HIGHLA-L Digest - 15 Jul 2001 - Special issue (#2001-200)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@LISTS.PSU.EDU)
Sun, 15 Jul 2001 12:22:23 -0400
There are 14 messages totalling 808 lines in this issue.
Topics in this special issue:
1. Morality (2)
2. Source Material (7)
3. K/S, sociology and other stuff (Was: ATTN: All Fan Fic writers)
4. K/S, sociology and other stuff (Was: ATTN: All Fan Fic writer s) (2)
5. K/S, sociology and other stuff (Was: ATTN: All Fan Fic writer
s)
6. If you don't like it...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 14:03:59 +0100
From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Morality
Okay...this is a long one. Bear with me.
Pat:
> You appear to be equating morality with legality. That's a mighty big
> leap there John. By extension you're implying all laws in a democracy
are
> by definition moral. You might want take a closer look at history as well
> as current conditions around the world before you make that leap.
>
> At one time in the US the law required fugitive slaves to be returned to
> their "owners". I doubt you'd find anyone on this list who believes that
> law was moral. Were those who broke the law and helped fugitive slaves
> immoral? Was Duncan immoral when he broke the law & helped Carl Robinson?
Given the already mentioned point that each person has their own slightly
different view of morality, then it's only right to assume that while one
person thinks it is, say, immoral to keep family pets, there's another
person who feels the moral imperative to say, rape women as he sees fit. Now
in a society that likes to think it is fair and respectful of an
individual's rights, that society still has to impose rules so that one
person's moral code is not FORCED on another (at Person B's expense. ie: a
person's moral right is acceptable UNTIL it has an effect on another
person's moral right). That is why there is a LEGAL restriction. I'm not
confusing MORALTY and LEGALITY at all, I'm saying the legal process is
necessary to protect what the majority of a society currently finds morally
acceptable. Could that be 50% +1? Yup. But that's why we have
elections...people change their minds and hopefully become more enlightened.
>Can morality
> actually be determined by public opinion, by the whim of the masses?
Such
> "morality" has lead to genocide, and doubtless will do so again.
If you believe that morality is one sole, unchangeable thing and that there
is no grey area at all, then maybe this is true. But humans are imperfect.
I'm more of the 'morality is an ideal and that life is often less than
ideal' person. In other words: life often means choosing the lesser of two
evils rather than having a perfect moral solution (okay...I can't think of a
evil worse than genocide!). Action and lack of action can be equally
devastating. In certain cases, some of what we would normally consider
immoral may be the only course of action - the lesser of two immoral acts.
Only in EXTREME circumstances, I'll grant you...but once you make one
exception to the notion of only one true perception, an immovable moral
imperative is called into question, surely?
It might well lead to misuse... and it is up to every individual to make up
a society in which it doesn't. But in genoicide, you are talking there about
rules which led to the harm of others. I said a decent society has rules to
stop one group/person's extreme moral code causing harmful consequences on
another's. Genocide would be an example of misuse. However given that man,
as you say, has an ability to be less than perfect...that's why we created
politics to take the blame and occassionally avoid.
Can a law be immoral? Yes, absolutely, but it doesn't usually last long if
the majority of those who live in that society disagree with it. Viva la
revolution and all that. I'm sure that people who kept slaves didn't feel
they were acting immorally at the time, (though I'd agree that I find it
hard to think of God-fearing Christians finding justification). Hopefully,
as we progress we recognsie the mistakes of the attitudes of the past and
move forward. But it's easy to ahve 20-20 hindsight. What will future
generations think of the *immoral* way we treat each other and the planet
today?
> IMGLO morality is based on consistent & rational principles, not the
latest
> public opinion polls.
IMGLO, moral codes are often based on worthy ideals, experience and
circumstance and any human weaknesses or strengths thereof. Examples of
well-known moral codes:
1) Thou shalt not kill is a strong Christian moral imperative, one of the
Big 10. A good one in my book. But Christians go to war to defend people.
Do Christian soldiers who kill think they are acting immorally? (I don't see
any get-out clause carved into Moses's original granite)
2) Thou shalt not steal. Okay...I'm starving and hungry in the middle of a
war zone and the people I'm protecting will die without nurishment. If a
local farmer says 'no' to giving me food, do I take it or say to my people
'Sorry you're going to die of starvation, but morality says I shouldn't take
without permission'.
3) Some faiths consider suicide unforgivable (others actually demand it).But
if I go into a situation knowing I will die (while, say, saving countless
others), do I commit an immoral act by my action, or would my lack of
sacrifice and its fatal consequence on others, be even more awful?
These are extreme examples. But I raise them to make a point about
perception. The Ten Commandments are either God-made or man-made depending
on your viewpoint, but they define a code of morality that millions of
people strive to keep to. But in an abnormal situation they are ideals not
imperatives.
My point is simply that society, extreme conditions and extreme consequences
change the REASON we do certain things...and the reason we do things is
perhaps as important as the act which takes place. Probably moreso. Our
sense of Morality is governed by conditions and society can only instill a
code that works under normal conditions... one that says your own rights are
intact until you infringe another's.
Do I have a right to say what is immoral and moral? Well, I have a right to
my opinion and to voice it responsibly. Do I have the right to enforce it?
No, but society does by being empowered by the majority. Does that make
every law, a moral one? Not by pure definition, but it will be seen as
morally acceptable by the majority (things can change!)
> I'm not sure what you mean by "the right of the individual's rights TO
> society". By society I'm assuming you mean a collection of
> individuals. Rights belong to the individual. Any society can have only
> the same rights as it's individual members.
Sorry I'm confused. I think you mean it can only have the *combined* rights
of its individual members (to form groups which can become the majority). If
not you are asserting an individual's moral right to go into a crowded
theatre and yell FIRE and not be held responsible for any injuries occurring
in the stampede (Note: negated if the seats ARE on fire).
I simply mean that for an individual to have rights IN society, he must also
show respect TO other people's rights in the society. To live within a
group, you respect the moral code that the group follows according to the
majority...or leave the group. A person has a moral right to personal
freedom. If he murders someone (neagting his victim's rights), society may
find that unacceptable and says that it will lock him up. Is it infringing
his rights or protecting the society according to the morality it
understands? You decide.
I believe in always TRYING to do the right thing, that trying is maybe more
important than succeeding. That's my moral imperative. I've met too many
people who think they can do something because they can get away with it
legally or because they can argue their case well.... it's becoming an age
of excuses (I'm not a philanderer, I'm a sex-addict...I'm not a criminal,
I'm the victim of my family's expectations)
I respect all individual's rights until those rights affect my rights, I
respect people who accept and care that there are consequences to their
actions - hopefully ones we live and learn from.
Yes, I can act legally, but immorally. I can act illegally and be quite
moral.
But I'm not a lawyer....so I can't be both at the same time. ;)
John
(who wishes he was writing a thesis, not an e-mail)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 14:26:24 +0100
From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Source Material
Given that the previous discussion included fanfic, elephants, the Ten
Commandments and Amanda....and has probably gone as far as it can - here's
another topic.
Highlander: The Source
That's apparently the proposed title of a (highly) speculative fifth
Highlander film. Do we...
a) think a story exploring the origin of Immortals is a good idea...or....
b) do we all remember "2" and think this would be just the most bloody awful
idea since someone said "Do you fancy a trip on this new boat called the
Titanic?"
Discuss.
:)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 09:41:57 EDT
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: K/S, sociology and other stuff (Was: ATTN: All Fan Fic writers)
In a message dated 7/15/01 2:41:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
fdd-tmar@netactive.co.za writes:
<< I wonder what they'd do if the actor went *with* the slash fans? :) >>
At least one did. I understand that one of the main actors from DUE SOUTH
spoke on the subject in a magazine interview, some while back. He was
sympathetic and bemused on the topic. Don't have the details, but it even
stunned the fans. (Someone have more detailed info?)
Leah CWPack
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 09:53:09 EDT
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: K/S, sociology and other stuff (Was: ATTN: All Fan Fic writer s)
Loved your essay, Carmel. I might also add one aspect of adult fanfic that is
obvious but often overlooked.
For many fans, adult fanfic (slash or het) is often the very *first* exposure
they've ever had to erotic literature. They've had neither the opportunity
nor the inclination to read mundane erotica or porn in the past, and perhaps
socially unacceptable/unaccessible to them.
All of a sudden, here it is...and the object of their current fantasies is
one of the participating parties. It hits them like a ton of bricks. They go
crazy, buying and reading it. They don't have to worry about disapproval from
the source; those selling it to them were among the writers. They can discuss
it, or simply enjoy it in at will. For these fans, adult fanfic provides an
awakening of sexual awareness, in a society that still largely regards
erotica as 'dirty' and unsuitable for women. They become very protective of
that experience.
Just observing; not making a judgement call on the above.
Leah CWPack
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 10:02:59 EDT
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: Source Material
In a message dated 7/15/01 9:26:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
a.j.mosby@btinternet.com writes:
<< Highlander: The Source
That's apparently the proposed title of a (highly) speculative fifth
Highlander film.<<
Actually, to paraphrase the announcement made this week on the Holyground
Forum (which I don't think was repeated here), Miramax has actually
approached Davis/Panzer to develop a next HIGHLANDER movie. The highly
speculative title proposed is Highlander: The Source. Which could turn out to
be anything. Remember how the title ENDGAME threw everyone into a tizzy that
the final Gathering was going to be the subject matter of the 4th film? Let's
not jump the gun with assumptions.
>>Do we...
a) think a story exploring the origin of Immortals is a good idea<<
As always, it all comes down to the writing. They could explore and go pretty
far on this subject--and still leave us with plenty of unanswered and
unresolved questions, leaving the mistique of the Immortal origins intact.
>>...or b) do we all remember "2" and think this would be just the most
bloody awful
idea since someone said "Do you fancy a trip on this new boat called the
Titanic?" Discuss. >>
Fandom survived the existence of HL 2 and 3 and shuffles on, principally
because of the quality of HL:TS. Sometimes, I think this francise universe
survives *in spite* of some of the stuff Davis-Panzer throw at us and label
"Highlander". We've already been conditioned to ignore certain chunks of the
HL narrative as if they've never existed by the very people who sanctioned
them. We're used to it. Well survive.
Leah CWPack
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 10:12:18 -0400
From: LC Krakowka <liser@lightlink.com>
Subject: Re: K/S, sociology and other stuff (Was: ATTN: All Fan Fic writer s)
I said:
>1. Someone brings up slash in some capacity.
>3b. People get offended.
>3d. People get offended.
>3f. People get offended.
>4. The list blows up...>>
Carmel:
>LOL!! Brilliant -
I do so love it when we agree, Carmel. It's such a rare occurrence.
Especially when the topic is my own brilliance. <g>
>which in my experience the topic is a total no-win one.
>I don't think that the issue is confined to slash however. I can no more
>explain to someone why I like avocado when they have tasted it and are
>repelled by the taste or find it bland.
This is very true. I love liverwurst and cream cheese sandwiches.
My fiance thinks they're disgusting, but puts barbeque sauce on
everything. There is, as they say, no accounting for taste.
>
>I read very widely - and not just fanfic. In fanfic I read het as well as
>slash although I read far more slash than het because there *is* a lot more
>slash.
This is also true, though it didn't used to be the case. When I
first started writing and reading HL fic, it was overwhelmingly
predominantly het. I blame Methos for the infusion of so much slash.
<g>
>I also like the stories I read to be consistent, as far
>as possible, with canon or be explicable within the canon. They have to make
>sense in terms of the people I saw on the screen.
See...and this is where my "problem" with slash begins. It *doesn't*
make sense with what I saw on the screen. I can buy Methos as
bi-sexual (though I don't see any canonical evidence for
it--everything is to the contrary...). But, I'm sorry, I just don't
believe that Duncan is. And forget about Richie. He's about as
red-blooded heterosexual as they come. Maybe in a thousand years his
horizons would have expanded--but I didn't see that happening in the
5 seasons of HL that showed on *my* tv. :-)
So, I find slash to be in violation of canon by it's very nature. Of
course, I suppose that--strictly speaking-- once anyone puts the
first word of a piece of fic down on the screen it's in violation of
canon.
>
>I differentiate between porn and erotica. I detest porn - find it boring
>and very very poorly written. I find that the majority of slash I come
>across to be differentiated quite markedly from porn. Porn I define as
>written around a very boring portrayal of sex, with the fact that two human
>beings are attached to the various bodily parts to be quite irrelevant.
>Slash I define as erotica, with the bodily parts of secondary interest to
>the people attached to them. There are many slash stories that do not even
>mention sex or have anything to do with it. To be slash, in my world, it
>must be relationship driven, not sex driven.
These are all very interesting lines that you draw. I think you're
probably more discerning than the "average" slash fan--if there is
such a thing.
>
>In relation to the PwPs...sex without plots. I read them if they are well
>written, in either genre. These can be difficult to write because they can
>so easily slip into the porn definition I used above. How many different
>ways can you write about the mechanics of love-making in a way that is
>clever, interesting etc etc?? This isn't a problem confined to slash.
Very true. I've read some really awful het PwP that loses track of
body parts left and right. If you tried to act out the scene as
written, you'd need extra hands, arms, legs, nipples...you name it.
:-)
>
>Why does the fact that Duncan could be drawn to a male as fascinating as
>Methos make sense to me? Because it fulfils all the characteristics I've
>seen of Duncan for the previous seasons and therefore *I* can see it as
>consistent with canon. Up until Methos exploded onto our screens, I'd never
>ever thought about Duncan with another man. But it made sense to me that
>something would eventuate with a character like Methos because I know Duncan
>to be a man who:
But...it's the eventuate part that separates slash from canon, in my
mind. Sure, Duncan MIGHT, at some point, find himself attracted to
Methos in a sexual way. But that's not canon as I define it. Canon,
IMO, is what you see on screen. And--on screen-we don't see Duncan
lusting after Methos or vise-verse. We see two men who are friends
and have a pretty intense relationship. Looking beyond that to
subtext is fine if that's how you want to play the game, but it's not
canon. It could be--in another time, another place, another
movie/series/novel....but it's not within the context of the six
seasons we watched.
>
>*in Methos, has living proof that one can be very masculine and have
>experimented widely in relationship to sex. Don't tell me that Methos has
>lived that long, through some of the most decadent empires in the world, and
>not had male lovers and orgies.
With all due respect, Carmel, I *hate* this argument. :-) It's the
most common one people use to justify slashing Methos
and...well...sure...it MIGHT be the case. Or, it MIGHT be that
Methos has lived for 5000 years and never found himself interested in
having sex with anyone that didn't have a vagina. It's extrapolation
to think "oh, Methos lived through times when homosexual
relationships were the norm--he must have had them"--circumstantial
evidence at best. The *canon* of Methos is that he liked women
(Cassandra, Alexa, the slave whose name I forget from
Indiscretions...)--all of the on-screen relationships we have seen
Methos have--or heard him talk about--have been with women.
To me, saying that Methos must have had sex with men in the past
because he lived in times that it was the norm is a bit like saying
"Gina and Lisa spent a Saturday reading the paper and eating a picnic
in Dupont Circle (a well-known gay area of Washington, DC), they MUST
be lesbians." Time and place do not define sexuality in my book.
Actions do.
For all we know, Methos wasn't anywhere NEAR the places in the world
where homosexuality and orgies were common when that was the norm in
society. He could have been living in a cave in Tibet, sailing the
oceans in search of treasure, lording over a lost tribe of Africa...
Or, he could have been smack in the middle of ancient Greece selling
shoes to the men who took boys as lovers and sleeping with their
wives behind their backs. :-)
> And don't tell me that it wouldn't be
>normal and natural for Duncan to be fascinated by these stories, over chess
>and alcohol with Methos.
Even so. Even if Duncan was titillated by these stories....that
doesn't mean he and Methos would wind up in bed together. I've read
some pretty hot lesbian slash--but I'm not about to trade in my
fiance for a girlfriend.
What we're talking about here is Carmel-canon....not series canon.
And that's fine and good for you. But please don't tell me that it
applies across the board. (Which I don't think you were trying
to--though that is a common trend in slash discussions.)
>
>So Liser and Wendy I don't know whether I've managed to confuse things even
>more but that is why I enjoy reading what I read and writing what I write.
I can't speak for the Weasel, but, for me, it's always helpful to my
level of understanding when someone takes the time to explain it
instead of getting indignant in the face of a question. ;-)
>But I don't ever try and convert anyone or expect them to understand any
>more than I can understand why some people read what they do and enjoy the
>things that they enjoy. Some things just don't make sense to us and never
>will - but of course that doesn't mean that we can't live and let live.
Exactly.
>
>Also, I don't think that fanfic loses D-P any money. Indeed, I think that in
>keeping alive the HL universe it keeps fans who in turn buy more d-P
>products - like EndGame DVDs.
I'm not sure what I think about this aspect of fic. It's all pretty
tangled for me.
> Fanfic is an incredible glue that binds
>entire HL communities and in the absence of any eps or films serves a very
>real purpose. If Bill thought it was damaging the franchise I have no doubt
>that he would have done something about it by now.
I don't know. If nothing else, I think BP is a savvy business man.
I think he recognizes the potential damage to his franchise that
coming down on fic would cause. He may consider it the lesser of two
evils.
All of that being pure theory, of course, as I have only spoken to
the man once and that was...gosh....at least 5 years ago.
>
>Sandy also made some excellent points about different groups within the
>fanficdom...I think that there are slashers (people who enjoy any male
>pairings and within slash there are people who only enjoy certain pairings
>down to certain pairing in a certain show and don't read beyond that.)
>That's why it gets difficult when the discussion tends to generalise or
>categorise everyone under the same headings.
It's been my experience that generalizations are the root of much
strife in society--any society.
Liser
--
LC Krakowka ** liser@lightlink.com
"The creations of a great writer are little more than the moods and
passions of his own heart, given surnames and Christian names, and
sent to walk the earth." --W. B. Yeats, letter to editor - 1895
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 15:32:33 +0100
From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: K/S,
sociology and other stuff (Was: ATTN: All Fan Fic writer s)
So, where are we up to now?
1) Text: what's written by the writers
2) Sub-Text: the 'message' or 'subject' the writers were exploring
within text
3) Fan-fic text: what fans would like the sub-text to be / personal
sub-text
1 is a fact.
2 is a fact if confirmed by writer.
3 is an interpretation of 1 and 2 and open to discussion/creativity.
2 and 3 can be the same thing or exclusive to each other
1,2,3 can exist and everyone can be happy as long as it is acknowledged that
the only people who decide 'canon' and own the 'rights' are the people who
paid writers for 1.
;)
John
Today's lesson has been brought to you by the numbers 1 2 and 3 and the
letters H and L.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 15:45:39 +0100
From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Source Material
Yup. ALL speculative until the cinema starts rolling the film(as the trailer
proved ;)) I said as much.
I'm only guessing 'The Source' has something to do with the origin of
Immortals, just by the very title itself. It may not have anything to do
with it at all, but it makes a good discussion.
Personally, I don't want to know the details of the origin of the Immortals.
Odd remarks and hints are just fine, but a kind of magic is always spoiled
when you know HOW things are done.
Given the track record of judgment calls on what fans want, I hope this
ISN'T the case. Random viewers wouldn't care about the revelation and
exisiting fans are unlikely to be satisfied by one definitive answer.
My one absolute hope is that we don't have yet another situation where we
have to await a DVD for the 'real version we wanted to bring you in the
first place', 'cos that is sounding more and more like a merchandising
gimmick every time I hear it.
Too early to tell yet. But a good discussion never hurts.
;)
JMHGLO
John
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 11:31:05 -0400
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Source Material
At 09:26 AM 07/15/01, John Mosby (B) wrote:
>Highlander: The Source
>
>That's apparently the proposed title of a (highly) speculative fifth
>Highlander film. Do we...
>
>a) think a story exploring the origin of Immortals is a good idea...or....
NO!
>b) do we all remember "2" and think this would be just the most bloody
>awful idea since someone said "Do you fancy a trip on this new boat called
>the Titanic?"
YES!
>Discuss.
They've proven 3 times now that they are painfully incapable of making a
decent HL movie. I'm still thoroughly pissed off at the hatchet job they
did on the last one. They... need... to... stop.
-- Sandy
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 11:46:03 -0400
From: jjswbt@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: If you don't like it...
I said:
>>(Not a 100% believer in the concept of "if you don't like it, don't
>look".)
Marina asks:
>Could you explain that a bit more? Cause I don't think I get it.
>I dislike karate movies (not kung fu, I like kung fu <g>). I won't hire
>them from video shops. I won't watch them when they come on TV. I ignore
>people who tell me how good they are and that I just "have to watch this
>new one".
>
>I don't like them, so I don't look.
I wasn't really thinking just about books, fanfic, TV etc. What I meant was..there are activities which I 1) don't want to participate in and 2) don't feel anyone else should be participating in, either. That doesn't translate one-for-one into a belief that the activity (whatever it may be) should be banned. OTOH, if I can in some small way make it harder for that activity to continue..I might be moved to act. I readily admit that things which I find useless or cruel or disgusting or horrible or nasty, and which I would ban if I were Queen of the Universe, are things which other people might love. I just think ..maybe.... there ought to be some..standards.Some activities that we say "no" to..even if no one gets hurt and I can avoid seeing if I turn my back. It just gets too easy to turn your back on everything "unpleasant"..which allows the unpleasantness to grow.
I certainly don't want some "authority" running around saying "you can print that, you can't film that"..OTOH I have seen some sick, twisted "disgusting" stuff that I wonder why *anyone* would want to write, or read, and which I tend to think "society" would be better off without . An unwavering belief in free speech runs head long into the cesspool that is life. <eg>
>What is the difference between that and slash? Because slash is always
>labelled, complete with warnings. A person cannot read slash by
>accident. Just like, if I pick up a movie that shows Chuck Norris in
>white, I know not to hire it, because it's probably a karate movie.
>(Not that I have anything against Chuck, or karate per se, you
>understand.)
Hey..I'm right with you on the Chuck issue<g>
I think labels and warning and disclaimers are all very nice. But you can slap a warning label on a video of some guy torturing a woman to death while raping her..and I still won't 100% agree that it needs to exist. I'm not sure that a society is better off by saying that everything is allowable and everyone (over 18) has a right to create and distribute and view any bit of violent depravity they can imagine. OTOH, I certainly don't want to return to the days when movies had to show married people sleeping in separate beds <g>.
Wendy(Anyone else remember the "Queen of the Universe" in the bar at SyndiCon in....96?)(97?)(My brain is fried.)
Fairy Killer
jjswbt@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jjswbt/index.html
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 12:03:15 EDT
From: Ashton7@aol.com
Subject: Re: Morality
In a message dated 7/15/01 9:04:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
a.j.mosby@btinternet.com writes:
<< I'm sure that people who kept slaves didn't feel
they were acting immorally at the time, (though I'd agree that I find it
hard to think of God-fearing Christians finding justification). >>
They found their justification in the *Bible*, which says that slavery is
okay. Which points out the fallacy of assuming that a religion (any religion)
is a reliable source of universal morality.
Annie CWPack
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 12:13:40 -0400
From: virginia foster <vfoster@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Source Material
John Mosby wrote:
>>That's apparently the proposed title of a (highly) speculative fifth
>>Highlander film. Do we...
>>
>>a) think a story exploring the origin of Immortals is a good idea...or....
>
Been there, done that. Even have a shirt around here somewhere.
>>b) do we all remember "2" and think this would be just the most bloody
>>awful idea since someone said "Do you fancy a trip on this new boat called
>>the Titanic?"
>
>YES!
>
<snerk>
Sandy:
>They've proven 3 times now that they are painfully incapable of making a
>decent HL movie. I'm still thoroughly pissed off at the hatchet job they
>did on the last one. They... need... to... stop.
>
That's just the problem. They're not making HL movies. They "tried" to
make a second and have spent the last two correcting mistakes. If
they'd quite trying to correct mistakes and fix things and just make
the darned movie, it might work alot better. Also, quit trying to make
a movie designed for the fans, make the movie they want to make.
For example...
Highlander, a really cool movie that, for the most part, we like. Widen and
Mulchahey made the movie *they* wanted to make. The second just didn't
live up to that. So TPTB felt they had to fix it. Plus they wanted to make
the fans happy so they threw in people and things to attempt to do that.
Which, as near as I can tell, also didn't work.
To use a non-HL example, Star Wars. Lucas makes the movies *he* wants
to make. No fan control, no studio control. Granted, the fans don't always
like 100% of the things he puts in there, but I don't think he cares. We go
see the movies anyway and he knows that. They are *his* movies and his
universe that he allows us to view, play in, and enjoy. IMGLO, that makes
a big difference in the outcome of the movie.
So, if TPTB are brave enough (and stupid enough <bg>) to make another
Highlander movie, I rather wish they wouldn't. It's too far gone for any kind
fix, simple or otherwise.
virginia
vfoster@mindspring.com *@*@* http://www.mindspring.com/~vfoster/va.html
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
All stressed out and no one to choke. Sign at the Roswell Hooter's
"I'm getting the distinct impression that you really have to be a special
kinda stupid to be a Washington politician." Sandy Fields
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 11:16:20 -0500
From: idlehanz <idlehanz@flashmail.com>
Subject: Re: Source Material
John wrote:
>
> Highlander: The Source
>
> That's apparently the proposed title of a (highly) speculative fifth
> Highlander film. Do we...
>
> a) think a story exploring the origin of Immortals is a good idea...or....
>
> b) do we all remember "2" and think this would be just the most bloody
awful
> idea since someone said "Do you fancy a trip on this new boat called the
> Titanic?"
Of course, personal opinion is all I can offer <g> but I really don't care
where they're from; I want to know where they're going. Of course, they
could all be going back to where they're from...wherever that is.
I really detested HL2. I've thought of the HL universe as a "parallel
universe" to some degree, and HL2 and the attempt to explain their origins
seemed to be a miserable effort to pull them out of that universe and into
ours. Where's the fun in *that*? I want to be in their universe, not the
other way around.
If that makes any sense at all...
:)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 12:22:17 EDT
From: List Kathy Avery <Lynxf19@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Source Material
My opinion for a new Highlander is not decided, but who's supposed to star in
the new movie?
I have always been a loyal fan of Highlander and will always be.
Kathy
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 15 Jul 2001 - Special issue (#2001-200)
****************************************************************