Blakes7

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

5511 discussions

Deliverance
by Andrew Williams 05 Feb '01

05 Feb '01

Neil wrote: > > (Still thinking this is the Best Thread on the Lyst ... Ever!) You obviously weren't on-line for the Best Socks on the Liberator thread....

1 0

Redemption stewarding
by Julia Jones 05 Feb '01

05 Feb '01

I've just been talking to Judith, who can't type at all so I'm doing this for her... Redemption has enough stewards to cover the events, but could use a few more. In particular, the zine library could open for longer hours if there are more stewards available. If you would like to volunteer for stewarding in general, or for the zine library only, please email Judith who will forward the message to the head stewards Ivan and Sasha. Judith(a)blakes-7.com -- Julia Jones

1 0

Characters vs interesting stuff...
by Nathan Hook 05 Feb '01

05 Feb '01

One of the great things about Blakes 7 and indeed what makes it special, are the characters. I think the credit lies in the writing of these personality traits, which often out weigh the real action on the screen, simply because much of the drama occurs within the group. It's almost voyueristc. Through friction and humour we see character development and revelation, which keeps us watching. When you've got a group of people living together in confined quaters there's bound to be friction, Blakes 7 captures that exceedingly well. The collective are a cohesive dichotomy; or as Avon described it in gold...'we are together for mutual convenience....I would imagine if I tried to double cross them, they would try to kill me.' In the circumstances that they're living in, this all sounds plausible. Thats a key word, plausible...and the actors who portrayed these characters are largely responsible for this. so many of the scenes are extremely natural. The best example of this is Blake and Avon, vying for dominant position. We know from the very outset that these two men are philosophically apposed and basically don't like each other. Still circumstance has thrust them together and they both recognise strengths in the other that neither really has. They have a mutual dislike of the Federation, but view things differently. Avon has a more personal pragmatism if you like. He sees no need to bring down the Federation for the hell of it. He particularly doesn't want to die doing so. Blake is looking out for human interest, but is frequently blinded by idealism and what he sees as right. Basically these motivations and personalities compete. avon in deliverance, 'are you afraid that I can cope with it [the radiation] better than you can? B: 'No {laughing}' A: 'Well, perhaps you ought to be.' redemption B:'...and you just let the others go on worrying?' A: 'Well all they had to do was ask. Perhaps in future they won't rely on you to provide all the answers.' Or my favourite form redemption. A: 'Have you found what you want?' B: 'No.' A: 'Thats' because you're looking for the wrong things.' B: 'What exactly is that supposed to mean?' A: 'It's a common enough failing....' calculated insults and an opportunity to put each other down, all over a philosophical discussion on the nature of prediction. It's a well worked scene. There are hundreds to choose from, and not just avon winning too. This struggle for position is very much human nature when you have equal wills and different skills in an environment where there isn't an established leader.Have a look at the work place when there's no leadership. shambolical. Clearly Blake was better leader material than Avon. He was more of a people person, but also the group seemed to "trust" him. Everyone was a little unsure of Avon, he was motivated by "self-interest" remember, not by idealism. much harder to tie down. I'm counting "better" on personality and influence, not success rates here. Avon did lose two space craft after all. :-)(and remember Avon recalling Blakes leadership skills in Blake. '...and they will follow him...and very good with rabble...' yada yada needing a figure head, trying to undermine Blakes talent for leadership.) If we compare the Captain Kirk scenario, no-one really questions his leadership, because he's "captain". there's no need, it's already established. In B7 we have personalities struggling for position and ethical motivation. eg. Jenna querying Blakes plague warning probe in Killer and stating she would need 'proof of that.' with regards to the federation personnel being human, according to blake. This is what makes good viewing. Clint Eastwood said to Larry King one time what makes a good movie. A good story well told and he said the importance of good characters. The chain is only as strong as the weakest link. I personally hate piri, even as cancer she hammed her part. Like Colin Baker as Bayban. Generally the Brit's have marvellous character actors. recently in NZ we've had Lord of the Rings being filmed, here in wellington. One of my friends did some extra work...well a few friends actually, but he said he was amazed at the number of Brit's on the set. they are good character actors and funny buggers to have on set. One conversation overheard by some southern england lads who'd finished university and were travelling. 'E're? Why dya' wanna have a pike that long for?' 'I dunno', pick apples?' We all have like's or hates to the characters we see. we recognise these traits in ourselves or other people, even though the circumstances they're in aren't real. natural human responses? or merely plausible? Thats the key to the success of this show over so many others of the genre. So heres to good characters first, but backed with a good scribt and decent dialogue. Nayte. "That all-softening, overpowering knell,/ The tocsin of the soul - the dinner bell." Byron. ------------------------------------------------------------ Free, BeOS-friendly email accounts: http://BeMail.org/ love and pixels .:. http://dieselsweeties.com/

1 0

Characters vs interesting stuff...
by Nathan Hook 05 Feb '01

05 Feb '01

One of the great things about Blakes 7 and indeed what makes it special, are the characters. I think the credit lies in the writing of these personality traits, which often out weigh the real action on the screen, simply because much of the drama occurs within the group. It's almost voyueristc. Through friction and humour we see character development and revelation, which keeps us watching. When you've got a group of people living together in confined quaters there's bound to be friction, Blakes 7 captures that exceedingly well. >The collective are a cohesive dichotomy; or as Avon described it in gold...'we are together for mutual convenience....I would imagine if I tried to double cross them, they would try to kill me.' >In the circumstances that they're living in, this all sounds plausible. Thats a key word, plausible...and the actors who portrayed these characters are largely responsible for this. so many of the scenes are extremely natural. > >The best example of this is Blake and Avon, vying for dominant position. We know from the very outset that these two men are philosophically apposed and basically don't like each other. Still circumstance has thrust them together and they both recognise strengths in the other that neither really has. They have a mutual dislike of the Federation, but view things differently. Avon has a more personal pragmatism if you like. He sees no need to bring down the Federation for the hell of it. He particularly doesn't want to die doing so. >Blake is looking out for human interest, but is frequently blinded by idealism and what he sees as right. > >Basically these motivations and personalities compete. >avon in deliverance, 'are you afraid that I can cope with it [the radiation] better than you can? >B: 'No {laughing}' >A: 'Well, perhaps you ought to be.' > >redemption B:'...and you just let the others go on worrying?' >A: 'Well all they had to do was ask. Perhaps in future they won't rely on you to provide all the answers.' > >Or my favourite form redemption. A: 'Have you found what you want?' >B: 'No.' >A: 'Thats' because you're looking for the wrong things.' >B: 'What exactly is that supposed to mean?' >A: 'It's a common enough failing....' > >calculated insults and an opportunity to put each other down, all over a philosophical discussion on the nature of prediction. It's a well worked scene. There are hundreds to choose from, and not just avon winning too. > >This struggle for position is very much human nature when you have equal wills and different skills in an environment where there isn't an established leader.Have a look at the work place when there's no leadership. shambolical. Clearly Blake was better leader material than Avon. He was more of a people person, but also the group seemed to "trust" him. Everyone was a little unsure of Avon, he was motivated by "self-interest" remember, not by idealism. much harder to tie down. I'm counting "better" on personality and influence, not success rates here. Avon did lose two space craft after all. :-)(and remember Avon recalling Blakes leadership skills in Blake. '...and they will follow him...and very good with rabble...' yada yada needing a figure head, trying to undermine Blakes talent for leadership.) > > >If we compare the Captain Kirk scenario, no-one really questions his leadership, because he's "captain". there's no need, it's already established. >In B7 we have personalities struggling for position and ethical motivation. eg. Jenna querying Blakes plague warning probe in Killer and stating she would need 'proof of that.' with regards to the federation personnel being human, according to blake. > >This is what makes good viewing. Clint Eastwood said to Larry King one time what makes a good movie. A good story well told and he said the importance of good characters. The chain is only as strong as the weakest link. I personally hate piri, even as cancer she hammed her part. Like Colin Baker as Bayban. Generally the Brit's have marvellous character actors. recently in NZ we've had Lord of the Rings being filmed, here in wellington. One of my friends did some extra work...well a few friends actually, but he said he was amazed at the number of Brit's on the set. they are good character actors and funny buggers to have on set. >One conversation overheard by some southern england lads who'd finished university and were travelling. >'E're? Why dya' wanna have a pike that long for?' >'I dunno', pick apples?' > >We all have like's or hates to the characters we see. we recognise these traits in ourselves or other people, even though the circumstances they're in aren't real. >natural human responses? or merely plausible? Thats the key to the success of this show over so many others of the genre. > >So heres to good characters first, but backed with a good scribt and decent dialogue. >Nayte. > "That all-softening, overpowering knell,/ The tocsin of the soul - the dinner bell." Byron. ------------------------------------------------------------ Free, BeOS-friendly email accounts: http://BeMail.org/ love and pixels .:. http://dieselsweeties.com/

1 0

Re: the "25% rule"
by Helen Krummenacker 04 Feb '01

04 Feb '01

> > but it's substantially more than 25% of the time that > > a woman needs rescuing by a man, even in B7. > What always sticks out in my mind is how d*mn many times Blake needed Avon to bail him out. Although there were also plenty of times Avon needed bailing. Dayna was the main rescuerer of arses, male and female, in Ultraworld, I would say. (Vila gets credit for assisting ORAC in scrambling the Ultraworld mind, but Dayna's the one who exploded herself and Tarrant out of captivity so they could fetch Avon and Cally). Come to think of it, Dayna was the rescuer in Aftermath and the muscle who dealt with the troopers in Powerplay. Cally, in most of the telepathic-danger episodes, was both in need of rescue and the power that could deal with the enemy (Shadow, Dawn of the Gods, Sarcophagus). In Volcano, she needed help, but actively assisted the others in finding her. I haven't crunched numbers, but I don't think that the women were put in the capturee situation all that often.

1 0

Re: Deliverance
by Helen Krummenacker 04 Feb '01

04 Feb '01

> Well, for actual _physical_ suffering, I'll choose just about anyone > rather than Avon, it seems. Whether I like his coping mechanisms or not, > I think they're up to it. > Neil, in this point you have shown the true flaw of Deliverance. Truth is, someone long before Meeghat would have gotten curious and started playing with the buttons and wires. It's human nature to investigate what isn't understood. They'd have at least figured out how to turn on the lights.

1 0

Re: hurt/comfort
by Helen Krummenacker 04 Feb '01

04 Feb '01

> Well, for actual _physical_ suffering, I'll choose just about anyone > rather than Avon, it seems. Whether I like his coping mechanisms or not, > I think they're up to it. > Agreed! After all we've seen of what he does go through, why would anyone think being hurt would make him turn to someone for comfort. It's more likely to make him withdraw. He's much more likely to reveal something of his own emotions when there's a real need to protect someone else who's right in front of him (he is bad about out of sight, out of mind when it comes to giving a damn).

1 0

Avon's Leadership
by Helen Krummenacker 04 Feb '01

04 Feb '01

> <grin> the fact that under Ye Democratic System he seems to have lost the > vote more often than not couldn't have anything to do with his decision, oh > no no no ... Didn't stop George W Bush (grumble, grumble)

1 0

Torture
by Kathryn Andersen 04 Feb '01

04 Feb '01

And now for something completely different... In light of speculation about fanfic where Garac tortures Avon or Avon tortures Garak, I was wondering, what is it about Hurt/Comfort fiction that fans seem to pick certain characters most often to be tormented, tortured and hurt? Why Avon rather than Blake? And if you say "he suffers beautifully", that isn't an answer. What makes Avon's suffering more appealing than Blake's? The scenario in hurt/comfort is that one character is hurt and the other one comforts him. And it's usually Avon and Blake. I thought, perhaps it's because Avon needs to be tormented in order to Admit That He Cares, or for him to Accept Comfort, since he's so stoic and unexpressive that he wouldn't admit it otherwise. Certainly Blake doesn't need any extraordinary events for *him* to say that he cares (he's very quick to call them his friends). But then I considered the popular victims in other universes, and that pattern doesn't fit. In The Sentinel, it's Blair (the non-stoic emoting caring one) who gets tormented and Jim (the stoic, non-emoting one) who is the comforter, and who is forced to Admit That He Cares. In Stargate, the victim is Daniel (again, not a stoic) and the comforter is Jack (more stoic than Daniel is at any rate). Then I realized the common denominator of all three victims; they're all intellectuals, geeks. Not that Blake isn't a philosopher, but you've got to admit that Avon is more geeky than Blake. And with the others the difference is even more obvious. So why is it that the H/C writers have it in for geeks? Kathryn Andersen -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- "If you don't cause an electrical failure, you're not an alien." -- Paul Michael Agapow during "The Abyss" at the Valhalla 24-hour SF marathon (9-2-91) -- _--_|\ | Kathryn Andersen <kat(a)foobox.net> / \ | <http://www.foobox.net/~kat> \_.--.*/ | v | #include "standard/disclaimer.h" ------------| Melbourne -> Victoria -> Australia -> Southern Hemisphere Maranatha! | -> Earth -> Sol -> Milky Way Galaxy -> Universe

4 8

Re: [B7L] Re: torture & h/c
by Sally Manton 04 Feb '01

04 Feb '01

Tavia wrote: Personally, as a writer, I'd prefer to use other ways of gaining closeness to the character, the easiest being to use their point of view -- if you want to expose Avon's inner child then just walk right into his head and expose it....> Yes, but that only gets closeness for the *reader* (which is nice, of course); doesn't give a reason for him to open up even a smidge to the friend/partner/etc of choice. And while one can always say "Blake or Cally - or even Vila - already *knows*, that's not the same. It isn't only Avon who usually uses layered, defensive speech patterns, though he's best at it - all of them do. If one wants to break through this a bit, one has to have a very good reason. H/C provides reasons on both sides (one of the pleasures *of* H/C with Blake copping the h is watching what it does to *Avon's* defences - whether you see a bond or not, he does tend to be protective of 'the big gawk' on screen). _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

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