Epiphanies- What the hell is wrong?
Cronan Thomspon
Is it just me or did that episode reek? The acting was TERRIBLE. So many
scenes seemed forced and corny. Like the opening scene with Zak training
those new security people.. am I the only one who thought that wasn’t funny
in the slightest? Garabaldi, my all time favorite character, was used to
such poor effect. All of the attempts to show his mind had been
“influenced” were pretty blatant. I really hope Zak does not become a
permanent character. The actors who plays him belongs on Voyager. Most of
the cast seemed like they were juiced on stims. I realize that everyone is
happy and all, winning the greatest battle in galactic history and all, but
there is such a thing as over doing it.
In an attempt to not be solely negative I will say the few good scenes hit
hard. G’Kar and Londo’s meeting. That single scene epitomized everything I
love about B5. The interaction of those two in the thick of everything else
on the station again embodies the true depth you find there and now where
else. Lyta wasn’t totally “Troi-ish”. The Star fury battle, although
brief, was very realistic. I love it when those ships turn on a dime like
that. All of Bester’s scenes were okay. Only 1 was classic Bester. Only one
had real spine tingling repercussions. Guess which one I am talking
about....
-- Cronan Thompson, general purpose
god and guy among men
XO of the USS Megadittos
Guaranteed offensive material in
10th message. Bring your kids.
Ed Dravecky III
Cronan Thomspon (mal...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
> I really hope Zak does not become a permanent character. The
> actors who plays him belongs on Voyager.
Um, perhaps you hadn't noticed, but Jeff Conaway is the single
actor playing security officer Zack Allen. And he's been a featured
character (i.e. in the opening credits sequence) for some time now.
Zack is a good character that Joe does not always use to best
effect. He's the guy who has to be in the right place at the right
time an *awful* lot and that can strain a character's place in the
order of things. And I like the way that Conaway plays him!
(One reservation: I wish the character's hair was just *different*
somehow. The hair hasn't changed much since he was Bobbby on "Taxi"
20 years ago! A minor foible, I know, but every time I see him I
expect Alex Reiger to come walking down the corridor.)
As to "Epiphanies", the acting was okay and the script was about
average but (IMHO) the direction on this one was TERRIBLE. Not Ed
Wood-grade bad, but very awkward and tentative without the sort of
imagination or control we've seen in previous episodes.
Note to JMS: I know that the end of the war means that the
characters thought that they could take it easy for a few minutes,
but this does NOT apply to the camera crew!
--
Another messsage from Ed Dravecky (dshe...@netcom.com)
Visit my mediocre work-in-progress homepage at:
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/2727/index.html
Ian J. Ball
In article <dsheldonE...@netcom.com>, dshe...@netcom.com (Ed
Dravecky III) wrote:
> Zack is a good character that Joe does not always use to best
> effect. He's the guy who has to be in the right place at the right
> time an *awful* lot and that can strain a character's place in the
> order of things. And I like the way that Conaway plays him!
I would agree with all of this. Conaway's been good in everything I've
seen him in throughout his career (except for one rather bad stint on "The
Bold & The Beautiful"). He plays a good 'Everyman'. And I like Zack Allen
more than most of the other human characters on B5.
> As to "Epiphanies", the acting was okay...
What I find interesting is the variation in Patrica Tallman's acting. Some
episodes she OK, or even rather good (like this episode), other times
she's mails-on-a-blackboard bad. I think she, like Conaway, excels at
"average Joe" rolls better than other stuff.
--
Ian J. Ball | Want my TV episode guides or rec.arts.tv FAQ?
Grad Student, UCLA | http://members.aol.com/IJBall/WWW/IJBall.html
IJB...@aol.com | ftp://members.aol.com/IJBall3/FTP/
i...@ucla.edu | "What to do, with time so short?..."
Douglas Hayden
Ed Dravecky III posted this stuff on Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:28:40 GMT:
: (One reservation: I wish the character's hair was just *different*
: somehow. The hair hasn't changed much since he was Bobbby on "Taxi"
: 20 years ago! A minor foible, I know, but every time I see him I
: expect Alex Reiger to come walking down the corridor.)
Would you rather have his 'Grease' hairdo? I can see it now:
Zack's walking down a corridro wearing 50's garb, while Sha Na Na plays over
the station speakers - cut to Rangers dancing on top of a White Star in the
hangar bay singing 'Greased Lightning' - cut again to Bester singing 'Psi-Corps
Dropout' to Lyta....
----------
Doug Hayden hay...@opus.oca.udayton.edu
----------
Card-carrying member of the Bank of MINE ALL MINE!!!
Mario Manganiello
Douglas Hayden (dha...@cps.udayton.edu) wrote:
: Ed Dravecky III posted this stuff on Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:28:40 GMT:
:
: : (One reservation: I wish the character's hair was just *different*
: : somehow. The hair hasn't changed much since he was Bobbby on "Taxi"
: : 20 years ago! A minor foible, I know, but every time I see him I
: : expect Alex Reiger to come walking down the corridor.)
:
: Would you rather have his 'Grease' hairdo? I can see it now:
:
: Zack's walking down a corridro wearing 50's garb, while Sha Na Na plays over
: the station speakers - cut to Rangers dancing on top of a White Star in the
: hangar bay singing 'Greased Lightning' - cut again to Bester singing
:'Psi-Corps Dropout' to Lyta....
This would actually not surprise me considering some content of
"Epiphanies". Suddenly B5 is a Galactic 7-11?? ;)
Dan Flanery
On 14 Feb 1997 19:15:20 GMT, IJB...@aol.com (Ian J. Ball) wrote:
>What I find interesting is the variation in Patrica Tallman's acting. Some
>episodes she OK, or even rather good (like this episode), other times
>she's mails-on-a-blackboard bad. I think she, like Conaway, excels at
>"average Joe" rolls better than other stuff.
I thought her acting in this episode was the best we've seen from her.
It wasn't great, but if she could continue to perform at this level,
she'd be no worse than most of the regulars on DS9, which is a fairly
well-acted show.
DF
Richard Bergstresser
Douglas Hayden wrote:
>
> Ed Dravecky III posted this stuff on Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:28:40 GMT:
>
> : (One reservation: I wish the character's hair was just *different*
> : somehow. The hair hasn't changed much since he was Bobbby on "Taxi"
> : 20 years ago! A minor foible, I know, but every time I see him I
> : expect Alex Reiger to come walking down the corridor.)
>
> Would you rather have his 'Grease' hairdo? I can see it now:
>
> Zack's walking down a corridro wearing 50's garb, while Sha Na Na plays over
> the station speakers - cut to Rangers dancing on top of a White Star in the
> hangar bay singing 'Greased Lightning' - cut again to Bester singing 'Psi-Corps
> Dropout' to Lyta....
>
This would explain the Elvis trinity.
David M. Sueme
On 14 Feb 1997 03:24:50 GMT, "Cronan Thomspon"
<mal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Is it just me or did that episode reek? The acting was TERRIBLE. So many
>scenes seemed forced and corny.
I was as bad as the last one.
> In an attempt to not be solely negative I will say the few good scenes hit
>hard. G’Kar and Londo’s meeting.
A New Hope: G'Kar and Londo were always the strongest characters.
Perhaps with this ratings-driven war out of the way, we can get back
to what JMS does best: Chicago aldermen.
Only 1 was classic Bester. Only one
>had real spine tingling repercussions. Guess which one I am talking
>about....
I sure hope it wasn't the sililiquoy (hope that is recognisable as a
word) which violated a basic rule: don't tell me, show me. Alluding
threats to his frigid girlfriend: weak, weak....
Dave
Judith R. Conly
In <3305F9...@erols.com> Richard Bergstresser <rich...@erols.com>
writes:
And if you want *really* different 'dos -- Have any of you seen HOW
THE WEST WAS WON, with a very young, pretty, long-haired Bruce
Boxleitner?
Doug Mertaugh
dsu...@ripco.com (David M. Sueme) wrote:
>On 14 Feb 1997 03:24:50 GMT, "Cronan Thomspon"
><mal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> Is it just me or did that episode reek? The acting was TERRIBLE. So many
>>scenes seemed forced and corny.
>
>I was as bad as the last one.
>
>> In an attempt to not be solely negative I will say the few good scenes hit
>>hard. G’Kar and Londo’s meeting.
>
>A New Hope: G'Kar and Londo were always the strongest characters.
>Perhaps with this ratings-driven war out of the way, we can get back
>to what JMS does best: Chicago aldermen.
You mean, this ratings driven war that been building for
three seasons?
>Only 1 was classic Bester. Only one
>>had real spine tingling repercussions. Guess which one I am talking
>>about....
>
>I sure hope it wasn't the sililiquoy (hope that is recognisable as a
>word) which violated a basic rule: don't tell me, show me.
I don't think most good writers are familiar with that rule.
tomlinson
Doug Mertaugh (mert...@indy.net) wrote:
: I don't think most good writers are familiar with that rule.
This isn't prose, it's television--note the "vision", hmm?
Bester's monologue came across as slightly clumsy because the
device of speaking one's thoughts to a loved one's comatose
form (sickbed, gravestone, etc.) has been done to death in
dozens of movies and shows.
Cheers.
-et
--
Ernest S. Tomlinson | And still another opinion...
etom...@rohan.sdsu.edu | "I AM, HAVE BEEN, AND WILL BE ONLY ONE THING--
------------------------+ AN AMERICAN." - Charles Foster Kane
Bill Bickel
tomlinson wrote:
>
>
> Bester's monologue came across as slightly clumsy because the
> device of speaking one's thoughts to a loved one's comatose
> form (sickbed, gravestone, etc.) has been done to death in
> dozens of movies and shows.
Maybe I'm missing something really obvious, but wouldn't Bester have
spoken these thoughts, you know... TELEPATHICALLY? Being a telepath and
all? And her girlfriend being a telepath? And maybe she could even HEAR
him if he spoke telepathically, whereas if he spoke aloud, only an
eavesdropper would be able to hear him?
And I can't buy the argument that we're supposed to assume he was
speaking telepathically, because even B5's SFX budget could afford that
one: Don't show his lips moving.
Bill Bickel
--
Please visit the "Comics I Don't Understand" Page, at
http://www.concentric.net/~Bbickel/bj.html
Andrew H. Litkowiak
Usually, when a person speaks to aloud at graveside or a sickbed, it is
a function of self assurance or self discovery. There is no real intent
or belief that the person will hear. The speaker uses the sick or the
dead person as a sort of a tangible sounding board. The speaker is
vocalizing to reinforce an idea or vebally work through a thought
process. While movies and TV might work it to death, this is a very
common occurence in the real world, one which happens in much the way it
was portrayed in the Bester scene.
Andy litkowiak
Bill Bickel
But... The man is a level 12 telepath. If you were a level 12 telepath,
and your girlfriend were a high-level telepath as well, and you were
ARROGANT about your telepathic abilities no less, do you think the two
of you would be in the habit of communicating verbally at all?
Plus the fact that she might even be able to "hear" him telepathically,
through her stasis (or whatever it's called)
Bill Bickel
Doug Mertaugh
etom...@rohan.sdsu.edu (tomlinson) wrote:
>Doug Mertaugh (mert...@indy.net) wrote:
>
>: I don't think most good writers are familiar with that rule.
>
>This isn't prose, it's television--note the "vision", hmm?
>device of speaking one's thoughts to a loved one's comatose
>form (sickbed, gravestone, etc.) has been done to death in
>dozens of movies and shows.
Yes, Yes, Yes! It's TELEVISION! You *can't do that!*
Everything must be visual! Yup, that's good old
television alright, as always. Same ol' same ol'
tomlinson
Doug Mertaugh (mert...@indy.net) wrote:
: Yes, Yes, Yes! It's TELEVISION! You *can't do that!*
: Everything must be visual! Yup, that's good old
: television alright, as always. Same ol' same ol'
A visual medium ought to be used to full advantage. B-5
has, on occasion, done well here. Some of the computer-generated
scenes have proven extraordinarily effective--not just in the big
space battles, but in quieter scenes as well. (Bombed-out Narn,
wind blowing among the ruins; the "cockpit cam" in "And Now For
a Word"; a certain floating teddy bear.)
IMO this art is never seen to better effect than when a scene
can convey volumes without a single spoken word--that is the
potential of the medium. Does it _often_ happen? On television?
Hardly. Does it _ever_ happen? Scores of times.
Have you any argument to put forth? or only empty sneering?
Paul Gunton
What does everyone think about the obvious 'Warner Bros.' plug in Mr. G's
quarters? :) hehehehehe
I thought it was an ok episode. I see that Londo and G'Kar are now enemies
instead of friends.
-PG
Nyrath the nearly wise
Paul Gunton (wa...@erinet.com) wrote:
: What does everyone think about the obvious 'Warner Bros.' plug in Mr. G's
: quarters? :) hehehehehe
I guess you haven't been watching B5 since the first season.
Warner Brother's Looney Toons is Garabaldi's "2nd most favorite
thing in the universe". There was a nice scene where the only
person Garabaldi could get to watch it with him was the pre-
transformation Delenn, boney crest and all. They were
watching "Duck Dodgers in the 24th and 1/2 Century".
Since Warner is the parent company to B5, JMS could get
permission to use them.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| WINCHELL CHUNG http://www.clark.net/pub/nyrath/home.html |
| Nyrath the nearly wise nyr...@clark.net |
+---_---+---------------------[ SURREAL SAGE SEZ: ]--------------------------+
| /_\ | ...and tune in next week, kiddies, for another thrill packed |
| <(*)> | adventure of Flash Bambo and the Giant Dung Beetles of the Planet |
|/_/|\_\| Pppptthhhp! |
| //|\\ | |
+///|\\\+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Andrew H. Litkowiak
Bill Bickel wrote:
>
> Andrew H. Litkowiak wrote:
> >
> > Bill Bickel wrote:
> > >
> > > tomlinson wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > device of speaking one's thoughts to a loved one's comatose
> > > > form (sickbed, gravestone, etc.) has been done to death in
> > > > dozens of movies and shows.
> > >
Bill,
You missed my point. Bester was not attempting to communicate to his
lover at all. He was fully aware she could not hear him. She's in
cryogenic suspension.
Bester was communicating with himself. As odd as it may sound, many,
many people choose the device of "talking" to a loved one who is unable
to hear in order to reinforce or explore a train of thought. It is most
common to see this at funerals, hospital bedsides or, long after a
death, at graveside.
Just because Bester is a complete dickhead does not rob him of some
human characteristics. Remember, some of the worst fiends in human
history maintained normal, stable family and social relationships. They
think they're doing good work, regardless of the truth. Look at Nazi
death camp administrators, or a guy like Ghadafi. They put there pants
on just like the rest of us. They're still human, they just don't act in
manor acceptable to historians or commentators outside their sphere of
influence.
The fact that Bester is human and still an asshole (as opposed to an
alien asshole) give the character more depth. Telepathic or not,
sometimes, you need to "hear yourself think".
Andy Litkowiak
Theron Fuller
Andrew H. Litkowiak <and...@starnetinc.com> wrote in article
<330865...@starnetinc.com>...
(Stuff Deleted)
> Bill,
>
> You missed my point. Bester was not attempting to communicate to his
> lover at all. He was fully aware she could not hear him. She's in
> cryogenic suspension.
>
> Bester was communicating with himself. As odd as it may sound, many,
> many people choose the device of "talking" to a loved one who is unable
> to hear in order to reinforce or explore a train of thought. It is most
> common to see this at funerals, hospital bedsides or, long after a
> death, at graveside.
>
> Just because Bester is a complete dickhead does not rob him of some
> human characteristics. Remember, some of the worst fiends in human
> history maintained normal, stable family and social relationships. They
> think they're doing good work, regardless of the truth. Look at Nazi
> death camp administrators, or a guy like Ghadafi. They put there pants
> on just like the rest of us. They're still human, they just don't act in
> manor acceptable to historians or commentators outside their sphere of
> influence.
>
> The fact that Bester is human and still an asshole (as opposed to an
> alien asshole) give the character more depth. Telepathic or not,
> sometimes, you need to "hear yourself think".
>
> Andy Litkowiak
>
The problem with that scene is that Joe Straczynski's characters often >do<
when they should be talking, and >talk< incessantly when their actions
should be communicating with the viewer.
In the scene y'all are discussing, Bester was really talking to the viewer.
And talking. And talking. And talking.
This is one of those trademark instances where Joe Straczynski
underestimates the intelligence of his viewers, and has a character explain
even the smallest nuance of what's happening so us dumb viewers will "get
it."
Even a very good actor would have had trouble with that soliloquy, but when
it's delivered by an actor with Walter Koenig's limited range, it either
becomes painful to watch, or funny. Walter Koenig portrays anguish and
inner turmoil about as well as Patricia Tallman portrays intense
concentration and mental focus.
Bester's speech seems to be transliterated from the narrative in a novel.
"Bester stood before the cryogenic crypt of his beloved, his face contorted
with anguish and inner turmoil...."
Regards,
Theron Fuller
Matb
>This isn't prose, it's television--note the "vision", hmm?
>Bester's monologue came across as slightly clumsy because the
>device of speaking one's thoughts to a loved one's comatose
>form (sickbed, gravestone, etc.) has been done to death in
>dozens of movies and shows.
I think the already clunker-monologue was made even clutzier by Koenig's
body language - what's he's saying is supposed to be emotional, tender, but
he's standing straight as an arrow.
Come to think of it, *most* of the players were really rigid - especially
Garibaldi (I couldn't believe his 'quit' scene was shot that badly!)
Has the cast's posture always been this bad?
-M
John Millington
Folks, it was just a soliloquy. Yeah, he was addressing his lover, but he
was _really_ just sharing his thoughts with the audience. Do people
ever complain when they can see Hamlet's lips move during the "To be or
not to be" spiel?
Yog-Sothoth Neblod Zin,
John Millington
Bill Bickel
Yup.
As long as they keep the storyline moving along quickly, you don't
really notice; but once they slow down...
That's why I can't watch episodes I've already seen: Since I know what's
going to happen, I can't help focusing on the fact that half the lines
are delivered as if it were a script read-through.
Swan
Bill Bickel wrote:
> But... The man is a level 12 telepath. If you were a level 12 telepath,
> and your girlfriend were a high-level telepath as well, and you were
> ARROGANT about your telepathic abilities no less, do you think the two
> of you would be in the habit of communicating verbally at all?
Bester is a Level 12. An Adept. He KNOWS just what he's doing. the
guard said "Your ship's leaving in 10 minutes, I'll be back in five.".
> Plus the fact that she might even be able to "hear" him telepathically,
> through her stasis (or whatever it's called)
Nope, if she's in Cryostasis, she cann't hear "hear" or any of that.
She's out for the count, Fringies...
Bester WANTED someone to overhear his monologue!
Think. If YOU knew a person was coming back to get you in five minutes
or so, would YOU verbally pour out your deepest yearnings instead of
ruminating silently or telepathically communicating so that your plans
were not overheard?
Now, of course, a telepath COULD probably tell EXACTLY where another
person was by their ambient thoughts. Or can they? One can read
thoughts, but can those thoughts give distance, angle and proximity
numbers? Good question...
Anyhow, Bester is NO fool! Maybe he wanted to be overheard... or to
attract Lyta's attention for some reason.
Swan
"Today is a good day to... mmmm... doughnuts!" Homer the Klingon
"Take this razor sharp Batleff, Bart, and... DOHH!" Same
Bill Bickel
Swan wrote:
>
> Bill Bickel wrote:
> > But... The man is a level 12 telepath. If you were a level 12 telepath,
> > and your girlfriend were a high-level telepath as well, and you were
> > ARROGANT about your telepathic abilities no less, do you think the two
> > of you would be in the habit of communicating verbally at all?
>
> Bester is a Level 12. An Adept. He KNOWS just what he's doing. the
> guard said "Your ship's leaving in 10 minutes, I'll be back in five.".
>
> > Plus the fact that she might even be able to "hear" him telepathically,
> > through her stasis (or whatever it's called)
>
> Nope, if she's in Cryostasis, she cann't hear "hear" or any of that.
> She's out for the count, Fringies...
> Bester WANTED someone to overhear his monologue!
>
> Think. If YOU knew a person was coming back to get you in five minutes
> or so, would YOU verbally pour out your deepest yearnings instead of
> ruminating silently or telepathically communicating so that your plans
> were not overheard?
This is exactly what I was thinking: A telepath speaking out loud to
another telepath (BTW, stating as a fact that a stasis-bound telepath
can't in any way "hear" a telepathic communication assumes a knowledge
of telepathy neither of us can claim) SHOULD have been part of a ploy.
I'd have liked it better if it had been, but the sad conclusion I came
to was that this was only some very sloppy writing.
Bester wanting Sheridan to know he tricked him, but wanting Sheridan to
think he found it out without Bester's knowledge, is WAY to Byzantine
for this show.
David M. Sueme
On 16 Feb 1997 00:53:58 GMT, jrc...@ix.netcom.com(Judith R. Conly)
wrote:
>And if you want *really* different 'dos -- Have any of you seen HOW
>THE WEST WAS WON, with a very young, pretty, long-haired Bruce
>Boxleitner?
Where? I have that movie both as a techincal achievement and as a
spit in the eye of a bunch of pseudo-epistomoligists.
Three analog cameras on a rail to splice into one very wide image -
talk about kludge!
Dave
tomlinson
John Millington (slo...@news.rt66.com) wrote:
: Folks, it was just a soliloquy. Yeah, he was addressing his lover, but he
: was _really_ just sharing his thoughts with the audience. Do people
: ever complain when they can see Hamlet's lips move during the "To be or
: not to be" spiel?
Yup. That particular soliloquy has an annoying weak rhyme in it
("WhethER 'tis noblER in the mind to suffER...")
:)
Cheers,
Matthew Melmon
> Yes, Yes, Yes! It's TELEVISION! You *can't do that!*
> Everything must be visual! Yup, that's good old
> television alright, as always. Same ol' same ol'
The reason you *can't do that* (provide tedious monologues
so that characters can explain what they are thinking) is
that it looks and sounds *stupid*. Bester's case wasn't nearly
as bad as Ivanova's monologue when she wanted to kill Bester.
Consider, however, how much more emotion would have been in
the scene if Bester had kept quiet, and simply run his hand
over the panel for a few moments, with a bit of tender reflection.
Morons wouldn't have known what he was thinking, but if the
argument is that explaining things to morons is "ground-breaking
television," yes, well...
In fact, having characters blab like that is a much older trick
than putting the burden of expressing inner voice through acting.
It predates the Stanislavsomething "method." Which is to say,
"same ol' as turn-of-the-century ol'."
Judith R. Conly
In <3309d2bb...@news.ripco.com> dsu...@ripco.com (David M. Sueme)
writes:
New York City area. I don't know about elsewhere.
Judith
Al Bell
dsu...@ripco.com (David M. Sueme) writes:
>On 14 Feb 1997 03:24:50 GMT, "Cronan Thomspon"
><mal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> Is it just me or did that episode reek? The acting was TERRIBLE. So many
>>scenes seemed forced and corny.
>It was as bad as the last one.
I think it's time to take pity on JMS. He seems to have rewritten the
past few episodes to cope with the fact that he may not get a fifth season.
The bad news is that the episodes are rushed. There's very little time
for JMS to "show" anything. He seems to do a lot of quick narrating in
order to make room for the brilliant scenes with Londo and G'Kar.
But, the good news is that we'll get the whole story. Personally, that's
what I prefer.
--
Al Bell's Bell Jar - http://users.vnet.net/allbell/belljar.html *
"I'm just crazy about it." - Sylvia Plath
Featuring: "Terror at 30 Rock (or: The Peacock Had Fangs)"
all...@vnet.net *NOTE CHANGE IN ADDRESS
Wayne Throop
:: Matb
:: I think the already clunker-monologue was made even clutzier by
:: Koenig's body language - what's he's saying is supposed to be
:: emotional, tender, but he's standing straight as an arrow.
Hmmmmm? I don't disagree with criticizing that scene (my own being
that Bester is speaking very private thoughts here, and should be far
too security conscious to do so out loud in a soliloquy... similar
but lesser objections to his crack about Talia to his aide in
an earlier ep).
But this particular criticism doesn't seem quite right to me. When I am
most emotionally upset is *exactly* when I stand straightest and
stiffest, with my most deadpan face. Not all people do so, but some
types do, and Bester seems the type. His body language certainly
didn't seem *relaxed* to me...
But then, I've always been fond of Gordon Dickson's description of what
transpired at the funeral of one of two twins in military service. The
surviving twin bends over the casket and looks at his brother for several
seconds, then moves on. Somebody makes a comment about how cold and
unemotional this was... until another points out to this critic that
the casket was now crushed where the surviving twin had laid his hand,
and stained with a drop of blood.
I almost expected a similar bit of business when Bester laid his
hand on the cryochamber.
The point being, I think Bester's emotions here aren't primarily
longing and tenderness, but remeberance, regret and revenge.
--
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
thr...@cisco.com
--
"I never thought you could possibly beat him.
You were both men of violence, but he was on his home turf."
"I am not a man of violence. I am a man of war."
Matthew Melmon
In article <5ea2k3$468$1...@mack.rt66.com>, slo...@news.rt66.com (John
Millington) wrote:
> Folks, it was just a soliloquy. Yeah, he was addressing his lover, but he
> was _really_ just sharing his thoughts with the audience. Do people
> ever complain when they can see Hamlet's lips move during the "To be or
> not to be" spiel?
Yes. People do.
Not that Bester's scene was on quite the same level. It's
*fun* to listen to Shakespeare's facility for linguistic
tricks. There's more going on than exposition.
Doug Mertaugh
ma...@apple.com (Matthew Melmon) wrote:
>In article <5e8e8b$p...@news.indy.net>, Doug Mertaugh <mert...@indy.net> wrote:
>
>> Yes, Yes, Yes! It's TELEVISION! You *can't do that!*
>> Everything must be visual! Yup, that's good old
>> television alright, as always. Same ol' same ol'
>
>The reason you *can't do that* (provide tedious monologues
>so that characters can explain what they are thinking) is
>that it looks and sounds *stupid*. Bester's case wasn't nearly
>as bad as Ivanova's monologue when she wanted to kill Bester.
>Consider, however, how much more emotion would have been in
>the scene if Bester had kept quiet, and simply run his hand
>over the panel for a few moments, with a bit of tender reflection.
In a previous appearance, Bester was injected with a drug that
temporarily nullified his telepathy. But he bluffed a man
into revealing some information. He then went into a long
dialogue to Garibaldi about it. He could have just said,
"I was bluffing." It might have been more effective. But
B5 has always had a "stage/ literary" way of presenting the
stories and the way the Bester scene was approached was simply
that literary/ stageplay style JMS has always used. It
might have been better to do it another way occasionally.
Diane L. Schirf
In article <5eambi$d...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
jrc...@ix.netcom.com(Judith R. Conly) wrote:
>In <3309d2bb...@news.ripco.com> dsu...@ripco.com (David M. Sueme)
>writes:
>>
>>On 16 Feb 1997 00:53:58 GMT, jrc...@ix.netcom.com(Judith R. Conly)
>>wrote:
>>>And if you want *really* different 'dos -- Have any of you seen HOW
>>>THE WEST WAS WON, with a very young, pretty, long-haired Bruce
>>>Boxleitner?
>>
>>Where? I have that movie both as a techincal achievement and as a
>>spit in the eye of a bunch of pseudo-epistomoligists.
>>
>>Three analog cameras on a rail to splice into one very wide image -
>>talk about kludge!
>>
>>Dave
>>
>I was referring to the series, which is on TNT Saturday mornings in the
>New York City area. I don't know about elsewhere.
>
>Judith
Yes, Saturday mornings on TNT. When it first aired, I, then just a
young thing, totally fell for Bruce as young Luke Macahan. Strangely, I
had a thing for James Arness as old Zeb Macahan, too. Anyway, it was a
really good series in the 70s, and the arc with Ricardo Montalban as war
chief Satangkai is not to be missed. (He won an Emmy for it.) While Zeb
and Satangkai take on the U.S. Army, Luke experiences one of his first
loves. A really worthwhile show to catch in reruns. (Unfortunately, the
Satangkai arc _just_ finished.)
Warning: There are scenes in which he was shirtless. Gack, was he a
scrawny kid then. :)
--
Diane L. Schirf | sl...@aol.com | del...@mindspring.com | http://members.aol.com/slywy
Updated 4 February 1997 with a menage a trois photo! :)
Take the Digital City Emotion Detector at http://denver.digitalcity.com/cgi-bin/determinator
"Who knows . . . what evil . . . llllllurks in the hearts of men? The *Shadows* know . . ."
Bill Bickel
In following (and participating in) this
Bester-talking-to-his-girlfriend thread, I can't help realizing that
nobody's discussed what was actually being said.
What a calculated, very cold scheme that was: an act of a man to whom
morality is only a curiousity.
A shame all that was pretty much lost among the clumsiness of the
scene's execution.
Bill Bickel
Judith R. Conly
In <8562...@sheol.org> thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) writes:
<snip>
>
>But then, I've always been fond of Gordon Dickson's description of
what transpired at the funeral of one of two twins in military service.
The surviving twin bends over the casket and looks at his brother for
several seconds, then moves on. Somebody makes a comment about how
cold and unemotional this was... until another points out to this
critic that the casket was now crushed where the surviving twin had
laid his hand, and stained with a drop of blood.
>
>I almost expected a similar bit of business when Bester laid his hand
on the cryochamber.
>
>The point being, I think Bester's emotions here aren't primarily
longing and tenderness, but remeberance, regret and revenge.
>--
I'd have been a lot happier if the scene had been done the way you
describe. Or, for that matter, if the soliloquy had been cut to the
bare minimum needed for informational purposes, with the emotional
content delivered with facial expression and body language. With the
"in your face" nature of camera work, a great deal can be expressed by
small-scale changes in the actor's face and body -- as long as the
right things are going on in the actor's mind. Someone mentioned what
Koenig was "acting out". That's exactly the problem: he was acting
out what he thought Bester should be feeling, instead of getting inside
Bester's head and showing what came naturally to the character, so what
he did looked phony.
Judith
Matb
>:: I think the already clunker-monologue was made even clutzier by
>:: Koenig's body language - what's he's saying is supposed to be
>:: emotional, tender, but he's standing straight as an arrow.
>But this particular criticism doesn't seem quite right to me. When I
am most emotionally upset is *exactly* when I stand straightest and
>stiffest, with my most deadpan face. Not all people do so, but some
>types do, and Bester seems the type. His body language certainly
>didn't seem *relaxed* to me...
Tender is as tender does, but the word does have two (different-yet-same)
meanings: think emotionally tender, and think physically tender (like a fresh
wound, or [searching] dandelion stems. Definitely not starchy, rigid.
And Bester isn't "emotionally upset" (what a damningly vague phrase!)
He's confessing to his girlchicky - confessing his love, confessing his sins. (Or
letting on to the ship crew that he's confessing - which I think is reading
far, far too much into the writing.) If he were making an _apologia_ or
defending himself before a court martial, yeah, he'd be stiff as hell.. mostly
to show he's not in the wrong.
Now what your "*relaxed*" comment means, or why it's even relevant, is
beyond me; neither of us is arguing he's relaxed. Yeesh, did you think I was
suggesting he should have a cocktail in his hand??
-M
Bruce Douglas Rose
Paul Gunton (wa...@erinet.com) wrote:
: What does everyone think about the obvious 'Warner Bros.' plug in Mr. G's
: quarters? :) hehehehehe
I fail to see a problem. Since when did Warner Bros. obtain copywright
privileges on the God of Frustration??? :)
Wayne Throop
:::: Matb
:::: Koenig's body language - what's he's saying is supposed to be
:::: emotional, tender, but he's standing straight as an arrow.
::: When I am most emotionally upset is *exactly* when I stand
::: straightest and stiffest, with my most deadpan face.
: mbr...@ix.netcom.com(Matb)
: Bester isn't "emotionally upset" (what a damningly vague phrase!)
: He's confessing to his girlchicky - confessing his love,
: confessing his sins.
OK. Whatever.
: Now what your "*relaxed*" comment means, or why it's even relevant, is
: beyond me; neither of us is arguing he's relaxed. Yeesh, did you
: think I was suggesting he should have a cocktail in his hand??
No. I thought you were suggesting he wouldn't be standing stiff,
"straight as an arrow". That his posture and muscle tone would be more
normal, more natural. I intended "relaxed" in the purely muscle tone sense;
less muscle tension, less "straight arrow". More normal.
Bottom line, I find it entirely plausible that he would be standing
straight-arrow, in those unnatural poses, even "confessing to his
girlchicky". Whether confessing love, sins, or that he left the seat up.
I've seen people like that.
Not that the scene was perfect. Not that there were no implausible
elements, or elements that could have benefited from a diffferent
approach. Just that the "standing straight as an arrow" is the
pose-of-strong-emotion-whether-tender-or-not for people I have observed,
and I find it plausible that Bester would be one such.
tomlinson
Andrew H. Litkowiak (and...@starnetinc.com) wrote:
: Just because Bester is a complete dickhead does not rob him of some
: human characteristics. Remember, some of the worst fiends in human
: history maintained normal, stable family and social relationships. They
: think they're doing good work, regardless of the truth.
To go off on a sort of tangent--the monologue interested me chiefly
because it seemed representative, not of "normal, stable" relationship,
but of that sort of grasping, destructive "love" which is three-fourths
self-centeredness. Bester swears he'll do anything, destroy the world
if necessary, "for her", but really for himself; his love Carolyn
(Caroline?) is conveniently unconscious, so _she's_ not about to
disapprove of, or restrain, Bester's revenge.
Cheers.
Junsok Yang
In article <5eb4hv$m...@isnews.csc.calpoly.edu>, br...@flute.aix.calpoly.edu
says...
Considering how shabbily WB treated its cartoons when they were making
them in the 30s-60s (just read *anything* written by or about the directors
and animators of those cartoons such as "Chuck Amuck" by Chuck Jones), it's
rather distasteful how they are taking advantage of them now.
I hope the animators and directors (and their estates) are now getting
some *fat* checks.
--
****************************************************************
"We tend to love in dark corners and hate in a large
crowd."...Kim Huber CNN Sports (CNN HN 7/28/96)
Junsok Yang (yan...@yalevm.cis.yale.edu)
Robert B. Maurice
Swan <Sy...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Think. If YOU knew a person was coming back to get you in five minutes
>or so, would YOU verbally pour out your deepest yearnings instead of
>ruminating silently or telepathically communicating so that your plans
>were not overheard?
>
>person was by their ambient thoughts. Or can they? One can read
>thoughts, but can those thoughts give distance, angle and proximity
>numbers? Good question...
>
>Anyhow, Bester is NO fool! Maybe he wanted to be overheard... or to
>attract Lyta's attention for some reason.
The presence of any scene or action in B5 is at the discretion of JMS
and his post production cutting crew. If he doesn't need it (at
$1million per episode) he doesn't put it in.
The fluff - "I ... miss ... you" - is there to set the stage.
The stuff - "they're ... probably ... laughing" is there to indicate
the conviction.
And the rough "well ... I still have my ..." is there to leave you
guessing.
I do agree with you, he want's to be overheard.
The opinions of this message are completely my own
and do not represent the official position of My Employer.
Robert Holland
Cronan Thomspon wrote:
>
> Is it just me or did that episode reek? The acting was TERRIBLE. So many
> scenes seemed forced and corny.
I found the celebration scenes touching. This was to reflect the
celebrations
after the end of WWII, when the soldiers returned, and so many children
were
conceived. Maybe it was the lack of dialog and the use of interesting
camera
angles that worked so well.
> Like the opening scene with Zak training
> those new security people.. am I the only one who thought that wasn’t funny
> in the slightest?
This is B5. The characters gotta open their mouths at some point.
I got a chuckle from three Elvises. Why three? The triumvirate?
Minbari? Numerology is so loopy...
> Garabaldi, my all time favorite character, was used to
> such poor effect. All of the attempts to show his mind had been
> “influenced” were pretty blatant.
It was clear as a bell he was brainwashed long ago, and that
tv image activated his programming. Garibaldi is now a mole.
Now, just how effective Garibaldi can be as Bester's mole is another
matter. Having him lurk about in the marketplace might be good for
gathering celebrity gossip, but otherwise, I guess he's just another
cog in the propaganda machine.
> I really hope Zak does not become a
> permanent character. The actors who plays him belongs on Voyager.
Anyone listed in the opening credits has a contract to appear in the
entire season, unless they are guest stars.
> Most of
> the cast seemed like they were juiced on stims. I realize that everyone is
> happy and all, winning the greatest battle in galactic history and all, but
> there is such a thing as over doing it.
They were ecstatic, elated. The party after WWII lasted longer than your
sweet sixteenth, buddy.
--RH
Logic Bomb
>
> >> Is it just me or did that episode reek? The acting was TERRIBLE. So many
> >>scenes seemed forced and corny.
>
> I think it's time to take pity on JMS. He seems to have rewritten the
> past few episodes to cope with the fact that he may not get a fifth season.
>
> The bad news is that the episodes are rushed. There's very little time
> for JMS to "show" anything. He seems to do a lot of quick narrating in
> order to make room for the brilliant scenes with Londo and G'Kar.
>
> But, the good news is that we'll get the whole story. Personally, that's
> what I prefer.
>
Okay, so why not have just one more episode where someone (say, Delenn)
sits down and gives a complete narrative that explains the rest of the
plot and ties up all the loose ends? This show was wonderful,
spectacular, (often) brilliant UP UNTIL ItF, when they got all rushed
and decided to talk about events rather than showing them. And now, the
next episode is <gasp> ISN TALKING about B5. The show, perhaps because
of the chopping of season 5, has come completely unglued. Everything
good about it (the story arc, the special effects, etc) has gone
straight to hell, while everything bad about it (the acting, direction,
script) have gotten even worse. The only surviving bit is the
G'Kar/Londo relationship, which also seems to be at an end (as seen in
"Epiphanies").
I will watch the rest of the series, but only because I have invested
3.5 seasons in it.
Vooom,
Steve.
Ben M
tomlinson wrote:
>
> John Millington (slo...@news.rt66.com) wrote:
>
> : Folks, it was just a soliloquy. Yeah, he was addressing his lover, but he
> : was _really_ just sharing his thoughts with the audience. Do people
> : ever complain when they can see Hamlet's lips move during the "To be or
> : not to be" spiel?
>
> ("WhethER 'tis noblER in the mind to suffER...")
>
> :)
>
> Cheers,
> -et
> --
I believe *unrhymed* iambic pentameter was Shakespeare's usual writing
style; hardly any of his stuff has the line-end rhymes that most people
think of as poetry.
--
Ben M <*> be...@borland.com
The usual disclaimer about my employer and my opinions.
"It's good to be right, but it's right to be good." - Marilyn Vos Savant
Chuck Adams
>Usually, when a person speaks to aloud at graveside or a sickbed, it is
>a function of self assurance or self discovery. There is no real intent
>or belief that the person will hear. The speaker uses the sick or the
>dead person as a sort of a tangible sounding board. The speaker is
>vocalizing to reinforce an idea or vebally work through a thought
>process. While movies and TV might work it to death, this is a very
>common occurence in the real world, one which happens in much the way it
>was portrayed in the Bester scene.
All true. And in this case, it ALSO happened to be an idiot-device. Just
like the countless idiot-devices that should have been edited out of the show.
Sheridan did NOT have to explain the whole "fake plans" thing to the ranger
(the "are you married" speech). JMS just doesn't seem to understand the idea
of keeping the audience in the dark.
g...@cctimes.com
In Article<01bc1ce5$65f56200$1114...@tfuller.jic.com>, <tfu...@moon.jic.com>
writes, in part, criticizing Straczinski's handlng of
Bester closing scene in "Epiphanies"
> This is one of those trademark instances where Joe Straczynski
> underestimates the intelligence of his viewers,
> Regards,
> Theron Fuller
Theron, thanks so much again for demonstrating and sharing
your single-minded obsession with The Great White B5 Creatorr.
Call you Ahab. or Khan of Star Trek.
"For flaming's sake do you spit at JMS?"
Let's hope you convinced no more than a skeleton crew of
fellow B5 haters to sign on
before your online Pequod shoved off. (Isn't Robert H. going
by Starbuck these days?)
See ya later, Me Bucko.
George Avalos
RON MURILLO
>What does everyone think about the obvious 'Warner Bros.' plug in Mr. G's quarters? :) hehehehehe
Well, if you are referring to the Daffy Duck poster, it's been there
for quite a while. It was there when Garibaldi took Talia
Winters to do the " second most fun thing in the universe "
( I am parphrasing: That was two-three years ago ), which was to
watch DUCK DODGERS. It was also hanging on the wall, when Mr. G
brought the female soldier to his quarters in GROPOS.
Eric Johnson
Bill Bickel <bbi...@cris.com> wrote in article <3308C7...@cris.com>...
>(BTW, stating as a fact that a stasis-bound telepath
> can't in any way "hear" a telepathic communication assumes a knowledge
> of telepathy neither of us can claim)
Actually this can be claimed. The reason is that in cryogenic stasis body
functions are essentially non-existent. They move so slow to be barely
moving at all. And telepathic ability requires the body to receive and
process these signals. But it can't do that in stasis, because it does not
react fast enough to it. It is the same thing as talking to someone in
stasis. There is no reaction by the body to the stimulus because it has
slowed to so much.
weimere.te...@ohsu.edu
In article <3308C7...@cris.com> Bill Bickel <bbi...@cris.com> writes:
>From: Bill Bickel <bbi...@cris.com>
>Subject: Re: Epiphanies- What the hell is wrong?
>Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 16:04:42 -0500
>Swan wrote:
>>
>> Bill Bickel wrote:
>> >
many discusions against Bester removed
Actually, I liked Bester's speech. It fit him. Bester is both a control freak
and a powerful telepath. He likely was never in anything like that stituation
before; he couldn't order them to do anything, just trade and that didn't work
out. He probably never had to resort to expressing his emotions before, if he
"loved" you, you would feel it if he wanted you to. All that was left to him
was talking. And to Bester talking was till then just a carefuly polished
weapon.
********************************************************************
** Weimere@ OHSU.EDU * Overdrawn at the Memory Bank. **
********************************************************************
Bill Bickel
Eric, this is like saying definitively that such-and-such is possible or
not possible relating to time-travel: Every SF "universe" has its own
set of rules, and they're rarely even internally consistent.
If I want to contend that a telepath (which doesn't really exist) can
still sense the thoughts of another telepath while in stasis (which
doesn't really exist), I'm sure I can make just as good an argument for
as anybody else can against. I say that if a normal human can understand
the spoken word while in a coma, a telepath can understand a telepathic
message while in stasis, no matter how small a percentage of his mental
functions are active.
Prove me wrong.
Bill Bickel
--
Please visit the "Comics I Don't Understand" Page, at
http://www.concentric.net/~Bbickel/bj.html
Noam R. Izenberg
Logic Bomb wrote:
> Al Bell wrote:
> > I think it's time to take pity on JMS. He seems to have rewritten the
> > past few episodes to cope with the fact that he may not get a fifth season.
> > The bad news is that the episodes are rushed.
[snip]
> And now, the
> next episode is <gasp> ISN TALKING about B5. The show, perhaps because
> of the chopping of season 5, has come completely unglued.
[Snip]
I think it's amazing how far people will leap to conclusions when they
hear rumors.
If there's real interest, there's several web and usenet sources that
detail the 4/5 season story from the horse's mouth. My interp. of it
(read and judge yourself) is that the only ep. tweaking we'll see would
begin after mid season (around ep 14), since those up to 14 were in the
can scriptwise before all this 4/5 season crud came down. This clears
the deck, IMHO, of these silly "He's rushing to get done" complaints,
and opens up the possibility of more realistic criticism for the change
of pace or plotlines. I disagree with those also, personally, but that's
all a matter of taste.
If you'd rather not read what the writer of the series has to say on the
subject, or choose to believe he's misrepresenting his own work, that's
your choice. Not everyone is that interested. But the only way to squash
rumors is to get the real story.
Ciao,
Noam
SteveC
chuck@but_I_dont_like_spam.org (Chuck Adams) wrote:
>All true. And in this case, it ALSO happened to be an idiot-device. Just
>like the countless idiot-devices that should have been edited out of the show.
> Sheridan did NOT have to explain the whole "fake plans" thing to the ranger
>(the "are you married" speech). JMS just doesn't seem to understand the idea
>of keeping the audience in the dark.
Yeah, all the 'idiot asides' that keep going on are really starting to
get on my nervers. It's starting to sound like Star Trek more and
more. If this keeps up B5 is going to degrade into another 'random
encounter' series like Star Trek (and most of the series out there).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer
meets the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C)
it is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such
equipment, punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss,
or $500, whichever is -greater-, for -each- violation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Logic Bomb
Noam R. Izenberg wrote:
>
> Logic Bomb wrote:
> > Al Bell wrote:
> > > I think it's time to take pity on JMS. He seems to have rewritten the
> > > past few episodes to cope with the fact that he may not get a fifth season.
> > > The bad news is that the episodes are rushed.
>
> [snip]
>
> > And now, the
> > next episode is <gasp> ISN TALKING about B5. The show, perhaps because
> > of the chopping of season 5, has come completely unglued.
>
> [Snip]
>
> I think it's amazing how far people will leap to conclusions when they
> hear rumors.
> If there's real interest, there's several web and usenet sources that
> detail the 4/5 season story from the horse's mouth. My interp. of it
> (read and judge yourself) is that the only ep. tweaking we'll see would
> begin after mid season (around ep 14), since those up to 14 were in the
> can scriptwise before all this 4/5 season crud came down. This clears
> the deck, IMHO, of these silly "He's rushing to get done" complaints,
> and opens up the possibility of more realistic criticism for the change
> of pace or plotlines. I disagree with those also, personally, but that's
> all a matter of taste.
Well, if the current sorry state of the show isn't because everyone is
rushing, then I have to assume that it is merely bad writing, plotting,
etc. They spend 3 seasons building up the Shadow War only to have it
end in 5 minutes. They spent very little time (little bits of episodes
here and there) talking about EA and its schemes. Now they are going to
spend the rest of the series (be that 1.5 or just .5 seasons) on the EA
crisis (along with the far more interesting sub-plots about Centauri and
Narn). Has Harlan Ellison left the show? or just stopped paying
attention?
And if you think that, just because the scripts are "in the can", the
story is written in stone, you are sadly mistaken. EVERY tv show, film,
music video, etc. ever made has done some degree of tweaking, even
during the actual shooting. If JMS was told that he might not (or
definately wouldn't) get a 5th season, he would be quite likely do
whatever was necessary to finish the plot in 4 seasons. There has been
enough talk about the axing of season 5 that I think you can at least
call it a substantiated rumor.
Okay,
Steve.
Matthew Melmon
In article <5ef47c$g...@atlas.tcac.com>, ste...@tcac.com wrote:
> Yeah, all the 'idiot asides' that keep going on are really starting to
> get on my nervers. It's starting to sound like Star Trek more and
> more. If this keeps up B5 is going to degrade into another 'random
> encounter' series like Star Trek (and most of the series out there).
Bester's scene was only disappointing. Ivanova is the one
saddled with the most hideous "idiot devices."
MASTER SHOT: C&C
IVANOVA prances up to SHERIDAN
IVANOVA: The Vorlon have been blowing up planets touched
by the Shadows.
EXTREME CLOSE UP: SHERIDAN
SHERIDAN: No! Really!?
Matthew Murray
On 17 Feb 1997, Matb wrote:
> In <5e825k$j...@hole.sdsu.edu> etom...@rohan.sdsu.edu (tomlinson) writes:
>
> >This isn't prose, it's television--note the "vision", hmm?
> >Bester's monologue came across as slightly clumsy because the
> >device of speaking one's thoughts to a loved one's comatose
> >form (sickbed, gravestone, etc.) has been done to death in
> >dozens of movies and shows.
>
> I think the already clunker-monologue was made even clutzier by Koenig's
> body language - what's he's saying is supposed to be emotional, tender, but
> he's standing straight as an arrow.
And, what, pray tell, would >you< have had Bester do? Maybe walk
around the room, waving his arms all around while delivering the
monologue? Or, maybe delivering it while attacking a punching bag?
I felt that Mr. Koenig's performance was fine--who's to say that
you can't have good drama if the character just stares straight ahead?
In fact, I felt the drama was puncutated by the fact that he didn't look
at her chamber very much.
> Come to think of it, *most* of the players were really rigid - especially
> Garibaldi (I couldn't believe his 'quit' scene was shot that badly!)
Again, I simply didn't see this. What I can't quite figure out
though is whether you had trouble with the acting or the direction of
this episode. The actors and the directors both have different
responsibilities, and I really didn't feel let down by either one,
really.
> Has the cast's posture always been this bad?
I take it you haven't seen that many episodes, then...
===============================================================================
Matthew Murray - n964...@cc.wwu.edu - http://www.wwu.edu/~n9641343
===============================================================================
The script calls for fusing and using our smarts,
And greatness can come of the sum of our parts.
From now on, I'm with you--and with you is where I belong!
-David Zippel, City of Angels
===============================================================================
Larry W. Virden
Then there was the scene in 4th season where G'Kar begins his search for
Garabaldi, and references the duck god.
Even more amusing was the conferences session 2 yrs ago with Jerry Doyle,
where he talks about _his_ opinion of the appearance of DD...
--
Larry W. Virden INET: lvi...@cas.org
<URL:http://www.teraform.com/%7Elvirden/> <*> O- "We are all Kosh."
Unless explicitly stated to the contrary, nothing in this posting should
be construed as representing my employer's opinions.
JP
On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 14:41:18 GMT, mau...@hsd.utc.com (Robert B.
Maurice) wrote:
>
>I do agree with you, he want's to be overheard.
>
the crew not screw with him.
But, I still think his thoughts were sincere. He may be a telepath,
but spoken thoughts are instinctive to humanity. Its just that he
doesn't need to hide those thoughts from anyone in B5.
Matthew Murray
On Tue, 18 Feb 1997, Robert B. Maurice wrote:
> I do agree with you, he want's to be overheard.
Did it ever occur to any of you that maybe he wasn't actually
speaking out loud?!?
doctorw
In article <330B01...@sas.upenn.edu>, "Noam R. Izenberg"
<n...@sas.upenn.edu> wrote:
> I think it's amazing how far people will leap to conclusions when they
> hear rumors.
> If there's real interest, there's several web and usenet sources that
> detail the 4/5 season story from the horse's mouth.
>
> If you'd rather not read what the writer of the series has to say on the
> subject, or choose to believe he's misrepresenting his own work, that's
> your choice. Not everyone is that interested. But the only way to squash
> rumors is to get the real story.
[SNIP]
> Noam
Some of us rather would - can you list the "several web and usenet
sources" you mentioned so that we can do so easily?
Thanks.
Ben M
Matthew Murray wrote:
>
> On Tue, 18 Feb 1997, Robert B. Maurice wrote:
>
> > I do agree with you, he want's to be overheard.
>
> Did it ever occur to any of you that maybe he wasn't actually
> speaking out loud?!?
>
And in the same way that we hear Klingons, Narns, Centauri, etc.
speaking English so, too, do we hear Besters thoughts in spoken English.
I like that explanation, no, I love it. As a child watching Star Trek,
occasionally one of my family would ask me, facetiously, why they all
spoke English. I always told them the same thing, the true thing, that
the TV did the translating for us.
The magic of Television, it never fades away.
Mystically,
Ben
Timothy Grant
In <5edk88$q...@agate.berkeley.edu>, on 02/19/97
>DODGERS. It was also hanging on the wall, when Mr. G brought the female
>soldier to his quarters in GROPOS.
Still probably at the top of my list of favourite episodes.
--
Stand Fast,
tjg.
------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Grant t...@aracnet.com
Legal Automation Works (503) 246-3630
The Frontier of Legal Automation Fax: (503) 246-3124
------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Legan
> Some of us rather would - can you list the "several web and usenet
> sources" you mentioned so that we can do so easily?
>
> Thanks.
>
Try this. <http://www.hyperion.com/lurk/find/CompuServe/cs96-12/152.html>
This is where alot of the people claiming to have info about the
season 4/5 issue are getting their info. Also explains jms's plans
for shorting the entire story down to 4 years if necessary.
Matthew Melmon
In article <Pine.ULT.3.91.97021...@statler.cc.wwu.edu>,
Matthew Murray <n964...@statler.cc.wwu.edu> wrote:
> On 17 Feb 1997, Matb wrote:
>
> > In <5e825k$j...@hole.sdsu.edu> etom...@rohan.sdsu.edu (tomlinson) writes:
> >
> > >This isn't prose, it's television--note the "vision", hmm?
> > >Bester's monologue came across as slightly clumsy because the
> > >device of speaking one's thoughts to a loved one's comatose
> > >form (sickbed, gravestone, etc.) has been done to death in
> > >dozens of movies and shows.
> >
> > I think the already clunker-monologue was made even clutzier by Koenig's
> > body language - what's he's saying is supposed to be emotional, tender, but
> > he's standing straight as an arrow.
>
> And, what, pray tell, would >you< have had Bester do? Maybe walk
> around the room, waving his arms all around while delivering the
> monologue? Or, maybe delivering it while attacking a punching bag?
BESTER and ZACK enter cryo chamber
ZACK: Here's where we keep them. Your ship leaves in
ten minutes. I'll be back for you in five.
BESTER: Which one is hers?
ZACK points, then exits.
BESTER walks to the tank. He runs his fingers over
the steel, but is not satisfied. He removes his glove
and touches the tank again. Suddenly, he clenches his
fist and strikes the tank. Shocked, he rests a hand
tenderly on the panel.
BESTER: I'm sorry.
Wait, wait, I'm sure I'm violating some of the rules of the
B5 universe... er, um...
JP
> Again, I simply didn't see this. What I can't quite figure out
>though is whether you had trouble with the acting or the direction of
>this episode. The actors and the directors both have different
>responsibilities, and I really didn't feel let down by either one,
>really.
been defeated. The crew of B5 probably didn't let him have moment to
himself. There's nothing abnormal or odd about someone stopping for a
couple of secs to recollect their thoughts.
Whether or not he spoke aloud. Whether or not the crew of B5 was
listening. Bester DIDN'T CARE. What are the crew of B5 going to do to
him anyway.
I liked the episode just as I a have liked every episode.
jeeeze...
Nicholas Wolfe
In article <330A0A...@wco.com>, Robert Holland <rhol...@wco.com>
wrote:
> Cronan Thomspon wrote:
<<snip>>
> I really hope Zak does not become a
> permanent character. The actors who plays him belongs on Voyager.
Cronan, not even Zach deserves a fate as cruel as that.
Rgds,
Nick
----------------------------
|Nicholas Wolfe |
|macs...@hotamail.com |
|Flames welcome, lawsuits not|
----------------------------
Noam R. Izenberg
> Some of us rather would - can you list the "several web and usenet
> sources" you mentioned so that we can do so easily?
>
> Thanks.
Check the Lurker's Guide or Deja News on the Web, Check the FAQ's and
curent topic summaries of the moderated newsgroup.
Noam
P D RUSS
<<snip>>
> I really hope Zak does not become a
> permanent character. The actors who plays him belongs on Voyager.
Gee, what do you call permanent? Zak been on B5 for about 2 years.
Dianne
tomlinson
Matthew Melmon (ma...@apple.com) wrote:
: Bester's scene was only disappointing. Ivanova is the one
: saddled with the most hideous "idiot devices."
<example:>
: IVANOVA: The Vorlon have been blowing up planets touched
: by the Shadows.
Oh, too true...I notice that the first scene of "Illusion of
Truth" continued the trend. Not only Ivanova but also Franklin
get to deliver these weak, explanatory lines--the B-5 equivalent
of the asterisked footnotes in Marvel comic-books (the Lord
forgive me for _ever_ reading "Spider-Man") which inform us to
"see The Amazing Spider-Man #428."
I can appreciate that such exposition be a necessary evil to
remind those viewers who might have missed earlier episodes;
but the evil is no less evil for being necessary.
Cheers,
-et
--
Ernest S. Tomlinson | And still another opinion...
etom...@rohan.sdsu.edu | "I AM, HAVE BEEN, AND WILL BE ONLY ONE THING--
------------------------+ AN AMERICAN." - Charles Foster Kane
Steven W. DiFranco
tomlinson wrote:
>
> Matthew Melmon (ma...@apple.com) wrote:
>
> : Bester's scene was only disappointing. Ivanova is the one
> : saddled with the most hideous "idiot devices."
> <example:>
> : IVANOVA: The Vorlon have been blowing up planets touched
> : by the Shadows.
>
> Oh, too true...I notice that the first scene of "Illusion of
> Truth" continued the trend. Not only Ivanova but also Franklin
> get to deliver these weak, explanatory lines--the B-5 equivalent
> of the asterisked footnotes in Marvel comic-books (the Lord
> forgive me for _ever_ reading "Spider-Man") which inform us to
> "see The Amazing Spider-Man #428."
>
> I can appreciate that such exposition be a necessary evil to
> remind those viewers who might have missed earlier episodes;
> but the evil is no less evil for being necessary.
This is a plot device used in many forms of literature, as well as movies
and TV shows. A narrative can fill in hours/days/years of info in a few
minutes. Why do you think the "Captain's log" is used so much in the
Star trek universe? It saves on a lot of production.
--
[ Steven W. DiFranco, CEO WEBCRAFT Data Resources ][ "For the things
which some men esteem to be of great worth, both to the body and soul,
others set at naught and trample under their feet..." 1Ne. 19:7 ][ Words
written 2,570 years ago speak to our generations today ]
John Aegard
> This is a plot device used in many forms of literature, as well as movies
> and TV shows. A narrative can fill in hours/days/years of info in a few
> minutes. Why do you think the "Captain's log" is used so much in the
> Star trek universe? It saves on a lot of production.
The "Captain's Log" is a relatively decent way to frame exposition, but
I don't think that's what Mr. Tomlinson was referring to when he complained
about B5's clumsy exposition.
Here's a specific example, from "The Long Night"
(spoiler-space follows)
Ivonova's little "I suppose it was inevitable with the Vorlons destroying
Shadow-sympathetic worlds" speech to Sheridan, right before we cut to the
Shadow planet killer. Remember that one?
Now THAT is klutzy exposition.
The problem with this speech is that Sheridan is AWARE of the activities
of the Vorlon planet-muncher. The only reason for the "with the Vorlons destroying Shadow-sympathetic worlds" part is to bring the audience up
to speed. It jars *greatly* to hear this kind of stuff .. it briefly
shatters the illusion that we're watching a private conversation.
Fortunately, after a few seasons of B5, I've gotten used to it.
(since B5 is all but incomprehensible to new viewers anyway, I wonder
why JMS continues to drop these little gems into the dialog .. it's not
like anyone who hasn't been following the show is going to be able to
pick it up now.)
And since I've pointed out an example of bad exposition, here's an
example of *good* exposition. Ivonova's broadcast at the beginning
of "Falling Towards Apothesis" established the situation very solidly,
and even managed to move it forward a little bit by showing the reactions
to the Vorlon rampage. Good, impressive stuff.
Johnzo.
tomlinson
John Aegard (joh...@bnr.ca) wrote:
: The "Captain's Log" is a relatively decent way to frame exposition...
It gets a little old, but the "Captain's Log" _announces_ itself as
sincerely and truthfully expository. We shouldn't forget, though,
that the Trek shows, being primarily episodic, don't usually
require reminders of events of previous episodes. The only excep-
tions that come to mind are the second halves of two-parters, which
are invariably prefaced by a voice-over ("Previously, on...") and
a few clips.
: Here's a specific example, from "The Long Night"
: (spoiler-space follows)
: Ivonova's little "I suppose it was inevitable with the Vorlons destroying
: Shadow-sympathetic worlds" speech to Sheridan, right before we cut to the
: Shadow planet killer. Remember that one?
This is exactly what I mean. Sometimes this exposition is limited
to a single throwaway line, sometimes it's a whole "paragraph";
either way, it interrupts the flow of the episode.
By contrast, "The Hour of the Wolf" and "Whatever Happened..."
(the portion which I saw) made good use of the "personal log"
for exposition.
: (since B5 is all but incomprehensible to new viewers anyway, I wonder
: why JMS continues to drop these little gems into the dialog .. it's not
: like anyone who hasn't been following the show is going to be able to
: pick it up now.)
I can vouch for this. I missed "The Summoning", "Falling to
Apotheosis", and the final half of "Whatever Happened to Mr.
Garibaldi"; returning to the show with "The Long Night",
I was much befuddled by the rapid progress of events. By means
of the Lurker's Guide I've managed to fill myself in. In any
case, the "little gems" of exposition didn't help any, and in
fact made matters worse (when did _that_ happen????)
Robert Holland
Dan Flanery wrote:
>
> On 14 Feb 1997 19:15:20 GMT, IJB...@aol.com (Ian J. Ball) wrote:
>
> >What I find interesting is the variation in Patrica Tallman's acting. Some
> >episodes she OK, or even rather good (like this episode), other times
> >she's mails-on-a-blackboard bad. I think she, like Conaway, excels at
> >"average Joe" rolls better than other stuff.
>
> I thought her acting in this episode was the best we've seen from her.
> It wasn't great, but if she could continue to perform at this level,
> she'd be no worse than most of the regulars on DS9, which is a fairly
> well-acted show.
>
> DF
Help me understand something. When Bester is probing minds in
the meeting room, Lyta doesn't notice at all until he tries her
mind.
So, what's the use of telepaths for protection from mind probes
if your defending teep can't detect the monkey business?
Lyta caught Bester only through Bester's own stupidity.
--RH
Matthew Murray
On Sat, 22 Feb 1997, Robert Holland wrote:
> Help me understand something. When Bester is probing minds in
> the meeting room, Lyta doesn't notice at all until he tries her
> mind.
>
> So, what's the use of telepaths for protection from mind probes
> if your defending teep can't detect the monkey business?
>
> Lyta caught Bester only through Bester's own stupidity.
Um, Robert, were we watching the same scene? I reccommend you
rewatch it, because that's not what I saw. You see Bester's gaze going
around the conference table, and it stops on someone. The scene flashes
back to his face, with a puzzled expression. He moves to someone else,
and the same thing happen. Then, once more. Finally, he tries Lyta, but
she turns around, facing him. I thought it was pretty clear that she was
blocking him from entering not only her mind but everyone else's as well.
Jonathan Blum
In article <330F79...@wco.com>, Robert Holland <rhol...@wco.com> wrote:
>Help me understand something. When Bester is probing minds in
>the meeting room, Lyta doesn't notice at all until he tries her
>mind.
Nope. Later dialogue indicates that she was blocking his attempts
to probe the others, IIRC. That's why, when he tries to probe the others'
minds, he just gets that little "whoosh" sound effect instead of any
coherent thoughts.
It's just that when he tried to probe *her*, he got hit back full force.
Regards,
Jon Blum
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"All this time you two thought you were playing some twisted game of
chess... when it was just me playing solitaire!"
D O C T O R W H O : T I M E R I F T
SteveC
etom...@rohan.sdsu.edu (tomlinson) wrote:
>John Aegard (joh...@bnr.ca) wrote:
>: The "Captain's Log" is a relatively decent way to frame exposition...
>It gets a little old, but the "Captain's Log" _announces_ itself as
>sincerely and truthfully expository. We shouldn't forget, though,
>that the Trek shows, being primarily episodic, don't usually
>require reminders of events of previous episodes. The only excep-
>tions that come to mind are the second halves of two-parters, which
>are invariably prefaced by a voice-over ("Previously, on...") and
>a few clips.
Nobody has mentioned J'Kar's little background dialog that happened
for a couple of show. It certainly didn't get in the way of the
plot-line, and served the same function of the 'captains logs'. I
really would rather they did it that way than the little explanatory
asides the cast has to keep tossing about.
Maybe they should cast Matthew Broderic(sp) in so he can talk to the
camera, and leave the rest of the cast free to do some acting. Just a
thought. ;)
Doug Mertaugh
"Theron Fuller" <tfu...@moon.jic.com> wrote:
>The problem with that scene is that Joe Straczynski's characters often >do<
>when they should be talking, and >talk< incessantly when their actions
>should be communicating with the viewer.
Part of text deleted.
>Bester's speech seems to be transliterated from the narrative in a novel.
>"Bester stood before the cryogenic crypt of his beloved, his face contorted
>with anguish and inner turmoil...."
This is one of those few instances where Fuller actually
has a valid point, once you remove all the sarcasm and
potshots and just read the point. The day I thought I'd
agree with anything Fuller said... But it's true. There
are some scenes where a quick and to-the-point display of
feelings has more effect than a long speech. Bester could
have just walked up to the chamber, reached out his hand and
lightly touched it (anguish on face) and walked away. There
could have been a brief mention elsewhere that the squadron
was his.
I'm reminded of an interview I once read with Clint Eastwood.
He said that in one of his "Man with no-name" westerns, his
character was helping the helpless farmers against the evil
cattlemen. In one scene, a woman asked him why he was
helping them. Eastwood said that, in the script, his
character went into a maudlin account of
his entire life and every nuance of his feelings, even talking
about his mother's sad life and his sad childhood. Eastwood
immediately saw that this would fail to get the effect the
writer intended. Instead, he rewrote the scene to get the
effect the writer intended. The woman says, "Why are you
helping us?" He says, "Because I've seen what happens
when nobody will!" End of scene. And the effect is more
profound than the long speech in the script.
Doug Mertaugh
jb...@Glue.umd.edu (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
>In article <330F79...@wco.com>, Robert Holland <rhol...@wco.com> wrote:
>>Help me understand something. When Bester is probing minds in
>>the meeting room, Lyta doesn't notice at all until he tries her
>>mind.
>
>Nope. Later dialogue indicates that she was blocking his attempts
>to probe the others, IIRC. That's why, when he tries to probe the others'
>minds, he just gets that little "whoosh" sound effect instead of any
>coherent thoughts.
>
>It's just that when he tried to probe *her*, he got hit back full force.
I took those whooshing noises/ snatches of thought as the
way a telepath "hears" peoples' thoughts. But you may be
right. The implication was that Bester was puzzled because
someone was interfering with his readings preventing him
from getting more than the immediate surface thoughts.
Bill Cruz
*Cough* P50's (grin) are cool that way... I wonder if she could
mind-wipe Bester if she wanted to.
->
-> On Sat, 22 Feb 1997, Robert Holland wrote:
->
-> > Help me understand something. When Bester is probing minds in
-> > the meeting room, Lyta doesn't notice at all until he tries her
-> > mind.
-> >
-> > So, what's the use of telepaths for protection from mind probes
-> > if your defending teep can't detect the monkey business?
-> >
-> > Lyta caught Bester only through Bester's own stupidity.
->
-> Um, Robert, were we watching the same scene? I reccommend you
-> rewatch it, because that's not what I saw. You see Bester's gaze going
-> around the conference table, and it stops on someone. The scene flashes
-> back to his face, with a puzzled expression. He moves to someone else,
-> and the same thing happen. Then, once more. Finally, he tries Lyta,
-> but she turns around, facing him. I thought it was pretty clear that
-> she was blocking him from entering not only her mind but everyone
-> else's as well.
->
-> =====================================================================
-> ========== Matthew Murray - n964...@cc.wwu.edu -
-> http://www.wwu.edu/~n9641343
-> =====================================================================
-> ========== The script calls for fusing and using our
-> smarts, And greatness can come of the sum of our
-> parts. From now on, I'm with you--and with you is where I
-> belong!
->
-> -David Zippel, City of Angels
-> =====================================================================
-> ==========
->
Nyrath the nearly wise
Doug Mertaugh (mert...@indy.net) wrote:
:
: This is one of those few instances where Fuller actually
: potshots and just read the point. The day I thought I'd
: agree with anything Fuller said...
Well, you know what they say: Even a clock that has *stopped*
is correct two times a day.
cosmo2
Robert Holland wrote:
> Help me understand something. When Bester is probing minds in
> the meeting room, Lyta doesn't notice at all until he tries her
> mind.
Oh no! I'm sure you miss read that one. Bester was unable to read the
others present, all he got was a blurred perception and the beginning of
a headache. He didn't understand why until he tried to read her.
at...@yournet.com
In article <Pine.ULT.3.91.97022...@statler.cc.wwu.edu>, Matthew Murray <n964...@statler.cc.wwu.edu> wrote:
>On Sat, 22 Feb 1997, Robert Holland wrote:
>
>> Help me understand something. When Bester is probing minds in
>> the meeting room, Lyta doesn't notice at all until he tries her
>> mind.
>>
>>
>
>she turns around, facing him. I thought it was pretty clear that she was
>blocking him from entering not only her mind but everyone else's as well.
Yup. Lyta was blocking him from reading their minds. When he came to her and
tried to probe her mind it looked as though she gave him the telepathic
equivalent of a good slap in the face.
"Reality is a nice place to visit but I wouldn't want to
live there."
Theron Fuller
Nyrath the nearly wise <nyr...@clark.net> wrote in article
<5epdnm$6...@clarknet.clark.net>...
And a clock that runs backwards is right >4 times< a day.
Your point is?
Regards,
Theron Fuller
David M. Sueme
On 22 Feb 1997 18:13:11 GMT, joh...@bnr.ca (John Aegard) wrote:
>Ivonova's little "I suppose it was inevitable with the Vorlons destroying
>Shadow-sympathetic worlds" speech to Sheridan, right before we cut to the
>Shadow planet killer. Remember that one?
>
>Now THAT is klutzy exposition.
I've heard the wole issue summed up in a phrase: "Don't tell me, show
me". "Tell me" is great for philosophers - this is drama. When
Shakespeare needed to fill in a bunch of exposition fast, he found a
way for the character to talk to himself (and the audience). JMS
tried it with Bester. He just used the device for the wrong reason.
You use a siliquoy (arrgh!) to bring the audience up to date, not to
develop a future conflict. That you show.
Dave
Matthew Melmon
> And since I've pointed out an example of bad exposition, here's an
> example of *good* exposition. Ivonova's broadcast at the beginning
> of "Falling Towards Apothesis" established the situation very solidly,
> and even managed to move it forward a little bit by showing the reactions
> to the Vorlon rampage. Good, impressive stuff.
Bester is (usually) one of the most effective characters
at giving exposition. He often has a *purpose* for telling
the characters what's going on: he tells Sheridan that
the Shadows are stealing human telepaths because he wants
Sheridan to do something about it. Recently, he informed
the heroes of Clark's plan to ambush EA pilots because he
wanted Sheridan to take him to Z'ha'dum.
If exposition is meaningful to the character, it will be
meaningful to the audience. The "Captain's Log" gimmicks
in Trek are riding the edge, but they do at least fall
within the logical base duties of a starship captain.
Ivanova's "with the Vorlon blowing up planets" nonsense
didn't even serve that much of a non-purpose.
Dennis Flory
In article <5epdnm$6...@clarknet.clark.net>, nyr...@clark.net (Nyrath the nearly
>
>Doug Mertaugh (mert...@indy.net) wrote:
>:
>: This is one of those few instances where Fuller actually
>: has a valid point, once you remove all the sarcasm and
>: potshots and just read the point. The day I thought I'd
>: agree with anything Fuller said...
>
>Well, you know what they say: Even a clock that has *stopped*
>is correct two times a day.
>
Or how about that monkey typing thingy?
Noam R. Izenberg
Logic Bomb wrote:
> Well, if the current sorry state of the show isn't because everyone is
> rushing, then I have to assume that it is merely bad writing, plotting,
> etc.
That's an opinion I can handle, even if I don't agree with it, since
it's based on your own reaction to the show.
> They spend 3 seasons building up the Shadow War only to have it
> end in 5 minutes.
I think I enjoy this kind of reaction _almost_ as much as I did the end
of the Shadow War (whigh is to say "alot").
"Hey! That didn't end the way I wanted/predicted/thought/said it
would...That makes it stink/bad/suck/poorly written by definition."
If you don't want curveballs, the batter's box ain't for you.
> They spent very little time (little bits of episodes
> here and there) talking about EA and its schemes.
I suppose "Messages," "Severed," "Ship of Tears", et al., count as "very
little time?" Look back over the eps.
> Now they are going to
> spend the rest of the series (be that 1.5 or just .5 seasons) on the EA
> crisis (along with the far more interesting sub-plots about Centauri and
> Narn).
...And probably the Minbari, and other things not yet started (assuming
season 5)...
> And if you think that, just because the scripts are "in the can", the
> story is written in stone, you are sadly mistaken.
I think it's hard to create brand new alternate endings/scenes/dialog
once the shooting of an ep is in the can. JMS has said (and this is my
point about leaping to conclusions based on rumors) that there's a point
t which he'll plan alternate endings/scenes for if the 5th season
doesn't go. He hasn't, to my knowledge, indicated that any changes would
be made to eps currently in the can (up to 414, I think). Which should
confirm that what we've seen so far is free of the influence of the 4/5
Season uncertainty.
> EVERY tv show, film,
> music video, etc. ever made has done some degree of tweaking, even
> during the actual shooting.
No argument here. But there's a big difference between tweaking and
changing.
> If JMS was told that he might not (or
> definately wouldn't) get a 5th season, he would be quite likely do
> whatever was necessary to finish the plot in 4 seasons.
Which he has so much as said has not affected anything we've seen so
far.
> There has been
> enough talk about the axing of season 5 that I think you can at least
> call it a substantiated rumor.
Nope. The claim that he's "rushing to get things done" is a rumor based
on the rumor that there "may be no season 5". Whlie the latter might be
called substantiated, from the horse's mouth even, the former certainly
ain't. It's been countered with facts. Don't take my word for it. Go to
the source.
Ciao,
Noam
Theron Fuller
Dennis Flory <fl...@uicc.com> wrote in article <E64B2...@mv.mv.com>...
That's "an infinite number of monkeys." That's over on rastb5.RomperRoom.
Regards,
Theron Fuller
>
Theron Fuller
g...@cctimes.com wrote in article
<NEWTNews.85630...@editor.cctimes.com>...
(Stuff Deleted)
> Theron, thanks so much again for demonstrating and sharing
> your single-minded obsession with The Great White B5 Creatorr.
George, thanks so much again for demonstrating and sharing your
single-minded obsession with the Great Mind Fucker.
>
> Call you Ahab. or Khan of Star Trek.
Call you Ill Porko Grosso wannabe or Eeyore of The Ten Acre Wood
sound-alike.
> "For flaming's sake do you spit at JMS?"
For trolling's sake do you spit at TKF?
> Let's hope you convinced no more than a skeleton crew of
> fellow B5 haters to sign on
> before your online Pequod shoved off. (Isn't Robert H. going
> by Starbuck these days?)
Let's hope that the rest of the True Believers stay seasick and keep the
Hell off Sinclair Memorial Lake. Or else that the real Ill Porko Grosso
rises from the dead like Smilin' Jack Sheridan and raises the quality of
trolling and flaming around here.
>
> See ya later, Me Bucko.
> George Avalos
Regards,
Theron "Call Me Ishmael" Fuller
"We're bound for far Greenland
We're ready to sail
In hopes to find riches
In hunting the whale." -- Judy Collins
Chuck Adams
>(spoiler-space follows)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
>Ivonova's little "I suppose it was inevitable with the Vorlons destroying
>Shadow-sympathetic worlds" speech to Sheridan, right before we cut to the
>Shadow planet killer. Remember that one?
>
>Now THAT is klutzy exposition.
You want clumsy exposition, how about Sheridan's entire "are you married"
speech? No, not that line, but the fact that he broadcasts his plans to the
gaggle in C&C and to the audience.
I'd have loved to see sheridan order a pre-emptive strike with this ranger's
ship as a scouting expedition. Then ignoring his paniced distress calls for
reinforcements -- especially since he bailed out the scout the first time. We
could all think of Sheridan as a cold bastard until the other shoe dropped.
But no, we had an idiot device for the viewers who couldn't understand this
most basic of ruses. B5 suffers from a lack of good editing, it looks like.
Lots of shows get shot with idiot devices in place. The good ones snip them
out.
Richard Bergstresser
Noam R. Izenberg wrote:
>
> Logic Bomb wrote:
>
> > They spend 3 seasons building up the Shadow War only to have it
> > end in 5 minutes.
>
> I think I enjoy this kind of reaction _almost_ as much as I did the end
> of the Shadow War (whigh is to say "alot").
>
> "Hey! That didn't end the way I wanted/predicted/thought/said it
> would...That makes it stink/bad/suck/poorly written by definition."
I predicted it would take longer and have a more satifactory resolution and
explanation. Instead we got a rushed illogical resolution. That makes it
stink/bad/suck/poorly written. The plot was almost acceptable and fully expected.
The pacing and dialogue destroyed the effect.
>
> If you don't want curveballs, the batter's box ain't for you.
Wasn't a curveball, merely a ball. 3 more and we walk. Actually I tempted
to reverse the analogy and call it a strike or at least a foul.
>
> > They spent very little time (little bits of episodes
> > here and there) talking about EA and its schemes.
>
> I suppose "Messages," "Severed," "Ship of Tears", et al., count as "very
> little time?" Look back over the eps.
>
Basically agree with you, but for people who came in late, the Shadow War was
the big deal, and the EA stuff looked like minor background fluff. Those with
the big picture know better, but we aren't the only ones watching the show.
> > Now they are going to
> > spend the rest of the series (be that 1.5 or just .5 seasons) on the EA
> > crisis (along with the far more interesting sub-plots about Centauri and
> > Narn).
>
> ...And probably the Minbari, and other things not yet started (assuming
> season 5)...
Lots of unanswered Minbari and Centauri questions so I hope you're right.
> > EVERY tv show, film,
> > music video, etc. ever made has done some degree of tweaking, even
> > during the actual shooting.
>
> No argument here. But there's a big difference between tweaking and
> changing.
No there isn't :) . Actually though in the right situation redubbing one line can
change the entire effect of a show.
Merrick Baldelli
On 16 Feb 1997 22:36:36 GMT, etom...@rohan.sdsu.edu (tomlinson) wrote:
>This isn't prose, it's television--note the "vision", hmm?
>Bester's monologue came across as slightly clumsy because the
>device of speaking one's thoughts to a loved one's comatose
>form (sickbed, gravestone, etc.) has been done to death in
>dozens of movies and shows.
I've seen much better soliloquies in my time. Koenig's deliverance
didn't contain all that much passion. If it bothered him so much to
order those men to their deaths, why wasn't he moved in the same manner
as Sheridan's when he ordered Ericsson to his death in "The Long Night"?
Is it because of JMS' interpretation of Bester or Koenig's that Bester
should come off being so matter-of-fact about the order?
("\''/").___..--''"`-._
`9_ 9 ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`)
*******************(_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `. ``-..-'*******************
* Merrick Baldelli _..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' .' merr...@america.net *
******************(il).-''**((i).'**((!.-'***************************
http://www.america.net/~merrickb/
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCM d+(-)>--- s: a C+++$ UHSCX+++(on)$ P@ L@ !E W+++(++)$>+ N++>$ !o !K--
w++++$ O M$ V$ PS+>$ PE Y+>$ PGP++ t++>$ 5++(++)>++$ X R tv(-)>-- b++>$
DI++(+) D G e++ h r y+
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Merrick Baldelli
On 17 Feb 1997 18:15:37 GMT, mbr...@ix.netcom.com(Matb) wrote:
>Come to think of it, *most* of the players were really rigid - especially
>Garibaldi (I couldn't believe his 'quit' scene was shot that badly!)
That's the thing though, Garribaldi is probably braiwashed or under
some sort of influence which we're not aware of. Naturally he should be
totally out of character when he went in to quit. Being stiff as a
board could be considered "natural" for someone that's been
brainwashed...
Robert Moldenhauer
In article <5epdnm$6...@clarknet.clark.net>, nyr...@clark.net says...
>
>Doug Mertaugh (mert...@indy.net) wrote:
>:
>: This is one of those few instances where Fuller actually
>: has a valid point, once you remove all the sarcasm and
>: potshots and just read the point. The day I thought I'd
>: agree with anything Fuller said...
>
>Well, you know what they say: Even a clock that has *stopped*
>is correct two times a day.
>
Unless it's a sun-dial...
Richard Bergstresser
Theron Fuller wrote:
>
> > Or how about that monkey typing thingy?
>
> That's "an infinite number of monkeys." That's over on rastb5.RomperRoom.
>
But we send the monkeys who don't play well with others here. :)
Theron Fuller
Richard Bergstresser <rich...@erols.com> wrote in article
<33137C...@erols.com>...
If I recall my anthropology 101, the monkeys who didn't play well climbed
down out of the trees, took to the grassy plains, stood up on their hind
legs so they could see over the grass, and eventually evolved into Homo
Sapiens.
The branch that stayed in the trees developed stronger prehensile tails and
a propensity to meekly register their e-mail address with any bully that
demanded it as a condition to continue to play in his tree.
Regards,
Theron Fuller
>
Richard Bergstresser
When the sundial stops, be afraid.
Merrick Baldelli
>You want clumsy exposition, how about Sheridan's entire "are you married"
>speech? No, not that line, but the fact that he broadcasts his plans to the
>gaggle in C&C and to the audience.
I think that was a show of conviction to the War Council that
Sheridan would do anything possible to ensure that the plan which he had
in mind was what he truly wanted to do. It may have looked clumsy from
the perspective of a humanitarian, but that was war, and sometimes we
have to do some really inhuman things to win... :-\
>I'd have loved to see sheridan order a pre-emptive strike with this ranger's
>ship as a scouting expedition.
He sort of did order a pre-emptive strike. That strike may not
have been an all out attack as you seem to be wanting to see, but it was
enough to draw the attention of the Shadows to the place where Sheridan
wanted to fight the battle.
One of the first rules of engagement isn't to attack your enemy in
their home turf -- but rather in a place where you, the attacker, have
the best advantage.
>Then ignoring his paniced distress calls for reinforcements --
>especially since he bailed out the scout the first time.
The issue here wasn't the actual attack. It's the feeding to the
enemy mis-information which would have Sheridan at a better advantage.
The sacrifice of Ericsson and his whitestar was to ensure that the
information which Sheridan wanted to feed the Shadows was something
which appeared as absolutely valid.
Why do you think that Sheridan said what he said about 'if the
information comes to the Shadows too easily, then they won't probably
believe it.'
>But no, we had an idiot device for the viewers who couldn't understand this
>most basic of ruses.
Which "idiotic devices" are you making references to? That which
you've just listed? I don't think that they were necessarily idiotic.
But then, I guess it comes from playing too many strategy games with
other people to come to know that the direct approach doesn't always win
the war.
>Lots of shows get shot with idiot devices in place. The good ones snip them
>out.
Yes, but what is important to the show here? The battle sequences
with the CGI? Or the human elements? Are you saying that to show the
humanity in the war is idiotic? If this is the case, then I strongly
disagree...
Merrick Baldelli
On Sat, 22 Feb 1997 14:56:39 -0800, Robert Holland <rhol...@wco.com>
wrote:
>Help me understand something. When Bester is probing minds in
>the meeting room, Lyta doesn't notice at all until he tries her
>mind.
>
>So, what's the use of telepaths for protection from mind probes
>if your defending teep can't detect the monkey business?
>
>Lyta caught Bester only through Bester's own stupidity.
What happened was Bester was attempting to probe the people in the
room in what could be called a passive manner. That is, he was trying
to open up his telepathic powers enough for him to go from hearing the
mutters and incomprehensible noises which Talia and Lyta have described
in prior episodes to whispers or perhaps full conversations within the
minds of the people in that meeting.
This wouldn't cause Lyta to immediately notice because this would
be much like you sitting where you are, focussing on your hearing to see
if you can hear something going on in another apartment or house next to
where you live.
When Bester tried to cut through the telepathic jamming by going to
the only obvious source, Lyta, he did it in a way which he thought that
Lyta (only being a P-5) wouldn't have readily recognized. But Bester
was obviously wrong in this, because Lyta is no longer a P-5 (thanks to
the manipulations of the Vorlons), and Lyta immediately recognized what
was going on.
This would be like you getting out of your chair and putting an ear
to the door to the apartment or house and having the people open the
door and finding you there because of the noise you made to get to the
door.
Sort of funny really what happened after that, because Lyta
obviously wanted to phase Bester with her increased abilities enough to
make Bester think twice about playing his games with her. Guess that
Lyta is making sure she sends a message to the Psi-Corps that she's
tired of the way they treat their own.
Merrick Baldelli
On Sun, 23 Feb 1997 05:03:32 GMT, bill...@teabbs.com (Bill Cruz)
wrote:
>*Cough* P50's (grin) are cool that way... I wonder if she could
>mind-wipe Bester if she wanted to.
I seriously doubt that Lyta Alexander is a P-50. We've yet to
determine what her abilities are. But at least we know that she's at
least the same if not definitely greater than Besters. ;-)