Blakes7

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

5511 discussions

Re: Dome size (it's what you do with it that counts)
by Pat Sumner 28 Feb '01

28 Feb '01

From: "Marian de Haan" <maya(a)multiweb.nl> Subject: Re: [B7L] Domes > > Its possible that most of a dome is underground, and what we see above is > just the airvent sticking out. In which case they could be quite large. > And the domes could be connected by underground tunnels, so one could travel > from one to the next without the need to go "outside". This fits in with my opinion of them. 'My' domes are on the scale of those in Isaac Asimov's book, The Caves of Steel - their cities were totally enclosed (presumably in domes) and were at the very least the size of our modern cities; some were stated as being much larger. In the books, citizens were not exactly prohibited from going Outside, but had spent so long in their Cities that they suffered from agoraphobia; all but a minute percentage of them would feel physically ill at even the thought of venturing Outside. Transport within the Cities (and between close-lying but discrete cities) was by a sort of moving pavement affair, which operated at varying speeds (up to around 70 miles per hour); one started with slow tracks and progressed up the scale to the expressways. There was also a system of tunnels for the exclusive use of emergency vehicles. Transport between distant cities was also possible, by the use of totally-enclosed aircraft - presumably operating under computer flight co-ordination. The cities were stated as being multi-level (encompassing hundreds of levels); and being enclosed, one would have no way of knowing whether or not one was above 'ground.' The citizens lived under a hierarchical system; as one gained in grade classification, one gained in privileges - private cooking, sanitation or entertainment facilities, for example. The descriptions of the cities, and their (IMO) similarity to the domes in Blakes 7 was what made me interested in these books in the first place. Wildean

2 1

Re: [B7L] Re: Brit-char-speak
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 28 Feb '01

28 Feb '01

In a message dated 2/22/01 4:43:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, N.Faulkner(a)tesco.net writes: << You know far more about fanfic than I ever will: do you see any evidence of US shows being 'Britannicised'? And if so, does it bother you? >> Abso-bleedin'-loutly. Until a few years ago, it was almost unheard of for an American series or feature to end on a tragic note, without the inevitable happily-ever-after. This was an almost exclusively British or Japanese cultural phenomenon in entertainment media. This is one reason why the ending at Gauda Prime was actually more devastating for American viewers than it was for Brits. I believe there may actually be a set of FCC rules that *required* that Good always win out over Evil by the end of a TV narrative, in the US. I'm not certain if it's still in effect according to Standards or not. For various reasons, we've gradually been seeing more American/Canadian shows with grim, unresolved or ambiguous endings...in other words, closer to reality. I don't believe Americans are unsophisticated enough to handle a dark ending; I just think American producers don't want them to, so they've been feeding them largely nothing but 'feel good' resolutions since the beginning. Now since this isn't really as hard and fast a rule of US movies, I would guess that the TV networks are pandering somewhat to the wishes of the advertisers who produce all the commercials for those shows. They might be afraid to give the audience a downer mood, just before they try to sell them dishwashing soap and a new car. Leah

2 1

RE: [B7L] Re: Gay Subtexts
by Roberts, Patricia ＠ CSE 28 Feb '01

28 Feb '01

Fiona Moore wrote: "Not to mention in the very first episode (which was banned in the USA for a long time for this very reason), Blake is accused of being a child molestor? If they can mention that, they can mention anything." OK, I'm in the USA and when my PBS station started showing B7, they started with the very first episode. Where was it banned? When? Just curious. Pat

3 2

Adding my voice to the chorus
by Helen Krummenacker 28 Feb '01

28 Feb '01

(long snippage of internal workings of Avon's mind) > But the one thing he is not is a quitter. > > Neil Character Junkie!

3 2

Horizon and Redemption
by Judith Proctor 28 Feb '01

28 Feb '01

I'm off list at present (still unable to type much), but I need to comment on this one as it was passed on to me. I started writing a long post and then decided that the only person who could speak for Gareth Thomas was Gareth himself. This is what he said - "I'm very sad that somebody should be citing me who is so obviously unaware. I will not be quoted as a 'fandom wedge' when the BBC and the press are trying hard enough to split us all apart anyway. Please listen before you quote, and never quote out of context." ie. (this is roughly paraphrasing what he said in explanation of the above) He will not be used in any way in fan disagreements. He will not take sides in any dispute between myself, Diane or anyone else. He does not want to be seen as taking sides in any debate regarding slash or any other issue and does not want anyone to make any assumptions at all regarding his views on anything. Judith -- 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 '01 23-25 Feb 2001 http://www.smof.com/redemption/

1 0

Cyberpunk (Was: [B7L] Re: in calm discussion)
by Tavia Chalcraft 28 Feb '01

28 Feb '01

Neil wrote: >Rather than ask, "Why h/c?", let me turn it around and >try to explain "Why cyberpunk?" What exactly is cyberpunk, could you define it, give some examples ? It might help to have a few examples of B7 stories by a range of authors that you consider to be cyberpunk as well.... Tavia (one of whose post-Redemptive resolutions was read more science fiction)

3 2

Re: [B7L] Servalan set it all up?
by Ashton7＠aol.com 28 Feb '01

28 Feb '01

In a message dated 2/28/01 10:06:38 AM Eastern Standard Time, N.Faulkner(a)tesco.net writes: << I don't go along with this at all. It seems too convenient, a way of letting Avon off the hook, and more importantly a convenient way of relieving Avon groupies of the problematic reconciliation of their groupiedom with the cold, hard fact that Avon shot the shit out of Blake. It wasn't his fault, it was all Servalan's doing, Blake is dead and Avon is innocent, hurrah! Also, I am less than impressed by the perennial fannish obsession with 'conditioning' as a cop out explanation for anything in the series that they're less than happy with. There are examples of such conditioning in the series, of course, most notably in VftP and Terminal, but they are made explicit and are plot-specific. >> Well, I don't think I said that Avon should be "let off the hook." I'm not really a proponent overall of the "Avon is innocent" theory. In fact, Leah and I have both long pointed out that it is ridiculous to constantly blame *Blake* for what Avon did. And a lot of fan fiction does some to do that. I can't count the number of times I've read fanfic where Blake survives Gauda Prime and spends all of his time *apologizing* to Avon for *making* him shoot him. And worries about Avon. And so on. I'm probably even guilty of writing a few stories like that myself in my early days of writing way back when. I was simply pointing out that is a completely valid possibility, especially what we SAW happening on Terminal, that Avon had been conditioned to kill Blake the moment he finally found him/saw him. And that is what happened, with apparently little rhyme or reason. Perhaps others don't agree with me that Avon seems startled when he pulls the trigger? Annie

4 3

Re: [B7L] To apologise or not to apologise
by Ashton7＠aol.com 28 Feb '01

28 Feb '01

In a message dated 2/27/01 10:22:03 AM Eastern Standard Time, tavia(a)btinternet.com writes: << The only way I personally could absolve Avon would be if he were clinically insane at that point, and (not much wishing to get into this debate) I tend to the view that he is highly stressed, emotionally exhausted, but not insane. >> That's probably why so many fans over the years have speculated that Avon was suffering from traumatic stress or just plain crazy. And it also probably goes along with Neil's thoughts about fans wanting to somehow "excuse" Avon for shooting Blake. Myself, I always thought one of the most logical explanations of Avon doing what he did at Gauda Prime was that he had been programmed to do it when Servalan had him on Terminal. Not only does it explain Avon's itchy trigger finger, it also explains the look of total surprise he seems to have on his face as he fires over and over. I remember many American fans being quite surprised to hear from Paul Darrow at conventions that he himself never regarded Avon as crazy or stressed out in the 4th season. He gave the impression that he was given much more latitude to play the character the way *he* wanted to in the last season and what we saw was more his conception of the character. Some folks like that portrayal and some of the rest of us think he just seemed crazy (when compared to the Avon of earlier seasons). I can go with either interpretation, frankly, though. I love seeing the various different "takes" on it in fan fiction. Annie

3 3

Re: [B7L] Servalan set it all up?
by Ashton7＠aol.com 28 Feb '01

28 Feb '01

In a message dated 2/28/01 2:08:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, ragan(a)sdc.org writes: << I agree with Neil, actually (again!). Conditioning is an interesting theme in B7, but it *can* be used in ways that feel like a bit of a cop-out to me. >> Yes, I can see that, too (I have, indeed, read many a story where it was used as the "cop-out"... the very reason why Avon should be forgiven TOTALLY for shooting Blake). I think it's interesting that as the fandom has grown and matured over the years, we see more and more stories where Avon *isn't* easily forgiven for what he did. This is certainly the more realistic approach to take. I think that what often happens in fan fiction is that people honestly want to feel good about the character they like and/or admire the most and they want to redeem him *somehow*. We see it all the time in Highlander fandom/fan fiction with the character of Methos (who has a very naughty past). Annie

1 0

Re: [B7L] Servalan set it all up?
by Ashton7＠aol.com 28 Feb '01

28 Feb '01

In a message dated 2/28/01 12:31:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, stephend999(a)yahoo.co.uk writes: << But I don't see why Servalan would go to all of the trouble to condition him. After all she's just left him in a booby trapped base with a booby trapped ship on a planet that's just about to undergo serious seismic disturbances. She could hardly know that Dorian was going to convieniently show up and rescue him. >> Now, that's an interesting rebuttal. You're absolutely right. How could Servalan know that Avon was going to survive...? Hmmm. Well, in the beginning, was she intending to leave him behind on Terminal? Maybe she thought she'd take him with her? Or come back for him? (Not realizing that her transport--the Liberator---was about to fall apart?) I think there are ways to get around the problem (most of them probably qualify as convoluted). But, you do have a very good point. Annie

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