Blakes7

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

5511 discussions

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

Truth
by Ellynne G. 17 May '01

17 May '01

Jenny Kaye wrote >Ellynne G.wrote > > > >1) The exact same story really can vary in meaning to different people. >Yes Dr Havant. > >I've had to believe this ever since someone trying to prove this told a > >rather long joke. At the end, everyone laughed. When asked why they > >laughed, the men said it was because it was the milkman. The women said, > >"Because he's dead!" >Perhaps s/he didn't get the joke and was just laughing because everyone else >was, and then when pressed had to come up with something. Unless you print >the joke that story is pretty useless. My apologies. I've somehow felt the punchline summarized it so well. And, since I've given it away, I don't know that telling it will help, but here goes - A woman goes into labor and her husband takes her to the hospital. The doctors hand him this little dial with settings from one to one hundred. It's the latest in pregnancy pain relief technology that allows the father to share some of the pain. Setting 1 is 1%, etc, on up to 100%. The guy, scared to death what will happen, sets it to 1. Well, that's not to bad, so he sets it to 2. Still Ok, so he sets it a little higher. Before long, he has it up to 100, still feeling perfectly fine. When he and his wife come home, the milkman is dead on the floor. There were about 20 people present when the joke was tole and, when polled, we gave the reasons stated. But why stop there? This is a common element of folklore - the same story means different things to different people. It _has_ to. It's how cultures survive. The stories that help teach alter with what needs to be taught. Or apply it to your personal experience. Aren't there events in your life that you think of with different meanings according to circumstance? The first meeting with a boyfriend may mean one thing when you like him, a different thing when you break up, and something else entirely when you look back on it forty years down the road. Or ever read A Light in the Forest? Two Indians traveling through a colonial village and trying to be friendly tell a joke where the punchline is about a settler being outsmarted by an Indian. The meaning to them is humor and friendly overture, if a bit insensitive. The meaning to the villagers is potential threat and suspicion (it leads to one of the Indians being suspected of a crime and being killed). To a white friend of theirs, it's a red flare that trouble is on the way. > >2) If you really do believe there can only ever be one right > >interpretation, I can help. It's mine. There, doesn't that make life > >easier for you? >Yes it does for me because I know you're wrong. Ah, knowledge. An interesting concept. Is this like the conundrum that starts all Martians are liars? Or the one where A is 'B is true' and B is 'A is false'? If I know I am right and you know I am wrong then the average velocity of a swallow is . . . . > >3) In keeping with the above, I'm sure we all agree the version of Hamlet > >with zombies was definitive, right? >In your head it probably is. For those who haven't heard me belabor this one before, there's a great essay called (I think) Shakespeare in the Bush, written by an anthropologist working in Africa. Before one trip out to live with a particular tribe, she got into a rather similar argument with another anthropologist about Hamlet. She was of the opinion that there can only be _one_ right interpretation of Hamlet. The friend told her to take a copy along and study it, assuring her time with this tribe would change her mind. Without belaboring the cultural side effects of the rainy season, she had a lot of time to read Hamlet and was more and more convinced there could be only one right reading - until the day she was asked to share the story with the villagers. Now, the important point is there was never any argument about _what_ happened. The difference of opinion was over _meaning_. In their culture, the brother became the new chief before the son. It was also the brother's duty to marry the brother's widow and support her. So much for motivation. Then came the 'ghost' scene - only their culture didn't have ghosts. For Hamlet to see someone he couldn't touch had only one meaning - a witch was creating an illusion (since Horatio had already had been identified as 'a man who knew things' [a term for a scholar but also for a witch], there was no doubt who was behind it]). Of course, there could be only one logical reason. Horatio knew Hamlet's dad had been murdered but lacked the necessary resources to take on the chief directly, so he picked this indirect means of telling Hamlet (and standing around offering opinions in case Hamlet was a little slow on interpretation). But, after this, Hamlet goes insane. Now, there were only two things that these people considered causes for insanity one was 'seeing the dark things in the forest' (the anthropologist said this was something Hamlet definitly didn't do) and being under a curse by a witch, obviously Hamlet's uncle who did this to keep him from taking his revenge. Polonius was, from start to finish, a real idiot in their eyes. For one thing, outsiders had little status in their culture and the family would only profit from Ophelia's association with Hamlet. For another, he had this bizarre urge to test the obvious like whether Hamlet was really insane. As for Polonius' death, this was a hunting culture. If you heard something in the bush, you cried out 'game' or whatever specific animal you thought it was. If it was George, it was his responsibility to yell out and tell you you were about to kill a human. So, Hamlet behaved perfectly reasonably when he cried out "A rat!" before striking. Of course, Polonius _did_ cry out, but Hamlet was insane from the king's spell and not responsible when it didn't register. So, Hamlet's sent away and then _Ophelia goes insane_! Who would put a spell on her? Why? Well, Laertes. Duh. With his dad dead, Laertes (who was warned to cut back on the wild living) needs money, fast. He can't do the normal thing in their culture, get Ophelia married and collect a hefty bride price, because everyone knows Hamlet, the future chief, is interested in her. His best option is to kill her and sell her body to the witches. This conclusion was clearly born out by later events. First, Ophelia drowns - and you could _only_ drown if there was a spell on you (people pour water down their throats all the time with no harm. If it kills you, that's proof of supernatural interference). Second, there's the whole funeral scene. Laertes, sick puppy that he is, _jumps into his sister's grave_ and then _tries to grab her body_. Need I say he is obviously up to no good? Luckily, Hamlet stops him (which is why Laertes wanted to kill Hamlet. Thanks to him, he killed his sister for _nothing_). The king arranges a fight between them, meaning to poison whoever wins (since a witch who can kill his own sister is a serious rival). > >And, in case anyone has any doubts, let me point out that Rosencrantz and > >Guildenstern _are_ dead. >Not at the beginning of the play. Well, that part was facetious. Although, did anyone actually take their pulse anywhere in the play . . . ? 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. Also, I'm getting more and more sympathy for Vila and his failed attempts to defuse conflict with humor. Ellynne ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

1 0

Re: [B7L] Message style
by Pherber＠aol.com 17 May '01

17 May '01

Steve, to Jenny: > 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. Agreed. This has usually been a civilized list - I wonder what's brought out the trolls lately... Nina

1 0

Re: [B7L] Episode review - space fall
by Jenny Kaye 17 May '01

17 May '01

"Iain Walker" wrote: > > > >Gan is the next crewmember we see, standing in profile in front of Blake > >and Jenna (so we just know he will be involved somehow ;-)). Well spotted. > >Once again we are told of the societal decay (prevalent in late 70's UK) by > >the captain of the London when he says in a very resigned way "nobody > >bothers anymore." This attitude was also shown by the computer technician > >in TWB who is quite happy to be listening to music instead of working. To be fair though, bastard though he was, that computer technician may not have any work to do. Just because a Night Watchman watches TV it doesn't mean that he's lazy :-) > >Finally we get to see Avon for the first time. Interestingly, Vila already > >knows Avon (or at least knows about him). But we never get another hint of > >backstory for these two. There doesn't need to be a backstory. Avon is of interest to Vila because Avon is a thief too, but on a much larger scale. Vila is clearly impressed by the scale of Avon's fraud in their first scene together, Avon however is contemptuous of Vila. He considers him to be just a petty thief. Vila certainly becomes Avons only friend (even > >before Blake leaves, they are good pals who do naughty things together > >like secretly going out gambling), and visa-versa (well . until a certain > >episode in season 4 .). Avon tolerates Vila, and realises that he has certain skills that are useful. That's all. > >(actually, its the civil administration - maybe the prison ships owners are > >on contract to the CA and the contract allows the ship to use CA > >authority?) Who knows? However there is no evidence in the episode to support this nice bit of conjecture :-) > >is on a fixed price contract to run the prison ship. There is speculation > >that their bodies could just be dumped in space and the company just > >pockets he cash. So there must be some sort of system of checks and balances > >here - i.e. the federation does not like to get ripped off - it wants the > >services it has paid for, otherwise this is exactly what they would do. One of the reasons they don't do it because they haven't got a top line engineer to fake the running log. Also I think doing such a thing is a bit too wild for Leylan. > >Another good bit for Jenna is that she can tell that the drives for the > >ship need repair That's true. (too bad that in later episodes she looses all this knowledge > >about space flight :-(). Does she? When? > >The criminals on this ship are all pasty faced middle aged guys none of > >whom look like a menace to society! But it could all be the suppressant drugs. It is, and also the surveillance cameras and the armed guards. > >Maybe this is a ship full of guys who pulled banking scams or insurance > >fraudsters. It is a ship of serial rapists, murderers, paedophiles etc. This is the last stop for them. Many of them would have personality disorders. > >Time zooms by in this episode That's true. because Blake tells Avon he has had four > >months to think about his plan to fake the running log. (did they avoid the food and water for four months to not be drugged? This doesn't make sense > >to me). So they must have done something else. They had to eat and drink, but when it came to taking action they would stop eating and drinking some hours before. The timeline in this episode is hard to follow - but I take this > >to imply that the London is near the end of its flight at this time (which > >means something is wrong later in the episode!). No. When Blake's revolt takes place, the ship still has 4 months of its 8 month journey to go according to the bit where Blake is talking to Avon about the running log; the rest of the episode takes place in real time. The best explanation I've come up with is that the "negative hyperspace" in "Cygnus Alpha" is a form of time travel (notice that the scenes on the London in Cygnus Alpha take place 4 months after the events of Space Fall, but the ones on the Liberator seem to be contemporaneous with Space Fall, up untill the point when Jenna presses the button and then the timelines catch up with each other). The author has done this for two, possibly three reasons. 1/ He wants to keep the contact between the three on Liberator fresh. 2/ If the London was just hours away from Cygnus Alpha when the Liberator flew away, then Leylan would suspect that Blake would return to Cygnus Alpha to pick up a crew. Also there would be no reason why Blake could then just blast the empty prison ship to space dust. Leylan therefore would not have dropped the prisoners off. He would have kept them as his insurance. 3/ It may have been Nation's intention that this "Time Jump Facility" would appear again in another episode, but for various reasons it didn't. > >We are made to "dislike" Ryker as the captain of the London glares at him > >when he panics about the scanners. Of course Ryker must be a weak and > >scared bully. He's a bully, but Raiker doesn't scare easily, and he certainly isn't weak. > > And the captain wishes he could get better staff No. He's very happy with Raiker because he's the man who does all the nasty jobs, allowing Leylan to keep his hands clean and practice his own brand of "plausible deniability." - like > >Arix, who is studying so he can get a better job! Oh yes. He likes Artix. Artix is also useful cover. > >Then lots of action as the ship is taken over. But why are the crew so lax > >about safety when the show is being bashed by shockwaves, Guards obey orders. If they don't receive any new orders they just keep guarding. they are sharing > >conjuring tricks with Vila. Just guarding can be boring. And Vila is fun. A good bit is Gan saying "we only need the > > hand". Gan later kills the guard off screen, with the approval of the escaped group he is with. Bit daft really, as he could have shown them to the armoury. I know the same guard appears again later in the background, but that's just sloppiness from the director. But if you follow the subtext Gan kills the guard. Remember Leylan's report in Cygnus Alpha. "Five dead. Including subcommander Raiker." The five mentioned are all crew members. As stated, Raiker is one of them and the other three are the ones sent over to Liberator. Krell did return, but he obviously died later. Who then is the fifth? Gan's victim, that's who. Vila drops the gun - what a nervous Nellie - but why entrust him > >with the gun in the first place - this is simply bad management. Well not really. Gan says "grab the guns" and unfortunately Vila is the closest. > >There is more of the "other side" of federation life in this episode with > >the scenes between the crew members of the London. Actually it's just more of the same. Greed, corruption, camouflage and violence. > >the captain is shown to be a "good" man. That's the surface reading, but the subtext tells us he's a right bastard. > >He says he wants no unnecessary violence, That's true, he doesn't. saves Jenna from > >molestation, No. Actually he is telling Raiker that he can molest Jenna all he wants so long as he's "discreet" about it. > > remains calm during the space battle scenes That's true. > >and the rebellion, Don't agree. > >he isn't stupid, No he certainly is not. > >he doesn't like Raiker, Like or dislike doesn't come into it. He's using Raiker. he is not prepared to allow Raiker > >to get away with the "you said I could" defence, etc., etc. But Leylan did let him do it. He gave him the all clear, and he had a good idea what action Raiker was going to take. The reason Raiker doesn't tell him what he's about to do is because he knows Leylan doesn't want to "officially" know. (I bet he is a > >good shot too, we don't get to find out. Why bark if you've got a guard dog like Raiker. > >Too bad he didn't join the crew to help prevent their many failures. They don't want him. They've got enough problems. They > >should have brought him back instead of Tarrant. He certainly showed the > >potential to turn against the federation. Leylan is part of the Federation. > >Without Raiker sending them across they would never have got the Liberator > >- > >it was his idea to use them. Yes. > >A bit lucky, eh? In the end it was, but Raiker's intention was to get them killed. Also - I would never have > >sent the pilot Jenna over to the other ship. They should have checked her record. The Liberators "mind probe" > >self defence is a bit silly I think it's very clever. (how is it supposed to work - will it scan a > >mind and find out if it is from the system? No it's just a defence mechanism. Perhaps a bit like a house alarm. If you haven't pressed the right button in the allocated time it goes off. But why is this security > >system > >stopped by Blake shooting it - isn't that rather obvious), Shoot a a thing with a gun and it's very probably going to stop working. A pro keeps it simple. but it gives us > >more insight to the mind tampering in Blake's head. He knows the detected > >memories are false. The administrations mind tampering is what allows him > >to fight the mind control. In effect the federation created their own > >problem in Blake & the Liberator. Very good point. Thank you Iain for the insightful review. Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

2 1

Re: [B7L] the limits of parody
by Jenny Kaye 17 May '01

17 May '01

"Neil Faulkner" wrote: > >From: Jenny Kaye: > > > > > > These can be due to constraints of > > > > time and budget, the contributions of directors, actors, and FX > > > > designers, > > > > > > Public climate on violence as well. > > > >Also the composition of the audience. That's true. I believe (albeit only on the basis > >of a few anecdotal snippets) that it was established by the end of the > >first > >season that B7 had a sizeable following amongst young children, My info ties in with that as well. the > >programme > >going out early enough in the evening for them to watch it. Earlier even > >than Survivors, in which Nation first ran his rape/murder scenario with a > >suitably unsympathetic character ultimately revealed to be responsible. Yes. There is obviously a connection there. > >Gan, on the other hand, was recognised as a member of the crew, one of the > >Good Guys. Since recent discussion on this Lyst has shown how the > >foreshadowing of the revelation of his true nature has largely eluded the > >majority of fans over a span of more than two decades, it would be > >unreasonable to expect the general viewing audience at the time to have > >picked up much in the way of hints. Absolutely right! > >It's one thing to shock an adult audience, indeed doing so can be a > >laudable > >exercise. That's true. But confusing the hell out of young children is something else > >altogether. That's true. But it's the BBC who messed up. If Blake had indeed been forced to kill Gan, as would seem to > >have been Nation's original intention, he - Nation, not Blake - would have > >sent a legion of bewildered kids crying all the way to bed. I think children are more resilient. I used to watch Survivors when I was seven and it didn't worry me. I also remember the tramp plot, but it was done in such a way that you didn't actually see the murder and the rape was implied (so much so that it went over my head at the time; it wasn't until years later, when I saw it on video, that I worked it out). Anyway, I'd already seen mass killings in Genesis of the Daleks. Which was branded at the time as "Tea Time Terror for Tots." But yes, the Powers that Be at the BBC seem to have taken the attitude that the kids would be irrevocably damaged by seeing these things on television. To its ultimate detriment. Not exactly > >something to be proud of. He'd have done less damage mugging them for > >their > >Smarties. Examining the scripts for B7, it is quite clear that the show had really been written for a much later time slot. The BBC high-ups however had different ideas. To them Sci-Fi wasn't serious drama (it's interesting that they made an exception for Survivors-- did its near-future setting decieve them?) and B7 looked like something that they could sell to a family audience. So although the scripts for series 1 stayed the same, the production of them was toned down for an earlier timeslot. Bugger eh? Jenny > >"But Dad, he's got a metal thing in his head." "Yes son, that's because he is a psychopathic murderer of women." _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

2 1

Re: Off: was sentencing
by Helen Krummenacker 17 May '01

17 May '01

For the benefit of the Americans on list (or is it the younger members, I'm not sure whether its a place or time gap that has me ignorant) Who is Glitter and what did the Glitter Gang do?

2 1

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