Blakes7

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

5511 discussions

Re: [B7L] Re: Use of image
by Shane Little 17 Mar '01

17 Mar '01

huh wrote > > > > First, who says we're talking about fans? I could have meant agents, or > > journalists, or interested third parties. > > Oh sorry, I didn't realize that non-fans would be hanging out in fan > conventions buying fanzines and fan artwork. Excuse me. When a convention comes to town, particularly a large one, the local paper at least usually sends someone out to cover it. I'm sure we've all seen the articles: "Sci-Fi Maniacs Converge on Manchester," coupled with photograph of person in poorly-made Klingon costume. Also, these journalists usually like to make fans look as weird and pathetic as possible in order to sell papers. Don't you think they'd _love_ to know about slash art? As for other sorts of non-fans, the guests often bring their families-- their spouses and kids, who don't need to see their parent or partner held up as a sex object. Finally, supposing an actor found out about slash art and was angry enough to complain to his/her agent? That agent might very well refuse to let the actor have anything to do with fans at all. >My mistake. Or that journalists > would be so naive as to assume everything they see on-line is in some way > factual. As I said, they don't need to. Journalists need to sell papers, and so regardless of whether or not the site does show anything factual, they'll write it up. If a journalist did find a fan site with slash art, chances are the headline would read NUDE PICTURES OF [ACTOR X] SHOCKER, and the fact that these were faked up or sketched will be buried somewhere in the fine print. This _did_ actually happen at least once, with Doctor Who and the Sun newspaper. Any teeny tiny > minority of persons who might even conceivably believe this really must be > too stupid to live. Don't you think it's just a tiny bit fascist to say that someone is "too stupid to live"? >That better? I am talking issue with your statement > that there could be confusion as to the actors being involved in fan adult > art. And what I'm saying is, there doesn't have to be confusion as to the actors being involved in fan art for a fan, a spouse or, worst of all, a journalist, to assume that the actors give their tacit approval to this sort of thing. > > That's your feelings. You don't speak for everyone, in fandom or on the > > lyst. Anyway, it's because of the actors that you have the show in the > first > > place-- doesn't that entitle them to a bit of courtesy? > > Seems to me I said "my" and I meant my. I realized when I wrote it that > others might feel differently. I don't see why other's preferences for cons > should affect my or anyone else's enjoyment of zines, But why should your enjoyment of zines have to ruin somebody else's enjoyment of cons? If because a small minority of fans like to look at dirty pictures, the actors decide not to have anything to do with _any_ fans, the majority aren't going to be happy. As far as I can tell, > removing offending sales merchandise is courteous. Displaying adult > merchandise discreetly is courteous. Not asking actors to sign any > merchandise they don't wish to is courteous. Not everybody does even so little, as I'm sure you know. We've all heard stories, I'm sure, about people who actually send slash art to actors to sign. Treating the actual actor > present civilly and as a human being and not a sex object is courteous. And when they're not present? > > Oh, now really. Are actors not also human beings? Don't they have a right > to > > privacy? > Of course they are entitled to privacy. Anything which happens legally in > the privacy of their own homes and grounds is sancrosant . No extended super > lens cameras to catch them sunbathing in their own backyards, no spying on > them when they are a scratching themselves on Sundays. While I personally > would leave them alone were they to be shopping, eating in a restaurant or > whatever, a prominent person cannot be surprised if others do. It happens > to local prominent persons, for heaven's sake, not just actors. If you are > prominent you are exposed to others even when you are on "private time". And this is a good thing? Remember that this doesn't just affect the actors, but their friends and family with whom they spend their private time. But this is beside the point. We are not dealing with Hollywood stars, but with a group of jobbing actors who had some moderate success twenty years ago with a show that happened to turn cult. Since then they have been doing pantos, theatres, the odd bit of TV. Some are in their sixties now, and probably considering retirement. Most have second jobs which they work at when they aren't acting. Their kids go to state schools, they have mortgages and bills. To lump B7 actors in with the likes of Patrick Stewart is very, very naive, and you cannot treat them all in the same way. > Apparently you live in a different world. As far as I can see the world > thrives on selfishness, selfcenterdness and an awful lot of treating people > as objects. And we should go on allowing this? Just because everybody else is selfish it doesn't mean _you_ should be selfish too. > as much as anyone else but from what I have seen they are very clearly aware > that their objectification is for a character idea and they are not > portraying the actor as an object. Not so sure about that. Leaving aside the cases of slash art going out using actors' real names and not the characters', the separation between an actors' image and that of a character is a very slim one indeed. Actors tend to look like the characters they portray for some reason. This is why actors are recognised in the street. This is why you hear cases of actors who play villains in soaps getting attacked in pubs, or actors who play heartthrobs getting mobbed. If there was no visible connection between the character and the actor, this wouldn't happen. As it is, though, it's pretty easy to draw a visual link between the actor and the character, and to confuse the two. >Considering that the only ones who need the courtesy of not being exposed to > this are the actors or those who do not wish to see adult art, Not true. Actors' families, their friends, their co-workers, journalists, agents... also, in the Internet age, anti-slash fans who innocently type "[Actor X] pictures" into a search engine and click on the first site they see... > It may very well do but I find it really hard to believe that anyone could > have worked as an actor for decades and not developed a fairly thick skin in > this regard. Oh yes? Didn't Iain have a few things to say a while ago as to acting and how an actor might feel if he came across a picture of himself performing [censored] with a colleague? It's one thing to go out and play a role which involves behaviour which you wouldn't ordinarily do. It's another to find out that someone has gone and mocked up a picture of this without your knowledge and consent. Shane "What shall I do with the other hand?" --Avon Who needs Cupid? Matchmaker.com is the place to meet somebody. FREE Two-week Trial Membership at http://www.matchmaker.com/home?rs=200015

3 2

light bulb
by Nathan Hook 17 Mar '01

17 Mar '01

wouldn't vila say: 'I just don't want to change the light bulb. Is that unreasonable?' or: 'Danger, excitment, changing a light bulb. I can't wait.' A 'strange coincidence', to use a phrase/ By which such things are settled nowadays. Byron. ------------------------------------------------------------ Free, BeOS-friendly email accounts: http://BeMail.org/ Peep! - http://twinfusion.com/comic/peep/ - "Stop lookin at my eye mofos!"

1 0

star one...map.
by Nathan Hook 17 Mar '01

17 Mar '01

Dana shilling said: "Find me a primitive man... Not the kind of man who belongs to a club, But a man with a club that belongs to him" (Cole Porter) This is classic...he he. and she said: Of course she was--neither Blake nor Avon would ever stop at a petrol station and ask for directions. How true..., Vila put paid to any fears one might have had with his brilliant summation of searching for things in the dark...if you see what i mean. Funny thing, I was thinkng to myself that in driving and using a map I would refuse to become angry about it if a female passenger was in the car politely giving advice. well it happened. Mum and myself. I became annoyed at the inability of passenger unable to read map. only to discover that I was reading it upside down...as in I followed the roads the wrong way. much frustration was building...remembered my promise never to become irritated. best to shut up, bite my tongue and let "mother" who knows best read the bloody map before serious loss of face and ammunition is stored for a later assualt. Climax of the event was in performing a "U" turn with aproaching mini and "older" bearded gent at the helm. Me thinks sufficient time...seems mini driver sped up and tooted and flashed his lights becuase I had to slow due the possibility of colliding with parked vehicles on the other side of the road. the lock isn't sharp enough on nissan primera...much glaring was transmitted through rear view mirror and restraint was demonstrated due to mother being there and smirking immensely at sons incompetence. The Jarvik anti-new age man apreciation society has now been formed. It will actully be under the umbrella society G.R.O.W.L = grown men really only wear leather, which is a brother society to the S.S.E.F.F, the Secret Society for the Excessively Facially Follicled, formed in 1995 by myself at Victoria University here in wellington. Nathan. A 'strange coincidence', to use a phrase/ By which such things are settled nowadays. Byron. ------------------------------------------------------------ Free, BeOS-friendly email accounts: http://BeMail.org/ Peep! - http://twinfusion.com/comic/peep/ - "Stop lookin at my eye mofos!"

1 0

Re: [B7L] AVON'S GARDENING DIARY
by Ellynne G. 17 Mar '01

17 Mar '01

On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 20:28:19 -0500 "Dana Shilling" <dshilling(a)worldnet.att.net> writes: > Jacqui asked: > > > What would the characters' favourite plants/flowers be? Blake: Forget-Me-Nots Vila: Poppies seem the most likely (but now I'm thinking of the Wicked Witch and flying monkeys). Jenna: Tempted to say The Yellow Rose of Texas, but the story doesn't fit. Saguaro flowers, I think (a flower growing on a very prickly cactus, best to touch with a ten foot pole if contact must be made). Cally: White roses. Dayna: Tiger lilies Tarrant: Tempted to say Peter Pan (and all his incarnations) doesn't like flowers, but as he's a pirate . . . tiger lilies? Servalan: Misltetoe (no, not because of the Christmas tradition. We're talking about the harmless looking, parasitic plant that takes up residence on mighty oaks, looking completely ornamental as it works its way around them, sucks the life out, and destroys them. Also believed in some quarters to have been used to drug sacrificial victims of ancient druids, not to mention _white_ berries). Gan: I'm not sure about the flowers, but I know he has a pink flamingo on his lawn. Avon: Black roses. Travis: None, but is always willing to misdirect flower pickers to the poison ivy. Soolin: One of those pretty flowers growing on bushes that hide lots of inch long thorns covered with poisonous resin that cause your hand to swell up and itch for days. 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] AVON'S GARDENING DIARY
by Jenny Kaye 17 Mar '01

17 Mar '01

>From: DDJ <frazzled(a)keystonenet.com> >To: <blakes7(a)lists.lysator.liu.se> >Subject: Re: [B7L] AVON'S GARDENING DIARY >Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 21:01:29 -0500 > > > > >> What would the characters' favourite plants/flowers be? Maybe I'm just too new to the lyst, but I've been racking my brains trying to work out why this is relevant to Blakes 7-- any answers, Kathryn? But I do think Orac would make a nice window box, and Soolin would be keen on an unruly herbacious border :-)! Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

3 2

AVON'S GARDENING DIARY
by B7Morrigan＠aol.com 17 Mar '01

17 Mar '01

When sevencyclopedic brains go bad... Morrigan

10 12

Tripod id Taking Down Fanfic Sites
by Carol & Gordon 17 Mar '01

17 Mar '01

Greetings, This came across another list today and I thought some of you might be effected. Carol 'Hondo' Tripod is deleting fansites of all kinds (slash, het, gen, fanfic, fanart, clean and adult), even sites that only have links to them, without warning. A lot are already gone, the rest are likely to follow. Angelfire is also owned by the parent company, so those sites are likely in danger as well. If your site is already gone, you may be able to retrieve lost pages from Google's cache, go to Google and search for your site and then click on the Cache link. But you gotta work fast before Google updates their cache. Other companies that are owned by Lycos (the parent company named) Tripod Lycos Communications Angelfire Quote.com Whowhere? Lycos Gamesville Hot Bot Hot Wired html GEAR Sonique Media Player webmonkey Wired News Matchmaker

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: Journalist at conventions
by Shane Little 17 Mar '01

17 Mar '01

Steve wrote: > Shane said: "When a convention comes to town, particularly a large one, > the local > paper at least usually sends someone out to cover it. I'm sure we've all > seen > the articles: "Sci-Fi Maniacs Converge on Manchester," coupled with > photograph > of person in poorly-made Klingon costume. Also, these journalists > usually like > to make fans look as weird and pathetic as possible in order to sell > papers." > > A gross over generalisation and not my experience for the two cons I've > been involed in running. The two are not synonymous. > When I've discussed thsi with other con organisers, the general feeling > is much the same - the local press want an entertaining story but do not > tend to take the piss, more than maybe a few jokey puns. > > I'd be interested Shane to know which papers relating to which > conventions you have seen the behaviour you describe take place. Most local journos, admittedly, don't do much beyond turn up and photograph the first thing that catches their eye. But one nasty example of journalists purposely taking the piss is a BBC Radio programme from about five years back called "The Enthusiasts," which turned up at Doctor Who convention and made out that everyone there was a sad scarf-wearing wanker (actually, I'm old enough to remember a time when every other week there was some human-interest item or other which made out that Doctor Who fans were willing to storm the BBC and put Michael Grade's head on a pike over the series' cancellation, which was a fairly nasty overgeneralisation I think you'll agree). Imagine what they'd have made of it if the con had been selling slash... B7 fandom is small enough that it's avoided this sort of thing thus far. But what would happen if the film came out, and so the series, and its fans, suddenly become an interesting target to national journalists? They'd tear us to shreds. Shane "Too tired to think of anything funny" --Me Who needs Cupid? Matchmaker.com is the place to meet somebody. FREE Two-week Trial Membership at http://www.matchmaker.com/home?rs=200015

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: Use of image
by Shane Little 17 Mar '01

17 Mar '01

Dana wrote: > Shane said: > >Don't you think they'd _love_ to know about slash art? > Of course they do--there've been articles about slash in several newspapers > and magazines, > quite apart from at least three books that I know about. We're agreed then. > >Fiinally, supposing an actor found out about slash art and was angry enough > to complain to his/her agent? That agent might very well refuse to let the > actor have anything to do with fans at all. > Agents can't "refuse to let actors" do anything. A sensible actor who was > upset about slash > art would complain to the artist, and then negotiate future con appearances > based on a > guarantee that slash art would not be sold there, or would be subject to > display restrictions. Agents don't work like that. For one thing, to get a good agent is rare and you want to hang on to them-- which gives an agent a good deal of power over their actors. They can also go over actors' heads-- I know of at least one case of a sf actor whose agent carefully binned any request from anything she saw as fan-related. And finally, there is at least one case of a B7 actor who _has_ complained about slash fiction-- but this hasn't stopped artists and publishers using his image in this way, even at cons which he appears at. > > As I said, they don't need to. Journalists need to sell papers, and so > regardless of whether or not the site does show anything factual, they'll > write it up. If a journalist did find a fan site with slash art, chances are > the headline would read NUDE PICTURES OF [ACTOR X] SHOCKER, and the fact > that these were faked up or sketched will be buried somewhere in the fine > print. This _did_ actually happen at least once, with Doctor Who and the Sun > newspaper. > Even a journalist can tell the difference between a fan's sketch and a > photograph that is > presented as a factual depiction of an actor. That wasn't what I said. I said that it doesn't _matter_ to the journalist whether the picture is a sketch or a photo. Shane "I can't be bothered to think of anything..." --Me Who needs Cupid? Matchmaker.com is the place to meet somebody. FREE Two-week Trial Membership at http://www.matchmaker.com/home?rs=200015

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: Use of image
by Shane Little 17 Mar '01

17 Mar '01

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

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