Blakes7 March 2001

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

96 participants
1067 discussions

Sooner or later it happens to everyone, Vila
by Kathryn Andersen 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

I realized this morning I was getting too much email when I was unable to read all the night's mailings before I had to leave for work. "Something's gotta go," I thought. Guess what was at the top of the list? Yep. The Lyst. Three months ago it would have been at the bottom, but now... It's ironic; there have been times in the past, when things have been stormy, when I've been tempted to unsubscribe, but decided not to, because I wasn't going to give in to bullies. Now it isn't bullies driving me away, but simply the general snarkiness of far too many people, for far too long. This must be the longest February on record. I shall take a look in a couple of months to see if sanity has been restored. In the meantime, the automatic posting of the Lyst Culture Guide will continue (I'm on nomail, not unsubscribed) but if you want changes you'll have to email me personally about them. Unless someone wants to volunteer to take it over? Kathryn Andersen -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- "That one interests me. He has a very high IQ and yet he acts like an imbecile. He'll make an ideal pet." -- the alien of Vila Restal (Blake's 7: Sarcophagus [C9]) -- _--_|\ | Kathryn Andersen <kat(a)foobox.net> / \ | <http://www.katspace.com> \_.--.*/ | v | #include "standard/disclaimer.h" ------------| Melbourne -> Victoria -> Australia -> Southern Hemisphere Maranatha! | -> Earth -> Sol -> Milky Way Galaxy -> Universe

2 1

Re: [B7L] zine editing
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

In a message dated 3/29/01 6:56:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, Louise.Rutter(a)btinternet.com writes: << People's beliefs as to where the right to privacy starts and finishes vary wildly. If you can accept the religious objections to homosexuality, why can't you accept the different standards that Ashton Press has from your own? Is it purely because of the less tactful way that Annie puts her case? >> The most amusing part of all of this is that Ashton Press zines, like so many other B7 zines, is not the work of one writer. The vast majority of stories in Ashton Press zines are a collection of work submitted by many, many fans from all over the world, who have submitted that work to Annie and she edits and publishes it. Targeting one editor for such collections is simply attacking the messenger because you don't like what your neighbor is getting in the mail. It's laughable. Maybe if I put it in little words, it might sink in: Annie. Doesn't. Write. All. The. Slash. In. The. World. Many. Of. Your. Fellow. B7. Fans. Do. You. Aren't. Going. To. Stop. That. Phenomenon. No. Matter. How. Uncomfortable. It. Makes. You. Feel. Leah

1 0

RE: Re: [B7L] zine editing
by Louise Rutter 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

Shane wrote: >But if you wrote a slash story featuring Steve McQueen's character from The >Great Escape being raped and tortured by Nazi guards, and then drew some >lurid artwork to accompany it, you would have to be using Steve McQueen's >likeness, because he, after all, played the character (whatever his name >was -- Hilt, Hicks, something). If Steve McQueen then found out about the >artwork, and he then expressed to you that he found the pictures of what is >in effect identifiably him in such a situation grossly offensive, then it >would be rather unkind of you to ignore his pleas and instead continue to produce and >distribute said offensive artwork. Personally I agree. Explicit artwork crosses my particular boundary for what is acceptable, but that varies for individuals. The way you phrased your original statement sounded as if you were saying some people might draw explicit art precisely _because_ it annoys the actors they dislike, and that's where we disagree. >I don't think you can really separate actor and the characters they play >(Usually for many actors, just a variation on the same theme) anyway, >because, having never met Steve McQueen, we have no idea what he was really >like; therefore all we have to go by is what we see of his screen work. It's >interesting that neither you or I could recall the name of the character he >played in "The Great Escape," and that we refer to him as "Steve McQueen's >character" rather than by name or as "the blond American one with the nice >muscles." Annoying, isn't it? :-) >Many people have stated in the past that on meeting a particular actor they were >surprised by the fact that they were nothing at all like the character they >played on screen. The fact is people will see the two as the same >until more direct information (meeting the actor, say) comes about, and even >after that, the two images will coexist in the minds of many people. But why on earth should an actor be anything like the characters they play? I'm sure Gary Oldman is a good deal nicer in reality than most of his roles would imply :-) Maybe other people do expect this, maybe I'm the odd one out for completely disassociating actor from character. Anyone? >Some actors in B7 are very strongly associated with the parts they played. >If you do a drawing of Actor X shagging Actor Y, then inevitably the >connection is going to be made. If you do enough drawings, over a long >enough period, and distribute widely enough, then eventually you are going >to change people's perceptions of how the character, and eventually the actor, >is seen. Hence the person I was telling you about who now believes that the >Professionals was about a homosexual couple played by two real-life gays. Again, this is where my personal experience is so different that I can't get my head around it. I have a slash mentality - I read and write the stuff in other fandoms. Yet despite 10 years in B7 fandom, including an early exposure to the concept of slash (indeed my original exposure to the concept of slash), I just do not see slash relationships in B7, even with people giving me all those examples of why they think it is there. Exposure to slash hasn't altered my view of the characters in the slightest, let alone the actors. >If the admirable Julia Jones can see this, and has a no-explicit-artwork >policy for her slashzines, why doesn't Ashton Press do the same? Answer: They >don't give a toss what the actor feels. They have no respect at all for >these people. Unless I see evidence to the contrary, I am going to take this >as read. People's beliefs as to where the right to privacy starts and finishes vary wildly. If you can accept the religious objections to homosexuality, why can't you accept the different standards that Ashton Press has from your own? Is it purely because of the less tactful way that Annie puts her case? Louise

1 0

Re: [B7L] reasons
by Fiona Moore 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

>From: Lisa Williams <lcw(a)dallas.net> >Fiona Moore wrote: > >>But by that analysis, you're removing the explanations within the>>show itself. > >Sorry, that was indeed unclear. I should have been more specific and >said >"viewer-generated explanations." Indeed. Although it can be argued that many of the explanations within the programme are of necessity viewer-generated in that they are not put forward in an expository way. >>No, to use Neil's terminology, it would be subcanonical. > >But you had asked me how *I* regard canon. In the example you cited, >I >would regard as canon the fact that Blake said he was 34. Whether he >really >was, or why he would say so if he wasn't, is not canon (provided we >aren't >given any other canonical information on the subject.) But that is actually what Neil said, just with a slight difference in terminology (the post, btw, is #44591-- I bookmarked it cos I think it's a useful guide, and explained in the inimitable Neil fashion). >>I feel no particular feelings as to the rightness or wrongness of >>the >>principal characters being heterosexual; > >I was not using "right" in the sense of morality, but in the sense >of >validity or correctness. But those are again slippery terms. If you are defining "valid" or "correct" as "is within the canon," that's one thing, and I think we're both agreed that it isn't. If you're using them in the sense of "can be made by viewers," that's another, and again I think we're both agreed that it can. But one shouldn't confuse the two. >>Claiming that the characters are gay or bisexual within the series >>itself, >>on the basis of the fact that some fanfic out there portrays them >>as such. > >If by "claiming that the characters are gay or bisexual" you mean >claiming >that they were portrayed that way, by the conglomeration of people >who >contribute to the existence of a TV character before it reaches the >viewer, >then I'd agree that it is highly unlikely that they did so. Agreed, then! (I can't >pretend to know for sure, since I don't have insight into what they >were >all thinking. But I'd be inclined to doubt it ever occurred to most >of >them.) As I said, we do have reasonably concrete evidence in that some of the writers and actors *were* actually asked that question, and have responded in the negative. So perhaps we don't know *all* their views (nobody's asked the tea-lady yet :)), but certainly there's a body of evidence. This does not, however, change the fact that they may be >*perceived* >that way by a viewer. The character is not created entirely by its >authors; >the reader or viewer contributes to the mix as well, which is why we >all >see the same character in different ways -- sometimes *very* >different. Oh, definitely not, but as I said to Steve, I've never said the slash interpretation can't or shouldn't be made. Just that it isn't actually a canonical one, and hence should be filed with "Blake survived GP" stories, etc. (and note: in neither case do I feel that this in and of itself cheapens a story or makes it bad. I've read both slash and "Blake survived" stories which have made me think, but they're both in the same position with regard to canon). >>I'm impressed that you knew what homosexuality was at age 5, I have >>to say. > >Well, I didn't, in a technical sense. But from what I've read about >childhood development, it's pretty normal to be having romantic >fantasies >by age 5 (things like sexual orientation and identity often start to >be >discernible by then), and mine were invariably about male/male >relationships. Interesting! I'd be interested in discussing it further, but that would be getting well off topic. >>But the interpretations we make at 5 are not the same ones we make >>at 25. > >Oh, I've become considerably more sophisticated in my >interpretations over >the years -- but the basic instinct remains the same. Be rather >surprising >if that had changed, really; given how early and how strongly it >appeared, >I suspect it's hard-coded. I'm actually a bit more surprised that it *didn't*, given all the mental and physiological changes that occur when growing up. But again, that's off-topic :). >>It's remarkable that you've managed to avoid any contact with >>fandom for >>thirty-odd years... > >It wasn't a question of avoidance; it simply didn't cross my path. >It >probably never would have, had it not been for the development of >online >fora for fan discussions, and those are a comparatively recent >phenomenon, >after all. Again, I can understand that but still do find it a little surprising (just out of curiosity, and I don't expect an answer if you don't want to give one, but do you live in a small town?). The general pattern I've encountered has been that people don't tend to set out to find fandom, but happen across it due to their interest in a programme: even if you don't actually write away to the address on the back of the videos for fanclub information, you can develop a friendship with someone involved in fandom due to your shared interest, or else, if people don't actually physically encounter fans, they often buy sci-fi magazines with articles about their programme (which brings them conceptually into fandom). Maybe it varies internationally-- if anyone out there is reading this who'd care to come in, maybe they should? >>But just because you're not the only one to make an interpretation >>doesn't >>necessarily mean it has a factual basis. Quite a number of cultures >>independently concluded that the sun went around the Earth, after >>all. > >An individual perception of a fictional character isn't quite the >same >thing as an objective reality. In the latter, given two mutually >contradictory proposals, they can't both be true. In the former, >they can, >because there are as many different "realities" as there are >percipients. >The Blake who exists in my head is not the same as the one who >exists in >yours -- but they both have an equal claim to their "existence", >because we >each have a concept of the character. They came from the same root, >but >diverged when they reached us, the viewers, because we each >contribute a >different set of elements to the final picture. But in the "is slash canon" discussion, what we were all interested in, on all sides, was that root, and made as much effort as possible to keep the various offshoots out of the picture. >>Which appears to be the same one as yours, with one or two small >>differences > >I would have thought the differences were fairly radical, judging >from your >previous comments. We seem to have very different backgrounds and >approaches to the whole idea of watching a TV show. A small overlap >in the >highly specific area of B7 fandom (or some aspects thereof) is just >a >fragment of the whole social context, for either of us. But it's the context in which the discussion takes place. I think that we've both read if not actually participated in the same threads on Lysator (some of which deal with viewers and "readings" of B7); we may even read the same zines and pro-mags, and if not, probably very similar ones. So I suspect we've both been exposed to the same arguments. >>But how, that is the point? How? Is the look hostile? Cruisy? > >Well, since I've seen one look from one moment in the show being >given >diametrically opposed meanings by different viewers, I doubt whether >you're >going to get a unanimous decision about "how". An expression with >any >subtlety at all can be interpreted multiple ways even in real life, >let >alone when it's on a fictional character in a TV show. But as I've said, televison, like film and theatre, is of necessity more stylised than real life. In real life people don't speak with RADA accents, or make ersatz-gunslinger gestures when fighting, or continually respond to other people's remarks with ready quips, but these are particular visual and dialogic conventions in Western film to convey particular things (I know you like Eroica-- are you into anime too? Because if you've seen it, you'll notice that there are visual conventions in anime which look very strange and stylised to us, but which Japanese viewers don't remark on, because they're used to this set of visual conventions). Because of this, looks, touches etc. have to convey meanings. Whether this meaning is *well* conveyed or not depends on the actor, and on the familiarity of the viewer with the conventions in question (again, I suspect international differences sometimes come into play here-- in other fandoms, I have encountered American viewers who assumed a character was gay simply because the actor was English, and apparently his mannerisms as an Englishman conformed, totally by happenstance, to the visual conventions used for representing homosexuality on American televsion). >>Very probably, which makes me wonder why you want to rehash it all >>here. > >Er, I don't, which is why I didn't. Sorry, then-- I took the fact that you responded to my post as an invitation to discussion. >>for instance, Carnell and the staff officer, > >I never could figure out exactly what people are seeing there -- >it's one >of those instances which misses me completely. But interestingly, it's one of the ones for which we actually have documentary evidence that the look was intentional and *intended* to convey homosexual interest, given that Scott Fredericks has spoken about it later on, and how it got put into the story. >>To find visual or dialogic evidence from canon of a homosexual >>interest on >>the part of the principal characters of B7. > >Well, as I've said, or attempted to say, I see a lot of things which >I >would interpret that way. You probably wouldn't, and hence you would >not >consider them "evidence" Um, again, no. Betty and I, as I said, were keeping our interpretations out of it. When Betty brought up an example which could be construed as homoerotic, I didn't simply say "that's not evidence"--and similarly when I brought up a heteroerotic (?) example, she didn't simply dismiss it out of hand; we both looked at what was actually on the screen and discussed whether or not the scene as seen contained evidence of sexual interest, homo or hetero. When Betty convincingly pointed out, from onscreen evidence alone, that Blake and Inga could not have been having a sexual relationship, I didn't say "That's your opinion" or "Well, *I* sense sexual tension between them," I admitted that the onscreen evidence was for Betty. Likewise she did me the courtesy of treating my examples in the same way-- conceding when the evidence was for me, drawing the line when the evidence was inconclusive. , and hence I see no point in trying to >enumerate >them. The people who made the show probably didn't put them in with >that >intent. Nonetheless, that's how they appear to me. And I am not >claiming >anything more than that. In that case, fine :). >>And therefore, because you can't see my point of view, my argument >>isn't >>worth listening to? > >I have no idea where you got that, since it doesn't resemble >anything I've >said. I was expressing puzzlement because I didn't understand you, >and I >was getting an impression there might be some basic assumption >involved >that was being taken for granted, but which we didn't actually >share. I >still suspect that's the case. I think so, actually. You seem to have assumed that Betty and I were talking about interpreting the series, when in fact we were confining ourselves to onscreen evidence and visual convention, and I think we seem to have reached agreement on this now. >>But that isn't actually what you said. You said, and I quote, >>"there is no >>One True Way." > >No. What I wrote was an entire *sentence*, from which you have >extracted >one clause. To wit, and this is pasted directly from my original >message >(feel free to look it up if you don't believe me): I probably shouldn't belabour this, but it was that clause, not the sentence, that bothered me. Your sentiment is well appreciated, but that phrase *is* often used as a means of justifying inaction on particular issues. I don't believe that you yourself would justify that inaction, so it bothers me to see you using that phrase. >>I've been trying to stay civil, but frankly I don't much like being >>patronised. > >I wasn't being patronising; Erm, you said, "Thread over, thanks for playing." You didn't ask if *I* wanted to end the thread (and if you do, all you have to do is not answer). You did this shortly after invoking Godwin (which actually bothers me, because it suggests that Nazism cannot be discussed and considered as a historical example, which is IMO a dangerous thing to suggest as well as a stifling of discussion on a controversial subject). And as I said, it wasn't a "tactic." It was an example (I do admit that, since you didn't know about my professional life, you could have read it as a "tactic"-- I hope I've explained the association now). You may not have intended to come across as sounding like you were saying: "Nothing to discuss, take your toys now and go," but I'm afraid you did. Since you didn't intend this, then let's just take it as a simple misunderstanding. Fiona The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Available for public perusal at http://nyder.r67.net _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

3 2

Re: zine editing
by Steve Rogerson 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

Neil said: "the Steve and Paula Intoxication Fund for Fanfic Inspiration (SPIFFI) sounds like a worthy cause, to which I would have contributed at Redemption if I'd ever seen the zine actually on sale anywhere." Excellent idea. Maybe we'll call our next zine a Spiffi production. The zine was on sale at the bring 'n' buy sale as advertised and from Judith's stall in the dealers room on Saturday and Sunday. You can always buy one by post (hint, hint). -- cheers Steve Rogerson http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/steve.rogerson Redemption 03, 21-23 February 2003, Ashford, Kent The 25th Anniversary Blake's 7 Convention The 10th Anniversary Babylon 5 Convention http://www.smof.com/redemption

1 0

Re: [B7L] B7 Redux
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

In a message dated 3/28/01 8:05:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, rilliara(a)juno.com writes: << I was thinking of the reasons Crusade got cancelled, JMS _not_ wanting to turn it into another fight a week, special effects instead of plot type show. >> I don't doubt that might have been among his reasons; but the one I heard most was that circumstances simply made it impossible for him to get any further production of the series funded. Even the Sci-Fi Channel was eager to do the show; unfortunately, JMS approached them with the offer *after* they had already committed all their original production dollars to 4 new programs. Leah

1 0

Re: [B7L] Syndeton Experiment Review, part one
by J MacQueen 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

>From: "Fiona Moore" <nydersdyner(a)yahoo.co.uk> >3) that Paul Darrow's performance was one of the best things about the >production, It's a-Paul-ingly characterised, of course. Regards Joanne (going off to read the thing properly now, before I'm tempted to make any other comments) _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] reasons
by Fiona Moore 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

>From: Lisa Williams <lcw(a)dallas.net> >>Interesting! I'd be interested in discussing it further, but that >>would be >>getting well off topic. > >Well, there is always the spin list; that's the sort of thing it's >there for. True-- but one's time on earth is finite...:) >>Again, I can understand that but still do find it a little >>surprising >>(just out of curiosity, and I don't expect an answer if you don't >>want to >>give one, but do you live in a small town?). > >No; large metropolitan areas, all my life. That *is* interesting. Speaking from my own experience (I've lived in both) it seems easier to find fandom in large city (I even found it once without looking when visiting a large city for two days once-- wandered into a sci-fi bookshop and promptly got told about a con going on there-- I didn't go, but it was a bit disturbing :) ). But I don't know if that's the norm or not. >>The general pattern I've encountered has been that people don't >>tend to >>set out to find fandom, but happen across it due to their interest >>in a >>programme: > >That may well be the most common pattern; it just hasn't been mine. Dunno if it's the most common one at that; it's just what I've encountered the most, so I'm interested in finding out if it *is* more common. >I'm not >very social, and I tend to enjoy things on my own. A sentiment I can well appreciate. >>But in the "is slash canon" discussion, what we were all interested >>in, on >>all sides, was that root, > >I think the point (or *a* point) where I'm getting confused is that >I'm not >able to identify one of the two "sides" here. Who is claiming that >the >characters were *portrayed* as having homosexual inclinations Hang on, let me check the archive--what sparked the initial thread was post #44419, which started off being about "interpretation" but then got into whether or not certain characters give any "hints as to their sexuality," and it was the last bit that got siezed on :). Although something Dana said earlier regarding the "Duel" scene being "plain evidence" that B and A fancied each other sparked a similar discussion which got sidetracked. -- as >opposed >to being *perceived* as having them, by specific viewers? I admit >I've >heard that argument made once or twice, but it's a rare extreme in >my >experience. (I except those instances where we *do* have documentary >evidence that deliberate hints were being included -- they occur in >several >fandoms, even if not in this one.) When the average slash fan says >that she >can "see slash" in the canon, she's usually talking about >perception, not >deliberate portrayal. She's saying that her perceptions arise from >what she >saw and heard in the show, rather than being invented independently >of it >-- *not* that the folks making the show were trying to create that >impression. So, I'm not sure where the argument, and the need to go >tabulate gestures and expressions, is coming from. I think from a different discussion entirely. Fair enough then. >>(I know you like Eroica-- are you into anime too? Because if you've >>seen >>it, you'll notice that there are visual conventions in anime which >>look >>very strange and stylised to us, but which Japanese viewers don't >>remark on, > >No, I'm not into manga/anime fandom; just Eroica. (Western Eroica >fandom >draws its members from general manga/anime fans, from slash media >fans, and >a few who find their way in via Led Zeppelin. I'm in the second >group.) Which is why I asked-- just cos I've only encountered Eroica in anime/manga circles, but also figured that not everybody who liked it was necessarily into the whole package. >>But interestingly, it's one of the ones for which we actually have >>documentary evidence that the look was intentional and *intended* >>to >>convey homosexual interest, given that Scott Fredericks has spoken >>about >>it later on, and how it got put into the story. > >I know. But I still don't see it myself (and I've tried.) So, it >works both >ways -- what the folks on the far side of the screen are trying to >convey >may not get through to the viewer. And the viewer's own mental >processes >may derive meanings the creators of the material never thought of. Very true, for both. A similar case, of course, is the infamous Ben-Hur-subtext story... >I could probably find dozens of phrases in my own or anybody else's >writing >which would bother me if they were used in a totally different >context; >that is the nature of language. Nevertheless, I respond to them in >the >context where they occur, since that is where I have the best chance >of >picking up the author's meaning and I am genuinely trying to >understand, >and to be understood. Let's take the phrase again, in its context, then. <Either I see it, or I don't. I don't expect other people to regard things the same way I do, but I do expect them to realize that these are *fictional* characters and open to *multiple* interpretations, no single one of which is the One True Way.> This comment was made in regard to Betty's and my argument-from-canon postings. Now, both of us, as I said, were keeping our interpretations as much out of the picture as possible, and neither of us were particularly making any claims to our own interpretations being the One True Way. We were, however, taking the premise that there is a "reality," i.e. the canon, and I think we're both agreed that as far as canon is concerned the situation is *not* anything-goes; one can't see what's not on the screen. And that as far as interpretations of characters are concerned, there are some that are closer to what's on the screen than others. So to say that all interpretations are equally valid (which is what the phrase "....no single one of which is the One True Way" does suggest) is actually not true within the context of arguing from the canon. > Twisting someone's words to try to make it >appear she >was saying, or advocating, something she wasn't is generally a >baiting >tactic intended to shut down any meaningful exchange, and I don't >play that >game. If that isn't what you had in mind, fine, but I would >appreciate what >I say being taken in the context where *I* put it and not in any of >the >thousands of other contexts where someone, somewhere, might happen >to use >the same words. I hate to say this, but using the phrase "twisting someone's words" is also a baiting tactic. If that isn't how you meant it, fine, but please use different language. And I *have* quoted that phrase in its context now, and analysed it, and discussed how its usage in the context might in fact be analogous to other areas in which some "ways" are more justifiable than others. >>invoking Godwin (which actually bothers me, because it suggests >>that >>Nazism cannot be discussed and considered as a >>historical example, > >On-topic references to Nazism as part of an historical discussion >are not >generally considered to be covered by Godwin; What about sociological or political discussions? > the law is concerned >with >invidious and off-topic comparisons to Hitler/Nazis used as a >baiting >tactic. (And before some Usenet pedant gets after me, yes, I *know* >Godwin's Law itself doesn't say anything about the discussion ending >-- >it's one of the numerous corollaries, whose name I forget, which >says that >once such a comparison has been made, the signal-to-noise ratio of >the >thread will rapidly approach zero. And yet another corollary which >says >that such threads will usually divert into (1) an all-out flame war, >(2) a >discussion of Nazism, or (3) a discussion of Godwin's Law.) Heh. However, I'm rapidly coming to think that there's *no* law about behaviour on the Internet that can't be disproved... so I'm going to try and avoid all three options here :). ObB7: On the age thread--Servalan always seems to me to be pretty young to be Supreme Commander, let alone President. She may, of course, be older than she looks (anti-aging treatments?) or else the Federation's answer to JFK... Fiona The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Enduring for a thousand years at http://nyder.r67.net _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

2 1

Re: [B7L] zine editing (back to images again, I fear)
by Tavia 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

Shane wrote: >I don't think you can really separate actor and the characters they play >(Usually for many actors, just a variation on the same theme) This might be true of some people, but I tend to see character and not actor. For example, Kristin Scott Thomas might well be my favourite actress. I happened to see her starring in two films on two adjacent days (Angels & Insects and Richard III) and honestly didn't realise till the credits in either case that it had been her. I also distinctly remember watching the BBC production of The Bell which, according to Judith's bio, showed in January 1982, just after the first run of B7 finished, without noticing Gareth Thomas -- who from the photo looked pretty Blake-like. Tavia

1 0

Re: canon
by Fiona Moore 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

>From: Steve Rogerson <steve.rogerson(a)mcr1.poptel.org.uk> > >Fiona said: "In the case of Doctor Who, for instance, the >original series was produced by the BBC, as was a spinoff story. These are >generally accepted as canon. However, there are also a number of spoofs, >parodies and sendups, ranging from "Curse of the Fatal Death" through to >sketches by Lenny Henry and the League of Gentlemen. These were also >produced by the BBC, and yet anybody attempting to claim them as canon would >be laughed off the stage." > >Don't you believe it. Dr Who magazine ran a debate in its letters column about >whether Curse of the Fatal Death and the crossover one with Eastenders should be >regarded as canon, and it has been seriously debated at Dr Who conventions. Yes, one of the letters in that debate was mine. However, two years on, opinion seems to be shifting rather, and the last time the question came up that I'm aware of the answer was skillfully avoided. But still, I've yet to see a serious attempt to claim for canon the Lenny Henry sketch, Doctor Eyes, or the League of Gentlemen's DW sketches (well, Steve Lyons and Chris Howarth make a vague attempt to claim that they're as canonical, but they were just taking the mick). >Fiona said: "I'm still interested to know what was said to make them canon, other >than >their being made by the BBC (see above for why this need not count)." > >That was it really. The over-riding argument that makes them canon is that they >are official BBC Blake's 7 productions broadcast over the BBC network. Ahhh, so Logic of Empire (which had the blessing of Vere Lorrimer and Chris Boucher) *is* canon, then. I can rest more easily now :)... Incidentally, though, there's a number of blooper clips that have gone out on the BBC network, in BBC productions. By this logic, they're canon too-- although how you'd explain the discrepancy between the episode and the blooper clip would be very interesting to hear. >I see on a later post that Una claims the Curse of the Fatal Death to be canon - >doesn't that mean we have now run oput of doctors. Another reason not to consider it canon :(. Fiona The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Regenerating twelve times at http://nyder.r67.net _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

← Newer
1
...
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
...
107
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

Blakes7 March 2001