Blakes7

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

5511 discussions

new guests for Eclectic 21
by Judith Proctor 11 May '01

11 May '01

-- http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7 - Fanzines for Blake's 7, B7 Filk songs, pictures, news, Conventions past and present, Blake's 7 fan clubs, Gareth Thomas, etc. (also non-Blake's 7 zines at http://www.knightwriter.org ) Redemption '03 21-23 Feb 2003 http://www.smof.com/redemption/

1 0

SFX card game
by Steve Rogerson 11 May '01

11 May '01

In the SFX special edition out in the shops in the UK, there is a card game. Each card contains the name and picture of an SF TV character plus rating on various attributes - I won't go into details of how to play it. I don't know if every issue has exactly the same set of cards, but as my set had some duplicates, I doubt it. However, contained in my set was the card for Kerr Avon. Here are his ratings (all out of 10): Kick ass ability: 7 Intellect: 9 Snogability: 6 Fashion sense: 5 Use of weapons: 9 Drinking capacity: 8 Real world alter ego: Peter Mandelson nine is pretty good, the only tens i could find were Robocop for use of weapons, Batman for kick ass and use of weapons, The Doctor for intellect, Buffy for snogability, Max (Dark Angel) for intellect and drinking capacity, Wolverine for kick ass ability, Buzz Lightyear for kick ass ability, Angel for snogability and Brains for intellect. Most of the cards didn't have a ten at all. In total, I've got 37 different cards plus four duplicates (Hans Solo, The Doctor, Vincent and Jim Phelps) if anyone has any swaps. -- 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

3 6

Re: [B7L] Re: Gan's woman
by Sally Manton 11 May '01

11 May '01

Dana wrote: <To seek revenge can lead to hell...but everyone does it, and seldom as well.> <g> Isn't that one of Travis's favourite tunes? (Apart from "We'll All Go Together When we Go", of course. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

2 1

Re: [B7L] We can't *all* be geniuses ... (long)
by Jenny Kaye 11 May '01

11 May '01

"Sally Manton" wrote: > >This is getting unpleasant again, unfortunately I'm going to have to bail > >out and will *not* be addressing any reply, but in the interests of > >clarity: And I for one do not much like holding online discussions with people who effectively burst out crying as soon as you contradict their points. But in the interests of clarity: > >Me: > ><The second instance is an invalid example, IMO,> > >Jenny: > ><Is that right?> > > > >I'm sorry? As I said IMO, yes, it's right that it's IMO. It's very interesting how the IMO is used on this Lyst. Basically it is used to stifle any opinion different to your own. Here's a hypothetical example: PERSON ONE: IMO, Gan was always kind to animals. PERSON TWO: Where is the evidence? PERSON ONE: You never see him kill any and IMO that means he meant them well. PERSON TWO: But you never see him with animals at all. PERSON ONE: Look I said IMO okay, and I think you should say IMO as well, because it is just your opinion after all. PERSON TWO: Eh? There is no evidence to support your statement that "Gan is kind to animals". To say "That's my opinion" is not enough. PERSON ONE: But IMO there is no evidence to disprove it either. And again please qualify everything you say with "IMO". PERSON TWO: You have to base things on evidence, you can't just conjure things out of the air and say, it's valid because, "it's my opinion". PERSON ONE: Yes I can. IMO all interpretations are equally valid. PERSON TWO: No they aren't. PERSON ONE: IMO, they are. PERSON TWO: Based on what? PERSON ONE: Based on my opinion, IMO. PERSON TWO: That is totally mad. PERSON ONE: IMO it isn't. PERSON TWO: So if I were to say, "Soolin was an android" then that would be valid, as there is no evidence to prove that she was not an android. PERSON ONE: If you put IMO in front of it, yes. PERSON TWO: But IMO that isn't far. PERSON TWO: In your opinion why? PERSON ONE: Because it means that anything I say is immediately qualified, and although you are doing the same, there are more people on this sight that share your opinion than will, by definition, share my "new" take on a particular scene or character. Therefore, the dominant opinion will always triumph. PERSON TWO: So what? PERSON ONE: So what? It means that all debate is stifled. It means that "IMO" is being used as a control device. PERSON TWO: That's *your interpretation* IMO. PERSON ONE: ARRRRRGH!!! > ><Yes, but I don't think it's meant to show stupidity, just Gan's true > >nature.> > > > >That is *your interpretation*. Other people do not see the evidence the > >same way. See above. > > I think it shows that it moments of stress he acts like any other > >average human being. Is it accepted that other people do not have to agree > >with our interpretation, or is it not? ARRRRRGH!!! It is accepted that if people are going to put forward an "interpretation," they have to justify it with something more substantial than just "IM bloody O" > ><Hostage is a dog's dinner of an episode, I'll grant you that. Quite why > >it's such a mess, I don't know. Time maybe, or perhaps it was a last minute > >replacement script. Nation was going to write the last two episodes of > >series two but then didn't. That must have put a huge last minute strain on > >everyone.> > > > >What has that got to do with it? It means what it says. If the production staff is under stress, more mistakes are going to be made. If Gan's actions 'show his true nature', > >Avon's show moments of stupidity. You can't have it both ways. Please read my whole email before replying. Thank you. > ><If Avon sent a message to Space Command Headquarters (anonymously > >remember), it would be logical for Servalan/her staff to send the nearest > >pursuit ship to Exbar, which would have rotten there in a very short > >period > >of time; Travis would have been dealt with by the time Blake got into in > >his > >shiny suit. Unfortunately Servalan herself got interested and decided to > >come along, which meant a long delay,> > > > >To quote you on other threads, the business about who was sent and how long > >they might have been delayed is not in the script. No, because the author is relying on the audience to have the intelligence to work it out. A smart writer doesn't give his audience everything on a plate. This is why Terry Nation gets mentioned at academic conferences, and none of the hacks working on Farscape do. Avon was taking a huge > >and totally unjustified risk with Blake's life Blake wants to willingly walk into a trap set by Travis, therefore the risk Avon takes isn't unjustified. - the fact that he then gets > >upset about it shows he didn't think. No. It shows that his plan has backfired. > ><He didn't know Sara was armed.> > > > >You don't know that. Yes I do. Watch the episode. The only thing he *does* know is that she's murdered > >two people, not something that a cautious man should treat lightly. The > >rest is *your interpretation*. ARRRRRRRGH!!!!! (This is beginning to sound awfully familiar). Yes it is, isn't it? How very strange. I wonder what could be happening? > ><Where does it say that the gun was in another room? He could have simply > >fallen asleep in the bath. After all, after the events on Terminal they all > >must have been both physically and emotionally exhausted.> > > > >Exhaustion or not, falling asleep in the bath would have been even > >stupider. You don't fall asleep in the bath on purpose. You could drown. > ><Why was Norl's story "incredibly silly"?> > > > >Oh come on. Norl insisted on Vila going down alone - unarmed - with no way > >to call for help - and it's made clear that he made damn sure Tarrant > >didn't get to see or hear anything while he was there. The whole set-up *screams* > >set-up. Vila does not want to go down and has to be bullied by Tarrant. Tarrant, for his part, is also suspicious but says that he has no choice: they need the crystals and the only way they can get them is by accepting their terms, even if that means sacrificing Vila. CALLY: What's wrong with Vila? TARRANT: I scared him a little. CALLY: That must have been difficult. TARRANT: I had no choice, Cally. We've got to have those crystals for the weaponry system. CALLY: So we do a swap, they give us the crystals, we give them Vila. TARRANT: They only want his help. CALLY: Then why are they insisting that he goes down alone? TARRANT: I don't know, maybe outsiders make them nervous. CALLY: Did you? [Avon enters] TARRANT: Me? Who could be nervous of me? CALLY: Only Vila, it seems. TARRANT: We've no reason to think they'll harm him. AVON: And less reason to care? > ><Because Gan was not acting like a raging monster and was now calm. She > >didn't know that he was a psychopathic killer with a hatred of women.> > > > >Neither do we, so that doesn't count. Yes we do. Watch the bloody episode again! What we do know is that she knows he > >tried to kill two members of the crew when the limiter was malfunctioning > >and it hasn't been fixed. See above. She can't know if it's going to malfunction > >again. She believes that the restraints are "barbaric" Gan speaks to her kindly. Cally says to him "When the pain became to much for you, you became violent" Gan is not in pain now. He says he's uncomfortable, "I would like to sit up. Please." Cally's heart melts and she releases the restraints goes over the the medical kit and starts to preparing him a power. Seconds later Gan has turned her round and is slowly strangling her. He is smiling as he does it. Cally's *interpretation* is wrong. Gan was not acting violently because he was in pain. I am in pain though, having to point out the blatantly obvious to you. > ><Because Servalan--who operated the teleport in Terminal--would therefore > >be > >able to tell if she was operating the wrong controls and would have ordered > >Shad to shoot her if she did anything dodgy.> > > > >What? Sorry, but what has Terminal got to do with it? This is the first > >time Servalan's been on the ship. And the last time, before Terminal. So she has to have learned about the teleport controls sometime before Terminal. Therefore, in Harvest. And - to quote one of your own arguments - > >since she isn't shown to have learned about the controls beforehand, it > >didn't happen. It did happen because she operated them in Terminal. > ><Anyway the two times people are teleported into space are in S1 and S2, > >before Dayna joined the crew-- we don't know that she knows how or even > >that it's possible.> > > > >No one taught the earlier people either. Avon and Jenna discuss it in Cygnus Alpha: JENNA: (REFERRING TO THE TELEPORT CONTROLS) Is there maximum range on this? AVON: Of course. I don't know what it is though. JENNA: What would happen if you teleported someone beyond the maximum range? AVON: I imagine that they would appear momentarily in space and then that their atoms would be scattered to the solar winds. Hey, if you go and watch the episode yourself, you'll see the same scene too. > > It's sheer common sense. Not to Jenna; she had to ask Avon. > ><Why in MoD he left the unsealed box with an incredibly valuable neutrotope > >lying around where at the first bump it would fall?> > ><It was in a sealed padded box in the middle of a table with Gan sat in > >front of it. It's Gan that lets it drop. Gan again, see?> > > > >If it's sealed, why does it fall open, please? When reviewing this scene on frame by frame it does appear to open fractionally. The reason? It's a crap prop. There are many things in B7 (in fact in many productions, remember the stormstrooper cracking his head on the door in Star Wars. Or the guard wearing a wristwatch in Ben Hur) that happen but have nothing to do with the script. This is one of them. In the next scene Blake is seen taping the green lock thingy. Confirming that in the script the thing was supposed to have been locked. > ><Because she wanted insurance. And Zeeona being on Xenon Base is the best > >insurance you can possibly have. Notice also that Soolin dislikes Zukan > >(which turns out to be a much smarter action than Avon's)-- "spite" is a > >decent motivation.> > > > >I'm afraid that doesn't even make sense to me. No. I didn't think it would. The alliance is barely > >hanging together because of mutual distrust and suspicion, and Soolin > >thinks a good insurance is to incur the hatred of the figurehead/supplier of the > >antidote? You can do things to spite people, and them not find out about it. > > This is a *long-term* plan, remember; But it's a short term betrayal. If a traitor is going to show their hand it's going to be sooner rather than later. or do they intend to keep > >Zeeona there for years and hope Zukan comes round before he finds a way to > >get even? Zukan wouldn't have know anything if he hadn't betrayed them in the first place. He takes a lot of convincing when they do tell him. Perhaps this is another episode you should watch. > ><As Vila had no idea that Blake is under control at that point, and Blake > >is > >the leader, it makes perfect sense.> > > > >Yes he *does* know, they've all been talking about it non-stop since the > >episode started!!! But Blake convinces him that it is all a conspiracy, and he believes Blake. > > > ><They argue with Blake. Blake tells them that Ven Glynd has a plan and a > >way of ousting Servalan without bloodshed, but that he won't tell them until > >they get back on the Liberator. He is rational and lucid (remember that > >they > >don't have any actual proof at this point that his mind is being > >controlled);> > > > >No, of course, the tone and all those all those 'renounce renounce' bits at > >the start were an illusion. Sorry, that *was* sarcasm, Well, I did wonder. That was also sarcasm, by the way. but they know damn > >well that he's having mind problems, and they know the tone that caused the > >problems was heard just before he re-routed them to the asteroid to pick up > >the mummy, so it wouldn't take three seconds to work out they're linked. They know that he's having mind problems, and they know the tone is connected to it, and they apparently suspect that it has something to do with the asteroid-- but they have no proof. Throughout they talk in terms of "ifs" and "maybes"; Cally says that "if" they are using a transmitter, there must be someone there to operate it. Suggesting that they are, wisely, giving the scenario the benefit of the doubt; they are wary, but as they have no conclusive proof as to what is going on, they are playing along with it until somebody shows his hand. > >Yes, they do as he says. Avon almost *always* does what Blake wants him to, > >even when it's stupid. That doesn't make it not stupid. Really? So Avon breaks out of the rest room earlier in the episode and orders Vila to disobey Blake's instructions because it's what Blake wants him to do? Avon has a heightened sense of self-preservation. > ><(Jenna doesn't have *many* 'where-in-the-world-have-I-put-my-brain' > >moments, but she does seem to persistently be several steps behind Avon and > >Blake (the dreaded 'what's going on, Blake?' bits) so that they have to > >explain things to her - Redemption is especially bad on this point).> > ><So? Reading that episode back, she doesn't seem to ask any more questions > >than Vila or Gan.> > > > >One expects better from Jenna and yes, IMO she does ask 'what's going on' > >more than they do here. "In your opinion," not that you've actually checked it at all. >YMMV. What does this mean? I suspect it's some kind of more virulent form of IMO. > > > >I'm not even going to touch your view of SLD, because we're clearly > >watching > >completely different versions of the episode. In other words it contradicts your fanon. A pity. > ><Or that Jenna *saw* their discarded handcuffs in Bounty and said > >nothing???> > ><BECAUSE SHE WAS ONLY **PRETENDING** TO BE ON TARVIN'S SIDE. Next time > >watch > >the episode.> > > > ><Deep sigh> *I* have watched it. Well done. A change is as good as a rest I suppose. > > I know she was only pretending. Now you do. *They* > >don't know that - and from the dialogue after she leaves, they ****still > >don't work it out****, even though she noticed the handcuffs rather > >pointedly. 1/ She notices the handcuffs and so do the audience in a damned great close-up *****but that doesn't necessary mean that the rest of the crew noticed that she noticed them*****. 2/ We hear her kick the handcuffs during that damned great close-up, and we hear it ***** but is doesn't necessary mean that the rest of the crew heard it, nor that the noise meant to them that she had kicked the handcuffs*****. If you think the handcuffs were in too obvious a position for Jenna not to notice then that's the fault of the director not the script. Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

2 1

Re: [B7L] Re: Gan's woman
by Jenny Kaye 11 May '01

11 May '01

Dana Shilling wrote: > > > >Jenny Kaye said: > > > Suppose he'd said, 'a trooper killed Bobby. She meant everything to me. > >We > > > were to be married. When she died, a part of me died as well.' But he > > > doesn't say that, or anything like it. And the reason he doesn't is > >because > > > the author is trying to tell us something. > >Maybe the author put all that into the script, and the actors flat-out > >refused to play the scene that way. Quite the opposite. In a recent offline discussion, I was told that during filming David Jackson wanted Gan to cry during the recording of that scene, and even did the first take that way. But it was vetoed by the Gallery. > >PS--I can just hear Gan singing "Bess, you is my woman now...." I doubt it. Murderers generally don't like assigning names to their victims. Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] Dayna's family
by Jenny Kaye 11 May '01

11 May '01

Dana Shilling wrote: > >Jenny Kaye said: > > > It might be a good idea if you went back into the archive and reread the > > > emails between Tavia, Dana, Harriet, Fiona and myself on the subject of > >Hal > > > Mellanby(in and around the beginning of April-- > > > http://tezcatlipoca.algonet.se/cgi-bin/getbyid.pl?id=46210 is a good > >one) > > > but basically what we came up with is that he's a hypocrite and a > > > liar. > >Include me out-- I never included you in. The conclusion that he was a hypocrite and a liar arose from the debate. Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: Gan's woman
by Jenny Kaye 11 May '01

11 May '01

Sally Manton wrote: > >After I wrote: > ><They're a reticent crowd, after all. We never hear the names of Blake's > >murdered siblings,> > > > >Jenny wrote: > ><Blake is hardly going to say, "Guess what everyone? I was arrested and > >convicted on paedophile charges. They weren't true of course." Mud sticks.> > > > >But what have the paedophile charges to do with his murdered family? They're > >two completely separate incidents (the murders being before TWB even > >starts). I don't follow you. Well, in my wild and wacky canon, Blake IMO murdered and raped his entire family. Including IMO the family dog, the hamster and Stan the python. IMO. Either that or at half past two in the mornings I misread your post. > ><These people are fictional characters within a fictional universe. > >Backstory seeds may be sown, but the full back story will only be activated > >when it is significant to the plot. For example Soolin's history tells us > >about GP and what we can expect. As a consequence Gan telling us about his > >"woman" is significant to the episode Time Squad, and Gan's actions in Time > >Squad are designed to tell us about Gan, or to lay future plot seeds for > >Gan.> > > > >Again, I am aware that they're fictional characters, but I'm having trouble > >following your reasoning. Evidently. (For a start, imputing that amount of deep and > >meaningful intent to two words written in extreme haste by Terry Nation > >doesn't work for me). Oh well, if it doesn't work for you it must be crap then. BTW, it was only the later episodes of series 1 that were written in haste. The first four episodes were written before the casting was even done. What is the difference between Gan's words/actions > >telling us about Gan, and Soolin's telling us about her? Could it be that Soolin tells us a lot and has no reason to lie, but Gan tells us very little and has every reason to lie? Just a wild guess. In 'Blake', it>could have been shown that she told Dayna - who she's friendly with - some > >of her history; she'd still have to tell the others, nothing would be lost.But it's made clear she didn't tell Dayna. Therefore, IMO it's an indication of her reserve. It *is* an indication of her reserve. You are right. Don't feel you have to qualify your answer with "IMO" all the time. > >We seem to have two systems of interpreting the series here. You don't say. One of them is > >the time-honoured (and vastly enjoyable) Playing the Game, which is > >concerned with internal consistency - external constraints (authorial > >intent>or lack thereof, budget constraints, acting etc) simply doesn't count, what > >matters is making sense of what's on the screen. The viewer has the > >right/responsibility to interpret what is on screen without recourse to > >external factors. It's something I try to do, but it cannot be denied that external constraints play an enormous part in what we see on screen, and it is virtually impossible to "forget" certain external constraints. For example, no matter how hard you try, Travis is played by a different actor in series two, and no matter how hard you squint your eyes, Moloch still looks like a very bad prop. Unless you want to resort to surgery, you can't unlearn something. It will always be there and it will always have an influence. > > It's my preferred system; It may be your preferred system, but you are not working by its rules. Looking at internal consistency means *looking* at internal consistency, not saying "I don't see the logic, therefore there is no logic there." though I enjoy hearing what the > >makers thought or intended, it is of far less importance to me than making > >sense of the on-screen action as a whole (not, I emphasis, episodes in > >isolation.) If Maloney stated that Travis was killed by a flying haddock, and then you see the episode and see that no haddock featured in Travis's death at all, then you go by on screen evidence. If however, Boucher gives a simple explanation of a scene that he wrote and that fits all the facts then, I am going to take more notice of his interpretation of a scene than I am going to of, let's say, yours. Especially if your explanation is extremely long, convoluted and references your personal fanon which is purely based on how you would like the scene to read. > >The other is that the intent of the writers/actors/etc takes precedence > >over what the viewer may perceive from the episode; that what Terry Nation/Paul > >Darrow/David Maloney etc intended has to be factored into the > >interpretationeven if I as viewer don't agree with it (or can't even see it). See above. But in addition I would like to add that everyone to some degree will have their own "take" on something. This is undeniable. And just because a writer or actor intended something, it doesn't mean that it is valid if it is not born out by the text. But that same rule applies to everyone. > >Personally, > >though I'm always interested to hear what these people have to say, I'm not > >much interested in doing things this way (especially when I find Playing > >the Game more satisfying) especially when what Terry Nation/Paul Darrow/David > >Maloney etc intended has to be interpret anyway and we all disagree on > >what they meant to say. You can't disagree on "what they meant to say", if they "meant to say it" then they "meant to say it" there are no two ways about it. However, you can disagree on whether or not "what they meant to say" cames across or not. And you do that by analysing the text. You don't do it by ignoring the text and going on a flight of fancy, and then backing it up by bludgeoning people over the head with those three dreaded letters "IMO". > > I can and have done this in literary criticism, but I'm > >not about to do it in fandom. Why not? > ><grin> perhaps all posts need a multiple warning system - Character Junkie > >Who Plays The Game and Sometimes Forgets the IMHOs ... I've got a better one, Warning system - This is a No Discussion Zone. 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 ... (long)
by Jenny Kaye 11 May '01

11 May '01

Sally Manton wrote: > >Jenny wrote: > ><Oh, he does act stupid. There's a lot of Gan's actions which are put downh > >by a lot of people (including the crew) to his being stupid-- not checking > >to see if Jenna was behind him on Cephlon, or tearing out the computer > >banks > >in "Breakdown."> > > > >The second instance is an invalid example, IMO, Is that right? > >since it could have been > >caused by scrambled brain impulses caused by the malfunction. No. It's a deliberate act. The malfunction didn't "scramble his brain impulses," it removed his restraints. So you have > >one example of stupid behaviour (and I could add a second one, the > >temper-tantrum-moment with the handcuffs in Bouty when Vila is trying *not* > >to blow Blake's head off). Yes, but I don't think it's ment to show stupidity, just Gan's true nature. But of course <veg> the odd dumb moment is so > >*unusual* in our crew. Personally, I consider Blake, Avon, Jenna, Tarrant > >and Soolin - at the *least* - to be very bright in their different ways. > >So > >... > > > >Want to ask Avon how he thought sending that message to Servalan (in > >Hostage) would help? And why his brain turned off once he went down to > >Exbar? Hostage is a dog's dinner of an episode, I'll grant you that. Quite why it's such a mess, I don't know. Time maybe, or perhaps it was a last minute replacement script. Nation was going to write the last two episodes of series two but then didn't. That must have put a huge last minute strain on everyone. But as to why: AVON: It seemed the only rational thing to do. I thought they would get there ahead of us, get Travis and save us the trouble. Earlier: CALLY: Well, there should be no danger. Does anyone know we're here? Avon? AVON: What? CALLY: I said who knows we're here? AVON: How do I know who knows? I still say anybody could have picked up that message. CALLY: No they couldn't. You know they couldn't. Why are you so worried? If Avon sent a message to Space Command Headquarters (anonymously remember), it would be logical for Servalan/her staff to send the nearest pursuit ship to Exbar, which would have gotten there in a very short period of time; Travis would have been dealt with by the time Blake got into in his shiny suit. Unfortunately Servalan herself got interested and decided to come along, which meant a long delay, and meant Blake had time to get into trouble and need rescuing. Where's the brainlessness in that? And where does his brain switch off when he goes down to Exbar? He gets captured but so does everybody. > >Why he turned his back on Sara in MoD? He didn't know Sara was armed. Also once the traitor had been reveiled she should have given herself up. After all, locking herself in a room with a gun isn't a very bright thing to do. And Sara is very bright. The reason she acts the way she does is that she knows she is going to be rescued by her allies. Something Avon didn't know until he was told of the homing beam trasmitter. > > Why in Rescue, when he clearly > >didn't trust Dorian, he left his gun in the other room while he took a > >bath? Where does it say that the gun was in another room? He could have simply fallen asleep in the bath. After all, after the events on Terminal they all must have been both physically and emotionally exhausted. > >Want to ask Tarrant why - after stating very firmly and loudly that he > >trusted no one but himself Two possible answers. Bravado. Tarrant very clearly needs others. Volcano was written when the original character profile for Tarrant was in operation. The one where he was, in a later episode, to sell out the crew. - he swallowed that whole incredibly silly story > >from Norl in City? Why was Norl's story "incredibly silly"? Or why he insisted in DotG that *everyone* goes down > >with the ship? Churlishness. Dislike of Avon. These characters are meant to represent people not logical automatons. People are rarely rational, especially when facing death. > >Want to ask Cally why - when she *knew* Gan had tried to throttle Blake - > >she *let him go*? Because Gan was not acting like a raging monster and was now calm. She didn't know that he was a psycopathic killer with a hatred of women. > >Want to ask Dayna why at the end of Kairos she meekly teleported Servalan > >to safety instead of into open space? Because Servalan--who operated the teleport in Terminal--would therefore be able to tell if she was operating the wrong controls and would have ordered Shad to shoot her if she did anything dodgy. Anyway the two times people are teleported into space are in S1 and S2, before Dayna joined the crew-- we don't know that she knows how or even that it's possible. >(oh, and want to ask Servalan why she > >decided to trust Dayna with her safety?) Servalan doesn't. She wants to kill Dayna; only the fact that Avon has the Orac key (and so Orac can't operate the teleport) saves her. Or why - when Avon *told* her in Powerplay to 'shoot anyone who isn't me', she still managed to get captured > >by Klegg's men without even wounding one of them? Don't know. The scene was never seen. Anything could have happened, but experienced soldiers would have an edge on an enthusiastic amateur. > >Want to ask Blake why he had so much trouble keeping up with the Twinfoil's > >explanation in 'The Web'? I've watched these scenes (Thanks for that!) and Blake's responses make perfect sense. Why he repeatedly let Travis and/or Servalan live? Because he knew that he could beat them. That's not as pat as it sounds. Travis always worked to a pattern, "The Travis strategy" Blake calls it. When Travis is replaced however, Blake is taken completely by surprise by the strategy employed by said replacement. Also if he killed Servalan, a new Supreme Commander, may very well replace Travis with someone else. Not something Servalan can do because to do so would mean that she had made a mistake in the first place by employing him. That's one of the reasons behind her actions in Trial. > >Why in MoD he left the unsealed box with an incredibly valuable neutrotope > >lying around where at the first bump it would fall? It was in a sealed padded box in the middle of a table with Gan sat in front of it. It's Gan that lets it drop. Gan again, see? > >Want to ask Soolin why she decided to help Tarrant in Warlord, risking the > >whole alliance they'd worked for, the security of the base and all of their > >lives so he could have his little romantic fling? Because she wanted insurance. And Zeeona being on Xenon Base is the best insurance you can possibly have. Notice also that Soolin dislikes Zukan (which turns out to be a much smarter action than Avon's)-- "spite" is a decent motivation. > >Want to ask Vila about that dropped knife in Cygnus Alpha? I think you mean 'gun' in 'Space Fall'. Because he is a coward. Or playing the > >with loading bay controls on Albion? Because he is curious(a particular trait of Vila's) and he didn't know it would make such a noise. Or believing Blake's mind-rape-induced > >lies in 'Voice'? As Vila had no idea that Blake is under control at that point, and Blake is the leader, it makes perfect sense. For that matter (and that episode), want both Avon and > >Jenna why - when they *knew* Blake's mind was decidedly awry - when he said > >'give the mummy a bracelet', they gave the mummy a bracelet? They don't do it willingly. They argue with Blake. Blake tells them that Ven Glynd has a plan and a way of ousting Servalan without bloodshed, but that he won't tell them until they get back on the Liberator. He is rational and lucid (remember that they don't have any actual proof at this point that his mind is being controlled); he argues them down, uses the force of his personality, and refuses to tell them Ven Glynd's evidence until they are back on the Liberator. So Avon and Jenna are effectively browbeaten into giving the mummy the bracelet. > >(Jenna doesn't have *many* 'where-in-the-world-have-I-put-my-brain' > >moments, > >but she does seem to persistently be several steps behind Avon and Blake > >(the dreaded 'what's going on, Blake?' bits) so that they have to explain > >things to her - Redemption is especially bad on this point). So? Reading that episode back, she doesn't seem to ask any more questions than Vila or Gan. > >Want to ask the whole lot of them why they didn't notice Cally was missing > >in SLD???? Nasty. Gan quite violently pushes the prisoners into a row. Thereby introducing the currency of violence. He then asks Cally if she can handle it and disappears. He then, much to Blake's surprise, joins the others in the main control room. Cut back to Cally, left on her own to guard four male prisoners, one a soldier. When Gan doesn't return, Cally goes to the door and looks for him. We then cut back to the control room. Notice that Gan doesn't mention Cally at all.Vila then runs into the room and tells Cally that the alarms are ringing. She is visibly nervous. Eventually Cally is overpowered and knocked out. The crew teleport aboard Liberator. All Gan says is that he hasn't seen her. Yet Blake had paired Gan with Cally. Gan plays the same trick again with Jenna in Deliverance. What a bastard. Or that Jenna *saw* their discarded handcuffs in Bounty and > >said nothing??? BECAUSE SHE WAS ONLY **PRETENDING** TO BE ON TARVIN'S SIDE. Next time watch the episode. > >And that's just the ones I can come up with now. Obviously the programme is a lot brighter than you give it credit for. Don't do that again, eh? Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

4 3

Re: [B7L] Dayna's family
by Tavia 11 May '01

11 May '01

Harriet, quoting Dana responding to Jenny: >>> It might be a good idea if you went back into the archive and reread the >>> emails between Tavia, Dana, Harriet, Fiona and myself on the subject of Hal >>> Mellanby ... but basically what we came up with is that he's a hypocrite and a >>> liar. >>Include me out--that may be what you came up with, I don't think >>he's such a bad guy >My recollection was that there was a 3-2 split on the subject. The case >against Hal was ingenious, and I regard it as legitimate speculation (cf >Dana's interesting suggestion about Gan's woman), but I didn't support >it. I feel my name being taken in vain here. As I recall, I entered the fray merely to suggest that Terry Nation's scripts might be most simply interpreted just as hack writing, rather than the ingenious, enjoyable but in the end rather implausible interpretations put forward predominantly by Fiona. I don't usually assign moral values to fictional constructs. Tavia

1 0

Re: [B7L] Gan, genius and preconceptions
by Tavia 11 May '01

11 May '01

Dana: >Tavia: >>> Size isn't the only metric. >Iain: >> So I've heard. >HORATIO: So I have heard and do in >part believe it. (Hamlet, I,i, 165) God, talk about preconceptions...... Tavia

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