Blakes7

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

5511 discussions

Re: [B7L] Isn't it Slave's turn for the spotlight ... or something?
by Jenny Kaye 17 May '01

17 May '01

"Neil Faulkner" wrote: > >From: Jenny Kaye: > > > > > Never claimed to be disinterested. Anyway, what's wrong with "Honey > >Bunny"? > > > How is it worse than "My Darling"? > > > >If you call her "Honey Bunny", you've got to let her call you "Pumpkin". > > > >I want the wallet with "Bad Motherfucker" written all over it. > > If I buy you one then you'll have to recite the following: "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down on thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you." Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

2 1

Debate and Dead Horses
by Leia Fee 17 May '01

17 May '01

>I think you've actually been on this lyst before. Now I'm completely baffled. >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? >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. Off-list if you like. I am quite baffled. 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. Jenny if by disagreeing with you and wanting to acknowledge that we have irreconcilable viewpoints I have somehow offended you further I apologize but I assure you there's no more to it than that. Leia

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re:Space Fall, Jenna's whisper
by Jenny Kaye 17 May '01

17 May '01

Helen Krummenacker wrote: > > > double meaning to Raiker's next line: > > > > >Oh, I think an insult would fit better. Something like "As if you could > >make it hard on me." with emphasis on words making it clear she's > >questioning his manly functions. Or possibly saying how nice it is of > >him to volunteer to satisfy the male prisoners. LOL. Very good Helen. Excellent. Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: crimes and punishment
by Jenny Kaye 17 May '01

17 May '01

Julia Jones wrote: > > >The problems are all problems of social control - > > >coercion, brainwashing and drugging all being > > >available to the Federation and fairly widespread in > > >their use. > > > >My thought was that these techniques may not be very useful where you > >want more than a drugged drone, and a limiter might be useful in such > >cases. No. Because a limiter is designed to limit not to pacify. It's never stated outright, but what we see in The Way Back > >suggests that the suppressant drugs in use at that point had the > >irritating side-effect of leaving people unable to think about > >*anything*, No. That's just natural human behaviour. Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

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

17 May '01

"Neil Faulkner" wrote Nation, not Blake - would have sent a legion of bewildered > > > >kids crying all the way to bed. Not exactly something to be proud > > > >of. He'd have done less damage mugging them for their Smarties. > > > > > > As indeed Boucher and Ridge did somewhat later. Start as you mean to go > >on. > > > >'Blake' was about a tragic misunderstanding and a pack of bad guys killing > >off the good guys. It also ended the entire series. Not the same as a > >goodguy turning out to be a bad guy in mid-season and another good guy gunning > >him down in cold blood. More fun though:-) Jack Rabbit Slim _________________________________________________________________________ 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 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

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