Blakes7 May 2001

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

84 participants
897 discussions

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

17 May '01

> > 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. > 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. > Therefore what the writer says goes. And what the actor says, goes out. 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, but still said I'm wrong. Just so you know. steve

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: Limiters in general
by Steve Kilbane 17 May '01

17 May '01

> > >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? It's unnecessary. > 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. > > > > > 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? > You put up another theory and I'll tear it to shreds. Sigh. You haven't been paying attention, have you? > > >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. > 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. > 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: 1. I am not disagreeing with your conclusions about Gan. You might be right, or wrong. I don't particularly care. 2. I *am* objecting to your approach of presenting your own theory as undeniable truth, without admitting that it inherently rests on supposition, and without admitting that the supposition is based on a body of information that has multiple valid starting points for analysis. steve

1 0

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

17 May '01

> > 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." If that declaration isn't in there, then you're not necessarily correct. > I think I know. I.e., it's just your opinion. > >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. > > > > 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? 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. > 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. > > > 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. 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. > And Kayne says he is a psychopath. So? I'm not disagreeing. Still has no effect on what you know about the limiter. > 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. > 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. steve

1 0

Re: [B7L] Jenny's Episode Reviews: Space Fall
by Leslie Clifford 16 May '01

16 May '01

On Wed, 16 May 2001, "Jenny Kaye" wrote: > So to sum up, in Leylan and Raiker we get what looks like a straightforward > comment on the banality of evil, which turns out to be something more > complex. And to think I thought it was just a straightforward character introduction vehicle/Mutiny on the Bounty pastiche. Damn you, Jenny, now I've got to go back and watch it all again! Really liked the review, btw. Actually I've liked all the reviews so far. Keep it up the pair of you! >This show has low > production values The one thing I don't like here is all the production-knocking. Come on, let's have some kudos for the people doing the best they can under frankly unenviable circumstances! Leslie

2 1

Re: [B7L] Re: script changes
by Sally Manton 16 May '01

16 May '01

Helen wrote: <I recall reading something about Chris Boucher admitting and explaining why some characters(actors) got all the good lines. With so little time for shooting, they couldn't do a lot of reshoots. Some actors delivered their lines word for word. Others did not. Naturally, the writers began to skew the scripts more and more to the people who would give the line as written. I believe that Paul Jackson> David Jackson, actually, :-) but the point is correct. <was one of the ones not happy with the amount and quality of his lines. Logic suggests (but does not dictate), that writer and script editor were less than happy with his precision.> 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 ... It's something of a vicious circle, isn't it? Some characters get the better lines early on, so they become more interesting, so the later writers are more interested in them and keep giving them the better lines ... _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Knightwriter Press
by Julia Jones 16 May '01

16 May '01

Please note that Linda Knight of Knightwriter Press has been hospitalised after a serious car accident. Arrangements are in hand to deal with outstanding zine orders and transfer agenting arrangements to the Waveney online shop, but they'll take a few days to sort out. The notice posted on the website is given below - Richard asked me to copy it here. Feel free to pass this on to any other relevant mailing lists for the fandoms Linda agents/publishes in. ******* Important Notice 13 May '01 - Linda and her sister Lil were in their car when it was hit by a logging truck. They've been in hospital for the last ten days, but should be home soon. Linda was still recovering from a previous admission to hospital when the accident happened, so it may take her a long time to recover fully. If you'd like to send a Get Well card, the address is PO Box 429, Maple Falls, WA 98266-0429, USA - please don't send zine queries with your card - the idea is to help her feel better, not worse! A friend will be looking after them for a while and helping with orders for Knightwriter zines, but please have patience as it will obviously take a while for her to get used to things. Linda asks me to reassure people that all orders will be filled, and e- mails replied to, but that she will need a few weeks to catch up even when she's out of hospital as she won't be able to do much work. For the time being, please place all zine orders via Waveney as we'll be looking after the paperwork side of things and arranging for the mailing of zines published by everyone except Knightwriter. Richard Proctor (Webmaster) Waveney website: http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7/Shop/Start1.cgi -- Julia Jones "Science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. It is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - The Science of Discworld

1 0

Re: script changes
by Helen Krummenacker 16 May '01

16 May '01

> We are talking about B7 here. During that period the writer was king. Terry > Nation created the series, he wrote the entire first season. It was script > edited by Chris Boucher. > I recall reading something about Chris Boucher admitting and explaining why some characters(actors) got all the good lines. With so little time for shooting, they couldn't do a lot of reshoots. Some actors delivered their lines word for word. Others did not. Naturally, the writers began to skew the scripts more and more to the people who would give the line as written. I believe that Paul Jackson was one of the ones not happy with the amount and quality of his lines. Logic suggests (but does not dictate), that writer and script editor were less than happy with his precision. (Nonetheless, Paul Jackson was very talented, especially if he knew the character was playing the double-game indicated in previous discussion. I've been in acting classes and some of the best people were not great memorizers.)

1 0

Message style
by Steve Rogerson 16 May '01

16 May '01

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 in my opinion the style of your posts is the most offensive and arrogant I have ever seen on this list, and that's saying something given the number of years I've been here. -- cheers Steve Rogerson http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/steve.rogerson Redemption 03, 21-23 February 2003, Ashford, Kent Celebrating 25 years of Blake's 7 and 10 years of Babylon 5 http://www.smof.com/redemption

1 0

Re: Space Fall
by Tavia 16 May '01

16 May '01

A few other points to add to Iain W and Jenny's interesting and informative posts. 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? 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. The role of women. I'm quite surprised that there are no special provisions for female prisoners. Are there usually no women transported? Or do the Administration simply not care what happens en route and under their guardianship? It's also interesting that Jenna is sent over to the Liberator (and a high assumed probability of death) with the two men without any comment either from Leylan or, for that matter, from Blake. 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. 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). Tavia

2 1

Re: [B7L] Blake (was re: Limiters in general)
by Jenny Kaye 16 May '01

16 May '01

Honey Bunny "Sally Manton" wrote: > >Which of course begs the question touched on above ... turning the end of > >'Blake' around, if one of his own had betrayed him and he *did* decide he > >had to kill them - how would he react? See Trial if you want to find out. Pumpkin _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

← Newer
1
...
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
...
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