HIGHLA-L Digest - 3 Jun 2005 to 4 Jun 2005 - Special issue (#2005-58)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Sat, 4 Jun 2005 17:57:15 -0400
There are 12 messages totalling 816 lines in this issue.
Topics in this special issue:
1. HIGHLA-L Digest - 2 Jun 2005 to 3 Jun 2005 (#2005-57) (4)
2. the stuff we were talking about...yeah, kinda OT (8)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 21:04:18 -0700
From: FKMel <sgt_buck_frobisher@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: HIGHLA-L Digest - 2 Jun 2005 to 3 Jun 2005 (#2005-57)
And you can just take a look at Angel. I mean, the guy
was "the scourge of Europe" for, okay only 100 years
instead of Methos's couple thousand, but still, he
went from being mister evil nasty to good guy...and
back to evil a few times. And it still worked pretty
well. (he even got kinda gray-ish during part of Angel
S5, but that's pretty much a whole 'nother debate that
could from what I've seen go on for probably ever.
And actually Spike's another example, he was bad for
most of the show's run and then between the chip,
Buffy and earning his soul, he turned good(er)...and
they are still discussing making a Spike series
although it hasn't happened yet.
LOL, I can just see Angelus and Methos aruging over
who did a better job pillaging Europe (or which
foursome)....
"I was the scourge of Europe! And Spike was almost as
bad as I was"
"Hello, 'Death' here! And my cohorts were
'pestilence', 'famine' and 'war'. I had you beat by a
longshot And you couldn't even DO any daylight
pillaging!"
"Ever torture someone until they went insane and then
turn them to be like you? Check out Drusilla"
"Well, Cassandra might not be a basket case but I
still think I did a pretty good job on her. Anyway,
you were at the whole thing for what, a hundred years,
a hundred and fifty? I was at it for several THOUSAND
years!"
OK, so Methos does have Angelus beat...it's still
funny.
They don't have to change him. The "Dark midnight of
the soul" schtick worked gangbusters for the other
shows you brought up, not to mention Xena.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 09:36:18 +0200
From: T'Mar <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: the stuff we were talking about...yeah, kinda OT
>Hannibal's "appeal" is that he is educated and civilized on the outside
>and an animal underneath. Methos didn't really strike me as that kind
>of bad guy. He was the raping, pillaging, killing for the hell of it
>kind of bad guy.
But placed in the modern world, I think Methos would be more an Alan
Shore (from The Practice) kind of character - one who will follow the
rules as long as it suits him and throw them out, bend them or argue
that they don't mean what people think they mean when he doesn't like
them.
That kind of show could work, because you *know* that if Methos met up
with someone who had done something bad, and it was hurting someone he
cared about, or messing with society as a whole, Methos would just whip
out the old sword (or gun ot poison or whatever was easiest) and take
care of the problem.
>A show about Methos could be more like the Sopranos, I suppose. ( Or The
>Shield or OZ etc) The lead character does horrible things but can be a
>nice guy.
Yes! I'd watch.
>We know Methos survives and we know Methos lives well. So there isn't the
>"edge" of waiting for him to get what's coming to him - no matter what
>he does in flashback we know he's alive and well in the present.
Couldn't we worry that he might buy it in the present? I'd actually prefer
to know that he WON'T get killed - I'd be watching to see how he avoids
getting killed/caught/whatever. Like in The Pretender. Or like in
Columbo, where you know who the killer is but watch anyway to see how
Columbo catches them. Only with Methos you would know he survives but be
fascinated with HOW he does it.
>So..were we going to see Methos kill "good" guys?
>Pretend like he only met bad guys? Just ignore the whole Immortal stuff
>altogether?
But *would* he (after the Pillaging Years <g>) go around killing good
guys? Why would he bother? Unless one challenged him, I think he would
stay away from them. And if he did kill on (they blocked his Volvo in
the parking lot or something), then we wouldn't have to sit watching
him angst over it. He'd be like, "I'm still alive; that's all that
matters." And many members of the audience (including moi) would be
going, "Yeah, baby!" :)
:)
- 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 ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//===============tmar@sifl.iid.co.za===========|| \\
\\=============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie============//
"What about the fact they thought we were gay?"
"Adds mystery." - Wesley and Angel; 'Expecting' (Angel)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 09:36:22 +0200
From: T'Mar <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: HIGHLA-L Digest - 2 Jun 2005 to 3 Jun 2005 (#2005-57)
>OK, so Methos does have Angelus beat...it's still
>funny.
But Angelus had more style. :) He wouldn't just hang skulls up to
scare his new badmate. No, he'd mummify the corpse of someone she
loved and put it in pride of place so that when the bedmate got up
in the night she'd walk into it and get freaked. Then he'd laugh.
And bite her. Or torture her for a few... weeks... :)
- Marina, who likes bad boys a little too much.
\\ "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 ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//===============tmar@sifl.iid.co.za===========|| \\
\\=============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie============//
"What about the fact they thought we were gay?"
"Adds mystery." - Wesley and Angel; 'Expecting' (Angel)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 04:15:08 -0400
From: Trilby <trilby23@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: HIGHLA-L Digest - 2 Jun 2005 to 3 Jun 2005 (#2005-57)
Marina, who likes bad boys a little too much:
> But Angelus had more style. :) He wouldn't just hang skulls up to
> scare his new badmate. No, he'd mummify the corpse of someone she
> loved and put it in pride of place so that when the bedmate got up in
> the night she'd walk into it and get freaked. Then he'd laugh. And
> bite her. Or torture her for a few... weeks... :)
Well, sure, but Angelus was born into more sophisticated times! Methos was a
horseman something like 20 centuries before Angelus came along. The methods
required in the Bronze age for mental and emotional torture were much simpler, but
perfectly sufficient for those times. The times were different, he was different. The
whole bloody world was different. But by, oh, let's say the 10th or 11th century at
the latest, Methos would have developed a more subtle style.
Angelus had the advantage of being born long after the many masters of cruelty
had honed their craft and made themselves into legends. He was standing on the
shoulders of giants like Caligula, Genghis Khan, Torquemada, Eric the Red....
Methos the Horseman.... Darius the Conqueror.... :-)
-------------------- Trilby
Live long and prosper. May the Force be with you.
Remember that the truth is out there ...
No matter where you go ... there you are ...
And he will find you ...
But in the end there can be only one.
Oh, boy.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 04:48:24 -0500
From: Kamil <kamilaa@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: HIGHLA-L Digest - 2 Jun 2005 to 3 Jun 2005 (#2005-57)
<Marina>
But Angelus had more style. :) He wouldn't just hang skulls up to
scare his new bedmate. No, he'd mummify the corpse of someone she
loved and put it in pride of place so that when the bedmate got up
in the night she'd walk into it and get freaked. Then he'd laugh.
And bite her. Or torture her for a few... weeks... :)
<me>
Oh, absolutely. Simply killing, just to be killing, is so, so common,
you know; anyone can do that.
Angelus would have stalked Cassandra's tribe for months, killing them
off one at a time, leaving those she felt closest to for last, had
Cassandra caught his fancy.
She and her tribe really were fortunate -- they could've sprung from
the mind of Joss Whedon, instead of Donna and Gillian. <eg>
--
Kamil
Q. Will you use some of my ideas in the next Harry Potter book?
A. The books have been planned for so long that there isn't room for
any more ideas! Fan fiction is really fun, though, and I am so proud
to think that Harry Potter inspired so much creativity!
J.K. Rowling, answering a question for the FAQ section of her website.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 11:30:30 EDT
From: Degruy@aol.com
Subject: Re: the stuff we were talking about...yeah, kinda OT
<< Part of Hannibal's "appeal" is that he is educated and civilized on the
outside
and an animal underneath.>>
Odd. From having read all the books and seen the SOTL several time but not
Red Dragon or Hannibal as yet (and he may be portrayed differently in those
films) I found him to be all but an animal. He did not have a lot of the
morals that we would use to define us a human. He like the taste of humans. He
knew it was illegal and went to lengths to not be discovered consuming it.
Course to get it meant killing others but all the people to his mind needed
killing.
Eh....guess I see him as someone I would not want to be around for any
length of time but still human and not an animal. Just not one that follows the
"human" mindset.
Edward deGruy
Student of Humanity
@}----------
"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in
a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside,
thoroughly used up, totally worn out, & loudly proclaiming- "WOW!! What a Ride!" -
Bill Hicks
Edward deGruy
Student of Humanity
@}----------
"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in
a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside,
thoroughly used up, totally worn out, & loudly proclaiming- "WOW!! What a Ride!" -
Bill Hicks
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 08:53:04 -0700
From: Janice Cox <jlc_fresno@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: the stuff we were talking about...yeah, kinda OT
I've been having so much fun reading this thread that
I'm throwing my two cents in. :-) It's a bit long, but
I'll try to stay coherent.
--- T'Mar <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za> wrote:
<<snip>> And if he did kill on (they blocked his Volvo
in the parking lot or something), then we wouldn't
have
to sit watching him angst over it. He'd be like, "I'm
still alive; that's all that matters." And many
members of the audience (including moi) would be
going, "Yeah, baby!" :) <<snip>>
I think that's the single feature that I adored most
about Methos. Now, I absolutely LOVE the "bad boy
trying to do good" character. Makes me go weak at the
knees. But the incessant
whining/angsting/weeping-n-moaning of certain such
characters really puts me off my feed. (Notice that I
didn't mention Angel by name. Nope, not once--oh,
shoot.) (Spike, on the other hand...)
In my world, you're allowed one, maybe two, cathartic
weeping-n-moaning sessions when you realize what a
complete and utter sh*t you've been. After that, you
need to get on with it. Go help old ladies cross the
street. Get kittens out of trees. Stop killing idiots
who block in your Volvo. Vow to do better in the here
and now, and let the past take care of itself, dammit.
With Methos, I don't know that he even had an epiphany
that "being evil is a bad thing." Personally, I think
he decided that "being evil is a lot of work, and
leads to lots of people trying to take your head."
Methos' bad-boy past combined with his
happy-in-his-own-skin-and-let's-keep-it-intact
philosophy really entertain me.
And I'd have loved to see The Methos Show, done in the
present day with oodles of flashbacks. It would be fun
to see him dealing with some of the choices he's made
in the past that have come back to bite him. All
Certified Angst Free. Whoo-hoo!
I liked Duncan, but he was a little too much on the
straight and narrow for me. Give me Methos any day.
Janice
ik67 (my cat's contribution to the post)
FKer, Methos Junkie, and
High Priestess of the Cult of Dark Justin (don't ask)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 13:43:33 -0400
From: Wendy <Immortals_Incorporated@cox.net>
Subject: Re: the stuff we were talking about...yeah, kinda OT
I said:
> << Part of Hannibal's "appeal" is that he is educated and
> civilized on the outside and an animal underneath.>>
Edwards says:
> Odd. From having read all the books and seen the SOTL
> several time but not Red Dragon or Hannibal as yet
> (and he may be portrayed differently in those
> films) I found him to be all but an animal. He did not have
> a lot of the morals that we would use to define us a human. He like
the
> taste of humans. He knew it was illegal and went to lengths to
> not be discovered consuming it. Course to get it meant killing
>others but all the people to his mind needed killing.
The Hannibal of the books is a far different character than the Hannibal
of the movies. I suspect if most of those people who were rooting for
Hannibal after seeing the movies had only read the books, they wouldn't
find him nearly as appealing. Much of his appeal in the movies comes
from the portrayal by Anthony Hopkins. A similarly unpleasant character
played by Christian Bale in "American Psycho" doesn't seem to attract
quite the same following. (I now await the messages telling me that the
guy in "American Psycho" is fun too)
> Eh....guess I see him as someone I would not want to be around for any
> length of time but still human and not an animal. Just not
> one that follows the "human" mindset.
Ok..I'l retract the "animal" description. Or not <eg> Hannibal is,
obviously, human. He's intelligent. He's capable of planning and
carrying out detailed operations. ( no pun intended <g>). But under the
veneer of intelligence and culture is a "creature" who enjoys killing
and eating his fellow man (or woman). He enjoys torture and torment and
degradation and violence. He's also, I think, almost a pure Hollywood
creation- the brilliant criminal psychopath that is so "fascinating"
that otherwise intelligent and "normal" people are drawn to be near
him- to bask in his aura to, as Marina says, "want to clap and cheer
him on". It's not a train of thought I, personally, can grasp. Hannibal
isn't a "grey" character where one might understand why he was what he
was and hope for some kind of "redemption." (I hate that word but it's
all I can think of at the moment <g>) Hannibal isn't "misunderstood'. He
is exactly what he is...a killer..a cannibal ..and I really don't see
how that is at all "cheer-worthy.
OBHLR: Methos is not a cannibal - that we know of. <EG>
Wendy (I like bad boys too)(But cannibels fall outside my comfoft zone.)
Immortals Inc.
immortals_incorporated@cox.net
"Weasels for Eternity"
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 13:43:33 -0400
From: Wendy <Immortals_Incorporated@cox.net>
Subject: Re: the stuff we were talking about...yeah, kinda OT
Jill:
>Somewhere in between Death
> on a Horse and Mild-Mannered Grad Student, there were centuries
> of evolution when Methos began to develop, or nurture,
> the redeeming qualities (loyalty, courage, independence,
> compassion, the occasional willingness to be vulnerable)
> that endear him to us present-day. I should think those
>years, and that character, would be
> tremendously fertile soil.
I suspect that I have a different view of modern Methos than you do <g>.
I don't really see Methos as a loyal, courageous, compassionate,
occasionally vulnerable character that you seem to. I tend to think that
Methos is what he always was - the consummate survivor. The man who
indulges his pleasures or passions when it's safe and doesn't when it's
not. He's a chameleon whose choices are always going to be dictated by
his chance of surviving. Being Death was fun until he got bored, times
made it less safe, the interpersonal dynamics with the other Horsemen
got tricky and Methos walked away. After that...until the modern era we
don't know much about what he did. We have Bronze Age flashback and a
1800's flashback and a couple of off-the-cuff comments about where he
was in-between. For all we know, he didn't do a darned honorable thing
in-between <eg>
> They don't have to change him. The "Dark midnight of the
> soul" schtick worked gangbusters for the other shows you
> brought up, not to mention Xena. In some of
> the stories that flashed back to her darker past, she was as
> nasty a character as Methos was.
Yet when Xena became the star of her own show (versus an occasional
character on Hercules) she definitely became on of the good guys. Xena
gives up her evil ways and vows to fight the good right from now on.
So, the story of Xena became one of 'redemption" (did I mention I hate
that word?). Flashbacks to her evil past were juxtaposed with her good
ways now. She was evil then, she was a heroine trying to do right now.
She traveled the world righting wrongs and saving the weak and poor.
Methos may have been evil then - there is no evidence he is a "hero"
now. If Death on a Horse is "A" on the scale and "Hero" is Z...Methos
has made the leap from A to .... G. There is no evidence that Methos has
made any life-altering decision to turn away from the past and 'redeem"
himself by being good in the future. He views the past as just that ....
past. He doesn't apologize for what he did ... he doesn't seek
forgiveness..he doesn't go out of his way to do the right thing.
> I think the Horsemen years on the one extreme,
> and the Duncan years on the other, provide
>a natural framework for the vast,
> amazingly rich life that came
> in-between. Bookends, so to speak, providing the beginning
> and ending points to the character's evolution thus far
> with the storyline being his journey from one to
> the other.
My question always is...how was this mythical series going to work?
Was it going to parallel HL:TS where Methos of today meets someone
(another Immortal, I assume) that reminds him of the past, we get a
flashback to Methos 's "evolution" on some issue , and then...what?
Methos whacks the current-day Immortal? The Methos we saw would *not*
spend a lot of time fighting other Immortals on "principle" . He'd leave
town first. So, would we have a wandering Methos going from town to town
avoiding fights? Or would he only meet "good" Immortals who (after the
flashback) would see that Methos had changed and so they could both walk
away? How many seasons of *that* would anyone watch?
or....would there be no current-day Immortals? Only Methos seeing
something that reminded him of the past and then an extended flashback
where we, again, saw him in some situation that made a change in him?
Methos in 354 CE saving a poor widow from the Huns ? Methos in 1200 CE
helping a town build a church? Methos in 1753 defending orphans from
Cossacks? Does that *really* sound like Methos? Or would we have one
week where Methos is seen saving the widow from the Huns and another
week where we saw Methos raping and killing a different widow? Two
flashback in one episode- one to the raping and one to the saving- and
current-day Methos realizing that the saving was "better" ? Methos
having a beer with Joe and deciding, yes, I've killed orphans and I've
saved orphans - I think I'm a better man when I save them- so from now
on orphans are safe?
or...what? Methos as our host on the dreaded Immortal version of "You
Are There"? History as seen by the 5000 year old man? Yuck.
I guess that part of what I liked about the Methos character was that
his motives of today are not at all clear. We don't know much about him.
We know he likes Duncan and is willing- up to a point- to protect
Duncan. But why? Why now? Why Duncan? And how far? I liked the
possibility that it was all part of some larger Methos scheme for..who
know what purpose. I liked the possibility that someday , had HL:TS
gone on, we mighty discover that Methos was still an evil bastard that
needed killing- and that Duncan *would* kill him. I really wouldn't
have wanted a series about Methos' evolution from bastard
to...less-bastard because I don't know that *that* is where I wanted the
character to go.
Wendy (More on the topic elsewhere<g>)
Immortals Inc.
immortals_incorporated@cox.net
"Weasels for Eternity"
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 13:43:34 -0400
From: Wendy <Immortals_Incorporated@cox.net>
Subject: Re: the stuff we were talking about...yeah, kinda OT
Marina says of Methos:
> But placed in the modern world, I think Methos would be more an Alan
> Shore (from The Practice) kind of character - one who will follow the
> rules as long as it suits him and throw them out, bend them or argue
> that they don't mean what people think they mean when he doesn't like
> them.
So you want to turn Methos into a weasel <EG>????
My problem with this scenario is that Methos is Immortal and the show
should, I think, be about Immortals and their world. That means Methos
has to come into contact with other Immortals and deal with them. Would
we have a series of episodes where Methos is confronted by someone from
his past (as Duncan so often was) - only in this case it is Methos who
was the bad guy in the past and the weekly Immortal is the one with the
grievance? And what...Methos argues that "times were different" and the
other Immortal goes away?
I guess I'm asking ... under what circumstances is Methos following the
rules (what rules?)(society's?)(the Rules?) Why is he bending them - for
what purpose? Where is the conflict going to come from?
> That kind of show could work, because you *know* that if Methos met up
> with someone who had done something bad, and it was hurting someone he
> cared about, or messing with society as a whole, Methos would
> just whip out the old sword (or gun ot poison or whatever was easiest)
and take
> care of the problem.
Do you really see Methos that way? I don't. Yes, if Methos had someone
he really cared about, he would fix the problem ..maybe with a sword, or
a gun or by gathering the person he cared about up and running away.
But - doesn't that reduce any show about Methos down to a "damsel in
distress" series? Someone threatens Methos' lover and he kills them OK..
that's one week. Now what? Another threat next week? And the next? HL:TS
avoided (just barely) that problem by having Duncan be a character who
cared about more than just his small circle of friends. Duncan would
fight for a principle. I can't see Methos doing that. If the risk were
not immediate and personal, he wouldn't give a s**t. <eg> After all,
when Kronos showed up and it was "join or die" ... Methos joined. When
Kronos announced his plan to terrorize the world, Methos didn't stand
up and say "no!"...he went along. Sure, he passed a note to Duncan but
that's hardly a solution. When Kronos was planning to poison the water
supply, Methos didn't directly do anything to stop it. He got Duncan
involved and trusted that Duncan would save the day. What if Duncan was
late? When Methos weighed the risk to himself against the risk of
poisoning a town full of people, he decided to risk the town. I just
don't see that the Methos of HL:TS would let himself get dragged into
solving society's problems when his whole history is of staying below
the radar - secure in the knowledge that he would survive even if any
given culture or society didn't.
> >So..were we going to see Methos kill "good" guys?
> >Pretend like he only met bad guys? Just ignore the whole
> Immortal stuff altogether?
>
> But *would* he (after the Pillaging Years <g>) go around killing good
> guys? Why would he bother? Unless one challenged him, I think he would
> stay away from them. And if he did kill on (they blocked his Volvo in
> the parking lot or something), then we wouldn't have to sit watching
> him angst over it. He'd be like, "I'm still alive; that's all that
> matters." And many members of the audience (including moi) would be
> going, "Yeah, baby!" :)
My point about "good guys" is that the Immortal TV world runs on the
meetings between Immortals. It supplies the conflict week to week .
Immortal A runs into Immortal B and we watch what happens.
For much of Methos' past, he was what we would consider a bad guy. ..or
at least not one of the good guys. When he met other Immortals in the
past, they were either bad guys -whom we could watch get whacked without
feeling bad about Methos....or they would be "good guys" where I would
think our emotions as viewers would be more conflicted. Would it be fun
to watch flashbacks to Methos as he killed people like Fitz or Sean or
Richie or Duncan? It's not that Methos would have sought out "good"
guys to kill...it's that good guys might have sought *him* out to kill.
Not because he was Methos- since I assume most Immortals would not know
that - but because he was either just another Immortal they met or
because they had some past/present dealings with him that left them
wanting his head.
As for the present, I agree that he would stay away from other Immortals
if he could. But how would that work? Immortals just stop appearing
wherever Methos is? That never seemed to work for Duncan. They show up
but Methos avoids them? How? Hiding? Running away? Meeting on HG and
talking them out of it? Bleech.
If this were outside the HL universe. ..if Methos was an immortal (small
"i") in a world where there were no other immortals...and he had to find
a way to live his life watching others die and feeling conflicted about
whether to help or just sit back and watch since it would all be
meaningless in 1000 years, it might have worked. The one man against the
world concept has certainly been done before. But the HL world is
populated by lots of Immortals and they have a habit of crossing paths.
And when they cross paths, they fight. To the death. With swords. I
just don't see a show about an Immortal who avoids other Immortals,
avoids fights, uses other weapons to avoid using his sword, and who's
credo seems to be "run away."
You can't make Methos into a "hero' and you can't , IMGLO, have a show
about an Immortal who avoids conflict. So, you'd have to constantly find
ways of forcing Methos into situations where he had to act and, again,
that just isn't Methos.
Wendy (The mystery is what made Methos cool.)(Kill the mystery, kill the
cool.)
Immortals Inc.
immortals_incorporated@cox.net
"Weasels for Eternity"
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 23:57:01 +0200
From: T'Mar <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: the stuff we were talking about...yeah, kinda OT
>I found him to be all but an animal. He did not have a lot of the
>morals that we would use to define us a human. He like the taste of
>humans.
Another review I read made the point that Hannibal isn't an animal, or
crazy. He's just evil. And it that theory, with regard to Hannibal,
makes sense: that it is possible for him to be perfectly sane but be evil
and therefore not care about morality at all.
Wendy:
>He's also, I think, almost a pure Hollywood
>creation- the brilliant criminal psychopath that is so "fascinating"
>that otherwise intelligent and "normal" people are drawn to be near
>him- to bask in his aura to, as Marina says, "want to clap and cheer
>him on". It's not a train of thought I, personally, can grasp.
The same review (I still have that magazine somewhere; I thought the
review made a lot of sense) made the point that "Americans admire a
resourceful underdog." I think that probably has a lot to do with it.
Why else like Methos? He isn't exactly the top dog of the immie world
in anything except age.
Hey, I found an old There Can Be Only Puns on my hard drive (it was on
my website, but the @#$&* at my old ISP won't move the domain, so my
website is down for now). I wrote this in, what, 1996? :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"A census taker once tried to test me... I ate his liver with some fava
beans and a nice chianti." - Dr. Hannibal Lecter
He is quite sane, born from Thomas Harris's imagination a couple of years
ago. He is not alone. There are others like him: some fictional, some real.
For one movie he battled wits with Clarice Starling, with a glass-fronted
jail cell his only refuge. He cannot escape unless your attention wanders,
and with it your pen. In the end there can be only one. He is Hannibal
Lecter, the people-eater.
Here we are, trying to catch a killer. We're the agents of the F.B.I. [If I
play the instrumental really loud, maybe I'll forget the lambs.] I am a
cannibal. I have inside me evil thoughts. I have no rival. No psychiatrist
can be my equal. Take me to my next dinner guest.
"I do wish we could chat longer, but I'm having an old friend for dinner."
- Hannibal Lector
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Maybe I should revive those. They were fun. But hey, they prove I've been
fascinated by Hannibal for *years*. :)
- Marina.
\ "So what do you wanna do?" ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// "I'm not sure... as long as it doesn't || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ involve putting on a suit and doing a lot ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// of flying." - Chloe and Clark; Smallville || \\
\\============tmar@sifl.iid.co.za============|| //
//============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie===========\\
"Nothing in the world is the way it ought to be. It's harsh and
it's cruel, but that's why there's us ... We live as though the
world were how it should be, to show it what it can be." - Angel
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 23:57:03 +0200
From: T'Mar <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: the stuff we were talking about...yeah, kinda OT
>So you want to turn Methos into a weasel <EG>????
Yeah. Why not? He'd certainly be even *better* than Alan Shore in
twisting the truth, doing dastardly deeds, etc. :)
>My problem with this scenario is that Methos is Immortal and the show
>should, I think, be about Immortals and their world.
No argument there. I mean, didn't we all (sort of) agree that The Zone
and Revenge of the Sword (also, what, Bad Day in Building A?) were
cr@p because they weren't really dealing with the "concept" of
Highlander?
But what IS the concept? People living forever running around chopping
each others' heads off with swords? A Scottish hunk dealing with the
world according to his own narrow preconceptions about life? Flashbacks
to other times and places? All of the above?
>That means Methos
>has to come into contact with other Immortals and deal with them.
If we accept some of the above (not the bit about the Scottish hunk <g>),
then, yes, Methos would have to come into contact with other Immortals.
But would THEY have to be the source of the conflict? Conflict could be
introduced in other ways, by muggles - I mean, mortals.
We could have the swordfights (well, not ALL of them) in the flashbacks.
So Methos doesn't take heads too often. He said he hadn't done it for
200 years at one point (forgive me; I haven't seen the eps for yonks -
and I'm not lucky enough to be able to buy the DVDs). But he killed three
(?) people that we know of in a couple of years after meeting Duncan.
Anyway - say he had large gaps where he didn't take heads (5000 divided by
200 is 25) - but at times he must have taken more than three every 200
years. Even if you take the bare minimum, you still have 75 beheadings to
play around with. Them's lotsa episodes.
>And what...Methos argues that "times were different" and the
>other Immortal goes away?
Noooo... the immie challenges him; he pulls a gun *bang* *whack* *fizz, crack,
sizzle, screams*. Close-up on PW's face. The End. I like it!! :) (That
wouldn't be the WHOLE episode, but it would be part of it.)
>I guess I'm asking ... under what circumstances is Methos following the
>rules (what rules?)(society's?)(the Rules?) Why is he bending them - for
>what purpose? Where is the conflict going to come from?
So, what job could he have (assuming his grad student persona is getting
tiresome) that would ensure conflict but not compromise the character?
Weasel? Only if he got like Eugene, Alan and co. and seemed to attract
guilty clients - then he'd have to whack them when they were found not
guilty - *after* receiving payment, of course! What if he offed a
client he only *thought* was guilty? Would he feel bad? Maybe for a few
beers. :)
Serial killer specialist working for the FBI (the type of character that
Eric McCormack played, basically)? Lots of opportunities for conflict.
He certainly knows how people think. And he could whack the perpetrator
before the cops found him/her. What if he accidentally left his blood at
a scene? He got on the trail of a killer who liked to use... guillotines?
:)
>Do you really see Methos that way? I don't. Yes, if Methos had someone
>he really cared about, he would fix the problem ..maybe with a sword, or
>a gun or by gathering the person he cared about up and running away.
>But - doesn't that reduce any show about Methos down to a "damsel in
>distress" series?
I think there are lots of ways you could go about it that *would*
introduce conflict, keep other immies in it, NOT compromise the
character, AND not turn the show into a one-act gimmick. But it would
take a skillful writer or three. Maybe we shouldn't be so quick to
dismiss Joss Whedon... :)
>Duncan would
>fight for a principle. I can't see Methos doing that. If the risk were
>not immediate and personal, he wouldn't give a s**t. <eg>
No, I agree. But to him, things that to Duncan were huge ethical dilemmas
were just minor annoyances. As he said in "Through a Mirror, Darkly" (no,
wait, that was Enterprise) about Warren Cochrane: "So, lure him outside and
take his head. Problem solved." I agree he wouldn't really care if muggles
- I mean, mortals - got killed. But if someone threatened his safety and
security and society was tied into that, he *would* act. Even if
indirectly through other immies the way he did in Rev 6:8.
I think it could be done. But, like drinking a Pan Galactic Gargle
Blaster, it would have to be done... very carefully... (No, that
hasn't come out here. I just like the books.)
>(The mystery is what made Methos cool.)(Kill the mystery, kill the
>cool.)
You could keep the mystery by making the flashbacks subjective (as long
as we don't have to see B.P. Charlie over and over and over...). You
could have a flashback in which he meets an immie... then ten eps
later, a flashback to the same time and place but totally different.
Or the same immie, different time. You'd never know what was true,
but you'd keep watching a la "Lost" in the hope of finding out.
I could SO make The Methos Chronicles work. Too bad I'm a teacher and
not a TV hack. ;)
- Marina.
\ "So what do you wanna do?" ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// "I'm not sure... as long as it doesn't || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ involve putting on a suit and doing a lot ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// of flying." - Chloe and Clark; Smallville || \\
\\============tmar@sifl.iid.co.za============|| //
//============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie===========\\
"Nothing in the world is the way it ought to be. It's harsh and
it's cruel, but that's why there's us ... We live as though the
world were how it should be, to show it what it can be." - Angel
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 3 Jun 2005 to 4 Jun 2005 - Special issue (#2005-58)
****************************************************************************