Blakes7 February 2001

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

80 participants
929 discussions

Re: [B7L] Re: Brit-char-speak
by Tavia Chalcraft 22 Feb '01

22 Feb '01

Annie wrote: >I take exception to the statement that the British have more "reserve, dignity and respect" >than Americans. Talk about a broad generalization! I suspect it may be more to do with the differences between European and American television/film-making tropes than between English and American personalities. I find in general I simply can't watch US import television nor Hollywood films, though there must be a few exceptions. The characters are generally too syrupy, the plot feels cliche, the jokes make me cringe and the violence makes me sick. ('Small press' films made in the US are of course entirely different.) Tavia http://www.viragene.com/

1 0

What makes a fannish show? (was Re: [B7L] fannishness)
by Susan Beth 22 Feb '01

22 Feb '01

Neil Faulkner wrote: >A possible list of (provisional) qualities that might be inherent in a show >likely to induce fannish response (I supose almost any show might generate a >fannish response in somebody somewhere, but some seem to do so more than >others): > >(1) the need for an active suspension of disbelief (pre-requisite of all SF >and fantasy shows). This widens the potential range of plot possibilities, >not all of which are going to be realised by the show as broadcast. Uh. It seems you've changed the "ignoring production flaws/overlooking plot holes" that was mostly what was being cited into the more traditional sort of SF "suspension of disbelief in FTL travel and such." Well, looking at both: A) Production flaws, caused by lack of funds or inadequate time or the failure of technique, exists in virtually every television series. I don't think the need to overlook such (or explain away such) is a cause of a show being fannish. Fans explain and overlook because the shows they like need it, they don't become fans because the show has the flaws. B) There are, indeed, lots of SF based fandoms. But I don't think that needing 'classic' suspension of disbelief is an important factor because there are also lots of western series based fandoms and lots of WW2 series based fandoms, neither of which genre requires that type of SoD. Not to mention medical drama based fandoms, sitcom based fandoms, and so on. I don't think I've heard of a game show based fandom, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn there was one or two out there. > >(2) episodic structure, a succession of closed stories (though not >necessarily without a broader story arc to hold the series together). This >creates interstices between broadcast episodes which can be seized upon as >missing moments requiring elaboration (unlike say the continuity of most >soap operas). It's true that episodic series offer those openings, but since the start of television series virtually all of them have been episodic. It's a rare and noticeable exception when story arcs actually exist. So I don't see this as particularly useful guide to which series will spawn fandoms: 95% of all shows are episodic, 95% of all fannish series are episodic. So? > >(3) multiple authorship, different writers responsible for different >episodes, and their individual authorship recognisable for the episodes they >write (eg the differences between a Chris Boucher ep and a Ben Steed one). >This might invite fannish intervention because it gives the impression that >anyone can 'have a go' and write their own contribution. Again, this is almost universally the norm! Most series either hired freelancers or have a pool of writers -- the need to crank out 26+ scripts for a nine month production span rather guaranteed it. >(4) exagerrated character definition (I would say that all the regulars in >B7 and Trek can be considered 'exagerrated', whereas in Who they're little >more than puppets danced around by the 'Idea as Hero' plot) to clarify the >nature of the antagonisms between them. This also gives viewers a clear >handle on which to base their response to any particular character, and >might also act to suppress either ambivalence and/or disinterest. (Though >it's perfectly legitimate to argue that a show full of uninteresting >characters is a pretty crap show.) Maybe a better factor, except, again, I'd say most television shows (at least in America) have 'exaggerated character definitions' which I think is close to saying they are stereotypes/archetypes. By the end of any pilot episode you can pretty much label every character with a tag so that others will understand it: the brown-noser, the girl next door, the struggling young professional, the geek, the ruthless business man, the bitch, etc. We only get/discover the ways this particular geek varies from the classic mold as the series unfolds. Really, Neal, I think you are missing the boat when it comes to What Makes A Show fannish. I honestly think it comes down at least 90% to that factor you want to minimize: the Characters. For example, you center a series on someone 1) who is constantly at risk of physical damage/death 2) who faces enemies/rivals who seek to destroy him/her 3) who is witty in a rather terse/cutting way in the face of danger 4) who has an unhappy past 5) who has faults that have caused harm to those s/he loved 6) who is haunted by and angsts over 3 & 4 7) who nevertheless acts as the "good guy" whether reluctantly or not 8) who is beautiful/sexy/handsome 9) who has a unhappy/nonexistent love life despite #7 and you will probably found a fandom. ;-) That's not the only pattern for a character who catches the fannish eye, but it's one of the most potent I think. Susan Beth (susanbeth33(a)mindspring.com)

4 3

Novelised transcript of "Bounty"
by Jurgen van de Sanden 22 Feb '01

22 Feb '01

Hi everybody! I was wondering how the lady was doing who told me she would try to make a novelised transcript of the episode "Bounty". Unfortunately I haven't got her e-mail address and I don't remember her name. My dear lady, if you're still out there, please send me an e-mail. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

RE: [B7L] What's Silly ? (was Excalibur, Blake's 7 (but no Zulus))
by Louise Rutter 22 Feb '01

22 Feb '01

>What plot holes/ dodgy special effects are forgivable >and which make episodes incurably naff ? I offer the >shoot out in Hostage (that bit of string ?!) as my own >sacrificial candidate. I would say that depends to a large degree on the importance of the special effect/plot hole to the episode/charcaters in question. That silly lightning flash when they clink cups in Warlord is a momentary thing and therefore forgivable. Travis wrapped in sheets is supposed to be convincing enough to fool the Liberator crew and therefore renders the entire episode dire. The silly machine with painted teeth in Dawn of the Gods is another complete failure because Vila actually seems scared of it - if he'd treated it with the contempt it deserved, no problem. Louise

1 0

Psssst...another round of B7
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 22 Feb '01

22 Feb '01

...fanzines, photos and other stuff will be gradually getting posted throughout the day at the Ashton Press auction site on eBay. This particular batch features a copy of Sheelagh Wells' VHS tape MASQUERADE, complete with make-up session with Gareth; plus copies of BLAKE, RABBLE & ROLL; ZEN & THE ART OF REBELLION; REBEL DESTINIES, SHADES OF GREY, FRAK, BIZARRO ZINE and more. Keep checking back at: http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/ashton7/ Good luck!

1 0

Re: [B7L] Flashing blade song
by Harriet Monkhouse 22 Feb '01

22 Feb '01

Debbie wrote: >So, they have finally decided on Jarriet. I like it. Well, I'm not sure, the other Harriet seems to have been stunned into silence the past few days, unless she's changed her byline altogether... Namesake, are you still there? Harriere

1 0

Re: Cally in Red
by Harriet Monkhouse 22 Feb '01

22 Feb '01

Neil complained: >Shut up, all of you! You're compromising my > claims to minority status. Can't you settle for hacking the first path through the wilderness, with some of us struggling to follow in your footsteps (and failing miserably, of course)? I like her in green leather too. Harriere

1 0

PS
by Harriet Monkhouse 22 Feb '01

22 Feb '01

Er, to clarify, Sally and I don't like the same women in B7. I think we like a lot of the same women on the list. Jarriet

1 0

Re: [B7L] Declaration Of Intent To Continue Being An Idiot
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 22 Feb '01

22 Feb '01

In a message dated 2/20/01 11:18:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, Ashton7(a)aol.com writes: << Avon in tight red leather (oh, dear...is that a phallic symbol?) >> >Only if Suzi Lovett drew it. ;-) < So true. Now if *I* drew it, he'd be a twizzler. Leah

1 0

Re: Brit-char-speak
by Helen Krummenacker 21 Feb '01

21 Feb '01

> Neil Faulkner wrote: > > > Well, they are 'British' characters, after all. > > Well now, there's an interesting ingame/outgame debate. I mean, _are_ > they really British (descended) characters just because of the actors' > accents? Is Blake Welsh, Jarriere Scottish? If so, then we may really > have to account for the differences between the Travii. > > Mistral The culture does show through, in more than just the accents. It is part of the show's appeal to me, really. Reserve, dignity, and showing respect are worthy qualties, and much maligned in modern America. My husband has guessed that he prefers British comedy to American because people like Tom and Barbara Good, Mr. Humphries, etc struggle to maintain a certain amount of dignity in often ludicrous situations, whereas on shows like 'Friends', there's no sense of restraint of any kind.

3 2

← Newer
1
...
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
...
93
Older →

Jump to page:

2026

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 February 2001