Blakes7

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

5511 discussions

alternative acting
by Alison Page 27 Feb '01

27 Feb '01

Iain just posted about Una and Calle's scene. >Which was, quite honestly, vastly better than the original I was present for this, and I really wish you could all have seen it. It was extremely interesting to see it performed in this way. I think part of the success was that Una and Calle spoke the words quite quietly and intimately. They both showed more vulnerability and tenderness than PD and what's her name did. I don't want to seem to be simply slagging off Paul D, who I think was pivotal in creating the Avon character we know and love, but I think on this occasion he was perhaps poorly directed (who was the director? I'm sure you all know). Also perhaps it was hastily recorded, and things just had to be thrown together in a rush. Elsewhere in the acting overview workshop Iain showed other scenes with PD in, and they were all much more successful. Alison

2 1

Re: [B7L] Re: Brit-char-speak
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 27 Feb '01

27 Feb '01

In a message dated 2/27/01 6:42:11 AM Eastern Standard Time, una(a)q-research.connectfree.co.uk writes: << Leah wrote: > In a message dated 2/22/01 2:07:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, > una(a)q-research.connectfree.co.uk writes: > > << > If anyone can point to > > something distinctly British within the entire run of the B7 series, it'll be > > news to me; I've never noticed. > > The way it shifts between film and videotape. >> > > You know, you're absolutely right. British shows sometimes use film for > outdoor shots, video for indoor shots as a regular technique. This is so rare > on American TV as to be almost non-existent (generally, a series is either > video or it's film. The *only* time you'll see video appear in a filmed > episode is when the script calls for the character to appear in news footage, > or to deliberately convey that the character is being seen through a video > camera). But this is external, a peculiarity of cinematography in the UK; it > doesn't really convey anything British about the *content* of the plot, or > the characters within that filming. >> Hey, changing the goalposts! You said point to something distinctly British, and I did! Actually, I disagree. I think it contributes subtly but essentially to the feel of the show - claustrophobic interiors, grainy exteriors. An essential part of the classic era of BBC TV production, now sadly gone.>> Una, whassamatta, you? Where above did I say that the video-film switching was a "bad" thing, that you had to disagree with? For goodness sakes, let's calm down and stop regarding national differences as battlefields. I had absolutely no problem with the switching. As for the deficient production values...big deal. I chose to ignore them in favor of a terrific set of characterizations and stories. Sheesh, it ain't as if there weren't similarly cheesy American SF shows, ever. Does this prove one country or another is inferior? None of it's worth squabbling over. Let's play virtual tourist and enjoy each other's differences instead. Much more fun. Leah

2 1

Re: [B7L] Re: Brit-char-speak
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 27 Feb '01

27 Feb '01

In a message dated 2/27/01 7:16:27 AM Eastern Standard Time, ijc(a)bas.ac.uk writes: << Horizon is based, in some detail, on the British rule of India. The people of Horizon have a caste system, and are played by actors of Indian origin. The Federation encourages the ruling caste of Horizon to send its children to Earth to be educated, thus creating a native-born ruling class which is indoctrinated in and sympathetic to Federation culture. Horizon is economically exploited, but not physically colonised: there are no ships full of Earth settlers. The two (white) Federation men even have appropriate accents -- and my memory may be failing me, but I think both their outfits and Ro's suit echo 19th century India.<< And yet, knowing all these things back when I first saw this episode, I never once saw this parallel as a viewer, nor did any of the elements evoke anything particularly British Empire to me. I saw a remote planet of exploited dark-skinned indigenous humans who apparently wear a lot of feathers in their native dress, some of whom are sent "back East" for a white man's education. If the above reminded me of anything, it was the American treatment of our *own* Indians. Obviously, the analogy was meant to be applicable to Imperialism and Colonials in general, not just the British example. There were viking-like tribes with chieftains in another episode. Does this mean B7 was Norse? There were motorcycle-type gangs on another episode. Does this make B7 Mad-Max post-apocalyptic Australian? There were cabaret-type casinos in Gambit. Does this make B7 Monte Carlo? Every single episode with a planet story has similar examples. Leah This is hardly coincidence. It's very natural for a British writer, writing about a vast colonial power, to draw on the British Empire. The most important part of the British Empire was India, not just economically but culturally, so it's not surprising that its influence should be felt even in a cheap sci-fi show. It occurs to me that I really should have raised this example at the 'Political System in SF' panel. It might just have got us away from the rather disturbing (not to say embarrassing) anti-American jingoism that kept rearing its ugly head. >>

1 0

Re: [B7L] To apologise or not to apologise
by Tavia Chalcraft 27 Feb '01

27 Feb '01

M wrote about PGP stories: >When we see Blake and when it is written about, Blake is usually >some-how still alive. First, I'm not 100% convinced that your premise is correct. I've read quite a lot of PGP stories where Blake is dead and Avon is alive, and also quite a few where they all die. There are also some stats somewhere, I think? Does anyone here recall where? >However why is this? At first it seems obvious >Blake is still alive, the hero, the 'Captain Kirk', however I think the >answer is more to do with Avon. We need to some-how give him >absolution - this is proven by the fact that if Blake is killed, Avon >must some-how be insane, not just killed him outright. Do we >need Avon to not have committed this crime so much, we try to >absolve him? Part of Avon is that he is ruthless, I myself am an >Avon fan and have been guilty of it, however I think I am starting >to see where the reputation for Avon fans always trying to excuse >him comes from. He cannot be allowed to commit a henious crime >or he must some-how be noble? What do other people think??? I personally tend to prefer the 'Blake is really dead' genre of PGP because, to me, one of the main attractions of B7 as a series is the tragedy of Blake dying at the hands of a friend/colleague/lover (delete as applicable). If Blake somehow survives it feels a bit as if, I dunno, Romeo and Juliet were to get up off their slabs at the end and say, got you there! If Blake is dead and Avon survives then one possible interesting challenge to the writer is to give him absolution without the convenience of having Blake there to forgive. Another is to see whether someone in that situation can carry on living *without* absolution, or can find their own path to absolution. My personal take on this is that the writer has to re-persuade Avon that the acts of the Federation are even more evil than killing Blake, and so absolution might be found in fighting the Federation, ie taking on Blake's mantle (as suggested by the final minutes of 'Blake'). Betty: >A dead Blake may make for a lot of Avon-angst, but a Blake >who managed to survive can make for even *more* (with >the added extra bonus of Blake-angst!). Not only does the >poor bastard have to deal with the fact that he killed Blake >(or tried to), but he has to deal with it *in Blake's presence*. >(And which is worse for Avon? A Blake who forgives him, >or a Blake who doesn't?) For those who like angst, this >possibility can be postitively irresistable. Letting Blake be >dead is too *much* of a happy ending. :) These are also very interesting premises for PGP, but I disagree that you can wring even more angst out of a situation with Blake alive than with Blake dead. A dead Blake who can't understand or forgive gives me an angst reading of 1, as does a live Blake who can't forgive, and a live forgiving Blake scenario where Avon can't accept the absolution offered. Actually, I think Betty's reasons (a) and (b) are the most likely explanations. Tavia

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: in calm discussion (was Deliverance)
by Tavia Chalcraft 27 Feb '01

27 Feb '01

Fiona wrote: >Oh, guys, this HURTS. This really, bloody hurts. You >may feel like a lab rat, but to be honest, I feel like >someone who has spoken up in favour of animal >experimentation and come home to find my car burnt >down and my house smashed up by animal rights >activists... I apologise if I inadvertently offended you, Fiona. All I was trying to do was say -- speaking as an analytical person, and moreover one who's volunteered for numerous psychology studies -- that I could empathise with *both* sides here. Tavia

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: Brit-char-speak
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 27 Feb '01

27 Feb '01

In a message dated 2/22/01 5:35:18 AM Eastern Standard Time, ijc(a)bas.ac.uk writes: << > the Declaration of Independence and the American flag. If anyone can point to > something distinctly British within the entire run of the B7 series, it'll be > news to me; I've never noticed. 'Horizon'. >> Sorry. I don't get you. I've watched this episode many times since the early 1980's and never saw anything that struck me as British. Can you be more specific? (And if you have to be more specific, than it might have been in the eye of the beholder.) Leah

2 1

Re: [B7L] Rumours of Death - the rewrite
by Mac4781＠aol.com 27 Feb '01

27 Feb '01

Harriet, I've not yet commented on: > "Rumours of Death" > by Harriet Monkhouse Yet another brilliant segment in the "Adventures of Jarriere." I hope these are going up on a web archive. > [As he huddles on the cellar floor, suffering in an entirely realistic and > totally unaesthetic manner, Avon is inclined to concur.] LOL! This was my favorite line. Carol Mc

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: Brit-char-speak
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 27 Feb '01

27 Feb '01

In a message dated 2/22/01 2:07:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, una(a)q-research.connectfree.co.uk writes: << > If anyone can point to > something distinctly British within the entire run of the B7 series, it'll be > news to me; I've never noticed. The way it shifts between film and videotape. >> You know, you're absolutely right. British shows sometimes use film for outdoor shots, video for indoor shots as a regular technique. This is so rare on American TV as to be almost non-existent (generally, a series is either video or it's film. The *only* time you'll see video appear in a filmed episode is when the script calls for the character to appear in news footage, or to deliberately convey that the character is being seen through a video camera). But this is external, a peculiarity of cinematography in the UK; it doesn't really convey anything British about the *content* of the plot, or the characters within that filming. Oddly, whenever I point out the film/video changeover to Annie on a British show, she says she can't tell the difference. Leah

2 1

H/C (was in clam discussion)
by Betty Ragan 27 Feb '01

27 Feb '01

Ellynne wrote: Actually, Ellynne wrote a *lot* of very interesting stuff, and I'm tempted to quote the whole post, but I'll refrain. (Heck, this post ended up being long enough, anyway!) > The interesting thing about the h/c thread is that I feel like I keep > jumping back and forth on it. Sometimes, I'm sure it's a genre I like. > Other times, I'd say not. Part of it, certainly, is that I'm reading > descriptions that don't seem to quite match with what I was thinking of. > I'm still trying to decide if this is because I'm reading an analysis by > someone who may not like it or whether I'm the one who's confused. Actually, I think the possible source of the confusion is suddenly pretty clear to me, but let's see if I can put it into words adequately. The thing is, it seems to me that h/c, like anything else, can be done well or it can be done badly. And whether a given story is done well or badly is a pretty subjective thing, and is going to depend not just on one's personal tastes, but also on one's view of the characters. After all, badly done characterization tends to make for a pretty bad story, but what one person sees as bad characterization may be entirely acceptable to someone else. Anyway, it seems to me that a lot of people are saying "I don't like h/c" or "I don't like character-junkie stories" or "I don't like slash" because they equate those things with bad characterization (usualy of the overly touchy-feely variety). But, really, in any of those (very ill-defined, IMO) subgenres, lots of different takes on the characterization are possible: some good, some bad, and some whose percieved quality is going to depend *very* strongly on how well it lines up with the reader's individual take on the characters. The example of the Avon-and-the-seeing-eye-dog story you mentioned (and which I haven't read, either) is a good one. It's a concept that could be done badly (possibly *very* badly: now I'm imagining Avon making a tearful speech about how much he loves his sweet little doggy and finding myself overcome with the urge to hurl), or it could be done well and in-character. (I can, for instance, imagine Avon loudly complaining to all and sundry about what a stupid, smelly, useless animal this is, but still being very kind to the dog, especially when nobody's looking. Heck, I think he sometimes does that with *Blake*. :)) I think a *big* part of the problem is that, face it, this sort of thing is much, much easier to do badly than to do well, particularly if the reader's tolerance for the "schmaltzy" stuff is very low. So somebody sees enough examples of it done badly and concludes that, inevitably, it all must be like that. But it *is* possible to explore the characters' relationships and emotions and all that other stuff that Avon would dismiss contemptuously as "sentiment" without making the characters *themselves* uncharacteristically "sentimental." Just because it often *is* done badly doesn't mean it can't be done well. (In fact, you could say the same for fanfic in general, really.) Actually, another concrete example might help here... Coincidentally, I happen to have just finished reading a couple of stories in Sheila Paulson's "Jabberwocky" series, and although it wouldn't have occured to me to think of it in these terms if we hadn't been having his discussion here, the second story ("Mind-Rape") is a pretty classic h/c scenario, really. (Warning, mild spoilers for this story follow!) The setup is that Blake's been telepathically attacked, and he's in a coma while his consciousness is sort of locked away in a mental void like the one Cally was trapped in in "Shadow." Medical opinion says it might help if those Blake cares about sit and talk to him and try to reach him, to provide his unconscious mind with some incentive to come back from this state of telepathic isolation. So Avon sits by his bedside and holds his hand and talks to him. Now, the thing is, this could easily -- *very* easily -- have turned into a positively wince-inducing piece of sentimental schmaltz. It's disturbingly easy to imagine that, at this point, we could have gotten Avon weeping at Blake's bedside and wailing "Oh, Blake, don't leave me! I never had the chance to tell you how much you meant to me!" or some equally un-Avonic kind of thing. Sheila, bless her, does *not* do this. (Actually, Sheila Paulson's writing is really interesting to me in this respect, because she tends to go a bit more into the "let's have the characters open up a little, because things would be *so* much better if they'd just let down their guard a bit and talk to each other" kind of thing than I am usually comfortable with. But she makes it work for me (the majority of the time, anyway), precisely because she knows just how to avoid taking it too far.) Anyway, the Avon in the story feels *extremely* uncomfortable doing this, but reassures himself that, well, there's a good, practical, medical reason for it. And most of the things he says to Blake are couched in a sort of affectionately sarcastic tone that seemed very familiar and in-character to me. Finally, and with some degree of difficulty and reluctance, he tells Blake, "You matter. Come back." And that *works* for me very, very well. Because this *is* our reticent, unentimental Avon, those three syllables -- "You matter" -- are more effective and impactful than the teary speech would have been. That's how I like to see this sort of thing done, and it certainly *is* doable. It just ain't easy. > Someone else tell me if this means I like h/c or not. I'd say it means that you like h/c if it's done well, according to your definition of "well." And I'd say the same was true for me. -- Betty Ragan ** bragan(a)nrao.edu ** http://www.aoc.nrao.edu/~bragan Not speaking for my employers, officially or otherwise. "Seeing a rotten picture for the special effects is like eating a tough steak for the smothered onions..." -- Isaac Asimov

1 0

Re: The journey of the London ; long argument in favour of eight months.
by seven＠gaudaprime.com 27 Feb '01

27 Feb '01

(snipped number and itinerary of prison transports) Jacqui >> And could the 'missing four months' on the Liberator be accounted for by the incident with negative hyperspace? Neil > I see the 'missing four months' simply as a script anomaly (and a careless Nationism). I tend to think that Blake's bid for freedom was made pretty much towards the end of the voyage. David You possibly got this impression that Blake's bid for freedom occurred near the end of the voyage from two places from Space Fall Raiker: I can get them out of there, sir. ... I want a free hand to take whatever action I think necessary. Do I have your permission, sir? Leylan: All right. Raiker: Come on. Jenna: What do you think they will do? Blake: Their time is running out. Jenna: So is ours. David The idea that their time was running out can suggest this event occurred towards the end of their voyage, but Blake might simply have meant their air supply is getting low, or the as yet unidentified Liberator will threaten the London, or the space battle that holed the London might engulf them again, or such like. Blake: Follow the London to Cygnus Alpha. Then we can free the rest of the prisoners. David Since the London takes another four months (so some say) and since the Liberator followed the London, they both must arrive in another four months. But this cannot be (from your next statement below) so the second lot of four months must therefore be an anomaly. Neil > Very little time seems to pass between boarding the Liberator and reaching Cygnus Alpha. In fact, right at the very last minute, since we first see the London arrive over the planet, *then* cut to Blake et al exploring the ship they have *only just* acquired. It might be that a day or two has passed since Jenna pulled the Liberator away from the London, but even this seems a bit generous. David Only a little amount of time did pass on the Liberator. It is, as you imply, only hours ship-time between the Liberator's exit from the London and the establishment of orbit 1,000 spatials above the surface of Cygnus Alpha. Artix, on the other hand, is tired. Leylan is tired but regretful too. These two have travelled longer. Neil > Jenna sends the ship hurtling through 'negative hyperspace' after the London is spotted over Cygnus Alpha but before the prison ship makes a landing. Liberator reaches the planet while the London is still on the surface (and is still in orbit when the London takes off, though London fails to notice Liberator). David There were several witnesses to that region of space: The London's scans were working, Artix looked out the window, The eagle-eyed devotee spotted London but not Liberator. When Liberator was in orbit, Vargas saw it plainly enough. The Liberator couldn't have been there. from Cygnus Alpha Artix: [looking at Cygnus Alpha] It doesn't look very hospitable, sir. ... Cygnus Alpha. It doesn't look very hospitable, sir. David The planet was dark blue planet amid dark background. Compare this with the background behind the Liberator immediately after the following scene Artix: We have confirmation. Will they go after Blake? Leylan: They have no choice. Artix: They'll never find him out there. I said, sir they'll never find him out there. Leylan: They won't have too. He'll find them. [Scene switches to Liberator in flight] David There are two large-ish planets at the lower left and a smaller planet at the top. There is also a star giving off a warm brightness. The contrast between Liberator's background and Cygnus Alpha's background is shown in order to indicate that Liberator and London were not in the same general area. Neil > So assuming we see events in the order that they actually happen, the negative hyperspace trip can't have delayed Liberator's arrival by more than a few hours at most. David The assumption of seeing events in order may be seen to be incorrect if the difference between Leylan's two reports is considered. Leylan's Flash-Back Leylan's Report:- He sat pensively as his report was emailed: This is Civil Administration Ship 'London' in transit from Earth to Cygnus Alpha transporting prisoners to the penal colony. We have sustained crew Blake & Jenna, also pensive, casualties during an stalked along a corridor. attempted mutiny by Jenna warned Blake, who spun prisoners: Five dead, around and fired at Raiker. including Sub-Commander Raiker & Artix took cover, Raiker. as did Blake & Jenna. Three prisoners Blake eased out from under escaped in a cover to look. in a spacecraft Raiker fired at Blake, missed. of unknown origin: Prisoners Blake and Jenna were called Blake, Stannis into the computer room by Avon. & Avon. The London is again under authorised control & proceeding to destination. Message ends. Retransmit to Earth on priority circuit. Confirm please. Artix: We have confirmation. Will they go after Blake? David Leylan's body language while his report was being emailed is that of one having a flash-back. The flash-back was in Black & White and referred to events in the past. (Some say the recent past, I say four months past.) Blake, Jenna, & Avon on Liberator Leylan's Memorised Report: We have sustained crew casualties during an attempted mutiny by prisoners: Five dead, including Sub-Commander Raiker. Three prisoners escaped in a spacecraft of unknown origin: Blake is walking Prisoners Blake, into teleport bay, Jenna is handling Stannis, teleport bracelet, Avon is placing weapon and Avon. onto the teleport console. Blake: Avon, what do you think? David Leylan's second flash-back - while the report is recurring in his memory - is in colour. The intention of the programme editor is that whereas Leylan's first flash-back referred to past events, his second flash-back referred to present events (which he, Leylan, doesn't know, but the viewer knows). In this way did the programme editor handle the passage of time in the second lot of four months. What was four months on the London was four hours on the Liberator. Neil > In other words, the 8 months cited early in Spacefall and the 4 months mentioned later on are incompatible. One or the other is probably wrong. (snipped Raiker's eight months v. Blake's four months) David The eight months are mentioned a second time Leylan: We have ground zero contact. All off. Artix: All off, sir. Leylan: Right, disembark the prisoners, Mr. Artix. Maintain full security until they are in the holding bay. I will program the computer for the return. We lift off in d plus thirty. Artix: Thirty minutes? Sir, we have been in space now for eight months. I wouldn't mind stretching my legs a little. Leylan: Not on this planet, Mr. Artix. Now get the prisoners off and let's go home. Artix: Yes, sir. Neil > All in all, a very tricky anomaly to explain. David That there might be a time-difference between any two ships travelling at different speeds is given by Raiker from Space Fall Raiker: The voyage to Cygnus Alpha will take approximately eight months ship time. During this period, you will obey every order and instruction that is given you. DC, who answers Jacqui in the affirmative

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