From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se
Subject: blakes7-d Digest V98 #43
X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se
X-Mailing-List: <blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se> archive/volume98/43
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="----------------------------"
To: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se
Reply-To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
------------------------------
Content-Type: text/plain
blakes7-d Digest Volume 98 : Issue 43
Today's Topics:
[B7L] no repeat
Re: [B7L] Different Generations
Re: [B7L] no repeat
Re: [B7L] Blake's popular support
[B7L] Avon's morals
[B7L] Just going out for a while...
Re: [B7L] Tarrant: Heroic or selfish?
Re: [B7L]Monkey
Re: [B7L] Blake's popular support
Re: [B7L] no repeat
Re: [B7L] Vila as a god
[B7L] Re: Tarrant (was re Monkey(was re Vila as a god))
[B7L] Paul/Michael/Gareth and acting
[B7L] On My Mind
Re: [B7L] Different Generations
Re: [B7L] no repeat
[B7L] Back again.
re[B7L]: Paul/Michael/Gareth
Re: [B7L] no repeat
Re: [B7L] Paul/Michael/Gareth and acting
Re: [B7L] Avon's morals
Re: [B7L] no repeat
Re: [B7L] Tarrant
Re: [B7L]Monkey
Re: [B7L] Tarrant: Heroic or selfish?
Re: [B7L] Tarrant: Heroic or selfish?
Re: [B7L] Vila as a god
Re: [B7L] Tarrant: Heroic or selfish?
[B7L] IRC
Re: [B7L] Tarrant: Heroic or selfish?
Re: [B7L] Tarrant: Heroic or selfish?
Re: [B7L] Tarrant: Heroic or selfish?
Re: [B7L] no repeat
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 09:15:11 +0000 (GMT)
From: Judith Proctor <Judith@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
To: Lysator List <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L] no repeat
Message-ID: <Marcel-1.09-0211091511-b49Rr9i@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1
Rob said:
> I phoned the BBC this morning (trying to get hold of copies of "Blake" and
> "The Way Back"), and apparently the series is going to be re-released in
> the UK on the 2nd of March. Not a bad bit of news, is it?
I wasn't totally sure if this was a reference to the video re-release or to a
possible screening on the BBC, so I checked.
They say no repeat on the BBC <sigh>.
Judith
--
http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7
Redemption 99 - The Blakes 7/Babylon 5 convention
26-28 February 1999, Ashford International Hotel, Kent
http://www.smof.com/redemption/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:56:40 -0500
From: Cecilia <elric01@raex.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Different Generations
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980211135640.007db100@raex.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 01:15 PM 2/11/98 +0000, Jill wrote:
>I have been a fan of Blakes 7 since the first episodes, when it was
>shown on sky tv my children became big fans,now it is on again on Sunday
>morning and my grandson thinks it is great.What is it about this series
>that it can hold the interest of three generations.
>
I think this is the hallmark of any good dramatic series. It happens
around here with quite a few shows. The youngest viewers watch for the
"action", and occasionally the basic plot line. What basically happens is
that those of us who are - um (don't want to offend either end of the age
spectrum here)- more mature (sophisticated?) in our reactions to television
see not only the straightforward plot, but the intricacies of character
development and relationships along with the more subtle, implicit events
in the series.
Around here, I get the same reaction (different generations enjoying and
enthusing about a show) in several series, all of which have this lovely
multi-layering of facets. Some quick examples would be "Forever Knight"
and "Highlander" - both of whom can be watched as an action series, but if
you delve into the characters, nothing is quite what it seems on the
surface. I think "Blake's 7" is such a series. Thank (insert your
favorite deity) there is still some intelligent writing going on in
television, although it is becoming scarcer than hen's teeth.
Lady C., the Anceunt One
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 20:04:05 +0000 (GMT)
From: Rob Clother <rob@amsta.leeds.ac.uk>
To: B7 mailing list <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] no repeat
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.96.980211200242.9207A-100000@statlog>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> > I phoned the BBC this morning (trying to get hold of copies of "Blake" and
> > "The Way Back"), and apparently the series is going to be re-released in
> > the UK on the 2nd of March. Not a bad bit of news, is it?
>
> I wasn't totally sure if this was a reference to the video re-release or to a
> possible screening on the BBC, so I checked.
Yep, it's a video re-release I was talking about. Sorry if I perked up
false hopes...
Rob
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 12:17:35 -0700
From: "John J. Doherty" <alijd@gemini.oscs.montana.edu>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Blake's popular support
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980211121735.00800720@gemini.oscs.montana.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 10:51 AM 2/11/98 +1000, Pat Fenech wrote:
[An interesting summary of Blake's support snipped. I'll have to go back
and watch these again -- like I even needed an excuse]
>It seems to me, though I may be misinterpreting, that some of the
>discussion anyway seems to be heading towards correlating whether Blake was
>justified in what he did with evidence of popular support. I don't know that
>I would necessarily agree that one is *the* justification for the other. I
>tend to feel that Blake was more than justified even if not one citizen
>agreed., which is hardly likely I suppose - the yen for freedom being one
>aspect of humanity which is common to all eras and conditions. But even if
>the repression of the Federation had killed it entirely it does not effect
>the fact that the government Blake takes up arms against is an evil
>government which if any sort of justice is to prevail deserves to be at
>least altered if not brought down for the repression it practices upon its
>citizens. We can argue about his methods but his cause seems to me to be a
>just one. But, if it is felt that popular support adds legitimacy and
>justification to the righteousness of Blake's cause and the actions he takes
>in pursuit of it, then perhaps the inferences of such popular support to be
>drawn from the few moments mentioned above do provide such justification.
Popular support implies that more than just one person believes the
government is evil. That is probably where the line can be drawn. For
example, most of the blacks in South Africa were with Mandela, believing in
his cause. But lets use another example -- Timothy McVeigh. To an extent,
a loner, blowing up a federal building because he disagrees with the
government of the day. I suspect most of the 270 million Americans do not
support McVeigh.
B7 implies, on Earth, at least, that most of the population is drugged into
insensiblty -- "Don't drink the water." If they were free of the drug,
would they revolt like most of the outer worlds seem to be -- I'd have to
say yes. But, taking the outer worlds out of the picture, if Blake were a
sole rebel, would he still be justified in trying to blow up Star One?
After all, most of the population were mindlessly content.
Always the literature major, I like to find analogies to something. And
Terry Nation was quite good at using them -- the Kaleds based on the SS,
etc. Perhaps the drug is nothing more than an allusion to the general
apathy most of the human race suffers from. We are perfectly willing to
live under the most repressive regime as long as they put the cornflakes on
our table and bring in Seinfeld on TV. Last thing we need is a darn fool
Welshman blowing up the Kellogs factory and the NBC studios. Not that I am
implying the US government is repressive.
-- John
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 12:40:25 GMT
From: "Jane Elizabeth Macdonald" <J.E.Macdonald1@student.derby.ac.uk>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Avon's morals
Message-ID: <2C53724417@sdk1.derby.ac.uk>
> >Has anyone here read Nietzche? Avon seems to typify the concept of
> >"Beyond Good and Evil"... he rejects the morals that society conforms
> >to, but has his own moral code that is more personally meanful. He
> >cannot be a hypocrit, because he lives by self-defined values with
> >self-defined limits. Blake and Tarrant are modelled on traditional
> >heores, and don't always meet the pre-set standards. Once again, is
> >anyone familiar enough with Nietzche's writings to discuss this?
> I'm not familiar with Nietzche, but your post reminded me of a quote,
> attributed to Voltaire (though I don't know for sure if it is his) "I have
> no morals, yet I'm a very moral person." To me, it seems to fit Avon to a
> tee. Not seeming, on the surface to have any morals, yet they're there and
> quite his own.
>
> Jay
I am in total agreement with this.
Cylan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 19:31:28 -0000
From: "Dangermouse" <master@sol.co.uk>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L] Just going out for a while...
Message-Id: <199802111935.TAA21374@gnasher.sol.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I'm unsubscribing for a couple of weeks - I'm off to LA for while and don't
want to spend three hours downloading these when I get back!
But fear not, I shall return, on Feb 25th...
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 11:37:38 -0800 (PST)
From: Luxueil <jlv@halcyon.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
cc: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Tarrant: Heroic or selfish?
Message-ID: <Pine.GUL.3.96.980211113006.15724A-100000@coho.halcyon.com>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Iain Coleman wrote:
> I think he wants to lead the crew in exactly the same sense that Avon does.
> Neither of them are particularly good leaders, and neither of them has any grand
> plan for the team. However, they both want to be top dog for egotistical reasons.
> "Sarcophagus" illustrates this. Avon had much the same motivation when Blake was
Actually, what Sarcophagus illustrates is that the Humming Blue Egg can
manipulate the minds and emotions of the humans on board. A & T are
interacting 'normally' in the beginning of the ep. Just before Avon and
Tarrant start their rants, the camera focusses on the HBE; I choose to
interpret that as an indication that it is influencing their interactions;
as soon as it stops, both Avon and Tarrant drop the postures. Both say
something to the effect of 'Forget that', and they go on.
So I've never bought that the scene defined their interaction, that deep
down that's what they really feel about their relative positions on the
ship. Just IMHO.
Nicole
--------------------------------------------------------
Three candles shine from a noble heart:
Justice with mercy, truth with compassion, excellence with humility
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 19:28:28 -0000
From: "Dangermouse" <master@sol.co.uk>
To: "Jane Elizabeth Macdonald" <J.E.Macdonald1@student.derby.ac.uk>,
<blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L]Monkey
Message-Id: <199802111935.TAA21370@gnasher.sol.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > Well, the only thing I know about Monkey is from the very silly (but
> > excellent) series they used to show over here (UK, 1984-ish).
> > P.S. I do hope somebody else knows what I'm on about - cultural
milestones
> > like Monkey can't have missed _all_ the people on this list.
>
> I remember watching Monkey, so there are at least two of us.
I always preferred The Water Margin.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 19:46:41 GMT
From: Iain Coleman <ijc@mail.nerc-bas.ac.uk>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Blake's popular support
Message-Id: <5268.9802111946@bsauasb.nerc-bas.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Md5: w0BHpS/eXy0+rkEuj5rN6Q==
One striking thing about Blake is his total lack of a political program.
He wants to destroy the ability of the Federation to oppress people -
give them the freedom to choose how they want to live. And that's it.
In a way, this is his justification. He's not interested in taking over,
or imposing his own pet ideas. He simply wants to stop oppression.
This is also why he "is the only one they will all follow": none of
the other rebels feel threatened by Blake, and they can all put aside
their political differences for a while to follow this single common
goal. What Blake doesn't seem to appreciate, or doesn't want to realise,
is that after the Federation is broken the factional infighting amongst
the rebels will begin again unless he continues to lead them. But with his
one goal achieved, what will he lead them to? I think Blake, if victorious,
would end up as a figurehead, maneuvered by various factions, as was
suggested in "Voice From The Past".
Iain
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 19:50:14 -0000
From: "Sam" <sam@slade.softnet.co.uk>
To: "Lysator List" <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] no repeat
Message-ID: <01bd3726$45455ae0$LocalHost@swhsfzrw>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Judith wrote:
>I wasn't totally sure if this was a reference to the video re-release or to
a
>possible screening on the BBC, so I checked.
>
>They say no repeat on the BBC <sigh>.
>
Many years ago I heard an explanation of why the BBC would not repeat series
like Blakes 7 and Doctor. It all revolved around the contracts with the
people involved in the production. They all received payment for an initial
showing and one repeat.
To repeat a series a second or third time would require re-negotiating with
all those people. As you can imagine for some of the early Dr Who episodes
some of the people are now dead.
The loophole seems to be that selling rights abroad allow unlimited showings
and no one had heard or thought of satellite TV at the time.
Anyone heard any other reasons/excuses?
Sam
sam@slade.softnet.co.uk
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 19:44:38 -0000
From: "Sam" <sam@slade.softnet.co.uk>
To: "Blake's 7" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Vila as a god
Message-ID: <01bd3725$7d02e020$LocalHost@swhsfzrw>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Heather asked:
>anybody know quite *why* a woman was used to play the part?
Is it because Buddha sometimes appears as male and sometimes female?
So choosing a woman to play a male priest would highlight this.
Sam
sam@slade.softnet.co.uk
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 09:11:16 +1300
From: Nicola Collie <nicola.collie@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
To: B7-list <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L] Re: Tarrant (was re Monkey(was re Vila as a god))
Message-Id: <l03130300b107b37d952f@[139.80.16.149]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Nicola quotes Tom (I'm pretty sure) then adds a warning:
>
> >>he's more Pigsy, really. Monkey definately reminds me of Tarrant - bold,
> >>brashful and totally out of his depth half the time.
> >Quick, hide! I hear the Tarrant Nostra have spies everywhere! :-)
>
> It's true that the Tarrant Nostra is everywhere. And we'd bring Tom
> to task for his blatant lack of respect except we know he gets off on
> being whupped. ;-)
Well, then, a suitable punishment might be _refusing_ to whup 'im ;-).
P'raps you could force such recalcitrant miscreants to sit and watch the
decorative curly one for extended lengths of time, instead. (The guards
might need earplugs, and to sit with their backs to the screen);-)
[snip]
> I think it always boils down to Avon's astute comment that Tarrant
> is "young, brave, and handsome" and some people simply find that
> annoying.
I concur. Unfortunately, my memories of Tarrant are somewhat vague as my
recent rewatching is only up to partway through series 2. However, that's
pretty much how I remember him, slightly annoying but one flash of those
pearlies and the glands take over - at least until Avon walks back into
shot, anyway 8-).
ttfn, Nicola (the intellectual romantic)
---
Nicola Collie "It just occurred to me that, as the
description of a highly
Dunedin, New Zealand sophisticated
technological achievement, "Avon's gadget
nicola.collie@stonebow.otago.ac.nz works" seems to lack a
certain style."
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 22:29:40 +1000
From: Tim Richards & Narrelle Harris <parallax@wire.net.au>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Paul/Michael/Gareth and acting
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980211222940.007c4590@wire.net.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Iain said:
>I sometimes find Paul's performances frustrating. Sometimes he shows nice
>subtle touches, then a few minutes later he's chewing the scenery. This
>latter behaviour seemed to get more pronounced as the series went on.
>
>He is often very good at bringing a lot out of the lines, in terms of
>playing the subtext rather than the text, and that's part of what makes
>Avon such an intriguing character. But in terms of acting skill, I would
>rate both Michael and Gareth higher (and Jackie, come to that - she even
>makes her scenes in "Animals" watchable).
I have seen Paul on stage (In 'Trap for a Lonely Man'), though not Michael,
and have probably seen more of Paul in tv roles than Michael too.
The sense I get from what I *have* seen is that Michael may be a more
*disciplined* actor, and Gareth I suspect will also come under this category.
I think Paul is very talented and has done both very subtle and very hammy
work. He strikes me as the kind of actor who really shines when he is
working with a strong director and/or a strong cast/performer. On stage,
actors feed off one another (and from the kind of guidance they get from a
director) intensely.
I have been fascinated watching plays sometimes to see how an actor can do
a fairly pedestrian job with one cast member, and then a different person
comes on and the actor *changes* - stands out more, is more convincing,
more subtle, more involved, because of the person they are playing
opposite. Or seen an actor in plays directed by different people - there
can be such a difference in performance based on how much
guidance/discipline has been involved.
Other people out there have been involved in theatre - do your experiences
tally with my own?
Narrelle
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tim Richards and Narrelle Harris
parallax@wire.net.au http://www.wire.net.au/~parallax
"Look, he's winding up the watch of his wit;
by and by it will strike." - Shakespeare
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 14:41:10 -0600 (CST)
From: "G. Robbins" <robbins@graceland.edu>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] On My Mind
Message-ID: <Pine.HPP.3.96.980211140549.12351C-100000@inet-ux.graceland.edu>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
HI!
Just passing along a few things that have been on my mind...well,
hypothetical questions, really, and a few comments.
1. On Blake....(depending on these important variables)
A. The series went on for another season
B. Episode "Blake" just a nightmare
C. He rejoins the crew
What would it be like, or what kind of impact would it be for the crew
members (each one in particular)? I have been trying to think about
this and find it kind of interesting how he might have related to
people like Dayna, Tarrant, and Soolin. What do you think?
2. On Jenna...(depending on these variables)
A. The series goes on for another season
B. She rejoins the crew
C. Episode "Blake" just a dream
Just like above....what would it be like, or what kind of impact would
it be for the crew members (each one in particular)? I have been
trying to think about this and find it kind of interesting how she
might have related to people like Dayna, Tarrant, and Soolin. What do
you think?
You may think I'm just pawing up some unimportant issues, I just felt
compelled to find out what you all might think could be the consequences
for this happening. It's been an intriguing question in my own mind,
can't quite fully describe what it would be like. I think in all the
premiere episode of the fifth season might be a hard one to write, anyway,
and have it be credible!
Some other things on my mind....
1. Found a little blooper in "Countdown". I'm not sure, but I think I
haven't seen it in any of the blooper files I've read on the web. When
Avon and Del teleport down to deactivate the bomb, they are supposed to
have some tools with them, but neither of them are carrying a toolbox in
the teleport bay and they don't set one down after they teleport, either.
Soon afterward, however, Avon tells Del to "get the axe" but where does
he go to? Surely, he doesn't teleport back to the Liberator, but he would
have to if....you get the point.
2. Why does Jenna, Vila, and Blake pack so many tools to take with them
to go to Goth on "The Keeper"? All they're going to do is get the brain
print from the royal personage. Do they expect to have to use torture or
what?? I can think of several other episodes where they would have needed
tools but didn't take any (that we see).
3. What was the deffinative reason Cally was crying after defeating the
alien in
"Sarcophagus?" Was she sad because she had let the alien in (because she
had always been a generally sympathetic character and emotionally felt
akin to the being) and then felt horrible because she had led to its
death, and had heard it begging and pleading to live? Or was she crying
because it had tried to kill Avon? Or was it a little of both?
- ------------------------------
Grace Robbins
robbins@inet-ux.graceland.edu
http://www.graceland.edu/~robbins
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 10:00:45 +1300
From: Nicola Collie <nicola.collie@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
To: B7-list <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Different Generations
Message-Id: <l03130302b107bf5a5f2b@[139.80.16.149]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>At 01:15 PM 2/11/98 +0000, Jill wrote:
>>I have been a fan of Blakes 7 since the first episodes, when it was
>>shown on sky tv my children became big fans,now it is on again on Sunday
>>morning and my grandson thinks it is great.What is it about this series
>>that it can hold the interest of three generations.
to which Lady C replied:
>I think this is the hallmark of any good dramatic series. It happens
>around here with quite a few shows. The youngest viewers watch for the
>"action", and occasionally the basic plot line. What basically happens is
>that those of us who are - um (don't want to offend either end of the age
>spectrum here)- more mature (sophisticated?) in our reactions to television
>see not only the straightforward plot, but the intricacies of character
>development and relationships along with the more subtle, implicit events
>in the series.
This reminds me of a tale I've been meaning to share. My sister-in-law is a
few years younger than me, and, when she was a wee sprog, used to live in
a town in Australia called Burke (sp?), a town immortalised in the
expression "back of Burke" meaning in the middle of nowhere. (She's a tad
sensitive about such references, but that's another story). Anyway, the TV
reception at that time was patchy at best, she was about 5 or 6 years old,
but she still remembers seeing and enjoying isolated episodes of B7, and
especially remembers "that nasty Avon man" :-). My point is that this must
be a pretty terrific series to make such a lasting impression on a
relatively young mind after minimal exposure! (but we all know that, anyway
:-))
Lady C:
Thank (insert your
>favorite deity) there is still some intelligent writing going on in
>television, although it is becoming scarcer than hen's teeth.
Amen!
ttfn, Nicola (hoping the sig looks better this time :-\)
---
Nicola Collie
nicola.collie@stonebow.otago.ac.nz
Dunedin, New Zealand
"It just occurred to me that, as the description of a highly sophisticated
technological achievement, "Avon's gadget works" seems to lack a certain
style."
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 10:10:46 +1300
From: Nicola Collie <nicola.collie@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
To: B7-list <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] no repeat
Message-Id: <l03130303b107c2881ebd@[139.80.16.149]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sam said:
>Many years ago I heard an explanation of why the BBC would not repeat series
>like Blakes 7 and Doctor. It all revolved around the contracts with the
>people involved in the production. They all received payment for an initial
>showing and one repeat.
>
>To repeat a series a second or third time would require re-negotiating with
>all those people. As you can imagine for some of the early Dr Who episodes
>some of the people are now dead.
Surely they could negotiate with the individual's estates?! Too much to
hope for that there was some relevant clause in their contracts re
post-mortem repeats, Auntie Beeb wouldn't have considered the possibility
that these sci-fi things were going to become _popular_ :-/
ttfn, Nicola (garrulous today)
---
Nicola Collie
nicola.collie@stonebow.otago.ac.nz
Dunedin, New Zealand
"It just occurred to me that, as the description of a highly sophisticated
technological achievement, "Avon's gadget works" seems to lack a certain
style."
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 21:22:58 -0800
From: Jackie <jackiew@termlow.co.uk>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Back again.
Message-ID: <34E28732.4E40@termlow.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hello everyone,
I`m back in the fold again, sort of.
I have a massive backlog to grind my way through.
If I had known how much mail would accrue in such a short time, I would
have unsubbed for a while!!
Bye for now
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 21:26:04 -0800
From: Jackie <jackiew@termlow.co.uk>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: re[B7L]: Paul/Michael/Gareth
Message-ID: <34E287EC.4131@termlow.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Tim Richards & Narrelle Harris wrote:
>
> Iain said:
> >I sometimes find Paul's performances frustrating. Sometimes he shows nice
> >subtle touches, then a few minutes later he's chewing the scenery. This
> >latter behaviour seemed to get more pronounced as the series went on.
But is that really *all* Paul`s fault? To me it seemed as though the
director has picked up on a facet of Avon that all of us has picked up on
as well, (his facial expressions) and, unfortunately, grossly exagerated
them. So instead of there being a hint in the background of Avon`s
sardonic or cynical expressions, we get them "up close and personal". I
mean, the director may be aware that the fans (many of whom wrote to the
BBC at the time) just adored Avon`s very expressive eyes, so decided to
give us just what we wanted, AND made sure we saw them very very closely.
> >
> >He is often very good at bringing a lot out of the lines, in terms of
> >playing the subtext rather than the text, and that's part of what makes
> >Avon such an intriguing character. But in terms of acting skill, I would
> >rate both Michael and Gareth higher (and Jackie, come to that - she even
> >makes her scenes in "Animals" watchable).
>
> I have seen Paul on stage (In 'Trap for a Lonely Man'), though not Michael,
> and have probably seen more of Paul in tv roles than Michael too.
>
> The sense I get from what I *have* seen is that Michael may be a more
> *disciplined* actor, and Gareth I suspect will also come under this category.
>
> I think Paul is very talented and has done both very subtle and very hammy
> work. He strikes me as the kind of actor who really shines when he is
> working with a strong director and/or a strong cast/performer. On stage,
> actors feed off one another (and from the kind of guidance they get from a
> director) intensely.
>
> I have been fascinated watching plays sometimes to see how an actor can do
> a fairly pedestrian job with one cast member, and then a different person
> comes on and the actor *changes* - stands out more, is more convincing,
> more subtle, more involved, because of the person they are playing
> opposite. Or seen an actor in plays directed by different people - there
> can be such a difference in performance based on how much
> guidance/discipline has been involved.
>
> Other people out there have been involved in theatre - do your experiences
> tally with my own?
>
> Narrelle
I saw Paul on stage quite a few times when he toured in "The Scottish
Play". The first half of the tour Pamela Salem (from the ep Cygnus
Alpha) portrayed Lady Macbeth. She has much the same type of accent as
Paul (seemingly very Upper Class). It gave the teaming up of Macbeth and
his Lady seem more of an equal partnership.
In the second half of the tour, Pamela left and Mary Conlan (Eastenders)
took over the role of Lady M. Mary has (had?) a more "common" accent,
which changed, for me at least, the whole connotation of the play. No
longer were Macbeth and his Lady an equal partnership, but became instead
a rich man infatuated with a scheming lower class woman.
I would have loved to have seen Macbeth with Paul`s wife Janet at Lady M,
she is such a powerful actress. In fact, when they appeared together in
Gaslight in Worthing, I found myself watching Janet more than Paul.
AND she can out-Avon even Avon anytime (that was in Trap for A Lonely
Man).
Anyway I seem to have wandered away slightly from what I originally
started to say. I agree that Paul needs a very firm director in control,
and a leading lady that can match his "on-stage presence". A "shrinking
violet" of a leading lady, and/or a weak director, and Paul does tend to
go "over the top" to compensate.
Bye for now
Jackie
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 22:34:04 +0100 (MET)
From: gwr@easynet.co.uk (Gareth Randall)
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] no repeat
Message-Id: <199802112134.WAA09303@samantha.lysator.liu.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Many years ago I heard an explanation of why the BBC would not repeat series
>like Blakes 7 and Doctor. It all revolved around the contracts with the
>people involved in the production. They all received payment for an initial
>showing and one repeat.
>
>To repeat a series a second or third time would require re-negotiating with
>all those people. As you can imagine for some of the early Dr Who episodes
>some of the people are now dead.
The above did indeed used to be the case, although to be precise it was only
the performers who needed to give their permission for repeat showings
(where the original performer was deceased, their next-of-kin were
approached). When the fledgling satellite TV station Super Channel started
up in the UK in the mid-80s it bought large chunks of the BBC archive,
including B7. Unfortunately, no-one had realised that completely new deals
needed to be struck with Equity (the actors' union) to cover fee scales for
this novel new broadcast medium - and this just days before the series was
due to air.
Even once this had been achieved, each individual performer, no matter how
insignificant their bit-part or background walk-on role, had to give
permission for the episode(s) in which they featured to be repeated. ISTR
that Super Channel was unable to show several episodes, including
Seek-Locate-Destroy, because of unforthcoming permission from supporting actors.
However, the growing secondary TV market, public interest in retro-TV and an
inability to show various much-requested 70s and 80s programmes because of
objections from leading actors who had gone on to "bigger and better" things
led to the broadcasters approaching Equity some years ago with a view to
creating a new agreement on repeats. The resulting deal meant that stations
no longer need to gain individual permission from each performer involved in
a series; all they do is make a payment to Equity, and show the programme.
No fuss, no muss.
Ultimately, the only reason the BBC don't repeat B7 is simply that they
don't want to.
Gareth
http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~gwr
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 22:37:58 +0100 (MET)
From: gwr@easynet.co.uk (Gareth Randall)
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Paul/Michael/Gareth and acting
Message-Id: <199802112137.WAA09539@samantha.lysator.liu.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>I think Paul is very talented and has done both very subtle and very hammy
>work. He strikes me as the kind of actor who really shines when he is
>working with a strong director and/or a strong cast/performer.
I've had a lot of experience directing Paul in voice-over situations, and I
have to say that he *did* need a lot of guidance at first. After a while he
got into the groove of what I wanted, and managed most things on the first
take. However, I've heard him doing other voice-overs where he's clearly had
very little direction, and unfortunately it shows.
Gareth
http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~gwr
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 19:53:37 GMT
From: Iain Coleman <ijc@mail.nerc-bas.ac.uk>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Avon's morals
Message-Id: <5309.9802111953@bsauasb.nerc-bas.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Md5: z7wizj8tsGgVNolmRFy0GA==
I think Avon saw himself very much as a Nietzschean hero: powerful,
self-confident, far above the petty concerns and self-serving morality
of the masses, requiring no-one's friendship, support or approval,
serenely content in his own solitary superiority - The Superman.
The extent to which this ideal corresponds to reality is left as
an exercise for the reader.
Iain
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 22:50:15 +0100 (MET)
From: gwr@easynet.co.uk (Gareth Randall)
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] no repeat
Message-Id: <199802112150.WAA10077@samantha.lysator.liu.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Surely they could negotiate with the individual's estates?!
There was never a problem in principle when it came to dead actors, although
their estate had the same right to refuse permission as the original performer.
>Too much to
>hope for that there was some relevant clause in their contracts re
>post-mortem repeats, Auntie Beeb wouldn't have considered the possibility
>that these sci-fi things were going to become _popular_ :-/
Amazing (with hindsight) but true : until well into the 70s, TV was widely
considered *by the industry* to be purely ephemeral, with programmes having
no value beyond an original transmission and maybe a few repeats. This
thinking was exacerbated by the high costs of maintaining archives of
programmes that no-one could envisage ever being useful again, and the
obscene cost (compared to today) of film and tape stock. Even the "snapshot
of popular culture" arguments didn't save thousands of programmes from being
junked, especially those on videotape - VT being eminently re-useable. Film
was just burnt to save storage space.
Gareth
http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~gwr
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 12:46:43 -0600
From: "Lorna B." <msdelta@magnolia.net>
To: "B7 mailing list" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Tarrant
Message-Id: <199802111952.NAA04686@pemberton.magnolia.net>
Rob said:
>He's also got all the tact and sensitivity of a brick through your front
>window (telling you your mother has died). Which is another thing people
>find annoying.
Examples?
Tact and sensitivity isn't exactly number one on any of the crewmembers'
list of sterling traits.
Lorna B.
"You ever flown a flying saucer? After that, sex seems trite."
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 19:33:50 -0000
From: "Sam" <sam@slade.softnet.co.uk>
To: "Jane Elizabeth Macdonald" <J.E.Macdonald1@student.derby.ac.uk>,
<blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L]Monkey
Message-ID: <01bd3723$fa79a0e0$LocalHost@swhsfzrw>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>> P.S. I do hope somebody else knows what I'm on about - cultural
milestones
>> like Monkey can't have missed _all_ the people on this list.
>
>I remember watching Monkey, so there are at least two of us.
>
>Cylan
>
Three of us. Excellent fun.
Sam
sam@slade.softnet.co.uk
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 12:37:32 -0600
From: "Lorna B." <msdelta@magnolia.net>
To: "B7 mailing list" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Tarrant: Heroic or selfish?
Message-Id: <199802111952.NAA04683@pemberton.magnolia.net>
Helen said:
>Trouble is Avon and Tarrant are both Alphas, and cannot tolerate each
>other. Avon's showing up of Tarrant is something Tarrant keeps pushing
>him to do. "I'm younger and I'm faster." If Kerr doesn't keep a strong
>hand with Tarrant, goodness knows what the cocky boy will do.
The way I see it, the main reason Tarrant "pushed" in third season is
because Avon wasn't doing much of anything at all. When Avon deigns to
actually lead the group, Tarrant tends to back off. They worked together
much better in 4th series, I think, because Avon had taken on more of a
responsibility for all of them, rather than only for himself.
Lorna B.
"You ever flown a flying saucer? After that, sex seems trite."
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 12:58:56 -0600
From: "Lorna B." <msdelta@magnolia.net>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Tarrant: Heroic or selfish?
Message-Id: <199802111952.NAA04692@pemberton.magnolia.net>
Nicole said:
>I think, as I stated, that what Tarrant *wants* to do is fly the ship.
>He's got the training, he knows how, and might lack experience in the
>leadership area, but I don't think he wants to lead the crew any more than
>Avon does.
And that's a big part of a lot of the Avon-Tarrant jockeying for position
(minds out of the gutter, slash fans!). Avon doesn't seem to want to lead,
so Tarrant tries to. Then Avon balks at Tarrant's trying to take over.
It's an interesting little dance they do, but eventually it does work out.
As Carol Mc said in another post, their strengths and weaknesses complement
one another once the "territory" dispute simmers down.
Lorna B.
"You ever flown a flying saucer? After that, sex seems trite."
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 18:13:29 -0000
From: "Jenni-Alison" <jenni-alison@dial.pipex.com>
To: "Heather Smith" <Heather.Smith@btinternet.com>,
"Blake's 7" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Vila as a god
Message-Id: <199802111815.TAA11447@hanna.lysator.liu.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Heather wrote:
> Yes, but in the TV series Tripitaka is a young priest, supposed to
be the
> one human who was truly holy. And yes, it is highly confusing that
he was
> a man, but played be a female actress. The English company doing
the dub
> into English could have made matters clearer by using a man's voice
for the
> character, but they chose to use a very feminine female voice.
Does
> anybody know quite *why* a woman was used to play the part?
>
Maybe if it was a man, but also a woman, it ruled out any sexual
aspect of the character, sort of like a eunuch. Since sex & sin are
often considered inseperable, that would help to guarantee 'his'
purity. Or maybe it was supposed to be pre-adolescent boy, and they
weren't allowed to use one due to age or something.
Jenni
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 12:53:21 -0600
From: "Lorna B." <msdelta@magnolia.net>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Tarrant: Heroic or selfish?
Message-Id: <199802111952.NAA04689@pemberton.magnolia.net>
Nicole said:
>When he first boarded the Liberator, he was alone, and the cutthroats that
>subsequently boarded were not people he could respect. Still, his
>activities there were to survive; when he finds allies, he immediately
>works with them against the 'baddies', and then throws his lot in with
>them. I can interpret his voluntary subordination to Avon almost as relief
>that he can do what he does best - pilot the ship - and not have to feel
>totally responsible for the crew (altho he tends to).
Yes. I can easily see how Tarrant would be frustrated by Avon's on-again,
off-again leadership in 3rd series. He's used to a clear chain of command,
and this eccentric civilian style, from Tarrant's view, would be highly
inefficient and confusing.
>Tarrant is unusual, in that he actually *wants* to be a part of a team.
Which kind of makes him a misfit in a crew of misfits, really. Though once
the shakedown period was over they all started working together with less
friction.
Lorna B.
"You ever flown a flying saucer? After that, sex seems trite."
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 16:03:43 -0700 (MST)
From: The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] IRC
Message-Id: <199802112303.QAA08099@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Anyone knows of any IRC #b7 channels?
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 11:05:14 -0500
From: ay648@yfn.ysu.edu (Carol A. McCoy)
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Tarrant: Heroic or selfish?
Message-ID: <199802111605.LAA27975@yfn.ysu.edu>
Rob wrote:
> Avon
>never missed an opportunity to show Tarrant up for a trigger-happy maniac,
>while delighting in his own intellectual superiority. In Blake's company,
>without Avon's persistent subtle put-downs, I agree that Tarrant would
>have been a very different character. As it was, Avon brought out the
>worst aspects of his personality, and it is much easier to dislike him for
>that than it is to recognise the contributions he made to the crew.
This certainly isn't how I saw it. I thought Avon and Tarrant made an
excellent partnership, each playing off each other's strengths and
weaknesses. Each of them managing to take over when the other
one was having a bad day. They came to respect each other, as evidenced
in the moving scenes in BLAKE where Avon regrets leaving Tarrant
on Scorpio and expresses appreciation that Tarrant survived.
I'm reminded of RUMOURS OF DEATH when Avon is the one behaving
with atypical recklessness, and Tarrant is providing the cool head.
They teleport to Earth and Avon goes charging off. It's left to
Tarrant to contact Liberator. And it's Tarrant who shows Avon
how to get the information they need out of the dying Grenlee.
Tarrant is also the one who shows caution in HEADHUNTER, making the
decision to destroy the Muller android, a decision that Orac confirms
is right.
I like Tarrant just how he is, and I appreciate the Avon-Tarrant
dynamics.
Carol McCoy
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 18:06:43 EST
From: AChevron@aol.com
To: Blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Tarrant: Heroic or selfish?
Message-ID: <e4065361.34e22f05@aol.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 98-02-10 22:49:23 EST, you write:
<< He'd
tell the people he was with that he'd sent the others into a trap,
knowing he could get them out, but not wanting to argue about sending
them in. >>
Actually, I've always thought that Avon usually had several reasons for
almost every action/descision he made, and usually let the others choose what
his reason was. Even with Servalan in Terminal. when she supposes that it is
his interest in the hints of wealth that brought him running. He's proven
often enough that he doesn't lack in physical bravery, just as Tarrant has
never shown a lack of the same. The difference is in their interpretation and
judgement of the danger. Avon goes to Horizon, after taking what measures he
can to avoid detection/capture. Tarrant I think would have rushed planetside
as did Cally, Gan, et. all. Brave but counter-productive.
Just a few stray thoughts on this intriguing line of postings... Deborah
Rose
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 18:16:45 EST
From: AChevron@aol.com
To: Blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Tarrant: Heroic or selfish?
Message-ID: <694b7be7.34e2315f@aol.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 98-02-11 10:58:46 EST, you write:
<< Tarrant wasn't just having a kick-Vila
moment. He was trying to get weaponary crystals that would
benefit all of them. Compare that to when Avon kicked or kneed
Vila in "Hostage." The only motivation was pure annoyance.
>>
But Tarrant's methods of diplomacy and preplanning leave a lot to be
desired. Bullying a man who must perform a task in exchange for items is not
real smart, and it's Avon who must come up with a standby plan.Though Avon
doesn't escape critisism either; surely he was aware of how roughly Tarrant
was handling Vila, and should have stepped in beforehand. As for the kick in
Hostage; yes, pure annoyance, and possibly a reaction to the realization he
was about to die, through his own misactions. Vila was just an external way of
taking out the frustration. Not very nice, but then, the show would be so
boring if the characters were without fault! D. Rose
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 21:15:09 +0000
From: Julia Jones <Julia.lysator@jajones.demon.co.uk>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] no repeat
Message-ID: <y8lc+BAdTh40EwcM@jajones.demon.co.uk>
In message <01bd3726$45455ae0$LocalHost@swhsfzrw>, Sam
<sam@slade.softnet.co.uk> writes
>
>The loophole seems to be that selling rights abroad allow unlimited showings
>and no one had heard or thought of satellite TV at the time.
>
>Anyone heard any other reasons/excuses?
And the other aspect of the above is that they have to pay far, *far*
less money to the people involved for repests on satellite than repeats
on terrestrial.
--
Julia Jones
"Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!"
The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon.
--------------------------------
End of blakes7-d Digest V98 Issue #43
*************************************