HIGHLA-L Digest - 16 Apr 2004 (#2004-71)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Fri, 16 Apr 2004 22:00:06 -0400
There are 8 messages totalling 283 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Season Three dvds: Song of the Executioner (3)
2. Is this actually 'scarce?'
3. I've never seen this one... (2)
4. And why the heck...
5. Verbs and Reverbs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:38:38 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Season Three dvds: Song of the Executioner
Wendy--
> >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.
2 things about this.
1st, Daltrey has said he preferred playing Fitz in flashback--that the
present day stuff in Hunters didn't feel right, but he could really get into
playing Fitz in period costumes, etc. Also, I've read that TPTB were
surprised RD agreed to do the show a 2nd time & had no idea it would
continue, so killing the character off gloriously probably seemed smart.
2nd, the on-screen explanation for Kalas not going after Richie here is that
he was racing bikes in Miami & off Kalas' Seacouver radar, until the very
end of this ep; he returned just in time to far-too-easily snow Doc Anne
about DM's "death." And in the next ep, RR makes it to Paris well after
Kalas has set his sights on ruining Fitz.
> >(What does he do these days?)(Park cars somewhere?)(<efg>)
heh, heh, heh.
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?
Because it was funny? What you countered w/ was just plain ugly.
> (And I've been wanting to mention the Bill Clinton
> thing for ages.
I hope you mean RR/BC; SK/BC would just be icky.
> But it's okay
> to be nasty about Stan!?)
> Awaiting flamage
Or, just grow up a bit.
Nina
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 22:59:21 +0100
From: "a.j.mosby" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Season Three dvds: Song of the Executioner
this.
>
> 1st, Daltrey has said he preferred playing Fitz in flashback--that the
> present day stuff in Hunters didn't feel right, but he could really get
into
> playing Fitz in period costumes, etc. Also, I've read that TPTB were
> surprised RD agreed to do the show a 2nd time & had no idea it would
> continue, so killing the character off gloriously probably seemed smart.
I have to say that, as a viewer, Fitz *DOES* seem to work better in
flashback and the beauty of this show is that it has that framework to bring
back anyone it wants.
>
> > >(What does he do these days?)(Park cars somewhere?)(<efg>)
Arguably, Stan is picking just as good/bad projects as Adrian has so far.
> 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?
Not sure it was nasty, but obviously bound to get a reaction. Let's just not
do the Connor is better than Duncan thing again. :) I do think that though
its in the public domain, any EG/BC talk is a lot tackier than making
comments on lack of acting jobs.
> I hope you mean RR/BC; SK/BC would just be icky.
Actually BOTH would be kinda icky in my opinion, but....
:)
John
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 00:16:49 +0200
From: T'Mar <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: Season Three dvds: Song of the Executioner
John wrote:
>I have to say that, as a viewer, Fitz *DOES* seem to work better in
>flashback and the beauty of this show is that it has that framework to bring
>back anyone it wants.
I actually liked Fitz better in the present-time (well, in the first ep
he was in, anyway). I thought the eps where he was only in flashbacks
were over the top.
>Arguably, Stan is picking just as good/bad projects as Adrian has so far.
Hey, Tracker is on here now (Tarryn told the list about that, I think).
I quite like it. It's a cheesy sci-fi show, sure, but I *like* cheesy
sci-fi shows. (Tracker so far seems to me to be Time Trax with aliens
instead of people from the future.)
>Not sure it was nasty, but obviously bound to get a reaction. Let's just not
>do the Connor is better than Duncan thing again. :)
Well, I suppose if I really wanted to be like that psycho Connor fan,
I could appropriate news articles, change the names and claim that
Stan fans were being persecuted. And then create a few sock puppets.
>I do think that though
>its in the public domain, any EG/BC talk is a lot tackier than making
>comments on lack of acting jobs.
Sure, it's tacky, but it got my point across. (Witness Nina's reaction.
It's really mature to call *others* immature. Uh-huh.) But I've been
wondering about that whole thing (and notice I never actually said
anything concrete about it - someone who didn't already know about it
would have no idea what we were on about) for a *long* time. I really
like EG as an actress and just have to wonder what the hell she was
thinking. (Not in a nasty way, just kind of like, "HUH?!")
And, Wendy, if you wanted to know if I was still around, an email asking
me would have been easier. ;) (But not as much fun as getting the list
all riled up, I know.)
- Marina. (Who only posts to see who gets riled up.) (And stops when it
gets boring, or Nina's insults reach critical mass.) (Whichever comes
first.) (Hey, everyone needs a hobby.)
\\ "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 18:40:03 -0400
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Is this actually 'scarce?'
Just curious:
http://cgi.netscape.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=64210&item=4202793351&rd=1
Leah
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 18:43:31 -0400
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: I've never seen this one...
http://cgi.netscape.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=280&item=4204317447&rd=1
Leah
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 18:48:27 -0400
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: And why the heck...
...did the *animated* characters get this kind of goodie, but never the *series?!* There ain't no justice, I tell ya.
http://cgi.netscape.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=363&item=3287241505&rd=1
Leah
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 15:57:20 -0700
From: K Swanson <swanson@telus.net>
Subject: Re: I've never seen this one...
Yeah, that was one of four Highlander covers that TV Week did over the
years. They were really good to the show.
I can remember having people on this list send me a S.A.S.E and a $1 to
cover the cost of the magazine and send it to them the week it was in
stores. I think I sent out about 100 of them, and almost that for the one
that had Jim Byrnes on the cover.
Karyn
At 06:43 PM 16/04/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>http://cgi.netscape.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=280&item=4204317447&rd=1
>
>Leah
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 21:56:17 -0400
From: Wendy Tillis <immortals_incorporated@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Verbs and Reverbs.
a.j.mosby wrote:
>Okay, genuine question to Nina (but open to anyone):
>
>Do you think it's innately wrong that I/anyone makes (limited) money from
>fandom ?
I don't think it's innately wrong of you/anyone to make money off of fandoms. Most fans have at least a rudimentary brain... they can decide where to spend their own money. Magazines, t-shirts, cartons, paintings, candles, jewelry..whatever. So long as the seller isn't violating a trademark or copyright..more power to them.
>ie: is it a 'value for money' issue or do you think everything connected with a show could be free
Everything connected with a show should be free <G> I would save a fortune on DVDs. I don't think most of us have a problem with paying for artwork, cd's, dvd's, shirts, posters, chess sets, ugly mugs, etc. I think some of us have a problem with paying for "information" that was once given away for free.
>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.
I suspect that this is the real issue. This List has always been a place for fans to exchange both ideas *and* information. For free. Janine didn't, to the best of my knowledge, sell her list of Vancouver Highlander locations. A Listee who found out where shooting was going to take place didn't offer to sell us the location or the report from the set. Spoilers weren't put up for sale, they were posted (with the appropriate 24 lines of spoiler space most of the time). Gillian and Donna, to the extend allowed by their jobs, passed on what information they could. If a fan overheard BP taking about an episode or a planned guest star or a new movie, that information was posted as fast as it could be typed up. Convention reports were posted in minute detail even though the attendees had paid to attend and many of the readers hadn't. Fans spread information to other fans.
You, OTOH, always want to *sell* us the information. And that...rankles. It's trying to have things both ways ...to be "just another fan" and to also be a person who makes money from fans. I personally have always hated the game of "I Know something you don't know." Now, I totally understand that selling information is your livelihood. If you just *tell* us what you know, we won't buy as many magazines. Some people would buy the magazine regardless just to have it and hold it and look at the pictures. But, undoubtedly, some people will forego the purchase. And that's lost income to you. OTOH, I'm not sure it is good manners, as a fellow fan, to "tease" us with inside information that is only available at a price. Offering us half the story for free and requiring us to buy the other half is like giving us free handcuffs and them making us buy the key to get out if them. Not a game I want to play.
Your mileage may vary.
Wendy(Friends don't make friends buy gossip.)
Immortals Inc.
immortals_incorporated@cox.net
"Weasels for Eternity"
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 16 Apr 2004 (#2004-71)
***********************************************