Blakes7

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

5511 discussions

Re: [B7L] More thoughts on Mellanby
by Marian de Haan 05 Apr '01

05 Apr '01

Fiona wrote: >True, plots do tend to get advanced in adventure stories by random acts of carelessness :). But as I did say, this act wouldn't have been so but for Servalan deciding to take a desperate chance. And she was in a desperate situation-- seducing Avon hadn't worked, the Mellanbys weren't likely to sympathise with her and the only apparent way of getting off the planet was by blackmailing Avon.< I think we can assume Avon to be intelligent enough to work that out. So why would he want to give Servalan the opportunity to blackmail him? > Hm, but let's look at it another way. Avon, as it stands, has a choice of leaving Orac in the workroom or keeping it with him wherever he's sleeping. Now, if he suspects that Servalan is after Orac, to keep Orac with him would mean that he would spend a sleepless night,< He could order Orac to shrink and put it under his pillow. :-) Or he could have rigged up some sort of burgler alarm in his bedroom. (And we don't know whether his room could be locked or not.) He could even have taken Orac out of its casing and taken it with him to his room, leaving the casing for Servalan to steal. :-) It would not have been a long sleep anyway, Avon mentiones Liberator being a few hours away. And he says he could do with a *rest*, which not necessarily means that he's planning to sleep. Maybe he just has enough of Mellanby's company and longs for a bit of privacy, using his need for a rest as an excuse. :-) >:)! But Avon thinks in logical, rational terms-- he is trying to outcalculate Servalan, and he's nearly right. He couldn't have foreseen either the gun being left out or Mellanby being around to be shot (had Mellanby not been there she would likely have hid Orac and used it to bargain with); he's a computer technician, not a psychostrategist.< But as you say, he can think in logical, rational terms. :-) That's exactly why I find it so hard to credit this utter stupidity. Why would he want to make it easy for Servalan? Suppose you're in a hotel,carrying a fortune in your suitcase. If you find your biggest enemy also staying there and if that enemy tells you that he knows about the fortune and wants to take it from you, would you then leave the suitcase in the lounge or take it with you to your room? Sorry, but I still think it's sloppy writing. :-) Marian

2 1

Re: [B7L] Mission to Destiny
by J MacQueen 05 Apr '01

05 Apr '01

>From: "Fiona Moore" <nydersdyner(a)yahoo.co.uk> >as it is, it's directed by the man who directed "Timelash," Pennant Roberts? Not game to ask what you think of the other DW episodes he directed <grin> Then again, it seems Roberts didn't think much of the script for Timelash, so maybe he didn't think much of the script for Mission to Destiny either (anyone know if that's the case?). Yes, I know, the next question is why didn't he make the best of it. If a director has that much contempt for a script, why inflict it on us? Damn, I liked Mission to Destiny. I'll be going home for Easter, so I'll have to watch it again then to see if I can see what others don't like what they see. Um, I'll rephrase that later... Regards Joanne (who remains amused by Timelash, regardless) _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] Mission to Destiny
by Tavia 05 Apr '01

05 Apr '01

Fiona wrote: >I think perhaps a little too much emphasis has gotten placed, over the >years, on the famous story of Nation writing a script to a tight deadline, >then getting Boucher to do the edit while he goes away and works on the next >one I wasn't thinking so much of that as the everyday realities of writing for money and to deadlines, which has paid for my internet access for several years now.... >However, from what I've heard, the editing was >not so much Boucher having to rewrite the story, as him having to edit down >the scenes which contained concepts they couldn't afford to realise (huge >crowd scenes, pitched space battles etc) into something they could. I'm already looking forward to hearing Boucher speak at Redemption 03. >the interesting bit is not in the >solving of the mystery so much as in the watching of all the characters but >Avon come up with convoluted rationalisations. And I thought that was just filler... Certainly that was how the 'now let's search the ship for stowaways' came over to me. In fact, one of the real weaknesses of MtD was that *so much* of the episode just felt like repetitive filler. Lots of walking around dim corridors, lots of scenes with people fixing the unfixable, some very very bland dialogue... The whole thing could easily have been done in 20 minutes, and indeed the episode might have worked ok if it had been interlaced with a parallel plot (a la Bounty). >Technical point: an "extra" is a nonspeaking role; these are "supporting >actors." I stand corrected. (And won't be intimidated that easily...!) >The implication in the Blake and Vila exchange: "We've got to get back to >them!" "Now I *know* I don't feel very well..." is that it did. Yes, but why didn't it damage the ship, as the energy is too drained to maintain the force wall and main drive simultaneously? >Because, as you point out, the story is a Christie pastiche. And for it to >work as a pastiche, it has to include Christie elements, chief among which >is unfortunately the "now I've brought you all together to inform you that >the murderer is one of you..." scene (sorry, I don't much care for >Christie). Hence that scene. But at least Poirot usually did it accompanied by an armed sidekick... (No, I'm not that fond of Christie either.) >Interesting, that's a reading I missed. At this stage in the series, though, >it sounds like supposition-- going back through the script I can't find any >implication that this is so. It's just the conjunction of non-aligned, Federation have made approaches and threatened, then suddenly from nowhere deadly blight appears, in adjacent speeches. The story could easily have been developed that way. >They did make that episode though, it was called "Killer" :). 'Killer' was a slightly different premise, and the threat was not from the Federation. But a high proportion of the plots/themes end up repeating: certain MtD elements are rehashed in 'Assassin' for example. Tavia

2 1

Re: [B7L] Mission to Destiny (was Terry Nation as Writer)
by Tavia 04 Apr '01

04 Apr '01

Fiona wrote: >the correct explanation, as presented by Avon, >turns out to be actually quite simple. This is of course one obvious way in which the plot differs from archetypal Poirot closed-system crime (say 'Murder on the Orient Express'). >Finally, this theme is pointed up by two quotes, My favourite quotation was: AVON: Try greed. It's usually reliable. >Occam's Razor. When faced with a mystery, it's the >simple explanation, the one that's staring you in the face, that usually >does the trick; the convoluted one is likely to send you running around in >circles and concocting danger where there is none. Indeed. My Occam's Razor tells me that Nation was a sloppy hack writer thinking of his pay cheque... [smile] Tavia

3 3

Re: [B7L] More thoughts on Mellanby
by Fiona Moore 04 Apr '01

04 Apr '01

>From: "Marian de Haan" <maya(a)multiweb.nl> > >>It's him leaving Orac for Servalan to grab in the first place that I find >hard to credit.<< > > > >To be fair, she wouldn't have had a go at all if Mellanby (or Dayna?) >hadn't left the gun lying around in the first place.< > >Still, one would expect someone with Avon's survival instinct to want to >keep his only means for returning to Liberator with him at all times, >especially when his enemy is around. All the more since Servalan has told >him that she's after Orac. (This is what I meant by sloppy writing :-) ) Hm, but let's look at it another way. Avon, as it stands, has a choice of leaving Orac in the workroom or keeping it with him wherever he's sleeping. Now, if he suspects that Servalan is after Orac, to keep Orac with him would mean that he would spend a sleepless night, as he could not be unaware that if he were guarding Orac, Servalan would likely kill him while he slept to take it. If he leaves it in the workroom, he runs the risk of her stealing it, but at least he will be alive to chase her afterwards. Remember, also, that Orac is useless to Servalan as things stand except as a bargaining chip-- Avon has Orac's key, so Orac can't do anything; even if she had the key, Avon has his bracelet, so she can't use it to get off Sarran. The only thing she can use it for, as she says, is to bargain with. Furthermore, Avon probably doesn't expect her to try anything. The area around Chez Mellanby is full of homicidal Sarrans, and she is as unfamiliar with the planet as he is. Without a gun, she is unlikely to run the risk of stealing Orac-- it makes more sense just to play along and hope. However, the fact that one of the Mellanbys leaves a gun lying around changes the balance of power, and she seizes the opportunity. It's a risky plan; by killing Mellanby (which she has no choice but to do-- it's unlikely that she expects to find him there, since he was only waiting up since Lauren wasn't back) she puts herself in the position of having to leave the base, and even with the gun the locals do catch her and string her up. Avon is likely to be aware that any plan she could think up would be dependent on luck and therefore easy to foil. So there's little reason for Avon to take Orac to bed with him :), and in fact a few good reasons not to. See-- not sloppy at all :). >his words might be a comfort to Dayna (although a consolation attempt is >rather out of character for Avon--< > >Not if he sees it as the quickest way to get Dayna to help him find >Servalan. But really, it works against that, since she's likely to want sympathy not sarcasm-- but then as you say, compassion was never Avon's forte. Fiona The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Bitter and twisted at http://nyder.r67.net _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

3 2

Re: [B7L] More thoughts on Mellanby
by Fiona Moore 04 Apr '01

04 Apr '01

>From: "Marian de Haan" <maya(a)multiweb.nl> >Fiona wrote: > >True, plots do tend to get advanced in adventure stories by random acts of >carelessness :). But as I did say, this act wouldn't have been so but for >Servalan deciding to take a desperate chance. And she was in a desperate >situation-- seducing Avon hadn't worked, the Mellanbys weren't likely to >sympathise with her and the only apparent way of getting off the planet was >by blackmailing Avon.< > >I think we can assume Avon to be intelligent enough to work that out. Evidently not-- he's human, after all, and makes mistakes before and makes them again afterwards. Whatever their faults, neither Terry Nation nor Chris Boucher can be accused of not knowing their own character :). > So >why would he want to give Servalan the opportunity to blackmail him? Well, he doesn't. He leaves Orac in the main room of the house, knowing that Mellanby is also in that same room with a gun and no great fondness for Servalan. He himself, as you point out, is just resting, and only for a short while. All perfectly safe, until Servalan gets a gun. >He could order Orac to shrink and put it under his pillow. :-) And risk having it suddenly reexpand under him :)? Or, as I said, of Servalan coming in and killing him to get it? > Or he could >have rigged up some sort of burgler alarm in his bedroom. (And we don't >know whether his room could be locked or not.) And by the same token, we don't know whether it was *possible* for him to rig up a burglar alarm. And why bother-- he'll be gone in a few hours. >Orac out of its casing and taken it with him to his room, leaving the casing >for Servalan to steal. :-) It wouldn't have taken her long to work out that the casing was empty... >It would not have been a long sleep anyway, Avon mentiones Liberator being a >few hours away. And he says he could do with a *rest*, which not >necessarily means that he's planning to sleep. Mellanby does say he'll wake him up in plenty of time... but you're right. That is what Avon says. And when he runs into the room, he's fully dressed, boots and all. >But as you say, he can think in logical, rational terms. :-) That's exactly >why I find it so hard to credit this utter stupidity. Why would he want to >make it easy for Servalan? But he doesn't, and it isn't stupid. As I said, Avon thinks logically. Servalan, however, doesn't only think logically, she thinks laterally. So Avon thinks, "Mellanby's there, she has no gun, she doesn't know the planet-- she may want Orac but she's not going to take a stupid risk." Servalan, meanwhile, gets hold of a gun and evens the odds. >Suppose you're in a hotel,carrying a fortune in your suitcase. If you find >your biggest enemy also staying there and if that enemy tells you that he >knows about the fortune and wants to take it from you, would you then leave >the suitcase in the lounge or take it with you to your room? But, to use that analogy, since Mellanby was there with a gun and he himself was only a room away, he wasn't leaving the fortune in the lounge, he was leaving it in the safe-- which is generally what people do if they're in a hotel with a fortune in their suitcases, as leaving it in your room runs a risk of having people break in and do you personally some damage while they're nicking it. Remember, too, that Orac without the key is like the black gold in Gold-- in and of itself totally worthless. Servalan can't use it to teleport to Liberator without a bracelet, and she can't use it at all without a key. Its only function for her is as a bargaining chip when dealing with Avon, for whom it *is* useful. So it could only be worth her while having a go at it if she had the opportunity to hide it somewhere and refuse to bring it back unless he agrees to her terms-- which she'd find it hard to do if it was her unarmed versus Avon and the Mellanbys. >Sorry, but I still think it's sloppy writing. :-) Sorry, but I don't :). Fiona The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Serious lateral thinking at http://nyder.r67.net _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: [B7L] Mission to Destiny
by Tavia 04 Apr '01

04 Apr '01

Neil wrote: >Maybe, but I enjoyed it:) What precisely did you enjoy? Because I really didn't (I was onto my second double by the middle just trying to keep awake [that's espresso, damn you]) -- and I enjoy detective fiction a lot more than, say, adventure stuff. I'm not trying, btw, to rubbish Nation's contribution to B7... As I said at the outset, I could hardly be said to be against competent hack writing.... And Nation wrote around half my favourite episodes. Tavia

1 0

Nexus address change
by Steve Rogerson 04 Apr '01

04 Apr '01

For those thinking of booking for Nexus, the address has changed to: Nexus SF Conventions Holly Cottage 64 The Batch Farmborough Bath BA2 0AJ United Kingdom -- cheers Steve Rogerson http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/steve.rogerson Redemption 03, 21-23 February 2003, Ashford, Kent The 25th Anniversary Blake's 7 Convention The 10th Anniversary Babylon 5 Convention http://www.smof.com/redemption

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: Ethics and Hal Mellanby
by Jenny Kaye 04 Apr '01

04 Apr '01

Harriere wrote >Jenny replied to me: > >>He relates the prophecy to the new aliens, arriving in the aftermath of > >>the Galactic War. > > > >But doesn't he go on to say something like "hunt the strangers down and > >kill > >them?" > >Yes - but in the context he appears to mean the strangers who have just >arrived, ie Captain Yates and the other bloke (and, later, Avon). But he does use this on all of them, doesn't he? >But my point was that he *hadn't* got rid of the Mellanbys and, although >they had killed some of the locals, they hadn't actually destroyed their >society yet. Doesn't mean they won't :-)-- and it's useful that they haven't because it keeps the threat still potential. The Sarran do see a connection between the newcomers and the Mellanbys anyway, and when they find the hatch they do try to break in. > >>(It's interesting that we *never* see the prophecy fulfilled - > >>traditionally, these things do come to pass > > > >Really? ISTM the best prophecies are the ones that *never* get fulfilled, > >so > >that people are always waiting for something that never comes. > >Certainly, but I meant that traditionally, if we're told about a >prophecy during a story, we get to see it worked out during the story. But this is Blake's 7, so it could be a bit of cynical political realism? But in the cases where we see a prophecy worked out in a story, it's usually because the prophecy's central to the plot-- here it's just peripheral, isn't it? > >>, so perhaps Servalan decided > >>to launch a revenge attack to teach them how to be polite to visiting > >>dignitaries.) > > > >Think she'd bother? > >If she had nothing better to do. Servalan is not one of those people >who only kills when it is strictly necessary. She likes it. But once she got back she'd've had a whole ton of supporters of the last President to kill :-)-- and there's not much of the Federation left to carry out her orders at this point. > >>I'm sure the Sarrans would always have been very wary of alien arrivals, > >>but that doesn't mean they couldn't have had preliminary negotiations > >>when Hal arrived (and if that was 20 years ago, he might have negotiated > >>with Chel's predecessor). > > > >They don't negotiate with the people out of the capsules. > >This is true, but doesn't immediately prove what tactics an earlier >ruler might have adopted 20 years earlier when the first aliens arrived. If they have a prophecy though, they're not that likely to ignore it or bend it. Especially if it looks like it deals with the destruction of the tribe-- a leader who ignored that would lose popular support if nothing else. >I am inclined to think that the Sarrans' experiences with the Mellanbys >have made them more hostile to aliens Probably the prophecy made them hostile to Mellanby, which made Mellanby hostile to them, which made them not likely to ignore the prophecy. >(though not sufficiently to launch >an all-out effort to destroy the original arrivals - 20 years, and >Lauren's slip-up is the first chance they've had?), Remember though that the Mellanbys have the technology. >but Chel >specifically states that today is *the day*. Probably the firework >display caused by the battle fits the prophecy better than Mellanby's >ship landing safely. Yes but there's no reason he couldn't say that Mellanby was the vanguard-- or that "the day" is open to interpretation. Like the Christian groups who predicted the end of the world for 1900 and then revised the date upwards when it didn't happen. > >The Mellanbys have the advantage in terms of technology. The Sarrans > >couldn't find the escape hatch, either. > >My statement above - they only need to get lucky once, as they do with >Lauren, and if they were really concentrating on the effort, they >shouldn't have had to wait for 20 years. Maybe the Mellanbys have been being clever for 20 years and only slip up now. Also the Sarrans may be making more of a concerted effort now that the day of prophecy has finally arrived. > >>Checking the script again, Dayna says the Sarrans were a problem when > >>her father first arrived, but now leave them alone. This could > >>undermine my thesis, but I'm still prepared to argue for (a) preliminary > >>negotiation (b) breakdown (c) intense skirmishing (d) stalemate (e) > >>leaving each other alone, as Sarrans decide there's no immediate sign of > >>their world being destroyed. > > > >But then, why didn't Dayna say "Father said we got along well with them > >when > >we first arrived, but now they just attack us?" And why do the > >Mellanbies > >treat them like animals to be conditioned or killed? > >I think most of Dayna's explanations can be read as summaries of longer >explanations not required by the situation. Avon needs only to know >what sort of threat the Sarrans pose; she reassures him, while >mentioning that they were a problem in the past. This is a script though, not real life. If they give an explanation in the script we can assume that it stands unless something happens later to contradict it. And the alternative line I gave is pretty brief too I think. This may help to >impress him ("They're really very dangerous, but we're so powerful we >can shrug them off") and perhaps also to justify her violence towards >them ("This is the only language they understand, and it keeps us >safe."). Her account isn't inconsistent with (a) Mellanby attempting to >negotiate for a week or two, then fighting them off for several months/a >couple of years. Or (b) starting off with the fight, then establishing >an uneasy truce. Not inconsistent maybe but why create such a complicated backstory and then not use it? That's why I prefer to take what Dayna says as read. >Incidentally, I take it that the Sarrans are nomads, and don't live next >to the Mellanbys all the time I didn't think they lived next to them at all but I thought they came down from somewhere else-- just over those bluffs maybe? (otherwise I can't see how Hal managed to >sink a spaceship and construct tunnels to dry land without being >noticed). I think he was noticed but they were too scared to come near. >So as well as Chel being a different generation from the >Sarrans Hal first met, he could be from a different tribe. I think you're saying maybe there's more than one tribe of Sarrans, and Mellanby encountered one and fell out with them and Lauren was from there, and then there's this other one (led by Chel) who are fighting the Mellanbys now. But then, why would *two* tribes have a grudge against them? And why do we need to postulate that he fell out with the first tribe at all? And how would Chel know Lauren and why would he say "Welcome back to your people?" It seems too complicated. > This would >also make it less easy to extrapolate the behaviour of any given Sarran >from what he does. But we don't need to know the behaviour of any given Sarran. Just Chel. Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] Travis on trial
by Fiona Moore 04 Apr '01

04 Apr '01

> >From: "Dana Shilling" <dshilling(a)worldnet.att.net> > >To: "nublake" <blakes7(a)lists.lysator.liu.se> > >Subject: Re: [B7L] Travis on trial > >Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 01:36:27 -0400 > > > >Jacqui said: > > > Is the argument Travis uses at his trial it a 'far more sophisticated' > >version of Par's 'only obeying orders' or is it something else? His > >justification and the response could be used in a discussion of political > >theory/military studies. > >I'd call it naive--he should know that the essence of being the > "government" > >is > >that you get to decide what is "warfare" and what is an "atrocity" as well > >as > >deciding what's a crime and what isn't. "A dog's obeyed in office" > >(Shakespeare > >definitely, King Lear I think.) Actually, I don't recall that line being in Lear, anybody else know? As for the question, I really don't think Travis *could* be that naive. He's an experienced solider, and cannot be unaware that "warfare" in the Federation involves mass murder of civilians. Travis was not following orders; he was obeying a social norm, and as such his actions are not naive in that he knows exactly what he is doing and that in the Federation, a soldier does these things. Furthermore, Travis is not unaware that he is being put on trial not because he committed mass murder of a civilian population, but because Servalan, for her own very good reasons, wants him dead. Travis' court-martial is a total sham. Being the sort of man he is, Travis is not prepared to go quietly, he intends to expose them for what they are: Hypocrites and fools. Travis is the hero of "Trial," not because he's suddenly become good, but because the Federation is so evil they make him look like a babe in arms, and this is essentially what his defense suggests: as a soldier, he has to do evil things, but he has done nothing to compare with what Servalan and the others behind desks have done. As I said in my earlier post, the Travis case is dealt with much better than I can do in Alan Stevens and Jim Smiths' respective articles in Zenith, and in the brilliant audiotape, Travis: The Final Act (all current copies signed by Peter Miles and Brian Croucher)-- both available from Judith Proctor's website (Plug, plug). Fiona The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Death throes, nothing more at http://nyder.r67.net _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

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