HIGHLA-L Digest - 24 Aug 2003 to 25 Aug 2003 - Special issue
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Mon, 25 Aug 2003 19:17:45 -0400
There are 11 messages totalling 909 lines in this issue.
Topics in this special issue:
1. Highlander The Source (2004)
2. Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish, or whiney voiced punk (2)
3. Immortals (?) In The News (2)
4. Glory Days
5. Ru Paul [Was Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish, or whiney voiced
punk] (4)
6. Ru Paul [Was Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish, or
whiney voiced punk]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 13:23:49 -0700
From: FKMel <sgt_buck_frobisher@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Highlander The Source (2004)
*raises hand* I posted the original stuff...most of it
I found out from a combination of Yahoo lists,
Holyground forum and a little bit from the official
website board.
Mel
=====
The trouble with immortality is that it tends to go on forever-Herb Cain
FK:NickNatPacker, Knight of the Cross,Knightie, Natpacker/Highlander:Duncan Flag-Waver/Due South Fan/Tracker Fan/Angel Fan/Port Charles Fan
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 01:29:27 -0500
From: Shawn <core@enodev.com>
Subject: Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish, or whiney voiced punk
On Sat, 2003-08-23 at 21:18, Wendy Tillis wrote:
> Checking back in after sending my boy off to college (Egads, he was 7 when this list was formed)(Old, I'm old!!!)
You ain't the only one who's old... ;)
> Shawn:
> >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 don't know how one writes a character- any character- that everyone can identify with. As several people have noted, the character of Richie *did* ring true for some. He *did* act the way some 18 year-olds act. He may not have acted the way *you* act (or the way you think you act<eg>) but he was a realistic portrayal of one teenager. He wasn't suppose to be an "Everyman" representing *all* teenagers. Tessa (a portrayal of a 35 year old French woman) did not react to things in the way that I would have (at that time a 35-ish American woman) but I could certainly identify with her situation and her feelings and actions.
Some, in my humble estimation, is very hopefully an extremely minute
minority of 18 year olds. Almost all the people I knew when I was 18
had started to grow up.
The qualities you mention Richie as having are only the tip of the
iceberg. Going off on a rampage picking fights that he shouldn't be able
to win sounds more like a 13 year old.
> Shawn again
> >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.
> I think you are generalizing from a very small sample <g>. *You* couldn't identify with Richie..that doesn't mean that thousands of others didn't.
I'm speaking from statistical fact, and that fact is that most 18 year
olds don't have a background sufficient to make them "understand"
Richie. Also, Richie is just not an ordinary acting 18 year old.
> > 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.
> What qualities couldn't you identify with? If not in yourself, than in other 18 year old males of your acquaintance? Richie was impatient- a quality well represented among the young (and many of the old, too). He was in hormonal overdrive- not at all unusual for teenaged males. He didn't like being told what to do. Duh- teenager! Given a choice between doing something the slow boring way or the fast exciting way, he chose fast and exciting. Again- pretty typical of teenagers. He could be sullen. Again, pretty normal. He could be goofy and silly and fun - again, normal.
He was so quick to not only stop trusting Duncan, but to toss his ethics
completely out the door, only to regain them in a single episode. He
"changed his image" and became some sort of homo-erotic version of a
motorcycle punk tough guy.
I guess the on-again off-again friendship of Joe & Duncan smacked of
middle-school boyfriend/girlfriend relationships too.
> I never thought that his basic personality had anything to do with his upbringing. He was *young* and he wanted to live in the *now*. That is absolutely typical of teenagers. He didn't want to train for hours. He didn't want to go to school. He didn't want to work and save money for the future. He wanted to have fun, have a few bucks in his pocket, rely on his young, fit body and winning smile and let tomorrow come as it may. He had all the cockiness and confidence that comes with being way too young to know just how awful things can turn out. It doesn't matter if someone older is there to point out the pitfalls, the average teen isn't going to believe them. Most teenagers think they are smarter than everyone over 25. Make that teenager immortal and ...watch out <G>
Richie is not the average 18 year old. I think people start growing up
even sooner if they end up having to fend for themselves. You have to,
or you get your ass beat. I know. Besides, almost everyone else
commenting either admits he was whiny for his age, doesn't discuss the
whiny factor, or says he comes from a tough background so it's natural.
Your teen (or their friends) must be the god of brats if you think
Richie is "normal".
> As for new viewers needing to know his history to understand his character, as I said, I don't think it matters. His character was not really "boy from the streets becomes immortal" ..it was "teenager becomes immortal".
This just isn't factually true.
> >Thar be the bad story telling.
> No, not bad story telling. Just story telling that you don't like. Two different things. You found Richie whiny. Lots of people loved him. I disliked Joe Dawson- lots of people loved him. Nina hated Charlie...um...surely someone loved him <EG> It isn't that the characters were intrinsically "bad" or poorly written, they just weren't always what any given viewer wanted to see. And, while I'd agree that some poor writing was present on occasion, the fact that we don't like a story doesn't automatically mean poor writing.
I'm entitled to my opinion.
> I never really thought of Richie as a bitch.....but then in my day :::::cough cough::: that term was less frequently used for heterosexual males. No..the more I think of it.... I don't really see Richie as a bitch at all. He was impulsive. He didn't always learn from experience. He was more trusting than the average puppy. He wanted to be like Duncan without taking the time and effort to actually become like Duncan. But he wasn't a bitch...at least not in the way I generally define that term.
It's like he was so naive as to think he could put on a Duncan costume
and mask and start taking heads, and got pissy when life was hard.
18 or not, that makes him a bitch.
> >>To me, it was like the pebble in your shoe effect as a regular
> >character.
> Again...*you* saw them as "annoying qualities" that needed explanation. That doesn't make it a universal truth that Richie *had* annoying qualities or that no one would understand why he was "annoying" (if he was). Many, many viewers would tune in and immediately understand that Richie was a teenager ......with all that normally implies. Many many viewer might tune in and find *Duncan's* behavior toward Richie to be the annoying quality.
Maybe a little summary of this thread would help:
1. I asked folks if they though Richie was a little whiny beee-ahtch
2. Folks said Richie was only a beee-ahtch because of his tough youth,
but conceded (for the most part) that he was indeed a little abrasive
and whiny.
3. I contended he could/should have been written with more broad appeal,
and this was the point I was originally trying to make.
Now, having said that, there needs to be a separation of arguments here:
1st, the original question I asked: Is Richie whiny and annoying
(regardless of his bad youth)?
2nd, the follow-on question: Assuming he is whiny, is it worth it to
have him as a regular? Should he have been a one episode character if he
was written annoying?
As I have said, I don't think writing an annoying character as a regular
good guy is a good thing. If you disagree that he is annoying, you
aren't disagreeing about the "bad writing" comment, you're disagreeing
with one of its premises; that he is annoying in the first place.
Assuming he is annoying, it is just plain a bad idea, and there is no
argument to be had. There is not going to be a consensus on his
annoyingness; the only argument is whether annoyingness (whether he is
or not) is a "Good Thing"(tm). That's more the issue at hand.
> You found Richie to be a pebble in your shoe- Marina (and others) found him to be the best reason to watch the show. So it goes.
I have a soft spot for those who are actually martial artists. It shows
some level of dedication.
But anyway, that's what this is about. Public opinion.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 00:03:10 -0700
From: Gregory Mate <gmate@rogers.com>
Subject: Immortals (?) In The News
Has anyone else seen this?
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/08/22/offbeat.dead.alive.reut/index.html
....Greg....
gmate@rogers.com
He Who Has Much E-mail To Read Now
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 10:15:05 +0000
From: beccaelizabeth <r.day@netcom.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Immortals (?) In The News
I collect stuff like this, you'd be surprised how much turns up
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4212/
fortean times stuff
beccaelizabeth
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4212/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 06:58:45 -0400
From: Judy Schneider <judyas77@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Glory Days
>From: "R. Shelton" <rshelton2@EARTHLINK.NET>
<snip>
>
>>Am I the only one who'd like to see Joe and Betsy back
>>together? I'm not sure why, but I liked them together.
>
>I thought they were great together too. Wonderful acting on JBs part
>in this ep - he really made one feel what it would be like to be in
>his situation with regards to Betsy. The actress playing Betsy did an
>exceptional job for a small guest role.
>
I liked seeing Betsy & Joe together, BUT ... I think the way she treated him
was terrible. He deserved much better than that. She comes back, they
reminisce, they have ... a good time. And she says "Gee, sorry I can't stay,
but I'm married." BLECH!!!!
I would have enjoyed seeing Joe with a lady friend, but someone who remained
alive and was a nice person would have been my choice.
Judy, the Chocolate Slayer judyas77@hotmail.com
"I never met a chocolate I didn't like"--Deanna Troi
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8: Get 6 months for $9.95/month http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 15:10:31 -0400
From: Wendy Tillis <immortals_incorporated@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish, or whiney voiced punk
Me:
>> I don't know how one writes a character- any character- that everyone
>can identify with. As several people have noted, the character of Richie
>*did* ring true for some. He *did* act the way some 18 year-olds act. He
>may not have acted the way *you* act (or the way you think you act<eg>)
>but he was a realistic portrayal of one teenager.
Shawn:
>Some, in my humble estimation, is very hopefully an extremely minute
>minority of 18 year olds. Almost all the people I knew when I was 18
>had started to grow up.
I'll refrain from any sarcastic observation that many 18 year olds only *think* they act grown up. Instead I will note *again* that while you found Richie to be an unrealistic and annoying portrayal of a teenager, he did -to many viewers- come across as realistic (if no less annoying <eg>)
>The qualities you mention Richie as having are only the tip of the
>iceberg. Going off on a rampage picking fights that he shouldn't be able
>to win sounds more like a 13 year old.
There are really two issues in your statement 1) whether he should have been able to win the fights he was shown winning and 2) whether he was immature in going off on a tear after the events of "Something Wicked".
1) In general, TPTB were careful to set up the fights that Richie won in such a way as to be at least semi-believable. Richie bested Annie because Duncan specifically trained him to beat one particular move that Duncan knew she would make. Richie wouldn't have been able to kill Mako if Mako hadn't fallen through the flooring. He did beat Kristov in a fair fight- something every young Immortal eventually does if he is to survive. While the "baby turtle theory" is alive and well when dealing with Immortals, *some* young Immortals do survive to become old Immortals. Each fight and victory makes you better and more confident and helps you win the *next* fight. Plus...one has to accept that the "heros" are going to win. Duncan walked away from lots of fights that common sense said he would have lost.
2) Was it immature to go off "head hunting" after "Something Wicked". Yes...and no. He was badly shaken by his near-death experience. This isn't immature, it's normal. He thought the best way to prevent something like that from happening again was to play the Game and gain experience and power. There *is* a thread running through the Series that the taking of heads, per se, makes you more powerful. Remember Amanda telling Danny Cimoli that maybe if he took some heads he'd be able to fight Case with a chance of winning- precipitating Danny's attempt to whack Duncan. Despite Duncan's Boy Scout opinions to the contrary, the Game is the Game..outside mortal rules. It isn't wrong or immature for Richie to play the Game to win.
Me:
>> I think you are generalizing from a very small sample <g>. *You*
>couldn't identify with Richie..that doesn't mean that thousands of others
>didn't.
Shawn:
>I'm speaking from statistical fact, and that fact is that most 18 year
>olds don't have a background sufficient to make them "understand"
>Richie.
Are you saying that to understand Richie, one has to have been raised as Richie was? That to understand an Immortal, one must be Immortal? I am not a 400 year old Scot, but I think I understood Duncan's actions and feelings very well. As I said before, I am not a French woman , but I understood Tessa's motivations and actions.
> Also, Richie is just not an ordinary acting 18 year old.
Have you considered the possibility that many of Richie's actions are rooted in the fact that he is dealing with a huge life-altering discovery? At 17 he discovers there are centurys-old Immortals running about whacking off each others' heads. He gets to see, close up, just what that life is like- the pain, the death, the loss, the danger. Then *bang* he discovers that he now has to live the same life. Like it or not. ..no choice in the matter. Danny Cimoli went into denial at the change. Michelle rebelled worse than Richie. Claudia went into a depression. Cahill went mad. As Duncan says, "It's a shock to the system". Each Immortal has to come to terms with what it means and that process is not an easy one. I don't think you can judge Richie's actions solely on how non-Immortal teenagers might behave under totally different circumstances.
Shawn:
>He was so quick to not only stop trusting Duncan, but to toss his ethics
>completely out the door, only to regain them in a single episode. He
>"changed his image" and became some sort of homo-erotic version of a
>motorcycle punk tough guy.
Duncan tried to kill him...with a smile on his face, Duncan tried to kill him. It wasn't even the first time. As far as Richie knew, Duncan was stone cold crazy and was going to stay that way forever. I think the decision to stop trusting Duncan made sense. And he didn't toss his ethics away- he made a conscious decision to *live*. To "grow stronger and live another day". As for reverting to type so quickly, I've agreed that I would have preferred a slower approach. Although- if you really watch the episodes after "EOI", there is a tension between Richie and Duncan that comes up strongly in "Haunted". they don't trust each other any more - not in the same way they once did.
As for the homo-erotic motorcycle tough guy......um....he *always* had a motorcycle. He *always* played at being a tough guy (when we all knew he was a softy). And homo-erotic...I guess that's in the eye of the beholder..care to point out specific scenes where you saw this ?
Shawn:
>Richie is not the average 18 year old. I think people start growing up
>even sooner if they end up having to fend for themselves. You have to,
>or you get your ass beat. I know.
But Richie *did* get his ass beat. He *wasn't* a tough guy. That was sort of the point. (One of the points) On the streets there are victims and sharks and Richie was destined for victimhood - or at least to be on the bottom of the ladder in criminal hierarchy. He could survive but he was still a nice kid who didn't want to hurt people.He could keep himself from starving....he could find a place to crash ("grow-up skills) but he wasn't "mature" . Few (damn few) 18 year olds are fully mature. They may be hardened due to rough lives, but that isn't the same as maturity. And even the most mature 18 year old might have trouble dealing with a momentous life change such as discovering that, from now on, the people will be coming to cut off your head and the only way to survive is to cut the other guy's head off first. I think I might throw a tantrum or two myself.
>Besides, almost everyone else
>commenting either admits he was whiny for his age, doesn't discuss the
>whiny factor, or says he comes from a tough background so it's natural.
What else do you want people to do? Some people agree that Richie is whiny. Some don't. Of those who agree, some think it was realistic and some don't. There aren't a lot of other options.
>Your teen (or their friends) must be the god of brats if you think
>Richie is "normal".
No, actually my teen is pretty non-bratty. He worked 40 hours a week all summer. He saved his money. He's never had an accident or speeding ticket. He's never come home drunk. He's never had any trouble with the police. No girlfriend ever showed up pregnant. He was/is a great student. He has lots of good friends who also don't get into trouble and who are starting to live more and more on their own as "adults" . He's bright and funny and ..yes..mature. OTOH, he also never manages to make his bed. He whines if asked to chauffeur his sister somewhere. He doesn't like being told how his life is suppose to go.He might even throw a (short) fit when thwarted from doing something he feels he has a right to to. If you told him that he was now Immortal and his life was now and forever defined by chopping off heads..he'd be more than a little whiny and bratty...at least for a while. So, yes, IMGLO, Richie's behavior was within the realm of "normal".
>> >Thar be the bad story telling.
>> No, not bad story telling. Just story telling that you don't like. Two
>different things. You found Richie whiny. Lots of people loved him. I
>disliked Joe Dawson- lots of people loved him. Nina hated
>Charlie...um...surely someone loved him <EG> It isn't that the characters
>were intrinsically "bad" or poorly written, they just weren't always what
>any given viewer wanted to see. And, while I'd agree that some poor
>writing was present on occasion, the fact that we don't like a story
>doesn't automatically mean poor writing.
>I'm entitled to my opinion.
Yes, of course you are. But you'll have to go into a lot more detail than you have if you want to actually support your opinion that Richie's tale was bad story-telling. I'd suggest that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the character of Richie nor the stories he was in. They captivated hundreds of thousands of fans. The fact that we can still discuss the pros and cons of Richie's actions in "Haunted" says that the story-telling was good. You don't bother rehashing bad story-telling 5 years later. And, again, disliking a character does not mean that the character was poorly drawn. There are people who dislike Duncan...does that mean Duncan was poorly written?
>It's like he was so naive as to think he could put on a Duncan costume
>and mask and start taking heads, and got pissy when life was hard.
<G> But that's sorta the point<G>. He was immature. He was naive. He was 17-18. Even adults who get shuffled around as children and never have stable homes can be soft-hearted and naive when it comes to certain aspects of life. Richie was an optimist. He wanted to see good in people. He wanted to live in peace. That's just what his personality was.
Further, fanfic aside, we don't know that Richie's life really was all that hard before he found Duncan. He had been in foster care, yes, and foster care isn't always ideal. He was a petty thief (something I've known kids from wealthy homes to be ) . But we also know that Angie's mother (I think it was Angie) took care of him a lot. There is no evidence of physical or mental abuse. He went to school- at least well enough to be able to discuss football and prom with Tessa. There is no evidence he was living in rat infested flop houses or trading his body for food.
As for getting pissy when life got hard....surely you don't think that is limited to immature teens? Lots of people get pissy when things turn out differently than expected. Lots of people get pissy when asked to do things they didn't expect to have to do. And I expect many people would get pissy when confronted with an Immortal lifestyle.
>18 or not, that makes him a bitch.
Or just a teenager.<EFG>
>Now, having said that, there needs to be a separation of arguments here:
>1st, the original question I asked: Is Richie whiny and annoying
>(regardless of his bad youth)?
For my part (which is all any of us can say) I did sometimes find Richie annoying.
>2nd, the follow-on question: Assuming he is whiny, is it worth it to
>have him as a regular? Should he have been a one episode character if he
>was written annoying?
What you are really saying is that *you* would have preferred HL:TS without Richie. Or that you would have preferred Richie to be a different type of character. And that's fine. But, without Richie, HL:TS would have been very different. With a more "mature," less whiny Richie, many episodes of HL would have been different. Would they have been "better"? Maybe from your point of view, but that is hardly definitive (except for *you*). The writers had a story to tell...the story *they* wanted to tell...and that story included Richie with all his "faults". If you had been writing HL, you would have had different stories to tell. Not necessarily *better* stories, just ones that*you* liked more.
>As I have said, I don't think writing an annoying character as a regular
>good guy is a good thing. If you disagree that he is annoying, you
>aren't disagreeing about the "bad writing" comment, you're disagreeing
>with one of its premises; that he is annoying in the first place.
I'm sorry...but one can agree that Richie is annoying and still think he was a good character and/or that he writing was good. It isn't an either/or proposition. Richie was *a* character. He had faults and good points - as any well-drawn character should have. Could he be exasperating? Of course. And the fact that he drew such an emotional response from the audience means the writers *did* capture some "truth" about the ways of teenaged boys. Not *all* teenaged boys..but enough to be recognizable to many many viewers.
> the only argument is whether annoyingness (whether he is
>or not) is a "Good Thing"(tm). That's more the issue at hand.
What you seem to be proposing is that no series should ever have a character whose personality is annoying to any possible member of the audience - even if that character is a realistic portrayal of some "real" people. If Richie had been a mature, compliant, reasonable, level-headed, hard-working, obedient teenager- what would be the point of having him in the Series?? Where is the conflict? A character like *that* is the one who can only last one episode- because there is no story to tell if Richie listens to Duncan and does what he is told. It's no different than Duncan himself- if Duncan always knew the exact right thing to do and did it perfectly- why would anyone watch him for 6 years? The story is in the mistakes, the angst over making choices, the anger and self-doubt when seemingly good choices go bad, etc.
>> You found Richie to be a pebble in your shoe- Marina (and others) found
>him to be the best reason to watch the show. So it goes.
>I have a soft spot for those who are actually martial artists. It shows
>some level of dedication.
You lost me. Are you upset because Richie wasn't shown training day after day week after week to perfect his martial arts form? 1) showing that would be boring, 2) one must assume that Richie (and the others) are training when we don't see them, just as we assume they use the bathroom when we're not watching and, 3) Richie was never shown to be a martial arts expert.
>But anyway, that's what this is about. Public opinion.
No, not *public* opinion. Your opinion. Or my opinion. You can't extrapolate.
Wendy (Who would believe that I would be defending Richie?)(Or the writers)
Immortals Inc.
immortals_incorporated@cox.net
"Weasels for Eternity"
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 15:39:33 -0500
From: Shawn <core@enodev.com>
Subject: Ru Paul [Was Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish,
or whiney voiced punk]
Keep in mind, this is all still meant to be simply an exchange of
opinion. I don't hope to win an argument to have Richie declared "Queen
Bee-aahhtch(tm)"
On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 14:10, Wendy Tillis wrote:
> Are you saying that to understand Richie, one has to have been raised as Richie was? That to understand an Immortal, one must be Immortal? I am not a 400 year old Scot, but I think I understood Duncan's actions and feelings very well. As I said before, I am not a French woman , but I understood Tessa's motivations and actions.
Nah, just that my estimation of him is uncharacteristic as an 18 year
old, and if this is a result of his upbringing, few TV watching (hence,
relatively more affluent than homeless folks) will understand him, and
that this would be a barrier for identifying with him.
> Have you considered the possibility that many of Richie's actions are rooted in the fact that he is dealing with a huge life-altering discovery? At 17 he discovers there are centurys-old Immortals running about whacking off each others' heads. He gets to see, close up, just what that life is like- the pain, the death, the loss, the danger. Then *bang* he discovers that he now has to live the same life. Like it or not. ..no choice in the matter. Danny Cimoli went into denial at the change. Michelle rebelled worse than Richie. Claudia went into a depression. Cahill went mad. As Duncan says, "It's a shock to the system". Each Immortal has to come to terms with what it means and that process is not an easy one. I don't think you can judge Richie's actions solely on how non-Immortal teenagers might behave under totally different circumstances.
I don't know about everyone else, but I prefer to think that newly
attained immortality would allow for a newfound sense of perspective.
Just my subjective opinion.
> As for the homo-erotic motorcycle tough guy......um....he *always* had a motorcycle. He *always* played at being a tough guy (when we all knew he was a softy). And homo-erotic...I guess that's in the eye of the beholder..care to point out specific scenes where you saw this ?
Homo-erotic is used by me /really/ loosely. The fact that he just doesn't
pull the look off makes him (to me) look like an extra in a village
people music video.
> But Richie *did* get his ass beat. He *wasn't* a tough guy. That was sort of the point. (One of the points) On the streets there are victims and sharks and Richie was destined for victimhood - or at least to be on the bottom of the ladder in criminal hierarchy. He could survive but he was still a nice kid who didn't want to hurt people.He could keep himself from starving....he could find a place to crash ("grow-up skills) but he wasn't "mature" . Few (damn few) 18 year olds are fully mature. They may be hardened due to rough lives, but that isn't the same as maturity. And even the most mature 18 year old might have trouble dealing with a momentous life change such as discovering that, from now on, the people will be coming to cut off your head and the only way to survive is to cut the other guy's head off first. I think I might throw a tantrum or two myself.
Just voicing that I would have been infinitely less annoyed if he had
been made a little bit (lot) more pragmatic, and more on the stoic side.
As it was, he was emotionally driven. He was almost the bad female
stereotype in this regard. I say bad as I obviously believe the overly
emotional and illogical stereotype to be damaging to women, and
fallacious.
> No, actually my teen is pretty non-bratty. He worked 40 hours a week all summer. He saved his money. He's never had an accident or speeding ticket. He's never come home drunk. He's never had any trouble with the police. No girlfriend ever showed up pregnant. He was/is a great student. He has lots of good friends who also don't get into trouble and who are starting to live more and more on their own as "adults" . He's bright and funny and ..yes..mature. OTOH, he also never manages to make his bed. He whines if asked to chauffeur his sister somewhere. He doesn't like being told how his life is suppose to go.He might even throw a (short) fit when thwarted from doing something he feels he has a right to to. If you told him that he was now Immortal and his life was now and forever defined by chopping off heads..he'd be more than a little whiny and bratty...at least for a while. So, yes, IMGLO, Richie's behavior was within the realm of "normal".
Perfect! I don't know where you get that most 18 year olds are hell bent
on anarchy and have pissy bitchie tendencies.
> Yes, of course you are. But you'll have to go into a lot more detail than you have if you want to actually support your opinion that Richie's tale was bad story-telling. I'd suggest that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the character of Richie nor the stories he was in. They captivated hundreds of thousands of fans. The fact that we can still discuss the pros and cons of Richie's actions in "Haunted" says that the story-telling was good. You don't bother rehashing bad story-telling 5 years later. And, again, disliking a character does not mean that the character was poorly drawn. There are people who dislike Duncan...does that mean Duncan was poorly written?
Opinions are by definition subjective and do not need to be "backed up".
I simply believe that
1. The character of Richie was annoying (I'm not the only one)
2. Annoying characters should be short term
2a. Richie is whiny. (subjective)
2b. It had been posed that Richie was only annoying due to his tough
upbringing.
2c. Characters which require one to understand the specificities of
their life story in order to identify with them have a "learning-curve"
if you will, which new viewers would find to be an obstacle in the way
of identifying with said character.
2d. A large portion of viewers find Richie annoying. (opinion based
on anecdotal evidence)
3. One of the goals of any TV series is to reach out to a larger,
hotter, or in any case, additional demographic to the extent that
artistic integrity is not violated and core fan base is not alienated.
ERGO:
Given the subjective opinions stated are true, the conclusion of
"Bad Storytelling(tm)", or, at least counterproductive storytelling is
at least likely.
My opinion does not need "backing". This is a conclusion of "Bad
Storytelling(tm)" based on subjective opinion, but more to the point,
that's what ANY such argument would be based on. What's "BAD"?
> >It's like he was so naive as to think he could put on a Duncan costume
> >and mask and start taking heads, and got pissy when life was hard.
> <G> But that's sorta the point<G>. He was immature. He was naive. He was 17-18. Even adults who get shuffled around as children and never have stable homes can be soft-hearted and naive when it comes to certain aspects of life. Richie was an optimist. He wanted to see good in people. He wanted to live in peace. That's just what his personality was.
No, the point was "Do you agree that he was pissy and that sux0red?"
> Further, fanfic aside, we don't know that Richie's life really was all that hard before he found Duncan. He had been in foster care, yes, and foster care isn't always ideal. He was a petty thief (something I've known kids from wealthy homes to be ) . But we also know that Angie's mother (I think it was Angie) took care of him a lot. There is no evidence of physical or mental abuse. He went to school- at least well enough to be able to discuss football and prom with Tessa. There is no evidence he was living in rat infested flop houses or trading his body for food.
So his personality was peace, but he went on an indiscriminate killing spree.
You'd think he would at least select his enemies more carefully based on
like/dislike, evil/good, etc etc.
> As for getting pissy when life got hard....surely you don't think that is limited to immature teens? Lots of people get pissy when things turn out differently than expected. Lots of people get pissy when asked to do things they didn't expect to have to do. And I expect many people would get pissy when confronted with an Immortal lifestyle.
My point has always been a subjective one, and that is that this detracts from
the story, and asked others for their opinion too.
> >18 or not, that makes him a bitch.
> Or just a teenager.<EFG>
I don't know where you get this, and frankly I find it odorous to assume
these "qualities" exist in the "average" 18 year old. As an 18 year old
I would have been spitting mad at having been insulted in such general
terms, and questioned your maturity for making such a generalization.
> >Now, having said that, there needs to be a separation of arguments here:
> >1st, the original question I asked: Is Richie whiny and annoying
> >(regardless of his bad youth)?
> For my part (which is all any of us can say) I did sometimes find Richie annoying.
Opinion noted.
> >2nd, the follow-on question: Assuming he is whiny, is it worth it to
> >have him as a regular? Should he have been a one episode character if he
> >was written annoying?
>
> What you are really saying is that *you* would have preferred HL:TS without Richie. Or that you would have preferred Richie to be a different type of character. And that's fine. But, without Richie, HL:TS would have been very different. With a more "mature," less whiny Richie, many episodes of HL would have been different. Would they have been "better"? Maybe from your point of view, but that is hardly definitive (except for *you*). The writers had a story to tell...the story *they* wanted to tell...and that story included Richie with all his "faults". If you had been writing HL, you would have had different stories to tell. Not necessarily *better* stories, just ones that*you* liked more.
I think you're forgetting that of course the subjectivity of the follow-on
goes without saying and is assumed. I'm not trying to win a tug of war. I
don't have to preface everything I say which is intrinsically opinion with
a disclaimer stating that the following is my opinion. It truly goes
without saying.
> >As I have said, I don't think writing an annoying character as a regular
> >good guy is a good thing. If you disagree that he is annoying, you
> >aren't disagreeing about the "bad writing" comment, you're disagreeing
> >with one of its premises; that he is annoying in the first place.
> I'm sorry...but one can agree that Richie is annoying and still think he was a good character and/or that he writing was good. It isn't an either/or proposition. Richie was *a* character. He had faults and good points - as any well-drawn character should have. Could he be exasperating? Of course. And the fact that he drew such an emotional response from the audience means the writers *did* capture some "truth" about the ways of teenaged boys. Not *all* teenaged boys..but enough to be recognizable to many many viewers.
...and what part of what I said disagrees with that? You're still merely
disagreeing with one of my basic premises, not the validity of the
argument itself. The only difference is that you disagree with the other
premise, which I have already acknowledged many times is subjective, and
was the point of the "poll" to begin with.
I really don't feel obliged to teach you the fundamentals of logic.
> > the only argument is whether annoyingness (whether he is
> >or not) is a "Good Thing"(tm). That's more the issue at hand.
> What you seem to be proposing is that no series should ever have a character whose personality is annoying to any possible member of the audience - even if that character is a realistic portrayal of some "real" people. If Richie had been a mature, compliant, reasonable, level-headed, hard-working, obedient teenager- what would be the point of having him in the Series?? Where is the conflict? A character like *that* is the one who can only last one episode- because there is no story to tell if Richie listens to Duncan and does what he is told. It's no different than Duncan himself- if Duncan always knew the exact right thing to do and did it perfectly- why would anyone watch him for 6 years? The story is in the mistakes, the angst over making choices, the anger and self-doubt when seemingly good choices go bad, etc.
I'm really struggling with whether to even reply to this, as you are
totally putting words in my mouth.
Ru Paul is not a good regular immortal character simply because he
portrays someone who is realistic to "some" people. Richie falls into
the same (yet to a lesser extent) category. I have to say, I would
definitely watch a one-episode Ru Paul HL:TS.
I'm saying he is probably annoying to more people than not, and that the
fact that he may be realistic to some does not give enough reason to
have him there in his current form.
> >I have a soft spot for those who are actually martial artists. It shows
> >some level of dedication.
> You lost me. Are you upset because Richie wasn't shown training day after day week after week to perfect his martial arts form? 1) showing that would be boring, 2) one must assume that Richie (and the others) are training when we don't see them, just as we assume they use the bathroom when we're not watching and, 3) Richie was never shown to be a martial arts expert.
No, just saying that Stan relies on choreography, and Richie+sword-fight
is more boring as a result. (my opinion, and I bet I'm not alone) Make
him a regular character, and you have more boring sword fights on average.
That's just math (with sort-of subjective variables). It is necessarily
true, though, that given all else is equal, introducing weenie sword
fights waters down the average if what you're looking for is skillful
swordplay.
> >But anyway, that's what this is about. Public opinion.
> No, not *public* opinion. Your opinion. Or my opinion. You can't extrapolate.
Huh? That doesn't even make any sense. I'm not saying the ethereal
"Public" necessarily agrees with me. You make me out to be like thought
patrol, pointing out where everyone else is obviously retarded.
You need to buy (and read) a book on critical thinking.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 18:20:25 -0400
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Ru Paul [Was Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish,
or whiney voiced punk]
At 04:39 PM 8/25/2003, Shawn wrote:
>I don't know about everyone else, but I prefer to think that newly
>attained immortality would allow for a newfound sense of perspective.
It does. But that comes "after" the initial shock and reaction.
Wendy:
> > As for the homo-erotic motorcycle tough guy......um....he *always* had
> a motorcycle. He *always* played at being a tough guy (when we all knew
> he was a softy). And homo-erotic...I guess that's in the eye of the
> beholder..care to point out specific scenes where you saw this ?
Shawn:
>Homo-erotic is used by me /really/ loosely. The fact that he just doesn't
>pull the look off makes him (to me) look like an extra in a village people
>music video.
What look are you referring to?
>Just voicing that I would have been infinitely less annoyed if he had
>been made a little bit (lot) more pragmatic, and more on the stoic side.
>As it was, he was emotionally driven.
Like most 17/18 year olds.
>Opinions are by definition subjective and do not need to be "backed up".
On this list they do. :-) That's how we get "discussion".
<snipped subjective opinions>
> ERGO:
> Given the subjective opinions stated are true, the conclusion of
>"Bad Storytelling(tm)", or, at least counterproductive storytelling is
>at least likely.
Well I would guess that "most" HL fans don't agree with your subjective
opinions. Here are my subjective opinions:
1) Richie was annoying sometimes, just like most people his age.
2) The fact that he was annoying (even if he were annoying *all* the time)
doesn't mean he shouldn't have been a regular in the show.
3) Most people wouldn't need Richie's backstory to understand the character
4) And *none* of it means there was any bad storytelling.. it just means
you don't like the character.
>My point has always been a subjective one, and that is that this detracts
>from the story, and asked others for their opinion too.
I think it added to the story. It let us see how one person would react to
new immortality.
>I don't know where you get this, and frankly I find it odorous to assume
>these "qualities" exist in the "average" 18 year old. As an 18 year old
>I would have been spitting mad at having been insulted in such general
>terms, and questioned your maturity for making such a generalization.
Oh good grief.
>I really don't feel obliged to teach you the fundamentals of logic.
Oh... my. Ouch #1
> > > the only argument is whether annoyingness (whether he is > >or not)
> is a "Good Thing"(tm). That's more the issue at hand.
It can be a good thing... just like having a bad guy is a good thing. The
bad guy always tries to kill the hero, rule the world, or destroy it or
whatever. Those actions are annoying.. but necessary to give the hero
something to play against. Richie's character served a similar purpose, as
did all the other characters in the cast. They each provided their own
characteristics for Duncan to react or interact with. Richie was the
"teenager turned immortal", for which Duncan felt responsible. Duncan was
his mentor/teacher. If Richie were doing all the right things, making all
the right decisions, becoming a martial arts expert, etc., then Duncan
wouldn't have any teaching/mentoring to do.
>Ru Paul is not a good regular immortal character simply because he
>portrays someone who is realistic to "some" people.
Gee... I think it would have been very interesting to see RuPaul as a new
immie on a regular basis.
>I'm saying he is probably annoying to more people than not, and that the
>fact that he may be realistic to some does not give enough reason to
>have him there in his current form.
And I'm saying you're wrong. The fact that a character has annoying traits
does NOT mean that the character shouldn't be there. Plus, I still say that
*most* (not "some") HL viewers found Richie's character to be quite realistic.
>No, just saying that Stan relies on choreography, and Richie+sword-fight
>is more boring as a result. (my opinion, and I bet I'm not alone) Make
>him a regular character, and you have more boring sword fights on average.
Most actors rely on choreography for swordfight.. for *any* fights as a
matter of fact. Most actors don't have the sword and martial arts skills
that Adrian Paul has. Plus, Richie only had one or 2 on-screen fights out
of the whole 6 years of the show anyway... it's a non-issue.
>That's just math (with sort-of subjective variables). It is necessarily
>true, though, that given all else is equal, introducing weenie sword
>fights waters down the average if what you're looking for is skillful
>swordplay.
Folks who are casting a tv show are usually looking for good actors. Then
they get swordmasters, stunt men, and choreographers to work with the
actors on the fights. PD got lucky with Adrian.
>You need to buy (and read) a book on critical thinking.
Ouch #2. Why are you being insulting?
-- Sandy
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 18:50:05 -0400
From: L Cameron-Norfleet <cgliser@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Ru Paul [Was Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish,
or whiney voiced punk]
Sandy, to Shawn:
>Well I would guess that "most" HL fans don't agree with your subjective
>opinions. Here are my subjective opinions:
>
>1) Richie was annoying sometimes, just like most people his age.
>2) The fact that he was annoying (even if he were annoying *all* the time)
>doesn't mean he shouldn't have been a regular in the show.
I find Duncan annoying ALL the time. Ergo, he was written poorly and
should not have been a regular in the show.
Right, Shawn?
Shawn:
>>No, just saying that Stan relies on choreography, and Richie+sword-fight
>>is more boring as a result. (my opinion, and I bet I'm not alone) Make
>>him a regular character, and you have more boring sword fights on average.
Sandy:
>Most actors rely on choreography for swordfight.. for *any* fights as a
>matter of fact.
ALL actors rely on choreography during fights. If they don't,
someone gets hurt. It doesn't matter if Adrian is a martial arts
expert, or if Sarah Michelle Gellar has a black belt, or if Peter
Wingfield is certified level 3 in stage combat...one simply does not
adlib in a fight scene. It's *dangerous*.
We're not talking about real fights here. We're talking about
choreographed fights that are supposed to look real. The difference?
In a real fight, you are trying to hurt the other person. In a
choreographed fight, you're trying to LOOK like you're trying to hurt
the other person WITHOUT actually doing so. Every hit is scheduled
with a block or a dodge. Make it up on the spot and your partner may
or may not be quick enough to catch it. If they're not, they get
hurt.
And yes, it HURTS to get hit with a sword. Even an aluminum one with
a dull edge. I have a scar from missing a parry, in fact.
> Most actors don't have the sword and martial arts skills
>that Adrian Paul has. Plus, Richie only had one or 2 on-screen fights out
>of the whole 6 years of the show anyway... it's a non-issue.
Adrian's martial arts skills probably gave him an edge (no pun
intended) when it came to making the fights look more real. Stan
wasn't as good at it--at ACTING like he knew how to fight.
For example, watch the fight scene between Kronos and Cassandra in
Horsemen. Valentine Pelka is very experienced with stage combat.
Tracy Scoggins is not. You can tell. There are points in the fight
where it's clear that he's...slowing himself down to keep with the
pace she is capable of. He's better at acting like a swordsman.
Shawn:
>>You need to buy (and read) a book on critical thinking.
Oh. My.
{{shakes head sadly}}
Liser
--
--
L Cameron-Norfleet ** cgliser@earthlink.net
"I find tongues in trees, books in running brooks,
sermons in stones, and good in everything." Shakespeare: As You Like It
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 12:57:43 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Ru Paul [Was Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish,
or whiney voiced punk]
Shawn--
> I don't hope to win an argument to have Richie declared "Queen
> Bee-aahhtch(tm)"
Lucky for you, as it happens.
> Homo-erotic is used by me /really/ loosely.
Not on this list, it isn't. Nothing is, actually. Say what you mean & mean
what you say, or you waste the time of those trying to discuss things w/
you.
> The fact that he just doesn't
> pull the look off makes him (to me) look like an extra in a village
> people music video.
Nah, that was just the crappy green jacket. Tessa soon tossed it.
> Opinions are by definition subjective and do not need to be "backed up".
You' re new here, right? The point of a discussion list like this one is to
present _& defend_ one's opinions. That means thinking before one types,
not speaking "loosely," backing up opinions, etc.
> No, the point was "Do you agree that he was pissy and that sux0red?"
Huh?
> I don't know where you get this, and frankly I find it odorous to assume
> these "qualities" exist in the "average" 18 year old. As an 18 year old
> I would have been spitting mad at having been insulted in such general
> terms, and questioned your maturity for making such a generalization.
Which would have been less than a mature reaction & completely typical....
> I really don't feel obliged to teach you the fundamentals of logic.
Which is a good thing, considering you don't appear equiped to teach anyone
much of anything.
Nina
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 18:17:01 -0500
From: Shawn <core@enodev.com>
Subject: Re: Ru Paul [Was Re: Poll: Ritchie: Immie wannabe & childish,
or whiney voiced punk]
On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 17:20, Sandy Fields wrote:
> >Homo-erotic is used by me /really/ loosely. The fact that he just doesn't
> >pull the look off makes him (to me) look like an extra in a village people
> >music video.
> What look are you referring to?
Wannabe bad-ass leather clad slick hair brat.
> >Just voicing that I would have been infinitely less annoyed if he had
> >been made a little bit (lot) more pragmatic, and more on the stoic side.
> >As it was, he was emotionally driven.
> Like most 17/18 year olds.
This is insulting, and further, a generalization.
> >Opinions are by definition subjective and do not need to be "backed up".
> On this list they do. :-) That's how we get "discussion".
Discussion aside, no one wins a tug of war of opinions unless you simply make
it majority rule, and that's like letting congress decide whether the world
is flat or spheroid.
> <snipped subjective opinions>
> > ERGO:
> > Given the subjective opinions stated are true, the conclusion of
> >"Bad Storytelling(tm)", or, at least counterproductive storytelling is
> >at least likely.
> Well I would guess that "most" HL fans don't agree with your subjective
> opinions. Here are my subjective opinions:
That's what the poll was for. ;)
> 1) Richie was annoying sometimes, just like most people his age.
> 2) The fact that he was annoying (even if he were annoying *all* the time)
> doesn't mean he shouldn't have been a regular in the show.
> 3) Most people wouldn't need Richie's backstory to understand the character
> 4) And *none* of it means there was any bad storytelling.. it just means
> you don't like the character.
Noted.
> >My point has always been a subjective one, and that is that this detracts
> >from the story, and asked others for their opinion too.
> I think it added to the story. It let us see how one person would react to
> new immortality.
A valid point. Perspective is important here, as for me, he did not. I cannot
be wrong WRT my own valuations. For me, detract... for you, added. Cool.
> >I don't know where you get this, and frankly I find it odorous to assume
> >these "qualities" exist in the "average" 18 year old. As an 18 year old
> >I would have been spitting mad at having been insulted in such general
> >terms, and questioned your maturity for making such a generalization.
> Oh good grief.
It's insulting! Most women are plagued with vanity, poor logic, and do
their makeup in the rear-view mirror. Even though this might not be
/you/, are you not insulted by statements like that? What if it were
even true? Should you be less insulted?
> >I really don't feel obliged to teach you the fundamentals of logic.
> Oh... my. Ouch #1
Well, how can I put it nicely? This person was putting words in my mouth
and couldn't see it.
> > > > the only argument is whether annoyingness (whether he is > >or not)
> > is a "Good Thing"(tm). That's more the issue at hand.
> It can be a good thing... just like having a bad guy is a good thing. The
> bad guy always tries to kill the hero, rule the world, or destroy it or
> whatever. Those actions are annoying.. but necessary to give the hero
> something to play against. Richie's character served a similar purpose, as
> did all the other characters in the cast. They each provided their own
> characteristics for Duncan to react or interact with. Richie was the
> "teenager turned immortal", for which Duncan felt responsible. Duncan was
> his mentor/teacher. If Richie were doing all the right things, making all
> the right decisions, becoming a martial arts expert, etc., then Duncan
> wouldn't have any teaching/mentoring to do.
Almost seems like they were trying to break out of some false dichotomy
which dictates good guys can't be mentally weak.
> >Ru Paul is not a good regular immortal character simply because he
> >portrays someone who is realistic to "some" people.
> Gee... I think it would have been very interesting to see RuPaul as a new
> immie on a regular basis.
*lol* Ah, hell no... *chortle*
I'd watch for an ep... No more.
> >I'm saying he is probably annoying to more people than not, and that the
> >fact that he may be realistic to some does not give enough reason to
> >have him there in his current form.
> And I'm saying you're wrong. The fact that a character has annoying traits
> does NOT mean that the character shouldn't be there. Plus, I still say that
> *most* (not "some") HL viewers found Richie's character to be quite realistic.
By realistic do you mean "most 18 yr olds", or do you contend that it's
not /that/ far off the beaten path?
> >No, just saying that Stan relies on choreography, and Richie+sword-fight
> >is more boring as a result. (my opinion, and I bet I'm not alone) Make
> >him a regular character, and you have more boring sword fights on average.
> Most actors rely on choreography for swordfight.. for *any* fights as a
> matter of fact. Most actors don't have the sword and martial arts skills
> that Adrian Paul has. Plus, Richie only had one or 2 on-screen fights out
> of the whole 6 years of the show anyway... it's a non-issue.
On the non-issue, good point. I guess the Richie character was an onion
in my pie, but not for you. (In ym opinion, you must like onions in your
pie...) ;)
> >That's just math (with sort-of subjective variables). It is necessarily
> >true, though, that given all else is equal, introducing weenie sword
> >fights waters down the average if what you're looking for is skillful
> >swordplay.
> Folks who are casting a tv show are usually looking for good actors. Then
> they get swordmasters, stunt men, and choreographers to work with the
> actors on the fights. PD got lucky with Adrian.
This turned out to be more of a non-issue, as you point out.
> >You need to buy (and read) a book on critical thinking.
> Ouch #2. Why are you being insulting?
I find it insulting when someone goes off like "...oh, so you're saying
you don't want any possibility of any character being annoying to
anyone.", which clearly was not the case. It's childish to misrepresent
someone and then try to "straw-man" them with it. It amounts to "Oh,
you're saying this ridiculous thing... Look, your obviously stupid
statement is wrong."
What I said was quite clear, and the aforementioned misrepresentation
was asking for the response it got.
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 24 Aug 2003 to 25 Aug 2003 - Special issue (#2003-196)
*******************************************************************************