Smallville 1-03 (SPOILERS)
KalElFan
self-imposed limit is 5 groups, and alt.tv.smallville was newgrouped
by someone last week. What I've done is replace alt.comics.superman
with that new dedicated alt group. However, among other things
because propagation of the new Smallville group is likely to remain
poor for a while, I still plan to use rec.arts.sf.superman most and
that's why I've set follow-ups there.]
Some SPOILERS here for Season 1, Episode 3 airing on Oct/30/01...
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
I thought this was another quality episode. The show definitely seems
to be settling into an X-Files type mode, with some Weirdness of the
Week if not Monster of the Week being the main catalyst for the
story. But this one also had a coherent theme -- youth finding their
own way, moving out from under the older generation's shadow, etc. --
and I thought that helped advance all the characters well, across the
board.
Clark and his parents, and Lex and his father (I hope we see John
Glover back occasionally -- it will be interesting to see how that
relationship evolves) were the main features here on the regular
character side, but we also saw Lana and her aunt. The coach
and his team could have been just a riff on high school or college
sports generally, but it also might be intended as generational per
se, or even symbolic in other ways. It's tough to say or know, but
it just seemed like there might be other things going on in the
writing of all that. I thought it was a decent story on the face
of it though.
Clark also didn't look as out of place with Chloe and Pete here
for some reason, or perhaps several reasons. There's a shot near
the beginning where the camera's moving, and it deliberately pulls
back to a very long shot of the three of them walking, with Clark
in the background of the three. It seemed to me like a smart
attempt to equate the three, and overcome the sense that Clark
is much older. Chloe's investigative work, and Pete's presence
on the football team, also helped in that respect.
Speaking of Chloe, if the established mythology were different
and Lois Lane grew up in Smallville too, one could imagine her
as a young Lois Lane. Right down to screaming out that window
and getting saved by Clark. Of course it'd make the secret identity
thing she eventually buys into as an adult even more implausible. :-)
Still, the above is another reason I like this show so much already.
One can imagine so many different ways it could evolve. In this
genre especially, there's literally nothing you couldn't do, and no
direction you couldn't take this in. I won't say anything more
specific than that, but just the show having such possibilities come
to mind is evidence, to me, of how well this is set up. Hopefully
the great potential here will be fully realized.
Side note, and speaking of Lois Lane...
WPIX, the New York superstation I saw this on, had a new
Radio Shack commercial, or at least I hadn't seen it before.
It was another in the series Howie Long and Teri Hatcher have
been doing for a few years. (For anyone who doesn't know, Howie
Long's an NFL football Hall of Famer-turned-broadcaster, and
also sometimes-actor, but more to the point Teri Hatcher was
the co-lead in the Lois & Clark TV series.) So Lois Lane has
made her first appearance on Smallville in a way.
BTW, anyone know what the FCC or other rules are on product
placement in TV series? We saw the cereal in the premiere and an
Apple computer on Chloe's desk in this one. Not complaining at all
(I actually like stuff like this), but it does seem like a paid placement
type of thing and I have a vague recollection of some discussion
on this a few years ago. It might have involved some supposed
restriction on advertising to kids.
It'll be very interesting to see the ratings on this tonight. It's almost
inevitable they'll be down, mostly because of the World Series. (It
was a close, in fact tie game for a while, throughout 9-10 on the
East Coast. West Coast wouldn't have been as affected, but lead-
ins might still have had some effect.) Hopefully the trough won't be
too deep.
Finally, next week's promo looks good. More weirdness, but as
I've said before I think the tone is just right on all that. One might
have questioned whether kryptonite weirdness per se would be
sustainable, but I think it will be. All you have to do is accept the
premise once, not difficult to do given the meteor shower and
Superman/Krypton/Kryptonite being iconic. It's a different take
on kryptonite, but I think a plausible retelling within the context
of the Superman mythology, and the weirdness does all flow
from that. I think viewers will come to accept and even like it,
if they haven't already. Arguably, the "reason" for the weirdness
is better built-in to this than it is some other series that have had it.
--
Anthony Michael Walsh
KalE...@scifipi.com
Jeremy Billones
In article <8SMD7.27356$6h5.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
KalElFan <KalE...@scifipi.com> wrote:
>Clark and his parents, and Lex and his father (I hope we see John
>Glover back occasionally -- it will be interesting to see how that
>relationship evolves) were the main features here on the regular
>character side, but we also saw Lana and her aunt.
Kristin Kreuk was actually watchable this week. She's not good, but
she's more relaxed at least. (And IhopeIhopeIhope the fact she
wasn't wearing the kryptonite necklace in the last scene means that
someday it will be gone for good.)
Glover and Rosenbaum rocked, of course. Lex trying to prevent layoffs...
who knew?
The Kent football subplot suffered because the writers were hamstrung by
the theme of children on their own, defying their parents, and "that's not
a bad thing... that's a good thing." But Clark was wrong and Jonathan
was right, so the writing of Schneider's scenes was crippled deliberately :p
At least O'Toole got a good scene or two this time.
Fortunately, the theme made up for the horrible A plot. The actor who played
the coach needs to be taken out and shot, along with whoever wrote his
dialogue. Calling that entire story one-dimensional would be a
compliment :p
>Finally, next week's promo looks good. More weirdness, but as
>I've said before I think the tone is just right on all that.
That was a confusing trailer. That Clark develops his X-Ray vision is
a good B plot. I just couldn't tell what the A plot will be.
--
Jeremy Billones
"Citizen Kane! I think you're making a mistake with your life. Think about
it: you've got a cool costume, you got a cool mask, you're seven feet tall,
and you don't fight crime? Wassupwitdat?" - Greg "Hurricane" Helms
David
wrote:
>Spoilers, naturally.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Fortunately, the theme made up for the horrible A plot. The actor who played
>the coach needs to be taken out and shot, along with whoever wrote his
>dialogue. Calling that entire story one-dimensional would be a
>compliment :p
I didn't see it but based on the commercials wasn't the coach played
by the dad on "The Wonder Years"?
>>Finally, next week's promo looks good. More weirdness, but as
>>I've said before I think the tone is just right on all that.
>
>That was a confusing trailer. That Clark develops his X-Ray vision is
>a good B plot. I just couldn't tell what the A plot will be.
Yeah but he's too righteous to really put it to use.
Adam H. Kerman
>I didn't see it but based on the commercials wasn't the coach played
>by the dad on "The Wonder Years"?
Dan Lauria, yes. He's a good actor, used badly in this episode.
IAPW
Jeremy Billones <bill...@Radix.Net> wrote:
>Spoilers, naturally.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Kristin Kreuk was actually watchable this week. She's not good, but
>she's more relaxed at least.
Well, she's no worse than she was in Edgemont.
Incidentally I used to literally get headaches while watching Edgemont
because every character on the show was so utterly drab. It was pretty
good show to get me to sleep though.
dee29
seems a lot like "Roswell". It is as if the creators transplanted
aliens from the small town of Mexico and replaced them with one alien
from Smallville, Kansas. Don't get me wrong. I really enjoy the show,
but I can see where some critics are getting the idea that
"Smallville" is a copy of "Roswell".
"KalElFan" <KalE...@scifipi.com> wrote in message news:<8SMD7.27356$6h5.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
Ian J. Ball
>Date: 10/31/01 11:37 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <ffc738dc.01103...@posting.google.com>
>
>I think "Smallville" is a wonderful and entertaining show, but it
>seems a lot like "Roswell". It is as if the creators transplanted
>aliens from the small town of Mexico and replaced them with one alien
>from Smallville, Kansas. Don't get me wrong. I really enjoy the show,
>but I can see where some critics are getting the idea that
>"Smallville" is a copy of "Roswell".
Just with a greatly inferior cast...
Ian (And a Production Studio in The WB's back-pocket...)
--
Ian J. Ball | http://members.aol.com/IJBall/WWW/TV.html
IJB...@aol.com | ftp://members.aol.com/IJBall/FTP/
Bill Steele
dsy...@hotmail.com (dee29) wrote:
> I think "Smallville" is a wonderful and entertaining show, but it
> seems a lot like "Roswell". It is as if the creators transplanted
> aliens from the small town of Mexico and replaced them with one alien
> from Smallville, Kansas. Don't get me wrong. I really enjoy the show,
> but I can see where some critics are getting the idea that
> "Smallville" is a copy of "Roswell".
Much more like Buffy, so far, especially with the "weirdness of the week"
approach. So far the writers are in a rut. I'd like see an episode here
and there where Clark just explores his situation, without having to run
into some super-powered adversary and get delayed by kryptonite. Just
pulling somebody out from under a tractor or fixing a water shortage could
be challenge enough.
kyle baxter
"dee29" <dsy...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ffc738dc.01103...@posting.google.com...
> I think "Smallville" is a wonderful and entertaining show, but it
> seems a lot like "Roswell". It is as if the creators transplanted
> aliens from the small town of Mexico and replaced them with one alien
> from Smallville, Kansas. Don't get me wrong. I really enjoy the show,
> but I can see where some critics are getting the idea that
> "Smallville" is a copy of "Roswell".
>
It's not so mucgh the critics that are saying Smallville is a copy of
Roswell as it is the fans of the latter. Roswell is thematically inspired
by the Superman mythos not the other way around. Apparently the Roswell
demographic are unaware the world existed before their show came on the air.
Sarah
I've always said Edgemont is NOT for grownups, but it IS a pretty good show for
teenagers going through high school. It's no Degrassi or Hearbreak High, but the
U.S. sure hasn't done any better.
I personally appreciate a high school show with the GUTS to be "drab" and not
have big 90210 things or "social issues" happen every five seconds. That is the
way high school REALLY is.
sarah
David B.
>
> I think "Smallville" is a wonderful and entertaining show, but it
> seems a lot like "Roswell". It is as if the creators transplanted
> aliens from the small town of Mexico and replaced them with one alien
> from Smallville, Kansas. Don't get me wrong. I really enjoy the show,
> but I can see where some critics are getting the idea that
> "Smallville" is a copy of "Roswell".
>
Shouldn't that be the other way around?
Shannara
wrote:
No, both are different. The Roswell kids are aliens with powers, too,
but they don't go around chasing evil mutants. Superman is the oldest
of the comic book superheroes. I would agree that Smallville is more
like Buffy, the difference being that Buffy mainly deals with the
supernatural.
*************************
Laurie Haynes
Co-archivist Xemplary
http://www.xemplary.com
X-Files fan fiction
David Duchovny Fans Board
All David, all the time
http://ddfans.com
Rhythm of the Heart
Music slideshows and videos
http://www.xfrhythm.com
Bob Rudolph
"kyle baxter" <ktba...@msn.com> wrote ...
>
> "dee29" <dsy...@hotmail.com> ...
> > I think "Smallville" is a wonderful and entertaining show, but it
> > seems a lot like "Roswell". It is as if the creators transplanted
> > aliens from the small town of Mexico and replaced them with one alien
> > from Smallville, Kansas. Don't get me wrong. I really enjoy the show,
> > but I can see where some critics are getting the idea that
> > "Smallville" is a copy of "Roswell".
> >
>
> It's not so mucgh the critics that are saying Smallville is a copy of
> Roswell as it is the fans of the latter. Roswell is thematically inspired
> by the Superman mythos not the other way around. Apparently the Roswell
> demographic are unaware the world existed before their show came on the
air.
What's the Roswell demographic?
I ask because I watch it - and watched Superman when it was only in theaters
and played by George Reeve in monochrome - before color TV was as much as an
experiment.
Roswell hooked me on its characters and their interplay.
Smallville is showing me promise - but it isn't there yet.
Doesn't mean it's bad - maybe just a little too young for someone about to
turn 60.
kyle baxter
"Bob Rudolph" <Bob.R...@BaltimorePolice.org> wrote in message
news:9rqcb0$ufrhp$1...@ID-47136.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "kyle baxter" <ktba...@msn.com> wrote ...
> >
> > "dee29" <dsy...@hotmail.com> ...
> > > I think "Smallville" is a wonderful and entertaining show, but it
> > > seems a lot like "Roswell". It is as if the creators transplanted
> > > aliens from the small town of Mexico and replaced them with one alien
> > > from Smallville, Kansas. Don't get me wrong. I really enjoy the show,
> > > but I can see where some critics are getting the idea that
> > > "Smallville" is a copy of "Roswell".
> > >
> >
> > It's not so mucgh the critics that are saying Smallville is a copy of
> > Roswell as it is the fans of the latter. Roswell is thematically
inspired
> > by the Superman mythos not the other way around. Apparently the Roswell
> > demographic are unaware the world existed before their show came on the
> air.
>
> What's the Roswell demographic?
Sorry, I meant that as a swipe at the rabid Roswell fanatics I've seen
posting on the WB site, and on any and every thread mentioning Smallville.
They seem to be predominantely female, very young (not that there's anything
wrong with young girls) and they are very vocal in their resentment of
Smallville. They probably are no more than a very vocal minority but they
have helped soured me on Roswell, a show I used to adore. I have gotten
tired of people making comments about Smallville's premise without knowing
where it actually comes from.
> I ask because I watch it - and watched Superman when it was only in
theaters
> and played by George Reeve in monochrome - before color TV was as much as
an
> experiment.
>
> Roswell hooked me on its characters and their interplay.
>
> Smallville is showing me promise - but it isn't there yet.
>
> Doesn't mean it's bad - maybe just a little too young for someone about to
> turn 60.
I was an avid Roswell fan myself for the first 6 months, even made my own
desktop theme with sound clips (how geeky am I?). Then it went totally
downhill. I hung on for the second season even after they killed the most
likable character (Alex). I was fully prepared to tape and watch both
Roswell and Smallville this year until I watched the first two episodes of
Roswell. I won't watch it anymore. It doesn't mean I fault people who
watch it necessarily, I'm just tired of hearing about it in Smallville
threads.
kyle
Les Bonser
Rudolph" <Bob.R...@BaltimorePolice.org> wrote:
>
> "kyle baxter" <ktba...@msn.com> wrote ...
>>
>> "dee29" <dsy...@hotmail.com> ...
>>> I think "Smallville" is a wonderful and entertaining show, but it
>>> seems a lot like "Roswell". It is as if the creators transplanted
>>> aliens from the small town of Mexico and replaced them with one alien
>>> from Smallville, Kansas. Don't get me wrong. I really enjoy the show,
>>> but I can see where some critics are getting the idea that
>>> "Smallville" is a copy of "Roswell".
>>>
>>
>> It's not so mucgh the critics that are saying Smallville is a copy of
>> Roswell as it is the fans of the latter. Roswell is thematically inspired
>> by the Superman mythos not the other way around. Apparently the Roswell
>> demographic are unaware the world existed before their show came on the
> air.
>
> What's the Roswell demographic?
>
> I ask because I watch it - and watched Superman when it was only in theaters
> and played by George Reeve in monochrome - before color TV was as much as an
> experiment.
I thought the Superman serials in theaters was played by Kirk Allyn (sp?).
Did the Reeves stuff get shown in theaters too?
(Isn't it George Reeve*s* [with an "s"] and Christopher Reeve [no "s"]?)
Bob Rudolph
"Les Bonser" <lbo...@worldnet.att.net>
Memory is the second thing to go when you pass 50.
I forgot what the first was.
I'm 59, and we're going back almost 55 years for the movies, so I could well
have it wrong.
>
>
Dave Sikula
<dgh...@bellSPAMsouth.net.invalid> =====
>In article <20011031221526...@mb-fy.aol.com>,
>kurtb...@aol.comics says...
>>
>> But I am hoping we can get through an episode sometime without a
car crash...
>
>I thought that would be an excellent business for Lex to invest in.
>Right now, we've got insurance claims by a young millionaire, several
>football players, and I forget who else. How does one explain away
"cars
>stacked on each other" anyway?
More to the point, if Clark can't fly yet, how did he stack the cars
so high in the first place?
--Dave Sikula
lvi...@yahoo.com
According to Dave Sikula <dsi...@yahoo-inc.com>:
:More to the point, if Clark can't fly yet, how did he stack the cars
:so high in the first place?
By jumping high...
--
"I know of vanishingly few people ... who choose to use ksh." "I'm a minority!"
<URL: mailto:lvi...@cas.org> <URL: http://www.purl.org/NET/lvirden/>
Even if explicitly stated to the contrary, nothing in this posting
should be construed as representing my employer's opinions.
Jeremy Billones
I didn't allow for the possibility that the director refused to let him
do anything but act like a B-movie villain, poorly. That's the only
explaination I can come up with if the actor is actually competent :p
David Johnston
wrote:
>
>"dee29" <dsy...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ffc738dc.01103...@posting.google.com...
>> I think "Smallville" is a wonderful and entertaining show, but it
>> seems a lot like "Roswell". It is as if the creators transplanted
>> aliens from the small town of Mexico and replaced them with one alien
>> from Smallville, Kansas. Don't get me wrong. I really enjoy the show,
>> but I can see where some critics are getting the idea that
>> "Smallville" is a copy of "Roswell".
>>
>
>It's not so mucgh the critics that are saying Smallville is a copy of
>Roswell as it is the fans of the latter. Roswell is thematically inspired
>by the Superman mythos not the other way around.
Which doesn't mean the "inspiration" can't flow both ways. For
example this is the first time there has been a heavy emphasis on
Clark's feelings of isolation and teen-angstyness that I am aware of.
kyle baxter
<lvi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:9rs31o$kgk$1...@srv38.cas.org...
>
> According to Dave Sikula <dsi...@yahoo-inc.com>:
> :More to the point, if Clark can't fly yet, how did he stack the cars
> :so high in the first place?
>
> By jumping high...
> --
Or you stack one on top of the other then lift those two up and place it on
the third. Yeah, it's pretty impossible but this is fantasy here.
Josh Dull
> Which doesn't mean the "inspiration" can't flow both ways.
For
> example this is the first time there has been a heavy emphasis
on
> Clark's feelings of isolation and teen-angstyness that I am
aware of.
'Superman: The Movie' dealt with this.
Josh
David Johnston
wrote:
It did? I must have missed that part. He seemed pretty much at home
in his skin to me.
Bill Steele
<Bob.R...@BaltimorePolice.org> wrote:
> and watched Superman when it was only in
> theaters
> > > and played by George Reeve in monochrome - before color TV was as much
> as an
> > > experiment.
> >
> > I thought the Superman serials in theaters was played by Kirk Allyn (sp?).
> > Did the Reeves stuff get shown in theaters too?
> >
> > (Isn't it George Reeve*s* [with an "s"] and Christopher Reeve [no "s"]?)
>
> Memory is the second thing to go when you pass 50.
>
> I forgot what the first was.
>
> I'm 59, and we're going back almost 55 years for the movies, so I could well
> have it wrong.
You're partly right. The pilot for the TV show was released first to
theaters as "Superman vs. the Mole Men," later shown as a two-part
episode. I've heard that two other episodes were spliced together and
released as a movie, but it never got to where I was.
Les Bonser
3be19d1f...@news.edmonton.telusplanet.net, "David Johnston"
<rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
I'm not saying that Roswell didn't influence Smallville, but I've been
seeing stuff about isolation and teen-angst in comics for years. Heck,
Marvel spent about 25 years doing it with Spider-Man! This is a very common
theme...
Les Bonser
Rudolph" <Bob.R...@BaltimorePolice.org> wrote:
>
> Memory is the second thing to go when you pass 50.
>
> I forgot what the first was.
>
> I'm 59, and we're going back almost 55 years for the movies, so I could well
> have it wrong.
I'm only 40 and have migraines. Some days, I have no memory at all.... What
was my point, again???? ;-)
Jim Allison
> >For
> >> example this is the first time there has been a heavy emphasis
> >on
> >> Clark's feelings of isolation and teen-angstyness that I am
> >aware of.
> >
> >'Superman: The Movie' dealt with this.
>
> It did? I must have missed that part. He seemed pretty much at home
> in his skin to me.
In the "growing up in Smallville" part of the movie he was the water boy for
the football team. He got PO'd after being snubbed by Lana and kicked a
football into orbit.
Josh Dull
> It did? I must have missed that part. He seemed pretty much
at home
> in his skin to me.
In the sequence dealing with Clark's highschool life he feels
angry and
frustrated because of his powers. He can't play football, even
though he
can score a touchdown everytime, and he can't give into his
impulse to
tear Brad apart. He even uses his powers to show off, which makes
the other
kids look at him like a freak and reaffirms how alone he feels.
Josh
wlh
Looked in "Superman: Serial to Cereal" by Gary Grossman (1976)
Could not find any reference to the second "spliced" movie.
Where did you hear about it ?
wlh
Default User
>
> Ð
Top-posting sucks.
According to the IMDB:
Superman Flies Again (1954)
Compilation of 3 episodes of the "Adventures of Superman" TV show:
episodes #30 ("Jet Ace"), #35 ("The Dog Who Knew Superman"), and #42
("The Clown Who Cried").
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0047545
Brian Rodenborn
KalElFan
news:9rs6r8$4e7$1...@saltmine.radix.net...
> >Dan Lauria, yes. He's a good actor, used badly in this episode.
>
> I didn't allow for the possibility that the director refused to let him
> do anything but act like a B-movie villain, poorly. That's the only
> explaination I can come up with if the actor is actually competent :p
Part of the problem you may be having with it could be what they
were intentionally seeking to avoid: camp. That would probably be
death for this series, if it took the Lois & Clark approach. let alone
the Adam West Batman series approach to villains. They may have
wanted this coach to come across as a latent psycho, being fueled
or brought to the surface by kryptonite. It wasn't necessary for
this particular villain to come across as deep or complex in my
view. When you think about it, his essence was to be rather one-
dimensional: football, winning football, his football legacy, etc.
So I didn't have any problem with it. The veins-bulging-in-his-head-
and-ready-to-pop portrayal also contrasted well with the quiet, icy
spookiness that the Insect Boy actor went for the previous week
(also to good effect there I thought).
--
Anthony Michael Walsh
KalE...@scifipi.com
wlh
>Top-posting sucks.
ouch! I've always preferred reading the "top-posted" responses since don't
have to scroll down thru the previous postings to get to it.
Is there a netiquette (sp?) for this ?
Other opinions ?
wlh
>According to the IMDB:
>
>Superman Flies Again (1954)
>
>Compilation of 3 episodes of the "Adventures of Superman" TV show:
>episodes #30 ("Jet Ace"), #35 ("The Dog Who Knew Superman"), and #42
>("The Clown Who Cried").
>
>http://us.imdb.com/Title?0047545
>
>
>Brian Rodenborn
Following the link to plot summaries by Jim Beaver shows 5 spliced movies:
Superman and the Jungle Devil (1954)
Superman Flies Again (1954)
Superman in Exile (1954)
Superman in Scotland Yard (1954)
Superman's Peril (1954)
each combining 3 episodes from the series.
Has anyone ever seen these ?
Janet Caires Lesgold
I've been online for several years now, and I prefer to read things
sequentially--the oldest part of a message comes first, followed by the
newer follow-ups. This of course requires the posters to delete ANYTHING
that doesn't relate directly to the point they wish to make (adverts,
sigfiles, extraneous text, etc.). Looks cleaner to me (when done right)!
--
Janet F. Caires-Lesgold jfc...@merle.it.northwestern.edu
Speaker-to-Toys http://www.enteract.com/~jfc/
"I brought marshmallows. Occasionally, I'm callous and strange."
-- Willow Rosenberg, Buffy the Vampire Slayer: "The Zeppo"
Corwin2
You have to be able to see everything on one screen.
Dale Hicks
wlh...@earthlink.net says...
Yes. Don't do it. Also, snip out volumes of quotes, and summarize, so
there isn't a lot of text to scroll down through.
--
Cranial Crusader dgh...@bellsouth.net
Brandon Ray
a refresher, I can always scroll down.
Nathan Sanders
> I prefer top posting. I've already read the previous messages, and if I need
Not everyone has read the previous messages. Some people skip messages
by certain posters, for example, or get dragged into a thread as the
result of new cross-posting to other groups. Also, servers vary with
when messages show up, so it's possible for a response to show up on a
server before the previous post shows up, which can be confusing to read
if the relevant portions of the old post aren't quoted.
By keeping the "relevant portions of the old post followed by response"
format, its easy to follow the flow of the conversation (since many
people are interested in the overall discussion, and not just the newest
idea, which could comes days or weeks after the original post).
"Old then new" is also the standard in the rac* hierarchy (and in other
groups), so it's disconcerting for regulars to read "new then old" (or
worse, "new only") posting styles intermingled with the standard style.
Nathan
======================================================================
san...@ling.ucsc.edu ***** Department of Linguistics
san...@alum.mit.edu *** University of California
http://ling.ucsc.edu/~sanders * Santa Cruz, California 95064
======================================================================
Brandon Ray
posting on Usenet, off and on, for 10 years, and I do not agree that there is any
standard way of doing it in any of the hierarchies. There are people with one
preference or the other who periodically attempt to claim that their preferred way
is the standard. But that does not make it true.
Emanuel Brown
wrote:
>Well, as I said, I prefer top posting, for the reason I stated. And I've been
>posting on Usenet, off and on, for 10 years, and I do not agree that there is any
>standard way of doing it in any of the hierarchies. There are people with one
>preference or the other who periodically attempt to claim that their preferred way
>is the standard. But that does not make it true.
Brandon, if you've been on the net for 10 years, you *know* there
are standards and odds are that if you don't, you know where to find
them. Hell, your ISP can likely tell you. I'll bet all of those quirky
folks that claim their "preference" is a standard just coincidentally
disagree with you - because snipping irrelevant bits and posting your
reply underneath is the way it's done. If you don't want to do it,
fine - I know how to set my killfilters if it bothers me, but this
disingenuous "No one ever established my way is wrong" is just making
you look lame.
Emanuel
"Everybody wants a normal life and a cool car;
most people settle for the car." Chris Titus
http://home.att.net/~epbrown01/1966-rolls.jpg
http://home.att.net/~epbrown01/1983-porsche.jpg
KalElFan
I agree it's not the preferred way of doing it, and notwithstanding
Brandon's dissenting opinion I think you'll find the vast majority of
experienced Usenet folk will tell you that the tradition, if not the
standard, is to quote, respond, quote, respond, etc. This allows
people to follow the flow of the discussion.
However, it only works if people massively snip any long parts
that aren't relevant to what they're discussing. You often see
some people bottom post, but what they'll do is quote 100
lines to make a two-line comment, or even worse quote 60
lines to make a two-line comment, then 60 more to make a
second two-line comment. Rather than do that, a brief comment
at the top, followed by the person's sig or some other clear
delimiter, is preferable.
Bob Rudolph
"Brandon Ray" <pub...@avalon.net> wrote ...
> Well, as I said, I prefer top posting, for the reason I stated. And I've
been
> posting on Usenet, off and on, for 10 years, and I do not agree that
there is any
> standard way of doing it in any of the hierarchies. There are people with
one
> preference or the other who periodically attempt to claim that their
preferred way
> is the standard. But that does not make it true.
Not for you, at any rate.
How long you have done something in no way legitimatizes that something, nor
does it make it a defacto preference for others.
Do what you want - you will anyhow.
I'm older than most here - and find that the refresher that the more-normal
method assures allows me fewer misunderstandings and embarrassing moments.
I also like to think that context matters, and typically do not tend to make
remarks that stand a lone in their lack of consequence, but provide a frame
of reference in order that any consequence inferred might be more clear.
I guess in this era of shortened attention spans, it is presumptuous of me
to believe that anyone will read the background to get to my impressions -
but then again, it is presumptuous of you to presume anyone gives a fuzzy
rats ass about how long you've done whatever it is that you are doing.
Paul Vader
>ouch! I've always preferred reading the "top-posted" responses since don't
>have to scroll down thru the previous postings to get to it.
>
>Is there a netiquette (sp?) for this ?
Yes. The rules are simple - delete what you don't need, and post your
responses after the source material, just like normal people do. [1]
There is never any reason to include all of someone's post in your
followup. A few lines here or there is good for context, but otherwise it
just looks stupid to repost the whole thing. Frequently, if I see more than
one screenful of quoted material, I just junk the post and move on.
Usenet has worked this way for more than two decades now, and there is
not a single justifyable reason to change it. And with longer newsfeed
retentions and much faster propogation these days, lots of good reasons
*not* to change it. *
[1] With the possible exception of the gameshow "Jeopardy" no form of
human discourse has answers before the questions. Why should news
be any different?
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Lord Terrance
> It's not so mucgh the critics that are saying Smallville is a copy
of
> Roswell as it is the fans of the latter. Roswell is thematically
inspired
> by the Superman mythos not the other way around
Actually it IS the critics, there have been a number of articles from
top newspapers such as the NY Times and the Washington Post that have
compared "Smallville" directly to "Roswell". And it's not so much that
the Superman saga was around before "Roswell", it's the fact that this
particular treatment of the story smacks very much of season 1
"Roswell". "Smallville" may actually be a little more like season 1 of
'Buffy' with it's 'monster of the week' theme, though it certainly is
lacking in the caliber of acting talent and character development
which both "Roswell" and 'Buffy' started out with. But then again,
Superman fans have never seemed very picky when it comes to acting
ability.
Lord Terrance
Thomas Galloway
Brandon Ray <pub...@avalon.net> wrote:
>Well, as I said, I prefer top posting, for the reason I stated. And I've been
>posting on Usenet, off and on, for 10 years, and I do not agree that there
>is any standard way of doing it in any of the hierarchies.
Well, I've been posting for over 20 years, and there is a standard way for
doing it in *all* hierarchies. Namely intermixed quotes and new material,
and serious clipping of the quoted material to only what's needed for
context.
Btw, while I clipped it out of this response, another standard is that
you don't ever quote the .sig of an article you're responding to unless
actually commenting on it. So there was no need for you to quote Nathan's
.sig.
tyg t...@panix.com
Member, Coalition for Traditional Usenet Values
Nathan Sanders
> However, it only works if people massively snip any long parts
> that aren't relevant to what they're discussing. You often see
Agreed. However, I don't think that the solution to over-quoting is to
top-post. =)
Aside from the over-quoting issue, there are types of discussion that make
sense only with bottom-posting (interspersing many comments in different
places), and are simply incomprehensible with a single top-posted message.
But to my knowledge, there are no types of discussion that make sense only
for top-posting, which means bottom-posting is the more versatile method.
> some people bottom post, but what they'll do is quote 100
> lines to make a two-line comment,
The general rule I've always followed is not to quote more than the length
of your reply, unless the quote is very short to begin with (less than
about 5 lines or so).
If you're quoting more than what you're posting as a response, either
what you're saying isn't important enough to post, or what you're quoting
isn't relevant enough to quote.
I've noticed an increasing amount of top-posting ever since Usenet was
made accessible to a wider audience through AOL, WebTV, etc. Along with
the increase in top-posting (and stubborn unwillingness to accept decades
of internet conventions that predate instant messaging and HTML) has been
an apparently correlated decrease in contentful posting, quite likely
related to decreasing poster age, maturity, intelligence, and education
that naturally came along with opening the internet up to Joe and Jane Q.
Average.
Janet Caires Lesgold
Nathan Sanders <sanders@ling> wrote:
>
>The general rule I've always followed is not to quote more than the length
>of your reply, unless the quote is very short to begin with (less than
>about 5 lines or so).
>
>If you're quoting more than what you're posting as a response, either
>what you're saying isn't important enough to post, or what you're quoting
>isn't relevant enough to quote.
I don't necessarily agree, as I can often sum up what has been said before
and add a further cogent comment in a small space, which would not make any
sense were the previous info unavailable. (case in point...)
Nathan Sanders
> Nathan Sanders <sanders@ling> wrote:
> >If you're quoting more than what you're posting as a response, either
> >what you're saying isn't important enough to post, or what you're quoting
> >isn't relevant enough to quote.
>
> I don't necessarily agree, as I can often sum up what has been said before
> and add a further cogent comment in a small space, which would not make any
> sense were the previous info unavailable. (case in point...)
Granted, there are exceptions, especially when the entire message (quote
plus reply) isn't too large (about a screenful or so). But certainly,
longer quotes than replies is the exception, not the rule.
Sometimes, when I find myself in such a position, rather than quote two
crucial paragraphs in order to add my one, I'll provide an executive
summary at the top in my own words (and distinguished as such) and snip
the original. One of the advantages of such a system is that it makes
clear how I interpreted (and possibly misinterpreted the previous poster's
words).
But I also tend to ramble, so I rarely find myself responding with less
than I quote... ;)
Janet Caires Lesgold
Nathan Sanders <sanders@ling> wrote:
>On 5 Nov 2001, Janet Caires Lesgold wrote:
>
>> Nathan Sanders <sanders@ling> wrote:
>> >If you're quoting more than what you're posting as a response, either
>> >what you're saying isn't important enough to post, or what you're quoting
>> >isn't relevant enough to quote.
>>
>> I don't necessarily agree, as I can often sum up what has been said before
>> and add a further cogent comment in a small space, which would not make any
>> sense were the previous info unavailable. (case in point...)
>
>Granted, there are exceptions, especially when the entire message (quote
>plus reply) isn't too large (about a screenful or so). But certainly,
>longer quotes than replies is the exception, not the rule.
>
>Sometimes, when I find myself in such a position, rather than quote two
>crucial paragraphs in order to add my one, I'll provide an executive
>summary at the top in my own words (and distinguished as such) and snip
>the original. One of the advantages of such a system is that it makes
>clear how I interpreted (and possibly misinterpreted the previous poster's
>words).
>
>But I also tend to ramble, so I rarely find myself responding with less
>than I quote... ;)
Perhaps you're merely telling on yourself.
;)
(Gaaah... stop me from meta-posting!)
Pål Are Nordal
>
> I've noticed an increasing amount of top-posting ever since Usenet was
> made accessible to a wider audience through AOL, WebTV, etc.
#1 sinner is Outlook Express, which defaults to top-posting.
--
Run a screensaver that helps cancer research: http://www.ud.com/
(and join the "Excalibur" team)
Pål Are Nordal
dr...@spamcop.net
Kha'tie
"Pål Are Nordal" <dr...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:3BE71D53...@spamcop.net...
> Nathan Sanders wrote:
> >
> > I've noticed an increasing amount of top-posting ever since Usenet was
> > made accessible to a wider audience through AOL, WebTV, etc.
>
> #1 sinner is Outlook Express, which defaults to top-posting.
What's top-posting? I use OE and would like to know more about what I'm
doing.
Thanks.
~ Kha'tie
: )
Kha'tie
"Pål Are Nordal" <dr...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:3BE71D53...@spamcop.net...
Thomas Galloway
Kha'tie <katietake...@home.com> wrote:
>> > I've noticed an increasing amount of top-posting ever since Usenet was
>> > made accessible to a wider audience through AOL, WebTV, etc.
>> #1 sinner is Outlook Express, which defaults to top-posting.
>What's top-posting? I use OE and would like to know more about what I'm
>doing.
Well, it's *not* what you did in the message I'm responding to, where you
did the correct thing. :-)
"Top-posting" is when someone puts all the new material in a post at the
beginning of it, and then follows the new material by quoting the message
they're replying to. It's made worse by usually not editing the quoted
material at all, and at its worst top-posts a post that was top-posted and
not edited, and so forth.
Correct way to respond to a post is to quote a bit of the material from it
to set context, then put in your response to that bit following it, quote
the next bit that you're responding to and then add your response to it,
and so on. Only the parts of the message you're responding to that are
needed to give context to your reply should be quoted; the rest should
be edited out of your response.
tyg t...@panix.com
Bob Rudolph
"Pål Are Nordal" <dr...@spamcop.net> wrote ...
> Nathan Sanders wrote:
> >
> > I've noticed an increasing amount of top-posting ever since Usenet was
> > made accessible to a wider audience through AOL, WebTV, etc.
>
> #1 sinner is Outlook Express, which defaults to top-posting.
While it may look that way, it has no force - I am using it right now
(damned if I should admit it tho')
Allyn West
bottom post I just snip snip snip away. If it is a top I let it go and that
way they can read it if they want to. But hey like I said I am lazy about
it.
"Janet Caires Lesgold" <j...@enteract.com> wrote in message
news:9s73qd$s3a$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Andy Jakcsy
> Nathan Sanders <sanders@ling> wrote:
> >If you're quoting more than what you're posting as a response, either
> >what you're saying isn't important enough to post, or what you're quoting
> >isn't relevant enough to quote.
>
> I don't necessarily agree, as I can often sum up what has been said before
> and add a further cogent comment in a small space, which would not make any
> sense were the previous info unavailable. (case in point...)
Granted, there are exceptions, especially when the entire message (quote
plus reply) isn't too large (about a screenful or so). But certainly,
longer quotes than replies is the exception, not the rule.
Sometimes, when I find myself in such a position, rather than quote two
crucial paragraphs in order to add my one, I'll provide an executive
summary at the top in my own words (and distinguished as such) and snip
the original. One of the advantages of such a system is that it makes
clear how I interpreted (and possibly misinterpreted the previous poster's
words).
But I also tend to ramble, so I rarely find myself responding with less
than I quote... ;)
>>
I agree!
Wait, it has to be longer before I can do that...
Paul Vader
>#1 sinner is Outlook Express, which defaults to top-posting.
>
Guess where the cursor starts? Outhouse sucks, no question, but this is
not one of its sins. *
Jen
newsgroup, and I have no idea where Nathan usually hangs)
In alt.tv.smallville before someone took away their crayons, Nathan
Sanders <sanders@ling> scribbled:
>I've noticed an increasing amount of top-posting ever since Usenet was
>made accessible to a wider audience through AOL, WebTV, etc. Along with
>the increase in top-posting (and stubborn unwillingness to accept decades
>of internet conventions that predate instant messaging and HTML) has been
>an apparently correlated decrease in contentful posting, quite likely
>related to decreasing poster age, maturity, intelligence, and education
>that naturally came along with opening the internet up to Joe and Jane Q.
>Average.
In addition to this, the so-called "newsreader" OE pretty much
guarantees top posting unless the user has some knowledge of Usenet
conventions.
Unfortunately, OE is used because it's so ubiquitous. Monopoly? What
monopoly?
ObSmallville: DH and I have this show on our extremely short "must
see" list. We tried to like Enterprise but were extremely
disappointed.
Jen
--
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. -
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
Kha'tie
"Thomas Galloway" <t...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:9s7l9a$om$1...@panix1.panix.com...
> "Top-posting" is when someone puts all the new material in a post at the
> beginning of it, and then follows the new material by quoting the message
> they're replying to. It's made worse by usually not editing the quoted
> material at all, and at its worst top-posts a post that was top-posted and
> not edited, and so forth.
>
> Correct way to respond to a post is to quote a bit of the material from it
> to set context, then put in your response to that bit following it, quote
> the next bit that you're responding to and then add your response to it,
> and so on. Only the parts of the message you're responding to that are
> needed to give context to your reply should be quoted; the rest should
> be edited out of your response.
Thank you for your response, Tom! I'll certainly keep this Netiquette in
mind, both on the News Groups and in Email Lists.
~ Kha'tie
: ) *relieved she did it 'right'*
Sam Lubell
>I think "Smallville" is a wonderful and entertaining show, but it
>seems a lot like "Roswell". It is as if the creators transplanted
>aliens from the small town of Mexico and replaced them with one alien
>from Smallville, Kansas. Don't get me wrong. I really enjoy the show,
>but I can see where some critics are getting the idea that
>"Smallville" is a copy of "Roswell".
There are some strong similarities in that both are about alien(s)
growing up in small town America. But Smallville is in many ways the
inverse of Roswell. Instead of teens (aliens and not) keeping a
secret from the parents (do Max and co have any agemates (with names,
not just faces in the hall) who *don't* know they're aliens, in
Smallville, just the parents know. Also Smallville is in essence
still a superhero show with Clark uncovering a different superpowered
villain each week (at least so far).
>>
>> Finally, next week's promo looks good. More weirdness, but as
>> I've said before I think the tone is just right on all that. One might
>> have questioned whether kryptonite weirdness per se would be
>> sustainable, but I think it will be. All you have to do is accept the
>> premise once, not difficult to do given the meteor shower and
>> Superman/Krypton/Kryptonite being iconic. It's a different take
>> on kryptonite, but I think a plausible retelling within the context
>> of the Superman mythology, and the weirdness does all flow
>> from that. I think viewers will come to accept and even like it,
>> if they haven't already. Arguably, the "reason" for the weirdness
>> is better built-in to this than it is some other series that have had it.
I agree. There has to be a reason why there are all these
superpowered beings for Clark to fight. Since he's not in costume,
they aren't looking for him. The kryptonite makes a logical excuse
for the writers.
I agree it can be overused, so far it hasn't been IMHO.
Bill Steele
lubell...@bigfoot.com wrote:
> agree. There has to be a reason why there are all these
> superpowered beings for Clark to fight. Since he's not in costume,
> they aren't looking for him. The kryptonite makes a logical excuse
> for the writers.
>
> I agree it can be overused, so far it hasn't been IMHO.
Using it in every episode isn't overusing? Well, I suppose they could have
had two superpowered villains in every episode...
Brend in LA
had two superpowered villains in every episode... >>
I must agree that having every other Smallville resident be a superpowered
kryptonite mutant is becoming very old, very fast (well, maybe not every other
resident -- but it's starting to feel that way). One more reason that I just
don't like this current version of the Superman myth.
<< Since he's not in costume, they aren't looking for him. >>
I would think that since Clark isn't in costume, all of these super villains
will eventually come looking for him with a vengeance. Isn't that part of the
whole point of having a secret identity? (aside from the fact that these
villains will also figure out -- eventually, one would think -- how to get to
Clark's loved ones in order to stop or hurt him).
Of course, if these villains all keep "dying" (Bug Boy -- who probably isn't
really dead) or suffering from memory loss at the conclusion of each episode,
maybe the above won't really matter. I guess I just miss those darn glasses and
big the "S" on his chest. :0)
Again, just my opinion, of course ....
Brad Ferguson
<r...@spamishell.test> wrote:
> In article <3BE65644...@avalon.net>, pub...@avalon.net wrote:
>
> > There are people with one
> > preference or the other who periodically attempt to claim that their
> > preferred way is the standard. But that does not make it true.
>
> The Usenet Police really need to get some lives. Whether or not their way
> was "the" way, the world changes. Get over it. I generally reply below the
> quote, snip as necessary, and intersperse when replying to multiple points.
> But on rare occasions, I do top post. And I have no problems reading either
> type, and I suspect anyone with an IQ surpassing 100 wouldn't, either. The
> only problems I have are when people have no idea how to quote and somehow
> make their own comments look like quotes.
Nice to know that you draw the line somewhere.
Certainly a person with an IQ surpassing 100 should understand that
Usenet is generally a mess, and that posting in clear fashion helps to
sort that out.
Emanuel Brown
>
>Of course, if these villains all keep "dying" (Bug Boy -- who probably isn't
>really dead) or suffering from memory loss at the conclusion of each episode,
>maybe the above won't really matter.
And that's the show-killer for me - Ma and Pa Kent just tell Clark
that they won't cause trouble anymore, and that's that.
Mark Jones
(Bill Steele) did utter the following:
If they _continue_ with one-shot super-powered villains, it will be
too much. What I'd like to see is some of these villains recurring.
This would give Clark some chances to deal with them in ways that
don't reveal his own powers any more than has happened already.
Shape-changing girl, for instance, knows that Clark is superhumanly
tough and strong (given two attempts to kill him and a gravestone
shattering battle), but has no clue about his x-ray vision. She has
no idea that he can recognize her no matter what her form (or if she
does, no idea of _how_). If she avoids direct confrontations, Clark
would have to find a way to stop her that doesn't involve
super-powered fisticuffs, and which ideally doesn't give away any
other secrets.
That kind of thing would allow them to put Clark through his paces
with different powers _and_ reduce the number of super-villains
apparently being spawned in Smallville.
--
"If you're gonna shoot, shoot. Don't talk."
--Tuco, _The Good the Bad and the Ugly_
Bill Steele
Jones) wrote:
> If they _continue_ with one-shot super-powered villains, it will be
> too much. What I'd like to see is some of these villains recurring.
> This would give Clark some chances to deal with them in ways that
> don't reveal his own powers any more than has happened already.
There could be lots of stories that don't involve villains. The football
team angle was underexplored, for example. or what happens if he
accidentally X-rays the answers to the exam? Save a school bus here, stop
a flood there, all part of coming to terms with his role in the world.
Maybe once they get rolling they'll attract some writers who are smart
enough to break out of the formula.
Sam Lubell
>> BTW, anyone know what the FCC or other rules are on product
>> placement in TV series? We saw the cereal in the premiere and an
>> Apple computer on Chloe's desk in this one. Not complaining at all
>> (I actually like stuff like this), but it does seem like a paid placement
>> type of thing and I have a vague recollection of some discussion
>> on this a few years ago. It might have involved some supposed
>> restriction on advertising to kids.
None. There is a rule against having animated cartoons pitch products
during their own show's commercials, but nothing to stop Clark from
grabbing a bite of whatever cereal is willing to pay for the
priviledge of being eaten by an alien (historical note: deliberate
allusion to M&M deciding that they didn't want ET to be eating their
candy which allowed Reece's Pieces to get the ultimate product
placement)