more Farscape]
>
> > I really couldn't put a finger on what did it for me (other than
aforesaid
> > exit of Zhaan - now, that the mad "comshucking", to utilise a term from
> > another show, went all the way, I wonder if it wasn't a good thing!)
>
> That was a *really* big mistake. Basically, it felt like the Dallas
> 'shower' moment - as if the authors had decided to backpedal really fast
> when faced with protests from the audience over the previous season's
> ending.
Being even more cynical here - I would rather believe that *Spock*'s death
at the end of second ST movie was meant to be permanent (with follwoing
backpedaling) than that Farscape authors seriously meant to "leave ashes to
ashes", here. No way were they going to lose someone so popular and take the
heat. No way were they *consciously* going to break the winning formula.
Their tendency to have their cake and eat it, too, was only further proven
in that "Two Crichtons" scenario. Way to have a Tragic Blow while not
suffering narrative consequences...
>Which I have to confess I didn't *like* - that being *my*
> favourite character! - but by which I was profoundly shocked and
> affected, all of which was then cheapened beyond words.
See above. Geniune feelings of appreciative viewer do not successful show a
make. At least, not in the eyes of most series' producers (not to mention
network bosses...) :-(
> I mean, how would it have felt if "Blake's 7" had hit such an outcry
> over the ending of "Pressure Point" that they decided to bring back Gan
> after all on the grounds that Travis was clearly more expendable?!
Well thank you for the nightmares <g>. (And I didn't dislike Gan nearly as
Anne
What *was* it?
Not a double post, but a triple... (And I'm pretty sure that I hit "send"
only once! Probably too hard, I guess)
Sorry. I wish I could say for sure that it won't happen again...
Anne
Igenlode Wordsmith
> <peers at the nick> Curiouser and curiouser... <eg>
I think I really have fixed it this time..!
>
> <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> сообщил/сообщила в новостях следующее:
> news:2003012405175...@gacracker.org...
[snip]
> >to be confirmed by an incoming trickle of spam,
> > doubtless.
>
> I'd say "Join the club", if we weren't all there for such a long time
> already...
>
> >Unless it's been bouncing for so long that the spammers were
> > put off :-)
>
> Dream on <sigh, chuckle>. They'll outlive even that post-humanity era "The
> Future Is Wild" is talking about...
Actually - touch wood - the spam does seem to have dried up in the
interim. I get a little on the nym.alias.net address, probably
harvested from my website, but nothing as yet on this one. Now if I just
keep remembering to use that spamtrapped gateway for posting...
[snip]
> > An interesting point - would Season Three have worked *with* Blake but
> > losing Avon? Dayna and Tarrant replacing Avon and Jenna?
> >
> > Hmm... actually, I think think it would :-)
>
> If you expected me to blow my head off in Righteous Wrath, tough luck <g>. I
> make no secret of being a fan of Avon, and I *do* prefer it the way it
> turned out by the obvious reasons, but
> a) It doesn't mean that I hate or even dislike Blake (much as the two are
> different, I never got why, if you like one, you must *despise* another -
> color me dense on the matter);
I never even *heard* that one should. Where is this view prevalent?! :-)
[snip]
> > I think Tarrant would have argued *just* as much with Blake as he did
> > with Avon,
>
> Oh, they'd find PLENTY to disagree about, and no mistake. I'm just not sure
> if Tarrant would be able to stand *up* to Blake quite as much as Avon
> could - if only because he was way less skilled as barbs went, for
> starters... Not to mention "sneak-around" approach: he sure resorted to
> headbutting rather than anything else - and in that field, Blake would have
> him where he wanted him. Besides, I have a nagging suspicion he could
> *respect* Blake more than he did Avon (at least at the start). Dear old Roj
> was a CELEBRITY, to begin with... <eg>
I suspect he might initially have found Blake in the flesh a little
disappointing after the doubtless inflated rumours floating around the
galaxy, though - *that* meeting might have been fun to see!
But I think he'd have had less of an objection 'in principle' to Blake's
activities than Avon tended to. Tarrant would have been all in favour of
risking the ship in order to give the Federation a bloody nose without
always looking for some evidence of benefit to them directly <grin>
>
> >though I think Blake and Dayna might have got on rather well.
>
> Oh, absolutely. I can see Blake assuming a father figure role then and
> there (hot as she was! ;-P).
And Dayna as enthusiastic lieutenant :-)
>
> > I also think it might have given Cally more of a chance, though that's
> > only a gut feeling.
>
> No arguing with guts <g> - but myself, I'm not sure. Didn't help Jenna
> during Season 2 (I mean, Sally Knyvette obviously thought there wasn't
> nearly enough...)
Well, no - but she had Avon to elbow out of the way for her share of the
limelight. We were envisaging an Avon-less show!
Although, if you just dropped Avon and kept Jenna, I think it might well
have been Jenna who ended up replacing him as the one whom Blake tended
to take down to planets as back-up. After all, she's got the contacts,
she's got the ruthlessness, and she's more than willing to tell him when
he's wrong :-)
(I think Blake did value that last trait in Avon, although I'm sure he
didn't appreciate it! To take a literary metaphor - Avon was his
beta-reader; if *he* couldn't find anything wrong in a plan, then there
was a good chance no-one else would... and every writer needs an honest
and outspoken beta-reader.)
>
> >And I think the Vila-Blake relationship might have
> > borne more examination - what's the betting the worm might have turned?
>
> I believe, *everyone*-Blake relationship would have borne QUITE some, even
> if Avon stayed on board. The way things were going during Season 2 was, to
> put it mildly, rather portent...
Yes; but I think the events of 'Star One' would have had their effect on
Blake, too. He would have been in the same boat as a Travis who had
actually managed to kill Blake - having spent so long aiming towards a
goal (reaching Star One) he would then be in an almost aimless
situation; perhaps less driven, but definitely more open to new ideas.
And he has been in the situation of allying with Servalan against a
worse evil (Jenna's doing, by the way; she doesn't get nearly enough
credit for making that decision). I wonder if he would see the
Federation in quite the same light after that?
[snip]
> > I've just read a wonderful description of the process by Lois McMaster
> > Bujold:
>
> Ah! So you're a fan too? (Sucker bet: "Dozen against a dime that it's
> Vorkosigan saga that get you hooked first and foremost..." <g>)
As far as I know she has hardly written anything else (though I quite
liked the early Sherlock Holmes fanfic - the ending's a bit weak, but
apparently those pages were physically lost and had to be patched in
from memory for publication).
I very much enjoyed 'Falling Free', but was a bit disappointed when the
quaddies later turned up in a Vorkosigan novel. I'd have preferred that
to remain a stand-alone book - I didn't feel the later throw-away
mention gave them justice.
Apparently she's a Georgette Heyer fan. You can see it, when you know to
look...
>
> >"That's one of the reasons I choreograph and script dialogue.
> > I'll get a piece of it going and get it captured and written down.
>
> And therein lies the rub for oh so many (and that's also what makes the rest
> of it meaningless for just as many, in terms of learning the craft). Yes,
> you have to have a technique mastered to get it right. Yes, you need to
> learn the ways to keep and develop it. But all this only matters as long as
> you can do THAT to begin with: this "get-it-going" stuff - no matter how big
> a piece. And that's something no one can learn, unfortunately. You either
> got it, or you don't...
Actually, the *keeping*-it-going is the hardest!
Quoting Bujold again: "First, finish the thing. There is no defect
greater, more guaranteed to render it unsaleable, than to be
unfinished..."
[snip]
> He did have this mental picture of himself-as-a-"cold bastard" (pardon my
> Klatchian). An interesting mix of self-deprecation and mania grandiosa, it
> was...
Self-deprecation? Avon? <boggle>
The 'not really my field' business was just guarding his back, so to
speak...
[snip]
> > I mean, how would it have felt if "Blake's 7" had hit such an outcry
> > over the ending of "Pressure Point" that they decided to bring back Gan
> > after all on the grounds that Travis was clearly more expendable?!
>
> Well thank you for the nightmares <g>. (And I didn't dislike Gan nearly as
> much as many do.
I don't dislike Gan at all.
He makes a very interesting narrator for B7 fiction. He doesn't say
much, but he *observes*... and when he does have something to say, he
makes no bones about it. Yes, Avon can browbeat him, but he can't change
what he believes; and Gan will stand up to Blake himself if he feels he
has to. He is loyal. He isn't blind, and he isn't - despite what Avon
claims - stupid.
I saw a thought-provoking theory once that suggested that maybe, in the
long run, it might have worked out better if *Jenna* had died doing her
heroics in 'Pressure Point', and Gan had lived. Jenna would have gone
out 'on a high', and in-character, and been spared the rest of the
season's decline, while Gan would probably have ended up in the
Cally-role for Season Three - gentle conscience and healer of the crew -
and Cally would have played more of a Dayna-part.
Instead, Jenna ended up 'making the tea', and Gan did a Porthos :-(
(Am I the *only* one to find that particular literary resonance almost
unbearably obvious?)
> Yes, I would take his demise over... well, practically everyone in the
> crew - and some beyond ;-) - but "Shadow" and the very "Pressure
> Point", ironically, proved to me that Jackson was more of an actor he
> usually gets credit for - he just didn't have enough material that
> suited his particular abilities... Breakdown sure wasn't it)
Well, no - he was unconscious for most of the episode :-)
> Anyway, agreed: B7 was way braver than Farscape proved to be.
>
> Then again, it was way braver than *all* but a mere pittance of TV shows
> are. (and in our times it is even more so)...
You wait - nostalgia will gild the present day in its turn :-)
Anne
сообщил/сообщила в новостях следующее:
news:2003020304180...@gacracker.org...
> On 29 Jan 2003 Anne wrote:
>
> > <peers at the nick> Curiouser and curiouser... <eg>
>
> I think I really have fixed it this time..!
Sure enough to not be afraid of jinxing it? <g>
> > <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> сообщил/сообщила в новостях
следующее:
> > news:2003012405175...@gacracker.org...
>
> [snip]
> > >Unless it's been bouncing for so long that the spammers were
> > > put off :-)
> >
> > Dream on <sigh, chuckle>. They'll outlive even that post-humanity era
"The
> > Future Is Wild" is talking about...
>
> Actually - touch wood - the spam does seem to have dried up in the
> interim. I get a little on the nym.alias.net address, probably
> harvested from my website, but nothing as yet on this one. Now if I just
> keep remembering to use that spamtrapped gateway for posting...
<....> I don't mind being an ignoramus most of the time (in Russia, they
call people like me "teapots"), but in times like these it really comes to
me with a vengeance that it's not the best possible status. (Spam-less
life, what an unachievable bliss!)
> [snip]
>
> > . I
> > make no secret of being a fan of Avon, and I *do* prefer it the way it
> > turned out by the obvious reasons, but
> > a) It doesn't mean that I hate or even dislike Blake (much as the two
are
> > different, I never got why, if you like one, you must *despise*
another -
> > color me dense on the matter);
>
> I never even *heard* that one should. Where is this view prevalent?! :-)
Just about on any other board / chat / website having anything to do with
the show? ;-) Note, I said on any OTHER: I am well aware that not everyone
(to put it mildly) thinks like that, but I realy had more than my fair share
of reading the fans who, when they are in "Avon camp", proclaim Blake to be
a bloodthirsty, hypocrisy-filled, people-using, grandiosely egotistical scum
of Galaxy (Servalan apparently hasn't got a patch on the guy...), and, when
they are Blake-ites, deem Avon litle short of cannibal, with absolutely zero
regard for anyone or anything but himself (in fact, make it minus ten). The
former kind pins Blake down as wanting nothing but vengeance for purely
personal reasons; the latter will find nefarious reason even for Avon
agreeing to get the word to the family of that engineer in Dawn of Gods...
> [snip]
> >I'm just not sure
> > if Tarrant would be able to stand *up* to Blake quite as much as Avon
> > could - if only because he was way less skilled as barbs went, for
> > starters... Not to mention "sneak-around" approach: he sure resorted to
> > headbutting rather than anything else - and in that field, Blake would
have
> > him where he wanted him. Besides, I have a nagging suspicion he could
> > *respect* Blake more than he did Avon (at least at the start). Dear old
Roj
> > was a CELEBRITY, to begin with... <eg>
>
> I suspect he might initially have found Blake in the flesh a little
> disappointing after the doubtless inflated rumours floating around the
> galaxy, though - *that* meeting might have been fun to see!
It sure would, even if I doubt - my less-than-thrilled views of Tarrant
notwithstanding - that Del was THAT naive to expect even a famous figure to
actually look and talk grandly. Now deep-seated (and not necessarily even
conscious) jealousy for someone else's glory (that Alpha complex and all
<eg>) - that I can see alright. "Somehow, I imagined you taller" *could* be
used this way...
> But I think he'd have had less of an objection 'in principle' to Blake's
> activities than Avon tended to. Tarrant would have been all in favour of
> risking the ship in order to give the Federation a bloody nose without
> always looking for some evidence of benefit to them directly <grin>
Oh yes, he wouldn't have to look for excuse as desperately as Avon seemed to
need to... <mg> OTOH, now that I think of it, there could be different point
of contention between those two (actually, the same one as he had with
Avon, only Blake would make no bones about it right off the bat): that being
the safety of the crew... We might not have City on The Edge Of The World in
this version of S3 (or the authors would have to come up with REALLY good
excuse, or Tarrant would have to sneak his "orders" past Blake unnoticed,
which I don't think suits his character). Because treating Vila like that
wouldn't fly a second with Roj - if only because it's HIS prerogative
getting them in danger! <rrreg>
> > >though I think Blake and Dayna might have got on rather well.
> >
> > Oh, absolutely. I can see Blake assuming a father figure role then and
> > there (hot as she was! ;-P).
>
> And Dayna as enthusiastic lieutenant :-)
Like a shot. If she managed to idolise AVON... (Then again, Blake's
unwillingness to fight *overly* dirty might get her a bit exasperated).
> > > I also think it might have given Cally more of a chance, though that's
> > > only a gut feeling.
> >
> > No arguing with guts <g> - but myself, I'm not sure. Didn't help Jenna
> > during Season 2 (I mean, Sally Knyvette obviously thought there wasn't
> > nearly enough...)
>
> Well, no - but she had Avon to elbow out of the way for her share of the
> limelight. We were envisaging an Avon-less show!
But one with Vila (who isn't a rival in heroics by an infinitely long shot,
but is a rival in terms of story material and character potential) AND
Tarrant. (BTW, even with Avon, Cally had a bit more to do in Season 3 than
Jenna had between the couple of first and couple of last eps of S2). Even
with infamous moment of DotG. <g>
> Although, if you just dropped Avon and kept Jenna, I think it might well
> have been Jenna who ended up replacing him as the one whom Blake tended
> to take down to planets as back-up.
There was a chance - but no more than for Tarrant and reluctant Vila.
>After all, she's got the contacts,
After Star One, wasn't most of those sort of void?
> she's got the ruthlessness,
Tarrant didn't come short in that regard...
>and she's more than willing to tell him when
> he's wrong :-)
Now, for *that* privilege, there was enough contenders right from the start.
Actually, she was one of less willing. (Only Cally may be milder in this
respect). It's just that most of them went along in the end, anyway. VERY
much including her ;-).
> (I think Blake did value that last trait in Avon, although I'm sure he
> didn't appreciate it!
Yup. Medicine is necessary but never tasty... <rmeg>
>To take a literary metaphor - Avon was his
> beta-reader; if *he* couldn't find anything wrong in a plan, then there
> was a good chance no-one else would... and every writer needs an honest
> and outspoken beta-reader.)
That's close enough... with an exception that this particular beta reader
had a dangerous (for a beta reader) trait. No, not the tendency to leave the
"writer" in question in the rut and run - that's an occupational hazard with
beta readers <reg> - but to get suckered along. "To heck with it all" is
hardly a very qualified plan approval... ;-)
> >
> > >And I think the Vila-Blake relationship might have
> > > borne more examination - what's the betting the worm might have
turned?
> >
> > I believe, *everyone*-Blake relationship would have borne QUITE some,
even
> > if Avon stayed on board. The way things were going during Season 2 was,
to
> > put it mildly, rather portent...
>
> Yes; but I think the events of 'Star One' would have had their effect on
> Blake, too. He would have been in the same boat as a Travis who had
> actually managed to kill Blake - having spent so long aiming towards a
> goal (reaching Star One) he would then be in an almost aimless
> situation; perhaps less driven, but definitely more open to new ideas.
In fact, he might well be less depressed and aimless than Travis in such
situation. For the latter, once his goal would have been fulfilled, there's
nothing left to live for, nowhere to return, no interests, no future. For
Blake, what happened wouldn't be an end, but a victory (as Avon notes as
early as in Aftermath). And (unlike in case with Travis, and despite what
Blake-hating Avonites say), not entirely for himself, either. The Federation
more or less survived - but not nearly as powerful, and not even comparable
with the Glorious Past in terms of threat to the surroundings and Galaxy
Domination prospects (think USSR post-perestroika)... and he, in turn,
managed not to become the destroyer of humanity. Such things inspire, not
knock all the meaning and purpose out of life. So I can see Blake evolve in
the direction you are talking about... But on the other hand, what
transpired before, tend to scar people for life. He wasn't by the end of S2
who he was at the very start... that should have played its part.
> And he has been in the situation of allying with Servalan against a
> worse evil (Jenna's doing, by the way; she doesn't get nearly enough
> credit for making that decision).
Welcome to the Vilaworld is the phrase that by some reason occurs to me
here... (as far as credit-getting is concerned, at least).
>I wonder if he would see the
> Federation in quite the same light after that?
Seeing the way Federation acted throughout the later seasons, I don't see
him warming up to the state all that much. Well, it wasn't overly obvious in
Season 3 - other than the regular animosity between the old opponents, Feds
looked like a not even the worst bureacratic state ever... still, Harvest of
Kairos showed it still treated their people as a cattle, and "reconquer the
neighbours" policy resurfaced in DeathWatch. By S4 it was abundantly clear,
however, that this particular old dog had no interest in learning new
tricks... only in perfecting and augmenting the old ones. (A lot of
reviewers are unhappy with "overlong", "unclear" and "not adding much" scene
on elevator in Warlord; may be it's my own experience of life in
totalitarian, cannon-foddering-the-population, state - if MUCHLY
watered-down by the time - or I am easily impressed by scenes of people
suffering, but it resonated with me alright as far as what the Feds were all
about. In short, it hit me in the guts... there was something so
*recognisable* about it, I don't know...)
> [snip]
>
> > Ah! So you're a fan too? (Sucker bet: "Dozen against a dime that it's
> > Vorkosigan saga that get you hooked first and foremost..." <g>)
>
> As far as I know she has hardly written anything else (though I quite
> liked the early Sherlock Holmes fanfic - the ending's a bit weak, but
> apparently those pages were physically lost and had to be patched in
> from memory for publication).
The series *was* the first of her work I ever encountered, but it got me so
well, I wanted to read something else by her... and got (for me) yet another
confirmation that if someone can write something VERY well, it doesn't mean
everything by them is such. (Terry Pratchett is another - but *way* less
obvious and emphasised - example... I mean, I still like his Bromeliad and
Strata, only I don't feel nearly so involved in those as I do with most of
DW books. Bujold's "Weaver of Dreams" and other non-Vorkosigan books I
tried, OTOH... No, it wasn't bad, it just was... tiring. Not touching in any
manner. To me, of course). Now I tried Curse of Chalion, but so far, again,
no luck. Respect, it instills in me. Excitement - doesn't feel alive
enough....
> I very much enjoyed 'Falling Free', but was a bit disappointed when the
> quaddies later turned up in a Vorkosigan novel. I'd have preferred that
> to remain a stand-alone book - I didn't feel the later throw-away
> mention gave them justice.
Agreed, regarding that particular mention (Falling Free for me, as opposed
to Vorkosigans, was like Bromeliad as opposed to Discworld, but it was a
page-turner and characters came up much more alive than in the rest of
non-Vorkosigan books). Diplomatic Immunity distilled this gripe in me a bit,
though.
> Apparently she's a Georgette Heyer fan. You can see it, when you know to
> look...
Did she ever "confess" though? <g> (I'm for one pretty sure that Joss Whedon
is a closet B7 fan...)
> > Yes, you have to have a technique mastered to get it right. Yes, you
need to
> > learn the ways to keep and develop it. But all this only matters as long
as
> > you can do THAT to begin with: this "get-it-going" stuff - no matter how
big
> > a piece. And that's something no one can learn, unfortunately. You
either
> > got it, or you don't...
>
> Actually, the *keeping*-it-going is the hardest!
For one who can *get* it going to begin with, no doubt <g>. Because this is
something that comes naturally, like an absolute hearing. Hence my "you
either got it..." remark. I can well appreciate how difficult it is to press
on working ;-) (there are things that I can do - only creative writing isn't
one of them - and so I know how easy it is to just procrastinate, to get
distracted, instead of actually getting it done). But there's a world of
difference between "hard" and "impossible". Which it is for
authoring-deprived. It's like "no gap between amounts will ever equal the
gap between "present" and "absent"".
> [snip]
>
> > He did have this mental picture of himself-as-a-"cold bastard" (pardon
my
> > Klatchian). An interesting mix of self-deprecation and mania grandiosa,
it
> > was...
>
> Self-deprecation? Avon? <boggle>
>
> The 'not really my field' business was just guarding his back, so to
> speak...
"Of all things I was I have never recognised a fool". "-Why are you here? -I
have not a faintest idea". "Psychopaths..." "A mess". Whatever you can say
about Avon, one thing is Right Out: that's him being perfectly (or even
close to) happy about himself. At least never since Spacefall. Was his
"brains but no heart" posturing to Travis in Star One the way to try and
live up to his ideal, or deep-down resentment of himself he'd never
acknowledge or even realise, is the matter of opinion and interpretation -
but something wasn't in tune within himself. "Inner conflict" doesn't begin
to cover it... One way or another, he didn't see himself as measuring up. A
lot of times.
> [snip]
> > (And I didn't dislike Gan nearly as
> > much as many do.
>
> I don't dislike Gan at all.
>
> He makes a very interesting narrator for B7 fiction. He doesn't say
> much, but he *observes*... and when he does have something to say, he
> makes no bones about it.
Exactly. He just, like Vila, tends to get overlooked and taken for
granted...
> He isn't blind, and he isn't - despite what Avon
> claims - stupid.
Avon claimed a lot of what he didn't think himself... (And it felt to me
that Gan's death affected him alright, and not only as a pointer to his own
vulnerability under Blake's mighty leadership).
> I saw a thought-provoking theory once that suggested that maybe, in the
> long run, it might have worked out better if *Jenna* had died doing her
> heroics in 'Pressure Point', and Gan had lived. Jenna would have gone
> out 'on a high', and in-character, and been spared the rest of the
> season's decline, while Gan would probably have ended up in the
> Cally-role for Season Three - gentle conscience and healer of the crew -
> and Cally would have played more of a Dayna-part.
...<anal-retentive> And Dayna? </anal-retentive>. But, kidding aside, that
would be an interesting turn of events. Gan getting his time under
limelight, so to speak. I'm not sure about healing part though - he's sure a
good shoulder to use in need, yet he's not even *presumptious* enough for
thinking he knows how to help. Besides, he's always been the muscle, limiter
or no limiter - so he might not even have the time for it! <g> And Cally as
Dayna... wasn't she a bit too smart and less hot-headed for the part?
> Instead, Jenna ended up 'making the tea', and Gan did a Porthos :-(
> (Am I the *only* one to find that particular literary resonance almost
> unbearably obvious?)
No you aren't. But I do understand how you feel...
> > Yes, I would take his demise over... well, practically everyone in the
> > crew - and some beyond ;-) - but "Shadow" and the very "Pressure
> > Point", ironically, proved to me that Jackson was more of an actor he
> > usually gets credit for - he just didn't have enough material that
> > suited his particular abilities... Breakdown sure wasn't it)
>
> Well, no - he was unconscious for most of the episode :-)
Actually, I meant him depicting Gan's pain and suffering... these were some
faces to pull. For a second there, I thought I was watching <insert a REALLY
campy old kiddie SF show of your choice, as I am too much of a chicken to
hurt any possible fan's feelings! ;-P>
> > Anyway, agreed: B7 was way braver than Farscape proved to be.
> >
> > Then again, it was way braver than *all* but a mere pittance of TV shows
> > are. (and in our times it is even more so)...
>
> You wait - nostalgia will gild the present day in its turn :-)
"Associationg by gild?" <ducks> But it didn't - to me - gild quite some of
TOS, Battlestar Galactica and... darn. And I almost managed throughout the
post without entering that feeling-hurting territory... <vbg>
Anna
Igenlode Wordsmith
> "Igenlode Wordsmith" <fuku AT redneck DOT gacracker DOT org>
> сообщил/сообщила в новостях следующее:
> news:2003020304180...@gacracker.org...
> > On 29 Jan 2003 Anne wrote:
[snip]
> > > I make no secret of being a fan of Avon, and I *do* prefer it the way it
> > > turned out by the obvious reasons, but
> > > a) It doesn't mean that I hate or even dislike Blake (much as the two are
> > > different, I never got why, if you like one, you must *despise* another -
> > > color me dense on the matter);
> >
> > I never even *heard* that one should. Where is this view prevalent?! :-)
>
> Just about on any other board / chat / website having anything to do with
> the show? ;-) Note, I said on any OTHER: I am well aware that not everyone
> (to put it mildly) thinks like that, but I really had more than my
> fair share of reading the fans who, when they are in "Avon camp",
> proclaim Blake to be a bloodthirsty, hypocrisy-filled, people-using,
> grandiosely egotistical scum of Galaxy (Servalan apparently hasn't got
> a patch on the guy...), and, when they are Blake-ites, deem Avon litle
> short of cannibal, with absolutely zero regard for anyone or anything
> but himself (in fact, make it minus ten). The former kind pins Blake
> down as wanting nothing but vengeance for purely personal reasons; the
> latter will find nefarious reason even for Avon agreeing to get the
> word to the family of that engineer in Dawn of Gods...
I've heard, rather, fans identifying *themselves* with Blake or Avon -
perhaps a little over-enthusiastically - and attempting to extrapolate
from there outwards in their favourite's defence...
For what it's worth, I'm an 'Avon' who would rather have been a 'Blake'
and am thus a Blake fan (I admire qualities I don't possess) who can
write a 'realistically nasty' Avon as fairly straight autobiography.
As a certain zine publisher once put it: "Fan-fiction tends to make
Avon far too /nice/ - you make him his normal totally obnoxious and
therefore far more enjoyable self" :-)
I find Blake's most appealing characteristic to be his /passion/ - the
way he really cares about aspects of life that the vast majority of
people in the Federation (not to mention on his ship!) take for granted.
Frankly, I don't think vengeance comes into it; we know that he was this
way in his 'past life', during the days of the Freedom Party, before he
ever suffered personally from the Federation at all. In fact, as I said in
another thread, he probably threw away a pretty cushy lifestyle simply in
order to try to improve the lives of others.
He also has a beautiful speaking voice :-)
However, I have a track record of being fascinated by morally dubious
characters of high intelligence and sarcastic expression - Vetinari,
Snape, most English-accented Hollywood villains :-) Avon fits this bill
like a glove. I'd say that Avon comes across as trying pretty hard *not*
to show any regard for anyone or anything but himself - I'd go so far as
to say that he appears to consider this an article of pride - but this
doesn't mean that I believe he *doesn't* care about anything else. Just
that as far as he is concerned, it's a weakness about which you don't
let anyone else find out if you can help it, for your own security -
whereas for Blake it's practically the ruling principle of his life. No
wonder they don't agree!
[snip Avon-less Series 3]
> We might not have City on The Edge Of The World in
> this version of S3 (or the authors would have to come up with REALLY good
> excuse, or Tarrant would have to sneak his "orders" past Blake unnoticed,
> which I don't think suits his character). Because treating Vila like that
> wouldn't fly a second with Roj - if only because it's HIS prerogative
> getting them in danger! <rrreg>
Mmmm... you don't think Blake would have talked Vila into it somehow
himself, 'for the benefit of the crew'? :-)
[snip Jenna during Season 2]
> > Well, no - but she had Avon to elbow out of the way for her share of the
> > limelight. We were envisaging an Avon-less show!
>
> But one with Vila (who isn't a rival in heroics by an infinitely long shot,
> but is a rival in terms of story material and character potential) AND
> Tarrant. (BTW, even with Avon, Cally had a bit more to do in Season 3 than
> Jenna had between the couple of first and couple of last eps of S2). Even
> with infamous moment of DotG. <g>
The potential Jenna-Tarrant dynamic (both good-looking and aware of it,
both pilots, both familar with Federation procedure - one from the
inside, one from outside) would be an interesting one. In a way one
could argue that Tarrant is more of a Jenna-replacement than the
Blake-replacement he has been accused of being; if they both appeared in
a series together, they would effectively be direct rivals for the same
spot. I think on balance I'd back Jenna to win in a straight contest -
she'd probably cheat :-)
[snip]
> >and [Jenna]'s more than willing to tell [Blake] when
> > he's wrong :-)
>
> Now, for *that* privilege, there was enough contenders right from the start.
> Actually, she was one of less willing. (Only Cally may be milder in this
> respect). It's just that most of them went along in the end, anyway. VERY
> much including her ;-).
Perhaps I misremember. I have a mental image of her as making frequent
acid comments on the desirability and/or practicability of Blake's
plans, while never actually refusing to go along when it came to putting
them into practice.
[snip Star One]
> For Blake, what happened wouldn't be an end, but a victory (as Avon notes as
> early as in Aftermath). And (unlike in case with Travis, and despite what
> Blake-hating Avonites say), not entirely for himself, either. The Federation
> more or less survived - but not nearly as powerful, and not even comparable
> with the Glorious Past in terms of threat to the surroundings and Galaxy
> Domination prospects (think USSR post-perestroika)... and he, in turn,
> managed not to become the destroyer of humanity.
Good point - in a way, the aliens' presence saved Blake from a dreadful
responsibility (though it was one he had already decided to shoulder,
for good or ill). If Blake *had* been on board the Liberator in Series
3, as opposed to an Avon who was wasting time running round looking for
him(!), I wonder if he would have tried to influence the direction in
which the Federation was re-establishing itself - to have some influence
on the shape of the future while things were temporarily fluid, before
it settled back into the same hardened old mould.
(Probably not - for dramatic reasons. It wouldn't have made such good
television!)
[snip]
> Bujold's "Weaver of Dreams" and other non-Vorkosigan books I
> tried, OTOH... No, it wasn't bad, it just was... tiring. Not touching in any
> manner. To me, of course). Now I tried Curse of Chalion, but so far, again,
> no luck. Respect, it instills in me. Excitement - doesn't feel alive
> enough....
Never heard of it - is that new? (I never even came across 'Ethan of
Athos' - the libraries here aren't very enthusiastic about Bujold.)
[snip]
> > Apparently she's a Georgette Heyer fan. You can see it, when you know to
> > look...
>
> Did she ever "confess" though? <g>
Oh yes - that's the only reason I'd know. Though the dry humour in the
dialogue is common to both, once pointed out...
[snip]
>
> > > He did have this mental picture of himself-as-a-"cold bastard"
> > > (pardon my Klatchian). An interesting mix of self-deprecation and
> > > mania grandiosa, it was...
> >
> > Self-deprecation? Avon? <boggle>
> >
> > The 'not really my field' business was just guarding his back, so to
> > speak...
>
> "Of all things I was I have never recognised a fool". "-Why are you here? -I
> have not a faintest idea". "Psychopaths..." "A mess". Whatever you can say
> about Avon, one thing is Right Out: that's him being perfectly (or even
> close to) happy about himself. At least never since Spacefall.
Well, for a start, he's not happy about being caught up in Blake's wake.
It doesn't make *sense* as far as the Great God of Self-Preservation
goes, and it suggests that Blake is dictating his actions. And *no-one*
tells Avon what to do but Avon :-)
But I think you're right; it's entirely possible to be simultaneously
arrogant (justifiably) about one's own abilities and lack of dependence
on others, and yet nurse hidden insecurities of the most yawning
dimensions (also, alas, justified). And being intelligent/
self-analytical enough to recognise such a situation doesn't help in the
slightest. No-one can be as cold as Avon wants to be without ruthlessly
pruning the parts of his personality that 'stick out' beyond the
hermetic seal; and that tends to leave scars.
[snip]
> > I saw a thought-provoking theory once that suggested that maybe, in the
> > long run, it might have worked out better if *Jenna* had died doing her
> > heroics in 'Pressure Point', and Gan had lived. Jenna would have gone
> > out 'on a high', and in-character, and been spared the rest of the
> > season's decline, while Gan would probably have ended up in the
> > Cally-role for Season Three - gentle conscience and healer of the crew -
> > and Cally would have played more of a Dayna-part.
>
> ...<anal-retentive> And Dayna? </anal-retentive>.
We wouldn't have needed her :-)
> But, kidding aside, that would be an interesting turn of events. Gan
> getting his time under limelight, so to speak. I'm not sure about
> healing part though - he's sure a good shoulder to use in need, yet
> he's not even *presumptious* enough for thinking he knows how to help.
> Besides, he's always been the muscle, limiter or no limiter - so he
> might not even have the time for it!
That was based on a two or three occasions when he shows medical
tendencies in Series 1, I think. I doubt he's had any high-powered
doctor's training - but I can see him as having picked up quite a bit in
the way of practical first aid 'on the factory floor' so to speak (we
don't really know what he did in civilian life, but it doesn't seem to
have been anything requiring higher education; he's fairly clearly
telegraphed as belonging to the lower grades). There's no real in-series
justification for Cally as 'doctor' to the crew, either, other than
whatever field medic experience she may have acquired on Saurian Major -
on /alien/ physiology, remember <grin>. Of course, medicine in Blake's
era seems to involve a good deal of electronic gadgetry, and she's good
with that...
> <g> And Cally as Dayna... wasn't she a bit too smart and less hot-headed for
> the part?
Ah, but she wouldn't have been Dayna - she'd have been the cool-headed
Cally who brings down the oncoming gunship in 'Shadow' and mounts an
(almost) one-man invasion of Servalan's palace in 'Rumours of Death' :-)
[snip]
> > You wait - nostalgia will gild the present day in its turn :-)
>
> "Associationg by gild?" <ducks> But it didn't - to me - gild quite some of
> TOS, Battlestar Galactica and... darn. And I almost managed throughout the
> post without entering that feeling-hurting territory... <vbg>
>
Now, I'd say Star Trek is a pretty good example of rose-tinted
spectacles :-)
Anne
"Igenlode Wordsmith" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]>
сообщил/сообщила в новостях следующее:
news:2003021203252...@gacracker.org...
> On 4 Feb 2003 Anne wrote:
>
> > "Igenlode Wordsmith" <fuku AT redneck DOT gacracker DOT org>
> > сообщил/сообщила в новостях следующее:
> > news:2003020304180...@gacracker.org...
> > > On 29 Jan 2003 Anne wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > I make no secret of being a fan of Avon, and I *do* prefer it the
way it
> > > > turned out by the obvious reasons, but
> > > > a) It doesn't mean that I hate or even dislike Blake (much as the
two are
> > > > different, I never got why, if you like one, you must *despise*
another -
> > > > color me dense on the matter);
> > >
> > > I never even *heard* that one should. Where is this view prevalent?!
:-)
> >
> > Just about on any other board / chat / website having anything to do
with
> > the show? ;-)
<snip>
> I've heard, rather, fans identifying *themselves* with Blake or Avon -
> perhaps a little over-enthusiastically - and attempting to extrapolate
> from there outwards in their favourite's defence...
That is for sure. But whether they defend their preferred characters, or
themselves while projecting, they still use the "attacking" way of
defence... <g>
> For what it's worth, I'm an 'Avon' who would rather have been a 'Blake'
> and am thus a Blake fan (I admire qualities I don't possess)
Then you have best of the both worlds <g> - you understand (and can't help
identifying with) one, while being not at all adverse to another... (I, in
turn, am neither - I wish I were <sigh, chuckle> - well, probably a bit
closer to Avon, though not nearly as witty or level-headed! - and so also in
the position to enjoy both for their respective qualities).
> "Fan-fiction tends to make
> Avon far too /nice/
Oh yes. (Or far too unfeeling, but that's another faction...)
>- you make him his normal totally obnoxious and
> therefore far more enjoyable self" :-)
LOL. Hard to argue with the connection.
> I find Blake's most appealing characteristic to be his /passion/ - the
> way he really cares about aspects of life that the vast majority of
> people in the Federation (not to mention on his ship!) take for granted.
> Frankly, I don't think vengeance comes into it;
At least I know I'm not alone in this, too... Well, I wouldn't discount
vengeance *altogether* - he's human, and as you say, passionate - but I
never could grasp how it is possible to conclude from the events and his
actions that *this* was his main (or even all that major) driving force.
>we know that he was this
> way in his 'past life', during the days of the Freedom Party, before he
> ever suffered personally from the Federation at all.
Amazing, really, how this little point gets totally and consistently
ignored...
> He also has a beautiful speaking voice :-)
That he does ;-). At times, I blasphemously regret we never got to hear him
sing... <tries to blend into environment> But I must say, almost all of the
main cast (and then some) of the show SO knew what to do with their
voices...
> However, I have a track record of being fascinated by morally dubious
> characters of high intelligence and sarcastic expression - Vetinari,
> Snape, most English-accented Hollywood villains :-)
Welcome to the club :-). This kind of character, I can even forgive lack of
English accent... <eg>. And yes, these are all great examples.
And it invariably makes such a fun combination with Blake-like characters -
Avon and Blake, Vetinari and Vimes (who, now that I think of it, is sort of
A / B combination in himself: Carrot looks more like Blake), and I wouldn't
mind seeing Snape and Harry forced to co-operate... (JKR, please, you know
you want it yourself... <g>).
>Avon fits this bill
> like a glove.
Oh yes...
>I'd say that Avon comes across as trying pretty hard *not*
> to show any regard for anyone or anything but himself - I'd go so far as
> to say that he appears to consider this an article of pride - but this
> doesn't mean that I believe he *doesn't* care about anything else.
I don't really have anything to add to this - just wanted repeated... ;-)
> > We might not have City on The Edge Of The World in
> > this version of S3 (or the authors would have to come up with REALLY
good
> > excuse, or Tarrant would have to sneak his "orders" past Blake
unnoticed,
> > which I don't think suits his character). Because treating Vila like
that
> > wouldn't fly a second with Roj - if only because it's HIS prerogative
> > getting them in danger! <rrreg>
>
> Mmmm... you don't think Blake would have talked Vila into it somehow
> himself, 'for the benefit of the crew'? :-)
You mean he would let Vila go alone? The mother hen that is Blake? Further
to the point,
"I-trust-you-as-long-as-your-head-is-going-to-explode-together-with-mine"
Blake? I don't think so... <eg>
> [snip Jenna during Season 2]
>
> > > she had Avon to elbow out of the way for her share of the
> > > limelight. We were envisaging an Avon-less show!
> >
> > But one with Vila (who isn't a rival in heroics by an infinitely long
shot,
> > but is a rival in terms of story material and character potential) AND
> > Tarrant. (BTW, even with Avon, Cally had a bit more to do in Season 3
than
> > Jenna had between the couple of first and couple of last eps of S2).
Even
> > with infamous moment of DotG. <g>
>
> The potential Jenna-Tarrant dynamic (both good-looking and aware of it,
> both pilots, both familar with Federation procedure - one from the
> inside, one from outside) would be an interesting one. In a way one
> could argue that Tarrant is more of a Jenna-replacement than the
> Blake-replacement he has been accused of being; if they both appeared in
> a series together, they would effectively be direct rivals for the same
> spot.
Precisely. And, much as like the series and consider it being WAY ahead of
its (and not just its, now that I think of it) time, you tell me, judging by
what transpired, who, man or woman had the better chance for action
spotlight, here. (Strangely, in much-hated S4 it was not that evident, BTW).
Now don't get me wrong, girls got it much better in B7 than in most other
shows, but even "Blakes 7" didn't blow this trend out of the water.
>I think on balance I'd back Jenna to win in a straight contest -
> she'd probably cheat :-)
Firstly, he's hardly above cheating himself <g> (now if you'll tell me that
he's more clumsy and less fast about it, I won't contest the point ;-P).
Second, see above - he had the deck tipped in his favour...
But in the perfect world - yes, Tarrant / Jenna would be a FUN interplay...
OTOH, in that perfect world, like I said, I'd watch them all there at the
same time, in the same season. With Gan and Dayna, for good measure. (And so
what, if it sounds contradictory with my love for B7's bravery in killing
main characters off...)
> [snip]
>
> > >and [Jenna]'s more than willing to tell [Blake] when
> > > he's wrong :-)
> >
> > Now, for *that* privilege, there was enough contenders right from the
start.
> > Actually, she was one of less willing. (Only Cally may be milder in this
> > respect). It's just that most of them went along in the end, anyway.
VERY
> > much including her ;-).
>
> Perhaps I misremember. I have a mental image of her as making frequent
> acid comments on the desirability and/or practicability of Blake's
> plans, while never actually refusing to go along when it came to putting
> them into practice.
There were comments, though I remember them, when coming from her, being
mostly much less acid than Avon's - more of a simply quiet reasoning kind,
even in a rather gentle tone of voice - but maybe *I* misremember! (Then
again, next to Avon's comments, even acid would feel like a plain water...
<g>)
>
> [snip Star One]
> in a way, the aliens' presence saved Blake from a dreadful
> responsibility (though it was one he had already decided to shoulder,
> for good or ill).
...But wasn't at all unhappy to get it off him, anyway! <g>
>If Blake *had* been on board the Liberator in Series
> 3, as opposed to an Avon who was wasting time running round looking for
> him(!), I wonder if he would have tried to influence the direction in
> which the Federation was re-establishing itself - to have some influence
> on the shape of the future while things were temporarily fluid, before
> it settled back into the same hardened old mould.
I can well see that... heck, I even can see him sort of half-effectively
preventing it from fully setting back there! He was a Grand Planner, after
all (the quality Avon as a leader didn't have, and I am not sure he thought
he needed it... in fact, IMO, he was getting it by the end, but it was too
late then).
> (Probably not - for dramatic reasons. It wouldn't have made such good
> television!)
Actually, I am not sure. Intrigues, interplays, unexpected consequences,
mindgames (and games of greater magnitude), more clashes within the crew
about the way to go about this or that, WAY more murky and blurry
battlelines than even before... and first and foremost, Our Crew playing at
so new for them civil ground, having to solve problems in other way than
just blowing things out of the skies! ;-P (Can you tell that I might be the
only one who counts DeathWatch among the favourites? <eg>). Vila as a
politician - now THAT is a sight I'd pay to see... (Hey, I liked the glimpse
we had in Voices from the past!) But it would, indeed, hardly happen -
because probably even B7 wouldn't stray THAT far from the regular
action-adventure format.
> [snip]
> > Bujold's "Weaver of Dreams" and other non-Vorkosigan books I
> > tried, OTOH... No, it wasn't bad, it just was... tiring. Not touching in
any
> > manner. To me, of course). Now I tried Curse of Chalion, but so far,
again,
> > no luck. Respect, it instills in me. Excitement - doesn't feel alive
> > enough....
>
> Never heard of it - is that new?
Yup - her latest, as far as I know. She goes for full fantasy mode there,
not even a tint of SF. (And no, that alone is not at all a flaw in my book).
>(I never even came across 'Ethan of
> Athos' - the libraries here aren't very enthusiastic about Bujold.)
Judging by the subject matter of the book, I could think of another reason
why it's missing... (BTW, subject matter aside - it doesn't bother me one
bit - it's one of my less beloved instalments. Probably, for the sheer lack
of Michael... OR Mark!)
> [snip]
>
> > > Self-deprecation? Avon? <boggle>
> > >
> > > The 'not really my field' business was just guarding his back, so to
> > > speak...
> >
> > "Of all things I was I have never recognised a fool". "-Why are you
here? -I
> > have not a faintest idea". "Psychopaths..." "A mess". Whatever you can
say
> > about Avon, one thing is Right Out: that's him being perfectly (or even
> > close to) happy about himself. At least never since Spacefall.
>
> Well, for a start, he's not happy about being caught up in Blake's wake.
> It doesn't make *sense* as far as the Great God of Self-Preservation
> goes, and it suggests that Blake is dictating his actions. And *no-one*
> tells Avon what to do but Avon :-)
Exactly. So since he IS involved, it's either that someone but Avon *does*
tell him what to do... or, better yet, he's in *by his own volition*, he
CHOSE to be caught up there. Talk about your lose-lose situation...
<sadistic mode up and running on full power>
> But I think you're right; it's entirely possible to be simultaneously
> arrogant (justifiably) about one's own abilities and lack of dependence
> on others, and yet nurse hidden insecurities of the most yawning
> dimensions (also, alas, justified).
Bingo! He behaves way too inconsistently with his own proclaimed values for
me to believe that he says... or even really believes <g>. (Am I a Master of
Confusion, or what?)
>And being intelligent/
> self-analytical enough to recognise such a situation doesn't help in the
> slightest.
Well, nice to know I have company for my Understatements, Inc.
undertaking... <g>
>No-one can be as cold as Avon wants to be without ruthlessly
> pruning the parts of his personality that 'stick out' beyond the
> hermetic seal; and that tends to leave scars.
...and even without achieving the goals set. He can fool people around
(though nearly not as successfully as he'd want to), but not himself.
>
> [snip]
>
> > > it might have worked out better if *Jenna* had died doing her
> > > heroics in 'Pressure Point', and Gan had lived. Jenna would have gone
> > > out 'on a high', and in-character, and been spared the rest of the
> > > season's decline, while Gan would probably have ended up in the
> > > Cally-role for Season Three - gentle conscience and healer of the
crew -
> > > and Cally would have played more of a Dayna-part.
> >
> > ...<anal-retentive> And Dayna? </anal-retentive>.
>
> We wouldn't have needed her :-)
Poor Josette - nobody loves her character! <g> Seriously, sometimes I wonder
if Dayna's unfortunate close association with what many consider nadirs of
the whole show (that being Animals and Power - and I won't go into analysing
and evaluating those right now) clouds her image in many's eyes. I know that
I like her way more when I pretend neither happened! <bg> (And I don't hate
Power NEARLY as much as most - though I certainly do have my gripes with
it... some mightily big).
> > I'm not sure about
> > healing part though - he's sure a good shoulder to use in need, yet
> > he's not even *presumptious* enough for thinking he knows how to help.
> > Besides, he's always been the muscle, limiter or no limiter - so he
> > might not even have the time for it!
>
> That was based on a two or three occasions when he shows medical
> tendencies in Series 1, I think.
I'd rather call it "comforting" tendencies, but yes, I remember. It could
drive him towards this capacity, though he'd need some tips and
encouragement then, and I'm not sure who onboard could provide that in right
combination...
>I doubt he's had any high-powered
> doctor's training - but I can see him as having picked up quite a bit in
> the way of practical first aid 'on the factory floor' so to speak (we
> don't really know what he did in civilian life, but it doesn't seem to
> have been anything requiring higher education; he's fairly clearly
> telegraphed as belonging to the lower grades).
Yes, but that's exactly why there might have been trouble in convincingly
getting him in the role of healer. As Avon points out in Breakdown - not
without some reason - it's a very fine, demanding business, tweaking with
people's insides, pardon my bluntness. He shies away from it, and he's no
lower grade, for all we know - and we know that being an Alpha includes
QUITE a broad education (judging by how much Blake knows re: most unexpected
areas of expertise <g>). No way can Gan get any proficiency in that in a
rather moderate amount of time... Now I don't say it's completely
impossible - just that I don't see how it'd happen short of miracle or some
Reg Barclay-like Crash Course Unawares <tm>
> There's no real in-series
> justification for Cally as 'doctor' to the crew, either, other than
> whatever field medic experience she may have acquired on Saurian Major -
> on /alien/ physiology, remember <grin>.
Ah, but she's telepathic, remember <reg>. Really, I can see her being also
widely and deeply educated. And since Auronar's isolationist policy started
when she was already a grown-up, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't only
teach about biology and anatomy of in-worlders when she was at school and
college;-)
>Of course, medicine in Blake's
> era seems to involve a good deal of electronic gadgetry, and she's good
> with that...
That, too...
> > <g> And Cally as Dayna... wasn't she a bit too smart and less hot-headed
for
> > the part?
>
> Ah, but she wouldn't have been Dayna - she'd have been the cool-headed
> Cally who brings down the oncoming gunship in 'Shadow' and mounts an
> (almost) one-man invasion of Servalan's palace in 'Rumours of Death' :-)
Then I see no problem with Dayna being there as well - unlike Jenna and
Tarrant, they wouldn't have the same part to compete for!
> [snip]
>
> > > You wait - nostalgia will gild the present day in its turn :-)
> >
> > "Associationg by gild?" <ducks> But it didn't - to me - gild quite some
of
> > TOS, Battlestar Galactica and... darn. And I almost managed throughout
the
> > post without entering that feeling-hurting territory... <vbg>
> >
> Now, I'd say Star Trek is a pretty good example of rose-tinted
> spectacles :-)
Alas, doesn't work on me... At times, I wish.
Anne
Igenlode Wordsmith
> "Igenlode Wordsmith" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]>
> сообщил/сообщила в новостях следующее:
Anne - this isn't me, it's your attribution string - are you posting in
Cyrillic or something?
[snip]
> > For what it's worth, I'm an 'Avon' who would rather have been a 'Blake'
> > and am thus a Blake fan (I admire qualities I don't possess)
>
> Then you have best of the both worlds <g> - you understand (and can't help
> identifying with) one, while being not at all adverse to another...
Not sure I *identify* with Avon... let's just say I recognise and
comprehend my own faults in him... Blake's faults, on the other hand,
I'll forgive out of loyalty - something Blake would probably comprehend
and Avon wouldn't at all. Not, as far as we know, because he doesn't
understand loyalty, but because he doesn't see it as any excuse for
stupid behaviour :-)
[snip]
> > However, I have a track record of being fascinated by morally dubious
> > characters of high intelligence and sarcastic expression - Vetinari,
> > Snape, most English-accented Hollywood villains :-)
>
> Welcome to the club :-). This kind of character, I can even forgive lack of
> English accent... <eg>. And yes, these are all great examples.
It is a slight problem where Hollywood is concerned, though; the most
recent film I saw ("The First Rebel" - 'recent' is perhaps not the word
in this context...) featured John Wayne opposite George Sanders. Now,
picture which one the audience was supposed to support... and which one
for whose outcome I found myself concerned :-)
> And it invariably makes such a fun combination with Blake-like characters -
> Avon and Blake, Vetinari and Vimes (who, now that I think of it, is sort of
> A / B combination in himself: Carrot looks more like Blake), and I wouldn't
> mind seeing Snape and Harry forced to co-operate... (JKR, please, you know
> you want it yourself... <g>).
A very good chance of seeing that, I'd say. We've already seen Snape and
Sirius Black forced to tolerate one another...
Incidentally, you might want to take a look at my and Troels
Forchhammer's contributions to the long-running thread" Why do some
people find Snape attractive?" at
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=2003011220331...@nym.alias.net
(hope that link works, I'm not actually on-line to check it and I've
never tried to construct a thread-reference before)
where we have been discussing much this same subject with reference to
Snape over some considerable period.
[snip]
> > > We might not have City on The Edge Of The World in this version of S3
> > > (or the authors would have to come up with REALLY good excuse, or
> > > Tarrant would have to sneak his "orders" past Blake unnoticed,
> > > which I don't think suits his character). Because treating Vila
> > > like that wouldn't fly a second with Roj - if only because it's
> > > HIS prerogative getting them in danger! <rrreg>
> >
> > Mmmm... you don't think Blake would have talked Vila into it somehow
> > himself, 'for the benefit of the crew'? :-)
>
> You mean he would let Vila go alone? The mother hen that is Blake? Further
> to the point,
> "I-trust-you-as-long-as-your-head-is-going-to-explode-together-with-mine"
> Blake? I don't think so... <eg>
<grin> Yes... Blake's not quite so naive as fans (and Avon) like to make
out, is he?
[snip]
> > The potential Jenna-Tarrant dynamic (both good-looking and aware of it,
> > both pilots, both familar with Federation procedure - one from the
> > inside, one from outside) would be an interesting one. In a way one
> > could argue that Tarrant is more of a Jenna-replacement than the
> > Blake-replacement he has been accused of being; if they both appeared in
> > a series together, they would effectively be direct rivals for the same
> > spot.
>
> Precisely. And, much as like the series and consider it being WAY ahead of
> its (and not just its, now that I think of it) time, you tell me, judging by
> what transpired, who, man or woman had the better chance for action
> spotlight, here. (Strangely, in much-hated S4 it was not that evident, BTW).
Or in Season 1 - Terry Nation didn't really have any problem writing
action-centred scripts for female characters. I've heard it said that
the problem set in when he wasn't able to contribute all the scripts for
Season 2 - the fill-in scriptwriters didn't really know what to do with
these strong female characters they'd been handed...
[snip]
> >If Blake *had* been on board the Liberator in Series
> > 3, as opposed to an Avon who was wasting time running round looking for
> > him(!), I wonder if he would have tried to influence the direction in
> > which the Federation was re-establishing itself - to have some influence
> > on the shape of the future while things were temporarily fluid, before
> > it settled back into the same hardened old mould.
> > (Probably not - for dramatic reasons. It wouldn't have made such good
> > television!)
>
> Actually, I am not sure. Intrigues, interplays, unexpected consequences,
> mindgames (and games of greater magnitude), more clashes within the crew
> about the way to go about this or that, WAY more murky and blurry
> battlelines than even before... and first and foremost, Our Crew playing at
> so new for them civil ground, having to solve problems in other way than
> just blowing things out of the skies! ;-P (Can you tell that I might be the
> only one who counts DeathWatch among the favourites? <eg>). Vila as a
> politician - now THAT is a sight I'd pay to see... (Hey, I liked the glimpse
> we had in Voices from the past!)
You've convinced me - I wish we'd been given the chance to see that :-)
(And it might even have happened, if only because it would have solved
the budgetary problems for the series to a large degree.)
[snip]
> > > Whatever you can say about Avon, one thing is Right Out: that's
> > > him being perfectly (or even close to) happy about himself. At
> > > least never since Spacefall.
> >
> > Well, for a start, he's not happy about being caught up in Blake's wake.
> > It doesn't make *sense* as far as the Great God of Self-Preservation
> > goes, and it suggests that Blake is dictating his actions. And *no-one*
> > tells Avon what to do but Avon :-)
>
> Exactly. So since he IS involved, it's either that someone but Avon *does*
> tell him what to do... or, better yet, he's in *by his own volition*, he
> CHOSE to be caught up there. Talk about your lose-lose situation...
It does account for the grumpiness - and the pointed desire to
disassociate himself.
[snip]
> > > > Gan would probably have ended up in the Cally-role for Season Three
> > > > - gentle conscience and healer of the crew - and Cally would
> > > > have played more of a Dayna-part.
> > >
> > > ...<anal-retentive> And Dayna? </anal-retentive>.
> >
> > We wouldn't have needed her :-)
>
> Poor Josette - nobody loves her character!
I could never really get much of a hold on her - she was the shadowiest
character of them all with the exception of poor wooden Soolin. (Who was
basically stuck with Generic Companion scripts for half of her one and
only season...)
[snip]
> > I doubt Gan had any high-powered doctor's training - but I can see him as
> > having picked up quite a bit in the way of practical first aid 'on
> > the factory floor' so to speak (we don't really know what he did in
> > civilian life, but it doesn't seem to have been anything requiring
> > higher education; he's fairly clearly telegraphed as belonging to
> > the lower grades).
>
> Yes, but that's exactly why there might have been trouble in convincingly
> getting him in the role of healer. As Avon points out in Breakdown - not
> without some reason - it's a very fine, demanding business, tweaking with
> people's insides, pardon my bluntness. He shies away from it, and he's no
> lower grade, for all we know - and we know that being an Alpha includes
> QUITE a broad education (judging by how much Blake knows re: most unexpected
> areas of expertise <g>). No way can Gan get any proficiency in that in a
> rather moderate amount of time...
But he *does* apparently have proficiency in the practical use of
(presumably common) healer's equipment, since we see him using it
without being taught. One can hypothesise any number of back-stories to
explain it, but the ability had already been well established by
'Pressure Point'. As had the 'conscience' role. It's easy enough to
extrapolate that forward into Season Three.
[snip]
> > > <g> And Cally as Dayna... wasn't she a bit too smart and less
> > > hot-headed for the part?
> >
> > Ah, but she wouldn't have been Dayna - she'd have been the cool-headed
> > Cally who brings down the oncoming gunship in 'Shadow' and mounts an
> > (almost) one-man invasion of Servalan's palace in 'Rumours of Death' :-)
>
> Then I see no problem with Dayna being there as well - unlike Jenna and
> Tarrant, they wouldn't have the same part to compete for!
Indeed, they did in fact coexist during a whole season :-)
Anne
"Igenlode Wordsmith" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
> Anne - this isn't me, it's your attribution string - are you posting in
> Cyrillic or something?
I didn't, but my new Windows did. That's the first Russian version I ever
had - having gotten used to the previous ones, it didn't occur to me that
I'll have Cyrillic everything around, unless I'm careful! Thank you for the
heads-up, and here we go again...
> [snip]
> >you have best of the both worlds <g> - you understand (and can't help
> > identifying with) one, while being not at all adverse to another...
>
> Not sure I *identify* with Avon... let's just say I recognise and
> comprehend my own faults in him...
Probably I expressed myself wrongly, but for me, whenever I see myself in
anyone on screen (be that in a good or bad way) - I *am* identifying with
him / her by that very token. Doesn't mean I always like what I see (or am
reminded of mysefl) in such a case, though! <g> Just feel "I know what they
are thinking / why they are doing it"...
>Blake's faults, on the other hand,
> I'll forgive out of loyalty -
And here I thought that, as Avon's life counterpart, the reason of this
choice of yours is that you'd just count good and bad sides and decide that
the overall saldo is "for", rather than "against"... <ducks>
>something Blake would probably comprehend
> and Avon wouldn't at all. Not, as far as we know, because he doesn't
> understand loyalty, but because he doesn't see it as any excuse for
> stupid behaviour :-)
On rational level, no. But, all things considered, I'm afraid he'd
understand it only too well... which will be all the more reason for him to
vehemently deny any inkling of such understanding! ;-P Yes, he might call
you insane... as he did himself, more than once, and for about the same
thing.
>
> [snip]
>
> > > However, I have a track record of being fascinated by morally dubious
> > > characters of high intelligence and sarcastic expression - Vetinari,
> > > Snape, most English-accented Hollywood villains :-)
> >
> > Welcome to the club :-). This kind of character, I can even forgive lack
of
> > English accent... <eg>. And yes, these are all great examples.
>
> It is a slight problem where Hollywood is concerned, though; the most
> recent film I saw ("The First Rebel" - 'recent' is perhaps not the word
> in this context...) featured John Wayne opposite George Sanders. Now,
> picture which one the audience was supposed to support... and which one
> for whose outcome I found myself concerned :-)
Ah, but as you point out yourself, it was the time BEFORE people started to
realize that baddies (or at least gray shadows wearers) are cooler than
goody-too-shoes'es <g>, and sidekicks might be *way* more of attraction than
the heroes. Then, they really expected us all to go for the latter; these
days, judging by examples like Smallville and later Buffy, some people seem
to start smelling the coffee...
> > I wouldn't
> > mind seeing Snape and Harry forced to co-operate... (JKR, please, you
know
> > you want it yourself... <g>).
>
> A very good chance of seeing that, I'd say. We've already seen Snape and
> Sirius Black forced to tolerate one another...
...and it looks like only a glimpse of things to come. Dumbledore sure was
gunning for something BIG by the end of GoF.
> Incidentally, you might want to take a look at my and Troels
> Forchhammer's contributions to the long-running thread" Why do some
> people find Snape attractive?" at
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=2003011220331...@nym.alias
.net
You think, being on Usenet, and with my fannish preferences, I didn't peek
already? <eg> Seriously, I found the ng a very interesting place to look (if
occasionally way too prone for trolls' outbursts - yup, even more than some
other active newsgroups I visit), it's just that when I first started to
lurk, I was a bit depressed about constant pushing of the OoP's release
date, which might have drained my creative energy for the topic altogether.
It feels better now - but of course, now we have another release date to be
depressed about... <sigh>.
And yes, the thread had a lot of thoughtful and reasonable, not to mention
well-put stuff in it....
> [snip]
>
> > > Mmmm... you don't think Blake would have talked Vila into it somehow
> > > himself, 'for the benefit of the crew'? :-)
> >
> > You mean he would let Vila go alone? The mother hen that is Blake?
Further
> > to the point,
> >
"I-trust-you-as-long-as-your-head-is-going-to-explode-together-with-mine"
> > Blake? I don't think so... <eg>
>
> <grin> Yes... Blake's not quite so naive as fans (and Avon) like to make
> out, is he?
...but, unlike Avon (whom - judging by the moment from which I quoted - such
surprise rather pleased), quite few of them, upon finding that out, get all
offended and accuse good old Roj of all kinds of nefarious things...
> [snip]
> > much as like the series and consider it being WAY ahead of
> > its (and not just its, now that I think of it) time, you tell me,
judging by
> > what transpired, who, man or woman had the better chance for action
> > spotlight, here. (Strangely, in much-hated S4 it was not that evident,
BTW).
>
> Or in Season 1 - Terry Nation didn't really have any problem writing
> action-centred scripts for female characters. I've heard it said that
> the problem set in when he wasn't able to contribute all the scripts for
> Season 2 - the fill-in scriptwriters didn't really know what to do with
> these strong female characters they'd been handed...
Yes - especially some of them... <tries hard not to bring up a certain name
in umpteenth time>. But I didn't (and still don't) think it applies to Chris
Boucher (then again, one can hardly call him a fill-in). At least, the
tendencies rearing their heads in eps like Power, didn't get prevalent, or
even all that regular... nor did an ep based on them become the last hooray!
(Can you say "Turnabout Intruder"? <shudders>).
[snip]
> >Our Crew playing at
> > so new for them civil ground, having to solve problems in other way than
> > just blowing things out of the skies! ;-P (Can you tell that I might be
the
> > only one who counts DeathWatch among the favourites? <eg>). Vila as a
> > politician - now THAT is a sight I'd pay to see... (Hey, I liked the
glimpse
> > we had in Voices from the past!)
>
> You've convinced me - I wish we'd been given the chance to see that :-)
Great - now I seem to inadvertently add to someone's list of unfulfilled
dreams! ;-P
> (And it might even have happened, if only because it would have solved
> the budgetary problems for the series to a large degree.)
That would be a big plus - but "it's not the stuff for action-adventure show
to tackle" factor would likely beat it. (Especially since it may feel too
arc-potent, and therefore frightening, for the powers-that-be). The saddest
part is, said powers might be right - for all I know, neither Voices, nor
DeathWatch are exactly among the favourites...
> [snip]
> > > Well, for a start, he's not happy about being caught up in Blake's
wake.
> > > It doesn't make *sense* as far as the Great God of Self-Preservation
> > > goes, and it suggests that Blake is dictating his actions. And
*no-one*
> > > tells Avon what to do but Avon :-)
> >
> > Exactly. So since he IS involved, it's either that someone but Avon
*does*
> > tell him what to do... or, better yet, he's in *by his own volition*, he
> > CHOSE to be caught up there. Talk about your lose-lose situation...
>
> It does account for the grumpiness - and the pointed desire to
> disassociate himself.
And my, does he try... <sadistic grin>
> [snip]
> > Poor Josette - nobody loves her character!
>
> I could never really get much of a hold on her - she was the shadowiest
> character of them all
I found her a bit undefined myself (and again, "Animals" didn't help, nor
did being on a receiving end of storytelling by Stud TWICE), and it did seem
to me that who was introduced in AfterMath radically changed in later eps...
But, with the help of that very perspective I noted more than once - that I
could see it all in one piece, sort of - I did manage to sort of get a hold
of the character. The change did grow on me as a more natural than I
formerly thought: surroundings do affect us, and more so when the switch
from one to another happens under such a drastic circumstances as ones
undergone by Dayna. She literally lost all her world, all her safety net,
anything to fall back on. No wonder she behaved erratically, from a bravado
to totally lost... And, considering the circumstances of her meeting with
Avon, no wonder that he had such a "first thing seen" effect on her (along
the lines of what happens to newborns... she *was*, in a way, into this new
not-too-brave world...)
>with the exception of poor wooden Soolin. (Who was
> basically stuck with Generic Companion scripts for half of her one and
> only season...)
I think it was a bit less than a half, and during that period she was rather
one-dimensional than wooden (the latter suggests an acting quality - or
rather, lack thereof, and I think Glynis did well with what she had).
> [snip]
>
> > As Avon points out in Breakdown - not
> > without some reason - it's a very fine, demanding business, tweaking
with
> > people's insides, pardon my bluntness. He shies away from it, and he's
no
> > lower grade, for all we know - and we know that being an Alpha includes
> > QUITE a broad education (judging by how much Blake knows re: most
unexpected
> > areas of expertise <g>). No way can Gan get any proficiency in that in a
> > rather moderate amount of time...
>
> But he *does* apparently have proficiency in the practical use of
> (presumably common) healer's equipment, since we see him using it
> without being taught. One can hypothesise any number of back-stories to
> explain it,
I must admit it would make a cause for quite a few nice flashbacks. (Though
I still think that it's a long distance from being able to apply a medical
kit to performing complicated surgeries).
>As had the 'conscience' role.
That sure had been there pretty early on - full-fledged by the time of
Shadow.
>It's easy enough to
> extrapolate that forward into Season Three.
I am not sure about easy, but probably possible, especially if the goal
wasn't to make him a real expert.
> [snip]
>
> > > > <g> And Cally as Dayna... wasn't she a bit too smart and less
> > > > hot-headed for the part?
> > >
> > > Ah, but she wouldn't have been Dayna - she'd have been the cool-headed
> > > Cally who brings down the oncoming gunship in 'Shadow' and mounts an
> > > (almost) one-man invasion of Servalan's palace in 'Rumours of Death'
:-)
> >
> > Then I see no problem with Dayna being there as well - unlike Jenna and
> > Tarrant, they wouldn't have the same part to compete for!
>
> Indeed, they did in fact coexist during a whole season :-)
In reality, yes - but weren't we talking about a perfect world? <eg>
Anne
Igenlode Wordsmith
>
> "Igenlode Wordsmith" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
> > Not sure I *identify* with Avon... let's just say I recognise and
> > comprehend my own faults in him...
>
> Probably I expressed myself wrongly, but for me, whenever I see myself in
> anyone on screen (be that in a good or bad way) - I *am* identifying with
> him / her by that very token. Doesn't mean I always like what I see (or am
> reminded of mysefl) in such a case, though! <g> Just feel "I know what they
> are thinking / why they are doing it"...
'Identifying' with Avon or Lord Vetinari is relatively glamorous
compared to seeing oneself clearly in Judge Frollo, Soames Forsyte,
Inspector Javert and - for my sins - Arnold Rimmer...
[snip]
> > Avon wouldn't at all. Not, as far as we know, because he doesn't
> > understand loyalty, but because he doesn't see it as any excuse for
> > stupid behaviour :-)
>
> On rational level, no. But, all things considered, I'm afraid he'd
> understand it only too well... which will be all the more reason for him to
> vehemently deny any inkling of such understanding! ;-P Yes, he might call
> you insane... as he did himself, more than once, and for about the same
> thing.
Was it loyalty of which Avon said in 'Trial' "I have never understood
why it should be necessary to prove it by <xxx> - or why it should be
necessary to /prove/ it at all?"
I don't think he denies it. I think he simply doesn't consider it
something to be made a public show of.
[snip]
> > the most recent film I saw ("The First Rebel" - 'recent' is perhaps
> > not the word in this context...) featured John Wayne opposite George
> > Sanders. Now, picture which one the audience was supposed to
> > support... and which one for whose outcome I found myself concerned
> > :-)
>
> Ah, but as you point out yourself, it was the time BEFORE people started to
> realize that baddies (or at least gray shadows wearers) are cooler than
> goody-too-shoes'es <g>, and sidekicks might be *way* more of attraction than
> the heroes. Then, they really expected us all to go for the latter; these
> days, judging by examples like Smallville and later Buffy, some people seem
> to start smelling the coffee...
I fear I'm too traditional to be entirely comfortable with that. Or
perhaps it's that I prefer to be unconventional alone - once everybody
jumps on the bandwagon, my eccentricity becomes your fashion statement
:-)
[snip alt.fan.harry-potter]
> You think, being on Usenet, and with my fannish preferences, I didn't peek
> already? <eg> Seriously, I found the ng a very interesting place to look (if
> occasionally way too prone for trolls' outbursts - yup, even more than some
> other active newsgroups I visit), it's just that when I first started to
> lurk, I was a bit depressed about constant pushing of the OoP's release
> date, which might have drained my creative energy for the topic altogether.
> It feels better now - but of course, now we have another release date to be
> depressed about... <sigh>.
>
> And yes, the thread had a lot of thoughtful and reasonable, not to mention
> well-put stuff in it....
Well, if you'd care to delurk, another individual available for reasoned
discussion would be very welcome. One or two of the regulars seem to be
getting very snappish of late, and more interested in point-scoring than
plot exploration...
[snip]
> > > Our Crew playing at so new for them civil ground, having to solve problems
> > > in other way than just blowing things out of the skies! ;-P (Can
> > > you tell that I might be the only one who counts DeathWatch among
> > > the favourites? <eg>). Vila as a politician - now THAT is a sight
> > > I'd pay to see... (Hey, I liked the glimpse we had in Voices from
> > > the past!)
[snip]
> > (And it might even have happened, if only because it would have solved
> > the budgetary problems for the series to a large degree.)
>
> That would be a big plus - but "it's not the stuff for action-adventure show
> to tackle" factor would likely beat it. (Especially since it may feel too
> arc-potent, and therefore frightening, for the powers-that-be). The saddest
> part is, said powers might be right - for all I know, neither Voices, nor
> DeathWatch are exactly among the favourites...
There's nothing wrong with the politics in Voice from the Past - it's
the brainwashing and silly bandages parts of the plot that let it down.
(Oh, and Ven Glynd's unctuous change of heart). Le Grand's part works
beautifully - but they should have left Travis out of it. His presence
doesn't even make a lot of sense chronologically - both Voice from the
Past and Gambit really call for him to have been in position undercover
for several months beforehand.
If they'd had an unknown (to the crew) traitor or double-agent playing
Shivan, some of the dafter plot devices could have been cut...
Thinking about it, I think the main drawback with a more political, less
'explosive' show would have been the necessity for extra plot to fill in
the time normally taken up by chases/special effects. I think it might
have proved rather a strain to keep up.
>
[snip Gan]
> >As had the 'conscience' role.
>
> That sure had been there pretty early on - full-fledged by the time of
> Shadow.
Much earlier, I think. It's there in 'Bounty' - he volunteers to go over
to help the 'stricken' ship and makes it clear he expects to sacrifice
his own life if it turns out to be a trap. I've a feeling one could make
a case for it in 'Space Fall', but I don't remember the details.
Anne
message news:200303180333...@gacracker.org...
>On 23 Feb 2003 Anne wrote:
> > > "Igenlode Wordsmith" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]>
>wrote:
>
> > anyone on screen (be that in a good or bad way) - I *am*
identifying
>with
> > him / her by that very token. Doesn't mean I always like what I see
(or
>am
> > reminded of mysefl) in such a case, though! <g> Just feel "I know
what
>they
> > are thinking / why they are doing it"...
>
>'Identifying' with Avon or Lord Vetinari is relatively glamorous
>compared to seeing oneself clearly in Judge Frollo, Soames Forsyte,
>Inspector Javert and - for my sins - Arnold Rimmer...
First, it was very glamorous of you to be so brave to admit the above ;-)
(though, among those, Rimmer doesn't look to have anything to be ashamed of!
<g> As in - at least, he only wishes...) Who (or, rather, what) can I see
myself in, I will never be fearless enough to admit... ;-P). In other words:
really good authors didn't get those baddies out of thin air, after all...
>[snip]
> > > Avon wouldn't at all. Not, as far as we know, because he doesn't
> > > understand loyalty, but because he doesn't see it as any excuse for
> > > stupid behaviour :-)
> > > On rational level, no. But, all things considered, I'm afraid he'd
> > understand it only too well... which will be all the more reason for him
>to
> > vehemently deny any inkling of such understanding! ;-P Yes, he might
>call
> > you insane... as he did himself, more than once, and for about the same
> > thing.
>
>Was it loyalty of which Avon said in 'Trial' "I have never understood
>why it should be necessary to prove it by <xxx> - or why it should be
>necessary to /prove/ it at all?"
<Pedantic to the point of insufferable> It was in "Duel". And it was about
caring. </Pedantic to the point of insufferable>. And indeed, while one is
related to another, I don't think he ever outright denied he was capable of
caring. With loyalty, he could at least try (not that he did, as you point
out below)...
>I don't think he denies it. I think he simply doesn't consider it
>something to be made a public show of.
Of course. He only makes a public show of NOT caring and NOT pledging any
loyalty to anyone. With a various degree of success in terms of being
convincing, I might add. (At least his success is various with those who not
only look but see).
>[snip]
> > it was the time BEFORE people started to
> > realize that baddies (or at least gray shadows wearers) are cooler than
> > goody-too-shoes'es <g>, and sidekicks might be *way* more of attraction
>than
> > the heroes. Then, they really expected us all to go for the latter;
>these
> > days, judging by examples like Smallville and later Buffy, some people
>seem
> > to start smelling the coffee...
>
>I fear I'm too traditional to be entirely comfortable with that.
Well, I suspect that not being comfortable is part of the fun for some. But
I do understand what you're saying. And I sort of share the feeling.
Forbidden fruit attraction (to me) only goes that far - until it is no
longer forbidden (or worse, becomes *cool*)... Suffice it is to say that
popularity of killing, maiming and torturing (coming, naturally - as part
and parcel - together with a great disgust to saving, helping and yes,
caring) makes me... jumpy. As (if not more) does giving not a squat about
such, um, recreational activities: "So what that h/she murdered bunches and
enjoyed pulling people's limbs off - the thing is, h/she is CUUUTE and
COOOLLL! And has feeelinngs, and suffers so beauuutifully, how can anyone
not want to give a hug and make up?" Spare me... (Not that I expect to be
spared).
>Or
>perhaps it's that I prefer to be unconventional alone -
That too. Can't do too bad with a little snobbery <ducks VERY quickly, all
the while grinning with a suspicious amount of understanding>.
>[snip alt.fan.harry-potter]
>
> > when I first started to
> > lurk, I was a bit depressed about constant pushing of the OoP's release
> > date, which might have drained my creative energy for the topic
>altogether.
> > It feels better now - but of course, now we have another release date to
>be
> > depressed about... <sigh>.
> > > And yes, the thread had a lot of thoughtful and reasonable, not to
>mention
> > well-put stuff in it....
>
>Well, if you'd care to delurk, another individual available for reasoned
>discussion would be very welcome.
Firstly, aw shucks, of course <g>. I'm thinking about joining in the fray
now and then. In which moments I usually encounter some
mightily-information-loaded post of an expert on All Things Potter <tm> and
shirk away in fear and shame of my own lack of prowess in minute detail...
;-)
>One or two of the regulars seem to be
>getting very snappish of late, and more interested in point-scoring than
>plot exploration...
That, too. I'm a bit wimpish that way - whenever discussion starts turning
from arguments to, well, terminology, I tend to think I had enough of that
in real life. But probably, after couple of deep breaths, I'll try... one
day.
>[snip]
> > for all I know, neither Voices, nor
> > DeathWatch are exactly among the favourites...
>
>There's nothing wrong with the politics in Voice from the Past - it's
>the brainwashing and silly bandages parts of the plot that let it down.
The latter I managed to chalk up with the rest of the "look problems" (and
yes, I know it was pushing it, but probably, by the time I got to B7, I
learned that there are FAR worse downsides to TV fiction). The former...
well, it was simplistic, I grant you that, but at least, there was some
continuity there. And probably best for all involved that they didn't get to
finer detail of the technique, anyway.
>(Oh, and Ven Glynd's unctuous change of heart).
Call me overly cynical fanwanker (a combination to behold, isn't it? ;-P),
but I didn't trust his sincerity one bit. And still don't. Which probably
partly excused / justified the brainwashing part for me. Blake in his right
mind falling for Glynd's "seeing the light" would be far, far worse.
>Le Grand's part works
>beautifully - but they should have left Travis out of it.
I both agree and am not sure. How much of the ep would setting up a new
villain have taken? At least, Travis had a "sign value", so to speak.
>His presence
>doesn't even make a lot of sense chronologically - both Voice from the
>Past and Gambit really call for him to have been in position undercover
>for several months beforehand.
After him surviving Project Avalon AND Orac, I was ready to believe just
about anything <eg>. A bit more seriously, "chance to prove yourself" wasn't
beyond the realms of possibility within the story ever since Servalan chose
to keep him despite "fall from grace". Though I agree it was a stretch, and
they at least should make it clearer earlier, whether Travis was acting on
instructions or pulling "one-man exploit mission" to swim back where he was
on a crest of wave, so to speak. Pity that they didn't go that route, too.
>Thinking about it, I think the main drawback with a more political, less
>'explosive' show would have been the necessity for extra plot to fill in
>the time normally taken up by chases/special effects. I think it might
>have proved rather a strain to keep up.
Objectively, perhaps, even most likely. I personally, OTOH, would greatly
welcome "talking stuff" which non-action plotting would require. I cherish
every scene where they have a chance to just communicate - and think there
were not nearly enough of those (I think I already mentioned it somewhere).
> >
>[snip Gan]
>
> > >As had the 'conscience' role.
> > > That sure had been there pretty early on - full-fledged by the time of
> > Shadow.
>
>Much earlier, I think. It's there in 'Bounty' - he volunteers to go over
>to help the 'stricken' ship and makes it clear he expects to sacrifice
>his own life if it turns out to be a trap.
Which shows his personal conscientious side alright, no question, but that's
what I meant by his *crew* conscience part didn't form fully until "Shadow".
The decision he took in Bounty was his and his alone, after all. Now in
Shadow, he interferes with the whole team's "policy" (that being, of course,
Blake's policy first and foremost, but there you are ;-P).
<snip>
Anne
Igenlode
> "Igenlode Wordsmith" wrote in message
> news:200303180333...@gacracker.org...
> >'Identifying' with Avon or Lord Vetinari is relatively glamorous
> >compared to seeing oneself clearly in Judge Frollo, Soames Forsyte,
> >Inspector Javert and - for my sins - Arnold Rimmer...
>
> First, it was very glamorous of you to be so brave to admit the above ;-)
Self-deprecation may be English, but I've never heard it described as
glamorous!
> (though, among those, Rimmer doesn't look to have anything to be ashamed of!
> <g> As in - at least, he only wishes...)
Precisely - amongst the various self-absorbed, driven obsessives in that
group, he is the only one to lack even the glamour of being potentially
dangerous. Not only disliked but also ridiculed...
[snip]
> >I don't think he denies it. I think he simply doesn't consider it
> >something to be made a public show of.
>
> Of course. He only makes a public show of NOT caring and NOT pledging any
> loyalty to anyone. With a various degree of success in terms of being
> convincing, I might add. (At least his success is various with those who not
> only look but see).
I'd say that Avon's most prominent characteristic (at least after
Series 2 - as I've argued in the past, by the end of Series 1 he
appears suprisingly integrated into the crew, and the change comes with
a jolt) is a definite striving to remain detached, and to proclaim that
detachment. You can argue that he *does* care, but I think it's made
pretty clear that he *doesn't* want to care, and above all he *doesn't*
want to be seen to 'get involved'. He's always trying to distance
himself - to stand off to one side as the disinterested observer,
claiming to see situations for what they really are.
Yes, I think a case can be made for saying that he finds himself caring
about the fates of the rest of the crew despite himself - although it's
interesting that in "Rumours of Death" they're not 'his' crew - they're
"Blake's people". But I'd say he not only makes a public show of not
wanting to, he genuinely doesn't want to. It offends his self-image...
[snip Voice from the Past]
> >Le Grand's part works
> >beautifully - but they should have left Travis out of it.
>
> I both agree and am not sure. How much of the ep would setting up a new
> villain have taken? At least, Travis had a "sign value", so to speak.
You mean that when we see him, we instantly know that something is
wrong? I'm sure some other damning indication could have been devised -
sending a secret outgoing message using a Federation rank, for example,
or simply a betraying Federation insignia revealed on some non-obvious
item of clothing (I'm assuming that a non-Travis character could drop
the bandages...)
I think the entire episode could work almost as scripted with some
Original Character (to adopt fan fiction-speak!) in the part of Travis,
without any extra establishing scenes needed. All we need to know is that
the man is a faceless Federation mole. Having Travis playing Shivan adds
nothing at all to the plot, and actually strains credulity - he's a
military man, a Space Commander (apparently with experience of
planetary warfare as well), not a trained undercover agent, and he isn't
even officially a Federation man any more. The timescale doesn't fit.
And the scheme requires him to pass up dozens of opportunities to kill
Blake...
If Servalan had instructed him to infiltrate a suspected cabal in his
own persona as a disaffected and cashiered ex-officer, it would have
made a great deal more sense. But of course, he wouldn't have got
anywhere near the Liberator in that guise.
[snip]
> >Thinking about it, I think the main drawback with a more political, less
> >'explosive' show would have been the necessity for extra plot to fill in
> >the time normally taken up by chases/special effects. I think it might
> >have proved rather a strain to keep up.
>
> Objectively, perhaps, even most likely. I personally, OTOH, would greatly
> welcome "talking stuff" which non-action plotting would require. I cherish
> every scene where they have a chance to just communicate - and think there
> were not nearly enough of those (I think I already mentioned it somewhere).
One doesn't want too much of that - there's enough of it in fan-fiction,
where the balance is all too often heavily weighted towards
emoting/communication, and away from the kind of quickfire repartee
that was so typical of the show. Less is more, you know :-) One
would not value the occasional revealing moments of dialogue so much if
glimpses behind the normal stoicism of the crew had not been such a
rarity!
Anne
"Igenlode Wordsmith" wrote in message
> On 18 Mar 2003 Anne wrote:
>
> > "Igenlode Wordsmith" wrote in message
> > news:200303180333...@gacracker.org...
>
> > >'Identifying' with Avon or Lord Vetinari is relatively glamorous
> > >compared to seeing oneself clearly in Judge Frollo, Soames Forsyte,
> > >Inspector Javert and - for my sins - Arnold Rimmer...
> >
> > First, it was very glamorous of you to be so brave to admit the above
;-)
>
> Self-deprecation may be English, but I've never heard it described as
> glamorous!
There's first time for everything <eg>. Seriously, there's no ultimate
definition for almost anything - it always depends on circumstances. And
yes, I do think it's brave to admit something from admitting of which I am
still chickening out... ;-)
> > (though, among those, Rimmer doesn't look to have anything to be ashamed
of!
> > <g> As in - at least, he only wishes...)
>
> Precisely - amongst the various self-absorbed, driven obsessives in that
> group, he is the only one to lack even the glamour of being potentially
> dangerous. Not only disliked but also ridiculed...
Firstly, yes, and that's particularly charming about him <meg>. Not easy to
become such a popular figure under such conditions. Call it "B-movie
effect", if you wish ("so bad, it's good"), but the blatant sum of such
parts makes good not-so-old Arnold practically irresistible to the viewers,
even if few of them will admit it. Secondly, danger is WAY overrated. (She
said with a full might of first-hand experience of seasoned coward...)
> [snip]
> > He only makes a public show of NOT caring and NOT pledging any
> > loyalty to anyone. With a various degree of success in terms of being
> > convincing, I might add. (At least his success is various with those who
not
> > only look but see).
>
> I'd say that Avon's most prominent characteristic (at least after
> Series 2 - as I've argued in the past, by the end of Series 1 he
> appears suprisingly integrated into the crew,
Yes, but the very fact that it's so surprising shows just how characteristic
it is for him...
>and the change comes with
> a jolt) is a definite striving to remain detached, and to proclaim that
> detachment.
Another "yes but" here <g> contains the note that *striving* suggests
certain lack of what the person in question is after...
>You can argue that he *does* care, but I think it's made
> pretty clear that he *doesn't* want to care,
That was exactly what I meant.
>and above all he *doesn't*
> want to be seen to 'get involved'.
And that even more so ;-).
>He's always trying to distance
> himself - to stand off to one side as the disinterested observer,
> claiming to see situations for what they really are.
Yup. "Public show" at its ultimatest (and it that's not a word, it's still
true <vbg>).
> Yes, I think a case can be made for saying that he finds himself caring
> about the fates of the rest of the crew despite himself - although it's
> interesting that in "Rumours of Death" they're not 'his' crew - they're
> "Blake's people".
Oh so they all (including him) thing... <eg> But seriously, I agree - they
still felt as "Leader's Legacy" for quite a while, and it took time for that
to change. But by "Rumours" it did become actually a work in progress
towards that direction.
>But I'd say he not only makes a public show of not
> wanting to, he genuinely doesn't want to. It offends his self-image...
I'd say he makes a public show of not caring because he doesn't want to.
(And yes, by that very reason that you state... and probably, out of some
subconscious, if not outright, fear to get attached, and of it all ending
badly - in inward and outward respects alike. The more ties, the more
vulnerability, and all that).
> [snip Voice from the Past]
>
> > > they should have left Travis out of it.
> >
> > I both agree and am not sure. How much of the ep would setting up a new
> > villain have taken? At least, Travis had a "sign value", so to speak.
>
> You mean that when we see him, we instantly know that something is
> wrong?
More than just something... ;-)
>I'm sure some other damning indication could have been devised -
> sending a secret outgoing message using a Federation rank, for example,
...and the entirety of fen (who are, after all, mostly happen to be rather
attentive and thinking bunch) screams bloody murder for such a recklessness
of Feds' secret agent <g>. "Even in a secret message, they shouldn't risk
exposing his rank! They should have used a codename!" Fair enough - just
that would demand *yet more* screen time to establish for the viewers what
the code means and who is it intended for. (Am I not a godsend as a story
editor? <rrreg>).
> or simply a betraying Federation insignia revealed on some non-obvious
> item of clothing (I'm assuming that a non-Travis character could drop
> the bandages...)
Not in front of his "co-conspirators", I don't think. Even Le Grand's Knight
in Shining Armour should have known how real Shivan looks. And *thank you
very much* for the mental image you provided me with by the above. Just
which EXACTLY "non-obivous item of clothing" that could have insignia on it
did you mean? No, don't answer that...
> I think the entire episode could work almost as scripted with some
> Original Character (to adopt fan fiction-speak!) in the part of Travis,
Original Character may even be better for the credibility, by all the
reasons you stated in previous post. But...
> without any extra establishing scenes needed.
I'm still not sure of that.
>All we need to know is that
> the man is a faceless Federation mole.
But we really need to know that. *Well* in advance of Dramatic Revelation
<tm>, too.
>Having Travis playing Shivan adds
> nothing at all to the plot,
Other than convenience - agreed.
>and actually strains credulity -
See above - no argument here (not that it's the first, let alone only, B7's
own example of Dramatic License... I would even hesitate to call it the
worst one).
>he's a
> military man, a Space Commander
Well, no longer...
>(apparently with experience of
> planetary warfare as well), not a trained undercover >agent,
<mutter> With the level of expertise (and gullibility) that supposed
conspiracy displayed, not much training was required, anyway... </mutter>
BTW, I'm not sure it was *so* implausible - this kind of conspiracy was
BOUND to be amateurish: these people might have been well-versed in
political intrigues, but as far as coups went, they were hardly any more
trained than Travis was in spying.
I mean, *I* would get more suspicious of a Revolutionary Hero whose face is
never in the open and whose DNA are conveniently unavailable for the
matching... (OK, that may be my competent cowardice coming in handy).
>and he isn't
> even officially a Federation man any more.
That, actually, I didn't mind. I could well see how Travis didn't care about
ranks and all things official at the time: the very name of Blake would be
enough to draw him in. And if, indeed, he viewed it as a way to get back
into the Feds' graces... (Granted, he was utterly contemptuous of them by
the time, but "integrity doesn't make a good armour", as one of our admired
characters from another Multiverse once said. Being an outcast sure wasn't
Travis' thing). Alas, as I said, if the authors meant it, they didn't go out
of their way to show such an intention from Travis. Nor did they care to
give us an idea how he ended up among the would-be overthrowers of Feds'
high-and-mightiest. (Talk about screen time scarcity).
> And the scheme requires him to pass up dozens of opportunities to kill
> Blake...
But if we add into the mix a condition of "and staying alive himself", these
opportunities drop drastically in number, I think. It's not like they were
alone with each other all that often... Still, at least once he was
inexcusably slow with acting accordingly <eg>. (Which made me wonder about
the above probability - that he wanted to be "re-installed" into the only
society he ever belonged to - to begin with).
> If Servalan had instructed him to infiltrate a suspected cabal in his
> own persona as a disaffected and cashiered ex-officer, it would have
> made a great deal more sense.
Except for his way too screwed public relations and over-exposure. Imagine,
say, Herr Eichmann trying to ingratiate himself to some guerilla unit,
claiming being disowned by the regime and citing his possible uses. Some
chance there might be, but not fat enough to be worth trying.
>But of course, he wouldn't have got
> anywhere near the Liberator in that guise.
I'd suspect the same applies to any resistance group. Even such a political,
"practicality-over-morality" sort as dear ex-juror represented, would be
overcautious with the Hangman Who Even Federation Shunned For His Butchery.
Even Shivan makes more sense, especially considering the schedule. There was
no time for Servalan to wait until these people would warm up to such a
scandalous (for them) idea as Travis in their midst.
> [snip]
>
> >I cherish
> > every scene where they have a chance to just communicate - and think
there
> > were not nearly enough of those (I think I already mentioned it
somewhere).
> One doesn't want too much of that - there's enough of it in fan-fiction,
<Suicidal mode> There's next to nothing of it in fan-fiction. At least in
the (not too small) amount I happened to come across, people named "Avon",
"Vila", "Blake", "Cally", "Jenna", etc., have little to do with those
similarly-named I met in B7. Including the way they communicate and relate
to each other. They do, however, bear an uncanny resemblance with a lot of
characters residing in other fandoms-related fiction. In other words, mush
and melodramatics do not communication a make. Especially not the sort
portrayed in Blakes 7 </Suicidal mode>.
> where the balance is all too often heavily weighted towards
> emoting/communication, and away from the kind of quickfire repartee
> that was so typical of the show.
Exactly.
>Less is more, you know :-)
Often. But when the level of character-writing is the one we saw in the show
in question, more is more... <g>
>One
> would not value the occasional revealing moments of dialogue so much if
> glimpses behind the normal stoicism of the crew had not been such a
> rarity!
Thing is, the stoicism also is a way of communicating (or smokescreening ;-P
which is also fun). What I meant I would like more of, was "regular moments"
as opposed to *action* not open emoting as opposed to maintaining of facade
(that proportion was *extremely* well-balanced in the show as it was, I
think). Thing is, for every snippet of dialogue, the need to get themselves
out of yet another rut struck - and took the better part of the ep.
Now, for your regular action-adventure this format -everything else as
service to (filler in between) of Big Stuff - is normal and effective. But
B7 is, as we both know, something WAY else, and that "filler" in their case
was too good. "More is more" kind of good.
Anne
Igenlode Wordsmith
>
> "Igenlode Wordsmith" wrote in message
> news:2003033013210...@nym.alias.net...
[snip]
> > > He only makes a public show of NOT caring and NOT pledging any
> > > loyalty to anyone. With a various degree of success in terms of being
> > > convincing, I might add. (At least his success is various with
> > > those who not only look but see).
> >
> > I'd say that Avon's most prominent characteristic (at least after
> > Series 2 - as I've argued in the past, by the end of Series 1 he
> > appears suprisingly integrated into the crew,
>
> Yes, but the very fact that it's so surprising shows just how characteristic
> it is for him...
No; it's surprising *with hindsight*.
Series 2 took on a much harder edge, which I suspect can probably
be attributed to more input from Chris Boucher and less from Terry
Nation :-) Series 1 can be seen as the story of a crew of misfits
shaking down together to work as a team, according to all the best
traditions of genre fiction. By the end of the season, they're still
reflexively quarrelling, but they're also making sacrifices for each
other and laughing together on the flight deck. Avon volunteers to go
into danger for the sake of another crew member *twice* in the last two
episodes, without any coercing from Blake or anyone else.
Series 2, on the other hand, can be seen as the story of a crew falling
apart under the pressure of their own notoriety and the strain of
Avon's sudden, unexplained bloody-mindedness and Blake's responding
antagonism. There's nothing in the end of 'Orbit' or 'Deliverance' or
'Bounty' to lead us to anticipate Avon's change of heart; one can
hypothesise in fan-fiction (and I have) that it's due to *reaction*
against the realisation that he is unconsciously becoming part of a
unit again, and that his own psychological damage compels him to lash
out to distance himself before he can become, as he sees it, vulnerable
- but there's nothing in canon to make such a turn of events inevitable
at this point, and one can conceive of an alternate universe in which
Avon continued along the 'humanising' lines of Series 1 and ultimately
became a very different character. Perhaps less interesting, but
probably happier overall. And probably with a longer life expectancy.
>
> >and the change comes with
> > a jolt) is a definite striving to remain detached, and to proclaim that
> > detachment.
>
> Another "yes but" here <g> contains the note that *striving* suggests
> certain lack of what the person in question is after...
And I assure you that the word was judiciously chosen on my part <grin>
to make that very suggestion...
[snip using a non-Travis agent in Voice from the Past]
> >I'm sure some other damning indication could have been devised -
> > sending a secret outgoing message using a Federation rank, for example,
>
> ...and the entirety of fen (who are, after all, mostly happen to be rather
> attentive and thinking bunch) screams bloody murder for such a recklessness
> of Feds' secret agent <g>. "Even in a secret message, they shouldn't risk
> exposing his rank! They should have used a codename!" Fair enough - just
> that would demand *yet more* screen time to establish for the viewers what
> the code means and who is it intended for. (Am I not a godsend as a story
> editor? <rrreg>).
Frankly, I don't see why. All that is needed is to establish that the
man (or maybe woman - prefiguring Cancer) is sending undercover
messages to an outside agency, using an identity that is *not* the one
presented to his co-conspirators. Alarm bells should start ringing for
your "highly attentive and thinking" viewers...
>
> > or simply a betraying Federation insignia revealed on some non-obvious
> > item of clothing (I'm assuming that a non-Travis character could drop
> > the bandages...)
>
> Not in front of his "co-conspirators", I don't think. Even Le Grand's Knight
> in Shining Armour should have known how real Shivan looks.
I was rather assuming you'd be dropping the whole lame Shivan story -
wouldn't they at least have *checked* under the bandages, if only to
see if they could improve on the treatment? Done a voice analysis or
something? Look at how wary Blake and Avon are of each other in
'Blake', even when the facial identification is pretty much certain -
in favour of a simpler 'high-ranking member of the conspiracy is
actually a Federation plant' plot. *Ven Glynd* would have made a more
plausible traitor, for heaven's sake; it would have explained all his
implausible behaviour! Or would that have been too obvious?
> And *thank you very much* for the mental image you provided me with
> by the above. Just which EXACTLY "non-obivous item of clothing" that
> could have insignia on it did you mean? No, don't answer that...
Actually, I was thinking along the lines of old spy stories - the
betraying French stud pattern on the undercover agent's boots, for
example, or the foreign laundry mark on his handkerchiefs...
[snip]
> I mean, *I* would get more suspicious of a Revolutionary Hero whose face is
> never in the open and whose DNA are conveniently unavailable for the
> matching...
Precisely - and it's not as if he's going to be much good for his
ostensible purpose as figurehead, in that condition...
[snip]
> > If Servalan had instructed him to infiltrate a suspected cabal in
> > his own persona as a disaffected and cashiered ex-officer, it would
> > have made a great deal more sense.
>
> Except for his way too screwed public relations and over-exposure. Imagine,
> say, Herr Eichmann trying to ingratiate himself to some guerilla unit,
> claiming being disowned by the regime and citing his possible uses. Some
> chance there might be, but not fat enough to be worth trying.
If Ven Glynd (apparently legitimately) managed it...
Travis is just a soldier - he kills people on worlds in a state of
armed rebellion (admittedly indiscriminately). Ven Glynd disappears
people for thinking the wrong thoughts, and blackens their names and kills
and enslaves their innocent families first. And he's much more public
than Travis, whose notoriety may well be an internal Space Command
thing.
>
> > But of course, he wouldn't have got anywhere near the Liberator in
> > that guise.
>
> I'd suspect the same applies to any resistance group. Even such a political,
> "practicality-over-morality" sort as dear ex-juror represented, would be
> overcautious with the Hangman Who Even Federation Shunned For His Butchery.
They didn't, really; they condoned his 'butchery' for *years* and even
promoted him on the grounds of it (if you consider Servalan's detatched
command a promotion). They only put him on trial because he had ceased
to be useful, and in an attempt to undermine Servalan by association.
Does 'Trial' make it clear which faction was actually responsible for
invoking that showpiece court-martial? Was it Servalan 'throwing him to
the wolves' as a punishment for failing her - delayed retribution from
which only her whim had hitherto shielded him - or was it a political
ploy by her opponents to attack Servalan through her prior support for
Travis?
[snip]
> What I meant I would like more of, was "regular moments"
> as opposed to *action* not open emoting as opposed to maintaining of facade
> (that proportion was *extremely* well-balanced in the show as it was, I
> think). Thing is, for every snippet of dialogue, the need to get themselves
> out of yet another rut struck - and took the better part of the ep.
> Now, for your regular action-adventure this format -everything else as
> service to (filler in between) of Big Stuff - is normal and effective. But
> B7 is, as we both know, something WAY else, and that "filler" in their case
> was too good. "More is more" kind of good.
>
You mean that you wanted to see more of the details of their everyday
life - their off-duty moments?
Anna
me around - first they took it off cin.dfn, now my own ISP does just
the same... is there some sort of agenda against my relationship with
the show? <Paranoid mode on powersave>. Anyhoo, hopefully it works...
Igenlode Wordsmith <fuku AT redneck DOT gacracker DOT org> wrote in message news:<200304240227...@gacracker.org>...
> On 30 Mar 2003 Anne wrote:
>
> >
> > "Igenlode Wordsmith" wrote in message
> > news:2003033013210...@nym.alias.net...
>
> [snip]
>
> > > I'd say that Avon's most prominent characteristic (at least after
> > > Series 2 - as I've argued in the past, by the end of Series 1 he
> > > appears suprisingly integrated into the crew,
> >
> > Yes, but the very fact that it's so surprising shows just how characteristic
> > it is for him...
>
> No; it's surprising *with hindsight*.
That, too ;-). But, even judging by what we learned about the
character in happier, shinier times of S1, it wasn't a complete
overhaul, far from it. As you yourself indicate below.
> Series 2 took on a much harder edge, which I suspect can probably
> be attributed to more input from Chris Boucher and less from Terry
> Nation :-)
Surprise, surprise - I think the same! <g> (But, unlike about the end
of S4, Terry didn't seem to mind much, which shows that what
transpired was, after all, within the boundaries of his vision. More
or less ;-P).
>Series 1 can be seen as the story of a crew of misfits
> shaking down together to work as a team, according to all the best
> traditions of genre fiction.
But still willing to bolt now and then, when things got hot (other
than Blake, that is). Which was one of those very contradictions to
said traditions for which (among other things) we love the show...
>By the end of the season, they're still
> reflexively quarrelling, but they're also making sacrifices for each
> other and laughing together on the flight deck.
Well, it's not like it ended once and for all in Season 2 -
sacrifices, that is ("leave me", anyone? "Hostage" was very much into
second year) - and that laughter by the end of "Trial" was rather
hearty, IIRC. Avon talked tough, snapped much... and still the amount
of ships in "Horizon" was EXACTLY the maximum Liberator *could* take
on succesfully - and it made him stay. Like you said, they got tired
(no wonder), their illusions (whoever of them might have those) eroded
and went all jaded, the harsh reality was driven way home (I'd argue,
even before Pressure Point: Weapon, and even Redemption, must have
been quite shaking experiences, even by their standards) - but the
thing is, they more or less passed the exam of sticking together.
Boucher or no Boucher <ducks VERY quickly>. I tend to call it "Deep
Space Nine" effect. You probably heard much (no way of avoiding it, if
you read the media) how this incarnation is widely considered "the
black sheep" of Trek, straying away from Gene Roddenberry's vision,
yadda, yadda. As in, they are not all friendly, flaws we thought we
left behind (like xenophobia, underhanded methods, intolerance,
irrational anger) flying high, Starfleet isn't taken as be-all,
end-all by everyone and their aunt, conflicts and tension all around,
there are less than happy endings... But what these prosecutors seem
to miss, is the fact that, as the result, the fact that they DO come
through, do manage peace (or, when it comes to that, the right side
wins) - in such a situation, against such odds - means that much more
than, say, luckier, cleaner, less problematic wins of TNG crew. The
authors of DS9 knew what they said when putting that phrase into the
mouth of their protagonist: "It's easy to be a saint in a Paradise".
Try the same trick in heck, that is. And I'd say, at least by S2,
B7-ers didn't do too badly in that department. (I'd argue, even
further than that... but this is topic for another debate).
> Avon volunteers to go
> into danger for the sake of another crew member *twice* in the last two
> episodes, without any coercing from Blake or anyone else.
Well, one of those times, Blake's "you'd better" says more about
Avon's foresight than willingness to risk it, but ah well... <reg>
Seriously, what I mean, it was *always* mixed in him, whichever
"ingredient" showing more at various times. But we already agreed on
that.
> Series 2, on the other hand, can be seen as the story of a crew falling
> apart under the pressure of their own notoriety
Not too far apart, as yet, I don't think. "Trial" was the only time
when falling apart became real and close possibility, and it was
well-explained.
> and the strain of
> Avon's sudden, unexplained bloody-mindedness
I wouldn't call his coldness and contrariness all that bloody-minded.
Just as you say - he caught himself at getting too cuddly (plus... see
below).
> There's nothing in the end of 'Orbit' or 'Deliverance' or
> 'Bounty' to lead us to anticipate Avon's change of heart;
But there is, in the end of "Orac". I'd say, this prophecy (ironic,
how it DID come true, after all, only two seasons later) was enough of
a mortality-reminding jolt to have not just Avon getting second
thoughts and realizing anew just WHAT they got themselves into. In
that perspective, he could well get angry not just (and not even
foremost) at Blake, on whom (and not only) he lashed out, but at
himself, for losing vigilance.
> there's nothing in canon to make such a turn of events inevitable
Inevitable - no (few things are, in those innumerable parallel
Universes, eh? <g>) Quite possible and even reasonable to expect,
however. We would hardly come to the same conclusion independently
from ohe another, should it not be there (or be that long a shot),
would we?
> one can conceive of an alternate universe in which
> Avon continued along the 'humanising' lines of Series 1 and ultimately
> became a very different character. Perhaps less interesting, but
> probably happier overall. And probably with a longer life expectancy.
Agreed to all except the last... ;-) (Happy, agreeable Avon might not
survive Star One... and Blake would never then got his one-eyed,
bounty-hunting finale personality. Would it be better or worse, of
course, is open to the debate. I, the opportunist that I am, say yay
to "worse", but that's me...)
> > >and the change comes with
> > > a jolt) is a definite striving to remain detached, and to proclaim that
> > > detachment.
> >
> > Another "yes but" here <g> contains the note that *striving* suggests
> > certain lack of what the person in question is after...
>
> And I assure you that the word was judiciously chosen on my part <grin>
> to make that very suggestion...
And somehow, I am not entirely surprised. <vbg>
> [snip using a non-Travis agent in Voice from the Past]
>
> > >I'm sure some other damning indication could have been devised -
> > > sending a secret outgoing message using a Federation rank, for example,
> >
> All that is needed is to establish that the
> man (or maybe woman - prefiguring Cancer) is sending undercover
> messages to an outside agency, using an identity that is *not* the one
> presented to his co-conspirators. Alarm bells should start ringing for
> your "highly attentive and thinking" viewers...
Well, just showing him (her) alone, sending some strange,
not-discussed in the presense of others, signals, could, indeed, work
for B7 public. Even overly well, at that. You're right that it's an
effective method to show the rot at the core of the plot (sorry, no
more rhymes), but... Still, it's sort of "damned if you do" equation.
Because in that case, we would know the truth too early. (Of course,
you could say that, without knowing who exactly the messages are meant
for, and not seeing ALL their conversations, it would be hard even for
an attentive viewer to be sure if it's a betrayal or a planned group
move we simply don't know enough of. But for that, you have to be more
than thinking and attentive: you have to be willing to confuse
yourself. On how many of those can the poor authors count? <chuckle>).
<snip>
> I was rather assuming you'd be dropping the whole lame Shivan story -
To be honest, I didn't think of that - and it WOULD free considerable
amount of time to establish your alternative, non-Travis snake in the
grass. Yet - whether because of my getting used to what we had, or
because of me being fond of "Worshipped-and-therefore-unquestioned
Hero turns out to be a fake" device I'm sort of sorry to part with
this bit. (There might be other reasons, but more on those below).
> wouldn't they at least have *checked* under the bandages, if only to
> see if they could improve on the treatment? Done a voice analysis or
> something?
Yes, being too in awe of him for that stretches the credibility with
some squeaking sound <g>. And even being too smug at getting such an
asset, if helps, then not much. Still, vanity destroyed a lot of plans
and fueled unreal stupidity in real life...
> Look at how wary Blake and Avon are of each other in
> 'Blake', even when the facial identification is pretty much certain -
Well, unlike Shivan and the rest, they have a long *personal* history
;-). Far as I could understand, the problem for those two wasn't an
identity - it was *integrity*. It wasn't "are you really Blake?" - all
doubts were dropped (perhaps unwisely <mg>) the moment they met - it
was: "have you betrayed me?"
> *Ven Glynd* would have made a more
> plausible traitor, for heaven's sake; it would have explained all his
> implausible behaviour! Or would that have been too obvious?
Actually, not just too obvious (though that too): it would still not
be very plausible. Because him as a traitor could mean only two
things: he would be either working with Federation's blessing - thus,
an undercover agent, and we both know that it's NOT his speciality,
he's too much of a behind-the-desk type - or, indeed, using the real
coup for his own advantage (think Sula). And in case of the latter, it
would be absolutely not in his interest to ruin / catch / kill Our
Crew <tm>. Not until he'd got what he wanted. After all, they would be
his most effective tool (pawn?) So we'd need an overthrowing of
existing Feds administration - and at least one more ep (or better a
multi-ep arc), where the 7-ers' seeming victory would turn out to be
so Pyrrhic, it wouldn't even be funny. Which probably would make for
an intriguing TV, but by that time, such long arcs were frowned upon.
And we know only too well how much chance there would be for a
"political" type of action-adventure.
> > And *thank you very much* for the mental image you provided me with
> > by the above. Just which EXACTLY "non-obivous item of clothing" that
> > could have insignia on it did you mean? No, don't answer that...
>
> Actually, I was thinking along the lines of old spy stories - the
> betraying French stud pattern on the undercover agent's boots, for
> example, or the foreign laundry mark on his handkerchiefs...
OK, OK, I got it. But the harm is done already <reg>
> [snip]
>
> > I mean, *I* would get more suspicious of a Revolutionary Hero whose face is
> > never in the open and whose DNA are conveniently unavailable for the
> > matching...
>
> Precisely - and it's not as if he's going to be much good for his
> ostensible purpose as figurehead, in that condition...
Well, maybe as a martyr, to fan righteous wrath, and all that... (In
fact, you'd be surprised how often such things work. Our negative
emotions ARE stronger...)
>
> [snip]
> > > If Servalan had instructed him to infiltrate a suspected cabal in
> > > his own persona as a disaffected and cashiered ex-officer, it would
> > > have made a great deal more sense.
> >
> > Except for his way too screwed public relations and over-exposure. Imagine,
> > say, Herr Eichmann trying to ingratiate himself to some guerilla unit,
> > claiming being disowned by the regime and citing his possible uses. Some
> > chance there might be, but not fat enough to be worth trying.
>
> If Ven Glynd (apparently legitimately) managed it...
>
> Travis is just a soldier
Well, an officer. Of not too low order... A, say, Rommel to that
unknown "Fritz" in "Trial". But ultimately, yes.
>- he kills people on worlds in a state of
> armed rebellion (admittedly indiscriminately). Ven Glynd disappears
> people for thinking the wrong thoughts, and blackens their names and kills
> and enslaves their innocent families first. And he's much more public
> than Travis, whose notoriety may well be an internal Space Command
> thing.
All of the above is the *real* truth, though. Meanwhile in politics
(including their "natural extensions", to utilize Bismarck's
terminology) it's *perceived* truth that is at work. Silver-tongued
politicians could - and do - get away with MUCH more (underhanded)
harm than "noisy" soldiers with their visible and straightforward
actions, especially of a high rank. To illustrate with a story (I
wouldn't be Jewish if I didn't have a story to tell for almost every
occasion) - once upon a time, in a post-Perestroika Russia, there was
(I'm afraid, still is) a group of a very reactionary, xenophobic,
intolerant stance. With quite a few of a talented writers among them,
alas. Their views were unpopular at the time (officially, at least).
So one of them - the most outright about it, the most loud-mouthed
(and carrying the least political or even social weight) - was once
soundly trashed in a press, with a lot of people chiming in. (Whereas
his smarter, quieter, higher-sitting buddies passed themselves rather
successfully as "wrong but civilised" types). And I remember how my
father, reading the article, commented, not without a touch of bitter
irony, how this all reminded him of a big, clumsy, slow boor, shot in
the side, trying unsuccessfully to get up, with a lot of overzealous
hunters jumping merrily around - while a much more swift, strong,
toothy, poisonous beast lurked safely and dangerously behind the
bushes, absolutely unheeded. Think Travis and Ven Glynd again... I
said it once and I'll say it again: the harm "apparatchiks" do might
be far greater - but it is far less exposed to the public. Which, in
turns, tends to latch at what it sees and hears direct, than to
analyse. <Elitist pig mode off... for now>. "Travis the butcher!"
"Ven... who, again?"
> > Even such a political,
> > "practicality-over-morality" sort as dear ex-juror represented, would be
> > overcautious with the Hangman Who Even Federation Shunned For His Butchery.
>
> They didn't, really;
See above. Really, of course, they didn't. In the view of not only
your average Joe, but even your average Joe The Resistance Fighter,
however, it might well look that way. "If even the FEDS got him
tried..." (And indeed, they would hardly know the inner workings of
Travis / Servie situation).
> Does 'Trial' make it clear which faction was actually responsible for
> invoking that showpiece court-martial? Was it Servalan 'throwing him to
> the wolves' as a punishment for failing her - delayed retribution from
> which only her whim had hitherto shielded him - or was it a political
> ploy by her opponents to attack Servalan through her prior support for
> Travis?
I don't think it's clear, no; but the way the investigators behave
(towards Servalan, among other things), suggests the latter, IMO. At
least they THINK they can harm Servalan this way... and it looks like
she doesn't completely disagree. One thing that *is* clear from the
ep, is that there is at least one outcome which would be highly
undesirable for our favourite Supreme Commander.
> [snip]
> > What I meant I would like more of, was "regular moments"
> > as opposed to *action* not open emoting as opposed to maintaining of facade
> > (that proportion was *extremely* well-balanced in the show as it was, I
> > think). Thing is, for every snippet of dialogue, the need to get themselves
> > out of yet another rut struck - and took the better part of the ep.
> > Now, for your regular action-adventure this format -everything else as
> > service to (filler in between) of Big Stuff - is normal and effective. But
> > B7 is, as we both know, something WAY else, and that "filler" in their case
> > was too good. "More is more" kind of good.
> >
> You mean that you wanted to see more of the details of their everyday
> life - their off-duty moments?
Yup. And very much wanted, at that ;-). (And can you really say that
it would be boring?)
Anna
Frankymole
"Igenlode Wordsmith" <fuku AT redneck DOT gacracker DOT org> wrote in message
news:200304240227...@gacracker.org...
>
> Travis is just a soldier - he kills people on worlds in a state of
> armed rebellion (admittedly indiscriminately).
It was *unarmed* civilians Travis killed.
Igenlode Wordsmith
> And here, again, I'm going for Deja. The ng's removal seems to follow
> me around - first they took it off cin.dfn, now my own ISP does just
> the same... is there some sort of agenda against my relationship with
> the show? <Paranoid mode on powersave>. Anyhoo, hopefully it works...
>
> Igenlode Wordsmith <fuku AT redneck DOT gacracker DOT org> wrote in message news:<200304240227...@gacracker.org>...
> > On 30 Mar 2003 Anne wrote:
[snip]
> > Series 2 took on a much harder edge, which I suspect can probably
> > be attributed to more input from Chris Boucher and less from Terry
> > Nation :-)
>
> Surprise, surprise - I think the same! <g> (But, unlike about the end
> of S4, Terry didn't seem to mind much, which shows that what
> transpired was, after all, within the boundaries of his vision. More
> or less ;-P).
I've always been queerly relieved that it was Terry Nation who wrote
'Countdown' - the fans have made so much of that part of Avon's
history, it's good to be sure that its genesis was part of the character
as originally conceived...
[snip]
> Avon talked tough, snapped much... and still the amount
> of ships in "Horizon" was EXACTLY the maximum Liberator *could* take
> on succesfully - and it made him stay.
I'd be wary of reading too much into that... it may, as you say, have
come as a relief - the mite that tipped the balance into giving him a
satisfactory (to himself) reason to go after the others - but it may
equally well have served as an abrupt reminder of the sort of hunted
existence, constantly on the edge of the survivable odds, that he would
have had to cope with from then on if he *did* go off on his own. It was
theoretically possible, but it would have been pushing it, even for
Avon.
(His best bet would have been to leave the Liberator and find
grey-suited obscurity as a bureaucrat in the Federation's
administrative structure somewhere; but I'm not sure he would have been
able to bring himself to relinquish the power and nominal independence
attached to the ship.)
>
[snip]
> I tend to call it "Deep
> Space Nine" effect. You probably heard much (no way of avoiding it, if
> you read the media) how this incarnation is widely considered "the
> black sheep" of Trek, straying away from Gene Roddenberry's vision,
> yadda, yadda.
Deep Space Nine is a closed book so far to me, I'm afraid - just another
American import occasionally glimpsed on book covers boasting aliens
with knobbly heads...
[snip]
> > There's nothing in the end of 'Orbit' or 'Deliverance' or
> > 'Bounty' to lead us to anticipate Avon's change of heart;
>
> But there is, in the end of "Orac". I'd say, this prophecy (ironic,
> how it DID come true, after all, only two seasons later) was enough of
> a mortality-reminding jolt to have not just Avon getting second
> thoughts and realizing anew just WHAT they got themselves into. In
> that perspective, he could well get angry not just (and not even
> foremost) at Blake, on whom (and not only) he lashed out, but at
> himself, for losing vigilance.
Yes; and that's precisely the explanation I went for, in my own
fanfiction set in this gap :-) He'd let himself get lulled into a
false sense of security, and even into uncharacteristically stupid (as
he saw it) behaviour. Going soft, in other words - and he blamed it
(not entirely without justification!) on Blake.
> > one can conceive of an alternate universe in which
> > Avon continued along the 'humanising' lines of Series 1 and ultimately
> > became a very different character. Perhaps less interesting, but
> > probably happier overall. And probably with a longer life expectancy.
>
> Agreed to all except the last... ;-) (Happy, agreeable Avon might not
> survive Star One...
Why Star One, in particular? Or do you just mean that he might not have
lasted that long without a saving dose of paranoia?
[snip]
> > [snip using a non-Travis agent in Voice from the Past]
[snip]
> Well, just showing him (her) alone, sending some strange,
> not-discussed in the presense of others, signals, could, indeed, work
> for B7 public. Even overly well, at that. You're right that it's an
> effective method to show the rot at the core of the plot (sorry, no
> more rhymes), but... Still, it's sort of "damned if you do" equation.
> Because in that case, we would know the truth too early.
I'm not sure that matters. After all, in 'Weapon' (for example) we
*know* that Blake's party are walking into a trap... it could, in fact
be highly effective and very true to the series. We know that something
is terribly wrong, but the crew don't, although they may suspect, and
this creates all the more tension on the part of the viewers.
> (Of course,
> you could say that, without knowing who exactly the messages are meant
> for, and not seeing ALL their conversations, it would be hard even for
> an attentive viewer to be sure if it's a betrayal or a planned group
> move we simply don't know enough of. But for that, you have to be more
> than thinking and attentive: you have to be willing to confuse
> yourself. On how many of those can the poor authors count? <chuckle>).
More to the point, it's easy to say this kind of thing with twenty
years' hindsight - but for the poor hacks faced with tossing off next
week's episode for a once-only transmission, the fine details of plot
structure really aren't as important as getting the confounded thing
DONE and on-air... and possibly even including as many of the 'regular'
cast as possible, to reduce the guest casting.
(Didn't either Brian Croucher or Stephen Greif have a contract for a
fixed proportion of episodes in a given series?)
[snip]
> > *Ven Glynd* would have made a more
> > plausible traitor, for heaven's sake; it would have explained all his
> > implausible behaviour! Or would that have been too obvious?
>
> Actually, not just too obvious (though that too): it would still not
> be very plausible. Because him as a traitor could mean only two
> things: he would be either working with Federation's blessing - thus,
> an undercover agent, and we both know that it's NOT his speciality,
> he's too much of a behind-the-desk type - or, indeed, using the real
> coup for his own advantage (think Sula).
Oh, definitely the latter, I agree. (In fact, even given the show as
transmitted, one has to wonder whether he didn't have ulterior motives
up his sleeve which would have come as a subsequent and nasty surprise
to Mme Governor Le Grand...)
> And in case of the latter, it would be absolutely not in his interest
> to ruin / catch / kill Our Crew <tm>. Not until he'd got what he
> wanted. After all, they would be his most effective tool (pawn?) So
> we'd need an overthrowing of existing Feds administration - and at
> least one more ep (or better a multi-ep arc), where the 7-ers'
> seeming victory would turn out to be so Pyrrhic, it wouldn't even be
> funny.
Ouch. No it wouldn't.
(Though I'll bet you Blake would still manage to pull an unthought-of
victory out of the seeming ashes of defeat - <grin>)
[snip]
> > snip]
> >
> > > I mean, *I* would get more suspicious of a Revolutionary Hero
> > > whose face is never in the open and whose DNA are conveniently
> > > unavailable for the matching...
> >
> > Precisely - and it's not as if he's going to be much good for his
> > ostensible purpose as figurehead, in that condition...
>
> Well, maybe as a martyr, to fan righteous wrath, and all that... (In
> fact, you'd be surprised how often such things work. Our negative
> emotions ARE stronger...)
Good point. "Look at what they have done to your saviour - rise up and
revenge him" and all that.
[snip]
> To illustrate with a story (I
> wouldn't be Jewish if I didn't have a story to tell for almost every
> occasion)
Jewish?
>
> > > Even such a political,
> > > "practicality-over-morality" sort as dear ex-juror represented,
> > > would be overcautious with the Hangman Who Even Federation
> > > Shunned For His Butchery.
> >
> > They didn't, really;
>
> See above. Really, of course, they didn't. In the view of not only
> your average Joe, but even your average Joe The Resistance Fighter,
> however, it might well look that way. "If even the FEDS got him
> tried..."
Mmmm... I'm not really convinced here. (I mean, look at Blake - that was
precisely the technique they counted on using for him, and look at how
well it worked!) Being tried by the Federation is almost a good-conduct
badge, from one point of view - at the very least, it means that he may
be assumed to be unrelentingly hostile towards his former masters; and
armies throughout history have not hesitated to use renegades and
traitors. Trust them, no - but use their unique knowledge, yes.
[snip]
> > You mean that you wanted to see more of the details of their everyday
> > life - their off-duty moments?
>
> Yup. And very much wanted, at that ;-). (And can you really say that
> it would be boring?)
>
No - although I think that specifying all the workings of the
Liberator, "Galaxy Quest" style, might have taxed the BBC's invention,
let alone its special effects budget!
Anna
> On 25 Apr 2003 Anna wrote:
>
> > Igenlode Wordsmith <fuku AT redneck DOT gacracker DOT org> wrote in message news:<200304240227...@gacracker.org>...
> > > On 30 Mar 2003 Anne wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> 'Countdown' - the fans have made so much of that part of Avon's
> history, it's good to be sure that its genesis was part of the character
> as originally conceived...
Absolutely. But it's also good that it proved compatible with the
changes. (Boucher's Avon might be more, well, guarded and closed than
Nation's - though in Countdown, dear Kerr was certainly not willing to
share his personal story with Blake either - but what he guarded was
still there, so when we got a glimpse, like in Countdown, or Terminal,
that glimpse fitted).
> [snip]
> > Avon talked tough, snapped much... and still the amount
> > of ships in "Horizon" was EXACTLY the maximum Liberator *could* take
> > on succesfully - and it made him stay.
>
> I'd be wary of reading too much into that...
Too much, no. *Something* - I can't help but <eg>. (And I wouldn't
read too much into "it's suited him" version, too).
>it may, as you say, have
> come as a relief - the mite that tipped the balance into giving him a
> satisfactory (to himself) reason to go after the others - but it may
> equally well have served as an abrupt reminder of the sort of hunted
> existence, constantly on the edge of the survivable odds, that he would
> have had to cope with from then on if he *did* go off on his own.
On the one hand. On the other, while generally having company keeps
your safer, it still depends on the *sort* of the company in question
;-). And Blake (who, let's face it, had others wrapped around his
little finger when it came to big decisions) was exactly the sort
which proved that rule via exception <reg>. With him in charge, you
are NOT safer than alone. (Unless you're a total clueless wuss, that
is - not the case here). No wonder that "freedom" from him came to
Avon as such a shock AND temptation.
> would have been pushing it, even for
> Avon.
Not harder-pushing, though, than would be (and was) keeping playing
Freedom Fighter <tm>.
> (His best bet would have been to leave the Liberator and find
> grey-suited obscurity as a bureaucrat in the Federation's
> administrative structure somewhere;
I doubt this route for him, though - on London, it looked like even
his initial crime exposed him enough, and Feds kept records and
cross-references, I'd gather. Totalitarian states always do. Combined
with his later "fame", blending and dissolving could prove
larger-than-chewable bit.
>but I'm not sure he would have been
> able to bring himself to relinquish the power and nominal independence
> attached to the ship.)
Agreed, absolutely. This freedom bug... it may be easily squashed, but
it catches on awfully quick, too. (And besides, among other Avon's
shameful secrets of personality, adventurous side isn't that way down
on the list). I don't deny that there were PLENTY of factors working.
Only self-preservation was hardly the highest priority between those.
> Deep Space Nine is a closed book so far to me, I'm afraid - just another
> American import occasionally glimpsed on book covers boasting aliens
> with knobbly heads...
Well, that latter is almost obligatory for the SF TV now (witness sad
and undeserved fate of Firefly, again, for proof). But under the
cover, if you ever find the time and energy to look, there is VERY
different material. (And it's the only Trek around - heck, it's one of
the very few GENRE shows around - which is recommended to watch in
order. Even standalones. Not that there's no duds - I am yet to see
such a show - but the duds-to-"at-leastworth-it-at-most-GREAT" ratio
impresses me, at least).
> [snip]
>
> > > There's nothing in the end of 'Orbit' or 'Deliverance' or
> > > 'Bounty' to lead us to anticipate Avon's change of heart;
> >
> > But there is, in the end of "Orac". I'd say, this prophecy (ironic,
> > how it DID come true, after all, only two seasons later) was enough of
> > a mortality-reminding jolt to have not just Avon getting second
> > thoughts and realizing anew just WHAT they got themselves into. In
> > that perspective, he could well get angry not just (and not even
> > foremost) at Blake, on whom (and not only) he lashed out, but at
> > himself, for losing vigilance.
>
> Yes; and that's precisely the explanation I went for, in my own
> fanfiction set in this gap :-)
And if two people, independent of each other, see the same thing in
the same place, there's at least a tangible chance of it NOT being a
fata-morgana... <g>
> and he blamed it
> (not entirely without justification!) on Blake.
Oh, it WAS Blake's fault, alright. But the distribution of the blame
(as usual) could be fairer <rrrreg> (Not that I expected it actually
*be* fair: blaming is not about that ;-P).
[snip]
> > (Happy, agreeable Avon might not
> > survive Star One...
>
> Why Star One, in particular? Or do you just mean that he might not have
> lasted that long without a saving dose of paranoia?
That, too, but in particular I meant the moment when he and Blake went
down on the planet - before entering the compound. It might be a small
matter, but there is that moment when Avon does NOT exactly follow
Blake's directions to the letter, thus showing his disagreeable side
again, in a way. Remember? Roj says "in we go", and charges (with his
typical certainty of being followed <eg>) through the doors. Avon
stays to check the noise, without even bothering to argue... Now
imagine how things would go if they both just went there. A chance of
survival would diminish, shall we say, considerably.
> [snip]
>
> > > [snip using a non-Travis agent in Voice from the Past]
> [snip]
> > Well, just showing him (her) alone, sending some strange,
> > not-discussed in the presense of others, signals, could, indeed, work
> > for B7 public. Even overly well, at that. You're right that it's an
> > effective method to show the rot at the core of the plot (sorry, no
> > more rhymes), but... Still, it's sort of "damned if you do" equation.
> > Because in that case, we would know the truth too early.
>
> I'm not sure that matters. After all, in 'Weapon' (for example) we
> *know* that Blake's party are walking into a trap...
Point. Gets viewers' adrenaline higher, increases tension, as you say
- even if we know (or at least we thought we did by then) that Our
Guys would get out of that in the end. But it still would lower "what
the heck is happening?" factor, for which, I think, they were trying
to go at the time.
> it's easy to say this kind of thing with twenty
> years' hindsight - but for the poor hacks faced with tossing off next
> week's episode for a once-only transmission, the fine details of plot
> structure really aren't as important as getting the confounded thing
> DONE and on-air... and possibly even including as many of the 'regular'
> cast as possible, to reduce the guest casting.
That's why I am usually soft on the shows I like. Considering the
conditions (and especially so on channels which aren't very kind to
the genre... hmmm, IS there any other kind?), it's a miracle they get
SOMETHING half-decent out, from time to time. Creative work of
conveyor type is not much better than a committee writing. (Having
tried my own hand on fanfic, I can personally testify that in one
season I would probably produce two eps' scripts. At best).
> (Didn't either Brian Croucher or Stephen Greif have a contract for a
> fixed proportion of episodes in a given series?)
I thought, it's a standard deal for regulars, not recurring guests
(unless the latter are The Names). But I freely admit to being
next-to-illiterate on such matters.
> [snip]
>
> > > *Ven Glynd* would have made a more
> > > plausible traitor, for heaven's sake; it would have explained all his
> > > implausible behaviour! Or would that have been too obvious?
> >
> > Actually, not just too obvious (though that too): it would still not
> > be very plausible. Because him as a traitor could mean only two
> > things: he would be either working with Federation's blessing - thus,
> > an undercover agent, and we both know that it's NOT his speciality,
> > he's too much of a behind-the-desk type - or, indeed, using the real
> > coup for his own advantage (think Sula).
>
> Oh, definitely the latter, I agree. (In fact, even given the show as
> transmitted, one has to wonder whether he didn't have ulterior motives
> up his sleeve which would have come as a subsequent and nasty surprise
> to Mme Governor Le Grand...)
Not only wonder. Whether they had this in mind or not, the guy acts
just so durn SLEAZY, you just can't trust him for a second. (That is
one reason why I didn't quite so much recasting this time, though
normally I recoil at it). Well, that little fact of using brainwashing
for your great cause played into this line of thinking too, of course.
But still, it made Glynd more repulsive than his accomplices, somehow.
> > we'd need an overthrowing of existing Feds administration - and at
> > least one more ep (or better a multi-ep arc), where the 7-ers'
> > seeming victory would turn out to be so Pyrrhic, it wouldn't even be
> > funny.
>
> Ouch. No it wouldn't.
Warms the cockles of your heart, that thought, doesn't it? <sadistic
mode on powersave but still whirring distinctively>
> (Though I'll bet you Blake would still manage to pull an unthought-of
> victory out of the seeming ashes of defeat - <grin>)
That's fer sure <bg> - though, considering the show, and what it could
make out of "happy ending" concept (Season 4, anyone? and I'm not even
talking about "Blake"), one has to wonder... You were first who
brought up Weapon - how's that for victory? Moloch? ("We fight?
-Certainly not. We RUN!") Pressure Point? And even first-season
Breakdown ended, shall we say, not in overly uplifting manner.
> [snip]
> > > snip]
> > >
> > > it's not as if he's going to be much good for his
> > > ostensible purpose as figurehead, in that condition...
> >
> > Well, maybe as a martyr, to fan righteous wrath, and all that... (In
> > fact, you'd be surprised how often such things work. Our negative
> > emotions ARE stronger...)
>
> Good point. "Look at what they have done to your saviour - rise up and
> revenge him" and all that.
Exactly.
> [snip]
> > To illustrate with a story (I
> > wouldn't be Jewish if I didn't have a story to tell for almost every
> > occasion)
>
> Jewish?
Yup. Not overly zealous - to put it mildly - and probably not likely
to be recognised as such in some communities (though B'nei Beraque
area of Greater Tel-Aviv had to put up with my being in the
neighbourhood for some while), but a fact, not to be denied. (Of
course, I am of not-overly-popular line of thought that Jewry is
ethnicity as much as it is religion). That's why I can never answer
"are you Russian, then?" question - always coming upon people learning
where I come from - in short. It's always: "well, I was born and
raised in Russia, and my first, though not completely only, tongue is
Russian, but by saying I'm Russian you're going to offend quite a
large amount of people there...")
> > > > Even such a political,
> > > > "practicality-over-morality" sort as dear ex-juror represented,
> > > > would be overcautious with the Hangman Who Even Federation
> > > > Shunned For His Butchery.
> > >
> > > They didn't, really;
> >
> > See above. Really, of course, they didn't. In the view of not only
> > your average Joe, but even your average Joe The Resistance Fighter,
> > however, it might well look that way. "If even the FEDS got him
> > tried..."
>
> Mmmm... I'm not really convinced here. (I mean, look at Blake - that was
> precisely the technique they counted on using for him, and look at how
> well it worked!) Being tried by the Federation is almost a good-conduct
> badge, from one point of view
True. But Blake wasn't "on their side" to begin with. He came to
prominence as a dissident; he was punished for rebelling. (Yes, they
framed him for a heinous crime, but in such circumstances there is
always "they would say that, wouldn't they?" factor - at least for the
aforesaid "Joe the Resistance Fighter"... happened a lot in USSR, when
dissidents got convicted of money laundering and such. And right
people were to disbelieve, too). Travis *worked* (well, slaughtered)
for the Feds. And they put them on trial... not for refusing this
work, but for doing it too friggin' well?!!! Even being smart and
experienced enough not to trust Feds' motives on this one, and taking
the trial as a bone-throwing / PR action / image-building, one still
has to notice that Federation used this particular employee of theirs
for the occasion. That even they prefer not to be associated with him,
even if only to look good (better).
- at the very least, it means that he may
> be assumed to be unrelentingly hostile towards his former masters; and
> armies throughout history have not hesitated to use renegades and
> traitors. Trust them, no - but use their unique knowledge, yes.
Correction: *generals* (and other types of leaders) throughout the
history have done so. But every time when possible, they tried not to
flaunt this fact. Because they knew that such thing doesn't do much
good for image-boosting among wider amount of those you lead, whatever
the actual uses of the renegade. Travis would still be too much of a
PR hindrance, I think...
> [snip]
>
> > > You mean that you wanted to see more of the details of their everyday
> > > life - their off-duty moments?
> >
> > Yup. And very much wanted, at that ;-). (And can you really say that
> > it would be boring?)
> >
> No - although I think that specifying all the workings of the
> Liberator, "Galaxy Quest" style, might have taxed the BBC's invention,
> let alone its special effects budget!
Ah, they found ways around the budget before (I'm sure they'd be
THRILLED to hear me talking about it in such a flippant and dismissive
way... I *do* appreciate the pains and efforts they took, just for the
record). It didn't always look pretty (yes, I'm still trying for
understatement of the decade award), but B7 fandom is well-trained in
this regard <g>. To recall DeathWatch again, quite a few of shipbound
scenes filtered down to them just sitting on the bridge and talking
(or reacting)... and it worked, I am learning, for quite a few viewers
;-).
Anne
Igenlode Wordsmith
On 25 Apr 2003 Frankymole wrote:
>
> "Igenlode Wordsmith" <fuku AT redneck DOT gacracker DOT org> wrote in message
> news:200304240227...@gacracker.org...
> >
> > Travis is just a soldier - he kills people on worlds in a state of
> > armed rebellion (admittedly indiscriminately).
>
> It was *unarmed* civilians Travis killed.
>
rebellion. At least, I was assuming so; even the Federation presumably
doesn't rouse up unrest by sending troops in to attack planets in a
state of obedient docility. This doesn't mean that the ones who actually
get killed are armed, or guilty of anything (even by Federation
standards) other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time - think
Bloody Sunday rather than Auschwitz...