HIGHLA-L Digest - 5 Sep 2002 (#2002-134)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Thu, 5 Sep 2002 22:00:01 -0400
There are 13 messages totalling 753 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Highlander 5? (10)
2. `Merlin: The Return' video fs
3. `Merlin: The Return' video S
4. HL 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 13:41:49 -0500
From: Kevin Brown <kbrown@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: Highlander 5?
Quantum Leap.
-----Original Message-----
From: Marina Bailey [mailto:tmar@SIFL.IID.CO.ZA]
Has there ever been one franchise/TV series that has ended in a
satisfactory way?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 19:56:06 +0100
From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Highlander 5?
Marina:
> The thing is, all TV programmes/movie series eventually jump the shark
> if they go on too long. After a while, it seems that TPTB are no
> longer interested in putting out a worthwhile show, but more in
> just keeping it going for the sake of either: a) continuing to make
> money, b) keeping the 'nagging fans' (who'll watch anything with
> that name on it) happy or c) just to have something to do.
Me:
Well, not always a show's fault. I'd openly challenge anyone here to come
up with 120 stories that didn't have some air of repetition and eventually
have
a 'been there, done that, bored now' risk. It's no coincidence that many
shows
'jump the shark' around their fourth series...if they make it past their
first!
>Or they bring in changes in order to attract a larger audience (this never
> works; all they do is piss off their existing audience)
Well, depends on when that happens.One could argue that the introduction of
Watchers and Methos dramatically altered the feel and the direction of the
Highlander show and improved the franchise. It's often dramatic alterations
to
a long-running show that suffer the worst fates.
> or try to "fix" something that isn't broken (do I really even need to
point
> out a certain science fiction program which got rid of their best
> character... it was about this huge round device that looked like
> a glowing puddle of water, and you stepped through and ended up
> on another planet).
At the risk of conjuring up restless spirits, one could argue that it's not
so much
'getting rid of...' as 'coping with the loss of...' given that the actor in
question decided to leave
(why that decision was made is another matter entirely) and that some claim
it hadn't been
great for a while before this. Regardless.....a major character being
written out of a series as
it enters the final(?) lap is never an easy thing to deal with. There'll be
a hole there regardless and
it's a great 'jumping off point' for fans, whether quality is affected or
not.
> Has there ever been one franchise/TV series that has ended in a
> satisfactory way? (Trek - still going on; snooze factor increases
> with each new attempt. Due South - get out the barf bags. I'd add
> more examples, but I'm really tired.)
Though not perfect, I'd say Babylon 5 gave it a fair stab. Quantum Leap had
an arguably
enigmatic end and The Incredible Hulk had a TV movie that wrapped it up.
Magnum had a
good ending. The original Fugitive did too. Often it's knowing in advance
whether you are
coming back next season or not that can provide the chance for closure.
>Honestly, TPTB just do not
> know when to leave well enough alone. It's better to go out on a
> high note with people still talking about how good the show was,
> than to fade into obscurity with a huge amount of PO'd fans dissing
> your latest attempt to revive something that's unrevive-able. (Or
> to put it in HL-speak, "It's better to burn out than to fade away."
> Man, that Kurgan really knew what he was talking about.)
And yet most of the people financing a show aren't there for the pure
creative joy of it. Most
investors simply want to see a return for their money. Hence the age-old
problem of whether you...
a) pull your investment and the show ceases production (often after the
season finishes shooting)
b) input less money, hitting the production budget but securing less risk
for you
c) keep inputting the money but make creative demands on what you think will
get you better
returns on it. Your opinion, successful or not, is your right as an
investor.
All three can be unacceptable creatively to fans....
a) Hey, they killed my show! I loved it. They cancelled it. Bastards!
b) Hey, those effects aren't very good. What a lousy blue-screen. Cheap
bastards!
c) Who's the new bimbo with the big chest and the IQ of a woodworm? Sexist
bastards!
Best case scenario to wish for (beyond a favourite show running forever and
always being excellent)
is that a show runs for several seasons, with a decent budget used to great
effect by creative people
and when the investors decide to take their $ elsewhere, they give enough
notice so that the show's
storylines can be wrapped up with care and attention. Leaves an audience
wanting more but always
remembering it fondly.
Sadly, the worst case scanerio is often more evident...a mixture of a) then
b) then c) and with insufficent
time and money to have a finale worthy of the original idea.
John
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 15:21:24 EDT
From: Ashton7@aol.com
Subject: Re: Highlander 5?
In a message dated 9/5/02 2:42:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
kbrown@Exchange.Microsoft.com writes:
<< Quantum Leap.
-----Original Message-----
From: Marina Bailey [mailto:tmar@SIFL.IID.CO.ZA]
Has there ever been one franchise/TV series that has ended in a
satisfactory way? >>
Quantum Leap??? Er, to each his own. I hated the way that one ended and I
know a lot of other fans did, too.
Annie
"Unless the last two years have been a wacky, wacky dream, I am a member of
SG-1." -- Dr. Daniel Jackson
****************
Save Daniel Jackson: http://www.savedanieljackson.com
Ashton Press: http://ashtonpress.net/
Fan Fiction: http://fanfic.ashtonpress.net/
Fanzines: http://fanzines.ashtonpress.net/
Gateway, A Stargate Slash Discussion/Fiction Group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Gateway/join
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 12:30:47 -0700
From: Abbi Cee <rideo@juno.com>
Subject: Re: `Merlin: The Return' video fs
Hi Heidi,
If that video is still available I would love to have it.
I tried finding it to rent, but none of the local video
stores have it, then I tired to buy it, but they couldn't
even find it in their catalogs. I was about to give in
and go to Amazon, but if yours is still unclaimed that
would be great.
Regards,
Anita C.
On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 22:00:15 -0400 Heidi <heidi@apocalypse.org> writes:
> Is anyone still looking for the video of `Merlin- The Return'?
> While it was nice seeing AP as Lancelot it's unlikely I'll want to
> watch it again so I figured someone over here may be interested
> in buying it. Since I got it on sale I'm only looking to get $5
> (plus shipping) for it. (I don't know how much shipping will
> be offhand though.) I'm in the US so because of the currency
> difference need to sell it to someone also in the US. If you're
> interested drop me, not the list, a note.
>
> =}{=
>
> (heidi@apocalypse.org)
>
>
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 12:37:00 -0700
From: Abbi Cee <rideo@juno.com>
Subject: Re: `Merlin: The Return' video S
I'm so sorry, my msg to Heidi was meant to go
privately. The only other large list I'm on sends
replies to individuals and not the list automatically
and I forgot to check. Again, very sorry.
Anita C.
On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 22:00:15 -0400 Heidi <heidi@apocalypse.org> writes:
> Is anyone still looking for the video of `Merlin- The Return'?
> While it was nice seeing AP as Lancelot it's unlikely I'll want to
> watch it again so I figured someone over here may be interested
> in buying it. Since I got it on sale I'm only looking to get $5
> (plus shipping) for it. (I don't know how much shipping will
> be offhand though.) I'm in the US so because of the currency
> difference need to sell it to someone also in the US. If you're
> interested drop me, not the list, a note.
>
> =}{=
>
> (heidi@apocalypse.org)
>
>
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 15:17:49 -0500
From: Kevin Brown <kbrown@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: Highlander 5?
The question was about whether it ended when the series was still going
strong. It definitely was.
Yeah, the actual "Sam never made it home" part sucked, but it was a
great way to leave it open for movies.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ashton7@aol.com [mailto:Ashton7@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 12:21 PM
To: HIGHLA-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU
Subject: Re: Highlander 5?
In a message dated 9/5/02 2:42:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
kbrown@Exchange.Microsoft.com writes:
<< Quantum Leap.
-----Original Message-----
From: Marina Bailey [mailto:tmar@SIFL.IID.CO.ZA]
Has there ever been one franchise/TV series that has ended in a
satisfactory way? >>
Quantum Leap??? Er, to each his own. I hated the way that one ended and
I know a lot of other fans did, too.
Annie
"Unless the last two years have been a wacky, wacky dream, I am a member
of SG-1." -- Dr. Daniel Jackson
****************
Save Daniel Jackson: http://www.savedanieljackson.com
Ashton Press: http://ashtonpress.net/
Fan Fiction: http://fanfic.ashtonpress.net/
Fanzines: http://fanzines.ashtonpress.net/
Gateway, A Stargate Slash Discussion/Fiction Group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Gateway/join
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 22:24:11 +0200
From: Marina Bailey <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: Highlander 5?
Kevin wrote:
>Quantum Leap [ended in a satisfactory way]
Um, no. Having Sam never go home was not, to most fans' minds,
satisfactory. Apparently at a con they held just after that,
someone altered the ending to read, "Sam Beckett went home
and lived happily ever after", and the audience applauded.
- Marina.
\\ "I'm naming all the stars." ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// "You can't see the stars, love. That's the || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ ceiling. Also, it's day." - Drusilla & Spike ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//=====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: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 21:37:22 +0100
From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Highlander 5?
I would have had no problem if that final line had read:
"Sam Beckett has yet to leap home..."
Best of both worlds...he could be leaping his boy-scoutliness self for the
rest of his life or maybe one day return home. Either way it held true to
the spirit of the show.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marina Bailey" <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
To: <HIGHLA-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 9:24 PM
Subject: Re: [HL] Highlander 5?
> Kevin wrote:
> >Quantum Leap [ended in a satisfactory way]
>
> Um, no. Having Sam never go home was not, to most fans' minds,
> satisfactory. Apparently at a con they held just after that,
> someone altered the ending to read, "Sam Beckett went home
> and lived happily ever after", and the audience applauded.
>
> - Marina.
>
> \\ "I'm naming all the stars." ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
> // "You can't see the stars, love. That's the || R I C H I E >> \\
> \\ ceiling. Also, it's day." - Drusilla & Spike ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
> //=====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: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 15:49:01 -0500
From: Kamil <kamil@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Highlander 5?
"John Mosby (B)" writes:
> I would have had no problem if that final line had read:
>
> "Sam Beckett has yet to leap home..."
>
> Best of both worlds...he could be leaping his boy-scoutliness self for the
> rest of his life or maybe one day return home. Either way it held true to
> the spirit of the show.
>
> John
Huh. I really liked the ending, but then I'm one of those people who thought FK
didn't go quite far enough <eg>, and hopes the final scene of Buffy is the
ground littered with dead Scoobies, Spike drifting away in the breeze, and
either Buffy dying as she slays her final monster, or better yet, turning
towards the camera, an serene smile on her face -- and much bumpier in the
forehead region than she'd been earlier that night.
What? I like trauma. :)
--
Kamil
Gunn: "Three fifths of the world covered in water, the rest covered in me!
Who's your ruler, baby? What's my name? Come on, English, say it for me now."
"Blood Money" Angel the Series
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 22:53:53 +0200
From: Marina Bailey <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: Highlander 5?
John wrote:
>Well, not always a show's fault. I'd openly challenge anyone here to come
>up with 120 stories that didn't have some air of repetition and eventually
>have a 'been there, done that, bored now' risk.
True, true. But the challenge is, I think, to take plots and give
them an original spin. Voyager flying into five different spatial
anomalies is the same plot with NO original spin. Or having the
holodeck break down in five different ways is also the same plot
with nothing original, especially if we learn nothing in the
process. But if we were to learn something about the characters
or have something new happen as a consequence, THAT would be an
original spin. Voyager never had one in seven years. (Because
the franchise had over 300 episodes by that time.)
>It's no coincidence that many shows 'jump the shark' around their
>fourth series...if they make it past their first!
Exactly.
>Well, depends on when that happens.One could argue that the introduction of
>Watchers and Methos dramatically altered the feel and the direction of the
>Highlander show and improved the franchise. It's often dramatic alterations
>to a long-running show that suffer the worst fates.
Absolutely. I think with HL: TS, the alterations were not completely
dramatic. I mean, Duncan MacLeod was still the hero. He still had
people he cared about; his 'mission' (if you like) never changed.
But look at Stargate. The premise of the movie (which, IMNSHO the
TV series continued for at least four seasons) was how two people
(Daniel Jackson - who was the protagonist of the film: he shows up
first, and he makes the entire thing work - and Jack O'Neill)
handled the voyage through the stargate. But now TPTB decided to
do something different, that wouldn't require Daniel as much. I
do not blame the actor for leaving; it wasn't the same show. And
the premise (these two characters, expanded to four with Sam and
Teal'c, travelling through the gate, learning new things and
fighting the Goa'uld) had changed. Suddenly it was about government
conspiracies and aliens attacking us all the time. That wasn't
the show most of us (including Michael Shanks) signed on for. Same
with most of the last season of HL. We watched because of Duncan.
"He is Duncan MacLeod, the highlander." And we suddenly had the
spin girls and immortals we'd never met before (Claudia Christian
and her character's husband) in the mix. Yes, I love Richie.
The entire Net knows that. But I wasn't watching the show for
him. I was watching it for the *concept*, which is "Highlander",
not "Random Immortals". Change the concept, piss off the
audience.
>Regardless.....a major character being written out of a series as
>it enters the final(?) lap is never an easy thing to deal with. There'll be
>a hole there regardless and it's a great 'jumping off point' for fans,
>whether quality is affected or not.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by it being a great jumping
off point for fans?
>Though not perfect, I'd say Babylon 5 gave it a fair stab.
Like Crusade was Emmy material? Yuk. And the fifth season of B5
depressed the heck out of me. I'm not alone; there are comments
all over the Web about this.
>Quantum Leap had an arguably enigmatic end
If I ever meet Donald P. Bellisario I will not be responsible for
my actions. Enigmatic? There was NO reason to end QL like he did.
Howcome everybody got to have a happy ending except Sam? To me,
that voided one of the points of QL, which was that things can
be changed for the better, and people can be happy. Sheesh.
>and The Incredible Hulk had a TV movie that wrapped it up.
Dying is a good thing to happen? I don't consider that a
satisfactory ending at all. A satisfactory ending would have
been David being cured.
>Magnum had a good ending.
Okay, never watched that. (Lost interest when they kept doing
the same plots over and over.)
>The original Fugitive did too.
We didn't have TV here in the Sixties.
>Often it's knowing in advance whether you are
>coming back next season or not that can provide the chance for closure.
True. But if that's the case, why do some shows cliff-hang the
audience knowing they won't be renewed? Are they hoping the
audience will be so upset that they'll bully the network into
continuing the show? (Well, it did work for Beauty and the
Beast. Bwahahaa.)
>Best case scenario to wish for (beyond a favourite show running forever
>and always being excellent) is that a show runs for several seasons,
>with a decent budget used to great effect by creative people
>and when the investors decide to take their $ elsewhere, they give enough
>notice so that the show's storylines can be wrapped up with care and
>attention. Leaves an audience wanting more but always remembering it
>fondly.
So true. And that happens so seldom that I can count instances of
that on one hand. ("The Sentinel", maybe. But many fans are upset
at the idea of Blair becoming a cop... B5, maybe... but Crusade
stank, the 5th season didn't have much cohesion or direction,
most of the TV movies were boring... Forever Knight ended, all
right, but dying isn't at all satisfactory, so back to square one.)
>Sadly, the worst case scanerio is often more evident...a mixture of
>a) then >b) then c) and with insufficent
>time and money to have a finale worthy of the original idea.
Yup. Tell me again why most of us watch TV?
For all our moaning, at least HL:TS did a finale that was (to my
mind, anyway) worthy and satisfying. But did TPTB leave it there?
Noooo... and here we are back complaining about the movies again. :)
- Marina. (This is my last post tonight. I just hit the 5-post limit.)
\\ "I'm naming all the stars." ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// "You can't see the stars, love. That's the || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ ceiling. Also, it's day." - Drusilla & Spike ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//=====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: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 22:58:49 +0200
From: Marina Bailey <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: Highlander 5?
Kevin wrote:
>The question was about whether it ended when the series was still going
>strong. It definitely was.
Right. Like leaping into famous people when TPTB ran out of ideas
means it was still going strong.
>Yeah, the actual "Sam never made it home" part sucked, but it was a
>great way to leave it open for movies.
Refresh my memory on how many QL movies there have been since then?
What do you mean, none??
John wrote:
>I would have had no problem if that final line had read:
>"Sam Beckett has yet to leap home..."
>Best of both worlds...he could be leaping his boy-scoutliness self for
>the rest of his life or maybe one day return home. Either way it held
>true to the spirit of the show.
Yes! Good point!
(Who would have thought there were so many QL fans on here. And even
people who watched "The Incredible Hulk"!)
- Marina. (I should really wait until midnight to post this, but
it's only an hour away, so... what the heck.)
\\ "I'm naming all the stars." ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// "You can't see the stars, love. That's the || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ ceiling. Also, it's day." - Drusilla & Spike ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//=====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: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 22:43:28 +0100
From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Highlander 5?
> True, true. But the challenge is, I think, to take plots and give
> them an original spin. Voyager flying into five different spatial
> anomalies is the same plot with NO original spin. Or having the
> holodeck break down in five different ways is also the same plot
> with nothing original, especially if we learn nothing in the
> process. But if we were to learn something about the characters
> or have something new happen as a consequence, THAT would be an
> original spin. Voyager never had one in seven years. (Because
> the franchise had over 300 episodes by that time.)
Voyager was pretty much doomed from half way through its first series,
perhaps as early as the drawing board. I've spoken to various Trek actors
(Voyager, TNG, DS9) who have stated on the record that what the show did was
take successful ideas from all previous incarnations and throw them
together, hopign for the best. Trouble is, as you say, there'd already been
around 200hrs or more of stories before them. On average, originality was
never a Voyager attribute
> I think with HL: TS, the alterations were not completely
> dramatic. I mean, Duncan MacLeod was still the hero. He still had
> people he cared about; his 'mission' (if you like) never changed.
Hmmmm. End of Season 1/ Beginning of Season 2....
Get rid of the female lead. Make the side-kick an Immortal. Bring in an
until-now never mentioned organisation and make its 'primary member' the
central character's buddy and its other a recurring enemy. Keep changing
location. These are pretty much fundemental changes, even if the hero is the
same actor.
> But look at Stargate. The premise of the movie (which, IMNSHO the
> TV series continued for at least four seasons) was how two people
> (Daniel Jackson - who was the protagonist of the film: he shows up
> first, and he makes the entire thing work - and Jack O'Neill)
> handled the voyage through the stargate. But now TPTB decided to
> do something different, that wouldn't require Daniel as much. I
> do not blame the actor for leaving; it wasn't the same show. And
> the premise (these two characters, expanded to four with Sam and
> Teal'c, travelling through the gate, learning new things and
> fighting the Goa'uld) had changed. Suddenly it was about government
> conspiracies and aliens attacking us all the time. That wasn't
> the show most of us (including Michael Shanks) signed on for.
And you've described a great premise for a film. Sadly a sci-fi series
reaching its 100th episode (and as many hours) can't just rely on the
realtionship of two characters has to do one of two things. Pretend the past
isn't important or build on it. If SG1 was meeting new aliens every week, it
would get boring and repetetive. If it was meeting aliens and then never
acknowledging the experience or the repercussions than it would be
unrealistic. If it refers back to them it has to build the arcs and lose
some of the 'new world of the week' and therefore the need to explore their
language and archeology every hour.'
SG1 could never stay the show that Shanks or you signed on for. I know that
later seasons of Highlander did not really reflect the reason I started
watching years before. We can argue the conspiracy arcs, but there is no
argument that Daniel Jackson's role HAD to change. I think it did, though
I'd agree that when he wasn't used, he *obviously* wasn't used. When he was
front and centre, I think it worked okay. Daniel Jackson / Michael Shanks
was a fundemental part of the show and his contribution to it was not to be
underestimated. But I believe that Highlander could have survived without
Richie (the reason for a sucky HL season six was not down to his departure
in my opinion)
Same
> with most of the last season of HL. We watched because of Duncan.
> "He is Duncan MacLeod, the highlander." And we suddenly had the
> spin girls and immortals we'd never met before (Claudia Christian
> and her character's husband) in the mix. Yes, I love Richie.
> The entire Net knows that. But I wasn't watching the show for
> him. I was watching it for the *concept*, which is "Highlander",
> not "Random Immortals". Change the concept, piss off the
> audience.
And the concept is a team going to new worlds and encountering differences
of opinion, life and the repercussions thereof....as well as the way they
interact with each other. If you lose a cog, the relationship changes, but
it doesn't mean that all 'relationship' qualities and strands vanish with
them. The interaction between the 'new' SG1 line-up COULD be as well
written.
> Could you elaborate on what you mean by it being a great jumping
> off point for fans?
So many shows, so little time. I watch about 10 shows religiously and
there's always some damn new brilliant show about to wrestle for my
attention! If I like a show but like another show more...if a show comes to
a convenient point where I can say 'well most threads resolved and what
happens next is a new chapter not just a new episode'...then that's the
point I may sacrifice it. Not deliberately, but it becomes a less important
need to watch. That's why shows rarely round up every thread...they want you
back next week or season. I don't blame anyone for leavong SG1 with
'Revelations' and the end of Season 5. I've only criticised those who said
"Well, the next season which I've yet to see has no other outcome than being
reallybad". Much more sensible to say "I watched it for X reason and I don't
think it'll be there any more, so 'bye!' "
> >Though not perfect, I'd say Babylon 5 gave it a fair stab.
>
> Like Crusade was Emmy material? Yuk. And the fifth season of B5
> depressed the heck out of me. I'm not alone; there are comments
> all over the Web about this.
Your opinion. I thought the original B5 saga was pretty good and any bumps
were more down to not knowing if it would continue to be recommissioned.
Judging the seris as a whole, it was quite a triumph. Z'ha'dum was one of
the ebst cliff-hangers I've seen. Again. Just my opinion.
> >and The Incredible Hulk had a TV movie that wrapped it up.
>
> Dying is a good thing to happen? I don't consider that a
> satisfactory ending at all. A satisfactory ending would have
> been David being cured.
But it was an ending. The saga was concluded. It doesn't have to be a happy
ending to be a suitable ending. I'm not sure I like a dead Dr Banner either
(even with Lizzie Gracen on hand!) but I can't deny they concluded that it
was a logical if unhappy ending.
> True. But if that's the case, why do some shows cliff-hang the
> audience knowing they won't be renewed? Are they hoping the
> audience will be so upset that they'll bully the network into
> continuing the show? (Well, it did work for Beauty and the
> Beast. Bwahahaa.)
Well, yes and because there's always the vain hope of a reunion or tv movie.
A la The Pretender. Just because they can't finance a series doesn't mean
that a one-off special might not be an option later. Is it just me or is
that EXACTLY what D/P should be considering rather than theatrical releases
and bloody musicals?
John
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 19:41:30 EDT
From: MaryAnnBMc@aol.com
Subject: HL 5
If this has already been discussed, please forgive me. Does anyone know who
has been signed/slated to appear in Highlander 5? And what is the latest
state of the rumors on a new tv series?
Thanks for putting up with an old fan who has recently been out of the loop.
MaryAnn
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 5 Sep 2002 (#2002-134)
***********************************************