HIGHLA-L Digest - 10 Sep 2002 (#2002-143)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Tue, 10 Sep 2002 22:00:02 -0400
There are 6 messages totalling 308 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. (OT) Another one bites the dust..... (6)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 19:51:11 +0200
From: Marina Bailey <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: (OT) Another one bites the dust.....
Lisa wrote:
>Strictly speaking, yes. But I recall a fair amount of...ill will
>toward the show, the Powers that Be, and all things Highlander when
>Archangel aired. Lots of yelling. Not a whole heck of a lot of
>love. :-) And certainly not a heck of a lot of unity.
I frankly have very little memory of the whole Archangel thing.
I remember bawling like a baby at a comment somebody made and
Janine consoling me over the phone from 10,000 miles away.
But - and here's my point - I was upset by what some people said
because they were fellow HL fans and I actually paid attention to
them. If I didn't feel some sense of community I wouldn't have
cared either way.
- Marina.
\\ "You've heard it said that living well is ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// the best revenge? Au contraire - living || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ forever is the best revenge." - Lacroix ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//=====Marina Bailey====tmar@sifl.iid.co.za====|| \\
\\=============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie============//
"There is a Daniel Jackson-shaped hole in that show." - My brother,
about the sixth season of Stargate SG-1.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:59:37 -0400
From: L Cameron-Norfleet <cgliser@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: (OT) Another one bites the dust.....
>Lisa wrote:
>>Strictly speaking, yes. But I recall a fair amount of...ill will
>>toward the show, the Powers that Be, and all things Highlander when
>>Archangel aired. Lots of yelling. Not a whole heck of a lot of
>>love. :-) And certainly not a heck of a lot of unity.
Marina:
>
>But - and here's my point - I was upset by what some people said
>because they were fellow HL fans and I actually paid attention to
>them. If I didn't feel some sense of community I wouldn't have
>cared either way.
I'm not denying that there is a community. I'm just skeptical about
the statement that we are "all united in our love for Highlander".
Liser
--
Lisa Cameron-Norfleet ** cgliser@earthlink.net
--
Well that's like hypnotizing chickens. -Iggy Pop: Lust For Life
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 19:26:40 +0100
From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: (OT) Another one bites the dust.....
> Except Daniel Jackson was never one of the 'sidekicks' on SG-1. He was one
of the leads, and if you go by the movie, *the* main protagonist of that
universe. That the series writers chose to promote Colonel O'Neill as the
main protagonist had to do with attracting the male viewers and that Richard
Dean Anderson was one of the Producers, of course.
Daniel was a great person to lead the film. Best rule of a film (and, in
fact, most story-telling) is to have a character that knows very little
about what's going to happen/happening and educate the audience as you
educate the character. Even better when they can overcome that and find a
way to save the day. The trouble is, sooner or later (and with a series of a
hundred episodes and counting it's going to come eventually) that you are
going to find that a character will eventually become so informed that he
loses that 'anchor' status. It's at that point you have to find a way to
help make them grow and/or (usually 'and') change the nature of the
relationships. Daniel couldn't be the archeaologist establishing lines of
communications because the anture of the expanding universe of characters
was that SG1 would have to dela with people they'd met before. Nor could he
always be the pascifist...we saw in Beast of Burden that here was a
character who was now pro-active, willing to act on what he believed rather
than the 'wouldn't it be nice if we could all live together and read
manuscripts' (and I don't mean that sarcastically...the less experienced
Daniel brought a healthy and less military angle to things). There were
severla other episodes where Daniel proves himself a willing and active
participant in conflict...if there was no other way first. On several
occassions Shanks asked for some scenes to be written a little differently
because the character was 'too first/second year Daniel'.
And the series was sold as a vehicle for RDA. Them's the breaks. Wouldn't
have happened without him and it's pretty much a tribute to his attitude
that it's become an ensemble show.
> Joss Whedon, one of the best writers on TV today, has always understood
that the character dynamics are far more interesting and have much more
potential than how many vamps get their butts kicked, from week to week. He
does not discard a character because he feels "the arc's been used up." He
takes it as a challenge to find a new and totally unexpected direction to
take the character, in relation to everyone else in the ensemble. Whedon is
one of the only writers on TV today who knows how to REALIZE the potential
he creates, and he has colleagues on the team who 'get' that.
No argument about Joss's (and his team's) talents. But...let's
see......Jenny Calendar. Tara. Oz. Joyce.
In each of these cases the character (now shuffled off this mortal coil or
at least off the screen on a likely permenant basis) played an important
part in the ongoing Buffy mythos but no longer do so. Joss decided after
they'd been around for a while to write them out - knowing the effect that
losing each of them would have -but did it anyway (sometimes because of the
nature the loss would have). He knew nearly three years ago that Joyce was
going to die. He knew at least eighteen months ago that Tara was to die.
He's said that if Oz hadn't left (Seth Green, an actor not wishing to
continue on the series and wanting to go off and find other work) then Oz
would have died instead of Tara. Does killing these characters (or writing
them out) mean that Joss (The God) Whedon is bankrupt of ideas? Hardly. Any
one of them could have stuck around and still been written well. I don't
always like what he ends up doing, but I still trust Joss to provide
something interesting. Maybe you dont think that Stargate circa Season Six
is interesting, but that wasn't the point you were making with that comment.
You said that not continuing with a character means a lack of accepting a
challenge. Sometimes the challenge is to overcome the loss of a character
and see what it does to the dynamic.
> There's more to a male character's life than beating the villain and
winning the girl. There's more to a personality than having a super-power,
whether it's slaying vampires or being a demon.
(Damn. I had saving the girl and beating the villain down for Thursday PM.
Scratch that and replace it with learning to read Ogham stones.)
Yes, super-powers do not a hero make. Nor the fetching garb. Mind you, some
great comics out there at the moment. I recommend the Captain America comics
which are wonderfully topical and profound about the nature of a country's
spirit in the time of crisis - while not being unquestioning or
unchallenging (is that a word?). So superheroics don't mean an automatic
lack of good story-telling.
> I think it's a sad demostration of the lack of imagination and talent on
SG-1's writing crew that they've invested the new character with all sorts
of miraculous abilities: Breathing underwater, psychic powers, an apparent
resistance to radiation, an ability to read really, really fast. That's
great for a comic-book superhero or a Mary Sue. It isn't character
development.
Well, he was underwater for quite a while, grant you - but I'm not sure
that's super-human. Corin Nemec was actually underwater for almost as long
as you see him underwater on screen (over two continuous minutes at one
point) so it's only stretching it a bit. Psychic powers...hmmm...missed that
episode. Apparent resistance to radiation...seems to me those who died were
within a few feet of the bomb or came into direct contact with it. Not
knowing the half-life of Naquadria, I'm guessing that Jonas may have
received a dose of radiation, but not one that will kill him any time soon
(maybe around series 20?). Yes...the fast reading thing is pretty pointless,
granted. Not sure any of these consitute super-powers and as for Mary
Sue-ing, I've met Joe and (with the greatest of respect to him) he doesn't
fit the bill.
But I would agree that they could have done a lot more with Jonas. Not a fan
of what they've done so far with him and the lack of the Stargate was a
mistake, but I quite like the episodes per se. Still...half a season to
go...
John
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 19:27:44 +0100
From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: (OT) Another one bites the dust.....
"we are all united by our passion for things Highlander", maybe?
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "L Cameron-Norfleet" <cgliser@EARTHLINK.NET>
To: <HIGHLA-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: [HL] (OT) Another one bites the dust.....
> >Lisa wrote:
> >>Strictly speaking, yes. But I recall a fair amount of...ill will
> >>toward the show, the Powers that Be, and all things Highlander when
> >>Archangel aired. Lots of yelling. Not a whole heck of a lot of
> >>love. :-) And certainly not a heck of a lot of unity.
>
> Marina:
>
> >
> >But - and here's my point - I was upset by what some people said
> >because they were fellow HL fans and I actually paid attention to
> >them. If I didn't feel some sense of community I wouldn't have
> >cared either way.
>
> I'm not denying that there is a community. I'm just skeptical about
> the statement that we are "all united in our love for Highlander".
>
> Liser
> --
> Lisa Cameron-Norfleet ** cgliser@earthlink.net
> --
> Well that's like hypnotizing chickens. -Iggy Pop: Lust For Life
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:54:00 -0400
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: (OT) Another one bites the dust.....
At 01:59 PM 09/10/2002 -0400, L Cameron-Norfleet wrote:
>I'm not denying that there is a community. I'm just skeptical about
>the statement that we are "all united in our love for Highlander".
Me too. Iirc, someone mentioned how some fandoms split (broke up) really
badly when changes were made or characters written out, etc., and someone
(was it Marina? I don't have all the emails here at work) made comments to
the effect that fortunately we in HL fandom hadn't experienced any major
splits like that. The fact that some fans did leave HL fandom because of
the occurrences in Archangel proves Liser's point that not *all* of us are
still united in HL fandom. Some have left HL fandom for <insert character
of choice here> fandom. I even know one fan who left the list and stopped
watching the show when Dr. Anne was written out. She said the show no
longer interested her without Anne.
Of course those of us who are still hanging out here are still united in
our *love of the show* and not just one specific character.
Yes there was a lot of ranting and raving when Archangel aired... for many
different reasons. But most of it was because we loved the show so
much.... not because Archangel made us hate it. We bitched and moaned and
kept on watching to the very end. And those of us who are still here (and
many who are still fans but not here on the list) went through our venting
and stuck with the show. But some people did leave the fandom (in a huff I
might add) and break off into their own character-driven universe because
of Archangel.
-- Sandy
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:58:58 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: (OT) Another one bites the dust.....
Leah--
>>>Joss Whedon, one of the best writers on TV today, has always understood
that the character dynamics are far more interesting and have much more
potential than how many vamps get their butts kicked, from week to week. He
does not discard a character because he feels "the arc's been used up." He
takes it as a challenge to find a new and totally unexpected direction to
take the character, in relation to everyone else in the ensemble.>>>
Hah! Tell that to the Tara fans. And be prepared to run.
Liser & then Sandy--
> >I'm not denying that there is a community. I'm just skeptical about
> >the statement that we are "all united in our love for Highlander".
>
> Me too.
Me three.
BUT, there IS an underlying community, held together by sheer knowledge of
Highlander. We as a group may appreciate HL for different reasons & fixate
on varying aspects of it, but we all KNOW it. Many of us know it backwards
& forwards, w/ what outsiders would call trivia etched into our brains
forever! So many people never watched the show & have no clue what it is.
It's comforting, sort of, that the HL fandom exists--even a full 10 years
after HL:TS began airing & in spite of so many bizarrely lesser things
bearing the HL name. (Cartoon Methos, for instance....)
Lots of folks here wouldn't spit on me if I were on fire, but there's still
an undeniable commonality. Like watching total crap tv & movies JUST to see
the HL stars, or that thrill when we see an HL guest actor or a dearly
familiar location pop up in Dead Zone.
Nina (of course, some folks would just take advantage of ANY excuse to spit)
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 10 Sep 2002 (#2002-143)
************************************************