HIGHLA-L Digest - 15 Apr 2004 to 16 Apr 2004 - Special issue (#2004-70)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Fri, 16 Apr 2004 17:38:36 -0400
There are 13 messages totalling 822 lines in this issue.
Topics in this special issue:
1. HL Season 4 dvd's contest
2. Season Three dvds: Song of the Executioner (8)
3. Verbs and Reverbs. (4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 22:09:00 -0700
From: Sherri C <sherric@empnet.com>
Subject: HL Season 4 dvd's contest
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/contest04.html
The Digital Bits is giving away 5 sets of Season 4 on dvd - the deadline is
the 18th. Thought someone out there would be interested. :)
Sherri sherric@empnet.com
"To build with trees, you must first disconnect them from the ground." Roy
Underhill, "The Woodwright's Eclectic Workshop"
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 07:36:42 -0400
From: kageorge <kageorge@erols.com>
Subject: Season Three dvds: Song of the Executioner
COMMENTARY: Stephen Geaghan talks about the difficulties in creating a
medieval European monastery. Their budgets were limited, so once Geaghan
came up with an estimate to do it, he was stuck with that figure and had to
make it work. They designed a sizeable space with a colonnade down one side
with intervening areas and cubicles they could move around and fit in.
AP said he was surprised they built a set as elaborate as the one in this
episode, which was also able to be used in several different ways, and later
mentions he thought the monastery was "an awesome set" which they kept and
used later in "Homeland."
Geaghan tells us the set was multi-purpose, used as the entry way, hallways,
the church, the dining room, a scriptorium, a side chapel and a bedroom.
They carefully organized the changeovers to occur during a lunch hour or
overnight, so there was a lot of pressure on the shooting crew to time
everything just right. The actual structure was built around standardized
hexagonal columns, avoiding complex curves. So they "cheated" their curves
by using simple cost-effective materials like soft foam that was laid on and
carved. They also made the set deep and wide, but only went up to about 12
feet, and "cheated" with tapestries to create height.
Adrian says that he really liked story arcs, and wanted to push for more
two-part episodes that had more story content. The problem was with that was
that with a syndicated series you would sometimes have segments shown out of
sequence, but "Song of the Executioner" was a strong concept and it set the
ground for the relationship between MacLeod and Kalas for the rest of the
season.
David Tynan said this episode was part of a trilogy of shows that focused on
the relationship between MacLeod and Anne Lindsay. In "Shadows" the
relationship was at loggerheads, and at the end of this episode Anne sees
MacLeod die. He says they had to find a way to get MacLeod away from Anne
and over to Paris, and to take the relationship to another level in the next
episode.
Adrian says Dr. Anne was a great concept, but it just didn't "work quite as
well as the Tessa/MacLeod relationship." The idea of setting MacLeod up with
someone who saved lives, where he was taking them, was an interesting idea.
But somehow it didn't hit its mark as a chemistry between the two
characters. The device of having him die in front of her created an
interesting obstacle, and provided and opportunity to see what would happen
between them later on. Adrian tells us that you can like a person off
screen, and have a great time with them, but there is an intangible
chemistry that either happens or doesn't on screen (how many times now has
someone said that about poor, hapless Lisa Howard?), and you can't tell
whether that is going to occur until you actually do it.
OUTTAKES: Gillian says they were filming in Vancouver (this was the last
episode before moving to Paris) and David Abramowitz, who in real life is a
cantor, was asked to stand in as one of the singing monks. In a scene in the
monastery, we see him pouring wine for Barbarian!Duncan as he is talking to
Brother Timon. Gillian says David commented that he was, "serving the
talent, as always."
The filming in Vancouver was coming to a close, and we see Duncan in the
scene where he is in monk's robes walking along a corridor, looking at his
copy of "MacBeth". He is ambushed by Bill Panzer spraying champagne all over
him. Adrian then grabs a bottle, shakes it and the two of them end up
spraying each other. A grinning Adrian raises his hands and says, "It's a
wrap!" and everyone applauds.
THE EPISODE: We are introduced to Brother Paul, who in the opening scene is
part of a choir of monks singing plainchant as Duncan and Anne listen in the
audience. Up in the stage-manager's booth we see an evil-looking guy
watching (Kalas), as well, noting Duncan's presence and stroking an ugly
scar on his throat.
MacLeod and Brother Paul agree to meet later and catch up on their
friendship, but after everyone leaves Brother Paul is confronted by Kalas,
who was the "record promoter" who had arranged to bring them there. When
Brother Paul asks to say a final prayer, Kalas says evilly, "While you're at
it, say one for MacLeod." (Whack!) And we see Brother Paul's rosary beads
aflame.
In a flashback to Europe in 1658, we see MacLeod, bedraggled, exhausted and
suspicious, arrive at Brother Paul's monastery, a refuge for weary
Immortals. There, Duncan meets Brother Timon and Brother Kalas, who is a
singer with a beautiful voice. Duncan becomes friends with Timon, who
teaches him to read.
Back in the present, when Brother Paul never shows up to meet with MacLeod,
he gets worried, wondering to Richie if he should have stayed with him to
protect him. Richie, sensing that Duncan is really concerned, offers to
forego a chance to ride in a professional motorcycle circuit race in order
to stick around, (The boy is growing up!) but Duncan says there's nothing
Richie can do.
In another flashback, we see Duncan finally beginning to find peace at the
monastery. He talks to Kalas about his perfecting the art of calligraphy,
and being able to exactly duplicate another's work. Kalas tells Duncan that
everything he wants is within the walls of the monastery, and that it seems
like his voice "touches heaven," and that he cannot imagine leaving. Duncan
is suspicious of Kalas, thinking he is being evasive or untruthful about the
disappearance of an Immortal friend Duncan had expected to meet when he
first came to the monastery. When Timon unexpectedly departs, Duncan follows
and comes upon Kalas beheading Timon as he steps off of holy ground. Brother
Paul, who had been Kalas' first teacher, angrily throws Kalas out for using
monastery to kill his own kind and betraying Paul's beliefs. Kalas protests,
saying the monastery was his life, and blames Duncan for his downfall.
Back in the present, Duncan is sent a package with Paul's crucifix, so he
knows Paul is dead. In the meantime, Kalas frames Anne for the death a
couple of her patients. He also sets up Joe to have the police find drugs at
his bar and Joe gets arrested. Duncan figures out that it is Kalas trying to
hurt everyone close to him, and manages to clear Anne by establishing that
Anne's signature had been forged. Anne is distraught that Duncan won't tell
him how he knows that someone was trying to frame her, or what the threat is
that he alludes to when he tells her won't let anyone hurt her. He can't
tell her what's going on, and she says that if he walks away, "It's going to
be the last time!" But reluctantly, he just turns and leaves.
Joe's Bar, in the meantime, has been closed by the police. Duncan tracks
down the lowlife who set Joe up and forces him to tell him who had paid him
to do it, and to tell the police about what he had done.
Duncan meets Kalas back at the music hall where Brother Paul and his monks
had performed. In a long fight, where Duncan is really getting the worst of
it, they end up on the catwalks above the auditorium, with Duncan dangling
off, barely holding on. Anne was brought to the same place by a note Kalas
had sent, and when Duncan sees her there, he has to make a choice, and he
lets go, falling to his death. Anne runs to him, weeping hysterically over
his body. Richie arrives and drags her away before Duncan revives.
Anne makes one last visit to the dojo, telling Richie how much she regretted
their last angry conversation. Duncan was listening and comes down the
stairs after she leaves. Richie asks how he can let her think that he's
dead.
"Because the truth would be far worse," he answers sadly. "It's better this
way."
Richie says Anne loves him, that maybe she can handle the truth.
"And be dragged into our world?" Duncan asks, near tears. "Kalas isn't going
to go away. I couldn't handle another Tessa," and says he has to leave.
The last scene is of Kalas standing on stage passionately lip-singing to a
recording of "Vesti la giubba." But we know it's not really him because he
had exposed the horrible scar on his neck, a wound which had destroyed his
beautiful voice forever.
MY COMMENTARY: This is far more of a standard plot than something like
"Blind Faith" - it has the old enemy come back to threaten Duncan and
everyone he cares about. The flashbacks were well done, and it was
interesting to see Duncan gradually pulling himself together after what was
evidently a long, difficult time of violence and despair in his life.
The monastery was also where he seemed to really take to reading and
learning, even if the monastic life chafed after a while. We have to assume
he spent quite a while there, and it is interesting to speculate just how
long that period was, six months? A couple of years? Long enough, at
least, to have him reading Shakespeare fairly proficiently.
It was also good to see MacLeod meet an opponent who was presented as a
swordsman at least as good as he was, and a real threat.
Frankly, however, I prefer episodes that deal with more substantive themes
than this one does. Kalas is a straightforward Really Bad Guy with no real
gray areas about who he is or why he is after MacLeod. However, this story
sets up better episodes for the future, where we meet Methos, and have
Finale I and II, so I can't complain too much. All in all, it was an okay
episode, but certainly not one of my favs.
MacG
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 09:45:53 -0400
From: Wendy Tillis <immortals_incorporated@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Season Three dvds: Song of the Executioner
MacGeorge says:
>Frankly, however, I prefer episodes that deal with more substantive themes
>than this one does. Kalas is a straightforward Really Bad Guy with no real
>gray areas about who he is or why he is after MacLeod. However, this story
>sets up better episodes for the future, where we meet Methos, and have
>Finale I and II, so I can't complain too much. All in all, it was an okay
>episode, but certainly not one of my favs.
This was one of those episodes that one knew was supposed to be important- after all it was the first of a 3 part arc- and yet it just didn't grab me. Maybe because there were so many plot holes that required too much suspension of disbelief.
Kalas too easily manages to set up Anne as an incompetent doctor who kills her patients. Worse, Duncan's ability to solve the issue in about 5 minutes is silly. The patients are still dead. There is, at the moment, only Duncan's non-professional word that the signatures are forged. The families would still sue. Anne's reputation would be tarnished,. The hospital might well fire her just to cut its losses and the police would still be sniffing around to find out who had done the forging and why.
Joe gets shut down in record time. One drug bust and he gets closed down? Seacouver must have very strict regulations. No one had even been found guilty of anything and, trust me, lots of bars stay open despite drug trafficking taking place inside. Joe has, as far as we know, no criminal; record..no history of drug dealing... he would be back on the streets in hours and behind the bar that night. Further, if the low-life who set him up was so easily found that Duncan did it in a few hours time, the police would have figured it out too. (Aren't dark smoky jazz clubs *suppose* to be dens of iniquity?)
Then we have the Duncan Death Dive in front of Anne. Anne sees her beloved fall off a balcony onto the seats below. She manages to feel for a pulse before allowing herself to be dragged away by Richie. She doesn't call for help. She doesn't contact the police. She doesn't notice that there is no mention of the "accident" in the paper. She doesn't wonder what happened to Duncan's body.She doesn't wonder why there is no police investigation into the event. She never questions the lack of a funeral or memorial. What the hell did she *think* happened?????? We are given no insight into this. We are just suppose to believe that a woman, a doctor, just accepts the fact that her lover died under very odd circumstances - following right on the heels of her own odd circumstances- and she did ....nothing? (Except conveniently get preggers?)
Then there is the issue of Richie. ..which , i suppose, really belongs in the discussion of StarCrossed . .. but I'll note here that if Kalas was going to kill someone close to Duncan, why couldn't he have killed Richie instead of Fitz? Everyone loved Fitz. He was a vastly more complex (and entertaining) character than Richie ever was. Killing Richie here would have saved us all those endless, mind-numbing motorcycles racing segments. It would have, perhaps, saved us from dwarves and bleeding roses. It would have saved us from another 2 seasons of "Sorry,Mac, I know he was your friend" speeches. And, in return, we could have had many more present day Fitz episodes.
And, finally, SotE would have been more effective, IMGLO, if we had not known that Duncan would be right back in Seacouver the next season. It could have been quite poignant to see Duncan have to permanently ( at least for 40-50 years) give up a place that he loved. In just a few more episodes, Duncan makes a very big deal about Richie having to leave Paris after his public death on the race track (not that Richie *does* stay away from Paris) and yet Duncan himself strolls right back to Seacouver as if nothing had happened. (BP admits that he had forgotten that Duncan died in SotE and so he didn't plan any explanation of his return in BiA. ) We never did see Duncan trying to set up housekeeping in a new place after having been forced - by "death" or the passing of years - to leave a place he loved. Season 4 could have introduced us to a new city - with Seattle/Vancouver playing a new part. Jo could be easily transferred. Richie could come and go as required. It would have b!
een an easy way to write Anne out (Didn't anyone else ever wonder if Duncan kept touch with Anne and little Mary after he gave them the house?)(If they had been in different cities it would have made the lack of mention more realistic)
Ah well...on to Star Crossed which suffered greatly from "middle of trilogy" curse.
Wendy(Stan looks very old on the commentaries)(He hasn't aged all that well.)(What does he do these days?)(Park cars somewhere?)(<efg>)
Immortals Inc.
immortals_incorporated@cox.net
"Weasels for Eternity"
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 15:07:40 +0100
From: "a.j.mosby" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Verbs and Reverbs.
Okay, genuine question to Nina (but open to anyone):
Do you think it's innately wrong that I/anyone makes (limited) money from
fandom ?
ie: is it a 'value for money' issue or do you think everything connected
with a show could be free?
I'm genuinely interested as it seems that you've taken exception to me
publicising my magazine and previous articles here or at least, think I'm
taking advantage. Now, while I'll admit that my first post in a while
mentioned the magazine, I think a look back at what I've posted and when
since joining the List several years ago has not been dominated by
advertising. I've discussed ethical issues, plot points, the pragmatic
parts of the business, the creative parts of it, how I think we were all
royally screwed by Endgame. I like to think I've been rational and open to
having my opinions both changed and reinforced.
I *do* make a modest living writing and some of that falls into Highlander
territory. The fact that I'm a journalist is no secret. If I make a living
writing and producing magazines that reflect the interest of fandom, does
that stop me being a fan too? Does it make it sensible to say: "I could
produce a magazine, but I won't...Heck...here's all the information I know
for free. Excuse me while I go try to find my rent money? ". If so, then
every magazine and newsagent around the world should close their doors now
and no-one should complain that the press doesn't cover their shows anymore.
Heck, why pay for anything?
Sure... I keep some information back so people will buy the magazines. I
make just enough money to pay the rent and in Verbatim's case just enough to
keep producing it.
And people WANT to buy the magazine. This is a whole supply and demand
thing. If there wasn't a demand there'd be no #2. Dreamwatch would have been
cancelled years ago. Highlander: Season Two wouldn't have got greenlit for
production. People create things and they thrive, survive or die. Equally,
nothing I've done has been vastly overpriced according to people I know.
No-one here has to mortgage their grandparents to get exclusive information.
As stated before, no-one is forcing anyone to buy anything. I got a dozen
e-mails a week after #1 asking if and when there'd be an #2 and how they
could order it. I got *requests* from some people to post information on
Lists. When there's something of interest to Highlander fans, I'm happy to
mention it on List. Frequently I'll do that even if I'm not involved. Grant
Kempster and Abbie Bernstein should, I guess, be my rivals... but we're not
like that... we're happy to let people know when we've each got relevant
articles out there.
So, yes. I make some money from the fans. It's up to the fans to decide
whether that makes me a parasite or a facillitator. It's up to you whether
you think something is worth paying for or not. It's up to you to decide
whether a service is good enough. It's up to you whether you wait and hear
about information later and second-hand. By the same tact, why pay to go to
a Con - just get someone to tell you all about it later!
Fans can be taken advantage of unfairly. But I think you underestimate
their intelligence if you think they'd let me do so. Too many of them know
where I live.
No witty barbs. No sarcasm. Comments?
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "MacWestie" <mac.westie@verizon.net>
To: <HIGHLA-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: [HL] Verbs and Reverbs.
> John--
> > If David is the writer and I'm just a journalist who has access to some
of
> > the information he's giving out to me, how does that make me a greater
> > authority than he is?
>
> DA's info at the con is old news by now, & he isn't on the list. You are
> here--trying to sell us stuff, but here on the list. And you posted
> something re: the HL mini-series, so yes, oddly enough--I asked _you_
about
> its current status.
>
> But fine--either you know nothing new or you are saving it for your next
> issue. I'm sure you'll keep the list informed--on exactly how to send you
> money.
>
> Nina
> mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 10:29:25 -0400
From: kageorge <kageorge@erols.com>
Subject: Re: Season Three dvds: Song of the Executioner
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wendy Tillis" <immortals_incorporated@cox.net>
To: <HIGHLA-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU>
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: [HL] Season Three dvds: Song of the Executioner
> MacGeorge says:
> >Frankly, however, I prefer episodes that deal with more substantive
themes
> >than this one does. Kalas is a straightforward Really Bad Guy with no
real
> >gray areas about who he is or why he is after MacLeod. However, this
story
> >sets up better episodes for the future, where we meet Methos, and have
> >Finale I and II, so I can't complain too much. All in all, it was an okay
> >episode, but certainly not one of my favs.
>
> This was one of those episodes that one knew was supposed to be important-
after all it was the first of a 3 part arc- and yet it just didn't grab me.
Maybe because there were so many plot holes that required too much
suspension of disbelief.
>
(snipping some well-put descriptions of the huge plot holes in this episode)
You are absolutely right, and I should have addressed those issues. Bad me.
This episode, from the very beginning, begs many questions, including all
those you address, especially about Duncan's so-called death, as witnessed
by Anne. While it was never explicitly stated, I assumed that Richie never
reported the death, and told Anne that the body was sent away to be buried
in Scotland, or someplace far away.
That Anne didn't question that, is one more absurdity about her character.
Why, she might have asked, was Duncan hanging one-handed from the balcony of
a theatre, only to let go as soon as Anne appeared. Did he commit suicide in
a paroxism of guilt over their last argument? Duh. I think not. You are
right. The whole thing makes no sense at all.
>
> Then there is the issue of Richie. ..which , i suppose, really belongs in
the discussion of StarCrossed . .. but I'll note here that if Kalas was
going to kill someone close to Duncan, why couldn't he have killed Richie
instead of Fitz? Everyone loved Fitz. He was a vastly more complex (and
entertaining) character than Richie ever was. Killing Richie here would have
saved us all those endless, mind-numbing motorcycles racing segments. It
would have, perhaps, saved us from dwarves and bleeding roses. It would have
saved us from another 2 seasons of "Sorry,Mac, I know he was your friend"
speeches. And, in return, we could have had many more present day Fitz
episodes.
LOL! Well said.
>
> Ah well...on to Star Crossed which suffered greatly from "middle of
trilogy" curse.
>
> Wendy(Stan looks very old on the commentaries)(He hasn't aged all that
well.)(What does he do these days?)(Park cars somewhere?)(<efg>)
I think Stan is suffering a little from hair loss, which makes him look
older. I've seen him in maybe two minor tv roles since Highlander stopped.
I know there are those who think he's the bee's knees, but I was never
particularly fond of Richie as a character, and thought Stan didn't bring
much spark to the screen that might have pushed past the whole "sidekick"
role to which the character had been delegated. After all, look what Peter
Wingfield did with what was supposed to be a one-off role. He took what he
was given and made it magic, just as Jim Byrnes made Joe come to life, well
beyond what was written on the page, and Elizabeth Gracen sparkled whenever
she was on screen. As an ensemble, AP, PW, EG and JB were the true heart of
Highlander. Stan always seemed a bit player, to me, unable to quite match
the intensity of the other actors.
JMHO.
MacG
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 10:29:35 -0400
From: kageorge <kageorge@erols.com>
Subject: Re: Verbs and Reverbs.
(snipping John's discussion of his for-profit fannish activity)
>
> No witty barbs. No sarcasm. Comments?
>
> John
My only comment is that as long as you are up front about the fact that you
*are* making money from these enterprises, I don't really care. What I do
find annoying is the repetitive, fairly juvenile and pointless rehashing of
this issue. I know you are not the instigator of these rather silly
conversations, but my suggestion is that any "witty barbs" be totally,
completely, absolutely ignored, thereby truncating the suffering for the
rest of us.
That's just my opinion, of course. <g>
MacGeorge
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 10:43:58 EDT
From: Dotiran@aol.com
Subject: Re: Season Three dvds: Song of the Executioner
In a message dated 4/16/2004 8:44:24 AM US Eastern Standard Time,=20
immortals_incorporated@cox.net writes:
Stan looks very old on the commentaries)(He hasn't aged all that well.)(What=
=20
does he do these days
This from his website:
In July, 2003 Stan completed principal photography on SHALLOW GROUND, a=20
horror film from Decco Filmworks. As city cop turned small town sheriff Stua=
rt=20
Dempsey, Stan stars opposite Tim V. Murphy, Lindsey Stoddart, and Academy Aw=
ard=20
nominee Patty McCormack. Directed by Sheldon Wilson, the film is currently i=
n=20
post production. Stan is scheduled to shoot additional scenes in January 200=
4,=20
and the film should be available for distribution in early March.
In October, 2003 Stan got behind the cameras for the first time for an as ye=
t=20
untitled spoof of the Bravo hit, QUEER EYE FOR THE STRAIGHT GUY. Along with=20
Nate Adams, Stan produced and directed the short film from their own concept=
.=20
Stan and Nate also star in the film opposite Alan Dale, David Hornsby, Steph=
en=20
Snedden, Brad Grumberg, and Kelly Mantle. Currently in post production under=
=20
the supervision of co-producer Don Paonessa, the film will be available in=20
early 2004. We=E2=80=99ll keep you posted.
On December 2, 2003 Stan began principal photography on the action/thriller=20
film DEEP RESCUE. Opposite Dale Midkiff, Tamara Davies, Alejo Mo-Sun, Peter=20
King, and Corey Large, Stan stars as astronaut Kevin Kongle, commander of th=
e=20
United States Space Shuttle Discovery. Produced by Brian Hartman, the film i=
s=20
currently shooting in Los Angeles under the direction of Chris Brumble, and=20
should be available for release mid 2004.
In between these projects and schedule permitting, Stan has continued to=20
teach acting at Lesly Kahn and Co. in Los Angeles.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 18:42:09 +0200
From: T'Mar <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: Season Three dvds: Song of the Executioner
Yeah, it's me. Try not to yawn. :-P
Wendy wrote:
>if Kalas was
>going to kill someone close to Duncan, why couldn't he have killed Richie
>instead of Fitz? Everyone loved Fitz. He was a vastly more complex (and
>entertaining) character than Richie ever was. Killing Richie here would have
>saved us all those endless, mind-numbing motorcycles racing segments. It
>would have, perhaps, saved us from dwarves and bleeding roses. It would have
>saved us from another 2 seasons of "Sorry,Mac, I know he was your friend"
>speeches. And, in return, we could have had many more present day Fitz
>episodes.
You know, I could whine and complain about this, and maybe whap people,
but there's nothing inherently *wrong* with that statement (aside from
the fact that Wendy is clearly delirious not to see the wonder that is
Richie, but never mind. That's a *joke*, okay, people!). If they wanted
to do something really devastating to Duncan and make the episode mean
a lot more, then killing off Richie here as opposed to in a terrible
episode would have made more sense. Because this trilogy really didn't
do much for me. It was run-of-the-mill. And the racing sequences were
boring (well, they were). Though Stan does look hot in racing leathers.
>(What does he do these days?)(Park cars somewhere?)(<efg>)
Oh, that's lovely, Wendy. Really nice. NOT.
MacGeorge wrote:
>I know there are those who think he's the bee's knees, but I was never
>particularly fond of Richie as a character,
I don't think the writers really knew what to do with the character. Even
though I love him dearly, I thought from the beginning that the character
was superfluous. They could have integrated him into the show if they'd
had more imagination, but they just never bothered. But then we've
complained about this before: if they were going to make Richie an
Immortal, they could have done it in a much more measured way that showed
us what it's like. But they never did. Of course, in the early seasons it
was more a Duncan-only show. Later it became slightly more of an ensemble.
If TPTB had used that approach from the beginning a lot of characters
might have evolved differently.
>and thought Stan didn't bring
>much spark to the screen that might have pushed past the whole "sidekick"
>role to which the character had been delegated.
I bet if I said nasty things about Adrian, Peter, Jim or Elizabeth people
would get upset and ask how dare I. So why is it okay to make remarks
like that about Stan? (And I've been wanting to mention the Bill Clinton
thing for ages. I could make remarks about EG and Bill Clinton and then
add, "JMHO" but I bet the EG fans would still get upset. But it's okay
to be nasty about Stan!?)
Awaiting flamage
- Marina.
\\ "I'm like every other kid in America. We all ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// wanna be astronauts... 'to boldly go where || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ no man has gone before'." - Matt Sikes to ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// Cathy Frankel; Green Eyes (Alien Nation) || \\
\\==============tmar@sifl.iid.co.za=============|| //
//=============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie=============\\
"Colonel, we've found something you might wanna see."
"Daniel." - 'Fallen' (Stargate SG-1)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 13:08:57 -0400
From: L Cameron-Norfleet <cgliser@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Season Three dvds: Song of the Executioner
>
>MacGeorge wrote:
>>I know there are those who think he's the bee's knees, but I was never
>>particularly fond of Richie as a character,
Marina:
>
>I don't think the writers really knew what to do with the character.
I recall Gillian saying that there were lots of arguments about
Richie...about where to take him, about what Stan could handle as an
actor, about, well, just about everything. I think that the writers
had ideas that were shot down for various reasons and the character
suffered for it.
Which is too bad.
Liser
(I have a huge soft spot for Richie and Stan both.)
--
Lisa Cameron-Norfleet ** cgliser@earthlink.net
http://twodognight.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 13:54:30 -0400
From: Wendy Tillis <immortals_incorporated@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Season Three dvds: Song of the Executioner
Of Stan, I said:
>>(What does he do these days?)(Park cars somewhere?)(<efg>)
Marina:
>Oh, that's lovely, Wendy. Really nice. NOT.
:-) I knew that would bring you out of hiding.
>MacGeorge wrote:
>>and thought Stan didn't bring
>>much spark to the screen that might have pushed past the whole "sidekick"
>>role to which the character had been delegated.
Marina:
>I bet if I said nasty things about Adrian, Peter, Jim or Elizabeth people
>would get upset and ask how dare I. So why is it okay to make remarks
>like that about Stan? (And I've been wanting to mention the Bill Clinton
>thing for ages. I could make remarks about EG and Bill Clinton and then
>add, "JMHO" but I bet the EG fans would still get upset. But it's okay
>to be nasty about Stan!?)
I don't see why this < saying she didn't see a "spark" on screen> is seen as being nasty to Stan. It is a comment on his acting ability - not a personal comment on his sex life (which the comment about EG and WJC would be) Over the years, any number of people have made comments about the acting abilities of the entire cast of HL. I personally think JB chewed more scenery than a hungry beaver. AP started out as very one-dimentional but improved a great deal. IMGLO, PW was the best actor of them all in his ability to show a wide range of emotions and play both silly and deadly earnest and make you *believe* it. Stan's inexperience showed in the early days (as did Adrian's) and while he certainly improved, he never, IMGLO, became "great". That's *not* an attack on Stan....it's a viewer's opinion on his performances as seen over a period of 5 years. Some part of the "problem" was the writing and some part was the fact-of-life of being the sidekick and part was Stan's own ab!
ility or lack thereof.
Further, it can be noted that none of the HL crew has gone on to great height - any one of them might be parking cars <g> JB has managed to work pretty steadily - always playing pretty much the same character. (And there is nothing wrong with that.) PW has done some TV things here and in Canada and England and seems to survive-OTOH, his one syndicated series (QoS) flopped . AP has made some really bad movies and some merely unremarkable movies and he too had a one season show that flopped.. EG doesn't seem to act much anymore after Raven was a one season flop. Stan has had a few one-shot gigs and no major movie roles. He does seem to have some straight-to-video stuff in the pipeline that may or may not ever see the light of day. Now, don't get me wrong, this is absolutely normal for actors...a few bounce from series to series for years and make a long career of it and the majority have a couple of good years and then fade away. That's not nasty ... it's fact.
>Awaiting flamage
Not from this quarter.
Wendy(Did they film all the commentaries on the same day?)(Everyone seems to be wearing the same clothes throughout the DVDs)(Did they give the actors notes so they could remember what the episodes were about?)(Gillian is honest enough to have her notes with her)
Immortals Inc.
immortals_incorporated@cox.net
"Weasels for Eternity"
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 15:59:16 -0400
From: kageorge <kageorge@erols.com>
Subject: Re: Season Three dvds: Song of the Executioner
> I bet if I said nasty things about Adrian, Peter, Jim or Elizabeth people
> would get upset and ask how dare I. So why is it okay to make remarks
> like that about Stan? (And I've been wanting to mention the Bill Clinton
> thing for ages. I could make remarks about EG and Bill Clinton and then
> add, "JMHO" but I bet the EG fans would still get upset. But it's okay
> to be nasty about Stan!?)
>
> Awaiting flamage
>
> - Marina.
Well, you won't get any flamage from me so long as you talk about their
professional lives and abilities as relates to HL. You start delving into
their non-HL related private lives, and I, for one, would simply delete the
post. That's not what I'm here to talk about. None of them are perfect,
for certain, as actors or as people, but I thought we were here to talk
about the show, not about the actors' private lives.
MacG
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 10:58:27 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Verbs and Reverbs.
John keeps at it--
> Okay, genuine question to Nina (but open to anyone):
> Do you think it's innately wrong that I/anyone makes (limited) money from
> fandom ?
No.
I think it's wrong that you continually advertise here on the list. (Not
just you, of course--Leah/Annie habitually use the list for self-promotion
as well, & much of what they sell doesn't even belong to them.) Months ago,
you teased the list w/ tidbits on the HL mini-series, urging members to buy
Impact for real info on it. Now, you are doing much the same w/ this
self-publishing endeavor of yours. As a list member, I find it distasteful
& vulgar. Do you think all list members should be able to post notices here
every time they, for instance, put an HL item for sale on ebay? If not,
what exactly makes you special?
This list is supposedly for _discussion_ of Highlander; the fact that
there's precious little fodder left doesn't, in my opinion, give you the
right to use the list for free & easy advertising. Plenty of other venues
online give you what amounts to free ad space--as I have browsed around
other HL-related lists & boards lately, I have _constantly_ seen your posts
about Verbatim. Just like this list is blissfully immune to prayer
requests, birthday greetings, political rants, & OT top ten lists, I thought
we were also supposed to be free of blatant sales pitches. Do you really
HAVE to hawk your wares here, too?
Nina
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 22:38:30 +0100
From: "a.j.mosby" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Verbs and Reverbs.
Okay. An honest opinion without the sarcasm or barbs. I appreciate it, even
if I don't toally agree with everything said. I'll answer in kind. (This
actually has the makings of a good thread with different but polite
opinions. I hope other people join in with views about general marketing
etc - certainly there's been enough said about the Highlander Store over the
years.)
Firstly, I have no problem with someone letting people here know if they
were selling a rare HL item on eBay. Actually it would strike me as rather
insane not to let the HL List know an item was up as that would be the best
chance for both parties to get a result they wanted. Simply put somesuch in
the subject line and it cna be ignored if neccessary.
Secondly, I'm sorry you find it vulgar. Everybody has different definitions
of where they draw that line. In life / on List... I'm sure I piss some
people off. (My posting style seems to annoy you) I'm sure you piss some
people off. ( Your posting style seems to ignite reaction too). I don't do
it deliberately or with intent to flame/annoy and I always try to be aware
of what is acceptable and what isn't by the majority. Though I'm capabl of
responding in kind, if I accidentally piss someone off I either apologise
and desist or explain my continued position if I feel I'm justified.
Thirdly, I'm hardly constantly 'hawking' my work here. There's been plenty
of other topics I've started or contributed to if you look back. My
journlaistic connections sometimes arise in threads, but are often not
directly applicable.
Fourthly, several Lists actually REQUESTED that I post info. This one
didn't, but several people who frequent it (who bought #1) said I should
alert everyone when #2 came out. I've done so. I'd have been happy to leave
it at one/two posts if this thread hadn't started. Yes, I have posted
details on many Forums. Seems stupid not to and there hasn't been a *single*
other complaint from any of them. People either take note of info or ignore
it.
Finally - I agree that this List was always here for discussion...but there
doesn't seem to have been a lot of it recently. That's somehtign every List
member can address. I look forward to new topics, new opinions, any eBay
sales and any prayer requests that include them NEVER making the Joel
Soisson version of The Source.
I'll say now that when and if I can afford to get Verbatim #3 out, I *WILL*
note that fact here unless specifically and formally asked not to by Debbie.
But unless there are general requests or comments that need answering on
List, I'll be happy to then follow-up OFF-List.
Thanks,
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "MacWestie" <mac.westie@verizon.net>
To: <HIGHLA-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU>
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 9:58 PM
Subject: Re: [HL] Verbs and Reverbs.
> John keeps at it--
> > Okay, genuine question to Nina (but open to anyone):
> > Do you think it's innately wrong that I/anyone makes (limited) money
from
> > fandom ?
>
> No.
>
> I think it's wrong that you continually advertise here on the list. (Not
> just you, of course--Leah/Annie habitually use the list for self-promotion
> as well, & much of what they sell doesn't even belong to them.) Months
ago,
> you teased the list w/ tidbits on the HL mini-series, urging members to
buy
> Impact for real info on it. Now, you are doing much the same w/ this
> self-publishing endeavor of yours. As a list member, I find it
distasteful
> & vulgar. Do you think all list members should be able to post notices
here
> every time they, for instance, put an HL item for sale on ebay? If not,
> what exactly makes you special?
>
> This list is supposedly for _discussion_ of Highlander; the fact that
> there's precious little fodder left doesn't, in my opinion, give you the
> right to use the list for free & easy advertising. Plenty of other venues
> online give you what amounts to free ad space--as I have browsed around
> other HL-related lists & boards lately, I have _constantly_ seen your
posts
> about Verbatim. Just like this list is blissfully immune to prayer
> requests, birthday greetings, political rants, & OT top ten lists, I
thought
> we were also supposed to be free of blatant sales pitches. Do you really
> HAVE to hawk your wares here, too?
>
> Nina
> mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 15 Apr 2004 to 16 Apr 2004 - Special issue (#2004-70)
******************************************************************************