Blakes7 May 2001

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

84 participants
897 discussions

Re: Blake
by Helen Krummenacker 16 May '01

16 May '01

> Sally said: Blake doesn't lash out *physically* in anger (verbally, he can dismember > with the best of them) because he does have that ability to divorce the > action from the emotion. One of my own personal fanonical rules - "Blake > Would Never, Ever, Ever so much as Raise a Hand to Avon. And Avon Knows It," > - was a straight reaction to a string of fanfic where Blake was portrayed as > endlessly losing his temper and beating up on Avon, because I simply don't > see him ever doing that to *any* of his crewmates > While I feel that his personality is such he would not cuff them about, there is also a very pragmatic reason for him to refrain from violence. He leads by their consent; there is nothing to keep them from mutiny should he behave badly. And even if the entire crew thought he was justified in kicking Avon's backside, Blake would know there would, sooner or later, be a misfire of a weapon, or a teleport accident.

1 0

Re: [B7L] Debate and Dead Horses
by Deborah Day 16 May '01

16 May '01

This email was delivered to you by The Free Internet, a Business Online Group company. http://www.thefreeinternet.net --------------------------------------------------------------- > >I'll tell you something else this email reveals. You are a long term B7 fan. >And you've either been directly in contact with other fans or you have been >on this lyst before. I think it's both. Interesting thought. I can't for the life of me remember who it was now, but somebody unsubscribed with a flourish early in the year and somebody else said they had come back under a different name and to wait and see. Sorry to be so vague but I expect some of you can remember more than I can about those flame days and mass unsubscribing. Debbie

2 1

Re: crimes and punishment
by Helen Krummenacker 16 May '01

16 May '01

> >Helen wrote about the Federation administration: > > > >They fear political crimes so much they > > > >would rather covertly slaughter large groups than try to brainwash > > > >them. > > And Jenny responded >Why spend money brainwashing these people? It's only the leaders that need > brainwashing and that's only so the Federation can use them as political > pawns. > When a government would spend money on a surgical implant on a killer, and pay the high cost of transportation to send convicted criminals to planets like Cygnus Alpha, one assumes there is a high need for labor that makes it worthwhile for the government to pay for these things. I would be surprised if brainwashing is very much more expensive than convict transport. However, it could be considered more reliable, as dead men do not throw off their shackles. > >

5 5

[B7] Debate?
by heather wheeler 16 May '01

16 May '01

Some lystians seem quite absurd! By insults and pleas undeterred they keep on and on 'till all reason has gone determined to have the last word

1 0

Episode review - space fall
by Iain Walker 16 May '01

16 May '01

This is a continuation of "not what happened, exactly, but more what grabbed my interest" style of episode reviews I started last week with TWB. Space Fall (why do I think of Mark E. Smith every time I see this title :-), I can almost hear him droning the words now!) Gan is the next crewmember we see, standing in profile in front of Blake and Jenna (so we just know he will be involved somehow ;-)). Once again we are told of the societal decay (prevelant in late 70's UK) by the captain of the London when he says in a very resigned way "nobody bothers anymore.". This attitude was also shown by the computer technician in TWB who is quite happy to be listening to music instead of working. These are simply reflections of the times B7 was made where the commonly held view was that indolence was at its height (with respect to "working") and management was completely incompetent (not able to see what was going on or providing any encouragement to reduce these attitudes). Finally we get to see Avon for the first time. Interestingly, Vila already knows Avon (or at least knows about him). But we never get another hint of backstory for these two. Vila certainly becomes Avons only friend (even before Blake leaves, they are good pals who do naughty things to gether like secretly going out gambling), and visa-versa (well . until a certain episode in season 4 .). Jenna shows her "space captain" background. She knows that the company (actually, its the civil administration - maybe the prison ships owners are on contract to the CA and the contract allows the ship to use CA authority?) is on a fixed price contract to run the prison ship. There is speculation that their bodies could just be dumped in space and the company just pockets the cash. So there must be some sort of system of checks and balances here - i.e. the federation does not like to get ripped off - it wants the services it has paid for, otherwise this is exactly what they would do. The "prisons for profit" idea turned out to be a good prophesy for 20 years into the future though (by this I mean 2001, not 20 years into the B7 future)! Another good bit for Jenna is that she can tell that the drives for the ship need repair (too bad that in later episodes she looses all this knowledge about space flight :-(). The criminals on this ship are all pasty faced middle aged guys none of whom look like a menace to society! But it could all be the suppressant drugs. Maybe this is a ship full of guys who pulled banking scams or insurance fraudsters. And on the subject of money, what is a credit worth? Raiker says the Liberator is worth millions. Avon's 5 million fraud is supposed to be unbelieveable wealth. Based on these two facts I think a credit must be worth about a million pounds (or dollars). But this contradicts later episodes (a ten credit ouch becomes very expensive). Probably there were currency devaluations ??? Time zooms by in this episode because Blake tells Avon he has had four months to think about his plan to fake the running log (did they avoid the food and water for four months to not be drugged? This doesn't make sense to me). The timeline in this episode is hard to follow - but I take this to imply that the London is near the end of its flight at this time (which means something is wrong later in the episode!). During the "space battle" scenes we find out that quite sensibly that the London has seat belts. This is a step up from the Liberator (unless those round things on the Liberator seats are to suck the occupant in) and most other fictional space ships. Other nice "spacey" touches are teh requirement to get clearance to fly (just like in a real airplane) and the reference to "spacemet" who track space conditions, like meteorite showers. And Jenna says hyperdrive running is expensive. There aren't that many SF shows where space ships that cost money to run, just like IRL. Plus the sealing gel is a great idea. We are made to "dislike" Ryker as the captain of the London glares at him when he panics about the scanners. Of course Ryker must be a weak and scared bully. And the captain wishes he could get better staff - like Arix, who is studying so he can get a better job! Then lots of action as the ship is taken over. But why are the crew so lax about safety when the show is being bashed by shockwaves, they are sahring conjouring tricks with Vila. A good bit is Gan saying "we only need the hand". Vila drops the gun - what a nervous Nellie - but why entrust him with the gun in the first place - this is simply bad management. The scenes between Blake and Avon in the computer control room really sizzle. I love the "What a fiasco.." from Avon. There is more of the "other side" of federation life in this episode with the scenes between the crew members of the London. Even though he works for a private company in the employ of the federation the captain is shown to be a "good" man. He says he wants no unnecessary violence, saves Jenna from molestation, remains calm during the space battle scenes and the rebellion, he isn't stupid, he doesn't like Raiker, he is not prepared to allow Raiker to get away with the "you said I could" defence, etc., etc. (I bet he is a good shot too, we don't get to find out. Better yet - a great cook). Too bad he didn't join the crew to help prevent their many failures. They should have brought him back instead of Tarrant. He certainly showed the potential to turn against the federation. Without Raiker sending them across they would never have got the Liberator - it was his idea to use them. A bit lucky, eh? Also - I would never have sent the pilot Jenna over to the other ship. The Liberators "mind probe" self defense is a bit silly (how is it supposed to work - will it scan a mind and find out if it is from the system? But why is this security system stopped by Blake shooting it - isn't that rather obvious), but it gives us more insight to the mind tampering in Blake's head. He knows the detected memories are false. The administrations mind tampering is what allows him t o fight the mind control. In effect the federation created their own problem in Blake & the Liberator. - Iain W. P.S. Polish those tennis shoes, true belivers, its Cygnus Alpha next.

2 1

Re: [B7L] We can't *all* be geniuses
by Alison Page 16 May '01

16 May '01

Iain- >>I thought it was Tom Stoppard oops. well, see message header Alison ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com **********************************************************************

1 0

Re: [B7L] We can't *all* be geniuses
by Alison Page 16 May '01

16 May '01

Jenny said - >>what the writer says goes. This is not the opinion of the screen writers that I know (*) It doesn't correspond to the reality of the production process either. The 'writer' is in many ways the lowliest member of the production team, and the one most likely to be over-ruled. There is a joke to this effect in 'Shakespeare in Love' for example (I know a joke isn't proof, but the joke was written by Harold Pinter, and he obviously felt it would have resonance with people watching the film). There is going to be a screen-writers strike (well, actually I think it has been called off) in Hollywood, this summer, specifically about this very issue. So literally millions of dollars are resting on the fact that no definitive answer has ever been provided to this issue. In the realm of TV the situation is slightly different, but if anything in a multi-authored production like B7 we can be even less confident that the product represents a single unified vision, where all ends have been tied, and no ambiguity remains. I think the relationship between script and finished product is a complicated one, whether we are talking about theatre, TV or film. The relationship between such finished product (play, TV show or whatever) and 'truth' is also a very complex one. These are my opinions. IMO if you like. You may disagree with my opinions, but it is an objective fact that many informed people have over the years put forward a *range* of opinions. There are hundreds of books on the subject. That is what I am emphasising, not my own particular opinion, but that many different opinions exist, and have intellectual credence even among people who disagree with them. So we are dealing with a situation where the very premises of debate: who is the auteur, who has control over the finished product, where does meaning rest (with the author or the viewer or elsewhere) are themselves far from being decided. We don't have to dredge up all these heavy issues, every time we discuss Blakes 7 (thank god) we just have to be a bit tolerant of differences of opinion, because we have each of us built our case on shifting sands. Alison (*) I would be interested in DMs take on this too, if he is subscribed at present - insider's view DM? Do you feel that what you say, goes? ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com **********************************************************************

2 1

Re: [B7L] Re: Limiters in general
by Jenny Kaye 16 May '01

16 May '01

Steve Kilbane wrote: > >Jenny wrote: > > > Steve Kilbane wrote: > > > > > > > >Jenny wrote: > > > > > > I'm not making this up you know. This is no self deluding "IMO" > > > > >bullshit.. > > > > > > The pattern's there. Everything fits. > > > > > > > > > >Even assuming that that is the case, > > > > > > It is the case. > > > > > > > >that doesn't mean you're right. > > > > > > Yes it does. > > > >Sorry, no. Saying it does, doesn't work, either. See Popper. I have evidence, see my emails, or is that too much trouble for you as well? > > > > >It means you have a hypothetical model which fits the facts you've > > > > >observed. > > > > > > Yes, Dr Havant. > > > >Which means, what, exactly? Which means that you are trying to use a very dangerous mind controlling technique on me. And guess what? It's been used on you as well. Now the question is: Does it mean that there is someone, or a group of someone's, using mind control techniques on this lyst to condition us? Or does it mean that you have all inadvertently conditioned yourselves? I think it's both. Next question: Does it mean that there is a very dangerous subtext contained in some episodes of B7 which if read incorrectly can have a conditioning effect? Or is it a social conditioning mechanism natural to human beings? I think it's both. BTW I am not taking about a conscious conspiracy theory here. In fact I'm not talking about a conspiracy at all. I'm talking about human nature. > > > Other models that do not contradict the same evidence are > > > > >equally valid. > > > > > > But there are no others that do this and fit all the "facts." > > > >You can't know that. See Popper, again. Bollocks to Popper. You put up another theory and I'll tear it to shreds. > > > Standard scientific approach, diluted somewhat > > > > >by individual interpretations of what is a "fact", in a dramatic > > > > >presentation. :-/ > > > > > > Who do you think writes these stories? Aliens? No, human beings. > >Therefore > > > the stories will, to a great extent, reflect human society. > > > >Which has nothing to do with the processes of logical deduction, or the > >ability to recognise supposition for what it is, rather than facts. Ah, so you do believe there are facts to be found then? Listen Steve. I am using a process of logical deduction, what I am coming up with is based entirely on the facts presented in the show. > > > This conversation with you reminds me greatly of that scene in TWB with > >Dr > > > Havant. > > > >If you like. It's irrelevant, but you can be reminded of it, if you like. Oh dear. You can't have it both ways you know. It can't be both relevant and irrelevant. This isn't a logical argument, it has become a personal one. > > > > >Note: anyone offering Occam's razor as a tie-breaker also has to > > > > >offer a mutually agreeable definition of "simplest". > > > > > > Simplicity is always easy to recognise. > > > >Note "mutually agreeable". Look Steve if I'm wrong about Gan then there will be a great many holes in my theory. And we'll call it a theory for the moment. Instead of trying to attack my intelligence or my technique, try and attack the theory I am putting forward. And if your are brave enough, put your own Gan theory forward as well. Then we'll see what is "mutually agreeable". Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] We can't *all* be geniuses
by Jenny Kaye 16 May '01

16 May '01

Steve Kilbane wrote > >Me, then Jenny. > > > That > > > > >makes "correct" something that can be difficult to pin down. > > > > > > Not at all. B7 was production line TV not a film. In a lot of films > >things > > > are changed all the time. Why do you think Live and Let Die is so full > >of > > > holes? But not in TV. You compare an original script with the version > >you > > > see on TV and the changes will be minimal. > > > >You've just agreed that that the product process has an effect, and that > >the writer's vision isn't the only one. Only in your head Steve. The way an actor says something, the way a director wants them to say it, the visual design all have an effect, but they don't change the script. Therefore what the writer says goes. Which means you've got at least > >two versions of correct No. You have one version of correct. An actor has to say the line he's given. - the writer's, and that of anyone who modifies > >the writer's - which immediately leads to two starting points for > >interpretation. He may emphasise the line in a particular way. This does not modify the line. > >The TV versus film comparison is irrevelant: No it isn't. to paraphrase you, one changes > >a lot, while the other changes a little. Scriptwise. So they both involve change. So > >there are multiple viewpoints to start from. Wrong again Steve. You are living in a dream world. Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

2 1

Re: [B7L] Re: crimes and punishment
by Jenny Kaye 16 May '01

16 May '01

Julia Jones wrote: > > >Are we perhaps missing the point of limiters - were they meant for > >something > > >else entirely (question)? > > > >A reliable source of plotdevicium... No. Because it in actual fact it is acting as a plot inhibitor. Now you don't put something like that in a series unless it is there for a purpose. > >However, that's not playing the game. As I am about to demonstrate, what do you know about playing the game? > >I think that it's likely the limiters were still relatively experimental > >devices, and that Gan was one of the beta-test guinea pigs. There is no evidence at all in the series for this. If so, the > >behaviour modification being tested may not be the only one the > >developers had in mind as a long-term goal. It's possible that the > >limiters were an early step in a form of modification for dealing with > >people like Avon - people whose intellectual abilities are too useful a > >resource to lose if there's a way to salvage them, but who aren't going > >to co-operate of their own free will. There is no evidence in the series to support this. > >Unco-operative people can be conditioned, but that conditioning can be > >broken. It's also probably difficult and expensive, if they're still > >keeping a staff of Shrinkers. Perhaps the project group developing the > >limiters were not overly pleased about the development of Pylene-50 - > >their funding was cut after that... None of this is supported by evidence from the series. > >Julia Jones "Science is not about building a body of > >known > >'facts'. It is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to > >a > >reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes > >us > >feel good." - The Science of Discworld Yes. A lesson you have evidently failed to learn Julia. Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

2 1

← Newer
1
...
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
...
90
Older →

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 May 2001