From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se Subject: blakes7-d Digest V99 #340 X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se X-Mailing-List: archive/volume99/340 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 99 : Issue 340 Today's Topics: Re: [B7L] Strange website Re: [B7L] Strange website Re: [B7L] Strange website Re: [B7L] Strange website [B7L] Re: strange website Re: [B7L] Re: strange website [B7L] Re: thisism and thatism Re: [B7L] Re: thisism and thatism [B7L] Re: thisism and thatism Re: [B7L] Re: thisism and thatism Re: [B7L] Realities of combat Re: [B7L] Realities of combat Re: [B7L] Realities of combat ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 21:20:38 -0000 From: "Alison Page" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] Strange website Message-ID: <002e01bf402f$d6fcde40$ca8edec2@pre-installedco> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Neil said - >It's unclear whether you realise or not that badgers are members of the >weasel family (Mustelidae). FWIW, they are. Before you joined I did a prolonged and rather forced comparison of all the crew members to the mustelidae. I think Joanne was teasing me about it :-) Blake was the badger BTW >Dayna, presumably, would be a sable (the ferrety thing, not the antelope). yes >Cally's longing for contact with other telepaths would make her a pine >marten. ta-da! I said Tarrant was the marten: 'long shagged of courage good'. I can't remember what Cally was now. >Servalan, being a politician, would clearly have to be a poll-cat. yipes, it gets worse. I think I had Servalan as the mink, and travis as the wolverine. Though shouldn't the evil hench-men of female megalomaniac's most correctly be described as 'badly house trained polecats' (anyone recognise that quote?) >And Avon's tendency to gainsay Blake at every opportunity strongly suggests >that he's a notter. the engines cannae take it any longer, man wasn't meant to live at these speeds Alison ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 09:14:39 EST From: "Joanne MacQueen" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Strange website Message-ID: <19991206221439.56668.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed >From: "Neil Faulkner" >It's unclear whether you realise or not that badgers are members of the >weasel family (Mustelidae). FWIW, they are. Actually, I did remember that from Alison's first take on the subject, but I cannot remember what she said Avon was. And the badger may have been Blake (his build, you know). I'd kept those posts too, but they're 100 miles away, at home. Worse, my desk started ticking this morning, and I've been unable to find out why. I don't think today is my day, somehow. Distractedly Joanne ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 17:35:17 EST From: Tigerm1019@aol.com To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Strange website Message-ID: <0.77abcb2c.257d9425@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/06/1999 2:17:09 PM Pacific Standard Time, j_macqueen@hotmail.com writes: > >From: "Neil Faulkner" > >It's unclear whether you realise or not that badgers are members of the > >weasel family (Mustelidae). FWIW, they are. > > Actually, I did remember that from Alison's first take on the subject, but I > cannot remember what she said Avon was. And the badger may have been Blake > (his build, you know). I think Alison suggested that Avon was the stoat, and Pat Patera then suggested the skunk. Personally, I think the skunk is appropriate, at least for the first two seasons. ;-) > I'd kept those posts too, but they're 100 miles away, at home. Worse, my > desk started ticking this morning, and I've been unable to find out why. I > don't think today is my day, somehow. Oh, no. I hope things improve for you. Tiger M ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 10:58:02 EST From: "Joanne MacQueen" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Strange website Message-ID: <19991206235802.87315.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed >From: Tigerm1019@aol.com >I think Alison suggested that Avon was the stoat, and Pat Patera then >suggested the skunk. Personally, I think the skunk is appropriate, at >least >for the first two seasons. ;-) Thanks to Warner Bros, and that Bugs Bunny movie that was repeated on Saturday night, that has the deeply unfortunate side effect of turning Avon into Pepe Le Pew. No, that's too horrible to contemplate. He's much better as Daffy Duck ("You're dethpicable!"). > > I'd kept those posts too, but they're 100 miles away, at home. Worse, >my > > desk started ticking this morning, and I've been unable to find out >why. I > > don't think today is my day, somehow. >Oh, no. I hope things improve for you. Thanks. I found out what caused it - my Walkman was misbehaving for some reason. I'll give it a severe talking to later on in the day. Regards Joanne ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 00:10:43 +0000 From: Steve Rogerson To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re: strange website Message-ID: <384C5082.E785DBCA@mcr1.poptel.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Neil wrote: >And Avon's tendency to gainsay Blake at every opportunity strongly suggests >that he's a notter. Yeah, those notters are nasty beasts. But I believe they can be eaten by nadders. -- cheers Steve Rogerson http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/steve.rogerson "In my world, there are people in chains and you can ride them like ponies" The alternative Willow, Buffy the Vampire Slayer ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 11:15:39 EST From: "Joanne MacQueen" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: strange website Message-ID: <19991207001539.41889.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed >From: Steve Rogerson >Neil wrote: > >And Avon's tendency to gainsay Blake at every opportunity strongly >suggests > >that he's a notter. >Yeah, those notters are nasty beasts. But I believe they can be eaten by >nadders. I was going to suggest that he was a nutter, but I ask myself if that's a safe thing to do Regards Joanne (A nutter what, pray tell?) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 21:07:37 -0700 From: Helen Krummenacker To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re: thisism and thatism Message-ID: <384C8809.2252@jps.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The optomism/pessimism study and my take on it... People were turning it into a question of *defeatism* by bringing in another study of survivors of dangerous situations (and to show you how flawed the concept is, there is NO control group. You cannot interview those who did not survive-- 100% of them may have been optomistic about surviving, for all the proof we have). To put it back into the original question of realistic assessment, take the classic question of the glass being half- full or half empty. Assess the situation. If the glass is out in the rain, or being held under a running faucet, it is half full. But most of the time, I would say it is half-empty, because it is in the process of being emptied through use or evaporation. This supposedly makes me a pessimist, but unless you throw in what-ifs, like, "What if Vila pours more into the glass before polishing it off," it is the logical outcome of the half-glass. --Avona ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 15:05:51 EST From: "Joanne MacQueen" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: thisism and thatism Message-ID: <19991207040551.91765.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed >From: Helen Krummenacker >but unless you throw in what-ifs, >like, "What if Vila pours more into the glass before polishing it off," Um, I'm not sure I'd count this as a what-if, knowing Vila. Regards Joanne (the Walkman is behaving, even if the computer software isn't) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 21:30:16 -0700 From: Penny Dreadful To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re: thisism and thatism Message-Id: <4.1.19991206212750.00958270@mail.powersurfr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 03:05 PM 07/12/99 -0500, Joanne MacQueen wrote: >>From: Helen Krummenacker >>but unless you throw in what-ifs, >>like, "What if Vila pours more into the glass before polishing it off," > >Um, I'm not sure I'd count this as a what-if, knowing Vila. Except that she's talking about the glass being half-full of *water*. --P. "Do You Know What Fish Do In That Stuff?" D. -- For A Dread Time, Call Penny: http://members.tripod.com/~Penny_Dreadful/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 16:12:09 EST From: "Joanne MacQueen" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: thisism and thatism Message-ID: <19991207051209.29869.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed >From: Penny Dreadful >--P. "Do You Know What Fish Do In That Stuff?" D. That's what Vila would ask, glass half-full or half-empty. He only drinks water when the Scorpio collides with asteroids, pink or otherwise. Well, as I recall Regards Joanne ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 16:17:55 +0000 (GMT) From: Iain Coleman To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Realities of combat Message-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 6 Dec 1999, Neil Faulkner wrote: > At first I thought the unrealism we got in the series was just down to > ignorance on the part of the scriptwriters and directors, but on reflection > I think it's something else, far more complex (and far more pernicious). B7 > is bound by an unconscious repudiation of a level of realism which stands to > compromise the validity of the characters' heroic stature. Pumping a stream > of bullets (or energy bolts) into an already-wounded target is not 'heroic', > nor is spilling guts, severing limbs, splattering brains across the scenery, > or agonised troopers screaming for their mothers. The physical cleanliness > of combat in shows like B7 (and many others) reflects the moral cleanliness > that the proponents of combat seek to advocate - the legitimacy of killing > requires that it be turned into a bloodless process, and also an absolute > one, with no interim state between dead and alive (save the occasional flesh > wound inflicted on one of the heroes). I agree with you. This is true of heroic drama in general, as you say. Interestingly, though, B7 quite consciously attacks or subverts many of the tropes of heroic fiction. There are even cases of troopers being presented as likable human beings, then shot by rebels and dying slowly, painfully and bloodily. These are exceptional, mind you. B7 does do far more than other examples of its genre as far as _psychological_ realism is concerned, particularly with Blake: it does still lack _physical_ realism. So why isn't it more realistic? I think there are a few factors at work here. One is public sensibilities: imagine the phone calls from outraged parents when Blake comes upon a wounded 18 year old trooper whimpering for his mother, and messily slits his throat with a bloody knife. Not suitable for prime-time family viewing. You can just imagine the bollocking David Maloney would get. Another is the inheritance of dramatic conventions. Gun battles go like this: Avon shoots Trooper 1 exactly once, who falls down dead. Trooper 2 shoots back exactly once, but Avon ducks behind a wall just in time. Avon comes out of cover again and shoots Trooper 2 once, who likewise drops dead. Why do they go like this? Because they always have. That's what people are used to staging, so that's what gets done. You might as well ask why futuristic indoor scenes are always insanely overlit. Finally, there's budget. A few lines of dialogue from the leading man about how he's driven by guilt and self-doubt to increasingly dubious acts are pretty cheap. Every trooper who has to say a line costs more money, every trooper's outfit covered in gore costs money, every rehearsal of a complex scene, with many actors dying realistically, costs money, every retake of a technically challenging scene with lots of bit parts costs money. > > I don't really know enough cultural history to analyse this further, but I > suspect the 'clean killing' fallacy may have originated in the > mythologisation of the American West, or perhaps in the European colonial > period. Both had reason to concoct a positive portrayal of violence for a > mass audience far removed from first-hand experience of the real thing. > That's possible. I'm pretty sure the conventional gunfight I outlined above has its roots in cowboy movies, at any rate. The more general "clean killing" thing may have older roots, though, in chivalrous romances. These present heroic fictional combat to an audience without first-hand experience. By contrast, Homer and the Greek tragedians have lots of blood and brutality. Iain ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 20:34:28 -0000 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "b7" Subject: Re: [B7L] Realities of combat Message-ID: <001a01bf40f3$0cd9e3a0$b94b8cd4@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Iain wrote: >Interestingly, though, B7 quite consciously attacks or subverts many of >the tropes of heroic fiction. There are even cases of troopers being >presented as likable human beings, then shot by rebels and dying slowly, >painfully and bloodily. These are exceptional, mind you. B7 does do far >more than other examples of its genre as far as _psychological_ realism is >concerned, particularly with Blake: it does still lack _physical_ realism. It occurs to me that we might be entering into a confusion of realisms (largely engendered by my previous post - sorry). There is tactical realism (the way fights are fought) and then there is the realism of weapon effects (blood and gore, though how much of this SF weaponry would generate is open to debate). Although the two are not unconnected, it is possible to have one without the other. Compare, for example, a film like 'Platoon' with the Vietnam TV series (forget what it was called - it had Paint It Black for its title theme) - the latter cut back heavily on the blood and bad language, but could still depict the tactical (and psychological) side reasonably well (or so I'm told, since I never saw a complete episode). B7 does go further than most in its tentative strivings towards realism, and there were people involved in its production who would have liked to take it further still. Gareth Thomas has expressed his disappointment in the way the violence was sanitised in the 2nd Season. On the other hand, there were people who wanted to take things in the opposite direction, such as Vere Lorrimer. I can appreciate they had their reasons, but I don't think they ultimately did B7 any favours. >So why isn't it more realistic? I think there are a few factors at work >here. One is public sensibilities: imagine the phone calls from outraged >parents when Blake comes upon a wounded 18 year old trooper whimpering for >his mother, and messily slits his throat with a bloody knife. Not suitable >for prime-time family viewing. No, probably not. But there's no need to enter the realm of being graphic for graphic's sake. A lot can be merely suggested, though even suggesting the brutality of realism is likely to get Outraged of Tunbridge Wells on the phone. The parental angle is more problematic, since the B7 I would like to have seen would probably not have been suitable for very young children, yet the series does go down well with the kids. OTOH, I'm not at all happy with the way impressionable young minds are force-fed the bilge that passes for family entertainment. >Another is the inheritance of dramatic conventions. Why do they go like this? Because they always have. That's what people are used to staging, so that's what gets done. You might as well ask why futuristic indoor scenes are always insanely overlit. What, like Blake's base on GP, you mean? The power of convention is only as great as people's willingness to subscribe to it. The fault lies with hidebound writers, directors and producers for not daring to break the mould. >Finally, there's budget. Ah, -that- again! I can't really argue with any of those three points, since they were obviously all in force when the series was being made. B7 was constrained by financial practicality, audience expectation and standardised modes of production (though the interrelationship between the latter two is interesting - 'We make it this way because you expect us to. You expect us to because this is the way we make it...') >> I don't really know enough cultural history to analyse this further, but I >> suspect the 'clean killing' fallacy may have originated in the >> mythologisation of the American West, or perhaps in the European colonial >> period. Both had reason to concoct a positive portrayal of violence for a >> mass audience far removed from first-hand experience of the real thing. >> >That's possible. I'm pretty sure the conventional gunfight I outlined >above has its roots in cowboy movies, at any rate. The more general "clean >killing" thing may have older roots, though, in chivalrous romances. These >present heroic fictional combat to an audience without first-hand >experience. By contrast, Homer and the Greek tragedians have lots of blood >and brutality. I know next to nothing about chivalrous romance. You mean stuff like Le Morte d'Arthur or Amadis of Gaul? Plenty of violence in those, but they're restricted by their form (words only, in verse format). Contemporary battle paintings depict plenty of death and mayhem. Theatre, likewise, was constrained in its depiction of realism, even though it was a visual medium. It was not until the advent of first cinema and then television that the full reality of violence could be given to an audience unacquainted with that reality - who have more or less consistently rejected it, preferring a vicarious adrenaline rush whilst closing all eyes firmly against its deeper implications. Further to my original supposition on the need for violence to be depicted as 'clean', I think it's also necessary for it to be shown to be under control. This too renders it 'safe' and acceptable as entertainment. Hence the laconic gun-toting hero who can wield a deadly weapon and a smile and a wisecrack at the same time. He can kill with a single shot, not because he's a crack marksman, but because he's the master of his weapon -and- the circumstances in which he deploys it, not subject to the vagaries of reality. This is particularly important for heroes derived from the myth of the American West since they are lone wolves, potentially very dangerous indeed. (European heroes, by contrast, tend to be establishment figures - soldiers or secret agents, controlled by the discipline of their training and - if British - the invaluable stiff upper lip.) The most ludicrous example of such controlled violence that I can think of is the scene in Terminator II when Big Arnie lets rip with a minigun at a carpark and kills precisely no one. Okay, so it's a joke, but it's a joke whose ironies are buried too deep within its medium to expose its own fallacious suppositions. This would seem to be a recurrent problem with the Hollywood action movie - it doesn't know how seriously to take itself, caught between the hammer and anvil of verisimilitude and notions of 'entertainment'. B7 fell into the same trap, feeling both the need to satisfy audience expectations of excitement, yet unable to pursue the implications of doing so to their logical conclusion. I must stop reading media studies texts I must stop reading media studies texts I must stop reading media studies texts I must stop reading media studies texts Neil ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 19:40:11 +0000 From: Julia Jones To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Cc: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Realities of combat Message-ID: In message , Iain Coleman writes >So why isn't it more realistic? I think there are a few factors at work >here. One is public sensibilities: imagine the phone calls from outraged >parents when Blake comes upon a wounded 18 year old trooper whimpering for >his mother, and messily slits his throat with a bloody knife. Not suitable >for prime-time family viewing. You can just imagine the bollocking David >Maloney would get. I gather there was a certain amount of comment when _Blake_ was first shown about whether it was really necessary to be quite so emphatic about showing Blake to be deceased, especially in a children's show... Another example was the Mary Whitehouse attack on Dr Who over _Assassin_. Given the level of complaints about any attempt to portray this sort of thing realistically, it's difficult to blame the Beeb for taking the easier and cheaper route. -- Julia Jones "Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!" The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon. -------------------------------- End of blakes7-d Digest V99 Issue #340 **************************************