HIGHLA-L Digest - 4 Jun 2005 (#2005-59)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Sat, 4 Jun 2005 22:00:04 -0400
There are 3 messages totalling 374 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. HIGHLA-L Digest - 2 Jun 2005 to 3 Jun 2005 (#2005-57)
2. the stuff we were talking about...yeah, kinda OT (2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 23:57:53 +0200
From: T'Mar <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: HIGHLA-L Digest - 2 Jun 2005 to 3 Jun 2005 (#2005-57)
>Angelus would have stalked Cassandra's tribe for months, killing them
>off one at a time, leaving those she felt closest to for last, had
>Cassandra caught his fancy.
Oh, yes. Now we're talking. So Methos killed her tribe and made her
his sex slave and she was a teensy bit upset? Boo hoo. If it had been
Angelus, she wouldn't only have been upset, she'd have been *raving*.
And that would have been something to see. Heh heh.
>She and her tribe really were fortunate -- they could've sprung from
>the mind of Joss Whedon, instead of Donna and Gillian. <eg>
If anyone from the HL universe had sprung from the mind of Joss
Whedon, sex would always have been followed by the gruesome death
of someone close or involved. And everybody would have been
terminally unhappy. Richie would have died. Oh, wait... ;)
- Marina. (No disrespect intended to fans of Cassandra.) (She'd be no
match for Angelus.) (OTOH, she could probably wind Spike around a
perfectly manicured finger.)
\ "So what do you wanna do?" ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// "I'm not sure... as long as it doesn't || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ involve putting on a suit and doing a lot ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// of flying." - Chloe and Clark; Smallville || \\
\\============tmar@sifl.iid.co.za============|| //
//============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie===========\\
"Nothing in the world is the way it ought to be. It's harsh and
it's cruel, but that's why there's us ... We live as though the
world were how it should be, to show it what it can be." - Angel
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 18:26:00 -0400
From: Trilby <trilby23@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: the stuff we were talking about...yeah, kinda OT
This was originally my post, so I'll respond:
> >Somewhere in between Death
> > on a Horse and Mild-Mannered Grad Student, there were centuries of
> > evolution when Methos began to develop, or nurture, the redeeming
> > qualities (loyalty, courage, independence, compassion, the
> > occasional willingness to be vulnerable) that endear him to us
> > present-day. I should think those
> >years, and that character, would be
> > tremendously fertile soil.
>
> I suspect that I have a different view of modern Methos than you do
> <g>. I don't really see Methos as a loyal, courageous, compassionate,
> occasionally vulnerable character that you seem to.
I should have qualified that: he's loyal, courageous, etc when it suits his mood or
his needs. :-)
I think he's all those things -- from time to time. He had a certain sense of loyalty,
for instance, to Joe and to Duncan. Maybe it was out of self-interest and
pragmatism -- god knows, the debate over "Deliverance" could go on forever: Did
he take Duncan to the Holy Hot Tub because he cared about Duncan? Or because
he sees Duncan as integral to some larger picture? Or for other personal reasons
we don't know about? But I think it's arguable that loyalty was a part of the
equation.
But when I posted, I was mainly thinking of "Timeless" and "Methuselah's Gift", and
Methos' tender feelings towards Alexa. Compassionate, vulnerable, loyal -- we saw
all that in him then. It's as real a part of him as the determination to survive is,
though certainly he accesses it far less often.
It's all part of what makes him gray, and therefore, interesting. He isn't good; he's
still a manipulative, self-involved bastard. But he isn't totally evil and black-hearted,
either -- he's subject to very human, very tender emotions.
> I tend to think
> that Methos is what he always was - the consummate survivor. The man
> who indulges his pleasures or passions when it's safe and doesn't when
> it's not. He's a chameleon whose choices are always going to be
> dictated by his chance of surviving. Being Death was fun until he got
> bored, times made it less safe, the interpersonal dynamics with the
> other Horsemen got tricky and Methos walked away.
Agreed. I don't think I implied that he left the Horsemen because he became a
different person -- only that he had become a different person by the 20th century,
which he more or less said himself.
]> After that...until
> the modern era we don't know much about what he did. We have Bronze
> Age flashback and a 1800's flashback and a couple of off-the-cuff
> comments about where he was in-between. For all we know, he didn't do
> a darned honorable thing in-between <eg>
That's exactly why it's so useful for storytelling. It's virgin territory. :-)
> > They don't have to change him. The "Dark midnight of the
> > soul" schtick worked gangbusters for the other shows you
> > brought up, not to mention Xena. In some of
> > the stories that flashed back to her darker past, she was as
> > nasty a character as Methos was.
>
> Yet when Xena became the star of her own show (versus an occasional
> character on Hercules) she definitely became on of the good guys. Xena
> gives up her evil ways and vows to fight the good right from now on.
> So, the story of Xena became one of 'redemption" (did I mention I hate
> that word?). Flashbacks to her evil past were juxtaposed with her good
> ways now. She was evil then, she was a heroine trying to do right now.
> She traveled the world righting wrongs and saving the weak and poor.
The parallel I see with Xena is that her actions from one episode to another
continued, in my faulty memory, to be pretty vile when necessary, and she didn't
necessarily show remorse or distaste for what she did either. Granted, over the
course of a season or an arc she was achieving redemption (which I don't hate but
am VERY wearied with), and I suppose that made her evilness along the way more
acceptable. But I don't think it HAS to be that way.
> Methos may have been evil then - there is no evidence he is a "hero"
> now. If Death on a Horse is "A" on the scale and "Hero" is Z...Methos
> has made the leap from A to .... G. There is no evidence that Methos
> has made any life-altering decision to turn away from the past and
> 'redeem" himself by being good in the future. He views the past as
> just that .... past. He doesn't apologize for what he did ... he
> doesn't seek forgiveness..he doesn't go out of his way to do the right
> thing.
No, and I don't see that as how Methos evolved, either. He didn't start out bad and
become good. He didn't start out evil and achieve niceness. I think it was much
more an issue of, well, survival: How did the Horseman mold himself into the Grad
Student? What path did he follow that led him from being a ravaging god, to being
a shadow in the dark, hiding in plain sight as a researcher for the Watchers? From
living by brute force to living by his shrewdness and his mind? What happens to a
god, when he's not a god anymore, anyway?
Haven't the slightest idea what the answers to those questions are, or how one
would tell that story, but it's fascinating to me.
> > I think the Horsemen years on the one extreme,
> > and the Duncan years on the other, provide
> >a natural framework for the vast,
> > amazingly rich life that came
> > in-between. Bookends, so to speak, providing the beginning
> > and ending points to the character's evolution thus far
> > with the storyline being his journey from one to
> > the other.
>
> My question always is...how was this mythical series going to work?
>
> Was it going to parallel HL:TS where Methos of today meets someone
> (another Immortal, I assume) that reminds him of the past, we get a
> flashback to Methos 's "evolution" on some issue , and then...what?
> Methos whacks the current-day Immortal? The Methos we saw would *not*
> spend a lot of time fighting other Immortals on "principle" . He'd
> leave town first. So, would we have a wandering Methos going from town
> to town avoiding fights? Or would he only meet "good" Immortals who
> (after the flashback) would see that Methos had changed and so they
> could both walk away? How many seasons of *that* would anyone watch?
But that's exactly what piques my curiosity. There was a time when he killed freely,
for no reason -- for sport. But by the 1800's, I guess, he was walking away, even
running away from fights (if I'm remembering "Indiscretions" properly, I only saw it
once.) What happened in between? HOW did he get from Point A to Point B?
The farther back in time the flashbacks are, the less like the subtle, present-day
Methos he'd be. Plenty of whacking opportunities (although as dearly as I love
watching studs with swords, the whacking was as a general rule the least interesting
aspect of the Highlander story for me.)
<snip>
>Two
> flashback in one episode- one to the raping and one to the saving- and
> current-day Methos realizing that the saving was "better" ? Methos
> having a beer with Joe and deciding, yes, I've killed orphans and I've
> saved orphans - I think I'm a better man when I save them- so from now
> on orphans are safe?
Dear GOD, I hope not! YUCK!
> or...what? Methos as our host on the dreaded Immortal version of
> "You Are There"? History as seen by the 5000 year old man? Yuck.
Agreed. Yuck again.
> I guess that part of what I liked about the Methos character was that
> his motives of today are not at all clear. We don't know much about
> him. We know he likes Duncan and is willing- up to a point- to protect
> Duncan. But why? Why now? Why Duncan? And how far? I liked the
> possibility that it was all part of some larger Methos scheme for..who
> know what purpose.
So do I, and maybe that's a potential, season-spanning story arc for this imaginary
series: What was Methos doing, anyway, and what made him think of doing it?
> I liked the possibility that someday , had HL:TS
> gone on, we mighty discover that Methos was still an evil bastard that
> needed killing- and that Duncan *would* kill him. I really wouldn't
> have wanted a series about Methos' evolution from bastard
> to...less-bastard because I don't know that *that* is where I wanted
> the character to go.
But I DON'T see him as necessarily having to go from evil bastard to less-bastard or
non-bastard. He could be a bastard, just like Tony Soprano or Vince Mackey or, for
that matter, Jimmy Hoffa was a bastard. Instead, the evolution is from, for instance,
bastard with a cudgel to bastard with a plan; from savage bastard to civilized
bastard; from thoroughly stinking bastard with no redeeming social value, to bastard
(or even better, conflicted bastard) who loves Alexa and is loved in return.
> Wendy (More on the topic elsewhere<g>)
Fertile ground for storytelling and for debate, too. :-)
-------------------- Trilby
Live long and prosper. May the Force be with you.
Remember that the truth is out there ...
No matter where you go ... there you are ...
And he will find you ...
But in the end there can be only one.
Oh, boy.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 20:29:52 -0400
From: Wendy <Immortals_Incorporated@cox.net>
Subject: Re: the stuff we were talking about...yeah, kinda OT
Never one to avoid beating a dead horse, I continue :
Me:
> >That means Methos
> >has to come into contact with other Immortals and deal with them.
Marina:
> then, yes, Methos would have to come into contact with other
> Immortals. But would THEY have to be the source of the conflict?
> Conflict could be introduced in other ways, by muggles - I mean,
mortals.
OK...again,what's the premise for the series? Methos does.....what?
Methos saves the day? Methos doesn't save the day? Methos just .....
lives? Methos meets mortals who...somehow...each week drag him into
their lives far enough that he actually acts on their behalf? Right.
> >And what...Methos argues that "times were different" and the
> >other Immortal goes away?
> Noooo... the immie challenges him; he pulls a gun *bang*
> *whack* *fizz, crack,sizzle, screams*. Close-up on PW's face
>. The End. I like it!! :) (That wouldn't be the WHOLE episode,
>but it would be part of it.)
So... we have a series about Immortals and the main Immortal shoots the
others and chops their heads off while they are dead? You're serious? He
doesn't fight...he "cheats" and what...laughs at how quaint all those
silly Rules are?
> So, what job could he have (assuming his grad student persona
> is getting tiresome) that would ensure conflict but not compromise the
character?
> Weasel? Only if he got like Eugene, Alan and co. and seemed to attract
> guilty clients - then he'd have to whack them when they were found not
> guilty - *after* receiving payment, of course! What if he offed a
> client he only *thought* was guilty? Would he feel bad? Maybe
> for a few beers. :)
An Immortal lawyer who argues cases and whack clients (mortal ones, at
that) as some kind of Immortal Avenger? Egad.
> Serial killer specialist working for the FBI (the type of
> character that Eric McCormack played, basically)? Lots of
opportunities for conflict.
> He certainly knows how people think.
Does he? I'm not so very sure of that. Not to mention that the whole
profiler thing is so very very overdone.
>And he could whack the perpetrator before the cops found him/her.
Again with the Avenging Methos. Why would he care? What possible
motivation would Methos have for playing detective or lawyer or
judge/jury and executioner? Fun? Methos is going to try cases or
investigate crimes for the fun of maybe whacking a criminal? If he just
wants to kill people, there are easier ways.
> >Do you really see Methos that way? I don't. Yes, if Methos
> had someone he really cared about, he would fix the problem ..maybe
with
> a sword, or a gun or by gathering the person he cared about up and
running away.
> >But - doesn't that reduce any show about Methos down to a "damsel in
> >distress" series?
> I think there are lots of ways you could go about it that *would*
> introduce conflict, keep other immies in it, NOT compromise the
> character, AND not turn the show into a one-act gimmick. But it would
> take a skillful writer or three. Maybe we shouldn't be so quick to
> dismiss Joss Whedon... :)
I keep hearing you (and others) say there is a way to do this but I
don't see any concrete ideas as to *how*.
> >Duncan would fight for a principle. I can't see Methos doing that. If
the
> risk were not immediate and personal, he wouldn't give a s**t. <eg>
> I agree he wouldn't really care if muggles
> - I mean, mortals - got killed. But if someone threatened his
> safety and security and society was tied into that, he *would* act.
>Even if indirectly through other immies the way he did in Rev 6:8.
But..but :::::watch Wendy sputter:::::what kind of series is that?
Methos- The Man Who Doesn't Do Anything?
Methos is an essentially "passive" character. He reacts only when
pushed - then he does as little as possible to insure his survival and,
perhaps , comfort. He does not appear to be motivated by money...he
doesn't care about fairness....I saw no evidence of a heightened sense
of "justice" .... he ought to have "run away" tattooed on his forehead.
I simply don't see Series materiel. I see fanfic materiel as Methos is
twisted into a character who whacks criminals and chases series killers.
> >(The mystery is what made Methos cool.)(Kill the mystery, kill the
> >cool.)
>You
> could have a flashback in which he meets an immie... then ten eps
> later, a flashback to the same time and place but totally different.
> Or the same immie, different time. You'd never know what was true,
> but you'd keep watching a la "Lost" in the hope of finding out.
No, I wouldn't <g>
> I could SO make The Methos Chronicles work. Too bad I'm a teacher and
> not a TV hack. ;)
Give me two sample plots of what you envision as a typical episode.
Keep in mind that half your audience has no idea who Methos is, the
other half know him so well that any changes will bring a bucket of
vitriol down on you. Keep him the same as he was in HL:TS but move him
to the foreground as the man who has to carry the action. Keeping in
mind his past history, write him as a character capable of doing very
bad things but keep him sympathetic in the present. ..but don't lose the
possibility that he might do very bad things again ..but don't make him
angsty about his past or his present or his future. Do all this without
relying on damsels in distress, any sense of "using his powers for good"
, or any intention of making the world a better place. Remember you'll
eventually need 22 episodes and can't repeat the same plot over and
over. Money is not unlimited so you can't set more than 25% of each
episode in the past (less would be better) I'll look forward to seeing
what you come up with <g>
Wendy(Methos feels another Immortal.)(Methos sees the Immortal fleeing a
burning building.)(Methos sees a child in a fifth floor window of the
burning building.)(Methos calculates the odds of racing up 5 stories,
getting the child, and getting down before being burned to
death.)(Methos decides to get a beer.)(Methos later sees the other
Immortal.)(Methos calculates the odds of winning a sword fight with the
other Immortal.)(Having left his gun at home, Methos waves as the
Immortal leaves town.)(Yippeeee)(:::snort::::)
Immortals Inc.
immortals_incorporated@cox.net
"Weasels for Eternity"
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 4 Jun 2005 (#2005-59)
**********************************************