HIGHLA-L Digest - 9 Sep 2002 (#2002-141)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Mon, 9 Sep 2002 22:00:01 -0400
There are 15 messages totalling 707 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. (OT) Another one bites the dust..... (9)
2. Doc Anne (wasQs)
3. Season 1 DVD's - Anchor Bay retail
4. Doc Anne (2)
5. Doc Anne (wasQs (was-- Re: D & P's power (was" Highlander5?"))
6. Qs (was-- Re: D & P's power (was" Highlander 5?"))
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 20:54:12 +0100
From: Jette Goldie <jette@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re: (OT) Another one bites the dust.....
> I also think that actors should be legally prohibited from becoming
> executive producers, or influencing story lines. SG-1 changed when
> RDA's name started appearing in the credits.
RDA was an exec producer from the very start, IIRC. "Ghekko"
productions is his company.
Jette
(aka Vinyaduriel)
"Work for Peace and remain fiercely loving" - Jim Byrnes
jette@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://bosslady.tripod.com/fanfic.html
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 22:16:26 +0200
From: Marina Bailey <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: (OT) Another one bites the dust.....
John wrote:
> Even Michael Shanks got tired of doing the 'let me read those
>hieroglyphics' role.
Okay, I'm confused. I thought he left because they were turning
the character into "just another soldier" and he would have
preferred to go on reading hieroglyphics?? He wanted Daniel to
be Daniel, not some generic person standing around in the
background saying a line or two at odd intervals. Which seems
reasonable to me.
>Not a huge fan of Jonas, I'll admit (as I said I would
>on the SG1 list a while back, if I found it to be true) but as I've only
>seen around seven episodeswith him in, I'll see what my opinion is at the
>end of the year.
I don't mind him. Some of the eps I've seen so far have been
good. I liked "Frozen", for instance, and have watched "Abyss"
like eight times! (No, not for Daniel, for the deep Jack moments.
Okay, and Cliff Simon.)
>I wouldn't dispute the assumption that Sci-Fi sacrificed Farscape to secure
>a seventh season for SG1 (I'd expect that announcement imminently!) and if
>that's the case, then I'd love to see a clearer explanation of their
>financial reasoning.
I just hope, if it's true, that it doesn't start some sort of
psycho fan war. You know the kind - "You want Stargate more
than Farscape, so it's YOUR fault Farscape isn't on! You didn't
support it!" "Well, what's wrong with liking Stargate?" "Traitor!"
etc. I'll freely admit that, given a choice, I'd pick Stargate
every time. I'm just waiting to see websites and exhortations from
fans on both sides trying to shoot down the other because of a
perceived "rivalry". What fun. Maybe that's the worst-case
scenario, but I could tell you horror stories about the split in
Beauty and the Beast fandom. The split in Due South fandom was
like a day at the beach compared to that.
I think we're lucky that with HL the changes were not so dramatic
as to engender huge splits and fights. Sure, we fight on-list, but
we're united in our love for the show.
- Marina, who really hopes Sci-Fi didn't dump Farscape for Stargate.
\\ "You've heard it said that living well is ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// the best revenge? Au contraire - living || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ forever is the best revenge." - Lacroix ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//=====Marina Bailey====tmar@sifl.iid.co.za====|| \\
\\=============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie============//
"There is a Daniel Jackson-shaped hole in that show." - My brother,
about the sixth season of Stargate SG-1.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 22:19:50 +0200
From: Marina Bailey <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: Doc Anne (wasQs)
ZK wrote:
>There's another TV MD who did this (guess who!);
>But she didn't wear suede miniskirts.
Yeah, but she and her SO on the show have a lot more of
the "c-word" than Duncan and Dr Anne ever did...
- Marina. (Who, every time she watches this show, has flashbacks
to the Dead Zone movie: "The missles are flying. Hallelujah." :)
\\ "You've heard it said that living well is ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// the best revenge? Au contraire - living || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ forever is the best revenge." - Lacroix ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//=====Marina Bailey====tmar@sifl.iid.co.za====|| \\
\\=============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie============//
"There is a Daniel Jackson-shaped hole in that show." - My brother,
about the sixth season of Stargate SG-1.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 21:28:10 +0100
From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: (OT) Another one bites the dust.....
Yup.
As he - and Michael Greenberg - tells us in the next Impact (you see what I
did there? I'm sooooooooooo subtle!) the show really wouldn't have happened
without his involvement. MGM was looking for a recognisable face and RDA was
looking for a project that he could be involved with on both an actign and
producing level. The basic truth is that the show probably wouldn't have
rolled out without his invovement or at least it would have been a very
different project if it happened at all.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jette Goldie" <jette@blueyonder.co.uk>
To: <HIGHLA-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU>
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 8:54 PM
Subject: Re: [HL] (OT) Another one bites the dust.....
> > I also think that actors should be legally prohibited from becoming
> > executive producers, or influencing story lines. SG-1 changed when
> > RDA's name started appearing in the credits.
>
> RDA was an exec producer from the very start, IIRC. "Ghekko"
> productions is his company.
>
> Jette
> (aka Vinyaduriel)
> "Work for Peace and remain fiercely loving" - Jim Byrnes
> jette@blueyonder.co.uk
> http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
> http://bosslady.tripod.com/fanfic.html
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 22:26:23 +0200
From: Marina Bailey <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: (OT) Another one bites the dust.....
>RDA was an exec producer from the very start, IIRC. "Ghekko"
>productions is his company.
His name appears in the opening title sequence as executive
producer from the second season. But his production company
has always been involved.
- Marina.
\\ "You've heard it said that living well is ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// the best revenge? Au contraire - living || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ forever is the best revenge." - Lacroix ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//=====Marina Bailey====tmar@sifl.iid.co.za====|| \\
\\=============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie============//
"There is a Daniel Jackson-shaped hole in that show." - My brother,
about the sixth season of Stargate SG-1.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 21:42:30 +0100
From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: (OT) Another one bites the dust.....
Marina:
> Okay, I'm confused. I thought he left because they were turning
> the character into "just another soldier" and he would have
> preferred to go on reading hieroglyphics?? He wanted Daniel to
> be Daniel, not some generic person standing around in the
> background saying a line or two at odd intervals. Which seems
> reasonable to me.
Common assumption because of the second-hand quoting. He actually left
because he felt his character was being under-used, not especially because
of the way his character was developing. By that I mean, he actively liked
action-y stuff to do...he liked the running around, charging down corridors
and firing at the Goa'uld when the chance was given - as much as the
different perspective his character brought to the team. He wasn't so much
bothered by the lack of archaeology, more about the fact that he felt there
were a few too many shows when Daniel had nothing substantial to contribute
to the plot. I understand that there's some disagreement over whether
others felt that was true *ducks* ;)
> I don't mind him. Some of the eps I've seen so far have been
> good. I liked "Frozen", for instance, and have watched "Abyss"
> like eight times! (No, not for Daniel, for the deep Jack moments.
> Okay, and Cliff Simon.)
I've been a bit no-plussed so far. It's not the pit of darkness that certain
people promised it would be without Daniel, not has it been truly
exceptional. I've seen up to Allegiance and, like many seasons before it,
I've seen stuff I liked and other stuff I thought was a bit average. I don't
think Jonas has been given much to do...and I can't help thinking it would
have been such a great idea to have him (or another character) be a
disruptive and perhaps even a malevolent force working from
within....imagine the angst and deviousness factors.
'I was death, death with a Zat Gun! And I liked it!'
> I just hope, if it's true, that it doesn't start some sort of
> psycho fan war. You know the kind - "You want Stargate more
> than Farscape, so it's YOUR fault Farscape isn't on! You didn't
> support it!" "Well, what's wrong with liking Stargate?" "Traitor!"
> etc. I'll freely admit that, given a choice, I'd pick Stargate
> every time. I'm just waiting to see websites and exhortations from
> fans on both sides trying to shoot down the other because of a
> perceived "rivalry". What fun. Maybe that's the worst-case
> scenario, but I could tell you horror stories about the split in
> Beauty and the Beast fandom. The split in Due South fandom was
> like a day at the beach compared to that.
Yeah. And when Firefly got green-lighted and Dark Angel got cancelled I saw
some truly scary vitriol by DA fans about a show that no-one had actually
seen yet. It's sad when fandoms feel the need to hate a show because of
another. It's not Brad Wright's fault that David Kemper's show (filmed a
world away) has bittne the dust.......though like many I'd have preffered
SG1 go out on a high and Farscape continue for some time to come.
> I think we're lucky that with HL the changes were not so dramatic
> as to engender huge splits and fights. Sure, we fight on-list, but
> we're united in our love for the show.
We fight? Nah. Barely been even miffed here. Frustrated, yes. Angry. No.
Too few hours in the day and with the approaching date, to much perspective.
:)
John
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 17:01:42 -0400
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: (OT) Another one bites the dust.....
JM:
>>Ah, the famous 'word is...' though I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone use the words who would be in am official position to actually know for a fact.<<
Ah. And that would be on the par of claiming to make successful psychic predictions about shows, wouldn't it.
>>Certainly I've seen my fair share of good and poor SG1 episodes and they are spread fairly evenly over the whole run to date. In fact I'd say episodes such as Beast of Burden were a sign that it was still possible to produce decent episodes later in the run.<<
Quite so. A pity we don't have the Daniel Jackson character around anymore to facilitate that kind of story. But hey, if you like Birds-eye Babes and Ninja Jaffa, wholesale die-off of familiar characters and races and recycled current movie plots, you're in hog heaven. As you go on to say:
>>Danger of repetition and unorginality seem to be the problems, rather than poor storytelling. But also a long running show has to change by its very nature.<<
Absolutely. It's simply a matter of making the correct choices for change. Not all change is automatically for the better. Change simply for the sake of change is often pointless and self-destructive. Changing a TV show to shed one audience and attract another is something every production company/network has tried in the recent past, with very few success stories to tell.
>>You either start, continue and complete story-arcs - which instigate a moving direction or you have no forward momentum.<<
Oh yes, but you don't just drive a car because it has wheels. You pick a route, ideally one that won't run into a wall or off a cliff.
>>Heck, if Stargate SG was doing the same thing it was doing in season one, I'd have given up on it a long time ago. Even Michael Shanks got tired of doing the 'let me read those
hieroglyphics' role.<<
Alas, the writers chose to stop using him, rather than change his direction. In the words of the producers, once his love interest died, they thought his arc was over. As if there was no other reason for Daniel Jackson's motivation and nothing else for him to do except chase after his woman(!!!) This would be like ending HL when Tessa perished,
>>Not a huge fan of Jonas, I'll admit (as I said I would on the SG1 list a while back, if I found it to be true) but as I've only seen around seven pisodeswith him in, I'll see what my opinion is at the end of the year.
I wouldn't dispute the assumption that Sci-Fi sacrificed
Farscape to secure a seventh season for SG1 (I'd expect that announcement imminently!) and if that's the case, then I'd love to see a clearer explanation of their financial reasoning. Farscape's rather surreal start this year may not have helped it, but it's such a widely respected show that I smell some political fast-ball going on.<<
What you may actually smell is the decay of bankruptcy. Vivendi is in serious trouble, to the tune of a couple of *billion* dollars. I wouldn't be too surprised to hear that they had sold off the sci-fi channel, much less cancelling the rest of their space-oriented Sci-Fi programs in favor of the cheaper production pieces.
Leah
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 17:20:35 -0400
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: (OT) Another one bites the dust.....
>>I just hope, if it's true, that it doesn't start some sort of
psycho fan war. You know the kind - "You want Stargate more
than Farscape, so it's YOUR fault Farscape isn't on! You didn't
support it!" "Well, what's wrong with liking Stargate?"
"Traitor!"
etc. I'll freely admit that, given a choice, I'd pick Stargate
every time. I'm just waiting to see websites and exhortations
from
fans on both sides trying to shoot down the other because of a
perceived "rivalry". What fun. Maybe that's the worst-case
scenario, but I could tell you horror stories about the split
in
Beauty and the Beast fandom. The split in Due South fandom was
like a day at the beach compared to that<<
Too late. Among the fans on some SG-1 lists, some are celebrating (!!) the cancellation of FARSCAPE, as if it had been some kind of competition between the two shows on Sci-Fi, to see which one would defeat the other in the ratings. An incredible public display of bad taste, and downright stupid, when you realize that many fans adore both shows.
Leah
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 17:21:12 -0400
From: Lynn <lloschin@sprynet.com>
Subject: Season 1 DVD's - Anchor Bay retail
According to DVDFile, Anchor Bay has announced an 11/5 street date for the
season 1 DVD's. Retail is $89.95, and with pre-order and online discounts,
you can probably find them for substantially less.
Hopefully, the rest of the series will eventually be available the same way,
and those who don't want to will no longer have to deal with the HL Store.
Lynn
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 17:31:01 -0400
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: (OT) Another one bites the dust.....
There's a RUMOR circulating this afternoon through one of the 'higher-ups' that the producers are trying to save FARSCAPE by desperately shopping it to UPN and TNT. Supposedly, UPN is looking for a companion show for ENTERPRISE. We'll have to wait and see if there's anything to it.
Leah
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 17:10:58 -0400
From: jjswbt@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Doc Anne
>>> I think, as Nina said, that Anne was supposed
>to be a great love for Duncan (as stated by Adrian in an AOL chat before
>Anne's first season), but she was written and acted contrary to that end.
><<
I don't believe that Anne *was* suppose to be a great love for Duncan. I think she was suppose to be *a* love for Duncan. Tessa had been dead a very short time (especially for an Immortal). *She* was suppose to have been *the* great love of his 400 year life. Why would anyone have expected him to find another "great" love so soon? I think we were suppose to see Duncan trying to fall in love again. *If* Anne and Duncan had been accepted by the fans..*if* there had been any chemistry between the actors...*then* we might have seen Anne written differently. Or maybe not....how many times in RL do two people have love affairs that don't work? Vastly more times than those that do work.
I *don't* happen to believe the writers later statements that Anne was designed from the start to be a short term love. I think they raised a trial balloon and it sank...badly. Once it as obvious that Anne wasn't going to be around....I think the writers deliberately wrote her in as unflattering a way as possible. People mourned when Tessa died..the writers made sure that virtually no one mourned Anne's departure.
Elaine:
>I don't think so I once had a discussion with another friend about Anne,
>and I mentioned how she and Duncan made a typical Scottish couple, very
>little touching, bit grumpy with each other, not terribly romantic with
>each other. The reaction I got was WHAT! Anne isn't Scottish to which I
>replied her backround is with a name like Lindsey. No I'm not saying all
>Scottish women are dour etc, but most Scottish people have a very dry sense
>of humour that often comes over that way, they are also inclined to
>sometimes be sharp or grumpy sounding when they don't really mean to be.
>Both Jette and I have been caught with that one.
Now this is interesting<g> Are you suggesting that this dry sense of humor is genetic? That Anne Lindsey...raised in America (and for all we know her parents and grandparents for 200 years were Americans) somehow inherited this dour personality as a part of being "Scottish"? The Scots in my family tree are fairly recent and there's not a dour relative to be found. I'd argue that a dour Scottish personality is a factor of being raised in the company of dour Scots.
In any event, I never hated Anne. I saw...potential there. Potential that sadly got buried under incredibly "heartless" writing. Most of the K'immies were provided with more redeeming features than Dr. Anne. Duncan hid a dangerous secret from her...but when she complained about being attacked or shot at - it was somehow her who was at fault. Let Duncan yank her emotional chain and it just what he has to do because he's immortal....let Anne yank Duncan's chain and Anne is a heartless bitch. My feelings are that Duncan had no business being in *any* relationship with *any* woman (beyond the occasional one-night stand with a passing Immortal chick) if he wasn't going to either 1) be honest about his life or 2) do a hell of a lot better job of protecting the woman from the fall-out of the Game.
Wendy(Next topic...did Alexa have any redeeming qualities?)
Fairy Killer
jjswbt@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jjswbt/index.html
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 18:33:14 -0400
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Doc Anne
At 05:10 PM 09/09/02, jjswbt@EARTHLINK.NET wrote:
>I *don't* happen to believe the writers later statements that Anne was
>designed from the start to be a short term love.
Neither do I. I think she was initially supposed to be around for awhile.
I incorrectly used the term "great love" before... but what I meant was
just that she was supposed to be his new love interest; and I think
initially the viewers were supposed to be happy for Duncan and be hopeful
for him and Anne.
>I think they raised a trial balloon and it sank...badly.
Yep... *very* badly.
>Once it as obvious that Anne wasn't going to be around....I think the
>writers deliberately wrote her in as unflattering a way as possible.
>People mourned when Tessa died..the writers made sure that virtually no
>one mourned Anne's departure.
LOL!
>In any event, I never hated Anne. I saw...potential there. Potential that
>sadly got buried under incredibly "heartless" writing.
And no chemistry. :::running & ducking:::
>Wendy(Next topic...did Alexa have any redeeming qualities?)
Who is Alexa? Wasn't she one of the spin-off chicks?
-- Sandy
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 18:41:02 -0400
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Doc Anne (wasQs (was-- Re: D & P's power (was" Highlander5?"))
At 04:04 PM 09/09/02, KLZ wrote:
>There's another TV MD who did this (guess who!); in fact, she
>participated in a massive coverup concerning the medical condition
>of a very important person. She gave up her license for the
>duration of her husband's term of office. I bet *she* didn't get
>creamed by the fan base! <g>
I can think of a couple of reasons for these different reactions.
1. Mrs. B was in the show from the beginning. We already knew her and liked
her. Fans will cut a bit of slack for a character that they like. This is
far different from bringing a new love interest for the main character of a
show that has been on for awhile and having her do something like this.
2. Mrs. B has been married to the guy for many years. She knows him and
his medical situation *very* well. Even though she was
legally/technically/ethically/whatever... wrong to do it, she did know what
she was doing. She knew what to prescribe, when to prescribe it, what
dosage, etc. Anne didn't know Duncan.. she had just recently met him when
the feces hit the oscillator.
>But she didn't wear suede miniskirts.
Thank goodness!!
-- Sandy
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 01:09:22 +0100
From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: (OT) Another one bites the dust.....
Here we go 'round the Mullberry Bush.... :)
> JM:
>
> >>Ah, the famous 'word is...' though I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone
use the words who would be in am official position to actually know for a
fact.<<
>
> Ah. And that would be on the par of claiming to make successful psychic
predictions about shows, wouldn't it.
Not sure what you mean by this? You mean someone's made psychic
predictions? I try to avoid that. Too much chance people will end up looking
silly. I prefer to wait, see and judge on facts and personal experience (and
personal taste). Otherwise it'd be like Crossing Over With John Mosby.
JM
> >>Certainly I've seen my fair share of good and poor SG1 episodes and they
are spread fairly evenly over the whole run to date. In fact I'd say
episodes such as Beast of Burden were a sign that it was still possible to
produce decent episodes later in the run.<<
Leah
> Quite so. A pity we don't have the Daniel Jackson character around anymore
to facilitate that kind of story. But hey, if you like Birds-eye Babes and
Ninja Jaffa, wholesale die-off of familiar characters and races and recycled
current movie plots, you're in hog heaven. As you go on to say:
John:
Ah, so it's all really inevitable. Daniel must be there to have a story of
that quality. I'd always thought of it as an ensemble show...albeit with one
that often had Daniel as part of that.
John:
> >>Danger of repetition and unorginality seem to be the problems, rather
than poor storytelling. But also a long running show has to change by its
very nature.<<
Leah:
> Absolutely. It's simply a matter of making the correct choices for change.
Not all change is automatically for the better. Change simply for the sake
of change is often pointless and self-destructive. Changing a TV show to
shed one audience and attract another is something every production
company/network has tried in the recent past, with very few success stories
to tell.
John:
Ah, those pesky 'correct choices' . Because God Forbid we should make
incorrect choices and still get great ratings. Wouldn't that be annoying?
(Seems to me that we ALL have fan favourites that we think we ruined by
pesky corporate demons, but usually we can back that up with the way a show
whimpered off the air ...if the ratings are still good, so much so that
those guys want to renew it again, it's harder to prove...it's arguably not
better or worse, just different.........then again, Baywatch was once the
world's most watched programme, so who knows anything anymore?)
John:
> >>You either start, continue and complete story-arcs - which instigate a
moving direction or you have no forward momentum.<<
Leah:
> Oh yes, but you don't just drive a car because it has wheels. You pick a
route, ideally one that won't run into a wall or off a cliff.
>
John:
A car drives towards a cliff and falls over, people are sad and start
CSI-ing over the cause (fell, pushed, driven?). A car gets a paint-job and a
healthy number of new admirers and for some strange reason no-one calls in
the forensic department. You might hate the bright colours, you might think
the pull down top is tasteless...but if it's worth more and gets more
approving glances...and ultimately takes you for a journey, you might just
be able to live with it. Don't like where it's going or the decor? It's your
perogative to grumble a bit then hitch another ride. Sitting in its
back-seat and beratting the fluffy-dice is self-defeating.
John
> >>Heck, if Stargate SG was doing the same thing it was doing in season
one, I'd have given up on it a long time ago. Even Michael Shanks got tired
of doing the 'let me read those
> hieroglyphics' role.<<
Leah
> Alas, the writers chose to stop using him, rather than change his
direction. In the words of the producers, once his love interest died, they
thought his arc was over. As if there was no other reason for Daniel
Jackson's motivation and nothing else for him to do except chase after his
woman(!!!) This would be like ending HL when Tessa perished,
John:
And according to your/Annie's recent post that's when the ratings started
going down, right? Fans didn't like Tessa's death but the story threads that
came about around that time certainly pushed Highlander into a realm where
fans appreciated it more. I'm guessing there were SOME that switched off and
said that Dunc's one true love was dead, the whole show had been about their
love and there was no point watching anymore (unless...hmmmm... it was
simply to see and report how bad it was???) As for DJ/MS...yup, I'd tend to
agree he was under-used - though not by as much as some people seem to
remember. But to an extent, his archeology role was rendered less important
due to the story-arcs with recurring races and the quest for his wife WAS
over. I think there was trouble keeping him busy yet keeping that unique
Daniel-ness about his character. I don't think they failed to accomplish
that, I just don't think they did it as often as they might have done.
John:
> >>Not a huge fan of Jonas, I'll admit (as I said I would on the SG1 list
a while back, if I found it to be true) but as I've only seen around seven
episodes with him in, I'll see what my opinion is at the end of the year.
> I wouldn't dispute the assumption that Sci-Fi sacrificed
> Farscape to secure a seventh season for SG1 (I'd expect that announcement
imminently!) and if that's the case, then I'd love to see a clearer
explanation of their financial reasoning. Farscape's rather surreal start
this year may not have helped it, but it's such a widely respected show that
I smell some political fast-ball going on.<<
Leah:
> What you may actually smell is the decay of bankruptcy. Vivendi is in
serious trouble, to the tune of a couple of *billion* dollars. I wouldn't be
too surprised to hear that they had sold off the sci-fi channel, much less
cancelling the rest of their space-oriented Sci-Fi programs in favor of the
cheaper production pieces.
John:
I'd tend to agree with Ginjer's reply to your theory on alt.tv that there's
no danger of Sci-Fi going under, but networks do get sold and bought, so
that's possible. But Stargate and Farscape ARE expensive shows to do and
it's not ultimately a stupid thing for a network to think 'We only have a
certain amount of money, so let's pick the most successful and with the best
chance of returns'. Yup, losing Farscape sucks. Creatively, it's a
stoooooopid move and they've scored a killer blow to their PR .
Business-wise...time will tell whether they stemmed a loss of vital fluids
or cut off a perfectly good limb.
John
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:02:27 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Qs (was-- Re: D & P's power (was" Highlander 5?"))
Wendy--
> Didn't do as well this time- I refuse to drag out the tapes or CD and
check.
Which for some reason reminds me of Raven & SOMEONE who WAS posting the euro
bits???
> >1--We were shown (on-screen) 3 Immies receiving their very 1st
Quickenings.
> >Who & what eps?
> Richie - with Mako
> Duncan - with Mr. Scottish Hermit
> Who else? Um....not Amanda...not Methos...someone else. One of those
horrid Spin Girls?
Nah--Lord Byron taking Hans Kershner's Q in The Modern Prometheus
> >2--Twice we saw a Quickening go to a temporarily dead but still headed &
> >thus victorious Immie. Who & what eps?
> Duncan with Morgan in "Double Jeopardy"
> Um.....not a clue.
Also, Hans Kershner's into dead Byron. Did someone perhaps blot out all
recollection of The Modern Prometheus? It wasn't THAT bad. It added quite
a bit to the Immies-responsible-for-mortal-deaths debate. You know--the ep
w/ _the goat_.
> >3--Once, an in-the-distance Q lightshow made Richie think DM had lost his
> >head, & the same thing happened once to make DM fear RR was a goner. The
2
> >eps?
> They Also Serve - Duncan beheads Christian
> Testimony - Richie beheads Kristov
Excellent!
> >4--2 Q's happened on bridges (well, in one case the receiving Immie was
> >heading off the bridge...). Immies & eps?
> Duncan with Caspian
> Duncan with Slan
Bravo!
> >5--2 Q's happened in caves (well, one was in an underground rock-enclosed
> >space that _looked_ like a cave). Immies & eps?
> Duncan with Mr. Scottish Hermit
> Duncan with Cahill?
No, Cahill lost his head in a non-holy-ground-museum, that was many things
but that I never thought to be in a cave. The other cavish place was the
holy spring DM rapelled down inside of in Deliverance, to vanquish his evil
self. Actually, I think the location was an abandoned train tunnel, which
as you say wasn't unusual on HL, but it was presented more as a cave, I
think. Sandy got it.
> Wendy(By Season 3 I tended to avert my eyes during Quickenings because
they looked so stupid.)
Which is also a big problem w/ porn.
Nina
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 9 Sep 2002 (#2002-141)
***********************************************