Blakes7 May 2001

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

84 participants
897 discussions

Re: [B7L] We can't *all* be geniuses
by Jenny Kaye 17 May '01

17 May '01

Steve Kilbane wrote > > > Steve Kilbane wrote > > > > > > > >Me, then Jenny. > > > > > > That > > > > > > > >makes "correct" something that can be difficult to pin down. > > > > > > > > > > > > Not at all. B7 was production line TV not a film. In a lot of > >films > > > > >things > > > > > > are changed all the time. Why do you think Live and Let Die is so > >full > > > > >of > > > > > > holes? But not in TV. You compare an original script with the > >version > > > > >you > > > > > > see on TV and the changes will be minimal. > > > > > > > > > >You've just agreed that that the product process has an effect, and > >that > > > > >the writer's vision isn't the only one. > > > > > > Only in your head Steve. > > > >And in your words quoted above, where you admit there will be change in > >the process of producing a TV programme. A minimal change. Read it again. > > > The way an actor says something, the way a director > > > wants them to say it, the visual design all have an effect, but they > >don't > > > change the script. > > > >But they can change the meaning of it. The script might say "I agree", > >but whether the actor says it in a sincere or sarcastic tone affects the > >meaning of the word, as presented to the viewer. If the director doesn't like how the actor does it, s/he will ask the actor to redo the scene. The director tells the actor how to do it, and puts the audience right. And if the director doesn't then the context of the scene, if it is an important point, will put the audience right. Who will then think, "What a lousy actor..." > > > Therefore what the writer says goes. > > > >And what the actor says, goes out. Um. This is an actors' beef. They like to think that they have some control. Some directors treat actors like puppets and actors don't like that. So the viewer is free to interpret > >the actor's presentation, or the dry words of the script (which may > >convey no tone at all in direction, hence being even more ambiguous). > > > > > Which means you've got at least > > > > >two versions of correct > > > > > > No. You have one version of correct. > > > >1. Script. > >2. Actor's intonation. > > > >Generally speaking, accepted values of 1 do not equal accepted values > >of 2. > > > > > He may emphasise the line in a particular way. This does not modify the > > > line. > > > >It can modify the meaning of the line. That's what actors are paid to > >do. Otherwise, it's cheaper to not employ them at all, and just display > >the script on the screen. > > > > > to paraphrase you, one changes > > > > >a lot, while the other changes a little. > > > > > > Scriptwise. > > > > > So they both involve change. So > > > > >there are multiple viewpoints to start from. > > > > > > Wrong again Steve. > > > >That's two cases, in one post, where you've agreed with me, Wrong again Steve. > >but still said I'm wrong. You are wrong. > >Just so you know. I do know. You're wrong. Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: Space Fall
by Jenny Kaye 17 May '01

17 May '01

Tavia wrote: > >Avon -- Nova. > >I'm surprised no-one's yet brought this one up. Personally I reckon it's > >possible it's just coincidence (I managed to write simultaneously a B7 > >story involving a woman named Lexa and a non-B7 story involving one in a > >similar role called Alex without noticing the similarity of name). Is Nova > >intended to symbolise the light side of Avon, or something? I think he's meant to be an opposite, yes. > >Time and chance happen to them all. > >The deaths of Nova and Raiker suggest that this is not going to be a > >simplistic series, where either good or evil triumphs in every episode. The > >Liberator conveniently turning up like that can only be put down to luck. Interesting isn't it? There are two takes. The first is that many rebels have been transported and this is the story about one who got a ship. Or secondly, you take The Logic of Empire view that Blake has been set up by the Federation to escape. That the Federation wants, in fact *needs* an enemy, and Blake has been set up to fulfil that role. > >The role of women. > >I'm quite surprised that there are no special provisions for female > >prisoners. Are there usually no women transported? I've covered this in my Leylan/Raiker analysis, but basically the London is carrying a cargo of very dangerous prisoners. Women don't usually get done for rape and serial killing. It happens, but not often. And there are provisions for female prisoners. Raiker's bed. > >The Liberator as a 'magic' object. > >I've mentioned this before in context of B7 as science fiction vs fantasy, > >but it's my contention that the Liberator bears more resemblance to the > >magic object of fantasy than the logical object of science fiction. You are right. It does. It > >turns up when required, obeys the command of the hero alone (Blake being > >able to counter the defence device), is first described as 'fantastic', > >'unbelievable', 'strange' and 'beautiful' (twice), and confers almost > >supernatural powers (a ship like this could go anywhere). Yes, you are right. Excellent email. Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] Message style
by Jenny Kaye 17 May '01

17 May '01

Steve Rogerson wrote: > >Jenny said in response to Leia: "Ah, right here we have the tried and > >tested formula of attacking the style not the content." > > > >Not speaking for Leia, But adopting exactly the same strategy I note. Timing's interesting too... but in my opinion the style of your posts is the > >mostoffensive and arrogant I have ever seen on this list, and that's saying > >something > >given the number of years I've been here. Groovy. One tries to do ones best. You're just mad that I said Jenna wasn't a lesbian, aren't you? Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] the limits of parody
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 17 May '01

17 May '01

Deja vu. Welcome back, Shane. How are things over at Zenith?

1 0

Re: [B7L] Debate and Dead Horses
by Jenny Kaye 17 May '01

17 May '01

Leia Fee writes: > > >I think you've actually been on this lyst before. > > > >Now I'm completely baffled. What's new? > > > > >I note that you don't state which ones, and also use the word > > >"interesting" not the word "convincing", or the word "compelling". > > > >Exactly. > > > > >what you are doing is trying to extract yourself from a debate which > > >you know you can not win. > > > >Again quite right. For me this is not a contest. > > > > >I'll tell you something else this email reveals. You are a long term B7 > > >fan. > > > >Hence my participation in a B7 mailing list perchance? Could be! A pro keeps it simple. > > >And you've either been directly in contact with other fans or you have > > >been on this lyst before. I think it's both. > > > >If anyone can explain what Jenny is getting at here I'd love to know. It means that you are of the same mindset as quite a number of other people on here. Congratulations! > > I am quite baffled. You don't have to keep telling me that. I know. > > > >I know some B7 fans on Compuserve, I went to Redemption to play with > >them... I found this list through a link from the Redemption website to > >Judith's page after someone, I forget who, mentioned it's existence to me > >at Redemption. There you go then. > > > >Jenny if by disagreeing with you and wanting to acknowledge that we have > >irreconcilable viewpoints Why irreconcilable, aren't you willing to be convinced? > >I have somehow offended you further I apologise Thank you. > >but I assure you there's no more to it than that. Never said there was. Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] We can't *all* be geniuses
by Jenny Kaye 17 May '01

17 May '01

You again????? Steve Kilbane wrote > > > Steve Kilbane wrote: > > > > > > > >Me, then Jenny: > > > > > > > >And as I've stated elsewhere, this is not guaranteed. > > > > > > > > > > > > But it can't be ruled out either. > > > > > > > > > >Agreed. It's a possibility. It's also *less* likely as a possibility > > > > >than possibility that it causing random failures. So don't treat it > > > > >as an immutable fact. > > > > > > You are wrong. It is an immutable fact. > > > >Well, you've just agreed that it's not guaranteed, which makes it a > >strange immutable fact. But just to clear this up, exactly *where* in > >the script does someone say: > > > > "Gan's limiter has stopped working, and his behaviour is now > > exactly as it was before the limiter was fitted." It's in the series subtext. > >If that declaration isn't in there, then you're not necessarily correct. No. It just means that you don't understand subtexts. > > > I think I know. > > > >I.e., it's just your opinion. No. It is an immutable fact. > > > >From then on, to the point where an expert in the field > > > > > > > >declares > > > > > > > >that it's fixed, all bets are off. > > > > > > And what bets would these be then? > > > >Those on any behaviour of Gan's being in any way related to his > >behaviour before the limiter was implanted. You remember - the > >same thing I've been talking about in this thread. Just about. But you do gad about so... > > > > > > An expert who declares Gan a psychopath. > > > > > > > > > >Irrelevant to the reliability of the limiter, before he fixes it. > > > > > > Why are you playing these games? > > > >Sorry, which games? As I thought. You have no game plan at all. I'm just sticking to one tiny, little aspect, which > >is the amount of certainty the viewer can have over the behaviour of the > >limiter, while it's not functioning correctly. I'm just disregarding > >anything that does not directly affect that one tiny, little, aspect. It's the double game Steve, that the writers are playing. But if you take something out of its context, you can make it mean anything you like. > > > We know when the limiter malfunctions, we > > > know what happened before, we know what happens after. Surely we're > > > intelligent enough to infer from what we see. > > > >But, in terms of the limiter's behaviour in the middle, we don't "see" > >anything, because no-one gives us a clear definition of what it's doing, > >while broken. Ever wondered why? > > > > > All you *can* say, reliably, is that > > > > > > > >you can't trust what's going on in there, because there's an > > > unknown > > > > > > factor > > > > > > > >that *might* be influencing things in an unpredictable manner. > > > > > > > > > > > > That's absolutely right. But only right in the sense in which it > > > relates > > > > >to > > > > > > that particular episode. > > > > > > > > > > > >Only in the sense that you can't reliably infer anything from Gan's > > > > >behaviour > > > > >during the majority of that episode. > > > > > > Actually you can. > > > >Well, you've agreed above that there's an unknown factor that might be > >influencing factors in an unpredictable manner. No I didn't. If you're willing to base > >anything on something that unknown, then feel free. It's a flawed > >equation, but if it makes you happy, go ahead. You're talking bollocks again Steve. > > > And Kayne says he is a psychopath. > > > >So? I'm not disagreeing. Still has no effect on what you know about the > >limiter. Yes it does. > > > So let's discount it as a episode > > > > >contributing towards or against any theory about Gan's character, > >shall > > > we? > > > > > > So you're saying that an episode focused on Gan says nothing about his > > > character? > > > >No, I'm saying that for the majority of this particular episode, it's > >unfair to consider Gan's behaviour to be any indication of what his > >behaviour was like, before the limiter was inserted. Well, we'll see. When this lyst has reached Breakdown, I'll do an analysis of the subtext and see what I can come up with. > > > Oh well, then, I guess Rumours of Death reveals nothing about > > > Avon either. > > > >Depends. Tell me where it says Avon's got a piece of metal in his head that > >might be messing around with his brain functions for most of it, and I'll > >concede that those sections of the episode cannot be used as reliable > >indicators. What colour is the sky on your planet Steve? Deliberately misunderstanding a point isn't answering it. Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: Limiters in general
by Jenny Kaye 17 May '01

17 May '01

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!! Steve Kilbane wrote: > > > > > >Sorry, no. Saying it does, doesn't work, either. See Popper. > > > > > > > > I have evidence, see my emails, or is that too much trouble for you as > > >well? I've read them. You're wrong. > > > > Which means that you are trying to use a very dangerous mind >controlling > > > > technique on me. > > > > > >What, asking you to recognise the difference between known facts, > > >supposition, and theories? Or just sticking to the point when you go > > >off on a tangent? Such as this: > > > > > > > And guess what? It's been used on you as well. Now the > > > > question is: Does it mean that there is someone, or a group of > > >someone's, > > > > using mind control techniques on this lyst to condition us? Or does it > > >mean > > > > that you have all inadvertently conditioned yourselves? > > > > I think it's both. > > > > > > > > Next question: Does it mean that there is a very dangerous subtext > > >contained > > > > in some episodes of B7 which if read incorrectly can have a >conditioning > > > > effect? Or is it a social conditioning mechanism natural to human > > >beings? I > > > > think it's both. > > > > > > > > BTW I am not taking about a conscious conspiracy theory here. In fact > > >I'm > > > > not talking about a conspiracy at all. I'm talking about human nature. > >This isn't going off the subject at a tangent. That is the subject. > > > > > > > > > > > > > But there are no others that do this and fit all the "facts." > > > > > > > > > > > >You can't know that. See Popper, again. > > > > > > > > Bollocks to Popper. > > > > > >Does that mean you disagree with Popper on verification of theories, or > > >just haven't got a clue what I'm talking about, but don't want to admit >it? Britannica.com: "Austrian-born British philosopher (b. July 28, 1902, Vienna, Austria-Hungary--d. Sept. 17, 1994, Croydon, Surrey, England), believed that knowledge--particularly scientific knowledge--evolves from individual experience and cannot be verified through inductive reasoning. Popper postulated that since no one can ever observe and verify all possible evidence to prove a scientific hypothesis correct, it is necessary only to discover one observed exception to the hypothesis to prove it false." Have you found an observed exception to my hypothesis, Steve? > > > > You put up another theory and I'll tear it to shreds. > > > > > >Sigh. You haven't been paying attention, have you? Ooooh. Handbag again! I always pay attention Steve when someones got something interesting to say. > > > > > >If you like. It's irrelevant, but you can be reminded of it, if you > > >like. > > > > > > > > Oh dear. You can't have it both ways you know. It can't be both >relevant > > >and > > > > irrelevant. > > > > > >It's not both. What you are reminded of, when I make a point, is >irrevelant > > >to whether my point is correct. The two are entirely unrelated. You're wrong again. Not your year is it? > > > > Look Steve if I'm wrong about Gan then there will be a great many >holes > > >in > > > > my theory. And we'll call it a theory for the moment. Instead of >trying > > >to > > > > attack my intelligence or my technique, try and attack the theory I am > > > > putting forward. > > > > > >"Or technique"? If you stated that you'd worked something out by reading > > >tea leaves, the line of reasoning would be understandably called into > > >question. Oooooooooh. Double handbag! You're the one grasping at straws Steve. Remember, attacking someone's posting style is an admission that you can't attack their argument. > > > > And if your are brave enough, put your own Gan theory > > > > forward as well. Then we'll see what is "mutually agreeable". > > > > > >Like I said, you haven't been paying attention. So I'll be clear: > Why break a habit of a life time? > > >1. I am not disagreeing with your conclusions about Gan. Good. Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: script changes
by Steve Kilbane 17 May '01

17 May '01

> Helen wrote: > Yes, both of these bits - the fact that Chris said he did give more and > better lines to the actors who stuck to what he wrote, *and* the story about > David Jackson pointing out how few lines he got on one script - are on the > same 'Blake's Back' tape, close enough together that one can suspect they're > connected in his view <veg>. But it does appear that he at least ran out of > ideas on what to *do* with Gan ... When he was speaking at Deliverance, I got the impression that it was what to do with Gan that caused the dearth of lines, rather than the quality of delivery. That's merely my impression, and based on a hazy memory at best, although I do know that Gan was specifically named as being a character that ran out of lines (for whatever reason), while he didn't name actors that got fewer lines because of their delivery. (Again, I might be mis-remembering). This made me wonder whether it was the reason that Jenna and Cally got pushed to the side, but that's entirely my own thought. Of course, if you all come along to Redemption '03, then you can *ask* him. :-) steve

2 1

Re: [B7L] Re: script changes
by Sally Manton 17 May '01

17 May '01

Steve K wrote: <Of course, if you all come along to Redemption '03, then you can *ask* him. :-)> Yes, well, I'm *am* seriously considering it ... _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] Truth
by Sally Manton 17 May '01

17 May '01

Ellynne wrote re Rosencrantz and Guildenstern: <Although, did anyone actually take their pulse anywhere in the play . . .?> Now now, Ellynne, that's my standard argument re *Blake* Not Being Dead, remember? <g?> <I have no idea what this all means in terms of B7 except that there may be a culture out there that saw everything Avon and Blake did as totally reasonable and even warm and fuzzy.> I've seen it in fanfic, truly. I still have an affection for the story where Avon had agoraphobia and Blake - with stalwart support from Vila and Gan - helped him get over it with group hugs and manly bonding (and no I am not making this up :-)). _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

← Newer
1
...
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
...
90
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 May 2001