DUH!
Joe Myers
I felt when I heard they'd shot Bobby Kennedy. I remember the night, after
the Super Bowl, when "Homocide" premiered. I think that may have been the
night I first decided I've got to persue this business. Not that I could
write that good, or direct that good or act that good, or produce that
good.....but that I wanted to be that good.
I have a bad record for loving television seriea. I almost feel that, if I
like it, it's got to be too good for network television. I loved "Nothing
Sacred," "My So-Called Life," "Maximum Bob," "American Gothic," ..... a
whole slew of shows I've decided were "too good for television." And I
thought "Homocide" was one of them. But it survived. And I spent more
Friday nights than a few watching Andre Braugher interrogate a suspect.
Hell, there were some episisodes when I confessed to the crime, so powerful
was Braugher &, of course, the words the writers put in his mouth. (His
mouth? Hell, he took them into his soul.)
"Nash Bridges" killed "Homocide." That says something about America.
(sigh)
Joe (the best show ever was Larry Gilbart's "United States." All six
episodes.)
P.S. "Cop Rock" got what it deserved.
Joe Myers
Rich Wilson wrote in message <373BB7CB...@communicator.com>...
>I'm appalled to see such a comparison even being drawn; the "intensity"
>is irrelevant.
Gee, Rich. I'm sorry my emotions don't fit your prejudices.
Perhaps because I'm a writer, and television means something to me me
(misguided as that fate might be), and perhaps because politics is at the
periphery of my passions, there's a similarity.
Perhaps, hours later, the cancellation of a mere television show doesn't hit
me so hard. Perhaps, 31 years later, I've gotten over the fact that Bobby
Kennedy is dead.
Perhaps it's because I'll remember the moment(s).I heard the news
...whatever lack of perspective that may mean to you (I'm shattered by your
disapproval, by the way. Is there enough sarcasm there for you to pick
up?)...and feel a sense of loss. Emotions are fickle things. It's all
chemical you know. Perfectly good people have been known to fail to live up
to your standards of perspective, feeling more sadness over the death of a
cat than their grandmother. They must be substandard human beings.
Maybe I need a higher benchmark for my sense of loss. You could raise the
bar a bit on your threshold for getting "appalled."
j
Maybe we should get Gwen & Jervis together to breed a Super Race of annoying
people.
sa...@_unspam_sakar.inka.de
Source: NBC Axes 'Homicide'
NEW YORK (AP) -- NBC has rubbed out the critically acclaimed but
low-rated ``Homicide: Life on the Street.''
The show won't be on the network's fall schedule, a source close to
``Homicide'' who requested anonymity said Thursday.
Its seventh-season finale, airing May 21, will be the series' last new
episode.
Representatives for the network and the show had no comment.
From its premiere in January 1993, the series, about a squad of
Baltimore homicide detectives, was never a ratings winner and fought
for its life year after year. Airing Friday at 10 p.m. EDT, it has
clung in recent seasons to third place behind ABC's ``20/20'' and CBS'
cop drama ``Nash Bridges.''
It won numerous honors, including three Peabody Awards, the most
recent of them last year for an episode about a commuter pushed
beneath a subway train.
Its evolving cast has featured Ned Beatty, Andre Braugher and Daniel
Baldwin and currently includes Richard Belzer, Clark Johnson and Kyle
Secor.
Filmed on location in Baltimore, the series wrapped for the season in
March with cast and crew uncertain about their future.
Official word of the cancellation is expected Monday, when NBC
announces its fall schedule.
----------
Sakar
When the dogs bark, you know you're travelling.
Horuun
You know, though, I think it's time for Homicide to go. This season hasn't
been all this exciting. I'm more religious about watching the reruns on Court
TV now than I am about watching the new episodes on NBC. I think the writing
has gone downhill and the cast changes have finally caught up to make the show
less than it once was.
The writing isn't Yoshimura's or any of the other writers' faults, though. All
the stories from David Simon's book have been exhausted, and so the writers are
forced to create thier own, more complex and less realistic stories. Every
murder is not a big mystery with some complex motive. Actually, going by the
book, very few murders are.
And while I enjoy Jon Seda and Callie Thorne and Peter Gerety, they hardly
replace Ned Beatty, Daniel Baldwin, and Melissa Leo. And Giancarlo Esposito
and Michael Michelle don't combine into half of what Andre Braugher brought to
Homicide. And then with that character Stivers (the actress' name escapes me
right now) I think the show loses a bit of its realism with having so many
women in the squad. I know the show needs women, but more than one at a time
as a cop is a stretch. I liked the way women were in the show earlier in the
series (i.e. Julianna Marguiles' recurring role.)
And when I think of my favorite episodes of Homicide I think of "Crosetti"
where they discover Jon Polito's character, Crosetti, has committed suicide. I
think of the episode where Bayliss and Pembleton interrogate the Araber about
Adena Watson's death. I think of the episode where Steve Buscemi shoots
Felton, Bolander, and Howard, and I think of the Law & Order crossover episode
where the gas bomber dies before Frank can make him his martyr. That is a very
emotional scene. The episode where the guy kills people from Florida through
Maryland is another great one. The one from this season with the riot wasn't
great, and all those scenes of Michael Michelle saying, "So you think I'm not
tough enough because I got my gun taken?" are just annoying.
The show is still worth watching, but it's not special anymore, and I'd rather
see it go now before it starts sucking even more. I am curious as to what the
rest of you think is the best Homicide episode. I'm torn between "Crosetti,"
and the conclusion episode of the White Gloves murders where the Pembleton
interrogates Annabella Wilgis.
Anyway...
-Brent
La...@la.com
>Wow. This hits me with the same emotions (though not quite as intense) that
>I felt when I heard they'd shot Bobby Kennedy. I remember the night, after
>the Super Bowl, when "Homocide" premiered. I think that may have been the
>night I first decided I've got to persue this business. Not that I could
>write that good, or direct that good or act that good, or produce that
>good.....but that I wanted to be that good.
Amazing how personal tastes can differ. I started watching the pilot,
saw the "jerky-cam" in constant action, the poor music score and never
looked back.
>
>I have a bad record for loving television seriea. I almost feel that, if I
>like it, it's got to be too good for network television. I loved "Nothing
>Sacred," "My So-Called Life," "Maximum Bob," "American Gothic," ...
Now, American Gothic, I'd have to agree with you, that was quite an
interesting show.
Brian Anderson
>
> I remember the night, after the Super Bowl, when "Homocide" premiered.
> I think that may have been the night I first decided I've got to persue
> this business.
I still have that episode on tape. It almost made me decide to QUIT
pursuing this business.
I stopped watching HOMICIDE years ago, after the initial characters
-- so perfectly laid out by Paul Attanasio's pilot script -- had been
replaced with more ordinary characters. None of the new characters were
as compelling as the characters they replaced. The loss of Crosetti and
then Bolander was devastating. Bayliss was at his best when he was the
stumbling new guy. The later attempts at ongoing subplots like the bar,
Bayliss's sexuality, and the effects of Pembleton's stroke all came
across to me as attempts at ongoing subplots.
The characters were initially defined as Yin and Yang partners, and
once the Yangs were lost, so was the whole balance of the show. Munch
was only really Munch when he was partnered with Bolander. Pembleton
and Bayliss were the perfect example of opposites opposing. But then
the characters left or evolved too quickly, and the focus of the show
shifted. Instead of intense interpersonal dramas played out against a
realistic-yet-surrealistic background, we got a group of cops in
Baltimore.
The real shame isn't that the show was cancelled in 1999, it's that
it was so badly mishandled by NBC in its first year that it never caught
on. They changed the time slot, pre-empted it repeatedly (once for
three consecutive weeks), and basically made it as difficult as possible
for anyone to find it on TV. If NBC had followed up the post-Super Bowl
slot with consistent scheduling, they might have had first-year ratings
to match the critics' views, and its entire run would have been
different.
Rich Wilson
>
> Sakar wrote:
>
> > NEW YORK (AP) -- NBC has rubbed out the critically acclaimed
> > but low-rated ``Homicide: Life on the Street.''
>
> intense) that I felt when I heard they'd shot Bobby Kennedy.
Please pardon my interjection...
I can't detect anything in your message to indicate sarcasm or satire.
So this appears to be a serious comment.
You're comparing the cancellation of a TV show, of all things, to the
public murder of a popular politician at a time of terrible national
turmoil. And you say the two bring up *the same* feelings in you --
"though not quite as intense" this time.
I'm appalled to see such a comparison even being drawn; the "intensity"
is irrelevant. One is a tragedy of great proportion and historical
ramifications; the other is a simple business decision about a tiny and
ephemeral fragment of pop culture.
Whatever happened to perspective?
--
Rich Wilson
http://www.communicator.com
RUBIA56
>Now, American Gothic, I'd have to agree with you, that was quite an
>interesting show.
I LOVED that show! Who would've guessed Shaun Cassidy had it in him?! I think
Lucas Black (the kid who was the central character) is a very interesting
actor. With a GREAT accent you rarely hear on television or in the movies. He
was very affecting in "Sling Blade" - and I just checked IMDB and found he's
playing Blevins in "All The Pretty Horses"! What great casting! Forget
"Phantom Menace" - THIS is the movie I'VE been waiting for. Billy Bob Thornton
has yet to disappoint me. I'm so glad he cast Henry Thomas as Lacey - I was
very impressed with him in "Niagra, Niagra". I'm not so sure about Matt Damon
- he's WAY too old to play John Grady Cole. But it'll be nice to see Bruce
Dern (BBT's future father-in-law?) in another western.
But, anyway ... "American Gothic" ... cool show ... loved the bleeding walls.
Paula
Steve Mayberry
>> Rich Wilson observed:
>> I'm appalled to see such a comparison even being drawn; the
>> "intensity" is irrelevant.
>
> Gee, Rich. I'm sorry my emotions don't fit your prejudices.
> getting "appalled."
Yes, we could and we do. It's called "desensitizing." But I still find
your comment appalling (just in case you think that Rich was the only
person who had that reaction). I ignored it, as I'm sure most people
did, but I don't think we were the only two who had that reaction. Rich
took the time to suggest -- politely even -- that your perspective might
need to be rotated and balanced.
Hope that no one at my funeral says anything remotely like, "Man, this
is just as bad as the day they canned 'Cagney and Lacey.'"
> Maybe we should get Gwen & Jervis together to breed a Super
> Race of annoying people.
Thanks in advance for the nightmares.
Another Mayberry
PS I can't help but think that the subject line of this thread was
supposed to be "DOH!"
Gwen A Orel
I didn't watch this show regularly but I do remember the one about
the man stuck in the subway. I actually cried at the end of it,
and called my brother and went on a long rant about how so many
contemporary playwrights would have ruined that story instead of
telling it straight. In other words, I was deeply impressed.
(I complained about playwrights because I work in theatre, not because
I confuse them with screenwriters. Also, Homicide hired many
writers-for-the-stage and often their work seemed better--if
less distinctive-- in that series).
Here's to more fine television, with the audience it deserves...
Gwen
sakar@_UNSPAM_sakar.inka.de wrote:
: And a sad one I just read:
: Source: NBC Axes 'Homicide'
: NEW YORK (AP) -- NBC has rubbed out the critically acclaimed but
: low-rated ``Homicide: Life on the Street.''
: The show won't be on the network's fall schedule, a source close to
: ``Homicide'' who requested anonymity said Thursday.
: Its seventh-season finale, airing May 21, will be the series' last new
: episode.
: Representatives for the network and the show had no comment.
: From its premiere in January 1993, the series, about a squad of
: Baltimore homicide detectives, was never a ratings winner and fought
: for its life year after year. Airing Friday at 10 p.m. EDT, it has
: clung in recent seasons to third place behind ABC's ``20/20'' and CBS'
: cop drama ``Nash Bridges.''
: It won numerous honors, including three Peabody Awards, the most
: recent of them last year for an episode about a commuter pushed
: beneath a subway train.
: Its evolving cast has featured Ned Beatty, Andre Braugher and Daniel
: Baldwin and currently includes Richard Belzer, Clark Johnson and Kyle
: Secor.
: Filmed on location in Baltimore, the series wrapped for the season in
: March with cast and crew uncertain about their future.
: Official word of the cancellation is expected Monday, when NBC
: announces its fall schedule.
: ----------
: Sakar
: When the dogs bark, you know you're travelling.
--
"Live as one already dead." --Japanese saying
If one tells the truth one is sure, sooner or later, to be found out.
--Oscar Wilde
Geoff Kass
Rich Wilson wrote:
> Joe Myers wrote:
> >
> > Sakar wrote:
> >
> > > NEW YORK (AP) -- NBC has rubbed out the critically acclaimed
> > > but low-rated ``Homicide: Life on the Street.''
> >
> > Wow. This hits me with the same emotions (though not quite as
> > intense) that I felt when I heard they'd shot Bobby Kennedy.
>
> Please pardon my interjection...
>
> I can't detect anything in your message to indicate sarcasm or satire.
> So this appears to be a serious comment.
>
> You're comparing the cancellation of a TV show, of all things, to the
> public murder of a popular politician at a time of terrible national
> turmoil. And you say the two bring up *the same* feelings in you --
> "though not quite as intense" this time.
>
> I'm appalled to see such a comparison even being drawn; the "intensity"
Geoff Kass
Steve Mayberry wrote:
> >> Rich Wilson observed:
> >> I'm appalled to see such a comparison even being drawn; the
> >> "intensity" is irrelevant.
> >
> > And Joe Myers snapped:
> > Gee, Rich. I'm sorry my emotions don't fit your prejudices.
> > [...] You could raise the bar a bit on your threshold for
> > getting "appalled."
>
> Yes, we could and we do. It's called "desensitizing." But I still find
> your comment appalling (just in case you think that Rich was the only
> person who had that reaction). I ignored it, as I'm sure most people
> did, but I don't think we were the only two who had that reaction. Rich
> took the time to suggest -- politely even -- that your perspective might
> need to be rotated and balanced.
>
Why? What gives Rich (or you, or anybody for that matter) the right to even
suggest such a thing? Does this statement mean that your perspective (and
Rich's, and so on) are correctly balanced? There are posters to this group
that affect a superiority unlike any I have seen before. People come here
for help, advice, or simply to have a conversation, and their threads are
inspected for minutia, upon which a select elite take a superior moral
stance.
Geez, every time I think meaningful, respectful exchanges are taking place
in this newsgroup, I am disappointed yet again.
Hey, I have an idea...particularly applicable to Rich, as he has given the
same response to me...this thread is heading way off topic, has no bearing
on screenwriting, and warrants no further conversation. Let's keep it to
screenwriting, Rich, Steve, Gwen, Blair, Jervis, everybody who wanders into
nitpicking posts for "offensive" words, phrases and sentences. Everybody
has a position to defend, but does it always have to get personal?
It's become less a resource for scriptwriters and more a battleground and
waste of time.
La...@la.com
>And while I enjoy Jon Seda and Callie Thorne and Peter Gerety, they hardly
>replace Ned Beatty, Daniel Baldwin, and Melissa Leo. And Giancarlo Esposito
>and Michael Michelle don't combine into half of what Andre Braugher brought to
>Homicide. And then with that character Stivers (the actress' name escapes me
>right now) I think the show loses a bit of its realism with having so many
>women in the squad.
This has to be one of the most sexist things I have ever read. :(
La...@la.com
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>On Fri, 14 May 1999 04:51:50 GMT, La...@LA.com wrote:
>
>>Amazing how personal tastes can differ. I started watching the pilot,
>>saw the "jerky-cam" in constant action, the poor music score and never
>>looked back.
>
>I give you the irritation with the camera, but 'poor music score'???
>Some of these eps stood out for excellent use of music.
Well, not the pilot (then again, I'm no fan of the composewr who did
the pilot - never have been).
>
>As an aside regarding camera-work -- anyone remember 'Stingray'?
Now that music theme was excellent. :)
>
>I don't mean the stories and plots (though at the time, which was
>*before* the mystery craze of nowadays and X-Files, it was unusual
>enough). I have that series on tape and just re-watched a stretch of
>it (checking up on David Hemmings was the actual reason) and can't
>help it, but even compared to most of what goes nowadays for
>camera-work, editing and direction adapted to the small screen, this
>still stands out in its quality and freshness. Some of what they did
>is by now standard, but I can't put my finger on it -- yet there's an
>'extra' I haven't so far seen elsewhere.
Horuun
>On 14 May 1999 04:41:15 GMT, hor...@aol.com (Horuun) wrote:
>
>>And while I enjoy Jon Seda and Callie Thorne and Peter Gerety, they hardly
>>replace Ned Beatty, Daniel Baldwin, and Melissa Leo. And Giancarlo Esposito
>>and Michael Michelle don't combine into half of what Andre Braugher brought
>to
>>Homicide. And then with that character Stivers (the actress' name escapes
>me
>>right now) I think the show loses a bit of its realism with having so many
>>women in the squad.
>
>This has to be one of the most sexist things I have ever read. :(
>
It's not sexist, it's realistic. Go to any homicide squad in any major city in
the United States, and do you know how many women you'll find? Maybe one per
city. *Maybe* Quite simply, there are not that many lady murder police, and
the placing of three of them on the squad at once on Homicide was a way to try
to get women to watch the show. Hell, though, before Court TV the reruns aired
on Lifetime, "Television for Women."
Steven Weller
>>I think the show loses a bit of its realism with having so many
>women in the squad.
This has to be one of the most sexist things I have ever read. :(<<
Not so much sexist as reflective of real life. In your average big-city
homicide detctive squad, what's the real ratio of men to women? For that
matter, since the show is city-specific, how many of the homicide detectives
in Blaitomre are women?
In L, the overwhelming majoroity of detectives are men. The reasons may
be sexist and horrible and all that, but the reality still exists. It
might make for more demographically attractive casting, or more politically
correct stroytelling, to have several women in the squad (one an ex-beauty
pagent winner!) but I think it's probably not reflective of what the real
squad looks like. If that's sexist, well then, so is reality some times.
--
Life Continues, Despite
Evidence to the Contrary,
Steven
Rich Wilson
> >"intensity" is irrelevant.
>
What prejudices do you refer to, Joe? The one that says killing people
is bad? I guess I have to confess to that if you call it a prejudice.
> Perhaps because I'm a writer, and television means something to me me
> (misguided as that fate might be), and perhaps because politics is at the
> periphery of my passions, there's a similarity.
>
> Perhaps, hours later, the cancellation of a mere television show doesn't hit
> me so hard. Perhaps, 31 years later, I've gotten over the fact that Bobby
> Kennedy is dead.
>
> Perhaps it's because I'll remember the moment(s).I heard the news
> ...whatever lack of perspective that may mean to you (I'm shattered by your
> disapproval, by the way. Is there enough sarcasm there for you to pick
> up?)...and feel a sense of loss.
My "disapproval" did get your attention and you were "shattered" enough
to find it worth writing a demeaning reply. So, obviously I hit a button
with you, despite these protestations.
I wanted to write that message in a way that did not come across as
personally as it did, while still expressing strong feelings about the
underlying dynamic. It was very hard to do that while keeping you, the
person, out of the line of fire (to use an unfortunate metaphor). So it
may have read like an attack, but it was meant to attack a larger issue,
not you or your message alone.
> Emotions are fickle things. It's all
> chemical you know. Perfectly good people have been known to fail to live up
> to your standards of perspective, feeling more sadness over the death of a
> cat than their grandmother. They must be substandard human beings.
I did not say that.
> Maybe I need a higher benchmark for my sense of loss. You could raise the
> bar a bit on your threshold for getting "appalled."
The word "appalled" is a strong one, I agree. I just didn't have the
energy to slog through a thesaurus coming up with a more subtle
expression. Sorry you took it as strongly as you did.
By the same token, you could contemplate raising the bar a bit on
things that you compare, straight across, to the taking of a human life.
Forgive me if that seems like an issue of concern at the moment, but
given the events of this year I kinda think the emotional response to
any shooting, past or present, oughta be ratcheted up the emotional
response ladder a bit higher than TV show cancellations. I'm not so much
appalled at you or your message as I am at the kind of mood the country
is in, and I guess your post just got my attention is all.
Hope you understand.
Rich Wilson
>
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> On Fri, 14 May 1999 01:42:35 -0400, Rich Wilson
> <in...@communicator.com> wrote:
>
> >You're comparing the cancellation of a TV show, of all things, to the
> >public murder of a popular politician at a time of terrible national
> >turmoil. And you say the two bring up *the same* feelings in you --
> >"though not quite as intense" this time.
> >
> >ramifications; the other is a simple business decision about a tiny and
> >ephemeral fragment of pop culture.
> >
> >Whatever happened to perspective?
>
>
> Not on a personal level however.
A "neutral" level vs. a "personal" level. Hmmm...
Well, some people think that it's wrong to kill animals for food, while
others don't. Some people think it's wrong to work on Saturday, while
others don't. Some people think it's wrong to drag Kosovars from their
homes and burn their towns, while others don't.
I don't think this is a question of semantic finery.
At some point it's okay for a person to get off his/her backside and
express sadness, concern, or whatever, about the increasing level of
apathy or indifference, or insensitivity, or *whatever it is* by which
schoolchildren "equate" the minor annoyances of adolescent life, with
the planned destruction of a school and thousands of resulting deaths.
That was a lack of perspective on their part, don't you think?
And if I think it worth speaking up, now and then, to jog my fellow
human beings slightly when it comes to these issues -- how we perceive,
feel, categorize, and react to horrific events -- then that is MY
"personal" perspective and needs no correction. I can't tell Joe he's
"right" or "wrong." I simply said I disagreed.
I don't know how different the mood is in Germany, but hereabouts, many
of us are disturbed about the level of insensitivity, or whatever it
should be called, that leads people to equate events of greatly
differing magnitude. I did *not* wish to paint Joe with some horrible
label or anything of that kind, and perhaps my message was not "perfect"
enough to avoid that impression for all readers. If he still disagrees
with me, fine. I just wanted to raise the issue. It would be sad if this
discussion itself led to more discord, and I hope it doesn't.
Rich Wilson
>
> Rich Wilson wrote:
>
> > Joe Myers wrote:
> > >
> > > Sakar wrote:
> > >
> > > > NEW YORK (AP) -- NBC has rubbed out the critically acclaimed
> > > > but low-rated ``Homicide: Life on the Street.''
> > >
> > > Wow. This hits me with the same emotions (though not quite as
> > > intense) that I felt when I heard they'd shot Bobby Kennedy.
> >
> > Please pardon my interjection...
> >
> > I can't detect anything in your message to indicate sarcasm or satire.
> > So this appears to be a serious comment.
> >
> > public murder of a popular politician at a time of terrible national
> > turmoil. And you say the two bring up *the same* feelings in you --
> > "though not quite as intense" this time.
> >
> > I'm appalled to see such a comparison even being drawn; the "intensity"
> > is irrelevant. One is a tragedy of great proportion and historical
> > ramifications; the other is a simple business decision about a tiny and
> > ephemeral fragment of pop culture.
> >
> > Whatever happened to perspective?
>
Since you seem to be ready to pounce petulantly on messages of mine on a
regular basis, repeatedly calling me names and belittling things that I
say, all because of some extraordinarily inflated sense of hurt that you
simply can't get over, because I nailed you for having insulted people
needlessly in your first visits here...
I hereby apologize for anything I ever said to you. Including this
message. According to your claims in previous messages, this -- an
apology from me -- seemed to be the magic ticket that you needed to
reach a level of peace at which you would start behaving like an adult
and stop pestering me in this ongoing, ad hominem manner. So: I'm sorry.
Now, a person who jumps on somebody ELSE'S message and calls THEM a
busybody is... what? I will leave the word out of the message and let
you, the professional writer, fill in the blank. And maybe, just maybe,
the light will dawn, and you will realize that this kind of sniping does
not raise you to any higher moral ground.
Again: Please forgive me for whatever you think it is that hurt your
feelings and left you acting like this. Now let us all try to make the
newsgroup more positive, as you, in another message, have just claimed
you are in favor of doing.
Rich Wilson
>
> Steve Mayberry wrote:
>
> > >> Rich Wilson observed:
> > >> "intensity" is irrelevant.
> > >
> > > Gee, Rich. I'm sorry my emotions don't fit your prejudices.
> > > getting "appalled."
> >
> > Yes, we could and we do. It's called "desensitizing." But I still find
> > your comment appalling (just in case you think that Rich was the only
> > person who had that reaction). I ignored it, as I'm sure most people
> > did, but I don't think we were the only two who had that reaction. Rich
> > took the time to suggest -- politely even -- that your perspective might
> > need to be rotated and balanced.
> >
>
> Why? What gives Rich (or you, or anybody for that matter) the right to even
> suggest such a thing?
The same thing that gives you the right to write the message you just
wrote. Or is that irony lost on you?
[snip]
> Hey, I have an idea...particularly applicable to Rich, as he has
> given the same response to me...this thread is heading way off
> topic, has no bearing on screenwriting, and warrants no further
> conversation. Let's keep it to screenwriting, Rich, Steve, Gwen,
> Blair, Jervis, everybody who wanders into nitpicking posts for
> "offensive" words, phrases and sentences. Everybody
> has a position to defend, but does it always have to get personal?
This thread is about a television show being canceled. Every episode of
that show was written by a screenwriter. The precise topic of this
"sub-thread" is the degree of disappointment one expresses at the show's
cancellation, and in related threads, the reasons (many of them
script-related) for liking (or disliking) the show itself.
As Steve Mayberry correctly noted, my concern is about the
desensitization of our society to violence. Joe's message jumped out at
me. When everyday people start comparing a TV show cancellation to an
assassination, it doesn't seem like a big conceptual leap from there, to
a kid rationalizing the murder of 13 schoolmates for equally meaningless
reasons.
All I said was that we should keep things in perspective; that we should
avoid trivializing murder, and that we should try to retain whatever
sensitivity we have left as a society, and/or as individuals.
Your abrasive reply suggests that you disagree with that, but I think
you actually agree with it; you just want to give me a hard time, based
on previous exchanges. I suggest that you e-mail me whatever
vituperation you feel like ventilating, rather than letting that
negativity distort the image you present here in the newsgroup. We all
need to work together if we don't want society to devolve into a morass
of violence and indifference.
Betsy Morris
It was one of the best.
Betsy
sakar@_UNSPAM_sakar.inka.de wrote:
> And a sad one I just read:
>
> Source: NBC Axes 'Homicide'
>
> NEW YORK (AP) -- NBC has rubbed out the critically acclaimed but
> low-rated ``Homicide: Life on the Street.''
>
> The show won't be on the network's fall schedule, a source close to
> ``Homicide'' who requested anonymity said Thursday.
>
> Its seventh-season finale, airing May 21, will be the series' last new
> episode.
>
> Representatives for the network and the show had no comment.
>
> From its premiere in January 1993, the series, about a squad of
> Baltimore homicide detectives, was never a ratings winner and fought
> for its life year after year. Airing Friday at 10 p.m. EDT, it has
> clung in recent seasons to third place behind ABC's ``20/20'' and CBS'
> cop drama ``Nash Bridges.''
>
> It won numerous honors, including three Peabody Awards, the most
> recent of them last year for an episode about a commuter pushed
> beneath a subway train.
>
> Its evolving cast has featured Ned Beatty, Andre Braugher and Daniel
> Baldwin and currently includes Richard Belzer, Clark Johnson and Kyle
> Secor.
>
> Filmed on location in Baltimore, the series wrapped for the season in
> March with cast and crew uncertain about their future.
>
> Official word of the cancellation is expected Monday, when NBC
> announces its fall schedule.
>
> ----------
>
La...@la.com
>
>>>I think the show loses a bit of its realism with having so many
>>women in the squad.
>
>This has to be one of the most sexist things I have ever read. :(<<
>
>Not so much sexist as reflective of real life. In your average big-city
>homicide detctive squad, what's the real ratio of men to women? For that
>matter, since the show is city-specific, how many of the homicide detectives
>in Blaitomre are women?
That is not what the poster had said, however. If it is what he/she
meant, then it is not the most sexist thing I have ever read :)
>
>In L, the overwhelming majoroity of detectives are men. The reasons may
>be sexist and horrible and all that, but the reality still exists. It
>might make for more demographically attractive casting, or more politically
>correct stroytelling, to have several women in the squad (one an ex-beauty
>pagent winner!) but I think it's probably not reflective of what the real
>squad looks like. If that's sexist, well then, so is reality some times.
Unfortunately, "reality" is very sexist and very often the media
exacerbate that tendency (or even create it?) by blatantly sexist
attitudes that they present as matter of fact.
Horuun
>The only woman on HLOTS who really rang true was Howard. I bought her
>detective, I did not completely buy Russert and from then on it was
>window-dressing.
>
>
I absolutely agree with you. Russert was there to have an affair with Beau
Felton, and somehow they managed to have her character come into a more
prominent role. There were a few interesting scenes with Howard and her,
though, where Howard sort of pointed out that Russert was there as a female, if
that makes sense. Like when Howard made Sergeant and Russert congratulates her
because she's a woman and this and that and Howard kind of blasts her because
the fact she's a woman has nothing to do with it.
Anyway, I do kind of like Ballard, though, She is nowhere near the character
that Howard was, but she's a decent enough addition to the show. The best cast
lineup is still the very original cast, though.
-Brent
Calix
<geo...@maddockdouglas.com> wrote:
>It's become less a resource for scriptwriters and more a battleground and
>waste of time.
I've been here on and off for a couple of years now and the balance
doesn't seem to change much.
Plus, the signal-to-noise ratio for this newsgroup is pretty damn good
IMHO.
Cheers,
Calix
Dstrbd042
>ramifications; the other is a simple business decision about a tiny and
>ephemeral fragment of pop culture.
I'm appalled by people who use the word appalled. ESPECIALLY about something
like this.
I've been told I'm immoral, calloused, whatever, because I don't care when
people die.
Everybody dies.
Some politician (and they are a dime a dozen, I don't care if RFK was
"special") gets killed. Well whoopdi doo. I'm sure it sucks for people who KNEW
him. And it might even have the adverse effect of some yutz being elected
somewhere...but guess what? I still don't care. It doesn't affect me directly.
Anything that doesn't directly affect you shouldn't make you "appalled" at the
comparison between that thing, and at television program, that maybe DID affect
someone.
-Di§turbed
Dstr...@aol.com
http://members.xoom.com/Disturbed42
Dstrbd042
>
>On 14 May 1999 04:41:15 GMT, hor...@aol.com (Horuun) wrote:
>
>>And while I enjoy Jon Seda and Callie Thorne and Peter Gerety, they hardly
>>replace Ned Beatty, Daniel Baldwin, and Melissa Leo. And Giancarlo Esposito
>>and Michael Michelle don't combine into half of what Andre Braugher brought
>to
>>Homicide. And then with that character Stivers (the actress' name escapes
>me
>>women in the squad. I know the show needs women, but more than one at a
>time
>>as a cop is a stretch. I liked the way women were in the show earlier in
>the
>>series (i.e. Julianna Marguiles' recurring role.)
>
>
>>I am curious as to what the
>>rest of you think is the best Homicide episode.
>
>
>Sakar
>
>When the dogs bark, you know you're travelling.
>
>
My favorite ep, I don't know the name of.
It was post-pembleton-stroke, and they all viewed a documentary by the camera
guy of an old case they did. (the case was from before Pembleton's stroke.)
Great, great ep.
-Di含urbed
Dstr...@aol.com
http://members.xoom.com/Disturbed42
Pembleton didn't recognize himself.
Brian Anderson
>
> > American Gothic
> I LOVED that show! Who would've guessed Shaun Cassidy had it in him?!
Some people think he still does. This is from yesterday's IMDB's Studio
Briefing by Lew Irwin
http://www.IMDb.com/StudioBrief/1999/19990513.html
DESPITE STRING OF FLOPS, SHAUN CASSIDY GETS THUMBS UP
Studios USA president David Kissinger's decision to pay
former '70s teen idol Shaun Cassidy $6 million to develop
new shows is being defended by some industry analysts
against criticism that Cassidy has yet to prove himself as a
producer. Today's (Thursday) New York Post reports
that although USA programming chief David Kissinger
refused to explain why he had so much confidence in the
creator of such flops as Roar, American Gothic Players
and Hollyweird, some experts were giving him high marks.
Media analyst Paul Schulman told the Post: "Everything
that Shaun Cassidy has produced has been quality and the
money was on the screen. ... If he already had a
breakthrough hit, it is possible that Studios USA would
not be able to afford him right now"
Rich Wilson
>
> >I'm appalled to see such a comparison even being drawn; the "intensity"
> >is irrelevant. One is a tragedy of great proportion and historical
> >ramifications; the other is a simple business decision about a tiny and
> >ephemeral fragment of pop culture.
>
> I'm appalled by people who use the word appalled.
Oh how clever. Word games. Well, I'm appalled by people who are appalled
by people who use the word appalled. Next?
> I've been told I'm immoral, calloused, whatever, because
> I don't care when people die.
I guess people who use such terms to describe that attitude lack the
vocabulary I would apply to it.
Meanwhile, the fact that you are braying about your supposed
indifference -- in a public newsgroup post that dictates how people
should feel about things -- is ironic, to say the very least.
> Some politician (and they are a dime a dozen,
> I don't care if RFK was "special") gets killed.
> Well whoopdi doo. I'm sure it sucks for people who KNEW
> him. And it might even have the adverse effect of some
> yutz being elected somewhere...but guess what?
> I still don't care. It doesn't affect me directly.
Uhhh... the "yutz" was one Richard Nixon, and the election he won was
the Presidency of the United States. One would have to be a real nimrod
to insist that this sequence of events didn't have lasting effects that
touch each of us every day of our lives.
Steve Mayberry
To recap, don't be moved by death, because everyone dies, but feel free
to get upset when a TV show gets cancelled, because... eh, no, I'm
sorry. You've run rings around me with your logic. Close, but not quite
on par with that last poster's
"he-has-a-right-to-be-upset-and-post-whatever-he-wants-what-gives-you-the-right-to-be-upset-and-post-whatever-you-want?"
logical bender.
It sounds like you are taking a ridiculous stance just to get a rise.
But if you really believe what you say, you would have no problem
killing someone, provided you (a) didn't know the victim, and (b) knew
you would not be caught or punished. Is this true? If so, can I have
your autograph? Sounds like you'll be a big hitter in Hollywood someday.
Keeping posts off-topic for over thirty years, Steve
> Dstrbd042 wrote:
> Some politician (and they are a dime a dozen, I don't care if RFK was
> "special") gets killed. Well whoopdi doo. I'm sure it sucks for people who KNEW
> him. And it might even have the adverse effect of some yutz being elected
> somewhere...but guess what? I still don't care. It doesn't affect me directly.
gig...@snip.net
hope you wrote them in a moment of frustration. Because if these
feelings are the core of your belief and others of your generation,
well...
We really are in trouble.
GD
Dstrbd042 wrote:
>
> >I'm appalled to see such a comparison even being drawn; the "intensity"
> >is irrelevant. One is a tragedy of great proportion and historical
> >ramifications; the other is a simple business decision about a tiny and
> >ephemeral fragment of pop culture.
>
> I'm appalled by people who use the word appalled. ESPECIALLY about something
> like this.
>
> I've been told I'm immoral, calloused, whatever, because I don't care when
> people die.
> Everybody dies.
> Some politician (and they are a dime a dozen, I don't care if RFK was
> "special") gets killed. Well whoopdi doo. I'm sure it sucks for people who KNEW
> him. And it might even have the adverse effect of some yutz being elected
> somewhere...but guess what? I still don't care. It doesn't affect me directly.
> Anything that doesn't directly affect you shouldn't make you "appalled" at the
> comparison between that thing, and at television program, that maybe DID affect
> someone.
>
> -Di含urbed
> Dstr...@aol.com
> http://members.xoom.com/Disturbed42
Dstrbd042
>
>by people who use the word appalled. Next?
Ah, but I meant it.
I've rarely heard the word "appalled," when it was not immediately followed by
a whine.
> Meanwhile, the fact that you are braying about your supposed
>indifference -- in a public newsgroup post that dictates how people
>should feel about things -- is ironic, to say the very least
My indifference to the death of people I don't know has something to do with my
desire for those with "easily offended moral sensibilities" not to abuse
someone for commenting on the cancellation ofa TV show that perhaps inspired
them to their desired profession?
Quite a stretch there, Rich.
>Uhhh... the "yutz" was one Richard Nixon, and the election he won was
>the Presidency of the United States. One would have to be a real nimrod
>to insist that this sequence of events didn't have lasting effects that
>touch each of us every day of our lives.
Like every President, Nixon did bad, and Nixon did good.
Regardless, the fact stands that what happened happened and I don't care. It
may've hit me had I been around then, and given a rats ass THEN....but even in
that scenario, I really wouldn't be so uptight about it anymore.
Dstrbd042
>to get upset when a TV show gets cancelled, because... eh, no, I'm
>sorry.
To recap:
Don't be moved by things that don't affect you.
If a TV show cancellation has an emotional effect on you...feel free to be
moved.
-Di含urbed
Dstr...@aol.com
http://members.xoom.com/Disturbed42
Simpleton
Dstrbd042
Oh, I'm sure I'm not a spokesman for my generation.
I'm absolutely amoral...which can't be said for most.
I just find it absured to have some deep emotional attachment to someone just
because they died.
Steve Mayberry
the insult you chose for me - and thank you so much for again raising
the bar, this time with insults - is "simpleton." Meanwhile, your
argument is breathtakingly simplistic. Nah. Since the "simpleton" is
hidden at the bottom of your message, I'll just assume you added to your
sig.
I could point out that using your argument, the world could remain
blissfully indifferent to the genocide in Kosovo. Everyone could ignore
the slaughter in Rwanda (unfortunately, I think the world DID steal a
page from your playbook in this case). What do I care if there are
separate facilities for coloreds? I'm not black. Shootings in Littleton?
Snore. Wake me up when the gunfire reaches my house. Not only could I
not give a rat's ass about the Holocaust, but I could dis both sides and
not give a rat's ass about the Palestinian homeland, either.
I could suggest that the next time you're feeling really down about the
entertainment world, you visit the Holocaust museum in Washington, DC.
(It will be the best six bucks you ever spent.)
But instead, I will respond in the lowest, most vile way I know how:
Gwen! GWWEEEENNN! He's argumentem ad hominem-ing! Get him!
Basking in the dull glow of a stranger's insults, Steve
>>Me:
>>To recap, don't be moved by death, because everyone dies, but feel free
>>to get upset when a TV show gets cancelled, because... eh, no, I'm
>>sorry.
>
> Dstrbd:
> To recap:
> Don't be moved by things that don't affect you.
> If a TV show cancellation has an emotional effect on you...feel free to be
> moved.
> [...]
> Simpleton.
gig...@snip.net
No, I guess your not. Very few people are really.
> I'm absolutely amoral...which can't be said for most.
Well, from my perspective, thank goodness. But do you really believe you
are "not subject to or concerned with moral or ethical values"? Is that
even possible?
> I just find it absured to have some deep emotional attachment to someone just
> because they died.
Well, it's often not just the person, as in the case of a JFK, or a
Martin Luther King, or a Roberto Clemente (his untimely death affected
me big time as a kid), but more so in what they represented or stood
for. So when you say you don't care about their death, it implies you
don't care about what they stood for.
GD
--
Write v. 1. To manually or mechanically imprint extremely thin,
usually white, sheets of tree bark with various lines and or symbols
representing the inscriber's current understanding, beliefs, attitudes
and passions toward himself and others.
- -
http://www.self-gov.org/index.html
La...@la.com
record whatsoever, it's not so surprising that they'd sign Shaun
Cassidy. After all, if they liked what he produced it makes a hell of
a lot more sense than signing Seth McFarlane before he had actually
produced anything.
La...@la.com
>On Thu, 13 May 1999 21:04:41 -0700, speaking in dulcet tones,
>"Joe Myers" said ...
>
>-> "Nash Bridges" killed "Homocide." That says something about America.
>->
>YM, of course, MV. I never thought Homicide was watchable. I
>didn't like Braugher's character, he was like a walking fist,
>always clench-jawed and angry. I didn't' like Belzer's character;
>Hell, I didn't even like Belzer as a stand-up comedian. I hated
>the camera work on H:LOTS, it was even more annoying that NYPD-
>Blue. Maybe NBC should have put this show out of it's misery as
>fast as NBC and other nets summarily cancels other "worthy"
>shows. Again, YMMV.
For all its fluffiness, Nash Bridges is a show that has managed to
create a cogent visual style that helps rather than hinders the
storytelling and had over the years the services of two great DPs,
including Stephen Lighthill.
>--
><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*>
>Jeri Jo & Little Garcia Bear--
>Stop by my web page
>http://home.earthlink.net/~katana365/jjthomas/
><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*>
>
Steven Weller
Okay, staying out of this one 'til now (I agree with the kid, largely,
but not necessarily with the way he makes his point), but this needs
a response:
>>Well, it's often not just the person, as in the case of a JFK, or a
Martin Luther King, or a Roberto Clemente (his untimely death affected
me big time as a kid), but more so in what they represented or stood
for. So when you say you don't care about their death, it implies you
don't care about what they stood for.<<
Bullshit. If what JFK stood for was so tenouos and ultimately meaningless
that it couldn't survive his death as an individual, then it wasn't worth
anything to begin with. It is entirely possible to care about what King
'stood for' without being particularly stricken by his assasination. Given
the ties and the envirnoment, it was hardly a surprise (even King himself
was aware that it was a likely occurance - see his 'promised land' speech)
and while he was a great leader, the movement he lead lived (and lives)
on.
If someone doesn't have the response you feel is appropriate to an event,
even the death of a favorite public figure, well, it's a big world and we
all see our own little slice of it from our own personal perspective. A
good example of that might be someone coparing the death of a baseball
player like Clemente with the death of a president of the US. I mean,
c'mon, a BASEBALL PLAYER? Get some perspective!
Joe Myers
gig...@snip.net wrote in message <373DE135...@snip.net>...
>
>Well, it's often not just the person, as in the case of a JFK, or a
>Martin Luther King, or a Roberto Clemente ......
I am appalled that you would equate the death of a baseball player with ....
aw, the hell with it.
Rich Wilson
[multiple snips]
> I would hardly compare someone's attempt to express his feelings
> or rather the level of his feelings by comparing two events and
> *his* personal emotional level for each to adolescents on rampage
> in a school.
So this message is to tell me that YOUR choice of comparisons is
superior to mine? I submit that you simply missed the point.
And you're arguing an issue that Joe didn't. He disagreed mostly
with the tone that he perceived in my message, and I hope that I've set
that right with him in my followup.
Things should have ended there, and one wonders what your agenda
is. Things become really muddled when you say:
> Insert a longsuffering sigh plus a 'men!' here. I'd hazard quite
> a few of the women here follow what I mean to say.
Insert a look of amazement at the incredibly sexist, reductive, and
insulting content of that sentence. Then dolly in on the jaw dropping,
in response to reading the next unbelievable leap:
> Of course it would have been possible to say "I am absolutely
> shattered/I am crushed/I am crying inside, because the one TV show,
> which made me change my life, which inspired my new profession, which
> has been my muse and goal has been killed and so unfairly treated. I
> admired it and I had an intellectual love affair with it."
>
> But that's how a woman would say this. Not a man.
No, that's how a steamy Barbara Cartland character might say it -- bosom
heaving, lower lip quivering, eyelashes fluttering.
Your implication that all women express themselves in the same
fashion is truly astounding to hear. But you are way off the topic, and
to reply to such an incredible digression would just worsen things.
> And you did what is also very male -- you took him by the literal
> meaning or what you perceived to be his literal meaning.
That takes the cake.
Next time you want to perform some sort of dissection of a male
psyche, start out with somebody in your personal acquaintance who you
actually *know*; somebody who has the patience to put up with it. I do
not fit the bill on either count.
My wife took a look at the messages in this thread, and has asked me
to pass along her disagreement not only with your initial point, but
also her dismay at your sexist statements; your implication that you
speak for all women (which would include her); and your
misrepresentation of me, specifically your claim that my message content
is based on gender, and not intellect -- or empathy.
I replied to Joe for no other reason than to try to sensitize people to
our society-wide tendency to trivialize violence. Your intergalactic
warp-jumps into other conversational dimensions has diverted attention
from that, which I find really counter-productive. And in the process,
you've lowered the high esteem I have always placed on your judgment.
Skip Press
religion and name right) after World War II. It's one of my favorites.
In article <19990515204512...@ng-cq1.aol.com>, ov...@aol.com
(Ovum) wrote:
>Steve wrote:
>
>>
>>I could suggest that the next time you're feeling really down about the
>>entertainment world, you visit the Holocaust museum in Washington, DC.
>>(It will be the best six bucks you ever spent.)
>
>Reminds me of a quote, but I can't remember who said it:
>
>"When they came for the Jews, I did nothing, because I wasn't a Jew. When they
>came for the Catholics, I did nothing, because I wasn't a Catholic. When they
>came for the ____, I did nothing, because I wasn't a ____. When they came for
>me, nobody did anything, because there was nobody left."
>
>Despite Disturbed and some of his generation's apathy, Americans continue to be
>some of the most generous and compassionate people on the planet. Witness how
>many Americans pitched in and helped the midwesterners after the floods a few
>years back, and how many sent aid to Kosovans, and even how many -- both white
>and black -- donated blood to a dying Betty Shabazz. Thank God so many
>Americans, who have so much, feel some sense of "noblesse oblige."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------
>In essentials, unity.
>In non-essentials, liberty.
>In all things, charity.
>-- Augustine
Joseph Abbott
>Plus, the scale for many jobs (most in fact) are lower than H'wood. That
>includes writers.
Really? What is the WGC minimum compared to the WGA minimum?
Joseph Abbott
"I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without
hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because
they'd never expect it." - Deep Thoughts
__
Ovum
Ovum
<skippress-150...@pool091-cvx.ds41-ca-us.dialup.earthlink.net>,
skip...@earthlink.net (Skip Press) writes:
>The quote was from Lutheran minister Martin Neimohler (I think I got his
>religion and name right) after World War II. It's one of my favorites.
Thanks, Skip. Fabulous CV, by the way! Seems like you, too, were in a form of
PR at one time, when you were Communications Director with a staff of 10.
Sounds like what I do! What made you change fields, having to work with
printers? :-) Or the endless luncheons with rubber chicken or the ubiquitous
roast beef? Is the food at Hollywood functions any better?
Actually, does anyone in Hollywood really eat at those functions? I would
think all the actors and actresses don't eat in order to keep thin enough for
the cameras. Give us the inside scoop!
Gary Pollard
news:19990515135732...@ng-ca1.aol.com...
> I'm absolutely amoral...which can't be said for most.
>
> I just find it absured to have some deep emotional attachment to
someone just
> because they died.
You miss the point. The emotional attachment was because of the way
people thought they lived
Gary
>
> -Di含urbed
> Dstr...@aol.com
> http://members.xoom.com/Disturbed42
La...@la.com
"The resentment expressed by many in the American film industry toward
Canada, which has drawn much of film=production business away from
Hollywood, is misguided (front page, May 10). Canada is finally
earning some of the rewards of an industry it has supported since its
inception.
Ninety-eight percent of the films shown on Canadian screen are
produced by foreign-owned companies, mostly American. Canada's film
revenues go directly to the United States, and neither the
American-owned distribution companies nor the American-owned
production companies are forced to put anything back into the Canadian
economy.
Film is not a "quintessentially American industry" but has been
operating in a global market for some time. Canada has legitimately
competed for film projects, and Hollywood should understand that
however frustrating, it has by no means won them unfairly."
I'll post my comments in a different post as I want to give you the
opportunity to dissect this, should you wish to. :)
La...@la.com
>On Sat, 15 May 1999 21:09:12 GMT, speaking in dulcet tones,
>"La...@LA.com" said ...
>
>-> For all its fluffiness, Nash Bridges is a show that has managed to
>-> create a cogent visual style that helps rather than hinders the
>-> storytelling and had over the years the services of two great DPs,
>-> including Stephen Lighthill.
>->
>Yabbut, tell me this. Is it the ship/headquarters that lists to
>one side or is the camera tilted?
The camera is tilted. They do a lot of Dutch angle stuff
(occasionally too much) as well as a lot of steadycam.
Rich Wilson
[snip]
I've tried to be polite, despite the demeaning, sexist way you addressed
me last time out. I've given you two successive opportunities to walk
away with various types of olive branches. But you don't take the hint.
Joe never begged for your intervention, and that initial exchange
between him and me is now history.
But here you still are, slogging through absurd deconstructions of
his message and mine, apparently in search of a reason to keep harping
at me. Your insistence on speaking for him -- while accusing me of doing
so -- makes your use of the word "irony" rather, well, ironic.
In your previous message, you dragged in what appeared to be
personal angst about the men in your life, projecting it all over a
discussion where it had no place whatsoever.
So, I think there is a real lack of perspective here on a number of
fronts. Above all, I see no excuse for this endless harangue.
I have asked, in many messages, in many ways, for an atmosphere of
peace. Meanwhile, *other people in this very thread have said they
understood and agreed with the point I made!* I don't see you sniping
away at them. Your pugnacity seems reserved for me. Well, sorry, but I'm
not getting in the ring.
The positions are on record, and the matter is fast becoming a dead
horse that needs no further beating.
WRabkin
>'stood for' without being particularly stricken >by his assasination.
Try as I might, I can't imagine this.
Dstrbd042
>
>are "not subject to or concerned with moral or ethical values"? Is that
>even possible?
I'm not concerned with morals, because they don't exist.
They're subjective.
>Well, it's often not just the person, as in the case of a JFK, or a
>Martin Luther King, or a Roberto Clemente (his untimely death affected
>me big time as a kid), but more so in what they represented or stood
>for. So when you say you don't care about their death, it implies you
>don't care about what they stood for.
If what they stood for had an emotional effect on me, then I'd care.
This is beside the point, since the original poster DID care when Bobby Kennedy
died. Rich felt that he had to take the moral highground and decide that RFK
was more important than this TV show. It's all a matter of perspective.
Your grandma could have a stroke, and I could break a shoelace that same day.
Which would be more important to ME?
The shoelace.
Steven Weller
>>>>>It is entirely possible to care about what King
>'stood for' without being particularly stricken >by his assasination.
Try as I might, I can't imagine this.<<
Cynical as it may seem (hell, as it IS) I'm no longer surprised by political
assasinations. When someone makes enough waves in the world, and those waves
crash against the shores of the people in power (okay, weak metaphore), some-
one's gonna get killed, likely as not. King knew he was a short-timer. He
knew there were forces marshalled against him. It didn't change his meaasge
(beyond his acknowledgement of his impending death) and it didn't mean his
message was about to be silenced.
I was just a kid when King was killed, but I remember when a particular
Middle Eastern leader was killed as he tried to usher in a peace in his
homeland. A lot of Americans (in the media, at least) were shocked, but
the rest of the world looked at the situation about the same way I did.
It was a little like hearing that someone had succumbed to cancer - you
knew it was coming, if something else didn't kill him first. It was sad,
sure, but shocking? Not by half. If anything, it's shocking (and a tribute
to security guards around the globe) that it doesn't happen more often.
If I were truly stricken, every time another of the army for good is taken
down by an assasin, I doubt I could get up in the mornings and function. The
truth is, I didn't know him. I never met him. I feel for his family and
friends, and it's a shame that another voice has been silenced. But the fight
goes on, and so do I.
Welcome to the 20th century.
Ron Drake
Weller) wrote:
> >>>>>It is entirely possible to care about what King
> >'stood for' without being particularly stricken >by his assasination.
>
> Try as I might, I can't imagine this.<<
>
> Cynical as it may seem (hell, as it IS) I'm no longer surprised by political
> assasinations. When someone makes enough waves in the world, and those waves
> crash against the shores of the people in power (okay, weak metaphore), some-
> one's gonna get killed, likely as not. King knew he was a short-timer. He
> knew there were forces marshalled against him. It didn't change his meaasge
> (beyond his acknowledgement of his impending death) and it didn't mean his
> message was about to be silenced.
[ snip ]
A confluence of attitudes here. In my younger, more rebellious days,
I wrote a song on this very subject. Title: Don't Worry; We Can Always
Kill You.
Martin Luther King scared the "Powers-That-Be" shitless. They resolved
that no individual would EVER wield that kind of influence again. A so-
ber look at politics and culture over the last thirty years bear this
out. Divide and conquer. The culture of argument vs. a culture of con-
sidered debate. The death of the concept of "fellow American."
If I'd had more sense back when I was writing music, I'd have realized
that I was better off introducing schoolkids to "Us And Them" by Pink
Floyd (they LOVED it!) than foisting my own political treatises on the
kidlings.
co...@total.net
clear in his arguments or his conclusions.
As far as I can see, the reason US producers shoot here in Canada is
simple. The technical expertise is the equal of H'wood--no difference at
all--but the costs are considerably lower. It starts with a 60-65-cent
dollar and goes on to include various tax breaks and subsidies, most of
which require the US companies to hire a quota of Canadians, and indeed,
in many cases to hire a quota of residents of a particular province. Plus,
the scale for many jobs (most in fact) are lower than H'wood. That
includes writers. So, from the POV of everyone involved, it's win-win.
From the point of view of everyone *not* involved, ie, US-residents who
are shut out of this work, it's lose-lose.
Interesting snippet: ACTRA, the Cdn equivalent of SAG is holding a strike
vote at the end of May. Their main grievance? They are paid much less than
their American counterparts on the same series, because of the difference
in scales. So... guess who is supporting ACTRA. That's right, SAG. Now
*WHY* is SAG supporting ACTRA, do you suppose? Is it because of fraternal
solidarity, or could it possibly be because if Canada shuts down, *ALL*
that work will go back south of the border? You decide!
In any case, IMO, money rules, nothing else. The moment it's no longer
financially advantageous for US entities to shoot here, they'll stop. As
long as it is financially advantageous to shoot here, they'll continue.
And none of that has anything to do with Mark Schaan's muddled reasoning
as far as I can see.
Abby
Dstrbd042 wrote:
> >> I'm absolutely amoral...which can't be said for most.
> >
> >Well, from my perspective, thank goodness. But do you really believe you
> >are "not subject to or concerned with moral or ethical values"? Is that
> >even possible?
>
> I'm not concerned with morals, because they don't exist.
> They're subjective.
Wow. That says a mouthful about why violence among young people is so rampant.
No. Morality is not subjective. There is right and wrong, no matter how much you
rationalize their meanings to fit your agenda. That is what is missing from the
correct parenting formula that you tend to sneer at.
Abby
gig...@snip.net
research. ;)
GD
Joe Myers wrote:
>
> gig...@snip.net wrote in message <373DE135...@snip.net>...
>
> >
> >Well, it's often not just the person, as in the case of a JFK, or a
gig...@snip.net
>
> >> I'm absolutely amoral...which can't be said for most.
> >
> >Well, from my perspective, thank goodness. But do you really believe you
> >are "not subject to or concerned with moral or ethical values"? Is that
> >even possible?
>
> I'm not concerned with morals, because they don't exist.
> They're subjective.
>
> >me big time as a kid), but more so in what they represented or stood
> >for. So when you say you don't care about their death, it implies you
> >don't care about what they stood for.
>
> If what they stood for had an emotional effect on me, then I'd care.
>
> This is beside the point, since the original poster DID care when Bobby Kennedy
> died. Rich felt that he had to take the moral highground and decide that RFK
> was more important than this TV show. It's all a matter of perspective.
> Your grandma could have a stroke, and I could break a shoelace that same day.
> Which would be more important to ME?
> The shoelace.
Eye-yi-yi!
GD
sa...@_unspam_sakar.inka.de
....
Gender, Language, & CMC
Though men and women technically speak the same language, some
scholars have concluded that men and women use language and converse
differently. There are socialized conceptions of how women and men
should speak differently as well as how persons of different cultures
express themselves.
According to Lakoff (1975), women and men speak English in several
different ways. She suggests that women's language makes more frequent
use of emotionally intensive adverbs such as "so," "terribly,"
"awfully," and "quite." Similarly, Eakins and Eakins (1978) observed
that men and women use different vocabularies. They suggest that
women's language is more punctuated with adjectives and adverbs that
"connote triviality or unimportance" such as "sweet," "dreadful,"
"precious," and "darling" (p.30). Soskin and John (1963), after
observing the talks between a couple over a certain period of time,
found that wives produce significantly more expressive statements such
as "Ouch!" or "Darn!" (p.270), whereas husbands uses more directive
and informative statements.
According to Strodtbeck and Mann's investigation (1956) about male and
female communication behavior in mock-jury deliberations, females were
found to give significantly more positive reactions than males. Males
used more aggressive language than females . Above all, men were found
to originate significantly more speech acts than women. Furthermore,
men "proact" by directing speeches at solving problem while women
"react" to the contributions of others, agreeing, understanding and
supporting. In a similar vein, Kaplan and Farrell (1994) observe that
women's messages are quite short and their participation is driven by
their desire to keep the conversation going than the desire to achieve
consensus on some issues. These findings are also supported by the
work of Aries (1976) and Leet-Peregrini (1980) as cited in Tannen
(1990). Tannen categorizes women's talk as "interdependent" and
"cooperative," whereas male conversational patterns express
"independence" and assertions of vertically hierarchical power.
Herring (1993), in her discourse analysis of a CMC bulletin board,
distinguishes the different characteristics of woman's language and
men's language. Features of women's language include "attenuated
assertions, apologies, questions, personal orientation and support",
whereas some features of men's language are "strong assertions,
self-promotion, rhetorical questions, authoritative orientation,
challenges and humor." Similar results have been found in other
cross-gender studies. Investigators find that females ask more
questions (Fishman, 1978, 1983) and make more apologies (Eubanks,
1975).
Based on the scholarship cited above, we would ordinarily expect men
to be less inclined than women to engage in socioemotional and
relational patterns of communication which might exhibit social
interdependence. In CMC contexts, these patterns would include
emotext, emoticons, expressions of supporting references,
self-references and self-disclosure, and references to others.
Although CMC issues have become increasingly addressed in the research
literature, there have been relatively few studies which concern
gender and power-relationships in CMC contexts (e.g., Selfe & Meyer,
1991). Nevertheless, it is widely held that the "computer world" has
been dominated by males. Despite the availability of this medium for
both sexes, measured indicators of participation have consistently
revealed a heavily skewed male bias (Selfe & Meyer, 1991; Kramarae &
Taylor, 1992; Herring, 1993; Herring, Johnson, & DiBenedetto, 1992;
We, 1993). It is possible that practical access to, and patterns of
use of, CMC differ across gender and other social strata.
Edwards (1990) observes that computer programming, computer
engineering and systems analysis are tasks performed primarily by men.
He attributes this phenomenon to the modes of thinking involved in
computer-related work. Both hardware and software of computers require
precise, abstract, and mathematical thinking, thus making computer
scientists "hard masters" (p.103). In a similar vein, Benston (1988)
views the technology as a "language" for action. Both theorists view
the language of technology as symbols of power and masculinity
inappropriate for women's involvement. Although the reduction in
social cues has been theorized to "democratize" communication (Kiesler
et al., 1984) studies indicate that males participate in CMC more than
females by a hefty margin (We, 1994; Herring, 1993; Hellerstein,
1985).
Several gender-CMC studies have extended theorized patterns of
face-to-face conversation (Tannen, 1990; Lakoff, 1975; Eakins &
Eakins, 1980) to CMC modes. Kaplan and Farrell (1994) observed that
women's on-line conversation resembles what Tannen (1 990) calls
"rapport" talk, rather than "report" talk, a style men tend to favor.
However, some research reveals that gender-based patterns of
conversation patterns might change between FTF and CMC contexts.
Bellman, Tindimubona and Arias, Jr. (1993) found that Latin American
women anonymously contributed "strong assertive remarks" to a CMC
bulletin board while "they did not engage in heated debate" or
critiques in their face-to-face classes. There is, therefore, a
research precedent which indicates that pseudonymous CMC might
mitigate gender-based differences in communication styles.
Gender, Pseudonyms, and CMC: Masking Identities and Baring Souls
by
J. Michael Jaffe, Young-Eum Lee, Lining Huang, & Hayg Oshagan
Department of Communication
The University of Michigan
Sakar
When the dogs bark, you know you're travelling.
sa...@_unspam_sakar.inka.de
mixed groups. Small Group Behavior, 7:1, 7-18.
Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the
study of small groups. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bentson, M. L. (1988). Women's voices/men's voices: technology as
language. In C. Kramarae (Ed.), Technology and Women's Voices: Keeping
in touch. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 15-28.
Burgoon, M., & Miller, G. R. (1987). An expectancy interpretation of
language and persuasion. In H. Giles & R. N. St. Clair (Eds.), Recent
advances in language, communication, and social psychology (pp.
199-229). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Eakins, B. W., & Eakins, R. G. (1978). Gender Differences in Human
Communication. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Eubanks, S. B. (1975). Sex-based language differences: A cultural
reflection. In R. Ordoubadian & W. Von Raffler Engel (Eds.), Views on
language (pp. 109-120). Murfreesboro, TN: Inter-University Publishers.
Fishman, P. M. (1978). what do couples talk about when they're along?
In D. Burtuff & E. L. Epstein (Eds.), Women's language and style (pp.
11-22). Akron, OH: L & S Books.
Fishman, P. M. (1983). Interaction: The work women do. In B. Thorne,
C. Kramarae, & N. Henley (Eds.), Language, gender, and society (pp.
89-102). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Holsti, O. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and
humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Leet-Peregrini, H. M. (1980). Conversational dominance as a function
of gender and expertise. In H. Giles, W. P. Robinson, and P. M. Smith
(Eds.), Language: Social psychological perspectives. Oxford: Pergamon.
97-104.
Soskin, W. F., & John, V. P. (1963). The study of spontaneous talk. In
R. Barker (Ed.), The Stream of Behavior. New York: Irvington
Publishers, Inc., pp. 228-281.
Strodtbeck, F., & Mann, R. D. (1956). Sex role differentiation in jury
deliberations. Sociometry, 19, 3-11.
Tannen, D. (1990). You Just Don't Understand: Woman and Men in
Conversation. New York: William Morrow.
We. G. (1993). Cross-gender communication in Cyberspace. The Arachnet
Journal on Virtual Culture, 2(3).
Bischoping, K. (1993). Gender differences in conversation topics. Sex
Roles: A Journal of Research, 28, 1-19.
Briton, N. J., & Hall, J. A. (1995). Beliefs about female and male
nonverbal communication. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 32, 79-91.
Canary, D. J., & Hause, K. S. (1993). Is there any reason to research
sex differences in communication? Communication Quarterly, 4, 129-145.
Clark, R. A. (1993). Men's and women's self-confidence in persuasive,
comforting, and justificatory communicative tasks. Sex Roles: A
Journal of Research, 28, 553-568.
Cohen, D. (1991). Speaking across the gender gap. (differences in the
way men and women talk). New Scientist, 131, 36-39.
Davis, H. (1996). Theorizing women's and men's language. Language & De
Klerk, V. (1991). Expletives: Men only? Communication Monographs, 58,
156-170.
Ferber, R. (1995). Is speaker's gender discernible in transcribed
speech? Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 32, 209-224.
Kuhn, E. D. (1996). Gender and language. NWSA Journal, 8, 117-126.
Marche, T. A., & Peterson, C. (1993). On the gender differential use
of listener responsiveness. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 29,
795-817.
Monroe, J. (1995). The great debate: Gender differences. Current
Health 22, 22-26.
Nicotera, A. M.n, & Rancer, A. S. (1994). The influence of sex on
self-perceptions and social stereotyping of aggressive communication
predispositions. Western Journal of Communications, 58, 283-308.
Shepherd, G. J. (1992). Communication as influence: Definitional
exclusion. Communication Studies, 43, 203-220.
Tannen, D. (1990). You just dont understand: Women and men in
conversation., New York: William Morrow.
Wagner, H.L., Buck, R., & Winterbotham, M. (1993). Communication of
specific emotions: Gender differences in sending accuracy and
communication measures. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 17, 29-54.
Wheelan S. A., & Verdi, A. F. (1992). Differences in male and female
patterns of communication in groups: A methodological artifact? Sex
Roles: A Journal of Research, 27, 1-16.
------------
Stereotypes and Men's & Women's Discourse by Carlo De Rycke.
http://www.xs4all.be/~cderycke/gender.html
Gender and Language Use, sociohistorical background on communicative
styles by Lydie Meunier, Ph.D.
http://hhobel.phl.univie.ac.at/mii/gpmc.dir9606/msg00013.html
Information and research on gender styles in communication by Susan
Githens.
http://www.georgetown.edu/bassr/githens/paper511.htm
Review of Work on Gender and Language by Clive Grey
http://www.ehche.ac.uk/study/schsubj/human/english/overview.htm
Gender Differences in the Chinese Language by Marjorie Chan
http://www.cohums.ohio-state.edu/deall/chan.9/articles/naccl9.htm
Gender Differences In Communication a paper by Mark A. Tripp
http://www.umm.maine.edu/BEX/students/MarkTripp/mt320.html
Language Gender and Identity: A social-psychological study by
C.Demetriades 1997 (abstract). Examines the relationship between
homosexuality and language to discover how gay identity is
linguistically expressed.
http://www.surrey.ac.uk/ELI/demetc.html
Steven Weller
Abby wrote:
>Morality is not subjective. There is right and wrong, no matter how much you
>rationalize their meanings to fit your agenda.
Would that it were true, Abby...
Murder is wrong, period. Unless, of course, you call it abortion, or capital
punishment, or a military action (like a pre-emptive strike or suppression
carpet bombing) or 'death with dignity' euthenasia or whatever other nice
little phrase you can come up with.
Lying is wrong, period. Unless you can successfully parse the meaning of the
words, or you have a really good reason to lie (like national security, or
you're a cop and you're interrogating a suspect, or you're planning a surprise
party).
I could go on, but the point is, morality is really entirely fluid. While YOU
may have some moral absolutes (though I'd bet they're a lot less rigid than
you think they are), they tend to be at least a little different for every
person you ask. There are many things, as the saying goes, on which honest
men may reasonably disagree.
What might be more of a parenting problem is the idea that parents are still
trying to sell the old 'do as I say, not as I do' line, and kids just aren't
buying it. It's tough to buy 'JUST SAY NO' from parents who have a nicklebag and rolling papers in their dresser drawers.
Adam Fulford
co...@total.net wrote in message ...
>SNIP
Now
>*WHY* is SAG supporting ACTRA, do you suppose? Is it because of fraternal
>solidarity, or could it possibly be because if Canada shuts down, *ALL*
>that work will go back south of the border? You decide!
Pretty pathetic when greed takes the place of logic in unions, in
particular, if it leads to self-elimination. The idea of unions is
supposedly to look out for the best interests of the workers. Many SAGsters
are expressing pretty self defeating desires.
Well, the union scales are driving Hollywood filmmakers to shoot elsewhere
like Canada, or other states. What's the response? Whine, whine, whine,
(protectionist gibberish), more whines. Logic? Not to be seen.
Adam Fulford
common to men must be attractive to women. If it weren't so, such traits
would not be so common in men, due to a different selection standard for
choosing "breeding partners". Could it be that women generally are not
attracted to weak, sensitive men? I would venture (dangerously, I admit),
that most women are attracted to tough macho men with a sense of humor (to
tone down the roughness). Of course, upon hooking the male, the female will
then work on training him to show more of the characteristics, such as
sensitivity, that would not have attracted her in the first place. Perhaps,
being the trainer gives the women added power, like how a tamed lion might
tend to be more subservient to its trainer. I must emphasize that I am only
speculating.
gig...@snip.net
Steven Weller wrote:
>
> Okay, staying out of this one 'til now (I agree with the kid, largely,
> but not necessarily with the way he makes his point), but this needs
> a response:
>
> >>Well, it's often not just the person, as in the case of a JFK, or a
> Martin Luther King, or a Roberto Clemente (his untimely death affected
> me big time as a kid), but more so in what they represented or stood
> for. So when you say you don't care about their death, it implies you
> don't care about what they stood for.<<
>
> Bullshit. If what JFK stood for was so tenouos and ultimately meaningless
> that it couldn't survive his death as an individual, then it wasn't worth
> anything to begin with.
Well, I think it did survive his death, but that's another argument
altogether. (That and what he stood for.)
> It is entirely possible to care about what King
> 'stood for' without being particularly stricken by his assasination. Given
> the ties and the envirnoment, it was hardly a surprise (even King himself
> was aware that it was a likely occurance - see his 'promised land' speech)
> and while he was a great leader, the movement he lead lived (and lives)
> on.
>
> If someone doesn't have the response you feel is appropriate to an event,
> even the death of a favorite public figure, well, it's a big world and we
> all see our own little slice of it from our own personal perspective. A
> good example of that might be someone coparing the death of a baseball
> player like Clemente with the death of a president of the US. I mean,
> c'mon, a BASEBALL PLAYER? Get some perspective!
Number 1... Clemente was much more than just a baseball player, he was a
great humanitarian. And I'm not the only one that thinks so. Just ask
anyone from Puerto Rico.
Number 2... I said "as a kid, his death had a great effect on me".
Naturally, it wouldn't have had the same effect it would have now.
GD
Ronin Ent1
jobs going to foreign countries (they didn't mention Canada specifically).
There is definitely a real concern.
Here in Florida, especially in Orlando, Canadian production has all but killed
the local film and television industry. Four years ago it was making real
strides but now it's dead. Personally, I think the individual states should
start subsidizing productions so we can get the work back here. No offense to
Canada (birthplace of the world's greatest sport - hockey), but I would rather
see production here than there. If that's being selfish, explain it to my
creditors.
Rich Wilson
[snip: more obsessive nonsense]
Instead of apologizing, or just accepting my offer to drop the argument,
either of which would have been appropriate, you come back with several
hundred lines of academic references in a vain attempt to prove that you
are "right" to have treated me disrespectfully.
I am amused by the tempation to call this a Germanic trait. But gee,
that would be stereotyping, wouldn't it?
I originally changed the subject header to "The Night the Lights Went
out in L.A." because it was in Los Angeles that Bobby Kennedy was
murdered. The idea of lights going out is a metaphor for a general
dimming of a hopeful and ebullient mood among many people in this
country, that had been arising from his candidacy at that time.
After his death -- in a year that also saw the loss of Dr. King --
we were in a dark place indeed. Many people have looked at that time as
the end of an "age of innocence" -- and perhaps the beginning of a long,
winding trail that leads to places like Littleton, or to all the other
examples of increasingly senseless violence in the past thirty years. It
is not my problem that you fail to see such a trail, or even contemplate
its existence.
Joe happened to mention RFK in a passing reference when describing the
cancellation of a TV show. I disagreed with the idea that the two should
be put on an equivalent plane. But whether anybody agrees with my
position, it is fair enough and acceptable for me to state it, just as
it was fair enough for him to state his feelings in the first place!
As for whether Joe was denigrated in the process, I have told him
clearly that it was not my intention, and stated that in other messages
as well. I don't think there are any hard feelings.
So it is bizarre for you to be carrying on at this late date.
The larger issue that I elected to address, after Joe's message, i.e.
the desensitization of a populace to extreme imagery and experience, is
a very real issue. If I were as obsessive as you seem to be, I'd be
citing my textbooks and notes from my first graduate program, in which I
studied under the author of the U.S. Surgeon General's Report on the
Sociological Effects of Television.
But I'm NOT that obsessive. All I seek here is to appeal to people's
better instincts, their innate sense of commonality, and to ask (using
the light metaphor again) that we work together to "brighten" our
outlook both as individuals and as a society; that we find positive
things we can do to improve our lives, and that we do not give in to
despair, or endless finger-pointing and recrimination.
K. Janigan
> >includes writers.
>
The minimum for what Joseph? For example: under the now-expired WGC
Independent Production Agreement (negotiations just re-opened) the
script fee for a half-hour is $5760 (plus fringes), paid out in stages
over the writing process. Then on the first day of principal photography
the writer gets the difference between that and 4% of the production
budget. That would be about $4,000 more.
For an hour the script fee is about $11,000 something and the total fee
ends up being around $23,000 to 26,000. Given that the average hour-long
drama shooting here has a budget of about $900,000. (Was higher four
years ago, but with fragmentation has come smaller licence fees).
Unlike the WGA, Writers Guild writers retain their copyright. And
instead of residuals, we (supposedly) get royalties... scale: that 4%...
after producers recoup their expenses. (dunno if that was such a good
move.)
Of all the shows shot in Canada, only very few pay royalities. I got a
royalty check from a Friday 13th I wrote in 1989.. got the check in 1995
(Paramount didn't know they were supposed to pay royalties). It was for
$7000, U.S. I nearly had a stroke. :)
'Course then WGC is now going after royalties from Europe: those
countries puts aside money for writer for retransmission of programs and
othe TV use. Should see some more money.
I have no idea what the minimums are for feature films: as I have yet to
sell one.
The other point is that, while there are many US series shooting in
Canada, the majority are still written out of Los Angeles... even if
they use Canadian writers. Most of the writers are members of WGA and
WGC, and if they have the heft, they charge WGA rates. They're allowed
to work on a waiver as long as they collect MBA rates. So very few of
the: Peter Benchley's Amazon etc are getting a break on the writing
fees.
Cheers Karen
K. Janigan
>
> <SNIPPAGE>
> Interesting snippet: ACTRA, the Cdn equivalent of SAG is holding a strike
> vote at the end of May. Their main grievance? They are paid much less than
> their American counterparts on the same series, because of the difference
> in scales. So... guess who is supporting ACTRA. That's right, SAG. Now
> *WHY* is SAG supporting ACTRA, do you suppose? Is it because of fraternal
> solidarity, or could it possibly be because if Canada shuts down, *ALL*
> that work will go back south of the border? You decide!
>
IIn 1991, was it, when the WGA went on strike, the Writers Guild of
Canada did not allow its members to take scab work to fill in. Struck
American producers could not hire WGC members to do the work. The WGA
membership is supposed to be grateful, and would probably respect a WGC
strike. (So our reasoning goes).
There have been strikes by both ACTRA and SAG, and I would presume
(perhaps wrongly) that the same "brotherly love" prevails. If not. Well
that says something doesn't it?
Cheers Karen
La...@la.com
>In the letters section, Mark A. Schaan (from Winnipeg) wrote:
>
>"The resentment expressed by many in the American film industry toward
>Canada, which has drawn much of film=production business away from
>Hollywood, is misguided (front page, May 10). Canada is finally
>earning some of the rewards of an industry it has supported since its
>inception.
Somehow getting subsidized jobs is a reward. Sheesh.
>Ninety-eight percent of the films shown on Canadian screen are
>produced by foreign-owned companies, mostly American. Canada's film
>revenues go directly to the United States, and neither the
>American-owned distribution companies nor the American-owned
>production companies are forced to put anything back into the Canadian
>economy.
Now I can see where that guy is coming from. Companies should be
forced to put things back into their customers' pockets. What a
concept...
Someone might want to point out that the money doesn't stay in Canada
because Canadians haven't put up the CAPITAL to make said movies. Of
course, with all those subsidized jobs, there is not enough money left
in Canadian taxpayers' pockets to provide for any significant capital.
No investment, no profits. It's that simple.
>Film is not a "quintessentially American industry" but has been
>operating in a global market for some time. Canada has legitimately
>competed for film projects, and Hollywood should understand that
>however frustrating, it has by no means won them unfairly."
Amazing how literally bribing film productions is described as "fair"
and "legitimate". My guess is that guy would be first in line to vote
to give taxpayer money so already rich sports team owners can get a
free stadium to make more money.
>
>I'll post my comments in a different post as I want to give you the
>opportunity to dissect this, should you wish to. :)
Well, now I did it :)
La...@la.com
>Interesting enough, SAG called me to conduct a survey and one of the issues was
>jobs going to foreign countries (they didn't mention Canada specifically).
>There is definitely a real concern.
>
>Here in Florida, especially in Orlando, Canadian production has all but killed
>the local film and television industry. Four years ago it was making real
>strides but now it's dead. Personally, I think the individual states should
>start subsidizing productions so we can get the work back here.
I'm afraid this is exactly the wrong wat to go about it. Two wrongs
don't make a right and inviting the government to insinuate itself
into filmmaking is asking for a lot more trouble than it's worth. For
instance, as evidenced by the legislation introduced by Sheila Kuehl
in California, the government cannot help itself to choose winners and
losers. Assemblywoman Kuehl is a union supporter and her project only
supports union project (not surprisingly). The last thing we need is
more idstorsion in the market. What should be done is work with
Canadian officials to put an end to those subsidies (maybe by
threatening to match them and more).
La...@la.com
>
>co...@total.net wrote in message ...
>>SNIP
>Now
>>*WHY* is SAG supporting ACTRA, do you suppose? Is it because of fraternal
>>solidarity, or could it possibly be because if Canada shuts down, *ALL*
>>that work will go back south of the border? You decide!
>>SNIP
>
>Pretty pathetic when greed takes the place of logic in unions, in
>particular, if it leads to self-elimination.
When's the last time you heard the phrase "intelligent union"? ;)
>The idea of unions is
>supposedly to look out for the best interests of the workers. Many SAGsters
>are expressing pretty self defeating desires.
>Well, the union scales are driving Hollywood filmmakers to shoot elsewhere
>like Canada, or other states. What's the response? Whine, whine, whine,
>(protectionist gibberish), more whines. Logic? Not to be seen.
I would say that union scales are only a small part of the equation.
On the other hand it's is sad that when faced with protectionism, a
Union's first thought is always to ask for more protectionism on their
side.
Dstrbd042
>
>> >> I'm absolutely amoral...which can't be said for most.
>> >
>> >Well, from my perspective, thank goodness. But do you really believe you
>> >are "not subject to or concerned with moral or ethical values"? Is that
>> >even possible?
>>
>> I'm not concerned with morals, because they don't exist.
>> They're subjective.
>
>rampant.
>you
>rationalize their meanings to fit your agenda. That is what is missing from
>the
>correct parenting formula that you tend to sneer at.
>
>Abby
>
>
No, it is subjective.
Some people I know say that premarital sex is wrong.
Absolutely wrong.
I disagree.
Who is right?
Neither of us.
Know why?
Subjective.
Skip Press
I like him. First time I snuck on the Universal lot, he waved at me. And
he read a script of mine once without a lot of go through the agent crap
when he was a star. American Gothic was good. Roar was a stupid knockoff.
Besides, his brother was in the Partridge Family and we used to buy booze
at the same Hollywood Hills liquor store. And he was a Hardy Boy.
Puh-lease...
>RUBIA56 wrote:
>>
>> > American Gothic
>
>> I LOVED that show! Who would've guessed Shaun Cassidy had it in him?!
>
>Some people think he still does. This is from yesterday's IMDB's Studio
>Briefing by Lew Irwin
>http://www.IMDb.com/StudioBrief/1999/19990513.html
>
>DESPITE STRING OF FLOPS, SHAUN CASSIDY GETS THUMBS UP
>
>Studios USA president David Kissinger's decision to pay
>former '70s teen idol Shaun Cassidy $6 million to develop
>new shows is being defended by some industry analysts
>against criticism that Cassidy has yet to prove himself as a
>producer. Today's (Thursday) New York Post reports
>that although USA programming chief David Kissinger
>refused to explain why he had so much confidence in the
>creator of such flops as Roar, American Gothic Players
>and Hollyweird, some experts were giving him high marks.
>Media analyst Paul Schulman told the Post: "Everything
>that Shaun Cassidy has produced has been quality and the
>money was on the screen. ... If he already had a
>breakthrough hit, it is possible that Studios USA would
>not be able to afford him right now"
Abby
Dstrbd042 wrote:
No. It is wrong. Know why? You don't? That's the problem.
Abby
Dstrbd042 wrote:
> -Di含urbed
> Dstr...@aol.com
> http://members.xoom.com/Disturbed42
Whoops. I thought it read "EXTRAmarital sex" in which case my other post stands.
In any case, I'm not talking fine lines and gray areas in any other issue but
violence. I'm talking BASIC morality which has specifically to do with violent
behavior. If you think murder and violence are subjective, I rest my case.
Abby
Abby
Dstrbd042 wrote:
> Calix:
>
> >On 16 May 1999 22:15:56 GMT, dstr...@aol.com (Dstrbd042) wrote:
> >>Subjective.
> >
> >Do you think there is any position of morality that isn't subjective?
> >
> >For instance, opposition to cannabilism?
> >
> >Just curious.
> >
> >Curiously,
> >Calix
> >
>
> Cannibalism is a taboo, Calix. It's not inherently wrong.
And what is the difference? According to you, nothing is inherently
wrong because everything is subjective.
Abby
>
> I figured someone as bright as yourself would realize that.
Ditto.
>
>
> -Di含urbed
> Dstr...@aol.com
> http://members.xoom.com/Disturbed42
Skip Press
In article <373F8D...@flash.net>, socr...@flash.net wrote:
>Please, Skip, don't put my name at the top of a post like that.
Calix
Dstrbd042
Cannibalism is a taboo, Calix. It's not inherently wrong.
I figured someone as bright as yourself would realize that.
Dstrbd042
>No. It is wrong. Know why? You don't? That's the problem.
It's wrong in your opinion, buckaroo.
Don't tell me that you're right and I'm wrong.
That's not true.
And don't make me give you my ENTIRE standpoint regarding human sexuality.
If I were to do that I might be lynched.
Dstrbd042
>violence. I'm talking BASIC morality which has specifically to do with
>violent
>behavior. If you think murder and violence are subjective, I rest my case.
>
>Abby
>
>
They are.
If a woman is being raped, or having rape attempted, is it "wrong" for her to
use violence upon him? Perhaps to kill him?
Some might say yes.
Some might say no.
Gary Pollard
news:6FB61FE561C5374D.E04787EE...@library-proxy.ai
rnews.net...
>
> > Know why?
> >
> > Subjective.
>
> No. It is wrong. Know why? You don't? That's the problem.
Wrong? Damn! All my sex is pre-marital.
Gary
Gary Pollard
a case for different judgements being applied in different
circumstances.
An eighteen year old guy murdering a three year old kid for fun. Moral?
In anyone's book?
Gary
Dstrbd042 <dstr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990516230910...@ng-fv1.aol.com...
Douglas Newman
>I'm not concerned with morals, because they don't exist.
>They're subjective.
That's *why* they exist.
Doug
gig...@snip.net
>
> Sorry. But you are not making a good case for subjectivity here. Merely
> a case for different judgements being applied in different
> circumstances.
>
> An eighteen year old guy murdering a three year old kid for fun. Moral?
> In anyone's book?
>
> Gary
Even worse, a true story here... I read in the news last week that guy
intentionally drove his car onto a playground full of 3 and 4 year-olds,
killing I don't know how many, and injuring numerous others. When they
asked him why he did it, he responded, "I just felt like killing some
innocent kids." Moral? In anyone's book? Don't tell me this is
"subjective". It's downright evil.
GD
> Dstrbd042 <dstr...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:19990516230910...@ng-fv1.aol.com...
> > >In any case, I'm not talking fine lines and gray areas in any other
> issue but
> > >violence. I'm talking BASIC morality which has specifically to do
> with
> > >violent
> > >behavior. If you think murder and violence are subjective, I rest my
> case.
> > >
> > >Abby
> > >
> > >
> >
> > They are.
> > If a woman is being raped, or having rape attempted, is it "wrong" for
> her to
> > use violence upon him? Perhaps to kill him?
> >
> > Some might say yes.
> > Some might say no.
> >
> > Subjective.
> >
> > -Di含urbed
> > Dstr...@aol.com
> > http://members.xoom.com/Disturbed42
--
Write v. 1. To manually or mechanically imprint extremely thin,
usually white, sheets of tree bark with various lines and or symbols
representing the inscriber's current understanding, beliefs, attitudes
and passions toward himself and others.
- -
http://www.self-gov.org/index.html
- -
THE SPEC SCRIPT LIBRARY
http://www.thesource.com.au/scripts/comedy-scripts-42.htm
http://www.thesource.com.au/scripts/dramatic-comedy-17.htm
Brian Anderson
Steven Weller
>>Do you think there is any position of morality that isn't subjective?
For instance, opposition to cannabilism?<<
I guess you missed the film Alive!, huh? The one about the heroic men
whose plane crashed in the andes, and they survived by eating the bodies
of their dead friends?
Next...
--
Life Continues, Despite
Evidence to the Contrary,
Steven
co...@total.net
slowbean@{remove}geocities.com (Joseph Abbott) wrote:
On Sun, 16 May 1999 10:54:09 -0400, co...@total.net wrote:
>Plus, the scale for many jobs (most in fact) are lower than H'wood. That
>includes writers.
«Really? What is the WGC minimum compared to the WGA minimum?»
It's structured completely differently. The WGC has a 'Production Fee'
built into the deal, in lieu of royalties. Apples & Oranges.
K. Janigan
Not in lieu of royalties, the production fee, based on the budget, is an
advance on royalties.
Perhaps, what you mean, is in lieu of residuals. Which is money owed the
writer every time the show is aired, whether or not it makes any money.
Which is how the WGA is structured.
Cheers Karen
Abby
Dstrbd042 wrote:
> >In any case, I'm not talking fine lines and gray areas in any other issue but
> >violence. I'm talking BASIC morality which has specifically to do with
> >violent
> >behavior. If you think murder and violence are subjective, I rest my case.
> >
> >Abby
> >
> >
>
> They are.
> If a woman is being raped, or having rape attempted, is it "wrong" for her to
> use violence upon him? Perhaps to kill him?
>
> Some might say yes.
> Some might say no.
>
> Subjective.
Matt, if you're going to throw up exceptional scenarios and make this a case of
semantics -- something which is done entirely too much in the Ng -- go right
ahead. You could argue for or against anything like that. That is exactly what
is wrong with society today. We have "yeah, but" -ed ourselves into the state we
are now in.
One more time: if you don't see that violence, in and of itself, is wrong and
not subjective to the individual, I rest my case concerning the younger
generation.
Abby
Gregg Perry
Calix <ca...@earthlinkDELETE.net> wrote in message
> Do you think there is any position of morality that isn't subjective?
>
> For instance, opposition to cannabilism?
>
> Just curious.
>
> Curiously,
> Calix
>
Delurking on this thread at great personal risk...
It could be argued that certain cultures have not only considered
cannibalism acceptable, but also part of their religion.
Before you jump on me though...I do believe in a higher moral law. I just
don't necessarily expect everybody to subscribe to it. That doesn't
necessarily make it subjective. It simply means I believe in a universal
moral truth.
Do I want to live in a society that supports cannibalism? No. That is
against my concept of moral law, and I choose to live in a society that
believes the same way. Do I believe that other societies should have the
right to practice religion as they see fit? Absolutely. Do I think the
practice is right? No.
I also believe that if the cannibalistic society chooses to go outside its
boundaries and impose its religious practices on those who do not share the
same view, then it becomes a moral duty to protect those outside the
boundaries from their practices because those practices will actively harm
those who do not share the belief.
The more difficult question comes when there are differing views within the
society. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, if the society
they live in takes a different view than their own concept of moral law,
then it becomes the obligation of that society member to either leave, do
what it can to peacefully change the society view, or simply live with it.
The latter option is a cop-out in my opinion, although I must admit that I
have been guilty of it.
Back to screenwriting. Flame me if you want. As I said...evreyone's
entitled to their opinion.
Gregg Perry
Stuck While Lurking in Austin Traffic
Steven Weller
Okay, apples, oranges, whatever... how about this? I write a half-
hour dramatic episode for first-run syndi, and it goes into a regular
rotation (like, say, and episode of Friday the 13th - The Series). How
many dollars (Canadian) do I get, by the time the show airs the first time,
as a member of the WGC (assuming I'm getting scale). How many dollars
(American) do I get as a member of the WGA (also assuing scale)?
Steven Weller
>>if you don't see that violence, in and of itself, is wrong and
not subjective to the individual, I rest my case concerning the younger
generation.
Abby<<
...in other words, she's lost her rgument (whether she realizes it or not)
and doesn't want to play any more.
"Facts? Don't give me FACTS! You can use facts to prove anything that's
even REMOTELY true!"
--Homer Simpson
Steve Mayberry
1. She tries to make a point
2. A flippant response like "What about 'Alive'?"
3. Go to 1. Repeat.
I see Steven Weller's and Matt's point. Absolute blanket statements like
"murder / cannibalism / excessive Usenet posting is always wrong" are
tough to defend. And there are certainly issues (abortion, premarital
sex, justifiable homicide) where there will be debate and where morals
are relative to the individual. But these issues define the periphery,
not the essence, of morality. Saying that morality is relative and that
there are no morals are two very different things.
Morals DO exist and it is not outdated to believe that most
circumstances can be judged absolutely. If I eat my neighbor, that is
pure evil, no matter what my neighbor has done to me in the past or who
abused me as a child or what I've been smoking or what I watched on TV
or how hungry I am and long a walk it is to the 7-11. And it is morally
wrong if I take my neighbor's mail, steal his money, punch him in the
face, or put sugar in his gas tank. I know me and I know my neighbor;
you can rationalize all you want about circumstance, but I know that
doing any of these things would be immoral, bad, evil, or whatever else
you want to call it. (But for some reason, I do them anyway... that fat
noisy bastard.)
Jumping threads: posting 8,000 messages on Usenet is not evil... unless
some portion of those messages was written in "kitty talk," in which
case it is a sign of the most subtle and insidious evil known to man.
(Get off Gwen's back already.)
Posting from a world that is not black and white, but where there is
more than one shade of gray,
Steve
>>>Abby:
>>>if you don't see that violence, in and of itself, is wrong and
>>>not subjective to the individual, I rest my case concerning the younger
>>>generation.
> Steven Weller:
co...@total.net
co...@total.net wrote:
> «Really? What is the WGC minimum compared to the WGA minimum?»
>
> It's structured completely differently. The WGC has a 'Production Fee'
> built into the deal, in lieu of royalties. Apples & Oranges.
Not in lieu of royalties, the production fee, based on the budget, is an
advance on royalties.
Perhaps, what you mean, is in lieu of residuals. Which is money owed the
writer every time the show is aired, whether or not it makes any money.
Which is how the WGA is structured.»
Yeah. That's better. I was posting in haste and repenting at leisure.
Thanks for the clarification.
To answer the orginal question another way, the bottom line is that a half
hour script for a US show puts considerably more money in the writer's
pocket over the long haul than the Cdn equivalent.
Where are you, by the way? I'm in Montreal.
Dstrbd042
>In anyone's book?
>
>Gary
In that guy's book.
It's bad, because it causes another person pain...but it's not immoral, in my
opinion, since the entire concept is bullshit. If there WERE morality...it'd be
immoral. Besides...who are you to make assessments?
-Di含urbed
Dstr...@aol.com
http://members.xoom.com/Disturbed42
Everyone in the world is way too self-important.
Dstrbd042
>
>wrong because everything is subjective.
>
>Abby
>
Bingo.
- Di含urbed
Dstr...@aol.com
http://members.xoom.com/Disturbed42
Dstrbd042
>to
>> use violence upon him? Perhaps to kill him?
>>
>> Some might say yes.
>> Some might say no.
>>
>> Subjective.
>
>Matt, if you're going to throw up exceptional scenarios and make this a case
>of
>semantics -- something which is done entirely too much in the Ng -- go right
>ahead. You could argue for or against anything like that. That is exactly
>what
>is wrong with society today. We have "yeah, but" -ed ourselves into the state
>we
>are now in.
>
Exceptional scenarios are EXACTLY THE REASON WHY THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS
MORALITY!
You can't throw up a blanket moral code when there are EXCEPTIONS.
>One more time: if you don't see that violence, in and of itself, is wrong
>and
>not subjective to the individual, I rest my case concerning the younger
>generation.
>
>Abby
Get bent. I never claimed to be any kind of spokesman for my generation. I'm
sure many people my age would consider me an immoral heathen, too...but I don't
care!
They are the misguided ones, in my opinion.
No one has the right to make assessments on the validity of anyone else's moral
character. Morals are a matter of opinion. Just because your opinion may agree
with that of someone else, and NOT agree with yet another person, means
NOTHING.
Dstrbd042
>against my concept of moral law, and I choose to live in a society that
>believes the same way. Do I believe that other societies should have the
>right to practice religion as they see fit? Absolutely. Do I think the
>practice is right? No.
That's where morals are contradictory (though, thanks for agreeing with me, to
an extent)
You say that it's ok for them, it's jut not your bag.
Then you say that it's wrong.
Some people think it's wrong to eat ANY meat.
Are you going to say that you are any more right than they are?
You haven't any right to.
- Di§turbed
Dstr...@aol.com
http://members.xoom.com/Disturbed42
Abby
Dstrbd042 wrote:
> >> Cannibalism is a taboo, Calix. It's not inherently wrong.
> >
> >And what is the difference? According to you, nothing is inherently
> >wrong because everything is subjective.
> >
> >Abby
> >
>
> Bingo.
Bingo what? Cannabalism is OK if one says it is?
If you say "under some circumstances" I'm gonna freak. You refuse to
acknowledge that absolute laws of civility and morality exist. Fine.
Let's just forget our entire legal system and see what happens.
I am shocked and saddened by your lack of mores.
Abby
Abby
Dstrbd042 wrote:
> >> If a woman is being raped, or having rape attempted, is it "wrong" for her
> >to
> >> use violence upon him? Perhaps to kill him?
> >>
> >> Some might say yes.
> >> Some might say no.
> >>
> >> Subjective.
> >
> >Matt, if you're going to throw up exceptional scenarios and make this a case
> >of
> >semantics -- something which is done entirely too much in the Ng -- go right
> >ahead. You could argue for or against anything like that. That is exactly
> >what
> >is wrong with society today. We have "yeah, but" -ed ourselves into the state
> >we
> >are now in.
> >
>
> Exceptional scenarios are EXACTLY THE REASON WHY THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS
> MORALITY!
> You can't throw up a blanket moral code when there are EXCEPTIONS.
No. You choose to view the exceptions as excuses for breaking The Rule.
>
> >One more time: if you don't see that violence, in and of itself, is wrong
> >and
> >not subjective to the individual, I rest my case concerning the younger
> >generation.
> >
> >Abby
>
> Get bent. I never claimed to be any kind of spokesman for my generation. I'm
> sure many people my age would consider me an immoral heathen, too...but I don't
> care!
More evidence.
>
> They are the misguided ones, in my opinion.
And still more.
>
> No one has the right to make assessments on the validity of anyone else's moral
> character. Morals are a matter of opinion.
No. Morals are universal rules. Not subject to opinion. That is what you don't
understand.
Without some code of morality, could we survive?
Abby
Abby
Steven Weller wrote:
> >>if you don't see that violence, in and of itself, is wrong and
> not subjective to the individual, I rest my case concerning the younger
> generation.
>
> Abby<<
>
> ...in other words, she's lost her rgument (whether she realizes it or not)
> and doesn't want to play any more.
>
No, in other words, I am exasperated and cannot argue a point with someone
who nullifies any rational viewpoint with the claim that "well, that's
subjective." What's the point? If everything's subjective, why bother?
That's why I rest my case.
Abby