HIGHLA-L Digest - 20 Aug 2003 to 22 Aug 2003 (#2003-193)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Fri, 22 Aug 2003 22:00:01 -0400
There are 23 messages totalling 779 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. 10 years! (3)
2. Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish, or whiney voiced punk (19)
3. Poll: Richie: Immie wannabe & childish, or whiney voiced punk
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 22:22:07 -0500
From: Debra Douglass <ddoug@catrio.org>
Subject: Re: 10 years!
On 8/18/2003, on HIGHLA-L@lists.psu.edu, Richard Sarner ,Deepest Darkest Denbigh wrote:
>>I havn't been following posts closely, so Perhaps I missed it if someone
>>mentioned it:
>>
>>As of a week ago, the list is 10 years old.
Darn it! I missed it. I was so caught up in the preparations for my
sister's wedding that I completely forgot about HIGHLA-L's 10th year
anniversary. Things have been really hectic around here for a few
months now. Luckily it is all over and the two love birds are settling
in and tending to opening wedding presents and sending off thank you
cards.
HIGHLA-L was officially 10 years old on August 11th, 2003.
Happy Belated Anniversary to all of you.
-Debbie
--
.------------------------------------------------------------------.
|Debra Douglass ddoug@catrio.org http://www.catrio.org|
`------------------------------------------------------------------'
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 07:00:32 +0200
From: T'Mar <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: 10 years!
>HIGHLA-L was officially 10 years old on August 11th, 2003.
>Happy Belated Anniversary to all of you.
Sheesh, that's a long time for a mailing list! I first subbed
two months after it started (October, 1993), and I've never
regretted doing so. Looks like the list has years left in it
still, which is fine by me!
- Marina.
\\ "I don't care about their different thoughts; ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// different thoughts are good for me." || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ - Tanita Tikaram ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//=====Marina Bailey=====tmar@sifl.iid.co.za=====|| \\
\\==============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie=============//
"In science fiction, is death the final chapter of life,
or just the beginning of another story?" - Leonard Nimoy
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 12:26:25 -0500
From: Shawn <core@enodev.com>
Subject: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish, or whiney voiced punk
Ok, I know this isn't going to sit well with T'Mar ;), but here goes...
I don't know about the rest of you, but I really think Highlander the
Series could have been richer without Ritchie (really, no pun intended),
at least how he was portrayed.
"Oh, cool. Gimme gimme gimme!" was the vibe I always got before Ritchie
knew he was not easy to kill. Then, the all powerful script imbued him
with immortality, and he became a hardened, whiny brat.
Enter pissy punk whiner Ritchie. (Forgive me for not quoting titles, and
names folks, I'm bad at that) He goes off on a pissy rampage after
Duncan trys to kill him and Joe saves his life. Not only does he not
trust Duncan anymore, but he tosses his whole system of ethics out the
door, only to regain them in one episode of Duncan regaining his trust.
This showed me Ritchie's true metal. This is all the more frustrating
due to the fact that Ritchie's character has had sufficient hardship to
have grown the hell up by now.
Anyway, I still cling to my old "Highlander" movie, circa 1986 for the
measuring stick. To this day, nothing is more satisfying than hearing
the opening "From the dawn of time they came...". Also, the portrayal of
Mr Nash by Chris Lambert was IMHO the triumph of his career. Adrian
plays a less dark role in the series, but still pulls it off. I guess
Ritchie is a brat immie, and it must bug me that he is. I just want to
punch him when he goes off on a tirade.
So, what do y'all think?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 13:45:56 -0400
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish, or whiney voiced punk
At 12:26 PM 08/22/2003 -0500, Shawn wrote:
>So, what do y'all think?
I think you're wrong. :-)
Richie was young... *very* young. His actions/reactions were to be expected
of someone his age who had been through all he had been through.
Then top it off with the whole immortality thing, and there's just no way
to judge what a good or bad (or normal or abnormal) reaction should be to
something like that.
-- Sandy
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 14:00:45 -0400
From: Gregory Mate <gmate@rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish, or whiney voiced punk
Sandy:
> Richie was young... *very* young. His actions/reactions were to be expected
> of someone his age who had been through all he had been through.
Have to agree with Sandy on this one. The majority of "on-screen" Connor and Duncan were at the 400+ mark (even for most of the flashbacks, both MacLeod boys were far older than Richie ever got to be). A more fair comparison would be Connor around the time of his "first death" (he was 18...never mind that Mr. Lambert was older as an actor) and Duncan during his pre-Immortal days. Even then, the social mores were different, and likely both Duncan and Connor were far more mature at 18 largely due to the influence of their respective clans.
Stan Kirsch and the writers, IMO, did (by and large) a very good job portraying a typical 18 year old street kid.
....Greg....
gmate@rogers.com
He Who Really Needs To Get Back To Work
1
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 13:15:53 -0500
From: Shawn <core@enodev.com>
Subject: Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish, or whiney voiced punk
On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 12:45, Sandy Fields wrote:
> I think you're wrong. :-)
Awesome. my first response!
> Richie was young... *very* young. His actions/reactions were to be expected
> of someone his age who had been through all he had been through.
How old was Ritchie at the time?
> Then top it off with the whole immortality thing, and there's just no way
> to judge what a good or bad (or normal or abnormal) reaction should be to
> something like that.
Well, this is sort of 17 degrees away from the point I was making. I
don't want to argue the wrong/badness of his antics (although I still
think he was a brat), but I contend he was annoying in the sense that
his character should have been written better, and ironically, his
character seemed to be "playing the part" of what he thought an immortal
was supposed to be instead of living his life and surviving the life or
death situation he was thrust into.
It would have been less annoying for me if he had not started
indiscriminately lobbing off heads unprovoked. Also, it was way too easy
for him to dispatch some of the very very old veterans. I don't care who
your teacher is... You don't learn and master a martial art quickly. It
comes with lots of time and repetition, making strikes and blocks second
nature. I know, I studied a few forms of karate and have a little
experience behind a blade. There can be no better example than immortals
showing that there is no substitute for experience, even if Duncan has
developed some kind of super Jeet Kun Do sword fighting style which was
super practical and easy to learn.
Thanks for your conversation! I look forward to more counterpoints,
yeahs, or nays!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 13:23:42 -0500
From: Shawn <core@enodev.com>
Subject: Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish, or whiney voiced punk
On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 13:00, Gregory Mate wrote:
> Sandy:
> > Richie was young... *very* young. His actions/reactions were to be expected
> > of someone his age who had been through all he had been through.
>
> Have to agree with Sandy on this one. The majority of "on-screen" Connor and Duncan were at the 400+ mark (even for most of the flashbacks, both MacLeod boys were far older than Richie ever got to be). A more fair comparison would be Connor around the time of his "first death" (he was 18...never mind that Mr. Lambert was older as an actor) and Duncan during his pre-Immortal days. Even then, the social mores were different, and likely both Duncan and Connor were far more mature at 18 largely due to the influence of their respective clans.
>
> Stan Kirsch and the writers, IMO, did (by and large) a very good job portraying a typical 18 year old street kid.
I just replied to that point. The gist of it is that rather than
discussing the accuracy of the portrayal, the fact that he is annoying
(according to me) makes his character detract rather than add to the
show (according to me).
I was just discussing what folks think about him in that regard, and
recognize any observations I have to the accuracy of his portrayal are
subjective. (of course so are my observations WRT annoyingness, but
that's what I was starting this thread to discuss and get folks' feeling
on)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 13:29:24 -0500
From: Shawn <core@enodev.com>
Subject: Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish, or whiney voiced punk
On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 13:15, Shawn wrote:
> Well, this is sort of 17 degrees away from the point I was making. I
> don't want to argue the wrong/badness of his antics (although I still
> think he was a brat), but I contend he was annoying in the sense that
> his character should have been written better, and ironically, his
Oh, and by better I mean less annoying, or, differently. Not more
accurate.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 22:22:07 -0500
From: Debra Douglass <ddoug@catrio.org>
Subject: Re: 10 years!
On 8/18/2003, on HIGHLA-L@lists.psu.edu, Richard Sarner ,Deepest Darkest Denbigh wrote:
>>I havn't been following posts closely, so Perhaps I missed it if someone
>>mentioned it:
>>
>>As of a week ago, the list is 10 years old.
Darn it! I missed it. I was so caught up in the preparations for my
sister's wedding that I completely forgot about HIGHLA-L's 10th year
anniversary. Things have been really hectic around here for a few
months now. Luckily it is all over and the two love birds are settling
in and tending to opening wedding presents and sending off thank you
cards.
HIGHLA-L was officially 10 years old on August 11th, 2003.
Happy Belated Anniversary to all of you.
-Debbie
--
------------------------------------------------------------------.
|Debra Douglass ddoug@catrio.org http://www.catrio.org|
`------------------------------------------------------------------'
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 14:32:56 -0400
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish, or whiney voiced punk
At 01:15 PM 08/22/2003 -0500, Shawn wrote:
>Well, this is sort of 17 degrees away from the point I was making. I don't
>want to argue the wrong/badness of his antics (although I still think he
>was a brat), but I contend he was annoying in the sense that his character
>should have been written better, and ironically, his
>character seemed to be "playing the part" of what he thought an immortal
>was supposed to be instead of living his life and surviving the life or
>death situation he was thrust into.
Actually I think I'm right on point with the point you were making.
You feel that the character behaved badly.. or in a way other than you
think he should have. So my argument is: Who can say how a person of that
age, coming from that situation, should behave when he discovers that he's
immortal and has now been thrust into "the game"?
>It would have been less annoying for me if he had not started
>indiscriminately lobbing off heads unprovoked.
Well yeah... that was poor behavior. But to me it seemed correct for
writers to write it that way for the character.
>Also, it was way too easy for him to dispatch some of the very very old
>veterans. I don't care who your teacher is... You don't learn and master a
>martial art quickly.
Which old veterans would that be?
-- Sandy
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 14:36:43 -0400
From: Wendy Tillis <immortals_incorporated@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish, or whiney voiced punk
Shawn wrote:
<rearranged somewhat for effect<eg>>
>
>So, what do y'all think?
I think Marina is going to whap you with a very long flagpole for misspelling Richie's name repeatedly. And while we wait for her return salvo on the substance of your post, I'll pitch in and offer an opinion.
>I don't know about the rest of you, but I really think Highlander the
>Series could have been richer without Ritchie (really, no pun intended),
>at least how he was portrayed.
I could have lived without Richie. There were moments he added something to the show, others when I wished him dead (earlier than it happened.) OTOH, the one character I absolutely could have done without is Joe..or at least Joe as portrayed by Jim Byrnes.
>"Oh, cool. Gimme gimme gimme!" was the vibe I always got before Ritchie
>knew he was not easy to kill.
Well, he *was* a teenager and my experience with *some* teenagers is that "oh cool, gimme" was an accurate portrayal. He wanted what he wanted and he wanted it *now*. At 17, who doesn't?
>Then, the all powerful script imbued him with immortality, and he became a hardened, whiny brat.
I will grant you the "whiny", I dispute the "hardened". If he had become hardened, he would have 1) been more interesting (to me) and 2) lived longer.
>Enter pissy punk whiner Ritchie. (Forgive me for not quoting titles, and
>names folks, I'm bad at that) He goes off on a pissy rampage after
>Duncan trys to kill him and Joe saves his life. Not only does he not
>trust Duncan anymore, but he tosses his whole system of ethics out the
>door,
It wasn't the first time Duncan tried to kill him, it was about the third. That sort of thing tends to shake your confidence in your friends and yourself. It finally sunk in that anyone- even his best friend and mentor- might really kill him. He finally realized that the Game was serious and deadly and that he was unprepared. So, he got prepared...by becoming (temporarily) the kind of heartless killer that he always hated and feared. Of course, he soon forgot all of that and came right back to Duncan's side - as if Duncan wouldn't possibly hurt him (again).
>only to regain them in one episode of Duncan regaining his trust.
I'll agree that the reconciliation was too fast. (Likewise, Duncan's periodic estrangements from Joe always ended to quickly). I think it would have been interesting (and more realistic) if they two of them remained "on the outs" for a number of episodes as they slowly found their way back to a more equal friendship
>This showed me Ritchie's true metal. This is all the more frustrating
>due to the fact that Ritchie's character has had sufficient hardship to
>have grown the hell up by now.
I'll agree with the sentiment that he had amble time to grow up, and didn't.
>Anyway, I still cling to my old "Highlander" movie, circa 1986 for the
>measuring stick. To this day, nothing is more satisfying than hearing
>the opening "From the dawn of time they came...".
As a complete story, the movie version of Highlander is very satisfying.
>Also, the portrayal of
>Mr Nash by Chris Lambert was IMHO the triumph of his career.
Not really saying much, is that? <eg>
>Adrian plays a less dark role in the series, but still pulls it off.
I don't think that, taken as a whole, Adrian's role was less dark. It got pretty damned dark at time, at others there was froth and sunshine.
> I guess Ritchie is a brat immie, and it must bug me that he is.I just want to punch him when he goes off on a tirade.
My question would be ..why shouldn't he be a brat (if that is what he was)? Immortals aren't saints...they are just people who happen to live a really long time. We saw stone cold killers, silly con men, religious fanatics, priests, layabouts and high powered financiers. Michelle was much more of a brat- as she had been before she died. Richie only had 6 years to get used to what he was and what that could mean. If he had survived another decade or two, maybe the "brattiness" would have faded....or not.
I guess what I'm asking is whether you think that the single act of becoming Immortal is suppose to change the basic personality of the person? Or...are you upset that he didn't seem sufficiently "sobered" by his new life? Should he have been more grateful - and thus more....serious? Does it bother you that he has this incredible chance to live forever and yet he still 'whines" about the unfairness of life?
I admit I never much cared for Richie and I shed no tears and donned no red when he died. I thought the writers ill-used the potential of the character- the chance to show us Immortality from a new Immortal's perspective. Instead of character growth, we got Richie doing the same things over and over. Assuming the writers knew what they were doing, then the point must have been to demonstrate that Immortals are just people- they are what they are. Richie could no more truly believe that Duncan would one day whack him than Duncan could walk away from a damsel in distress. It just wasn't in their nature...at 16, 116 or 416.
Wendy(If Richie had lived to be 100, what would he have been doing?)
Immortals Inc.
immortals_incorporated@cox.net
"Weasels for Eternity"
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 14:37:06 -0400
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish, or whiney voiced punk
I suppose we have to remember that Richie was originally *supposed* to be a bit of an undersocialized punk. The entertainment value of such a character has to be weighed against the realism.
Of course nowadays, it seems undersocialized, moronic, whiney voiced punks are frequently lead characters in movies targeting the much-valued young male demographic. And the movies still make money. Go figure.
Leah
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 14:40:00 -0400
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish, or whiney voiced punk
At 01:23 PM 08/22/2003 -0500, Shawn wrote:
>I was just discussing what folks think about him in that regard, and
>recognize any observations I have to the accuracy of his portrayal are
>subjective. (of course so are my observations WRT annoyingness, but
>that's what I was starting this thread to discuss and get folks' feeling
>on)
OK. Yes Richie was annoying (although I think he had mellowed out quite a
bit just before he got ::: shudder ::: whacked).
Richie was as annoying as my children were at his age.
He was a typical 18-year street kid... annoying. :-)
-- Sandy
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 14:49:20 -0400
From: L Cameron-Norfleet <cgliser@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish, or whiney voiced punk
Sandy said:
>Richie was young... *very* young. His actions/reactions were to be expected
>of someone his age who had been through all he had been through.
Technically speaking, Connor was also forever 18. They just ignored
that fact when they cast CL to play him.
Kinda puts a whole 'nother spin on the "young immortal" angle, IMO.
Liser
(i had a Richie flag, once)(I think I used it as a parachute whilst
escaping from the Clan Denial in a fray)
--
Lisa Cameron-Norfleet ** cgliser@earthlink.net
--
The difference between truth and fiction: fiction has to make sense
--Mark Twain
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 14:10:53 -0500
From: Shawn <core@enodev.com>
Subject: Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish, or whiney voiced punk
(minus some stuff I pretty much agree with and had nothing to add to)
On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 13:36, Wendy Tillis wrote:
> I think Marina is going to whap you with a very long flagpole for misspelling Richie's name repeatedly. And while we wait for her return salvo on the substance of your post, I'll pitch in and offer an opinion.
Oops! I'll pull down the trousers in anticipation... 8)
> It wasn't the first time Duncan tried to kill him, it was about the third. That sort of thing tends to shake your confidence in your friends and yourself. It finally sunk in that anyone- even his best friend and mentor- might really kill him. He finally realized that the Game was serious and deadly and that he was unprepared. So, he got prepared...by becoming (temporarily) the kind of heartless killer that he always hated and feared. Of course, he soon forgot all of that and came right back to Duncan's side - as if Duncan wouldn't possibly hurt him (again).
Wow, my memory failed me there. *smack* BAD memory, BAD!
> >Also, the portrayal of
> >Mr Nash by Chris Lambert was IMHO the triumph of his career.
> Not really saying much, is that? <eg>
Yeah. I guess I would just say he really showed ability, beyond anything
ever even hinted to in anything else he did. It's hard to express how
well he seemed to blend into the story compared with his other B stuff.
So good, in fact, that I've watched most of his other stuff just because
I liked Highlander so much.
> >Adrian plays a less dark role in the series, but still pulls it off.
> I don't think that, taken as a whole, Adrian's role was less dark. It got pretty damned dark at time, at others there was froth and sunshine.
Brooding doesn't seem to be Duncan's nature to me. It seemed like
brooding almost became comfortable to Connor, like old leather, until
he fell in love again.
> My question would be ..why shouldn't he be a brat (if that is what he was)? Immortals aren't saints...they are just people who happen to live a really long time. We saw stone cold killers, silly con men, religious fanatics, priests, layabouts and high powered financiers. Michelle was much more of a brat- as she had been before she died. Richie only had 6 years to get used to what he was and what that could mean. If he had survived another decade or two, maybe the "brattiness" would have faded....or not.
Guess I just wish "Highlander: The Series" Richie character were
fundamentally different for purposes of greater enjoyment.
> I guess what I'm asking is whether you think that the single act of becoming Immortal is suppose to change the basic personality of the person? Or...are you upset that he didn't seem sufficiently "sobered" by his new life? Should he have been more grateful - and thus more....serious? Does it bother you that he has this incredible chance to live forever and yet he still 'whines" about the unfairness of life?
Nope.
> I admit I never much cared for Richie and I shed no tears and donned no red when he died. I thought the writers ill-used the potential of the character- the chance to show us Immortality from a new Immortal's perspective. Instead of character growth, we got Richie doing the same things over and over. Assuming the writers knew what they were doing, then the point must have been to demonstrate that Immortals are just people- they are what they are. Richie could no more truly believe that Duncan would one day whack him than Duncan could walk away from a damsel in distress. It just wasn't in their nature...at 16, 116 or 416.
Me neither.
> Wendy(If Richie had lived to be 100, what would he have been doing?)
Lamenting his child like voice. (In a whiney voice, of course...)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 14:25:25 -0500
From: Shawn <core@enodev.com>
Subject: Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish, or whiney voiced punk
On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 13:32, Sandy Fields wrote:
> Actually I think I'm right on point with the point you were making.
>
> You feel that the character behaved badly.. or in a way other than you
> think he should have. So my argument is: Who can say how a person of that
> age, coming from that situation, should behave when he discovers that he's
> immortal and has now been thrust into "the game"?
I guess I just wish that this had not been the case at all. I take issue
with the idea of Richie's character situation being "A Good Thing(tm)"
in the whole of the series. I don't take issue with the accuracy of his
portrayal. By saying "better", and mean I would have made his character
fundamentally different, as in, not the 18 year old whiney punk. As an
18 year old myself (or close to it), I never identified with him.
I would have made Richie a one-episode character if there was a desire
to portray that "new modern day 18 year old immie" situation. It just
seems to me like a "Bad Idea(tm)".
> >It would have been less annoying for me if he had not started
> >indiscriminately lobbing off heads unprovoked.
> Well yeah... that was poor behavior. But to me it seemed correct for
> writers to write it that way for the character.
With the exception that he should have bitten the dust in the attempt.
> >Also, it was way too easy for him to dispatch some of the very very old
> >veterans. I don't care who your teacher is... You don't learn and master a
> >martial art quickly.
>
> Which old veterans would that be?
That guy he picked a fight with in the bar, where his mentor (I think
this was the case, but forget) got really pissed and came after Richie?
The guy's mentor(?) then got dispatched by Duncan for taunting him after
he killed Duncan's mentor (who begged for his life) at the time. If you
recall, the guy Richie killed had been the guy's friend for 900 years.
That would have been pretty much a miracle for Richie to do.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 21:44:23 +0200
From: T'Mar <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: Poll: Richie: Immie wannabe & childish, or whiney voiced punk
>Ok, I know this isn't going to sit well with T'Mar ;), but here goes...
Especially since you spelled his name wrong.
Well, it's not like you weren't warned... <raising flagpole>
*WHAP* *WHAP* *WHAP*
Don't think that was enough...
*W*H*A*P*
Ah. I feel better.
>I don't know about the rest of you, but I really think Highlander the
>Series could have been richer without Ritchie (really, no pun intended),
>at least how he was portrayed.
When I first started watching the show, I remember thinking that in
a show like HL, a sidekick was completely unnecessary. I thought the
character was superfluous, actually. It doesn't matter what *kind*
of character Richie was, the character itself (sidekick) didn't
really work in the HL context.
This does not change the fact that I love Richie dearly, no matter
how superfluous the character itself was. I don't feel like
discussing whether or not Richie was whiny. Although I am wearing
my Clan Denial shirt. :) (Really.)
*Whap* (An extra one, for good measure.)
- Marina.
\\ "I don't care about their different thoughts; ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// different thoughts are good for me." || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ - Tanita Tikaram ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//=====Marina Bailey=====tmar@sifl.iid.co.za=====|| \\
\\==============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie=============//
"In science fiction, is death the final chapter of life,
or just the beginning of another story?" - Leonard Nimoy
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 11:29:06 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish, or whiney voiced punk
Shawn--
> >So, what do y'all think?
Richie was the annoying side-kick. Don't ask me WHY so many TV shows have
them, but they do, even shows like HL:TS which clearly have enough conflict
& drama built in to the premise so that an annoying side-kick is bound to be
superfluous & distracting--like Richie. As a kid, I recall Dr. Smith
driving me NUTS on Lost in Space, & Richie was much the same.
Wendy--
>>> I could have lived without Richie. There were moments he added
something to the show, others when I wished him dead (earlier than it
happened.) OTOH, the one character I absolutely could have done without is
Joe..or at least Joe as portrayed by Jim Byrnes.>>>
Charlie was also in the way. And Anne (even aside from the non-chemistry
issue). It's like the HL writers really had problems creating interesting &
vital _mortal_ characters. (And I class Richie in that group since he was
created as a mortal & as far as the show goes probably should have stayed
one, considering how his new-Immie issues were largely wasted). Tessa was
an exception, but then she was part of the original cast. Horton was
another exception. Most of the other HL:TS mortals, regulars & guests, were
less than well-conceived & less than well-acted.
> Well, he *was* a teenager and my experience with *some* teenagers is that
"oh cool, gimme" was an accurate portrayal. > He wanted what he wanted and
he wanted it *now*. At 17, who doesn't?
Yes, but Richie had shockingly little idea about how to get what he wanted
(& even less prowess at doing so), given his supposed life experience.
> Wendy(If Richie had lived to be 100, what would he have been doing?)
Still annoying people.
Nina
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 17:48:03 -0400
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish, or whiney voiced punk
At 03:25 PM 8/22/2003, Shawn wrote:
>As an 18 year old myself (or close to it), I never identified with him.
Maybe you could have identified better if you were an orphan from birth who
had been shuffled around to different foster homes and whose one foster
mother that he bonded with died when he was very young... and who had been
living on the streets for a number of years. Richie had a LOT of issues.
> Which old veterans would that be?
>That guy he picked a fight with in the bar, where his mentor (I think
>this was the case, but forget) got really pissed and came after Richie?
I remember that one. Yeah I agree Richie shouldn't have won that fight.
I also agree with Wendy that we missed some good stuff by them not using
Richie to show us the view of immortality from a newbie's pov.
-- Sandy
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 18:02:49 -0500
From: Shawn <core@enodev.com>
Subject: Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish, or whiney voiced punk
On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 16:48, Sandy Fields wrote:
> At 03:25 PM 8/22/2003, Shawn wrote:
> >As an 18 year old myself (or close to it), I never identified with him.
>
> Maybe you could have identified better if you were an orphan from birth who
> had been shuffled around to different foster homes and whose one foster
> mother that he bonded with died when he was very young... and who had been
> living on the streets for a number of years. Richie had a LOT of issues.
That's kind of the point. So few TV watching people can identify with
him enough to make us "get" where he's coming from. As a one-episode
character, this would have been perfect, but in order to make the guy a
regular, he must have qualities one can really identify with. My
reasoning? The presumably posh lifestyle he begins to live erodes his
reason for being a little bee-aahhhtch. This /really really/ especially
doesn't fly when some folks just start watching the show sometime after
Richie's intro, and don't know his history.
Thar be the bad story telling. I apologize for calling him a
bee-aaahhtch to those who might be offended, but it seems the quickest
way for me to articulate my meaning.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 18:10:13 -0400
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish, or whiney voiced punk
At 05:29 PM 8/22/2003, MacWestie wrote:
>Charlie was also in the way.
Oh gawd! I'm having a bad flashback! Charlie was like fingernails on a
chalkboard to me. Ugh!
>And Anne (even aside from the non-chemistry issue).
The concept of Anne worked for me. Duncan trying to have a relationship
with a woman was ok. I think it was time cuz I was getting pretty sick of
him bed-hopping. I think I would have enjoyed the relationship and the
character a lot more if they hadn't picked the wrong actress for the job.
>Tessa was an exception, but then she was part of the original cast.
I think Duncan's relationship with Tessa is what made the Anne character
(again... in concept) work for me. I could understand Duncan (oro anyone)
making the effort again after having had such a good relationship.
-- Sandy
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 19:05:21 -0500
From: Shawn <core@enodev.com>
Subject: Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish, or whiney voiced punk
On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 17:10, Sandy Fields wrote:
> At 05:29 PM 8/22/2003, MacWestie wrote:
> >Charlie was also in the way.
>
> Oh gawd! I'm having a bad flashback! Charlie was like fingernails on a
> chalkboard to me. Ugh!
I think he had just taken anti-acting classes... :P
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 19:29:17 -0400
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish, or whiney voiced punk
At 07:02 PM 8/22/2003, Shawn wrote:
>As a one-episode
>character, this would have been perfect, but in order to make the guy a
>regular, he must have qualities one can really identify with.
Or he has to be cute. <eg>
>My reasoning? The presumably posh lifestyle he begins to live erodes his
>reason for being a little bee-aahhhtch.
OK. I can understand how some would feel that way. But moving in with
Duncan and Tessa doesn't automatically wipe out 17 or 18 years of being
kicked around. There a many people who had bad childhoods, grew up and got
decent jobs and lived well... but the residuals of that childhood are
buried deep within and they still have emotional/personality issues.
>This /really really/ especially doesn't fly when some folks just start
>watching the show sometime after Richie's intro, and don't know his history.
I kinda think that's irrelevant. The same thing could be said about any
character on any show when someone comes in some time after that
character's introduction and the viewer doesn't know anything about his/her
background.
-- Sandy
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 20 Aug 2003 to 22 Aug 2003 (#2003-193)
***************************************************************