Exit of Keith Hamilton Cobb from Andromeda -- Reason ?

[John Shocked]

This has probably been discussed here years back,
but I would still like to know:
what was the reason for the exit of Keith Hamilton Cobb (Tyr)
from the Andromeda series ?
I considered his role in the series to be the prime selling point
of the series and when he was gone, I like I am certain, hordes
of other people simply stopped watching this series.
What was the reason why Keith Hamilton Cobb left the series ?

Politics

[Beth Smarr]

Post by John Shocked
This has probably been discussed here years back,
what was the reason for the exit of Keith Hamilton Cobb (Tyr)
from the Andromeda series ?
I considered his role in the series to be the prime selling point
of the series and when he was gone, I like I am certain, hordes
of other people simply stopped watching this series.
What was the reason why Keith Hamilton Cobb left the series ?
Politics

Was it not due to the lack of development in his character?

[John Shocked]

Post by Beth Smarr

Post by John Shocked
This has probably been discussed here years back,
what was the reason for the exit of Keith Hamilton Cobb (Tyr)
from the Andromeda series ?
I considered his role in the series to be the prime selling point
of the series and when he was gone, I like I am certain, hordes
of other people simply stopped watching this series.
What was the reason why Keith Hamilton Cobb left the series ?
Politics

Was it not due to the lack of development in his character?
Beth

I watched closely in the first year and then watched only some of the
episodes of the second year because of schedule.
I do remember some repetitious episodes in which the Tyr
character was characterized as untrustworthy and in one episode
the script actually accused Tyr/Cobb of using steroids.
Who knows, that might be true, but I do remember beinbg
stunned that that would have been written into the script.

Politics

[Mark Brown]

Post by John Shocked

Post by Beth Smarr

Post by John Shocked
This has probably been discussed here years back,
what was the reason for the exit of Keith Hamilton Cobb (Tyr)
from the Andromeda series ?

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Beth Smarr
Was it not due to the lack of development in his character?

IIRC (and this is all second or thirdhand, mind) KHC didn't leave
voluntarily (like Rev did). He was thrown out. I'm not privy to the exact
reasons, but speculation around here was that Executive Producer and fellow
"Alpha Male" actor Sorbo pulled some strings with the writers. Apparently
KHC was a bigger fan-favourite than Sorbo, who couldn't take the
spotlight-stealing.

First, Tyr was reduced from the highly-intelligent, Machiavellian nemesis to
the typical thug, emasculated in favour of Captain Incredible. People still
liked him better than Dylan, so he was written out as a bad guy. When that
still didn't help Sorbo's popularity, Tyr was brought back, and killed off
in the most degrading and out-of-character way possible (shot in the back
after running into a dead-end when his "1980s Cartoon Supervillain" plot was
foiled by Dylan's genius and skill).

Post by John Shocked
I watched closely in the first year and then watched only some of the
episodes of the second year because of schedule.
I do remember some repetitious episodes in which the Tyr
character was characterized as untrustworthy

That was an ongoing plot-point (Robert Hewitt Wolfe's writing style tends
toward ongoing multi-season plot threads). Tyr always made it clear that he
was only along with Dylan's quest insofar as their separate agendas could
each be served. The implication was always that, if their goals ever
diverged, Tyr would do whatever was necessary to come out on top (ideally,
he would kill Dylan and take Andromeda's considerable resources for himself,
but that was just a best-case-scenario).

He's a Nietzchean; it's in his nature to be untrustworthy. Nietzscheans are
philosophical materialists. The universe is a life-and-death struggle --if
there is any "divine being," it wants you dead. Things like trust, honour,
and honesty are meaningless social constructions imposed by the Weak (Dylan
& co.) to keep everyone playing the same game. Playing by the rules is like
tying a hand behind your back before going into a firefight. In any
situation, a Nietzschean will do whatever it takes to win. If you're not
cheating, you're not trying.

I speculate that, if RHW had been permitted to work in peace, the show's
five-year arc would've ended with Tyr being "humanized," and seeing through
the obvious flaws in the Nietzschean mindset. This would of course have been
a very slow process, likely centred around Tamerlane (Tyr's son, conceived
when RHW was still head writer), and possibly Harper (given the seeming
suggestion of Tyr subconsciously "adopting" Harper in a few of the early
eps). The role of the Nietzschean Father is to reshape the universe to
eliminate all possible threats to his son. I suspect that Tamerlane would've
served as the impetus for Tyr (gradually) coming to view the rebuilding of
the Commonwealth as more important than his own genocidal feud with the
Drago-Kazov. KHC was arguably the finest actor on the show, and he would've
carried this sort of conflict off brilliantly, IMHO. Alas, it was not to be.

The byplay between Tyr's Machiavellian, materialistic ways and Dylan's
seemingly naive idealism was one of the main themes of the show. Gradually
(starting with network interference and then through RHW's firing), Dylan
was retconned into more of a badass; he became crueller, tougher, and Tyr
began turning into a one-note "Dr. Smith" type.

Post by John Shocked
and in one episode
the script actually accused Tyr/Cobb of using steroids.
Who knows, that might be true, but I do remember beinbg
stunned that that would have been written into the script.

Bwu-huh? When was this?

Only similar thing I recall was in "It Makes a Lovely Light," when Beka was
using Flash (to boost her reaction time so they could reach Tarn Vedra). Tyr
called her on it, and she said (sarcastically) that Tyr would never use
drugs because of his "pure of mind and body" philosophy (Tyr's a health nut,
as are [presumably] most Nietzscheans). Tyr shoots back with the drugs =>
dependency => weakness (=> death) comment.

Given that Beka was high (or just coming down) and defensive, I don't think
we can read too much into it. Exactly what Beka meant is ambiguous: Either
Tyr wouldn't take performance-enhancers 'cause he's a Nietzschean and
wouldn't need them, or he ~would~ take performance-enhancers because, well,
he's a Nietzschean, and Niets play to win any way they can.

Either way, I strongly doubt the exchange had anything to do with KHC --it
was necessary to get across the (admittedly, somewhat heavy-handed)
anti-drug point of the ep.

Mark
"Drugs create dependency. Dependency is weakness." --Tyr Anasazi

[John Shocked]

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
This has probably been discussed here years back,
what was the reason for the exit of Keith Hamilton Cobb (Tyr)
from the Andromeda series ?

*SNIP*
Was it not due to the lack of development in his character?

IIRC (and this is all second or thirdhand, mind) KHC didn't leave
voluntarily (like Rev did). He was thrown out. I'm not privy to the exact
reasons, but speculation around here was that Executive Producer and fellow
"Alpha Male" actor Sorbo pulled some strings with the writers. Apparently
KHC was a bigger fan-favourite than Sorbo, who couldn't take the
spotlight-stealing.

I thought that myself. The episode where Tyr is married to some woman
Nietzschean really vaulted Tyr to being tghe co-star along with Sorbo's
character. I was as interested in where that storyline would lead as
anything that Sorbo's Dylan character was doing.
I remember in the advertising for Andromeda about a year or so ago
on the Scifi Channel when Andromeda came to the Scifi Channel,
the advertising indicated that Tyr would be back in the show in some way.
This made clear that Scifi Channel recognized that more viewers would watch
if Tyr was in the show and that something big was keeping Tyr out of
the show.

Post by Mark Brown
First, Tyr was reduced from the highly-intelligent, Machiavellian nemesis to
the typical thug, emasculated in favour of Captain Incredible. People still
liked him better than Dylan, so he was written out as a bad guy. When that
still didn't help Sorbo's popularity, Tyr was brought back, and killed off
in the most degrading and out-of-character way possible (shot in the back
after running into a dead-end when his "1980s Cartoon Supervillain" plot was
foiled by Dylan's genius and skill).

What was the name of this episode ? I will have to look it up and
read the summaries.
What I actually find surprising is that Cobb is not a major Hollywood
Action Movie Star by now. I think anyone who watched the first
season of Andromeda would have considered Cobb easily as talented as,
for instance, The Rock in playing an action lead.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
I watched closely in the first year and then watched only some of the
episodes of the second year because of schedule.
I do remember some repetitious episodes in which the Tyr
character was characterized as untrustworthy

That was an ongoing plot-point (Robert Hewitt Wolfe's writing style tends
toward ongoing multi-season plot threads). Tyr always made it clear that he
was only along with Dylan's quest insofar as their separate agendas could
each be served. The implication was always that, if their goals ever
diverged, Tyr would do whatever was necessary to come out on top (ideally,
he would kill Dylan and take Andromeda's considerable resources for himself,
but that was just a best-case-scenario).

I do not think Tyr first season would have killed Dylan but might have
deserted
him in a lost fight, if Dylan were to pick a clearly lost cause to push the
crew to
fight for, was the true essence of his character.

Post by Mark Brown
He's a Nietzchean; it's in his nature to be untrustworthy. Nietzscheans are
philosophical materialists. The universe is a life-and-death struggle --if
there is any "divine being," it wants you dead. Things like trust, honour,
and honesty are meaningless social constructions imposed by the Weak (Dylan
& co.) to keep everyone playing the same game. Playing by the rules is like
tying a hand behind your back before going into a firefight. In any
situation, a Nietzschean will do whatever it takes to win. If you're not
cheating, you're not trying.

I am well aware of the distinction between being a Nietzschean and being
untrustworthy. Making realitistic decision to preserve one's own life
when an unbridled adventurer may be pushing you to risk your own
life unnecessarily is not "untrustworthy".
However, the script in the second season seemed to become mired in this
misinterpretation of Nietzschean-ism.

Post by Mark Brown
I speculate that, if RHW had been permitted to work in peace, the show's
five-year arc would've ended with Tyr being "humanized," and seeing through
the obvious flaws in the Nietzschean mindset. This would of course have been

I do not necessarily think this was predictable or necessary.
The tension between the two leader characters could have been maintained
as being the co-mingling of adventurism and self-preservation which are
two elements which certainly would be necessary for the crew to stay alive
and prosper.

Post by Mark Brown
a very slow process, likely centred around Tamerlane (Tyr's son, conceived
when RHW was still head writer), and possibly Harper (given the seeming

Excellent episode which I thought at the time heralded the coming of a new
TV star in Cobb.

Post by Mark Brown
suggestion of Tyr subconsciously "adopting" Harper in a few of the early
eps). The role of the Nietzschean Father is to reshape the universe to

I do not recall anything about Tyr adopting Harper. May have been in the
second year when I might have missed that episode.

Post by Mark Brown
eliminate all possible threats to his son. I suspect that Tamerlane would've
served as the impetus for Tyr (gradually) coming to view the rebuilding of
the Commonwealth as more important than his own genocidal feud with the
Drago-Kazov. KHC was arguably the finest actor on the show, and he would've
carried this sort of conflict off brilliantly, IMHO. Alas, it was not to be.

As I say, he Keith Hamilton Cobb should be a major Hollywood star by now.
Something big, like a bad reference from Sorbo and Co. must be
preventing this from happening.

Post by Mark Brown
The byplay between Tyr's Machiavellian, materialistic ways and Dylan's
seemingly naive idealism was one of the main themes of the show. Gradually
(starting with network interference and then through RHW's firing), Dylan
was retconned into more of a badass; he became crueller, tougher, and Tyr
began turning into a one-note "Dr. Smith" type.

Post by John Shocked
and in one episode
the script actually accused Tyr/Cobb of using steroids.
Who knows, that might be true, but I do remember beinbg
stunned that that would have been written into the script.

Bwu-huh? When was this?
Only similar thing I recall was in "It Makes a Lovely Light," when Beka was
using Flash (to boost her reaction time so they could reach Tarn Vedra). Tyr
called her on it, and she said (sarcastically) that Tyr would never use
drugs because of his "pure of mind and body" philosophy (Tyr's a health nut,
as are [presumably] most Nietzscheans). Tyr shoots back with the drugs =>
dependency => weakness (=> death) comment.

Yes, that was the episode to which I refer. I think after an exchange with
Tyr
where he decries her using Flash, he mutters in her Flash-stupor that Tyr
using steroids or "Mr. Steroids". Something like that.
When that line appeared in the show, it appeared to me that there were
serious problems on the set of that show.

Post by Mark Brown
Given that Beka was high (or just coming down) and defensive, I don't think
we can read too much into it. Exactly what Beka meant is ambiguous: Either

No, that statement was written into the script a high paid Hollywood writer,
perhaps under orders from Sorbo and Co.
If the Andromeda producers did not want that line on the air, they could
have edited it out in two seconds.

Post by Mark Brown
Tyr wouldn't take performance-enhancers 'cause he's a Nietzschean and
wouldn't need them, or he ~would~ take performance-enhancers because, well,
he's a Nietzschean, and Niets play to win any way they can.

Exactly, which means that the line was a potshot at Cobb himself.

Post by Mark Brown
Either way, I strongly doubt the exchange had anything to do with KHC --it
was necessary to get across the (admittedly, somewhat heavy-handed)
anti-drug point of the ep.
Mark

If they wanted to present a message against steroids, they should have used
some other way to do it. Sorbo himself most likely used steroids, at least
in Hercules.

Post by Mark Brown
"Drugs create dependency. Dependency is weakness." --Tyr Anasazi

"...And Dependency Is Death." you forgot the end of that triplet.

Politics

[Mark Brown]

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
First, Tyr was reduced from the highly-intelligent, Machiavellian nemesis

to

Post by Mark Brown
the typical thug, emasculated in favour of Captain Incredible. People

still

Post by Mark Brown
liked him better than Dylan, so he was written out as a bad guy. When that
still didn't help Sorbo's popularity, Tyr was brought back, and killed off
in the most degrading and out-of-character way possible (shot in the back
after running into a dead-end when his "1980s Cartoon Supervillain" plot

was

Post by Mark Brown
foiled by Dylan's genius and skill).

What was the name of this episode ? I will have to look it up and
read the summaries.

Check out "Soon the Nearing Vortex" and "The World Turns All Around Her,"
both linked from here:
http://www.andromedatv.com/episodes/season4/index.html. Bear in mind though
that this is the official site, so they (and the user comments) are
not-so-slightly biased. Tyr had of course already left by the S3 finale
"Shadows Cast by a Final Salute," which is easy enough to find by tweaking
that URL.

Post by John Shocked
What I actually find surprising is that Cobb is not a major Hollywood
Action Movie Star by now. I think anyone who watched the first
season of Andromeda would have considered Cobb easily as talented as,
for instance, The Rock in playing an action lead.

Agreed, wholeheartedly (imagining KHC as the new Triple-X instead of that
pudgy wannabe-thug). Trouble is, the break between TV and movies can be
almost impossible to cross without serious help --TV people work in TV,
movie people work in movies, and never the twain shall meet. The trouble is
finding movie producers/directors/casting agents willing to take a risk with
"unknown" TV actors.

(Who knows, if/when I succeed as a screenwriter, I might be able to give him
something, assuming he's still acting then. I'd best get on that, shouldn't
I?)

Working in soaps may turn out to be a wise move; the writing may stink, but
no one does emotional range like soaps. If nothing else, it'll give KHC
reams of stuff for his demo reel, to prove that he can emote on cue (and
hey, a steady paycheque's a steady paycheque). The "action" stuff is rarely
a big deal, I'd imagine (with modern FX, they could make Stephen Hawking
look badass [well, ~physically~ badass. He's already plenty intellectually
intimidating]). The hard part is, to paraphrase a KHC interview I read back
when Andromeda was first starting; there just aren't many jobs out there for
a seven-foot-tall black dude with his hair down to his butt.

Okay, the hair's gone now, but I'd imagine it's still true. How many action
stars does Hollywood need?

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
I do not think Tyr first season would have killed Dylan but might have
deserted
him in a lost fight, if Dylan were to pick a clearly lost cause to push the
crew to
fight for, was the true essence of his character.

Yeah, but I'm thinking more of KHC's in-character observations of
Andromeda's not-inconsiderable power. The "most powerful warship in the
known worlds" isn't something Tyr would be very quick to walk away from.

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
I am well aware of the distinction between being a Nietzschean and being
untrustworthy.

Sorry about the pedantry; my own philosophical interest ran away with me.
^_^

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
However, the script in the second season seemed to become mired in this
misinterpretation of Nietzschean-ism.

True. I think this can best be summed up by the "too many producers"
argument. All that pressure leaving RHW unable to do things his way, then
finally his being canned and replaced. Hopefully RHW's upcoming "Coda" will
illuminate some of what he'd planned for Tyr as well as for Trance.

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
suggestion of Tyr subconsciously "adopting" Harper in a few of the early
eps).

I do not recall anything about Tyr adopting Harper. May have been in the
second year when I might have missed that episode.

There were little hints throughout S1, culminating in "It's Hour Come Round
At Last," where Harper started freaking out during the magog invasion and
Tyr gave him a Nietzschean pep-talk. Then when the magog stormed in, Tyr
offered to euthanize Harper, who told him not to bother 'cause he'd rather
go down fighting. Just reading into Tyr's proud grin.

There was also a bit of reading into the show's universe. Aside from Tyr,
most Nietzscheans seemed like a fairly insular bunch. They obviously
preferred the company of other Nietzscheans, they looked down on "kludges,"
and probably most non-humans as well (most notably the Chichin and the
Magog, and Tyr didn't seem too fond of AIs or Nightsiders [or possibly just
Gerentex personally ;) ] either). Remember that everything in a
Nietzschean's culture treats parenthood as sacred; it'd likely be a matter
of instinct --the only way they know how to relate to non-enemies is as
family members.

Due to Tyr's special circumstances (last survivor of an extinct Pride, sold
into slavery, living on the run, then as a private mercenary, then as head
of his own merc team), he likely spent an unusual amount of time among
non-Nietzscheans. This may have been what resulted in his surly, overly
brutal attitude (even many of the "bad" Nietzscheans we saw seemed at least
a bit more polite --Tyr seemed to go out of his way to offend people) as a
form of compensating, cutting himself off from "Them." I posit that, as his
time on Andromeda continued, Tyr would've (likely subconsciously) adopted
the crew as a surrogate Pride, much like cats & dogs adopt their human
"owners" as members of their pride/pack, and treat them accordingly.

Dylan is the Alpha, and Rommie is his (metaphoric) Alpha Wife. Beka is the
Beta female, and Tyr's obvious attraction would be underlined by the idea of
them dethroning Dylan and Rommie (who is ignored both for being Dylan's and
for being an artificial being with no child-bearing potential) as the Alphas
of the "Andromeda Pride." Rev is. . . well, a non-breeding adult at best
(probably equivalent to an infertile Nietzschean [are there gay
Nietzscheans? That's a whole thread in itself]). Tyr would likely shrug him
off (both for being a Magog and for being a Wayist). Harper and Trance would
come to fill the role of children, earning Tyr's instinctive, bred-in
paternal attitude. It's quite likely that, if Kodiak Pride had never been
destroyed, Tyr would have children just about Harper & Trance's size.

Note that time Tyr made dinner for Beka. He was flirting with her (just as
he would've with any highly-placed Nietzschean female --especially one who
could gain him control of the Pride), but as soon as she pointed it out, he
made that comment about how he'd never lower himself to be with a human.
Remember the look of confusion on his face when she walked out. I think that
he (for just a slit-second) ~forgot~ that she wasn't a fellow Nietzschean. I
like to think we would've seen scenes like that recurring more and more.
You're perhaps right that Tyr & Dylan would never fully reconcile, but they
would at least develop a sort of stability (and, one hopes, mutual respect,
and even admiration). Tyr would have to accept that his odds for survival
are far better as a member of Andromeda's crew than on his own. . . or maybe
even surrounded by fellow Nietzscheans, who may not be so "superior" after
all.

Plus there's the undeniable comic potential (never fulfilled, alas) of Tyr &
Harper's "odd couple" friendship. Could've been the Spock & McCoy (or
Hercules & Iolaus) of a new generation. Eventually, they tried to play it
out with Rhade instead, but that just didn't work as well IMHO. Rhade had
too much of a sense of humour to be a good contrast.

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Given that Beka was high (or just coming down) and defensive, I don't

think

Post by Mark Brown
we can read too much into it. Exactly what Beka meant is ambiguous: Either

No, that statement was written into the script a high paid Hollywood writer,

(Aside: there's no such thing as a high-paid writer. At least not high-paid
~enough.~ ;) )

Post by John Shocked
perhaps under orders from Sorbo and Co.
If the Andromeda producers did not want that line on the air, they could
have edited it out in two seconds.

Not necessarily. The writer was Ethlie, who knows/knew Beka better than
anyone (IIRC, she based Beka on herself), so I think we can safely assume
that it was just an in-character comment. There's no reason to assume
anything behind the scenes (though there very well may have been, I just
don't think this is evidence).

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Tyr wouldn't take performance-enhancers 'cause he's a Nietzschean and
wouldn't need them, or he ~would~ take performance-enhancers because,

well,

Post by Mark Brown
he's a Nietzschean, and Niets play to win any way they can.

Exactly, which means that the line was a potshot at Cobb himself.

I don't feel it follows.

In-character: Beka has just been accused of drug use. She can't reasonably
deny it, so she's going to try to justify it. Since she ~can't,~ she tries
to reverse the accusation ("you've done it, so why can't I?") Since Tyr was
the last person to talk, she singles him out. Tyr obviously doesn't smoke,
or drink (that we see --at the very least, he doesn't have any "problem"),
so Beka tries to think of the sort of drug that Tyr would take. He's big,
muscular --first word that springs to mind is "steroids."

Ethlie could probably have made something up (by CY 10 096, wouldn't they
have a "better" steroid-analogue), but calling Tyr "Mr. Tricordrazine-Beta,"
or "Mr. Biocardia Stim" wouldn't carry the weight. The audience would think
"huh?" instead of "she's accusing him of taking drugs, same as her." The
steroids reference is a dig that would need no explanation.

Tyr's reaction (which was written by the same hand) makes it pretty clear
that he doesn't use drugs (for which he gives very practical
reasons --likely ~that's~ the line Ethlie intended to be the more important
one). Also, given the meal he'd previously cooked Beka, and the "big-ass
plate of hor d'oevres" (all of them vegetable or fruit) he's seen with later
in the series, it's not too hard to imagine him as "Mr. Health-Food," but
even druggie-Beka's not crazy enough to defend herself ~that~ way.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
"Drugs create dependency. Dependency is weakness." --Tyr Anasazi

"...And Dependency Is Death." you forgot the end of that triplet.

Thanks. I haven't seen that ep in ages and was (mis)quoting from memory.

Mark
"Shall we dance, Mr. Harper?" --Tyr, about to take on the magog swarm

[Beth Smarr]

Mark Brown wrote:

<*snip*>

Post by Mark Brown
Dylan is the Alpha, and Rommie is his (metaphoric) Alpha Wife. Beka is the
Beta female, and Tyr's obvious attraction would be underlined by the idea of
them dethroning Dylan and Rommie (who is ignored both for being Dylan's and
for being an artificial being with no child-bearing potential) as the Alphas
of the "Andromeda Pride." Rev is. . . well, a non-breeding adult at best
(probably equivalent to an infertile Nietzschean [are there gay
Nietzscheans? That's a whole thread in itself]). Tyr would likely shrug him
off (both for being a Magog and for being a Wayist). Harper and Trance would
come to fill the role of children, earning Tyr's instinctive, bred-in
paternal attitude. It's quite likely that, if Kodiak Pride had never been
destroyed, Tyr would have children just about Harper & Trance's size.
Note that time Tyr made dinner for Beka. He was flirting with her (just as
he would've with any highly-placed Nietzschean female --especially one who
could gain him control of the Pride), but as soon as she pointed it out, he
made that comment about how he'd never lower himself to be with a human.
Remember the look of confusion on his face when she walked out. I think that
he (for just a slit-second) ~forgot~ that she wasn't a fellow Nietzschean. I
like to think we would've seen scenes like that recurring more and more.
You're perhaps right that Tyr & Dylan would never fully reconcile, but they
would at least develop a sort of stability (and, one hopes, mutual respect,
and even admiration). Tyr would have to accept that his odds for survival
are far better as a member of Andromeda's crew than on his own. . . or maybe
even surrounded by fellow Nietzscheans, who may not be so "superior" after
all.

<*snip*>

I wonder how he would have reacted to the news that Beka is the
Matriarch of all Nietzscheans.

[John Shocked]

Post by Beth Smarr
<*snip*>

Post by Mark Brown
Dylan is the Alpha, and Rommie is his (metaphoric) Alpha Wife. Beka is the
Beta female, and Tyr's obvious attraction would be underlined by the idea of
them dethroning Dylan and Rommie (who is ignored both for being Dylan's and
for being an artificial being with no child-bearing potential) as the Alphas
of the "Andromeda Pride." Rev is. . . well, a non-breeding adult at best
(probably equivalent to an infertile Nietzschean [are there gay
Nietzscheans? That's a whole thread in itself]). Tyr would likely shrug him
off (both for being a Magog and for being a Wayist). Harper and Trance would
come to fill the role of children, earning Tyr's instinctive, bred-in
paternal attitude. It's quite likely that, if Kodiak Pride had never been
destroyed, Tyr would have children just about Harper & Trance's size.
Note that time Tyr made dinner for Beka. He was flirting with her (just as
he would've with any highly-placed Nietzschean female --especially one who
could gain him control of the Pride), but as soon as she pointed it out, he
made that comment about how he'd never lower himself to be with a human.
Remember the look of confusion on his face when she walked out. I think that
he (for just a slit-second) ~forgot~ that she wasn't a fellow Nietzschean. I
like to think we would've seen scenes like that recurring more and more.
You're perhaps right that Tyr & Dylan would never fully reconcile, but they
would at least develop a sort of stability (and, one hopes, mutual respect,
and even admiration). Tyr would have to accept that his odds for survival
are far better as a member of Andromeda's crew than on his own. . . or maybe
even surrounded by fellow Nietzscheans, who may not be so "superior" after
all.

<*snip*>
I wonder how he would have reacted to the news that Beka is the
Matriarch of all Nietzscheans.
Beth

For those who have not been watching the last few years, how did
Beka become matriarch of all Nietzcheans ?

Politics

[Mark Brown]

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Beth Smarr
I wonder how he would have reacted to the news that Beka is the
Matriarch of all Nietzscheans.

For those who have not been watching the last few years, how did
Beka become matriarch of all Nietzcheans ?

It's an S5 thing (which means I only know it second-hand, so if anyone wants
to correct me, please do).

I believe there's time-travel involved (through a wormhole-like plot device
called the Route of Ages). A stranger shows up, seduces Beka, then leaves.
Dylan realizes (because he's Dylan) that the stranger was either Drago
Museveni, or Paul Museveni (the Progenitor's human father).

Don't know if this was planned, or just a random "we need an episode, why
not do time-travel?" moment. Given S5's apparent quality level, I tend to
think the latter.

Mark
"Hates time-travel."

[John Shocked]

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Beth Smarr
I wonder how he would have reacted to the news that Beka is the
Matriarch of all Nietzscheans.

For those who have not been watching the last few years, how did
Beka become matriarch of all Nietzcheans ?

It's an S5 thing (which means I only know it second-hand, so if anyone wants
to correct me, please do).
I believe there's time-travel involved (through a wormhole-like plot device
called the Route of Ages). A stranger shows up, seduces Beka, then leaves.
Dylan realizes (because he's Dylan) that the stranger was either Drago
Museveni, or Paul Museveni (the Progenitor's human father).
Don't know if this was planned, or just a random "we need an episode, why
not do time-travel?" moment. Given S5's apparent quality level, I tend to
think the latter.
Mark
"Hates time-travel."

Time Travel science fiction is only good when it is properly
researched, such as in Doctor Who.
When all that it is is a way for someone to be someone else's
father, or in this case mother, which is common fair in
simplistic US scripts, it is stupid crap. Although Terminator
is a great movie, this content does serious damage to that
movie.
Doctor Who, in particular the Jon Pertwee era of Dr. Who,
ought to be carried on Scifi Channel,
at least instead of that homosexual crap, Quantum Leap.

Politics

[John Shocked]

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
First, Tyr was reduced from the highly-intelligent, Machiavellian
nemesis to the typical thug, emasculated in favour of Captain
Incredible. People still liked him better than Dylan, so he was
written out as a bad guy. When that still didn't help Sorbo's
popularity, Tyr was brought back, and killed off in the most
degrading and out-of-character way possible (shot in the back
after running into a dead-end when his
"1980s Cartoon Supervillain" plot was foiled by Dylan's genius and

skill).

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
What was the name of this episode ? I will have to look it up and
read the summaries.

Check out "Soon the Nearing Vortex" and "The World Turns All Around Her,"
http://www.andromedatv.com/episodes/season4/index.html.
Bear in mind though that this is the official site, so they
(and the user comments) are not-so-slightly biased.
Tyr had of course already left by the S3 finale
"Shadows Cast by a Final Salute," which is easy enough to find
by tweaking that URL.

Post by John Shocked
What I actually find surprising is that Cobb is not a major Hollywood
Action Movie Star by now. I think anyone who watched the first
season of Andromeda would have considered Cobb easily as talented as,
for instance, The Rock in playing an action lead.

Agreed, wholeheartedly (imagining KHC as the new Triple-X instead of that
pudgy wannabe-thug). Trouble is, the break between TV and movies can be
almost impossible to cross without serious help --TV people work in TV,
movie people work in movies, and never the twain shall meet. The trouble is
finding movie producers/directors/casting agents willing to take a risk with
"unknown" TV actors.
(Who knows, if/when I succeed as a screenwriter, I might be able to give him
something, assuming he's still acting then. I'd best get on that,

shouldn't I?)

IMDB has him at 43 right now. Interestingly, IMDB does not describe
Cobb as ever being married or having a family, so with a back ground
in theater there is aobvious supposition he might be homosexual.
Any truth to that ?

Post by Mark Brown
Working in soaps may turn out to be a wise move; the writing may stink, but
no one does emotional range like soaps. If nothing else, it'll give KHC
reams of stuff for his demo reel, to prove that he can emote on cue (and
hey, a steady paycheque's a steady paycheque). The "action" stuff is rarely
a big deal, I'd imagine (with modern FX, they could make Stephen Hawking
look badass [well, ~physically~ badass. He's already plenty intellectually
intimidating]). The hard part is, to paraphrase a KHC interview I read back
when Andromeda was first starting; there just aren't many jobs out there for
a seven-foot-tall black dude with his hair down to his butt.
Okay, the hair's gone now, but I'd imagine it's still true. How many action
stars does Hollywood need?

From what I see on various discussion sites today, Cobb is leaving
the soap he was on and moving on, last show May 23 2005.
So maybe he is about to enter a new phase very soon.

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
I do not think Tyr first season would have killed Dylan but might
have deserted him in a lost fight, if Dylan were to pick a clearly
lost cause to push the crew to fight for, was the true essence of his

character.

Post by Mark Brown
Yeah, but I'm thinking more of KHC's in-character observations of
Andromeda's not-inconsiderable power. The "most powerful warship in the
known worlds" isn't something Tyr would be very quick to walk away from.

Maybe this betrayal content is something the scripts expanded on
in the second or third year. I cannot imagine that the producers could have
thought that portraying a major character in the show as traitor or
potential traitor would have been interesting to watch.
Even some of the episodes I watched I thought this Tyr betrayal content
was overblown and was hurting the show.
The storyline should have been more that Tyr agreed Dylan to reestablish
the Empire (or whatever they called it) because his race was wiped out
and it was his only hope for safety and justice against those who
exterminated
his tribe. Then, they might Tyr and Dylan could debate over strategy
(sometimes putting initiatives to the crew's vote) to
gain strength and support and eventually build to a point of domination,
deafeating and eliminating or absorbing foes as they went along.
I am surprised the grand scheme failed to pursue this.

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
I am well aware of the distinction between being a Nietzschean and being
untrustworthy.

Sorry about the pedantry; my own philosophical interest ran away with me.
^_^
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
However, the script in the second season seemed to become mired in this
misinterpretation of Nietzschean-ism.

True. I think this can best be summed up by the "too many producers"
argument. All that pressure leaving RHW unable to do things his way, then
finally his being canned and replaced. Hopefully RHW's upcoming "Coda" will
illuminate some of what he'd planned for Tyr as well as for Trance.

What Coda is this ? The final episode ?

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
suggestion of Tyr subconsciously "adopting" Harper in a few of the early
eps).

I do not recall anything about Tyr adopting Harper. May have been in the
second year when I might have missed that episode.

There were little hints throughout S1, culminating in "It's Hour Come Round
At Last," where Harper started freaking out during the magog invasion and
Tyr gave him a Nietzschean pep-talk. Then when the magog stormed in, Tyr
offered to euthanize Harper, who told him not to bother 'cause he'd rather
go down fighting. Just reading into Tyr's proud grin.

I do not hear any adoption in that story.

Post by Mark Brown
There was also a bit of reading into the show's universe. Aside from Tyr,
most Nietzscheans seemed like a fairly insular bunch. They obviously
preferred the company of other Nietzscheans, they looked down on "kludges,"
and probably most non-humans as well (most notably the Chichin and the
Magog, and Tyr didn't seem too fond of AIs or Nightsiders [or possibly just
Gerentex personally ;) ] either). Remember that everything in a
Nietzschean's culture treats parenthood as sacred; it'd likely be a matter
of instinct --the only way they know how to relate to non-enemies is as
family members.
Due to Tyr's special circumstances (last survivor of an extinct Pride, sold
into slavery, living on the run, then as a private mercenary, then as head
of his own merc team), he likely spent an unusual amount of time among
non-Nietzscheans. This may have been what resulted in his surly, overly
brutal attitude (even many of the "bad" Nietzscheans we saw seemed at least
a bit more polite --Tyr seemed to go out of his way to offend people) as a
form of compensating, cutting himself off from "Them." I posit that, as his
time on Andromeda continued, Tyr would've (likely subconsciously) adopted
the crew as a surrogate Pride, much like cats & dogs adopt their human
"owners" as members of their pride/pack, and treat them accordingly.

I do not think that would have been a good idea or indicated by the
marriage that he had to that Nietzchean woman.
The Andromeda members would be a team, and each of them should have
been paired off with mates or each other who would in the end flourish
in the new Empire.

Post by Mark Brown
Dylan is the Alpha, and Rommie is his (metaphoric) Alpha Wife. Beka is the
Beta female, and Tyr's obvious attraction would be underlined by the idea of
them dethroning Dylan and Rommie (who is ignored both for being Dylan's and
for being an artificial being with no child-bearing potential) as the Alphas
of the "Andromeda Pride." Rev is. . . well, a non-breeding adult at best
(probably equivalent to an infertile Nietzschean [are there gay
Nietzscheans? That's a whole thread in itself]). Tyr would likely shrug him
off (both for being a Magog and for being a Wayist). Harper and Trance would
come to fill the role of children, earning Tyr's instinctive, bred-in
paternal attitude. It's quite likely that, if Kodiak Pride had never been
destroyed, Tyr would have children just about Harper & Trance's size.
Note that time Tyr made dinner for Beka. He was flirting with her (just as
he would've with any highly-placed Nietzschean female --especially one who
could gain him control of the Pride), but as soon as she pointed it out, he
made that comment about how he'd never lower himself to be with a human.

That episode I did see years back, and I do not recall it being cut and dry
like
that. I had the impression they might hook up later in the series.
It appeared to be way too early for members of the crew to already
be paired off.

Post by Mark Brown
Remember the look of confusion on his face when she walked out. I think that
he (for just a slit-second) ~forgot~ that she wasn't a fellow Nietzschean. I
like to think we would've seen scenes like that recurring more and more.
You're perhaps right that Tyr & Dylan would never fully reconcile, but they
would at least develop a sort of stability (and, one hopes, mutual respect,
and even admiration). Tyr would have to accept that his odds for survival
are far better as a member of Andromeda's crew than on his own. . . or maybe
even surrounded by fellow Nietzscheans, who may not be so "superior" after
all.
Plus there's the undeniable comic potential (never fulfilled, alas) of Tyr &
Harper's "odd couple" friendship. Could've been the Spock & McCoy (or
Hercules & Iolaus) of a new generation. Eventually, they tried to play it
out with Rhade instead, but that just didn't work as well IMHO. Rhade had
too much of a sense of humour to be a good contrast.

It was definitely tough for anyone to fill Tyr's shoes.
I wonder how much they were paying Cobb. Could be that part of this was
a dispute over money. Cobb certainly deserved almost as much as Actor
and Executive Producer Sorbo.

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Given that Beka was high (or just coming down) and defensive, I don't

think

Post by Mark Brown
we can read too much into it. Exactly what Beka meant is ambiguous: Either

No, that statement was written into the script a high paid Hollywood writer,

(Aside: there's no such thing as a high-paid writer. At least not high-paid
~enough.~ ;) )

What kind of money do you think the writer received for the
first year of this series ?

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
perhaps under orders from Sorbo and Co.
If the Andromeda producers did not want that line on the air, they could
have edited it out in two seconds.

Not necessarily. The writer was Ethlie, who knows/knew Beka better than
anyone (IIRC, she based Beka on herself), so I think we can safely assume
that it was just an in-character comment. There's no reason to assume
anything behind the scenes (though there very well may have been, I just
don't think this is evidence).

It is against the screenwriting rules. You never put someone on screen
and accuse their character of something that could possibly be true.
Why do you think all these Fat Person movies always have a slim person
wearing a fat suit ? Or Ugly Person roles are filled by actors with
makeup-altered looks ?
Some actress I believe won the oscar when he looks and nose were
uglied down to fit the part, recently, if I recall correctly.
Thus, this being a deviation from known screenwriting rules poses the
question why they would accuse Cobb of steroids in the script.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Tyr wouldn't take performance-enhancers 'cause he's a Nietzschean and
wouldn't need them, or he ~would~ take performance-enhancers because,
well, he's a Nietzschean, and Niets play to win any way they can.

Exactly, which means that the line was a potshot at Cobb himself.

I don't feel it follows.
In-character: Beka has just been accused of drug use. She can't reasonably
deny it, so she's going to try to justify it. Since she ~can't,~ she tries
to reverse the accusation ("you've done it, so why can't I?") Since Tyr was
the last person to talk, she singles him out. Tyr obviously doesn't smoke,
or drink (that we see --at the very least, he doesn't have any "problem"),
so Beka tries to think of the sort of drug that Tyr would take. He's big,
muscular --first word that springs to mind is "steroids."
Ethlie could probably have made something up (by CY 10 096, wouldn't they
have a "better" steroid-analogue), but calling Tyr "Mr.

Tricordrazine-Beta,"

Post by Mark Brown
or "Mr. Biocardia Stim" wouldn't carry the weight. The audience would think
"huh?" instead of "she's accusing him of taking drugs, same as her." The
steroids reference is a dig that would need no explanation.

Does not matter who the writer is. All that matters is what passed through
the screenwriting proofreading which, at a billion dollar studio normally
would be read and signed off on by a lot of people, including Attorneys
and Censors, I might add.

Post by Mark Brown
Tyr's reaction (which was written by the same hand) makes it pretty clear
that he doesn't use drugs (for which he gives very practical
reasons --likely ~that's~ the line Ethlie intended to be the more important
one). Also, given the meal he'd previously cooked Beka, and the "big-ass
plate of hor d'oevres" (all of them vegetable or fruit) he's seen with later
in the series, it's not too hard to imagine him as "Mr. Health-Food," but
even druggie-Beka's not crazy enough to defend herself ~that~ way.

Again, you are failing to recognize the deviation from screenwriting rules
at play here. Now the Beka character is characterized as using drugs but
there is no reason to believe that the actress playing that role actually
has ever done that. There is based on musculature reason to believe that
Cobb may have used steroids and thus the allegation in the script
is out of bounds.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
"Drugs create dependency. Dependency is weakness." --Tyr Anasazi

"...And Dependency Is Death." you forgot the end of that triplet.

Thanks. I haven't seen that ep in ages and was (mis)quoting from memory.
Mark
"Shall we dance, Mr. Harper?" --Tyr, about to take on the magog swarm

Just to be clear: nothing ever appears in a script by chance.
These studios have numerous people reading these scripts and editing them.

Politics

[PettyFan]

Post by John Shocked
IMDB has him at 43 right now. Interestingly, IMDB does not describe
Cobb as ever being married or having a family, so with a back ground
in theater there is aobvious supposition he might be homosexual.
Any truth to that ?
Maybe this betrayal content is something the scripts expanded on
in the second or third year. I cannot imagine that the producers could have
thought that portraying a major character in the show as traitor or
potential traitor would have been interesting to watch.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Tyr wouldn't take performance-enhancers 'cause he's a Nietzschean and
wouldn't need them, or he ~would~ take performance-enhancers because,
well, he's a Nietzschean, and Niets play to win any way they can.

Exactly, which means that the line was a potshot at Cobb himself.

smelly bait

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
I don't feel it follows.
In-character: Beka has just been accused of drug use. She can't reasonably
deny it, so she's going to try to justify it. Since she ~can't,~ she tries
to reverse the accusation ("you've done it, so why can't I?") Since Tyr

was

Post by Mark Brown
the last person to talk, she singles him out. Tyr obviously doesn't smoke,
or drink (that we see --at the very least, he doesn't have any "problem"),
so Beka tries to think of the sort of drug that Tyr would take. He's big,
muscular --first word that springs to mind is "steroids."
Ethlie could probably have made something up (by CY 10 096, wouldn't they
have a "better" steroid-analogue), but calling Tyr "Mr.

Tricordrazine-Beta,"

Post by Mark Brown
or "Mr. Biocardia Stim" wouldn't carry the weight. The audience would

think

Post by Mark Brown
"huh?" instead of "she's accusing him of taking drugs, same as her." The
steroids reference is a dig that would need no explanation.

you take a tv show WAY to seriously.

Post by John Shocked
Does not matter who the writer is. All that matters is what passed through
the screenwriting proofreading which, at a billion dollar studio normally
would be read and signed off on by a lot of people, including Attorneys
and Censors, I might add.

Post by Mark Brown
Tyr's reaction (which was written by the same hand) makes it pretty clear
that he doesn't use drugs (for which he gives very practical
reasons --likely ~that's~ the line Ethlie intended to be the more

important

Post by Mark Brown
one). Also, given the meal he'd previously cooked Beka, and the "big-ass
plate of hor d'oevres" (all of them vegetable or fruit) he's seen with

later

Post by Mark Brown
in the series, it's not too hard to imagine him as "Mr. Health-Food," but
even druggie-Beka's not crazy enough to defend herself ~that~ way.

Again, you are failing to recognize the deviation from screenwriting rules
at play here. Now the Beka character is characterized as using drugs but
there is no reason to believe that the actress playing that role actually
has ever done that. There is based on musculature reason to believe that
Cobb may have used steroids and thus the allegation in the script
is out of bounds.

just cause an actor does a scene that involves drug use dont mean the
actor in real life has done them. i dont see how you can try to make a
claim like that. bet ya think cause an actor murders someone in a
movie that means they have done so in real life.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
"Drugs create dependency. Dependency is weakness." --Tyr Anasazi

"...And Dependency Is Death." you forgot the end of that triplet.

Thanks. I haven't seen that ep in ages and was (mis)quoting from memory.
Mark
"Shall we dance, Mr. Harper?" --Tyr, about to take on the magog swarm

Just to be clear: nothing ever appears in a script by chance.
These studios have numerous people reading these scripts and editing them.
Politics

[John Shocked]

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked
IMDB has him at 43 right now. Interestingly, IMDB does not describe
Cobb as ever being married or having a family, so with a back ground
in theater there is aobvious supposition he might be homosexual.
Any truth to that ?
Maybe this betrayal content is something the scripts expanded on
in the second or third year. I cannot imagine that the producers could have
thought that portraying a major character in the show as traitor or
potential traitor would have been interesting to watch.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Tyr wouldn't take performance-enhancers 'cause he's a Nietzschean and
wouldn't need them, or he ~would~ take performance-enhancers because,
well, he's a Nietzschean, and Niets play to win any way they can.

Exactly, which means that the line was a potshot at Cobb himself.

smelly bait

What does that mean.

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
I don't feel it follows.
In-character: Beka has just been accused of drug use. She can't reasonably
deny it, so she's going to try to justify it. Since she ~can't,~ she tries
to reverse the accusation ("you've done it, so why can't I?") Since Tyr was
the last person to talk, she singles him out. Tyr obviously doesn't smoke,
or drink (that we see --at the very least, he doesn't have any "problem"),
so Beka tries to think of the sort of drug that Tyr would take. He's big,
muscular --first word that springs to mind is "steroids."
Ethlie could probably have made something up (by CY 10 096,
wouldn't they have a "better" steroid-analogue), but calling
Tyr "Mr.Tricordrazine-Beta,"
or "Mr. Biocardia Stim" wouldn't carry the weight.
The audience would think "huh?" instead of "she's accusing
him of taking drugs, same as her." The steroids
reference is a dig that would need no explanation.

you take a tv show WAY to seriously.

One should take the screenwriter seriously, not the characters
in his product.

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked
Does not matter who the writer is. All that matters is what passed
through the screenwriting proofreading which, at a billion dollar
studio normally would be read and signed off on by a lot of
people, including Attorneys and Censors, I might add.

Post by Mark Brown
Tyr's reaction (which was written by the same hand) makes
it pretty clear that he doesn't use drugs (for which he gives very
practical reasons --likely ~that's~ the line Ethlie intended to be
the more important one). Also, given the meal he'd previously
cooked Beka, and the "big-ass
plate of hor d'oevres" (all of them vegetable or fruit) he's seen with
later in the series, it's not too hard to imagine him as
"Mr. Health-Food," but even druggie-Beka's not crazy enough
to defend herself ~that~ way.

Again, you are failing to recognize the deviation from screenwriting rules
at play here. Now the Beka character is characterized as using drugs but
there is no reason to believe that the actress playing that role actually
has ever done that. There is based on musculature reason to believe that
Cobb may have used steroids and thus the allegation in the script
is out of bounds.

just cause an actor does a scene that involves drug use dont mean the
actor in real life has done them. i dont see how you can try to make a
claim like that. bet ya think cause an actor murders someone in a
movie that means they have done so in real life.

This is nonsense. Go back and read my message again.
I have stated that the screenwriters' rules do not allow an allegation
to be made against an actor in a show if the viewer could possibly
perceive the allegation to be true in real life. Those are the rules
by which they usually live by.

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
"Drugs create dependency. Dependency is weakness." --Tyr Anasazi

"...And Dependency Is Death." you forgot the end of that triplet.

Thanks. I haven't seen that ep in ages and was (mis)quoting from memory.
Mark
"Shall we dance, Mr. Harper?" --Tyr, about to take on the magog swarm

Just to be clear: nothing ever appears in a script by chance.
These studios have numerous people reading these scripts and editing them.
Politics

Actually I do not believe either of us has the three line quote dead on yet.
Maybe someone recalls it better.

Politics

[Mark Brown]

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
(Who knows, if/when I succeed as a screenwriter, I might be able to give

him

Post by Mark Brown
something, assuming he's still acting then. I'd best get on that,

shouldn't I?)
IMDB has him at 43 right now. Interestingly, IMDB does not describe
Cobb as ever being married or having a family, so with a back ground
in theater there is aobvious supposition he might be homosexual.
Any truth to that ?

. . . Given the usual accuracy of such stereotypes (and, for that matter, of
IMDB itself), I think not.

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Maybe this betrayal content is something the scripts expanded on
in the second or third year.

Possible. I note that Tyr's exit was unusually built up over numerous
episodes; unusual given the post RHW "no long-term arcs" policy.

Post by John Shocked
I cannot imagine that the producers could have
thought that portraying a major character in the show as traitor or
potential traitor would have been interesting to watch.

Actually, I think the opposite. I mean, look at Shakespeare's Tragedies, or
most "Reality" TV, or the Star Wars Prequels (okay, bad example, that one).
Having an obvious traitor increases both dramatic irony and the character
conflict. Especially when he aims (as Tyr likely would) to make alliances
and undermine Dylan's leadership. When Tyr makes his move, it wouldn't be
alone; he'd do whatever possible to get as many of the crew to side with
him.

It'd be like Survivor:_Andromeda.

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
The storyline should have been more that Tyr agreed Dylan to reestablish
the Empire (or whatever they called it) because his race was wiped out
and it was his only hope for safety and justice against those who
exterminated
his tribe. Then, they might Tyr and Dylan could debate over strategy
(sometimes putting initiatives to the crew's vote) to
gain strength and support and eventually build to a point of domination,
deafeating and eliminating or absorbing foes as they went along.
I am surprised the grand scheme failed to pursue this.

Yeah, that's the result of the writers being shuffled. Also, "they" wanted
to paint Dylan as the Hero, which meant that moral ambiguity (Tyr's
specialty) had to be trimmed down.

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Hopefully RHW's upcoming "Coda"

will

Post by Mark Brown
illuminate some of what he'd planned for Tyr as well as for Trance.

What Coda is this ? The final episode ?

A thing RHW is going to (or planning to) post around June 2nd. When he left
he took all his notes and story ideas with him. Specifically, he had a very
clear idea where to go with Trance and her secret, a direction that
apparently was greatly different from what the show did without him. The
"Coda" is RHW's epilogue to the series, where we find out Trance's true
nature. I'm hoping that he had an equally developed idea for Tyr's
development. It's certainly possible that Tyr was a "stream of
consciousness" character with no fixed trajectory beyond a season or so, but
I doubt it; RHW is too good a writer to set up something like Tamerlane and
not know how he'd follow through on it.

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
There were little hints throughout S1, culminating in "It's Hour Come

Round

Post by Mark Brown
At Last," where Harper started freaking out during the magog invasion and
Tyr gave him a Nietzschean pep-talk. Then when the magog stormed in, Tyr
offered to euthanize Harper, who told him not to bother 'cause he'd rather
go down fighting. Just reading into Tyr's proud grin.

I do not hear any adoption in that story.

Well, Tyr ~could~ just as easily have turned up his nose or menaced Harper
into working. Instead he actually reached out to him, advising Harper to
~face~ his demons (the magog), like a Nietzschean, with "fire in [his]
blood," as Tyr knows Harper can. Then when Tyr has one bullet left, he
offers to do what Harper initially asked him to do (kill him before the
magog can rape him). When Harper says no, Tyr seems inordinately pleased,
and hands Harper one of his own knives. They end up fighting back-to-back,
like fellow Nietzscheans.

I feel it's telling that Tyr actually seems to give a crap what Harper does
(and has been paying enough attention to have seen Harper's Nietzschean-like
qualities), and seems pleased when Harper stands up for himself.

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
I posit that, as his
time on Andromeda continued, Tyr would've (likely subconsciously) adopted
the crew as a surrogate Pride, much like cats & dogs adopt their human
"owners" as members of their pride/pack, and treat them accordingly.

I do not think that would have been a good idea or indicated by the
marriage that he had to that Nietzchean woman.

I don't see what Freya has to do with it. She has good genes, and is the
mother of his child. I don't believe he felt any particular attraction to
her that he wouldn't have felt for any breeding-age female who accepted his
genetic "resumé." Her entire point in the story was to (A) demonstrate how
Nietzscheans make marriages, and (B) to birth Tamerlane.

Post by John Shocked
The Andromeda members would be a team, and each of them should have
been paired off with mates or each other who would in the end flourish
in the new Empire.

I disagree. As much as I do like playing the 'shipper, having Andromeda's
crew pair off to a happy ending would've been trite and clichéed. Besides,
no writer will pair off couples too early without some sort of triangle.

We had the Harper => Rommie => Dylan (=> memory of Sarah) triangle, which
couldn't possibly end well for ~everyone,~ and the Beka/Tyr sparkage (Rev is
obviously celibate [aside from his being raped by the Hegira], and Trance
could've concievably ended up anywhere, relationship-wise). I feel that
these situations would've been drug out as long as possible, again, to
increase the inter-character drama.

I also don't feel the restored Commonwealth would've ~appeared~ out of the
blue as quickly as it ended up doing. Likely we were ~never~ supposed to see
the "happily ever after."

(In case anyone's wondering, I envisioned the series ending with Dylan's
death, and possibly with Beka's as well. Tyr would be forced to step in and
assume command, finally forced to choose between rebuilding the Kodiak, or
rebuilding the Commonwealth. By now though, it would have become obvious
that the Nietzschean system of every-Pride-for-itself warfare was terminally
flawed. As that Nietzschean High Guard captain said in "Banks of the Lethe,"
any Nietzschean worthy of the name would stand ~with~ the Commonwealth.
Quick flash-forward a few years, and the epilogue sees adult Tamerlane,
Alpha of the Unified Prides, taking his place as Commonwealth Triumvir. . .
[with Andromeda as an honour-guard, under the command of Captain Harper.
;) ])

Remember Harper's line about how the universe is a windshield and they're
all bugs, but how together (with Dylan and Andromeda), they might end up
being the only bugs in the universe strong enough to smash through? I think
that was several-years-in-advance foreshadowing for Tyr's epiphany.

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Note that time Tyr made dinner for Beka. He was flirting with her (just as
he would've with any highly-placed Nietzschean female --especially one who
could gain him control of the Pride),

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
That episode I did see years back, and I do not recall it being cut and dry
like
that. I had the impression they might hook up later in the series.
It appeared to be way too early for members of the crew to already
be paired off.

Exactly; the Tyr/Beka sparkage would've been a great sub-plot to extend for
five years. On one hand, Tyr is attracted to her (no surprise; Nietzschean
males are even more hormone-driven than human males [perhaps another reason
Tyr & perpetually-desperate Harper would get along so well ;) ]), but on the
other, she's genetically inferior. . . but her skills are not
inconsiderable. He'd keep "accidentally" flirting with her, but then he'd
turn about and push her away, never quite understanding his own actions.
Eventually, Tyr would have to wonder exactly how much "superiority" is
genetic, and how much the result of individual will. It would take years for
him to concede that Beka is every bit as "worthy" a mate as a Nietzschean
(possibly more so --whenever Beka fights Nietzscheans, she tends to survive.
The Nietzscheans don't).

Meanwhile, Beka is equally attracted to Tyr, but can't figure out where he's
coming from. By the time Tyr comes around, she'd have hooked up with Rhade
(who doesn't seem to have Tyr's elitism), or maybe someone completely new
(which would result in more conflict as Tyr tries to win her affections).
Also, she'll have fully devoted herself to the Commonwealth long before Tyr
does, so her attraction to Tyr would conflict with her loyalty to
Dylan --and to her crew. Tyr would have to prove that he won't hurt ~them~
before he'll have any real chance with her.

Perhaps she & Tyr would've ended up working together on an adventure
focussing on Rafe, Uncle Sid, and the legacy of her father. He'd eventually
have to concede that her own family is no different to her than Kodiak Pride
is to him. Her ancestors are as valuable, and formidable in their way, as
his own. He'd probably learn her mother's name, and pay her a Nietzschean
compliment by identifying her as "Beka Valentine, of the Eureka Maru, out of
__ by Ignatius."

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
It is against the screenwriting rules. You never put someone on screen
and accuse their character of something that could possibly be true.

Yes we/they do. Writers do that all the time. That's why we use words like
"fiction" and "acting."

In an episode of. . . I think it was CSI, Sean Maher played a serial rapist.
Sean Maher is not a rapist. In an episode of Dead_Like_Me, Jewel Stait
played a slut/prostitute. Jewel is currently (I assume happily) married. In
The_Bourne_Supremacy, Matt Damon's character was skilled and intelligent.
You see where I'm going.

More to the point, Tyr (the character) is pretty obviously ~not~ on
steroids, as per the script. Doesn't Tyr's rebuttal carry just as much
weight as Beka's accusation?

Post by John Shocked
Why do you think all these Fat Person movies always have a slim person
wearing a fat suit ?

Like in Beverly_Hills_Ninja? You can always make the skinny good-looking guy
fat and ugly (like Eddie Murphy in The_Klumps), but the fat, ugly guy can't
exactly be made up as Orlando Bloom.

Post by John Shocked
Or Ugly Person roles are filled by actors with
makeup-altered looks ?

Like the cast of NYPD_Blue, or CSI? Or the Cigarrette Smoking Man? (Who,
incidentally was a non-smoker, neatly disproving your thesis.)

It's Showbiz, and humans are intrinsically shallow. Slim, beautiful people
far, ~far~ outnumber normal people in Hollywood (which is exactly why
parents groups complain about anemia and low-self-esteem among
impressionable people who ~watch~ TV).

Post by John Shocked
Some actress I believe won the oscar when he looks and nose were
uglied down to fit the part, recently, if I recall correctly.

Well, first, the Oscars have more to do with politics than with actual
quality, and second, she likely "won" it for her acting, not her looks.

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Again, you are failing to recognize the deviation from screenwriting rules
at play here. Now the Beka character is characterized as using drugs but
there is no reason to believe that the actress playing that role actually
has ever done that. There is based on musculature reason to believe that
Cobb may have used steroids and thus the allegation in the script
is out of bounds.

So, basically, you're relying on stereotype to back up your double-standard.
Isn't it just as likely that Lisa Ryder is being accused of having a drug
problem? Or being a slut? Or a thief? Or a bad driver? There seems to be no
more or less evidence either way, aside from your opinion that KHC's
physique comes from steroid use. Could it not just as easily come from a
strict excercise regimen and healthy diet? Especially given that Tyr's
character ~requires~ him to be muscular --he could likely have embarked on a
specialized workout plan before/upon getting the role.

IIRC, Kevin Sorbo did the same thing when he was on Hercules. When the show
ended he said (jokingly) that he's now allowed to eat junk food again (which
is why Dylan doesn't go shirtless as often as Hercules did; he just doesn't
have the same physique).

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Just to be clear: nothing ever appears in a script by chance.

*SNIP*

Of course not. But not everything is hint of something behind the scenes.

Look at it this way, how would you rewrite that scene to take out the
steroids reference? How would you have Beka react to Tyr's accusation?

Mark
"Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar." --Sigmund Freud

[John Shocked]

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
(Who knows, if/when I succeed as a screenwriter,
I might be able to give him something, assuming he's still
acting then. I'd best get on that, shouldn't I?)

IMDB has him at 43 right now. Interestingly, IMDB does not describe
Cobb as ever being married or having a family, so with a back ground
in theater there is aobvious supposition he might be homosexual.
Any truth to that ?

. . . Given the usual accuracy of such stereotypes (and, for that matter, of
IMDB itself), I think not.

I find IMDB to be unusually accurate and thorough in biographical data.

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Maybe this betrayal content is something the scripts expanded on
in the second or third year.

Possible. I note that Tyr's exit was unusually built up over numerous
episodes; unusual given the post RHW "no long-term arcs" policy.

Bottom line: after a promising beginning, Andromeda failed to
deliver the content which the first few episodes indicated.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
I cannot imagine that the producers could have
thought that portraying a major character in the show as traitor or
potential traitor would have been interesting to watch.

Actually, I think the opposite. I mean, look at Shakespeare's Tragedies, or
most "Reality" TV, or the Star Wars Prequels (okay, bad example, that one).
Having an obvious traitor increases both dramatic irony and the character
conflict. Especially when he aims (as Tyr likely would) to make alliances
and undermine Dylan's leadership. When Tyr makes his move,
it wouldn't be alone; he'd do whatever possible to get as many
of the crew to side with him.
It'd be like Survivor:_Andromeda.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
The storyline should have been more that Tyr agreed Dylan to reestablish
the Empire (or whatever they called it) because his race was wiped out
and it was his only hope for safety and justice against those who
exterminated
his tribe. Then, they might Tyr and Dylan could debate over strategy
(sometimes putting initiatives to the crew's vote) to
gain strength and support and eventually build to a point of domination,
deafeating and eliminating or absorbing foes as they went along.
I am surprised the grand scheme failed to pursue this.

Yeah, that's the result of the writers being shuffled. Also, "they" wanted
to paint Dylan as the Hero, which meant that moral ambiguity (Tyr's
specialty) had to be trimmed down.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Hopefully RHW's upcoming "Coda" will illuminate
some of what he'd planned for Tyr as well as for Trance.

What Coda is this ? The final episode ?

A thing RHW is going to (or planning to) post around June 2nd. When he left
he took all his notes and story ideas with him. Specifically, he had a very
clear idea where to go with Trance and her secret, a direction that
apparently was greatly different from what the show did without him. The
"Coda" is RHW's epilogue to the series, where we find out Trance's true
nature. I'm hoping that he had an equally developed idea for Tyr's
development. It's certainly possible that Tyr was a "stream of
consciousness" character with no fixed trajectory beyond a season or so, but
I doubt it; RHW is too good a writer to set up something like Tamerlane and
not know how he'd follow through on it.

Right, and it would deviate from the norm in science fiction shows
not to have the big, muscular black heavy as part of the team.
That goes all the way back to Worf in Star Trek: The Next Generation.
It has become science fiction TV tradition.

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
There were little hints throughout S1, culminating in "It's Hour Come

Round

Post by Mark Brown
At Last," where Harper started freaking out during the magog invasion and
Tyr gave him a Nietzschean pep-talk. Then when the magog stormed in, Tyr
offered to euthanize Harper, who told him not to bother 'cause he'd rather
go down fighting. Just reading into Tyr's proud grin.

I do not hear any adoption in that story.

Well, Tyr ~could~ just as easily have turned up his nose or menaced Harper
into working. Instead he actually reached out to him, advising Harper to
~face~ his demons (the magog), like a Nietzschean, with "fire in [his]
blood," as Tyr knows Harper can. Then when Tyr has one bullet left, he
offers to do what Harper initially asked him to do (kill him before the
magog can rape him). When Harper says no, Tyr seems inordinately pleased,
and hands Harper one of his own knives. They end up fighting back-to-back,
like fellow Nietzscheans.
I feel it's telling that Tyr actually seems to give a crap what Harper does
(and has been paying enough attention to have seen Harper's

Nietzschean-like

Post by Mark Brown
qualities), and seems pleased when Harper stands up for himself.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
I posit that, as his
time on Andromeda continued, Tyr would've (likely subconsciously) adopted
the crew as a surrogate Pride, much like cats & dogs adopt their human
"owners" as members of their pride/pack, and treat them accordingly.

I do not think that would have been a good idea or indicated by the
marriage that he had to that Nietzchean woman.

I don't see what Freya has to do with it. She has good genes, and is the
mother of his child. I don't believe he felt any particular attraction to
her that he wouldn't have felt for any breeding-age female who accepted his
genetic "resumé." Her entire point in the story was to (A) demonstrate how
Nietzscheans make marriages, and (B) to birth Tamerlane.

I would replace those points with:
A) demonstrate how important the Darwenian 'survival of the fittest' theme
applied to Nietzchean culture, and
B) to conceive a child which weds Tyr's almost extinct tribe to another
Nietzchean tribe.
I assume here that Tyr's son was named Tamerlane and appeared later in the
series, though. Which episode was that and what happened with Tamerlane ?

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
The Andromeda members would be a team, and each of them should have
been paired off with mates or each other who would in the end flourish
in the new Empire.

I disagree. As much as I do like playing the 'shipper, having Andromeda's
crew pair off to a happy ending would've been trite and clichéed. Besides,
no writer will pair off couples too early without some sort of triangle.
We had the Harper => Rommie => Dylan (=> memory of Sarah) triangle, which
couldn't possibly end well for ~everyone,~ and the Beka/Tyr sparkage (Rev is
obviously celibate [aside from his being raped by the Hegira], and Trance
could've concievably ended up anywhere, relationship-wise). I feel that
these situations would've been drug out as long as possible, again, to
increase the inter-character drama.
I also don't feel the restored Commonwealth would've ~appeared~ out of the
blue as quickly as it ended up doing. Likely we were ~never~ supposed to see
the "happily ever after."

As I mentioned, I was expecting the series to identify the various
factors which dominated the universe at that time, have the Andromeda
make peace with some, ally with others, and obliterated those who
could not be tamed in a "strike down the proud, spare the humble"
recreation of ancient literature Empire building.
Of course, portraying activity occurring outside the Andromeda
and graphical portrayal of space battles cost money and scripts can
be compromised by lack of funds preventing various scripts intents
from coming to fruition.

Post by Mark Brown
(In case anyone's wondering, I envisioned the series ending with Dylan's
death, and possibly with Beka's as well. Tyr would be forced to step in and
assume command, finally forced to choose between rebuilding the Kodiak, or
rebuilding the Commonwealth. By now though, it would have become obvious
that the Nietzschean system of every-Pride-for-itself warfare was terminally
flawed. As that Nietzschean High Guard captain said in "Banks of the Lethe,"
any Nietzschean worthy of the name would stand ~with~ the Commonwealth.
Quick flash-forward a few years, and the epilogue sees adult Tamerlane,
Alpha of the Unified Prides, taking his place as Commonwealth Triumvir. . .
[with Andromeda as an honour-guard, under the command of Captain Harper.
;) ])

I thought the progression would be that the Commonwealth would eventually
be established and a new Universe Government created and then Dylan
would refuse the Presidency and go back to his home planet.

Post by Mark Brown
Remember Harper's line about how the universe is a windshield and they're
all bugs, but how together (with Dylan and Andromeda), they might end up
being the only bugs in the universe strong enough to smash through? I think
that was several-years-in-advance foreshadowing for Tyr's epiphany.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Note that time Tyr made dinner for Beka. He was flirting with her (just as
he would've with any highly-placed Nietzschean female --especially one who
could gain him control of the Pride),

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
That episode I did see years back, and I do not recall it being cut and dry
like
that. I had the impression they might hook up later in the series.
It appeared to be way too early for members of the crew to already
be paired off.

Exactly; the Tyr/Beka sparkage would've been a great sub-plot to extend for
five years. On one hand, Tyr is attracted to her (no surprise; Nietzschean
males are even more hormone-driven than human males [perhaps another reason
Tyr & perpetually-desperate Harper would get along so well ;) ]), but on the
other, she's genetically inferior. . . but her skills are not
inconsiderable. He'd keep "accidentally" flirting with her, but then he'd
turn about and push her away, never quite understanding his own actions.
Eventually, Tyr would have to wonder exactly how much "superiority" is
genetic, and how much the result of individual will. It would take years for
him to concede that Beka is every bit as "worthy" a mate as a Nietzschean
(possibly more so --whenever Beka fights Nietzscheans, she tends to survive.
The Nietzscheans don't).

Intra-crew romances like that do not turn me on. The reason these
intra-crew romances are so common is that they guarantee that
two stars in the show gain increased face time on the show together.
However, Tyr already had tried out a white woman. They needed to
at least mix in one black woman into his menagerie before anything
with Beka.

Post by Mark Brown
Meanwhile, Beka is equally attracted to Tyr, but can't figure out where he's
coming from. By the time Tyr comes around, she'd have hooked up with Rhade
(who doesn't seem to have Tyr's elitism), or maybe someone completely new
(which would result in more conflict as Tyr tries to win her affections).
Also, she'll have fully devoted herself to the Commonwealth long before Tyr
does, so her attraction to Tyr would conflict with her loyalty to
Dylan --and to her crew. Tyr would have to prove that he won't hurt ~them~
before he'll have any real chance with her.
Perhaps she & Tyr would've ended up working together on an adventure
focussing on Rafe, Uncle Sid, and the legacy of her father. He'd eventually
have to concede that her own family is no different to her than Kodiak Pride
is to him. Her ancestors are as valuable, and formidable in their way, as
his own. He'd probably learn her mother's name, and pay her a Nietzschean
compliment by identifying her as "Beka Valentine, of the Eureka Maru, out of
__ by Ignatius."
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
It is against the screenwriting rules. You never put someone on screen
and accuse their character of something that could possibly be true.
Why do you think all these Fat Person movies always have a slim person
wearing a fat suit ? Or Ugly Person roles are filled by actors with
makeup-altered looks ?
Some actress I believe won the oscar when he looks and nose were
uglied down to fit the part, recently, if I recall correctly.
Thus, this being a deviation from known screenwriting rules poses the
question why they would accuse Cobb of steroids in the script.

Yes we/they do. Writers do that all the time. That's why we use words
like "fiction" and "acting."

Give me an example ?

Post by Mark Brown
In an episode of. . . I think it was CSI, Sean Maher played a serial rapist.
Sean Maher is not a rapist. In an episode of Dead_Like_Me, Jewel Stait
played a slut/prostitute. Jewel is currently (I assume happily) married. In
The_Bourne_Supremacy, Matt Damon's character was skilled and intelligent.
You see where I'm going.

I find it disturbing you do not seem to understand the point I made.
Read it again.

Post by Mark Brown
More to the point, Tyr (the character) is pretty obviously ~not~ on
steroids, as per the script. Doesn't Tyr's rebuttal carry just as much
weight as Beka's accusation?

I do not recall his giving a response. This is years ago but my
recollection
was as I mentioned that this was sort of murmered under her breath
immediately after he had left. Are you watching the US feed of this
series ? Regardless of the response, it deviates from known
screenwriting guidelines since the viewer migbht actually believe the
statement about Cobb himself. There may even be legal defamatory
implications about such script statements.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
Why do you think all these Fat Person movies always have a slim person
wearing a fat suit ?

Like in Beverly_Hills_Ninja? You can always make the skinny good-looking guy
fat and ugly (like Eddie Murphy in The_Klumps), but the fat, ugly guy can't
exactly be made up as Orlando Bloom.

Post by John Shocked
Or Ugly Person roles are filled by actors with
makeup-altered looks ?

Like the cast of NYPD_Blue, or CSI? Or the Cigarrette Smoking Man? (Who,
incidentally was a non-smoker, neatly disproving your thesis.)
It's Showbiz, and humans are intrinsically shallow. Slim, beautiful people
far, ~far~ outnumber normal people in Hollywood (which is exactly why
parents groups complain about anemia and low-self-esteem among
impressionable people who ~watch~ TV).

Cigarettes on TV are generic advertising Product Placements, so you
cannot make judgments about their presence on TV. In addition,
cigarette smoking has been common in movies and while
its popularity in the US is declining in the US
(though not in many other countries who do not have
the money to fight the US export of corrupt culture
in movies and TV) it has not yet become a clear pejorative.
An Ugly Person is not normally chosen to play an ugly person
in a movie. A Fat Person normally the same, although Kirstie Alley
is in a new TV series about a 'fat actress'. But here everyone
knows she has had her day as one of the beautiful people and
will again when she loses the weight, which is already happening.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
Some actress I believe won the oscar when he looks and nose were
uglied down to fit the part, recently, if I recall correctly.

Well, first, the Oscars have more to do with politics than with actual
quality, and second, she likely "won" it for her acting, not her looks.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Again, you are failing to recognize the deviation from screenwriting rules
at play here. Now the Beka character is characterized as using drugs but
there is no reason to believe that the actress playing that role actually
has ever done that. There is based on musculature reason to believe that
Cobb may have used steroids and thus the allegation in the script
is out of bounds.

So, basically, you're relying on stereotype to back up your

double-standard.

Post by Mark Brown
Isn't it just as likely that Lisa Ryder is being accused of having a drug
problem? Or being a slut? Or a thief? Or a bad driver? There seems to be no
more or less evidence either way, aside from your opinion that KHC's
physique comes from steroid use. Could it not just as easily come from a

Again, I do not think you have competently read what I said.
And I really dislike being misquoted, whether intentionally
or through incompetence.
I never said that Cobb used steroids and doubt he did.
But it is possible to perceive that, and that is where the script
deviates from known rules.
In fact, I think it is Bo Jackson who is currently suing some newspaper
which claimed that in his heyday he used steroids, even though the
paper appears to have retracted the story.
Now in Jackson's case, I would not be surprised if he did
use steroids, but I do not know for sure. But this indicates
that accusing someone of steroid use is a pejorative which
could damage someone's career (or in Jackson's case, post-career).

Post by Mark Brown
strict excercise regimen and healthy diet? Especially given that Tyr's
character ~requires~ him to be muscular --he could likely have embarked on a
specialized workout plan before/upon getting the role.
IIRC, Kevin Sorbo did the same thing when he was on Hercules. When the show
ended he said (jokingly) that he's now allowed to eat junk food again (which
is why Dylan doesn't go shirtless as often as Hercules did; he just doesn't
have the same physique).
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Just to be clear: nothing ever appears in a script by chance.

*SNIP*
Of course not. But not everything is hint of something behind the scenes.
Look at it this way, how would you rewrite that scene to take out the
steroids reference? How would you have Beka react to Tyr's accusation?

I would have to see the scene again, because I do not recall a Tyr
response to the accusation in the US feed I saw. But that is immaterial.
If the show wanted to make a statement about steroids, they had to
make it without reference to someone in the show (especially an
up and coming unknown like Cobb whose career might be
damaged by this tag).
In fact, the impression I had from the scene was that Cobb
may not even have known of the Beka "steroids" statement
until he saw it on TV.
It is like Tara Reid being in a movie which accuses her character of
having fake silicon breasts. It will never happen.

Post by Mark Brown
Mark
"Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar." --Sigmund Freud

Sometimes a cigar is a cash money product placement in the movie to
advertise tobacco and cigarettes.

Politics

[PettyFan]

On Mon, 9 May 2005 17:15:42 -0700, "John Shocked"

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
(Who knows, if/when I succeed as a screenwriter,
I might be able to give him something, assuming he's still
acting then. I'd best get on that, shouldn't I?)

IMDB has him at 43 right now. Interestingly, IMDB does not describe
Cobb as ever being married or having a family, so with a back ground
in theater there is aobvious supposition he might be homosexual.
Any truth to that ?

. . . Given the usual accuracy of such stereotypes (and, for that matter,

of

Post by Mark Brown
IMDB itself), I think not.

I find IMDB to be unusually accurate and thorough in biographical data.

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Maybe this betrayal content is something the scripts expanded on
in the second or third year.

Possible. I note that Tyr's exit was unusually built up over numerous
episodes; unusual given the post RHW "no long-term arcs" policy.

Bottom line: after a promising beginning, Andromeda failed to
deliver the content which the first few episodes indicated.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
I cannot imagine that the producers could have
thought that portraying a major character in the show as traitor or
potential traitor would have been interesting to watch.

Actually, I think the opposite. I mean, look at Shakespeare's Tragedies,

or

Post by Mark Brown
most "Reality" TV, or the Star Wars Prequels (okay, bad example, that

one).

Post by Mark Brown
Having an obvious traitor increases both dramatic irony and the character
conflict. Especially when he aims (as Tyr likely would) to make alliances
and undermine Dylan's leadership. When Tyr makes his move,
it wouldn't be alone; he'd do whatever possible to get as many
of the crew to side with him.
It'd be like Survivor:_Andromeda.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
The storyline should have been more that Tyr agreed Dylan to reestablish
the Empire (or whatever they called it) because his race was wiped out
and it was his only hope for safety and justice against those who
exterminated
his tribe. Then, they might Tyr and Dylan could debate over strategy
(sometimes putting initiatives to the crew's vote) to
gain strength and support and eventually build to a point of domination,
deafeating and eliminating or absorbing foes as they went along.
I am surprised the grand scheme failed to pursue this.

Yeah, that's the result of the writers being shuffled. Also, "they" wanted
to paint Dylan as the Hero, which meant that moral ambiguity (Tyr's
specialty) had to be trimmed down.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Hopefully RHW's upcoming "Coda" will illuminate
some of what he'd planned for Tyr as well as for Trance.

What Coda is this ? The final episode ?

A thing RHW is going to (or planning to) post around June 2nd. When he

left

Post by Mark Brown
he took all his notes and story ideas with him. Specifically, he had a

very

Post by Mark Brown
clear idea where to go with Trance and her secret, a direction that
apparently was greatly different from what the show did without him. The
"Coda" is RHW's epilogue to the series, where we find out Trance's true
nature. I'm hoping that he had an equally developed idea for Tyr's
development. It's certainly possible that Tyr was a "stream of
consciousness" character with no fixed trajectory beyond a season or so,

but

Post by Mark Brown
I doubt it; RHW is too good a writer to set up something like Tamerlane

and

Post by Mark Brown
not know how he'd follow through on it.

Right, and it would deviate from the norm in science fiction shows
not to have the big, muscular black heavy as part of the team.
That goes all the way back to Worf in Star Trek: The Next Generation.
It has become science fiction TV tradition.

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
There were little hints throughout S1, culminating in "It's Hour Come

Round

Post by Mark Brown
At Last," where Harper started freaking out during the magog invasion

and

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Tyr gave him a Nietzschean pep-talk. Then when the magog stormed in,

Tyr

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
offered to euthanize Harper, who told him not to bother 'cause he'd rather
go down fighting. Just reading into Tyr's proud grin.

I do not hear any adoption in that story.

Well, Tyr ~could~ just as easily have turned up his nose or menaced Harper
into working. Instead he actually reached out to him, advising Harper to
~face~ his demons (the magog), like a Nietzschean, with "fire in [his]
blood," as Tyr knows Harper can. Then when Tyr has one bullet left, he
offers to do what Harper initially asked him to do (kill him before the
magog can rape him). When Harper says no, Tyr seems inordinately pleased,
and hands Harper one of his own knives. They end up fighting back-to-back,
like fellow Nietzscheans.
I feel it's telling that Tyr actually seems to give a crap what Harper

does

Post by Mark Brown
(and has been paying enough attention to have seen Harper's

Nietzschean-like

Post by Mark Brown
qualities), and seems pleased when Harper stands up for himself.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
I posit that, as his
time on Andromeda continued, Tyr would've (likely subconsciously)

adopted

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
the crew as a surrogate Pride, much like cats & dogs adopt their human
"owners" as members of their pride/pack, and treat them accordingly.

I do not think that would have been a good idea or indicated by the
marriage that he had to that Nietzchean woman.

I don't see what Freya has to do with it. She has good genes, and is the
mother of his child. I don't believe he felt any particular attraction to
her that he wouldn't have felt for any breeding-age female who accepted

his

Post by Mark Brown
genetic "resumé." Her entire point in the story was to (A) demonstrate how
Nietzscheans make marriages, and (B) to birth Tamerlane.

A) demonstrate how important the Darwenian 'survival of the fittest' theme
applied to Nietzchean culture, and
B) to conceive a child which weds Tyr's almost extinct tribe to another
Nietzchean tribe.
I assume here that Tyr's son was named Tamerlane and appeared later in the
series, though. Which episode was that and what happened with Tamerlane ?

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
The Andromeda members would be a team, and each of them should have
been paired off with mates or each other who would in the end flourish
in the new Empire.

I disagree. As much as I do like playing the 'shipper, having Andromeda's
crew pair off to a happy ending would've been trite and clichéed. Besides,
no writer will pair off couples too early without some sort of triangle.
We had the Harper => Rommie => Dylan (=> memory of Sarah) triangle, which
couldn't possibly end well for ~everyone,~ and the Beka/Tyr sparkage (Rev

is

Post by Mark Brown
obviously celibate [aside from his being raped by the Hegira], and Trance
could've concievably ended up anywhere, relationship-wise). I feel that
these situations would've been drug out as long as possible, again, to
increase the inter-character drama.
I also don't feel the restored Commonwealth would've ~appeared~ out of the
blue as quickly as it ended up doing. Likely we were ~never~ supposed to

see

Post by Mark Brown
the "happily ever after."

As I mentioned, I was expecting the series to identify the various
factors which dominated the universe at that time, have the Andromeda
make peace with some, ally with others, and obliterated those who
could not be tamed in a "strike down the proud, spare the humble"
recreation of ancient literature Empire building.
Of course, portraying activity occurring outside the Andromeda
and graphical portrayal of space battles cost money and scripts can
be compromised by lack of funds preventing various scripts intents
from coming to fruition.

Post by Mark Brown
(In case anyone's wondering, I envisioned the series ending with Dylan's
death, and possibly with Beka's as well. Tyr would be forced to step in

and

Post by Mark Brown
assume command, finally forced to choose between rebuilding the Kodiak, or
rebuilding the Commonwealth. By now though, it would have become obvious
that the Nietzschean system of every-Pride-for-itself warfare was

terminally

Post by Mark Brown
flawed. As that Nietzschean High Guard captain said in "Banks of the

Lethe,"

Post by Mark Brown
any Nietzschean worthy of the name would stand ~with~ the Commonwealth.
Quick flash-forward a few years, and the epilogue sees adult Tamerlane,
Alpha of the Unified Prides, taking his place as Commonwealth Triumvir. .

.

Post by Mark Brown
[with Andromeda as an honour-guard, under the command of Captain Harper.
;) ])

I thought the progression would be that the Commonwealth would eventually
be established and a new Universe Government created and then Dylan
would refuse the Presidency and go back to his home planet.

Post by Mark Brown
Remember Harper's line about how the universe is a windshield and they're
all bugs, but how together (with Dylan and Andromeda), they might end up
being the only bugs in the universe strong enough to smash through? I

think

Post by Mark Brown
that was several-years-in-advance foreshadowing for Tyr's epiphany.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Note that time Tyr made dinner for Beka. He was flirting with her (just as
he would've with any highly-placed Nietzschean female --especially one who
could gain him control of the Pride),

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
That episode I did see years back, and I do not recall it being cut and dry
like
that. I had the impression they might hook up later in the series.
It appeared to be way too early for members of the crew to already
be paired off.

Exactly; the Tyr/Beka sparkage would've been a great sub-plot to extend

for

Post by Mark Brown
five years. On one hand, Tyr is attracted to her (no surprise; Nietzschean
males are even more hormone-driven than human males [perhaps another

reason

Post by Mark Brown
Tyr & perpetually-desperate Harper would get along so well ;) ]), but on

the

Post by Mark Brown
other, she's genetically inferior. . . but her skills are not
inconsiderable. He'd keep "accidentally" flirting with her, but then he'd
turn about and push her away, never quite understanding his own actions.
Eventually, Tyr would have to wonder exactly how much "superiority" is
genetic, and how much the result of individual will. It would take years

for

Post by Mark Brown
him to concede that Beka is every bit as "worthy" a mate as a Nietzschean
(possibly more so --whenever Beka fights Nietzscheans, she tends to

survive.

Post by Mark Brown
The Nietzscheans don't).

Intra-crew romances like that do not turn me on. The reason these
intra-crew romances are so common is that they guarantee that
two stars in the show gain increased face time on the show together.
However, Tyr already had tried out a white woman. They needed to
at least mix in one black woman into his menagerie before anything
with Beka.

Post by Mark Brown
Meanwhile, Beka is equally attracted to Tyr, but can't figure out where

he's

Post by Mark Brown
coming from. By the time Tyr comes around, she'd have hooked up with Rhade
(who doesn't seem to have Tyr's elitism), or maybe someone completely new
(which would result in more conflict as Tyr tries to win her affections).
Also, she'll have fully devoted herself to the Commonwealth long before

Tyr

Post by Mark Brown
does, so her attraction to Tyr would conflict with her loyalty to
Dylan --and to her crew. Tyr would have to prove that he won't hurt ~them~
before he'll have any real chance with her.
Perhaps she & Tyr would've ended up working together on an adventure
focussing on Rafe, Uncle Sid, and the legacy of her father. He'd

eventually

Post by Mark Brown
have to concede that her own family is no different to her than Kodiak

Pride

Post by Mark Brown
is to him. Her ancestors are as valuable, and formidable in their way, as
his own. He'd probably learn her mother's name, and pay her a Nietzschean
compliment by identifying her as "Beka Valentine, of the Eureka Maru, out

of

Post by Mark Brown
__ by Ignatius."
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
It is against the screenwriting rules. You never put someone on screen
and accuse their character of something that could possibly be true.
Why do you think all these Fat Person movies always have a slim person
wearing a fat suit ? Or Ugly Person roles are filled by actors with
makeup-altered looks ?
Some actress I believe won the oscar when he looks and nose were
uglied down to fit the part, recently, if I recall correctly.
Thus, this being a deviation from known screenwriting rules poses the
question why they would accuse Cobb of steroids in the script.

Yes we/they do. Writers do that all the time. That's why we use words
like "fiction" and "acting."

Give me an example ?

ok now i know you are baiting people.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
In an episode of. . . I think it was CSI, Sean Maher played a serial

rapist.

Post by Mark Brown
Sean Maher is not a rapist. In an episode of Dead_Like_Me, Jewel Stait
played a slut/prostitute. Jewel is currently (I assume happily) married.

In

Post by Mark Brown
The_Bourne_Supremacy, Matt Damon's character was skilled and intelligent.
You see where I'm going.

I find it disturbing you do not seem to understand the point I made.
Read it again.

no we understood you clearly.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
More to the point, Tyr (the character) is pretty obviously ~not~ on
steroids, as per the script. Doesn't Tyr's rebuttal carry just as much
weight as Beka's accusation?

I do not recall his giving a response. This is years ago but my
recollection
was as I mentioned that this was sort of murmered under her breath
immediately after he had left. Are you watching the US feed of this
series ? Regardless of the response, it deviates from known
screenwriting guidelines since the viewer migbht actually believe the
statement about Cobb himself. There may even be legal defamatory
implications about such script statements.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
Why do you think all these Fat Person movies always have a slim person
wearing a fat suit ?

Like in Beverly_Hills_Ninja? You can always make the skinny good-looking

guy

Post by Mark Brown
fat and ugly (like Eddie Murphy in The_Klumps), but the fat, ugly guy

can't

Post by Mark Brown
exactly be made up as Orlando Bloom.

Post by John Shocked
Or Ugly Person roles are filled by actors with
makeup-altered looks ?

Like the cast of NYPD_Blue, or CSI? Or the Cigarrette Smoking Man? (Who,
incidentally was a non-smoker, neatly disproving your thesis.)
It's Showbiz, and humans are intrinsically shallow. Slim, beautiful people
far, ~far~ outnumber normal people in Hollywood (which is exactly why
parents groups complain about anemia and low-self-esteem among
impressionable people who ~watch~ TV).

Cigarettes on TV are generic advertising Product Placements, so you
cannot make judgments about their presence on TV. In addition,
cigarette smoking has been common in movies and while
its popularity in the US is declining in the US
(though not in many other countries who do not have
the money to fight the US export of corrupt culture
in movies and TV) it has not yet become a clear pejorative.
An Ugly Person is not normally chosen to play an ugly person
in a movie. A Fat Person normally the same, although Kirstie Alley
is in a new TV series about a 'fat actress'. But here everyone
knows she has had her day as one of the beautiful people and
will again when she loses the weight, which is already happening.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
Some actress I believe won the oscar when he looks and nose were
uglied down to fit the part, recently, if I recall correctly.

Well, first, the Oscars have more to do with politics than with actual
quality, and second, she likely "won" it for her acting, not her looks.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Again, you are failing to recognize the deviation from screenwriting

rules

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
at play here. Now the Beka character is characterized as using drugs

but

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
there is no reason to believe that the actress playing that role

actually

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
has ever done that. There is based on musculature reason to believe

that

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
Cobb may have used steroids and thus the allegation in the script
is out of bounds.

So, basically, you're relying on stereotype to back up your

double-standard.

Post by Mark Brown
Isn't it just as likely that Lisa Ryder is being accused of having a drug
problem? Or being a slut? Or a thief? Or a bad driver? There seems to be

no

Post by Mark Brown
more or less evidence either way, aside from your opinion that KHC's
physique comes from steroid use. Could it not just as easily come from a

Again, I do not think you have competently read what I said.
And I really dislike being misquoted, whether intentionally
or through incompetence.
I never said that Cobb used steroids and doubt he did.
But it is possible to perceive that, and that is where the script
deviates from known rules.
In fact, I think it is Bo Jackson who is currently suing some newspaper
which claimed that in his heyday he used steroids, even though the
paper appears to have retracted the story.
Now in Jackson's case, I would not be surprised if he did
use steroids, but I do not know for sure. But this indicates
that accusing someone of steroid use is a pejorative which
could damage someone's career (or in Jackson's case, post-career).

Post by Mark Brown
strict excercise regimen and healthy diet? Especially given that Tyr's
character ~requires~ him to be muscular --he could likely have embarked on

a

Post by Mark Brown
specialized workout plan before/upon getting the role.
IIRC, Kevin Sorbo did the same thing when he was on Hercules. When the

show

Post by Mark Brown
ended he said (jokingly) that he's now allowed to eat junk food again

(which

Post by Mark Brown
is why Dylan doesn't go shirtless as often as Hercules did; he just

doesn't

Post by Mark Brown
have the same physique).
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Just to be clear: nothing ever appears in a script by chance.

*SNIP*
Of course not. But not everything is hint of something behind the scenes.
Look at it this way, how would you rewrite that scene to take out the
steroids reference? How would you have Beka react to Tyr's accusation?

I would have to see the scene again, because I do not recall a Tyr
response to the accusation in the US feed I saw. But that is immaterial.
If the show wanted to make a statement about steroids, they had to
make it without reference to someone in the show (especially an
up and coming unknown like Cobb whose career might be
damaged by this tag).
In fact, the impression I had from the scene was that Cobb
may not even have known of the Beka "steroids" statement
until he saw it on TV.
It is like Tara Reid being in a movie which accuses her character of
having fake silicon breasts. It will never happen.

Post by Mark Brown
Mark
"Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar." --Sigmund Freud

Sometimes a cigar is a cash money product placement in the movie to
advertise tobacco and cigarettes.
Politics

[John Shocked]

Post by PettyFan
On Mon, 9 May 2005 17:15:42 -0700, "John Shocked"

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
(Who knows, if/when I succeed as a screenwriter,
I might be able to give him something, assuming he's still
acting then. I'd best get on that, shouldn't I?)

IMDB has him at 43 right now. Interestingly, IMDB does not describe
Cobb as ever being married or having a family, so with a back ground
in theater there is aobvious supposition he might be homosexual.
Any truth to that ?

. . . Given the usual accuracy of such stereotypes
(and, for that matter,of IMDB itself), I think not.

I find IMDB to be unusually accurate and thorough in biographical data.

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Maybe this betrayal content is something the scripts expanded on
in the second or third year.

Possible. I note that Tyr's exit was unusually built up over numerous
episodes; unusual given the post RHW "no long-term arcs" policy.

Bottom line: after a promising beginning, Andromeda failed to
deliver the content which the first few episodes indicated.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
I cannot imagine that the producers could have
thought that portraying a major character in the show as traitor or
potential traitor would have been interesting to watch.

Actually, I think the opposite. I mean, look at Shakespeare's
Tragedies,or most "Reality" TV, or the Star Wars Prequels
(okay, bad example, that one).
Having an obvious traitor increases both dramatic irony and the character
conflict. Especially when he aims (as Tyr likely would) to make alliances
and undermine Dylan's leadership. When Tyr makes his move,
it wouldn't be alone; he'd do whatever possible to get as many
of the crew to side with him.
It'd be like Survivor:_Andromeda.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
The storyline should have been more that Tyr agreed Dylan to reestablish
the Empire (or whatever they called it) because his race was wiped out
and it was his only hope for safety and justice against those who
exterminated
his tribe. Then, they might Tyr and Dylan could debate over strategy
(sometimes putting initiatives to the crew's vote) to
gain strength and support and eventually build to a point of domination,
deafeating and eliminating or absorbing foes as they went along.
I am surprised the grand scheme failed to pursue this.

Yeah, that's the result of the writers being shuffled. Also, "they" wanted
to paint Dylan as the Hero, which meant that moral ambiguity (Tyr's
specialty) had to be trimmed down.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Hopefully RHW's upcoming "Coda" will illuminate
some of what he'd planned for Tyr as well as for Trance.

What Coda is this ? The final episode ?

A thing RHW is going to (or planning to) post around June 2nd.
When he left he took all his notes and story ideas with him.
Specifically, he had a very clear idea where to go with Trance
and her secret, a direction that apparently was greatly different
from what the show did without him. The "Coda" is RHW's
epilogue to the series, where we find out Trance's true
nature. I'm hoping that he had an equally developed idea for
Tyr's development. It's certainly possible that Tyr was a "stream
of consciousness" character with no fixed trajectory beyond a
season or so, but I doubt it; RHW is too good a writer to set
up something like Tamerlane and not know how he'd
follow through on it.

Right, and it would deviate from the norm in science fiction shows
not to have the big, muscular black heavy as part of the team.
That goes all the way back to Worf in Star Trek: The Next Generation.
It has become science fiction TV tradition.

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
There were little hints throughout S1, culminating in "It's Hour
Come Round At Last," where Harper started freaking out
during the magog invasion and Tyr gave him a Nietzschean pep-talk.
Then when the magog stormed in, Tyr offered to euthanize Harper,
who told him not to bother 'cause he'd rather
go down fighting. Just reading into Tyr's proud grin.

I do not hear any adoption in that story.

Well, Tyr ~could~ just as easily have turned up his nose or menaced Harper
into working. Instead he actually reached out to him, advising Harper to
~face~ his demons (the magog), like a Nietzschean, with "fire in [his]
blood," as Tyr knows Harper can. Then when Tyr has one bullet left, he
offers to do what Harper initially asked him to do (kill him before the
magog can rape him). When Harper says no, Tyr seems inordinately pleased,
and hands Harper one of his own knives. They end up fighting back-to-back,
like fellow Nietzscheans.
I feel it's telling that Tyr actually seems to give a crap what
Harper does (and has been paying enough attention to have seen
Harper's Nietzschean-like qualities), and seems pleased when Harper
stands up for himself.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
I posit that, as his time on Andromeda continued, Tyr would've
(likely subconsciously) adopted the crew as a surrogate Pride,
much like cats & dogs adopt their human "owners"
as members of their pride/pack, and treat them accordingly.

I do not think that would have been a good idea or indicated by the
marriage that he had to that Nietzchean woman.

I don't see what Freya has to do with it. She has good genes, and is the
mother of his child. I don't believe he felt any particular attraction to
her that he wouldn't have felt for any breeding-age female who
accepted his genetic "resumé." Her entire point in the story was to
(A) demonstrate how Nietzscheans make marriages, and
(B) to birth Tamerlane.

A) demonstrate how important the Darwenian 'survival of the fittest' theme
applied to Nietzchean culture, and
B) to conceive a child which weds Tyr's almost extinct tribe to another
Nietzchean tribe.
I assume here that Tyr's son was named Tamerlane and appeared later in the
series, though. Which episode was that and what happened with Tamerlane ?

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
The Andromeda members would be a team, and each of them should have
been paired off with mates or each other who would in the end flourish
in the new Empire.

I disagree. As much as I do like playing the 'shipper, having Andromeda's
crew pair off to a happy ending would've been trite and clichéed. Besides,
no writer will pair off couples too early without some sort of triangle.
We had the Harper => Rommie => Dylan (=> memory of Sarah)
triangle, which couldn't possibly end well for ~everyone,~ and the
Beka/Tyr sparkage (Rev is obviously celibate [aside from his being
raped by the Hegira], and Trance

I missed this in the original message. Who is Rev and when and
how was he or she raped ?

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
could've concievably ended up anywhere, relationship-wise).
I feel that these situations would've been drug out as long as
possible, again, to increase the inter-character drama.
I also don't feel the restored Commonwealth would've ~appeared~
out of the blue as quickly as it ended up doing. Likely we were
~never~ supposed to see the "happily ever after."

As I mentioned, I was expecting the series to identify the various
factors which dominated the universe at that time, have the Andromeda
make peace with some, ally with others, and obliterated those who
could not be tamed in a "strike down the proud, spare the humble"
recreation of ancient literature Empire building.
Of course, portraying activity occurring outside the Andromeda
and graphical portrayal of space battles cost money and scripts can
be compromised by lack of funds preventing various scripts intents
from coming to fruition.

Post by Mark Brown
(In case anyone's wondering, I envisioned the series ending with
Dylan's death, and possibly with Beka's as well. Tyr would be
forced to step in and assume command, finally forced to choose
between rebuilding the Kodiak, or rebuilding the Commonwealth.
By now though, it would have become obvious
that the Nietzschean system of every-Pride-for-itself warfare was
terminally flawed. As that Nietzschean High Guard captain said in
"Banks of the Lethe," any Nietzschean worthy of the name would
stand ~with~ the Commonwealth.
Quick flash-forward a few years, and the epilogue sees adult
Tamerlane, Alpha of the Unified Prides, taking his place as
Commonwealth Triumvir...
[with Andromeda as an honour-guard, under the command of
Captain Harper. ;) ])

I thought the progression would be that the Commonwealth would eventually
be established and a new Universe Government created and then Dylan
would refuse the Presidency and go back to his home planet.

Post by Mark Brown
Remember Harper's line about how the universe is a windshield and they're
all bugs, but how together (with Dylan and Andromeda), they might end up
being the only bugs in the universe strong enough to smash through?

I think that was several-years-in-advance foreshadowing for Tyr's

epiphany.

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Note that time Tyr made dinner for Beka. He was flirting with
her (just as he would've with any highly-placed Nietzschean female
--especially one who could gain him control of the Pride),

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
That episode I did see years back, and I do not recall it being cut

and

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
dry like that. I had the impression they might hook up later in the

series.

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
It appeared to be way too early for members of the crew to already
be paired off.

Exactly; the Tyr/Beka sparkage would've been a great sub-plot to
extend for five years. On one hand, Tyr is attracted to her
(no surprise; Nietzschean males are even more hormone-driven
than human males [perhaps another reason Tyr &
perpetually-desperate Harper would get along so well ;) ]),
but on the other, she's genetically inferior. . . but her skills are

not

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
inconsiderable. He'd keep "accidentally" flirting with her, but then he'd
turn about and push her away, never quite understanding his own actions.
Eventually, Tyr would have to wonder exactly how much "superiority" is
genetic, and how much the result of individual will. It would take years
for him to concede that Beka is every bit as "worthy" a mate as a
Nietzschean (possibly more so --whenever Beka fights Nietzscheans,
she tends to survive. The Nietzscheans don't).

Intra-crew romances like that do not turn me on. The reason these
intra-crew romances are so common is that they guarantee that
two stars in the show gain increased face time on the show together.
However, Tyr already had tried out a white woman. They needed to
at least mix in one black woman into his menagerie before anything
with Beka.

Post by Mark Brown
Meanwhile, Beka is equally attracted to Tyr, but can't figure out where
he's coming from. By the time Tyr comes around, she'd have hooked
up with Rhade (who doesn't seem to have Tyr's elitism), or maybe
someone completely new (which would result in more conflict as
Tyr tries to win her affections).
Also, she'll have fully devoted herself to the Commonwealth long
before Tyr does, so her attraction to Tyr would conflict with her

loyalty

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
to Dylan --and to her crew. Tyr would have to prove that he won't hurt
~them~ before he'll have any real chance with her.
Perhaps she & Tyr would've ended up working together on an adventure
focussing on Rafe, Uncle Sid, and the legacy of her father. He'd
eventually have to concede that her own family is no different to her
than Kodiak Pride is to him. Her ancestors are as valuable, and
formidable in their way, as his own. He'd probably learn her mother's
name, and pay her a Nietzschean compliment by identifying her as
"Beka Valentine, of the Eureka Maru, out of __ by Ignatius."
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
It is against the screenwriting rules. You never put someone on screen
and accuse their character of something that could possibly be true.
Why do you think all these Fat Person movies always have a slim person
wearing a fat suit ? Or Ugly Person roles are filled by actors with
makeup-altered looks ?
Some actress I believe won the oscar when he looks and nose were
uglied down to fit the part, recently, if I recall correctly.
Thus, this being a deviation from known screenwriting rules poses the
question why they would accuse Cobb of steroids in the script.

Yes we/they do. Writers do that all the time. That's why we use words
like "fiction" and "acting."

Give me an example ?

ok now i know you are baiting people.

I am asking a straight quest deserving a straight answer.

Politics

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
In an episode of. . . I think it was CSI, Sean Maher played a serial
rapist. Sean Maher is not a rapist. In an episode of
Dead_Like_Me, Jewel Stait played a slut/prostitute. Jewel is currently
(I assume happily) married. In The_Bourne_Supremacy, Matt Damon's
character was skilled and intelligent. You see where I'm going.

I find it disturbing you do not seem to understand the point I made.
Read it again.

no we understood you clearly.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
More to the point, Tyr (the character) is pretty obviously ~not~ on
steroids, as per the script. Doesn't Tyr's rebuttal carry just as much
weight as Beka's accusation?

I do not recall his giving a response. This is years ago but my
recollection
was as I mentioned that this was sort of murmered under her breath
immediately after he had left. Are you watching the US feed of this
series ? Regardless of the response, it deviates from known
screenwriting guidelines since the viewer migbht actually believe the
statement about Cobb himself. There may even be legal defamatory
implications about such script statements.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
Why do you think all these Fat Person movies always have a
slim person wearing a fat suit ?

Like in Beverly_Hills_Ninja? You can always make the skinny
good-looking guy fat and ugly (like Eddie Murphy in The_Klumps),
but the fat, ugly guy can't exactly be made up as Orlando Bloom.

Post by John Shocked
Or Ugly Person roles are filled by actors with
makeup-altered looks ?

Like the cast of NYPD_Blue, or CSI? Or the Cigarrette Smoking Man?
(Who, incidentally was a non-smoker, neatly disproving your thesis.)
It's Showbiz, and humans are intrinsically shallow. Slim, beautiful people
far, ~far~ outnumber normal people in Hollywood (which is exactly why
parents groups complain about anemia and low-self-esteem among
impressionable people who ~watch~ TV).

Cigarettes on TV are generic advertising Product Placements, so you
cannot make judgments about their presence on TV. In addition,
cigarette smoking has been common in movies and while
its popularity in the US is declining in the US
(though not in many other countries who do not have
the money to fight the US export of corrupt culture
in movies and TV) it has not yet become a clear pejorative.
An Ugly Person is not normally chosen to play an ugly person
in a movie. A Fat Person normally the same, although Kirstie Alley
is in a new TV series about a 'fat actress'. But here everyone
knows she has had her day as one of the beautiful people and
will again when she loses the weight, which is already happening.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
Some actress I believe won the oscar when he looks and nose
were uglied down to fit the part, recently, if I recall correctly.

Well, first, the Oscars have more to do with politics than with actual
quality, and second, she likely "won" it for her acting, not her looks.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Again, you are failing to recognize the deviation from

screenwriting rules at play here. Now the Beka character is
characterized as using drugs but there is no reason to believe
that the actress playing that role actually has ever done that.
There is based on musculature reason to believe that

Post by John Shocked
Cobb may have used steroids and thus the allegation in the
script is out of bounds.

So, basically, you're relying on stereotype to back up your
double-standard.
Isn't it just as likely that Lisa Ryder is being accused of having a drug
problem? Or being a slut? Or a thief? Or a bad driver? There seems to be

no

Post by Mark Brown
more or less evidence either way, aside from your opinion that KHC's
physique comes from steroid use. Could it not just as easily come from a

Again, I do not think you have competently read what I said.
And I really dislike being misquoted, whether intentionally
or through incompetence.
I never said that Cobb used steroids and doubt he did.
But it is possible to perceive that, and that is where the script
deviates from known rules.
In fact, I think it is Bo Jackson who is currently suing some newspaper
which claimed that in his heyday he used steroids, even though the
paper appears to have retracted the story.
Now in Jackson's case, I would not be surprised if he did
use steroids, but I do not know for sure. But this indicates
that accusing someone of steroid use is a pejorative which
could damage someone's career (or in Jackson's case, post-career).

Post by Mark Brown
strict excercise regimen and healthy diet? Especially given that Tyr's
character ~requires~ him to be muscular --he could likely have embarked on

a

Post by Mark Brown
specialized workout plan before/upon getting the role.
IIRC, Kevin Sorbo did the same thing when he was on Hercules. When the

show

Post by Mark Brown
ended he said (jokingly) that he's now allowed to eat junk food again

(which

Post by Mark Brown
is why Dylan doesn't go shirtless as often as Hercules did; he just

doesn't

Post by Mark Brown
have the same physique).
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Just to be clear: nothing ever appears in a script by chance.

*SNIP*
Of course not. But not everything is hint of something behind the scenes.
Look at it this way, how would you rewrite that scene to take out the
steroids reference? How would you have Beka react to Tyr's accusation?

I would have to see the scene again, because I do not recall a Tyr
response to the accusation in the US feed I saw. But that is immaterial.
If the show wanted to make a statement about steroids, they had to
make it without reference to someone in the show (especially an
up and coming unknown like Cobb whose career might be
damaged by this tag).
In fact, the impression I had from the scene was that Cobb
may not even have known of the Beka "steroids" statement
until he saw it on TV.
It is like Tara Reid being in a movie which accuses her character of
having fake silicon breasts. It will never happen.

Post by Mark Brown
Mark
"Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar." --Sigmund Freud

Sometimes a cigar is a cash money product placement in the movie to
advertise tobacco and cigarettes.
Politics

[PettyFan]

On Mon, 9 May 2005 23:52:53 -0700, "John Shocked"

Post by Beth Smarr

Post by PettyFan
On Mon, 9 May 2005 17:15:42 -0700, "John Shocked"

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
(Who knows, if/when I succeed as a screenwriter,
I might be able to give him something, assuming he's still
acting then. I'd best get on that, shouldn't I?)

IMDB has him at 43 right now. Interestingly, IMDB does not describe
Cobb as ever being married or having a family, so with a back ground
in theater there is aobvious supposition he might be homosexual.
Any truth to that ?

. . . Given the usual accuracy of such stereotypes
(and, for that matter,of IMDB itself), I think not.

I find IMDB to be unusually accurate and thorough in biographical data.

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Maybe this betrayal content is something the scripts expanded on
in the second or third year.

Possible. I note that Tyr's exit was unusually built up over numerous
episodes; unusual given the post RHW "no long-term arcs" policy.

Bottom line: after a promising beginning, Andromeda failed to
deliver the content which the first few episodes indicated.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
I cannot imagine that the producers could have
thought that portraying a major character in the show as traitor or
potential traitor would have been interesting to watch.

Actually, I think the opposite. I mean, look at Shakespeare's
Tragedies,or most "Reality" TV, or the Star Wars Prequels
(okay, bad example, that one).
Having an obvious traitor increases both dramatic irony and the

character

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
conflict. Especially when he aims (as Tyr likely would) to make

alliances

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
and undermine Dylan's leadership. When Tyr makes his move,
it wouldn't be alone; he'd do whatever possible to get as many
of the crew to side with him.
It'd be like Survivor:_Andromeda.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
The storyline should have been more that Tyr agreed Dylan to

reestablish

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
the Empire (or whatever they called it) because his race was wiped

out

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
and it was his only hope for safety and justice against those who
exterminated
his tribe. Then, they might Tyr and Dylan could debate over strategy
(sometimes putting initiatives to the crew's vote) to
gain strength and support and eventually build to a point of

domination,

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
deafeating and eliminating or absorbing foes as they went along.
I am surprised the grand scheme failed to pursue this.

Yeah, that's the result of the writers being shuffled. Also, "they"

wanted

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
to paint Dylan as the Hero, which meant that moral ambiguity (Tyr's
specialty) had to be trimmed down.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Hopefully RHW's upcoming "Coda" will illuminate
some of what he'd planned for Tyr as well as for Trance.

What Coda is this ? The final episode ?

A thing RHW is going to (or planning to) post around June 2nd.
When he left he took all his notes and story ideas with him.
Specifically, he had a very clear idea where to go with Trance
and her secret, a direction that apparently was greatly different
from what the show did without him. The "Coda" is RHW's
epilogue to the series, where we find out Trance's true
nature. I'm hoping that he had an equally developed idea for
Tyr's development. It's certainly possible that Tyr was a "stream
of consciousness" character with no fixed trajectory beyond a
season or so, but I doubt it; RHW is too good a writer to set
up something like Tamerlane and not know how he'd
follow through on it.

Right, and it would deviate from the norm in science fiction shows
not to have the big, muscular black heavy as part of the team.
That goes all the way back to Worf in Star Trek: The Next Generation.
It has become science fiction TV tradition.

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
There were little hints throughout S1, culminating in "It's Hour
Come Round At Last," where Harper started freaking out
during the magog invasion and Tyr gave him a Nietzschean pep-talk.
Then when the magog stormed in, Tyr offered to euthanize Harper,
who told him not to bother 'cause he'd rather
go down fighting. Just reading into Tyr's proud grin.

I do not hear any adoption in that story.

Well, Tyr ~could~ just as easily have turned up his nose or menaced

Harper

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
into working. Instead he actually reached out to him, advising Harper

to

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
~face~ his demons (the magog), like a Nietzschean, with "fire in [his]
blood," as Tyr knows Harper can. Then when Tyr has one bullet left, he
offers to do what Harper initially asked him to do (kill him before the
magog can rape him). When Harper says no, Tyr seems inordinately

pleased,

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
and hands Harper one of his own knives. They end up fighting

back-to-back,

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
like fellow Nietzscheans.
I feel it's telling that Tyr actually seems to give a crap what
Harper does (and has been paying enough attention to have seen
Harper's Nietzschean-like qualities), and seems pleased when Harper
stands up for himself.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
I posit that, as his time on Andromeda continued, Tyr would've
(likely subconsciously) adopted the crew as a surrogate Pride,
much like cats & dogs adopt their human "owners"
as members of their pride/pack, and treat them accordingly.

I do not think that would have been a good idea or indicated by the
marriage that he had to that Nietzchean woman.

I don't see what Freya has to do with it. She has good genes, and is

the

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
mother of his child. I don't believe he felt any particular attraction

to

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
her that he wouldn't have felt for any breeding-age female who
accepted his genetic "resumé." Her entire point in the story was to
(A) demonstrate how Nietzscheans make marriages, and
(B) to birth Tamerlane.

A) demonstrate how important the Darwenian 'survival of the fittest'

theme

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked
applied to Nietzchean culture, and
B) to conceive a child which weds Tyr's almost extinct tribe to another
Nietzchean tribe.
I assume here that Tyr's son was named Tamerlane and appeared later in

the

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked
series, though. Which episode was that and what happened with Tamerlane

?

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
The Andromeda members would be a team, and each of them should have
been paired off with mates or each other who would in the end

flourish

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
in the new Empire.

I disagree. As much as I do like playing the 'shipper, having

Andromeda's

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
crew pair off to a happy ending would've been trite and clichéed.

Besides,

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
no writer will pair off couples too early without some sort of

triangle.

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
We had the Harper => Rommie => Dylan (=> memory of Sarah)
triangle, which couldn't possibly end well for ~everyone,~ and the
Beka/Tyr sparkage (Rev is obviously celibate [aside from his being
raped by the Hegira], and Trance

I missed this in the original message. Who is Rev and when and
how was he or she raped ?

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
could've concievably ended up anywhere, relationship-wise).
I feel that these situations would've been drug out as long as
possible, again, to increase the inter-character drama.
I also don't feel the restored Commonwealth would've ~appeared~
out of the blue as quickly as it ended up doing. Likely we were
~never~ supposed to see the "happily ever after."

As I mentioned, I was expecting the series to identify the various
factors which dominated the universe at that time, have the Andromeda
make peace with some, ally with others, and obliterated those who
could not be tamed in a "strike down the proud, spare the humble"
recreation of ancient literature Empire building.
Of course, portraying activity occurring outside the Andromeda
and graphical portrayal of space battles cost money and scripts can
be compromised by lack of funds preventing various scripts intents
from coming to fruition.

Post by Mark Brown
(In case anyone's wondering, I envisioned the series ending with
Dylan's death, and possibly with Beka's as well. Tyr would be
forced to step in and assume command, finally forced to choose
between rebuilding the Kodiak, or rebuilding the Commonwealth.
By now though, it would have become obvious
that the Nietzschean system of every-Pride-for-itself warfare was
terminally flawed. As that Nietzschean High Guard captain said in
"Banks of the Lethe," any Nietzschean worthy of the name would
stand ~with~ the Commonwealth.
Quick flash-forward a few years, and the epilogue sees adult
Tamerlane, Alpha of the Unified Prides, taking his place as
Commonwealth Triumvir...
[with Andromeda as an honour-guard, under the command of
Captain Harper. ;) ])

I thought the progression would be that the Commonwealth would eventually
be established and a new Universe Government created and then Dylan
would refuse the Presidency and go back to his home planet.

Post by Mark Brown
Remember Harper's line about how the universe is a windshield and

they're

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
all bugs, but how together (with Dylan and Andromeda), they might end

up

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
being the only bugs in the universe strong enough to smash through?

I think that was several-years-in-advance foreshadowing for Tyr's

epiphany.

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Note that time Tyr made dinner for Beka. He was flirting with
her (just as he would've with any highly-placed Nietzschean female
--especially one who could gain him control of the Pride),

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
That episode I did see years back, and I do not recall it being cut

and

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
dry like that. I had the impression they might hook up later in the

series.

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
It appeared to be way too early for members of the crew to already
be paired off.

Exactly; the Tyr/Beka sparkage would've been a great sub-plot to
extend for five years. On one hand, Tyr is attracted to her
(no surprise; Nietzschean males are even more hormone-driven
than human males [perhaps another reason Tyr &
perpetually-desperate Harper would get along so well ;) ]),
but on the other, she's genetically inferior. . . but her skills are

not

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
inconsiderable. He'd keep "accidentally" flirting with her, but then

he'd

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
turn about and push her away, never quite understanding his own

actions.

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Eventually, Tyr would have to wonder exactly how much "superiority" is
genetic, and how much the result of individual will. It would take

years

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
for him to concede that Beka is every bit as "worthy" a mate as a
Nietzschean (possibly more so --whenever Beka fights Nietzscheans,
she tends to survive. The Nietzscheans don't).

Intra-crew romances like that do not turn me on. The reason these
intra-crew romances are so common is that they guarantee that
two stars in the show gain increased face time on the show together.
However, Tyr already had tried out a white woman. They needed to
at least mix in one black woman into his menagerie before anything
with Beka.

Post by Mark Brown
Meanwhile, Beka is equally attracted to Tyr, but can't figure out where
he's coming from. By the time Tyr comes around, she'd have hooked
up with Rhade (who doesn't seem to have Tyr's elitism), or maybe
someone completely new (which would result in more conflict as
Tyr tries to win her affections).
Also, she'll have fully devoted herself to the Commonwealth long
before Tyr does, so her attraction to Tyr would conflict with her

loyalty

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
to Dylan --and to her crew. Tyr would have to prove that he won't hurt
~them~ before he'll have any real chance with her.
Perhaps she & Tyr would've ended up working together on an adventure
focussing on Rafe, Uncle Sid, and the legacy of her father. He'd
eventually have to concede that her own family is no different to her
than Kodiak Pride is to him. Her ancestors are as valuable, and
formidable in their way, as his own. He'd probably learn her mother's
name, and pay her a Nietzschean compliment by identifying her as
"Beka Valentine, of the Eureka Maru, out of __ by Ignatius."
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
It is against the screenwriting rules. You never put someone on

screen

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
and accuse their character of something that could possibly be true.
Why do you think all these Fat Person movies always have a slim

person

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
wearing a fat suit ? Or Ugly Person roles are filled by actors with
makeup-altered looks ?
Some actress I believe won the oscar when he looks and nose were
uglied down to fit the part, recently, if I recall correctly.
Thus, this being a deviation from known screenwriting rules poses the
question why they would accuse Cobb of steroids in the script.

Yes we/they do. Writers do that all the time. That's why we use words
like "fiction" and "acting."

Give me an example ?

ok now i know you are baiting people.

I am asking a straight quest deserving a straight answer.

you are trying to say you believe everything you see an actor do on a
tv show or movie. you think thats what they do in real life. give me a
break.

Post by Beth Smarr
Politics

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
In an episode of. . . I think it was CSI, Sean Maher played a serial
rapist. Sean Maher is not a rapist. In an episode of
Dead_Like_Me, Jewel Stait played a slut/prostitute. Jewel is currently
(I assume happily) married. In The_Bourne_Supremacy, Matt Damon's
character was skilled and intelligent. You see where I'm going.

I find it disturbing you do not seem to understand the point I made.
Read it again.

no we understood you clearly.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
More to the point, Tyr (the character) is pretty obviously ~not~ on
steroids, as per the script. Doesn't Tyr's rebuttal carry just as much
weight as Beka's accusation?

I do not recall his giving a response. This is years ago but my
recollection
was as I mentioned that this was sort of murmered under her breath
immediately after he had left. Are you watching the US feed of this
series ? Regardless of the response, it deviates from known
screenwriting guidelines since the viewer migbht actually believe the
statement about Cobb himself. There may even be legal defamatory
implications about such script statements.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
Why do you think all these Fat Person movies always have a
slim person wearing a fat suit ?

Like in Beverly_Hills_Ninja? You can always make the skinny
good-looking guy fat and ugly (like Eddie Murphy in The_Klumps),
but the fat, ugly guy can't exactly be made up as Orlando Bloom.

Post by John Shocked
Or Ugly Person roles are filled by actors with
makeup-altered looks ?

Like the cast of NYPD_Blue, or CSI? Or the Cigarrette Smoking Man?
(Who, incidentally was a non-smoker, neatly disproving your thesis.)
It's Showbiz, and humans are intrinsically shallow. Slim, beautiful

people

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
far, ~far~ outnumber normal people in Hollywood (which is exactly why
parents groups complain about anemia and low-self-esteem among
impressionable people who ~watch~ TV).

Cigarettes on TV are generic advertising Product Placements, so you
cannot make judgments about their presence on TV. In addition,
cigarette smoking has been common in movies and while
its popularity in the US is declining in the US
(though not in many other countries who do not have
the money to fight the US export of corrupt culture
in movies and TV) it has not yet become a clear pejorative.
An Ugly Person is not normally chosen to play an ugly person
in a movie. A Fat Person normally the same, although Kirstie Alley
is in a new TV series about a 'fat actress'. But here everyone
knows she has had her day as one of the beautiful people and
will again when she loses the weight, which is already happening.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
Some actress I believe won the oscar when he looks and nose
were uglied down to fit the part, recently, if I recall correctly.

Well, first, the Oscars have more to do with politics than with actual
quality, and second, she likely "won" it for her acting, not her looks.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Again, you are failing to recognize the deviation from

screenwriting rules at play here. Now the Beka character is
characterized as using drugs but there is no reason to believe
that the actress playing that role actually has ever done that.
There is based on musculature reason to believe that

Post by John Shocked
Cobb may have used steroids and thus the allegation in the
script is out of bounds.

So, basically, you're relying on stereotype to back up your double-standard.
Isn't it just as likely that Lisa Ryder is being accused of having a

drug

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
problem? Or being a slut? Or a thief? Or a bad driver? There seems to

be

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked
no

Post by Mark Brown
more or less evidence either way, aside from your opinion that KHC's
physique comes from steroid use. Could it not just as easily come from

a

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked
Again, I do not think you have competently read what I said.
And I really dislike being misquoted, whether intentionally
or through incompetence.
I never said that Cobb used steroids and doubt he did.
But it is possible to perceive that, and that is where the script
deviates from known rules.
In fact, I think it is Bo Jackson who is currently suing some newspaper
which claimed that in his heyday he used steroids, even though the
paper appears to have retracted the story.
Now in Jackson's case, I would not be surprised if he did
use steroids, but I do not know for sure. But this indicates
that accusing someone of steroid use is a pejorative which
could damage someone's career (or in Jackson's case, post-career).

Post by Mark Brown
strict excercise regimen and healthy diet? Especially given that Tyr's
character ~requires~ him to be muscular --he could likely have embarked

on

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked
a

Post by Mark Brown
specialized workout plan before/upon getting the role.
IIRC, Kevin Sorbo did the same thing when he was on Hercules. When the

show

Post by Mark Brown
ended he said (jokingly) that he's now allowed to eat junk food again

(which

Post by Mark Brown
is why Dylan doesn't go shirtless as often as Hercules did; he just

doesn't

Post by Mark Brown
have the same physique).
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Just to be clear: nothing ever appears in a script by chance.

*SNIP*
Of course not. But not everything is hint of something behind the

scenes.

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Look at it this way, how would you rewrite that scene to take out the
steroids reference? How would you have Beka react to Tyr's accusation?

I would have to see the scene again, because I do not recall a Tyr
response to the accusation in the US feed I saw. But that is immaterial.
If the show wanted to make a statement about steroids, they had to
make it without reference to someone in the show (especially an
up and coming unknown like Cobb whose career might be
damaged by this tag).
In fact, the impression I had from the scene was that Cobb
may not even have known of the Beka "steroids" statement
until he saw it on TV.
It is like Tara Reid being in a movie which accuses her character of
having fake silicon breasts. It will never happen.

Post by Mark Brown
Mark
"Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar." --Sigmund Freud

Sometimes a cigar is a cash money product placement in the movie to
advertise tobacco and cigarettes.
Politics

[John Shocked]

Post by PettyFan
On Mon, 9 May 2005 23:52:53 -0700, "John Shocked"

Post by Beth Smarr

Post by PettyFan
On Mon, 9 May 2005 17:15:42 -0700, "John Shocked"

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
(Who knows, if/when I succeed as a screenwriter,
I might be able to give him something, assuming he's still
acting then. I'd best get on that, shouldn't I?)

IMDB has him at 43 right now. Interestingly, IMDB does not describe
Cobb as ever being married or having a family, so with a back ground
in theater there is aobvious supposition he might be homosexual.
Any truth to that ?

. . . Given the usual accuracy of such stereotypes
(and, for that matter,of IMDB itself), I think not.

I find IMDB to be unusually accurate and thorough in biographical data.

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Maybe this betrayal content is something the scripts expanded on
in the second or third year.

Possible. I note that Tyr's exit was unusually built up over numerous
episodes; unusual given the post RHW "no long-term arcs" policy.

Bottom line: after a promising beginning, Andromeda failed to
deliver the content which the first few episodes indicated.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
I cannot imagine that the producers could have
thought that portraying a major character in the show as traitor or
potential traitor would have been interesting to watch.

Actually, I think the opposite. I mean, look at Shakespeare's
Tragedies,or most "Reality" TV, or the Star Wars Prequels
(okay, bad example, that one).
Having an obvious traitor increases both dramatic irony and the

character

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
conflict. Especially when he aims (as Tyr likely would) to make

alliances

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
and undermine Dylan's leadership. When Tyr makes his move,
it wouldn't be alone; he'd do whatever possible to get as many
of the crew to side with him.
It'd be like Survivor:_Andromeda.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
The storyline should have been more that Tyr agreed Dylan to

reestablish

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
the Empire (or whatever they called it) because his race was wiped

out

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
and it was his only hope for safety and justice against those who
exterminated
his tribe. Then, they might Tyr and Dylan could debate over strategy
(sometimes putting initiatives to the crew's vote) to
gain strength and support and eventually build to a point of

domination,

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
deafeating and eliminating or absorbing foes as they went along.
I am surprised the grand scheme failed to pursue this.

Yeah, that's the result of the writers being shuffled. Also, "they"

wanted

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
to paint Dylan as the Hero, which meant that moral ambiguity (Tyr's
specialty) had to be trimmed down.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Hopefully RHW's upcoming "Coda" will illuminate
some of what he'd planned for Tyr as well as for Trance.

What Coda is this ? The final episode ?

A thing RHW is going to (or planning to) post around June 2nd.
When he left he took all his notes and story ideas with him.
Specifically, he had a very clear idea where to go with Trance
and her secret, a direction that apparently was greatly different
from what the show did without him. The "Coda" is RHW's
epilogue to the series, where we find out Trance's true
nature. I'm hoping that he had an equally developed idea for
Tyr's development. It's certainly possible that Tyr was a "stream
of consciousness" character with no fixed trajectory beyond a
season or so, but I doubt it; RHW is too good a writer to set
up something like Tamerlane and not know how he'd
follow through on it.

Right, and it would deviate from the norm in science fiction shows
not to have the big, muscular black heavy as part of the team.
That goes all the way back to Worf in Star Trek: The Next Generation.
It has become science fiction TV tradition.

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
There were little hints throughout S1, culminating in "It's Hour
Come Round At Last," where Harper started freaking out
during the magog invasion and Tyr gave him a Nietzschean pep-talk.
Then when the magog stormed in, Tyr offered to euthanize Harper,
who told him not to bother 'cause he'd rather
go down fighting. Just reading into Tyr's proud grin.

I do not hear any adoption in that story.

Well, Tyr ~could~ just as easily have turned up his nose or menaced

Harper

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
into working. Instead he actually reached out to him, advising Harper

to

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
~face~ his demons (the magog), like a Nietzschean, with "fire in [his]
blood," as Tyr knows Harper can. Then when Tyr has one bullet left, he
offers to do what Harper initially asked him to do (kill him before the
magog can rape him). When Harper says no, Tyr seems inordinately

pleased,

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
and hands Harper one of his own knives. They end up fighting

back-to-back,

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
like fellow Nietzscheans.
I feel it's telling that Tyr actually seems to give a crap what
Harper does (and has been paying enough attention to have seen
Harper's Nietzschean-like qualities), and seems pleased when Harper
stands up for himself.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
I posit that, as his time on Andromeda continued, Tyr would've
(likely subconsciously) adopted the crew as a surrogate Pride,
much like cats & dogs adopt their human "owners"
as members of their pride/pack, and treat them accordingly.

I do not think that would have been a good idea or indicated by the
marriage that he had to that Nietzchean woman.

I don't see what Freya has to do with it. She has good genes, and is

the

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
mother of his child. I don't believe he felt any particular attraction

to

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
her that he wouldn't have felt for any breeding-age female who
accepted his genetic "resumé." Her entire point in the story was to
(A) demonstrate how Nietzscheans make marriages, and
(B) to birth Tamerlane.

A) demonstrate how important the Darwenian 'survival of the fittest'

theme

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked
applied to Nietzchean culture, and
B) to conceive a child which weds Tyr's almost extinct tribe to another
Nietzchean tribe.
I assume here that Tyr's son was named Tamerlane and appeared later in

the

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked
series, though. Which episode was that and what happened with Tamerlane

?

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
The Andromeda members would be a team, and each of them should have
been paired off with mates or each other who would in the end

flourish

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
in the new Empire.

I disagree. As much as I do like playing the 'shipper, having

Andromeda's

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
crew pair off to a happy ending would've been trite and clichéed.

Besides,

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
no writer will pair off couples too early without some sort of

triangle.

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
We had the Harper => Rommie => Dylan (=> memory of Sarah)
triangle, which couldn't possibly end well for ~everyone,~ and the
Beka/Tyr sparkage (Rev is obviously celibate [aside from his being
raped by the Hegira], and Trance

I missed this in the original message. Who is Rev and when and
how was he or she raped ?

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
could've concievably ended up anywhere, relationship-wise).
I feel that these situations would've been drug out as long as
possible, again, to increase the inter-character drama.
I also don't feel the restored Commonwealth would've ~appeared~
out of the blue as quickly as it ended up doing. Likely we were
~never~ supposed to see the "happily ever after."

As I mentioned, I was expecting the series to identify the various
factors which dominated the universe at that time, have the Andromeda
make peace with some, ally with others, and obliterated those who
could not be tamed in a "strike down the proud, spare the humble"
recreation of ancient literature Empire building.
Of course, portraying activity occurring outside the Andromeda
and graphical portrayal of space battles cost money and scripts can
be compromised by lack of funds preventing various scripts intents
from coming to fruition.

Post by Mark Brown
(In case anyone's wondering, I envisioned the series ending with
Dylan's death, and possibly with Beka's as well. Tyr would be
forced to step in and assume command, finally forced to choose
between rebuilding the Kodiak, or rebuilding the Commonwealth.
By now though, it would have become obvious
that the Nietzschean system of every-Pride-for-itself warfare was
terminally flawed. As that Nietzschean High Guard captain said in
"Banks of the Lethe," any Nietzschean worthy of the name would
stand ~with~ the Commonwealth.
Quick flash-forward a few years, and the epilogue sees adult
Tamerlane, Alpha of the Unified Prides, taking his place as
Commonwealth Triumvir...
[with Andromeda as an honour-guard, under the command of
Captain Harper. ;) ])

I thought the progression would be that the Commonwealth would eventually
be established and a new Universe Government created and then Dylan
would refuse the Presidency and go back to his home planet.

Post by Mark Brown
Remember Harper's line about how the universe is a windshield and

they're

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
all bugs, but how together (with Dylan and Andromeda), they might end

up

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
being the only bugs in the universe strong enough to smash through?

I think that was several-years-in-advance foreshadowing for Tyr's

epiphany.

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Note that time Tyr made dinner for Beka. He was flirting with
her (just as he would've with any highly-placed Nietzschean female
--especially one who could gain him control of the Pride),

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
That episode I did see years back, and I do not recall it being cut

and

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
dry like that. I had the impression they might hook up later in the

series.

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
It appeared to be way too early for members of the crew to already
be paired off.

Exactly; the Tyr/Beka sparkage would've been a great sub-plot to
extend for five years. On one hand, Tyr is attracted to her
(no surprise; Nietzschean males are even more hormone-driven
than human males [perhaps another reason Tyr &
perpetually-desperate Harper would get along so well ;) ]),
but on the other, she's genetically inferior. . . but her skills are

not

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
inconsiderable. He'd keep "accidentally" flirting with her, but then

he'd

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
turn about and push her away, never quite understanding his own

actions.

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Eventually, Tyr would have to wonder exactly how much "superiority" is
genetic, and how much the result of individual will. It would take

years

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
for him to concede that Beka is every bit as "worthy" a mate as a
Nietzschean (possibly more so --whenever Beka fights Nietzscheans,
she tends to survive. The Nietzscheans don't).

Intra-crew romances like that do not turn me on. The reason these
intra-crew romances are so common is that they guarantee that
two stars in the show gain increased face time on the show together.
However, Tyr already had tried out a white woman. They needed to
at least mix in one black woman into his menagerie before anything
with Beka.

Post by Mark Brown
Meanwhile, Beka is equally attracted to Tyr, but can't figure out where
he's coming from. By the time Tyr comes around, she'd have hooked
up with Rhade (who doesn't seem to have Tyr's elitism), or maybe
someone completely new (which would result in more conflict as
Tyr tries to win her affections).
Also, she'll have fully devoted herself to the Commonwealth long
before Tyr does, so her attraction to Tyr would conflict with her

loyalty

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
to Dylan --and to her crew. Tyr would have to prove that he won't hurt
~them~ before he'll have any real chance with her.
Perhaps she & Tyr would've ended up working together on an adventure
focussing on Rafe, Uncle Sid, and the legacy of her father. He'd
eventually have to concede that her own family is no different to her
than Kodiak Pride is to him. Her ancestors are as valuable, and
formidable in their way, as his own. He'd probably learn her mother's
name, and pay her a Nietzschean compliment by identifying her as
"Beka Valentine, of the Eureka Maru, out of __ by Ignatius."
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
It is against the screenwriting rules. You never put someone on

screen

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
and accuse their character of something that could possibly be true.
Why do you think all these Fat Person movies always have a slim

person

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
wearing a fat suit ? Or Ugly Person roles are filled by actors with
makeup-altered looks ?
Some actress I believe won the oscar when he looks and nose were
uglied down to fit the part, recently, if I recall correctly.
Thus, this being a deviation from known screenwriting rules poses the
question why they would accuse Cobb of steroids in the script.

Yes we/they do. Writers do that all the time. That's why we use words
like "fiction" and "acting."

Give me an example ?

ok now i know you are baiting people.

I am asking a straight quest deserving a straight answer.
Politics

you are trying to say you believe everything you see an actor do on a
tv show or movie. you think thats what they do in real life. give me a
break.

In addition to the arguments already mentioned about not focusing on
a deformity of an actor and making that real deformity a script item,
there is also the issue of the ability of an actor to perform apprpriately
when
they realize that they themselves are under attack and are essentially the
butt
of the script's joke.

Politics

Post by PettyFan

Post by Beth Smarr

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
In an episode of. . . I think it was CSI, Sean Maher played a serial
rapist. Sean Maher is not a rapist. In an episode of
Dead_Like_Me, Jewel Stait played a slut/prostitute. Jewel is currently
(I assume happily) married. In The_Bourne_Supremacy, Matt Damon's
character was skilled and intelligent. You see where I'm going.

I find it disturbing you do not seem to understand the point I made.
Read it again.

no we understood you clearly.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
More to the point, Tyr (the character) is pretty obviously ~not~ on
steroids, as per the script. Doesn't Tyr's rebuttal carry just as much
weight as Beka's accusation?

I do not recall his giving a response. This is years ago but my
recollection
was as I mentioned that this was sort of murmered under her breath
immediately after he had left. Are you watching the US feed of this
series ? Regardless of the response, it deviates from known
screenwriting guidelines since the viewer migbht actually believe the
statement about Cobb himself. There may even be legal defamatory
implications about such script statements.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
Why do you think all these Fat Person movies always have a
slim person wearing a fat suit ?

Like in Beverly_Hills_Ninja? You can always make the skinny
good-looking guy fat and ugly (like Eddie Murphy in The_Klumps),
but the fat, ugly guy can't exactly be made up as Orlando Bloom.

Post by John Shocked
Or Ugly Person roles are filled by actors with
makeup-altered looks ?

Like the cast of NYPD_Blue, or CSI? Or the Cigarrette Smoking Man?
(Who, incidentally was a non-smoker, neatly disproving your thesis.)
It's Showbiz, and humans are intrinsically shallow. Slim, beautiful

people

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
far, ~far~ outnumber normal people in Hollywood (which is exactly why
parents groups complain about anemia and low-self-esteem among
impressionable people who ~watch~ TV).

Cigarettes on TV are generic advertising Product Placements, so you
cannot make judgments about their presence on TV. In addition,
cigarette smoking has been common in movies and while
its popularity in the US is declining in the US
(though not in many other countries who do not have
the money to fight the US export of corrupt culture
in movies and TV) it has not yet become a clear pejorative.
An Ugly Person is not normally chosen to play an ugly person
in a movie. A Fat Person normally the same, although Kirstie Alley
is in a new TV series about a 'fat actress'. But here everyone
knows she has had her day as one of the beautiful people and
will again when she loses the weight, which is already happening.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
Some actress I believe won the oscar when he looks and nose
were uglied down to fit the part, recently, if I recall correctly.

Well, first, the Oscars have more to do with politics than with actual
quality, and second, she likely "won" it for her acting, not her looks.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Again, you are failing to recognize the deviation from

screenwriting rules at play here. Now the Beka character is
characterized as using drugs but there is no reason to believe
that the actress playing that role actually has ever done that.
There is based on musculature reason to believe that

Post by John Shocked
Cobb may have used steroids and thus the allegation in the
script is out of bounds.

So, basically, you're relying on stereotype to back up your double-standard.
Isn't it just as likely that Lisa Ryder is being accused of having a

drug

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
problem? Or being a slut? Or a thief? Or a bad driver? There seems to

be

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked
no

Post by Mark Brown
more or less evidence either way, aside from your opinion that KHC's
physique comes from steroid use. Could it not just as easily come from

a

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked
Again, I do not think you have competently read what I said.
And I really dislike being misquoted, whether intentionally
or through incompetence.
I never said that Cobb used steroids and doubt he did.
But it is possible to perceive that, and that is where the script
deviates from known rules.
In fact, I think it is Bo Jackson who is currently suing some newspaper
which claimed that in his heyday he used steroids, even though the
paper appears to have retracted the story.
Now in Jackson's case, I would not be surprised if he did
use steroids, but I do not know for sure. But this indicates
that accusing someone of steroid use is a pejorative which
could damage someone's career (or in Jackson's case, post-career).

Post by Mark Brown
strict excercise regimen and healthy diet? Especially given that Tyr's
character ~requires~ him to be muscular --he could likely have embarked

on

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked
a

Post by Mark Brown
specialized workout plan before/upon getting the role.
IIRC, Kevin Sorbo did the same thing when he was on Hercules. When the

show

Post by Mark Brown
ended he said (jokingly) that he's now allowed to eat junk food again

(which

Post by Mark Brown
is why Dylan doesn't go shirtless as often as Hercules did; he just

doesn't

Post by Mark Brown
have the same physique).
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Just to be clear: nothing ever appears in a script by chance.

*SNIP*
Of course not. But not everything is hint of something behind the

scenes.

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Look at it this way, how would you rewrite that scene to take out the
steroids reference? How would you have Beka react to Tyr's accusation?

I would have to see the scene again, because I do not recall a Tyr
response to the accusation in the US feed I saw. But that is immaterial.
If the show wanted to make a statement about steroids, they had to
make it without reference to someone in the show (especially an
up and coming unknown like Cobb whose career might be
damaged by this tag).
In fact, the impression I had from the scene was that Cobb
may not even have known of the Beka "steroids" statement
until he saw it on TV.
It is like Tara Reid being in a movie which accuses her character of
having fake silicon breasts. It will never happen.

Post by Mark Brown
Mark
"Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar." --Sigmund Freud

Sometimes a cigar is a cash money product placement in the movie to
advertise tobacco and cigarettes.
Politics

[Mike Meyer]

Hey guys,

I've been trying to follow this, but neither of you seems to be able
to find the "delete" key in your editors.

*Please* trim the irrelevant text in your f*ing posts!

<mike

[Mark Brown]

"John Shocked" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:WSYfe.18480$***@fed1read05...
*SNIP*
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
We had the Harper => Rommie => Dylan (=> memory of Sarah)
triangle, which couldn't possibly end well for ~everyone,~ and the
Beka/Tyr sparkage (Rev is obviously celibate [aside from his being
raped by the Hegira], and Trance

I missed this in the original message. Who is Rev and when and
how was he or she raped ?

*SNIP*

Rev Bem was the Magog Wayist from the first (and part of the second) season
(Brent Stait developed an allergy to the makeup and had to leave).

In "The Devil Take the Hindmost," a Wayist colony (the Hegira) were being
invaded by slavers. Dylan tried teaching them to fight, but most of them
were pacifists. Finally, one of the Hegira abducted Rev, harvested some of
his progeny, and injected them into herself (which is exactly how Magog
normally reproduce, but it's usually the Magog raping the host). When the
larvae hatched and grew, they had the Hegira's genetic memory (they then
turned on the colonists, "saving" the Hegira by turning them into Magog
warrior-priests).

I call it a "rape" because Rev clearly did ~not~ want this to happen. She
took his progeny by force, over his resistance, and he begged her not to use
them ('cause her death would be on his conscience).

Aside from that, I expect Rev to remain celibate his entire life, because
the only way a Magog can reproduce is to murder another life-form. There
might've been a mild beauty-and-the-beast story, but nothing that would even
come close to being consummated.

Mark
"Heck, the guy has enough trouble killing fish to eat them."

[John Shocked]

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
We had the Harper => Rommie => Dylan (=> memory of Sarah)
triangle, which couldn't possibly end well for ~everyone,~ and the
Beka/Tyr sparkage (Rev is obviously celibate [aside from his being
raped by the Hegira], and Trance

I missed this in the original message. Who is Rev and when and
how was he or she raped ?

*SNIP*
Rev Bem was the Magog Wayist from the first (and part of the second) season
(Brent Stait developed an allergy to the makeup and had to leave).

I remember him now. That certainly was a repulsive looking character
when that makeup was on. Maybe that had something to do with Stait's
aversion to the makeup. Money to pay the makeup artists may have been
lacking too. And the tail of Trance had to incur some computer graphics
costs.

Post by Mark Brown
In "The Devil Take the Hindmost," a Wayist colony (the Hegira) were being
invaded by slavers. Dylan tried teaching them to fight, but most of them
were pacifists. Finally, one of the Hegira abducted Rev, harvested some of
his progeny, and injected them into herself (which is exactly how Magog
normally reproduce, but it's usually the Magog raping the host). When the
larvae hatched and grew, they had the Hegira's genetic memory (they then
turned on the colonists, "saving" the Hegira by turning them into Magog
warrior-priests).
I call it a "rape" because Rev clearly did ~not~ want this to happen. She
took his progeny by force, over his resistance, and he begged her not to use
them ('cause her death would be on his conscience).
Aside from that, I expect Rev to remain celibate his entire life, because
the only way a Magog can reproduce is to murder another life-form. There
might've been a mild beauty-and-the-beast story, but nothing that would even
come close to being consummated.
Mark

I would consider that to be rape too. I thought for a second you were
describing some sort of homosexual rape, which I would not expect from
this particular science fiction series.

Politics

[Mark Brown]

*SNIP*

Post by Mark Brown

Post by Mark Brown
Rev Bem was the Magog Wayist from the first (and part of the second)

season

Post by Mark Brown
(Brent Stait developed an allergy to the makeup and had to leave).

I remember him now. That certainly was a repulsive looking character
when that makeup was on. Maybe that had something to do with Stait's
aversion to the makeup.

Then I doubt he would've signed on to begin with. More likely this was
exactly what it sounded like; the glue they used to stick the prosthetics
down was causing him problems. Many of the scenes where Rev appeared in S2
were a "stunt-Rev," with Brent looping in the dialogue (you can tell them
apart in close-ups, one was brown-eyed while the other was blue-eyed).

They brought him back in S3 and had an episode where he became mostly human
through an unexplained (but possibly Trance-related) miracle. Apparently the
new, thinner makeup was much easier on him, and it became the new standard
for the Magog (with little to no explanation). Rev reappeared once more in
S4 (I think), without the stunt double, so that Dylan could solve all his
problems and look Good.

Post by Mark Brown
Money to pay the makeup artists may have been
lacking too. And the tail of Trance had to incur some computer graphics
costs.

*SNIP*

The tail was usually a prosthetic. The problem (as per Bertram) was that
people kept stepping/tripping on it, including herself. Why she couldn't
just wear it around her waist like a Saiyan is anybody's guess.

Mark
"Telling tails."

[John Shocked]

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Rev Bem was the Magog Wayist from the first
(and part of the second) season (Brent Stait developed
an allergy to the makeup and had to leave).

I remember him now. That certainly was a repulsive looking
character when that makeup was on. Maybe that had something
to do with Stait's aversion to the makeup.

Then I doubt he would've signed on to begin with. More likely this was
exactly what it sounded like; the glue they used to stick the prosthetics
down was causing him problems. Many of the scenes where Rev
appeared in S2 were a "stunt-Rev," with Brent looping in the
dialogue (you can tell them apart in close-ups, one was brown-eyed
while the other was blue-eyed).

Roles are hard to find in Hollywood and if that was offered to
Stait, I am sure he would want to take it
However, when your face is not visible on screen, the positive
effect of being on a show, even a hit show, is limited.
It is surprising that these producers do not at the beginning or
end of shows with made up characters show pictures of the real face
of the person.

Post by Mark Brown
They brought him back in S3 and had an episode where he became
mostly human through an unexplained (but possibly Trance-related)
miracle. Apparently the new, thinner makeup was much easier on him,
and it became the new standard for the Magog (with little to no
explanation). Rev reappeared once more in S4 (I think), without the
stunt double, so that Dylan could solve all his problems and look Good.

This all sounds like script chaos and is a clear indication that having
stars as Executive Producer is a mistake.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
Money to pay the makeup artists may have been lacking too.
And the tail of Trance had to incur some computer graphics costs.

*SNIP*
The tail was usually a prosthetic. The problem (as per Bertram) was that
people kept stepping/tripping on it, including herself. Why she couldn't
just wear it around her waist like a Saiyan is anybody's guess.> Mark

Usually, whenever I noticed the tail it was being articulated fror
somepurpose
and thus it was definitely computer animation graphics.
There were some physical makeup versions of it for simple purposes.
http://millimeter.com/mag/video_practical_nature/

Politics

[PettyFan]

On Mon, 9 May 2005 17:15:42 -0700, "John Shocked"

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
(Who knows, if/when I succeed as a screenwriter,
I might be able to give him something, assuming he's still
acting then. I'd best get on that, shouldn't I?)

IMDB has him at 43 right now. Interestingly, IMDB does not describe
Cobb as ever being married or having a family, so with a back ground
in theater there is aobvious supposition he might be homosexual.
Any truth to that ?

. . . Given the usual accuracy of such stereotypes (and, for that matter,

of

Post by Mark Brown
IMDB itself), I think not.

I find IMDB to be unusually accurate and thorough in biographical data.

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Maybe this betrayal content is something the scripts expanded on
in the second or third year.

Possible. I note that Tyr's exit was unusually built up over numerous
episodes; unusual given the post RHW "no long-term arcs" policy.

Bottom line: after a promising beginning, Andromeda failed to
deliver the content which the first few episodes indicated.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
I cannot imagine that the producers could have
thought that portraying a major character in the show as traitor or
potential traitor would have been interesting to watch.

Actually, I think the opposite. I mean, look at Shakespeare's Tragedies,

or

Post by Mark Brown
most "Reality" TV, or the Star Wars Prequels (okay, bad example, that

one).

Post by Mark Brown
Having an obvious traitor increases both dramatic irony and the character
conflict. Especially when he aims (as Tyr likely would) to make alliances
and undermine Dylan's leadership. When Tyr makes his move,
it wouldn't be alone; he'd do whatever possible to get as many
of the crew to side with him.
It'd be like Survivor:_Andromeda.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
The storyline should have been more that Tyr agreed Dylan to reestablish
the Empire (or whatever they called it) because his race was wiped out
and it was his only hope for safety and justice against those who
exterminated
his tribe. Then, they might Tyr and Dylan could debate over strategy
(sometimes putting initiatives to the crew's vote) to
gain strength and support and eventually build to a point of domination,
deafeating and eliminating or absorbing foes as they went along.
I am surprised the grand scheme failed to pursue this.

Yeah, that's the result of the writers being shuffled. Also, "they" wanted
to paint Dylan as the Hero, which meant that moral ambiguity (Tyr's
specialty) had to be trimmed down.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Hopefully RHW's upcoming "Coda" will illuminate
some of what he'd planned for Tyr as well as for Trance.

What Coda is this ? The final episode ?

A thing RHW is going to (or planning to) post around June 2nd. When he

left

Post by Mark Brown
he took all his notes and story ideas with him. Specifically, he had a

very

Post by Mark Brown
clear idea where to go with Trance and her secret, a direction that
apparently was greatly different from what the show did without him. The
"Coda" is RHW's epilogue to the series, where we find out Trance's true
nature. I'm hoping that he had an equally developed idea for Tyr's
development. It's certainly possible that Tyr was a "stream of
consciousness" character with no fixed trajectory beyond a season or so,

but

Post by Mark Brown
I doubt it; RHW is too good a writer to set up something like Tamerlane

and

Post by Mark Brown
not know how he'd follow through on it.

Right, and it would deviate from the norm in science fiction shows
not to have the big, muscular black heavy as part of the team.
That goes all the way back to Worf in Star Trek: The Next Generation.
It has become science fiction TV tradition.

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
There were little hints throughout S1, culminating in "It's Hour Come

Round

Post by Mark Brown
At Last," where Harper started freaking out during the magog invasion

and

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Tyr gave him a Nietzschean pep-talk. Then when the magog stormed in,

Tyr

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
offered to euthanize Harper, who told him not to bother 'cause he'd rather
go down fighting. Just reading into Tyr's proud grin.

I do not hear any adoption in that story.

Well, Tyr ~could~ just as easily have turned up his nose or menaced Harper
into working. Instead he actually reached out to him, advising Harper to
~face~ his demons (the magog), like a Nietzschean, with "fire in [his]
blood," as Tyr knows Harper can. Then when Tyr has one bullet left, he
offers to do what Harper initially asked him to do (kill him before the
magog can rape him). When Harper says no, Tyr seems inordinately pleased,
and hands Harper one of his own knives. They end up fighting back-to-back,
like fellow Nietzscheans.
I feel it's telling that Tyr actually seems to give a crap what Harper

does

Post by Mark Brown
(and has been paying enough attention to have seen Harper's

Nietzschean-like

Post by Mark Brown
qualities), and seems pleased when Harper stands up for himself.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
I posit that, as his
time on Andromeda continued, Tyr would've (likely subconsciously)

adopted

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
the crew as a surrogate Pride, much like cats & dogs adopt their human
"owners" as members of their pride/pack, and treat them accordingly.

I do not think that would have been a good idea or indicated by the
marriage that he had to that Nietzchean woman.

I don't see what Freya has to do with it. She has good genes, and is the
mother of his child. I don't believe he felt any particular attraction to
her that he wouldn't have felt for any breeding-age female who accepted

his

Post by Mark Brown
genetic "resumé." Her entire point in the story was to (A) demonstrate how
Nietzscheans make marriages, and (B) to birth Tamerlane.

A) demonstrate how important the Darwenian 'survival of the fittest' theme
applied to Nietzchean culture, and
B) to conceive a child which weds Tyr's almost extinct tribe to another
Nietzchean tribe.
I assume here that Tyr's son was named Tamerlane and appeared later in the
series, though. Which episode was that and what happened with Tamerlane ?

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
The Andromeda members would be a team, and each of them should have
been paired off with mates or each other who would in the end flourish
in the new Empire.

I disagree. As much as I do like playing the 'shipper, having Andromeda's
crew pair off to a happy ending would've been trite and clichéed. Besides,
no writer will pair off couples too early without some sort of triangle.
We had the Harper => Rommie => Dylan (=> memory of Sarah) triangle, which
couldn't possibly end well for ~everyone,~ and the Beka/Tyr sparkage (Rev

is

Post by Mark Brown
obviously celibate [aside from his being raped by the Hegira], and Trance
could've concievably ended up anywhere, relationship-wise). I feel that
these situations would've been drug out as long as possible, again, to
increase the inter-character drama.
I also don't feel the restored Commonwealth would've ~appeared~ out of the
blue as quickly as it ended up doing. Likely we were ~never~ supposed to

see

Post by Mark Brown
the "happily ever after."

As I mentioned, I was expecting the series to identify the various
factors which dominated the universe at that time, have the Andromeda
make peace with some, ally with others, and obliterated those who
could not be tamed in a "strike down the proud, spare the humble"
recreation of ancient literature Empire building.
Of course, portraying activity occurring outside the Andromeda
and graphical portrayal of space battles cost money and scripts can
be compromised by lack of funds preventing various scripts intents
from coming to fruition.

Post by Mark Brown
(In case anyone's wondering, I envisioned the series ending with Dylan's
death, and possibly with Beka's as well. Tyr would be forced to step in

and

Post by Mark Brown
assume command, finally forced to choose between rebuilding the Kodiak, or
rebuilding the Commonwealth. By now though, it would have become obvious
that the Nietzschean system of every-Pride-for-itself warfare was

terminally

Post by Mark Brown
flawed. As that Nietzschean High Guard captain said in "Banks of the

Lethe,"

Post by Mark Brown
any Nietzschean worthy of the name would stand ~with~ the Commonwealth.
Quick flash-forward a few years, and the epilogue sees adult Tamerlane,
Alpha of the Unified Prides, taking his place as Commonwealth Triumvir. .

.

Post by Mark Brown
[with Andromeda as an honour-guard, under the command of Captain Harper.
;) ])

I thought the progression would be that the Commonwealth would eventually
be established and a new Universe Government created and then Dylan
would refuse the Presidency and go back to his home planet.

Post by Mark Brown
Remember Harper's line about how the universe is a windshield and they're
all bugs, but how together (with Dylan and Andromeda), they might end up
being the only bugs in the universe strong enough to smash through? I

think

Post by Mark Brown
that was several-years-in-advance foreshadowing for Tyr's epiphany.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Note that time Tyr made dinner for Beka. He was flirting with her (just as
he would've with any highly-placed Nietzschean female --especially one who
could gain him control of the Pride),

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
That episode I did see years back, and I do not recall it being cut and dry
like
that. I had the impression they might hook up later in the series.
It appeared to be way too early for members of the crew to already
be paired off.

Exactly; the Tyr/Beka sparkage would've been a great sub-plot to extend

for

Post by Mark Brown
five years. On one hand, Tyr is attracted to her (no surprise; Nietzschean
males are even more hormone-driven than human males [perhaps another

reason

Post by Mark Brown
Tyr & perpetually-desperate Harper would get along so well ;) ]), but on

the

Post by Mark Brown
other, she's genetically inferior. . . but her skills are not
inconsiderable. He'd keep "accidentally" flirting with her, but then he'd
turn about and push her away, never quite understanding his own actions.
Eventually, Tyr would have to wonder exactly how much "superiority" is
genetic, and how much the result of individual will. It would take years

for

Post by Mark Brown
him to concede that Beka is every bit as "worthy" a mate as a Nietzschean
(possibly more so --whenever Beka fights Nietzscheans, she tends to

survive.

Post by Mark Brown
The Nietzscheans don't).

Intra-crew romances like that do not turn me on. The reason these
intra-crew romances are so common is that they guarantee that
two stars in the show gain increased face time on the show together.
However, Tyr already had tried out a white woman. They needed to
at least mix in one black woman into his menagerie before anything
with Beka.

Post by Mark Brown
Meanwhile, Beka is equally attracted to Tyr, but can't figure out where

he's

Post by Mark Brown
coming from. By the time Tyr comes around, she'd have hooked up with Rhade
(who doesn't seem to have Tyr's elitism), or maybe someone completely new
(which would result in more conflict as Tyr tries to win her affections).
Also, she'll have fully devoted herself to the Commonwealth long before

Tyr

Post by Mark Brown
does, so her attraction to Tyr would conflict with her loyalty to
Dylan --and to her crew. Tyr would have to prove that he won't hurt ~them~
before he'll have any real chance with her.
Perhaps she & Tyr would've ended up working together on an adventure
focussing on Rafe, Uncle Sid, and the legacy of her father. He'd

eventually

Post by Mark Brown
have to concede that her own family is no different to her than Kodiak

Pride

Post by Mark Brown
is to him. Her ancestors are as valuable, and formidable in their way, as
his own. He'd probably learn her mother's name, and pay her a Nietzschean
compliment by identifying her as "Beka Valentine, of the Eureka Maru, out

of

Post by Mark Brown
__ by Ignatius."
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
It is against the screenwriting rules. You never put someone on screen
and accuse their character of something that could possibly be true.
Why do you think all these Fat Person movies always have a slim person
wearing a fat suit ? Or Ugly Person roles are filled by actors with
makeup-altered looks ?
Some actress I believe won the oscar when he looks and nose were
uglied down to fit the part, recently, if I recall correctly.
Thus, this being a deviation from known screenwriting rules poses the
question why they would accuse Cobb of steroids in the script.

Yes we/they do. Writers do that all the time. That's why we use words
like "fiction" and "acting."

Give me an example ?

Post by Mark Brown
In an episode of. . . I think it was CSI, Sean Maher played a serial

rapist.

Post by Mark Brown
Sean Maher is not a rapist. In an episode of Dead_Like_Me, Jewel Stait
played a slut/prostitute. Jewel is currently (I assume happily) married.

In

Post by Mark Brown
The_Bourne_Supremacy, Matt Damon's character was skilled and intelligent.
You see where I'm going.

I find it disturbing you do not seem to understand the point I made.
Read it again.

Post by Mark Brown
More to the point, Tyr (the character) is pretty obviously ~not~ on
steroids, as per the script. Doesn't Tyr's rebuttal carry just as much
weight as Beka's accusation?

I do not recall his giving a response. This is years ago but my
recollection
was as I mentioned that this was sort of murmered under her breath
immediately after he had left. Are you watching the US feed of this
series ? Regardless of the response, it deviates from known
screenwriting guidelines since the viewer migbht actually believe the
statement about Cobb himself. There may even be legal defamatory
implications about such script statements.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
Why do you think all these Fat Person movies always have a slim person
wearing a fat suit ?

Like in Beverly_Hills_Ninja? You can always make the skinny good-looking

guy

Post by Mark Brown
fat and ugly (like Eddie Murphy in The_Klumps), but the fat, ugly guy

can't

Post by Mark Brown
exactly be made up as Orlando Bloom.

Post by John Shocked
Or Ugly Person roles are filled by actors with
makeup-altered looks ?

Like the cast of NYPD_Blue, or CSI? Or the Cigarrette Smoking Man? (Who,
incidentally was a non-smoker, neatly disproving your thesis.)
It's Showbiz, and humans are intrinsically shallow. Slim, beautiful people
far, ~far~ outnumber normal people in Hollywood (which is exactly why
parents groups complain about anemia and low-self-esteem among
impressionable people who ~watch~ TV).

Cigarettes on TV are generic advertising Product Placements, so you
cannot make judgments about their presence on TV. In addition,
cigarette smoking has been common in movies and while
its popularity in the US is declining in the US
(though not in many other countries who do not have
the money to fight the US export of corrupt culture
in movies and TV) it has not yet become a clear pejorative.
An Ugly Person is not normally chosen to play an ugly person
in a movie. A Fat Person normally the same, although Kirstie Alley
is in a new TV series about a 'fat actress'. But here everyone
knows she has had her day as one of the beautiful people and
will again when she loses the weight, which is already happening.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
Some actress I believe won the oscar when he looks and nose were
uglied down to fit the part, recently, if I recall correctly.

Well, first, the Oscars have more to do with politics than with actual
quality, and second, she likely "won" it for her acting, not her looks.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Again, you are failing to recognize the deviation from screenwriting

rules

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
at play here. Now the Beka character is characterized as using drugs

but

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
there is no reason to believe that the actress playing that role

actually

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
has ever done that. There is based on musculature reason to believe

that

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
Cobb may have used steroids and thus the allegation in the script
is out of bounds.

So, basically, you're relying on stereotype to back up your

double-standard.

Post by Mark Brown
Isn't it just as likely that Lisa Ryder is being accused of having a drug
problem? Or being a slut? Or a thief? Or a bad driver? There seems to be

no

Post by Mark Brown
more or less evidence either way, aside from your opinion that KHC's
physique comes from steroid use. Could it not just as easily come from a

Again, I do not think you have competently read what I said.
And I really dislike being misquoted, whether intentionally
or through incompetence.

moron troll!

Post by John Shocked
I never said that Cobb used steroids and doubt he did.
But it is possible to perceive that, and that is where the script
deviates from known rules.
In fact, I think it is Bo Jackson who is currently suing some newspaper
which claimed that in his heyday he used steroids, even though the
paper appears to have retracted the story.
Now in Jackson's case, I would not be surprised if he did
use steroids, but I do not know for sure. But this indicates
that accusing someone of steroid use is a pejorative which
could damage someone's career (or in Jackson's case, post-career).

Post by Mark Brown
strict excercise regimen and healthy diet? Especially given that Tyr's
character ~requires~ him to be muscular --he could likely have embarked on

a

Post by Mark Brown
specialized workout plan before/upon getting the role.
IIRC, Kevin Sorbo did the same thing when he was on Hercules. When the

show

Post by Mark Brown
ended he said (jokingly) that he's now allowed to eat junk food again

(which

Post by Mark Brown
is why Dylan doesn't go shirtless as often as Hercules did; he just

doesn't

Post by Mark Brown
have the same physique).
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Just to be clear: nothing ever appears in a script by chance.

*SNIP*
Of course not. But not everything is hint of something behind the scenes.
Look at it this way, how would you rewrite that scene to take out the
steroids reference? How would you have Beka react to Tyr's accusation?

I would have to see the scene again, because I do not recall a Tyr
response to the accusation in the US feed I saw. But that is immaterial.
If the show wanted to make a statement about steroids, they had to
make it without reference to someone in the show (especially an
up and coming unknown like Cobb whose career might be
damaged by this tag).
In fact, the impression I had from the scene was that Cobb
may not even have known of the Beka "steroids" statement
until he saw it on TV.
It is like Tara Reid being in a movie which accuses her character of
having fake silicon breasts. It will never happen.

Post by Mark Brown
Mark
"Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar." --Sigmund Freud

Sometimes a cigar is a cash money product placement in the movie to
advertise tobacco and cigarettes.
Politics

[Mark Nobles]

Post by PettyFan
moron troll!

You quote 400-lines to add this?
Dipshit.

Good day.

[OTL]

Post by John Shocked
Regardless of the response, it deviates from known
screenwriting guidelines since the viewer migbht actually believe the
statement about Cobb himself. There may even be legal defamatory
implications about such script statements.

If these screenwriting guidelines really do exist (which I'm 99.9999% sure
they don't), can you please cite the actual guidelines? Who established them,
what exactly do they say, where are they codified, etc.?

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
Or Ugly Person roles are filled by actors with
makeup-altered looks ?

Like the cast of NYPD_Blue, or CSI? Or the Cigarrette Smoking Man? (Who,
incidentally was a non-smoker, neatly disproving your thesis.)
It's Showbiz, and humans are intrinsically shallow. Slim, beautiful people
far, ~far~ outnumber normal people in Hollywood (which is exactly why
parents groups complain about anemia and low-self-esteem among
impressionable people who ~watch~ TV).

Cigarettes on TV are generic advertising Product Placements, so you
cannot make judgments about their presence on TV.

The Cigarette Smoking Man on "X-Files" smoked Morleys brand cigarettes. How
much do you think Morley paid to have their product on the show? I can answer
that easily enough: absolutely nothing. How do I know this? Because Morley
isn't a real brand of cigarette. In fact, I can't recall seeing any real
brands of cigarettes used on television for decades. It's not "product
placement" if you use fictional products. (At least, not by any definition of
the term used by any other person in the world.)

Post by John Shocked
An Ugly Person is not normally chosen to play an ugly person
in a movie. A Fat Person normally the same, although Kirstie Alley
is in a new TV series about a 'fat actress'. But here everyone
knows she has had her day as one of the beautiful people and
will again when she loses the weight, which is already happening.

Actually, it's far more rare for an ugly or fat person to *not* be played by
an ugly or fat person (respectively). Seriously, why would you spend all that
extra money on a fat suit, when you can just hire someone with a natural "fat
suit", unless you have a good reason? (Honestly, I'm sure that for every
"pretty person in ugly make-up" and "skinny person in fat suit" role you can
name, everyone else could list dozens (at least) of roles with an ugly or fat
actor.)

Post by John Shocked
Again, I do not think you have competently read what I said.
And I really dislike being misquoted, whether intentionally
or through incompetence.
I never said that Cobb used steroids and doubt he did.
But it is possible to perceive that, and that is where the script
deviates from known rules.
In fact, I think it is Bo Jackson who is currently suing some newspaper
which claimed that in his heyday he used steroids, even though the
paper appears to have retracted the story.

Bo Jackson is a real person, and as such is protected against libelous
accusations by libel laws. Tyr Anasazi isn't. Keith Hamilton Cobb may be a
real person, but the accusations were made towards Tyr, not Cobb. (But let's
suppose they were. You say you don't think Cobb was on steroids. If the line
in script was an accusation against Cobb, not Tyr... why didn't Cobb sue for
libel, like Bo Jackson?)

To be honest, your idea about screenwriting guidelines is nonsense, pure and
simple. Anything said about any character can *always* be interpreted by the
audience as a comment about the actor. Always. Because there are people in
the audience who will confuse the character and the actor. (Ever see a
commercial for some kind of medication with an actor who says "I'm not a
doctor, but I play one on TV"? That's because, without that disclaimer,
people would see the actor dispensing medical advice, and think it was coming
from a real doctor. Maybe not the brightest people in the world, but that
doesn't mean they wouldn't fall under your guidelines.)

But again, if you want to insist these guidelines are real, provide a cite for
them. Prove they exist. Shouldn't be that difficult; if they did exist, I'm
reasonably sure I know who would have set them, and it's fairly likely they'd
be on the web somewhere. (And no, I won't tell you who that is. If you know
anything about these guidelines, you should already know that yourself. And
if you don't... well... I already know what conclusion I've reached about
this...)

[PettyFan]

Post by OTL

Post by John Shocked
Regardless of the response, it deviates from known
screenwriting guidelines since the viewer migbht actually believe the
statement about Cobb himself. There may even be legal defamatory
implications about such script statements.

If these screenwriting guidelines really do exist (which I'm 99.9999% sure
they don't), can you please cite the actual guidelines? Who established them,
what exactly do they say, where are they codified, etc.?

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
Or Ugly Person roles are filled by actors with
makeup-altered looks ?

Like the cast of NYPD_Blue, or CSI? Or the Cigarrette Smoking Man? (Who,
incidentally was a non-smoker, neatly disproving your thesis.)
It's Showbiz, and humans are intrinsically shallow. Slim, beautiful people
far, ~far~ outnumber normal people in Hollywood (which is exactly why
parents groups complain about anemia and low-self-esteem among
impressionable people who ~watch~ TV).

Cigarettes on TV are generic advertising Product Placements, so you
cannot make judgments about their presence on TV.

The Cigarette Smoking Man on "X-Files" smoked Morleys brand cigarettes. How
much do you think Morley paid to have their product on the show? I can answer
that easily enough: absolutely nothing. How do I know this? Because Morley
isn't a real brand of cigarette. In fact, I can't recall seeing any real
brands of cigarettes used on television for decades. It's not "product
placement" if you use fictional products. (At least, not by any definition of
the term used by any other person in the world.)

Post by John Shocked
An Ugly Person is not normally chosen to play an ugly person
in a movie. A Fat Person normally the same, although Kirstie Alley
is in a new TV series about a 'fat actress'. But here everyone
knows she has had her day as one of the beautiful people and
will again when she loses the weight, which is already happening.

Actually, it's far more rare for an ugly or fat person to *not* be played by
an ugly or fat person (respectively). Seriously, why would you spend all that
extra money on a fat suit, when you can just hire someone with a natural "fat
suit", unless you have a good reason? (Honestly, I'm sure that for every
"pretty person in ugly make-up" and "skinny person in fat suit" role you can
name, everyone else could list dozens (at least) of roles with an ugly or fat
actor.)

Post by John Shocked
Again, I do not think you have competently read what I said.
And I really dislike being misquoted, whether intentionally
or through incompetence.
I never said that Cobb used steroids and doubt he did.
But it is possible to perceive that, and that is where the script
deviates from known rules.
In fact, I think it is Bo Jackson who is currently suing some newspaper
which claimed that in his heyday he used steroids, even though the
paper appears to have retracted the story.

Bo Jackson is a real person, and as such is protected against libelous
accusations by libel laws. Tyr Anasazi isn't. Keith Hamilton Cobb may be a
real person, but the accusations were made towards Tyr, not Cobb. (But let's
suppose they were. You say you don't think Cobb was on steroids. If the line
in script was an accusation against Cobb, not Tyr... why didn't Cobb sue for
libel, like Bo Jackson?)
To be honest, your idea about screenwriting guidelines is nonsense, pure and
simple. Anything said about any character can *always* be interpreted by the
audience as a comment about the actor. Always. Because there are people in
the audience who will confuse the character and the actor. (Ever see a
commercial for some kind of medication with an actor who says "I'm not a
doctor, but I play one on TV"? That's because, without that disclaimer,
people would see the actor dispensing medical advice, and think it was coming
from a real doctor. Maybe not the brightest people in the world, but that
doesn't mean they wouldn't fall under your guidelines.)
But again, if you want to insist these guidelines are real, provide a cite for
them. Prove they exist. Shouldn't be that difficult; if they did exist, I'm
reasonably sure I know who would have set them, and it's fairly likely they'd
be on the web somewhere. (And no, I won't tell you who that is. If you know
anything about these guidelines, you should already know that yourself. And
if you don't... well... I already know what conclusion I've reached about
this...)

dont confuse the guy with facts please! ;)

[John Shocked]

Post by OTL

Post by John Shocked
Regardless of the response, it deviates from known
screenwriting guidelines since the viewer migbht actually believe the
statement about Cobb himself. There may even be legal defamatory
implications about such script statements.

If these screenwriting guidelines really do exist (which I'm 99.9999% sure
they don't), can you please cite the actual guidelines? Who established them,
what exactly do they say, where are they codified, etc.?

As I have stated before, they are not written down rules. They are simply
rules which are learnt, passed onto and inferred by all screenwriters who
wish to attract and hold an audience and make money, and also to avoid
being sued. They are based on basic morality and culture.

Post by OTL

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
Or Ugly Person roles are filled by actors with
makeup-altered looks ?

Like the cast of NYPD_Blue, or CSI? Or the Cigarrette Smoking Man?
(Who, incidentally was a non-smoker, neatly disproving your thesis.)
It's Showbiz, and humans are intrinsically shallow. Slim, beautiful people
far, ~far~ outnumber normal people in Hollywood (which is exactly why
parents groups complain about anemia and low-self-esteem among
impressionable people who ~watch~ TV).

Cigarettes on TV are generic advertising Product Placements, so you
cannot make judgments about their presence on TV.

The Cigarette Smoking Man on "X-Files" smoked Morleys brand cigarettes.
How much do you think Morley paid to have their product on the show?
I can answer that easily enough: absolutely nothing. How do I know this?
Because Morley isn't a real brand of cigarette. In fact, I can't recall

seeing

Post by OTL
any real brands of cigarettes used on television for decades. It's not

"product

Post by OTL
placement" if you use fictional products. (At least, not by any definition of
the term used by any other person in the world.)

A specific brand of product placement costs more and sometimes is
unacceptable to the producers of the TV show or Movie.
Lots of tobacco documents have been forced out into the open and
one which pertains to this is:
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/cgi/getdoc?tid=jhb50f00&fmt=gif&ref=results&t
itle=AUDIT%20SURVEY%20-%20ASSOCIATED%20FILM%20PROMOTIONS&bates=680118057/806
6

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/

Post by OTL

Post by John Shocked
An Ugly Person is not normally chosen to play an ugly person
in a movie. A Fat Person normally the same, although Kirstie Alley
is in a new TV series about a 'fat actress'. But here everyone
knows she has had her day as one of the beautiful people and
will again when she loses the weight, which is already happening.

Actually, it's far more rare for an ugly or fat person to *not* be played by
an ugly or fat person (respectively). Seriously, why would you spend all that
extra money on a fat suit, when you can just hire someone with a natural "fat
suit", unless you have a good reason? (Honestly, I'm sure that for every
"pretty person in ugly make-up" and "skinny person in fat suit" role you can
name, everyone else could list dozens (at least) of roles with an ugly or fat
actor.)

Partly because basic morality prevents one from gaining enjoyment from
watching someone 'kicked when they are down'.
There are numerous unattractive people in movies who are "character actors"
but when the role calls for someone to be Ugly or Fat and that is a factor
in the script, the person usually is neither.
Also, the actor might claim harm from being forced to play a role
which could cause them embarassment off the set and could sue.

Post by OTL

Post by John Shocked
Again, I do not think you have competently read what I said.
And I really dislike being misquoted, whether intentionally
or through incompetence.
I never said that Cobb used steroids and doubt he did.
But it is possible to perceive that, and that is where the script
deviates from known rules.
In fact, I think it is Bo Jackson who is currently suing some newspaper
which claimed that in his heyday he used steroids, even though the
paper appears to have retracted the story.

Bo Jackson is a real person, and as such is protected against libelous
accusations by libel laws. Tyr Anasazi isn't. Keith Hamilton Cobb may be a
real person, but the accusations were made towards Tyr, not Cobb. (But let's
suppose they were. You say you don't think Cobb was on steroids. If the line
in script was an accusation against Cobb, not Tyr... why didn't Cobb sue for
libel, like Bo Jackson?)

That would not be a good career move for Cobb, especially since his career
should be taking off.
Guess how many times Christopher Reeve heard the appellation
off the set, on the street or plane "Hey Superman!"
Or Anthony Hopkins "Hey Hannibal Lecter!"
Or Tom Cruise "Maverick!"

Post by OTL
To be honest, your idea about screenwriting guidelines is nonsense, pure and
simple. Anything said about any character can *always* be interpreted by the
audience as a comment about the actor. Always. Because there are people in
the audience who will confuse the character and the actor. (Ever see a
commercial for some kind of medication with an actor who says "I'm not a
doctor, but I play one on TV"? That's because, without that disclaimer,
people would see the actor dispensing medical advice, and think it was coming
from a real doctor. Maybe not the brightest people in the world, but that
doesn't mean they wouldn't fall under your guidelines.)

That is a funny paragraph. And then you go ahead and support my point.
Your examples shows that there is a problems with non-perceptive people
or to be blunt 'chumps' who simply cannot separate the TV Image from
the real person who is the actor.

Post by OTL
But again, if you want to insist these guidelines are real, provide a cite for
them. Prove they exist. Shouldn't be that difficult; if they did exist, I'm
reasonably sure I know who would have set them, and it's fairly likely they'd
be on the web somewhere. (And no, I won't tell you who that is. If you know
anything about these guidelines, you should already know that yourself.

And

Post by OTL
if you don't... well... I already know what conclusion I've reached about
this...)
Brian Perler

***@sprynet.com

As I mentioned, these rules do not have to be written down they are known
to anyone who has perceptively watched any TV or Movies.
These rules are ancient.
One rule is that a betrayer must die. If you watched The Odyssey which was
shown on Scifi Channel, there was a storyline where one of servants of
Odysseus' wife betrayed her under the influence and sexual charm of
Eric Roberts' character, whose main goal in fact was not this servant but
the
hand of Odysseus' wife in marriage, which the servant knew.
Now, as soon as she betrays the wife, from the time I was 10 years old
I could point to her on the screen and announce "she dies" and take bets
on it. Now at 10 years old I could not have seen anywhere near as many
movies as I have seen by now, but if you are not simply sitting there as a
stooge in front of the TV, you quickly recognize The Rules.
And as you saw if you watched that TV movie, she died in a manner
that quintessentially demonstrates my point.

Politics

[PettyFan]

On Tue, 10 May 2005 07:21:11 -0700, "John Shocked"

Post by John Shocked

Post by OTL

Post by John Shocked
Regardless of the response, it deviates from known
screenwriting guidelines since the viewer migbht actually believe the
statement about Cobb himself. There may even be legal defamatory
implications about such script statements.

If these screenwriting guidelines really do exist (which I'm 99.9999% sure
they don't), can you please cite the actual guidelines? Who established

them,

Post by OTL
what exactly do they say, where are they codified, etc.?

As I have stated before, they are not written down rules. They are simply
rules which are learnt, passed onto and inferred by all screenwriters who
wish to attract and hold an audience and make money, and also to avoid
being sued. They are based on basic morality and culture.

Post by OTL

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
Or Ugly Person roles are filled by actors with
makeup-altered looks ?

Like the cast of NYPD_Blue, or CSI? Or the Cigarrette Smoking Man?
(Who, incidentally was a non-smoker, neatly disproving your thesis.)
It's Showbiz, and humans are intrinsically shallow. Slim, beautiful

people

Post by OTL

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
far, ~far~ outnumber normal people in Hollywood (which is exactly why
parents groups complain about anemia and low-self-esteem among
impressionable people who ~watch~ TV).

Cigarettes on TV are generic advertising Product Placements, so you
cannot make judgments about their presence on TV.

The Cigarette Smoking Man on "X-Files" smoked Morleys brand cigarettes.
How much do you think Morley paid to have their product on the show?
I can answer that easily enough: absolutely nothing. How do I know this?
Because Morley isn't a real brand of cigarette. In fact, I can't recall

seeing

Post by OTL
any real brands of cigarettes used on television for decades. It's not

"product

Post by OTL
placement" if you use fictional products. (At least, not by any

definition of

Post by OTL
the term used by any other person in the world.)

A specific brand of product placement costs more and sometimes is
unacceptable to the producers of the TV show or Movie.
Lots of tobacco documents have been forced out into the open and
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/cgi/getdoc?tid=jhb50f00&fmt=gif&ref=results&t
itle=AUDIT%20SURVEY%20-%20ASSOCIATED%20FILM%20PROMOTIONS&bates=680118057/806
6
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/

Post by OTL

Post by John Shocked
An Ugly Person is not normally chosen to play an ugly person
in a movie. A Fat Person normally the same, although Kirstie Alley
is in a new TV series about a 'fat actress'. But here everyone
knows she has had her day as one of the beautiful people and
will again when she loses the weight, which is already happening.

Actually, it's far more rare for an ugly or fat person to *not* be played

by

Post by OTL
an ugly or fat person (respectively). Seriously, why would you spend all

that

Post by OTL
extra money on a fat suit, when you can just hire someone with a natural

"fat

Post by OTL
suit", unless you have a good reason? (Honestly, I'm sure that for every
"pretty person in ugly make-up" and "skinny person in fat suit" role you

can

Post by OTL
name, everyone else could list dozens (at least) of roles with an ugly or

fat

Post by OTL
actor.)

Partly because basic morality prevents one from gaining enjoyment from
watching someone 'kicked when they are down'.
There are numerous unattractive people in movies who are "character actors"
but when the role calls for someone to be Ugly or Fat and that is a factor
in the script, the person usually is neither.
Also, the actor might claim harm from being forced to play a role
which could cause them embarassment off the set and could sue.

you have GOT TO BE JOKING!

Post by John Shocked

Post by OTL

Post by John Shocked
Again, I do not think you have competently read what I said.
And I really dislike being misquoted, whether intentionally
or through incompetence.
I never said that Cobb used steroids and doubt he did.
But it is possible to perceive that, and that is where the script
deviates from known rules.
In fact, I think it is Bo Jackson who is currently suing some newspaper
which claimed that in his heyday he used steroids, even though the
paper appears to have retracted the story.

Bo Jackson is a real person, and as such is protected against libelous
accusations by libel laws. Tyr Anasazi isn't. Keith Hamilton Cobb may be

a

Post by OTL
real person, but the accusations were made towards Tyr, not Cobb. (But

let's

Post by OTL
suppose they were. You say you don't think Cobb was on steroids. If the

line

Post by OTL
in script was an accusation against Cobb, not Tyr... why didn't Cobb sue

for

Post by OTL
libel, like Bo Jackson?)

That would not be a good career move for Cobb, especially since his career
should be taking off.
Guess how many times Christopher Reeve heard the appellation
off the set, on the street or plane "Hey Superman!"
Or Anthony Hopkins "Hey Hannibal Lecter!"
Or Tom Cruise "Maverick!"

Post by OTL
To be honest, your idea about screenwriting guidelines is nonsense, pure

and

Post by OTL
simple. Anything said about any character can *always* be interpreted by

the

Post by OTL
audience as a comment about the actor. Always. Because there are people

in

Post by OTL
the audience who will confuse the character and the actor. (Ever see a
commercial for some kind of medication with an actor who says "I'm not a
doctor, but I play one on TV"? That's because, without that disclaimer,
people would see the actor dispensing medical advice, and think it was

coming

Post by OTL
from a real doctor. Maybe not the brightest people in the world, but that
doesn't mean they wouldn't fall under your guidelines.)

That is a funny paragraph. And then you go ahead and support my point.
Your examples shows that there is a problems with non-perceptive people
or to be blunt 'chumps' who simply cannot separate the TV Image from
the real person who is the actor.

Post by OTL
But again, if you want to insist these guidelines are real, provide a cite

for

Post by OTL
them. Prove they exist. Shouldn't be that difficult; if they did exist,

I'm

Post by OTL
reasonably sure I know who would have set them, and it's fairly likely

they'd

Post by OTL
be on the web somewhere. (And no, I won't tell you who that is. If you

know

Post by OTL
anything about these guidelines, you should already know that yourself.

And

Post by OTL
if you don't... well... I already know what conclusion I've reached about
this...)
Brian Perler

As I mentioned, these rules do not have to be written down they are known
to anyone who has perceptively watched any TV or Movies.
These rules are ancient.
One rule is that a betrayer must die. If you watched The Odyssey which was
shown on Scifi Channel, there was a storyline where one of servants of
Odysseus' wife betrayed her under the influence and sexual charm of
Eric Roberts' character, whose main goal in fact was not this servant but
the
hand of Odysseus' wife in marriage, which the servant knew.
Now, as soon as she betrays the wife, from the time I was 10 years old
I could point to her on the screen and announce "she dies" and take bets
on it. Now at 10 years old I could not have seen anywhere near as many
movies as I have seen by now, but if you are not simply sitting there as a
stooge in front of the TV, you quickly recognize The Rules.
And as you saw if you watched that TV movie, she died in a manner
that quintessentially demonstrates my point.
Politics

[PettyFan]

On Tue, 10 May 2005 07:21:11 -0700, "John Shocked"

Post by John Shocked

Post by OTL

Post by John Shocked
Regardless of the response, it deviates from known
screenwriting guidelines since the viewer migbht actually believe the
statement about Cobb himself. There may even be legal defamatory
implications about such script statements.

If these screenwriting guidelines really do exist (which I'm 99.9999% sure
they don't), can you please cite the actual guidelines? Who established

them,

Post by OTL
what exactly do they say, where are they codified, etc.?

As I have stated before, they are not written down rules. They are simply
rules which are learnt, passed onto and inferred by all screenwriters who
wish to attract and hold an audience and make money, and also to avoid
being sued. They are based on basic morality and culture.

Post by OTL

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
Or Ugly Person roles are filled by actors with
makeup-altered looks ?

Like the cast of NYPD_Blue, or CSI? Or the Cigarrette Smoking Man?
(Who, incidentally was a non-smoker, neatly disproving your thesis.)
It's Showbiz, and humans are intrinsically shallow. Slim, beautiful

people

Post by OTL

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
far, ~far~ outnumber normal people in Hollywood (which is exactly why
parents groups complain about anemia and low-self-esteem among
impressionable people who ~watch~ TV).

Cigarettes on TV are generic advertising Product Placements, so you
cannot make judgments about their presence on TV.

The Cigarette Smoking Man on "X-Files" smoked Morleys brand cigarettes.
How much do you think Morley paid to have their product on the show?
I can answer that easily enough: absolutely nothing. How do I know this?
Because Morley isn't a real brand of cigarette. In fact, I can't recall

seeing

Post by OTL
any real brands of cigarettes used on television for decades. It's not

"product

Post by OTL
placement" if you use fictional products. (At least, not by any

definition of

Post by OTL
the term used by any other person in the world.)

A specific brand of product placement costs more and sometimes is
unacceptable to the producers of the TV show or Movie.
Lots of tobacco documents have been forced out into the open and
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/cgi/getdoc?tid=jhb50f00&fmt=gif&ref=results&t
itle=AUDIT%20SURVEY%20-%20ASSOCIATED%20FILM%20PROMOTIONS&bates=680118057/806
6
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/

Post by OTL

Post by John Shocked
An Ugly Person is not normally chosen to play an ugly person
in a movie. A Fat Person normally the same, although Kirstie Alley
is in a new TV series about a 'fat actress'. But here everyone
knows she has had her day as one of the beautiful people and
will again when she loses the weight, which is already happening.

Actually, it's far more rare for an ugly or fat person to *not* be played

by

Post by OTL
an ugly or fat person (respectively). Seriously, why would you spend all

that

Post by OTL
extra money on a fat suit, when you can just hire someone with a natural

"fat

Post by OTL
suit", unless you have a good reason? (Honestly, I'm sure that for every
"pretty person in ugly make-up" and "skinny person in fat suit" role you

can

Post by OTL
name, everyone else could list dozens (at least) of roles with an ugly or

fat

Post by OTL
actor.)

Partly because basic morality prevents one from gaining enjoyment from
watching someone 'kicked when they are down'.
There are numerous unattractive people in movies who are "character actors"
but when the role calls for someone to be Ugly or Fat and that is a factor
in the script, the person usually is neither.
Also, the actor might claim harm from being forced to play a role
which could cause them embarassment off the set and could sue.

Post by OTL

Post by John Shocked
Again, I do not think you have competently read what I said.
And I really dislike being misquoted, whether intentionally
or through incompetence.
I never said that Cobb used steroids and doubt he did.
But it is possible to perceive that, and that is where the script
deviates from known rules.
In fact, I think it is Bo Jackson who is currently suing some newspaper
which claimed that in his heyday he used steroids, even though the
paper appears to have retracted the story.

Bo Jackson is a real person, and as such is protected against libelous
accusations by libel laws. Tyr Anasazi isn't. Keith Hamilton Cobb may be

a

Post by OTL
real person, but the accusations were made towards Tyr, not Cobb. (But

let's

Post by OTL
suppose they were. You say you don't think Cobb was on steroids. If the

line

Post by OTL
in script was an accusation against Cobb, not Tyr... why didn't Cobb sue

for

Post by OTL
libel, like Bo Jackson?)

That would not be a good career move for Cobb, especially since his career
should be taking off.
Guess how many times Christopher Reeve heard the appellation
off the set, on the street or plane "Hey Superman!"
Or Anthony Hopkins "Hey Hannibal Lecter!"
Or Tom Cruise "Maverick!"

Post by OTL
To be honest, your idea about screenwriting guidelines is nonsense, pure

and

Post by OTL
simple. Anything said about any character can *always* be interpreted by

the

Post by OTL
audience as a comment about the actor. Always. Because there are people

in

Post by OTL
the audience who will confuse the character and the actor. (Ever see a
commercial for some kind of medication with an actor who says "I'm not a
doctor, but I play one on TV"? That's because, without that disclaimer,
people would see the actor dispensing medical advice, and think it was

coming

Post by OTL
from a real doctor. Maybe not the brightest people in the world, but that
doesn't mean they wouldn't fall under your guidelines.)

That is a funny paragraph. And then you go ahead and support my point.
Your examples shows that there is a problems with non-perceptive people
or to be blunt 'chumps' who simply cannot separate the TV Image from
the real person who is the actor.

funny you say that when just a bit ago you said and i quote "Also, the
actor might claim harm from being forced to play a role
which could cause them embarassment off the set and could sue." now
which is it?

Post by John Shocked

Post by OTL
But again, if you want to insist these guidelines are real, provide a cite

for

Post by OTL
them. Prove they exist. Shouldn't be that difficult; if they did exist,

I'm

Post by OTL
reasonably sure I know who would have set them, and it's fairly likely

they'd

Post by OTL
be on the web somewhere. (And no, I won't tell you who that is. If you

know

Post by OTL
anything about these guidelines, you should already know that yourself.

And

Post by OTL
if you don't... well... I already know what conclusion I've reached about
this...)
Brian Perler

As I mentioned, these rules do not have to be written down they are known
to anyone who has perceptively watched any TV or Movies.
These rules are ancient.
One rule is that a betrayer must die. If you watched The Odyssey which was
shown on Scifi Channel, there was a storyline where one of servants of
Odysseus' wife betrayed her under the influence and sexual charm of
Eric Roberts' character, whose main goal in fact was not this servant but
the
hand of Odysseus' wife in marriage, which the servant knew.
Now, as soon as she betrays the wife, from the time I was 10 years old
I could point to her on the screen and announce "she dies" and take bets
on it. Now at 10 years old I could not have seen anywhere near as many
movies as I have seen by now, but if you are not simply sitting there as a
stooge in front of the TV, you quickly recognize The Rules.
And as you saw if you watched that TV movie, she died in a manner
that quintessentially demonstrates my point.
Politics

[Mike Meyer]

Post by John Shocked

Post by John Shocked
An Ugly Person is not normally chosen to play an ugly person
in a movie.

So explain Suzanne Krull in the recent Charmed episode "Freaky
Phoebe", playing what the teasers called "the ugliest demon in the
world."

Post by John Shocked
One rule is that a betrayer must die.

This "rule" is better known as a cliche. It's a sign that the writing
is somewhat lacking in the quality department. There are no less than
three exceptions to this in Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season 2 alone.

1) Angel turns evil, betraying everybody. Not only did he not die, he
got his own spinoff after season 3.

2) Buffy betrays Angel after he turns good. In one of the final scense
of the season, she kisses him, then shoves a sword through his
chest. The series had to change networks before she died (again), and
even then it wasn't permanent. She was alive and kicking and acting as
an off-screen agent in the spinoff.

3) Spike betrays Angel. Spike teams up with Buffy to defeat Angel
towards the end of the season, leading to Angel being sent to a hell
dimension for some indefinite period of time. Spike continued as a
recurring character, becoming a regular before the end of the series,
and then transitioning to the Angel spinoff.

There have been similar "rules" (e.g. - crime doesn't pay) that were
enforced by the FCC. But those have been relaxed in recent
years. Compare the recent remake of "Ocean's 11" with the original for
an example.

<mike

[John Shocked]

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by John Shocked
An Ugly Person is not normally chosen to play an ugly
person in a movie.

So explain Suzanne Krull in the recent Charmed episode "Freaky
Phoebe", playing what the teasers called "the ugliest demon in the
world."

I looked at a picture of this woman on IMDB and she clearly is not
ugly, thus further proving my point. In addition, the pictures there
are obviously recent (she is now 39) thus it is quite likely
she had her day in her twenties of being an attractive lady.
Loading Image...
ry&path_key=Krull,%20Suzanne

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
One rule is that a betrayer must die.

This "rule" is better known as a cliche. It's a sign that the writing
is somewhat lacking in the quality department. There are no less than
three exceptions to this in Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season 2 alone.
1) Angel turns evil, betraying everybody. Not only did he not die, he
got his own spinoff after season 3.

Since I do not watch that series, it is pointless to use it as an example.
Note how my example comes from a series most science fiction viewers
saw. Charmed is a 'Magic Show' and as such has nothing in common
with science fiction.

Post by Mike Meyer
2) Buffy betrays Angel after he turns good. In one of the final scenes
of the season, she kisses him, then shoves a sword through his

I do not know what you are referring to but it is quite common for
a betrayer to be killed after 'turning good'.
In fact, what you describe reminds me of the identical scene I just
watched today on Sliders, where a Cro-Mag bettrays her people
to help 'our heroes' and then at the end of the show she is stabbed
by one of her own people whom she betrayed, even though they
were evil people who wanted to kill 'our heroes'.
It (The Dying Fields episode) was just on about 3 hours ago.
I just mention this to indicate how common that is.
I find it incredible when I observe how slow so many people are
at recognizing things that are staring them in the face every day.
(Actually after looking up the episode, they spell it "Kromagg").

Post by Mike Meyer
chest. The series had to change networks before she died (again), and
even then it wasn't permanent. She was alive and kicking and acting as
an off-screen agent in the spinoff.
3) Spike betrays Angel. Spike teams up with Buffy to defeat Angel
towards the end of the season, leading to Angel being sent to a hell
dimension for some indefinite period of time. Spike continued as a
recurring character, becoming a regular before the end of the series,
and then transitioning to the Angel spinoff.
There have been similar "rules" (e.g. - crime doesn't pay) that were
enforced by the FCC. But those have been relaxed in recent
years. Compare the recent remake of "Ocean's 11" with the original for
an example.
<mike

The Rules do not constrain writers and have nothing to do with
the FCC or with The Codes that rose up around the 1950's
and earlier decades..
The Rules are all about the producers entertaining people
and making money.
They merely express the will of the average moral viewer.

For instance, in Titanic, how many people would
have gone to that movie and kept paying to go back again and again
if the Winslet character did not wind up with the DiCaprio character
(even though I believe one of them wound up dying at the end).
If Winslet 3/4 of the way through that movie had a fling with the
Billy Zane character and wound up with him, how much do you think
that would have affected the box office results ?

Politics

[Mike Meyer]

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by John Shocked
An Ugly Person is not normally chosen to play an ugly
person in a movie.

So explain Suzanne Krull in the recent Charmed episode "Freaky
Phoebe", playing what the teasers called "the ugliest demon in the
world."

I looked at a picture of this woman on IMDB and she clearly is not
ugly

We clearly disagree on this point. I find her very unattractive.

Post by John Shocked
, thus further proving my point. In addition, the pictures there
are obviously recent (she is now 39) thus it is quite likely
she had her day in her twenties of being an attractive lady.
http://www.imdb.com/gallery/hh/0006816/HH/0006816/iid_899955.jpg?path=pgalle
ry&path_key=Krull,%20Suzanne

Since the episode I referred to is very recent, only recent pictures
would be applicable.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
One rule is that a betrayer must die.

This "rule" is better known as a cliche. It's a sign that the writing
is somewhat lacking in the quality department. There are no less than
three exceptions to this in Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season 2 alone.
1) Angel turns evil, betraying everybody. Not only did he not die, he
got his own spinoff after season 3.

Since I do not watch that series, it is pointless to use it as an example.
Note how my example comes from a series most science fiction viewers
saw. Charmed is a 'Magic Show' and as such has nothing in common
with science fiction.

Oh, so now you're claiming your "screenwriters rules" only apply to
scifi?

FWIW, Charmed is fantasy. Fantasy is close kin, if not a member of,
the sci-fi gendre. They have a *lot* in common.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
2) Buffy betrays Angel after he turns good. In one of the final scenes
of the season, she kisses him, then shoves a sword through his

I do not know what you are referring to but it is quite common for
a betrayer to be killed after 'turning good'.

Except - as per point 1 - *he wasn't killed*. He was just betrayed.

Post by John Shocked
In fact, what you describe reminds me of the identical scene I just
watched today on Sliders, where a Cro-Mag bettrays her people
to help 'our heroes' and then at the end of the show she is stabbed
by one of her own people whom she betrayed, even though they
were evil people who wanted to kill 'our heroes'.
It (The Dying Fields episode) was just on about 3 hours ago.

In your example, the kromag was killed by one of the people she
betrayed. This follows the cliche. In the example I gave, the person
who betrayed Angel isn't someone he knowingly betrayed.

The logic of the plot and characterizations *requires* that Angel have
that sword shoved through his chest at that point in time. He must be
betrayed. But killing off the title character of a series is *really*
frowned upon, so your "rule" really can't be followed in this case.

I was tempted to say that you *can't* kill the title character in a
series, but that would be just as inane - and as wrong - as your
so-called rules. After all, Buffy managed to get killed twice in her
series.

Post by John Shocked
I just mention this to indicate how common that is.

If it weren't common, it wouldn't be a cliche. I don't claim that it
never happens, or - like you - that there's some rule against it. In
fact, I claim that it happens all to often, as there 90% of all video
work is crud(*). Better writers will avoid the cliche to produce
better scripts.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
There have been similar "rules" (e.g. - crime doesn't pay) that were
enforced by the FCC. But those have been relaxed in recent
years. Compare the recent remake of "Ocean's 11" with the original for
an example.

The Rules do not constrain writers and have nothing to do with

If they don't constrain writers, then there's no reason for writers to
follow them. Please make up your mind.

Post by John Shocked
The Rules are all about the producers entertaining people
and making money.
They merely express the will of the average moral viewer.

This makes them sound like formulas used by hack writers to turn out
crud. Which is pretty much what I said. Better writers will ignore
them - when it produces a better script to do so.

On the other hand, how does not having X actors play X characters
(where X can be ugly, possibly-drug-abusing, fat, etc.) have anything
to do with entertaining people, making money or expressing the will of
the average moral viewer?

<mike

*) Sturgeon's Law.

[John Shocked]

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by John Shocked
An Ugly Person is not normally chosen to play an ugly
person in a movie.

So explain Suzanne Krull in the recent Charmed episode "Freaky
Phoebe", playing what the teasers called "the ugliest demon in the
world."

I looked at a picture of this woman on IMDB and she clearly
is not ugly

We clearly disagree on this point. I find her very unattractive.

Again, she may have been 'uglied down' in the makeup room for
that role.
As all women age, their looks decline, but I still would not say she
is repulsive at 39.
Again, the picture on IMDB is reality.
However she looked on that show is Make-Believe.
Reality. Make-Believe.
Do you understand the difference between the two ?

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
, thus further proving my point. In addition, the pictures there
are obviously recent (she is now 39) thus it is quite likely
she had her day in her twenties of being an attractive lady.

http://www.imdb.com/gallery/hh/0006816/HH/0006816/iid_899955.jpg?path=pgalle

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
ry&path_key=Krull,%20Suzanne

Since the episode I referred to is very recent, only recent pictures
would be applicable.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
One rule is that a betrayer must die.

And by the way, this rule would apply to Tyr, if you are correct that
the intended arc of his character was to betray Dylan Hunt.
And if that was the intent of the creators of this series, then they
are definitely crazy people.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
This "rule" is better known as a cliche. It's a sign that the writing
is somewhat lacking in the quality department. There are no less than
three exceptions to this in Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season 2 alone.
1) Angel turns evil, betraying everybody. Not only did he not die, he
got his own spinoff after season 3.

Since I do not watch that series, it is pointless to use it as an example.
Note how my example comes from a series most science fiction viewers
saw. Charmed is a 'Magic Show' and as such has nothing in common
with science fiction.

Oh, so now you're claiming your "screenwriters rules" only apply
to scifi?

No, just that as a 'Magic Show' I never watch that show. I did watch
Bewitched a long time ago though.

Post by Mike Meyer
FWIW, Charmed is fantasy. Fantasy is close kin, if not a member of,
the sci-fi genre. They have a *lot* in common.

I know that you have been sold that by the entertainment business,
and they even invented the term SF&F to pair the two, but they
are as similar as Boxing and Pro Wresting.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
2) Buffy betrays Angel after he turns good. In one of the final scenes
of the season, she kisses him, then shoves a sword through his

I do not know what you are referring to but it is quite common for
a betrayer to be killed after 'turning good'.

Except - as per point 1 - *he wasn't killed*. He was just betrayed.

Post by John Shocked
In fact, what you describe reminds me of the identical scene I just
watched today on Sliders, where a Cro-Mag betrays her people
to help 'our heroes' and then at the end of the show she is stabbed
by one of her own people whom she betrayed, even though they
were evil people who wanted to kill 'our heroes'.
It (The Dying Fields episode) was just on about 3 hours ago.

In your example, the kromagg was killed by one of the people she
betrayed. This follows the cliche. In the example I gave, the person
who betrayed Angel isn't someone he knowingly betrayed.

No, the Rule is not specific on who does the killing.
Sometimes, it is accidental.
In fact, the example I gave you from The Odyssey was
accidental, but given the 'Gods' context of that show,
it was Fate or Parcae.

Post by Mike Meyer
The logic of the plot and characterizations *requires* that Angel have
that sword shoved through his chest at that point in time. He must be
betrayed. But killing off the title character of a series is *really*
frowned upon, so your "rule" really can't be followed in this case.

Unless you are now talking about a different series, I do not see the
name "Angel" in the title.
But since I have not seen this series and you clearly do not watch
TV with the same perception that I do, it would be difficult
for you to present the important facts of the script that led up to
these events.

Post by Mike Meyer
I was tempted to say that you *can't* kill the title character in a
series, but that would be just as inane - and as wrong - as your
so-called rules. After all, Buffy managed to get killed twice in her
series.

Post by John Shocked
I just mention this to indicate how common that is.

If it weren't common, it wouldn't be a cliche. I don't claim that it
never happens, or - like you - that there's some rule against it. In
fact, I claim that it happens all to often, as there 90% of all video
work is crud(*). Better writers will avoid the cliche to produce
better scripts.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
There have been similar "rules" (e.g. - crime doesn't pay) that were
enforced by the FCC. But those have been relaxed in recent
years. Compare the recent remake of "Ocean's 11" with the original for
an example.

The Rules do not constrain writers and have nothing to do with

If they don't constrain writers, then there's no reason for writers to
follow them. Please make up your mind.

Post by John Shocked
The Rules are all about the producers entertaining people
and making money.
They merely express the will of the average moral viewer.

This makes them sound like formulas used by hack writers to turn out
crud. Which is pretty much what I said. Better writers will ignore
them - when it produces a better script to do so.

When the US finally becomes a completely Amoral populace
which I believe is the intent of the current crop of Hollywood Homosexuals
who control Hollywood today, screenwriters may one day be free to ignore
these Rules and still be able to make money.
Ultimately, the driving force behind Hollywood is making money
on each movie. They do not make movies to lose money.

Post by Mike Meyer
On the other hand, how does not having X actors play X characters
(where X can be ugly, possibly-drug-abusing, fat, etc.) have anything
to do with entertaining people, making money or expressing the will of
the average moral viewer?
<mike

As I said, moral people cringe when they see someone who is already
downtrodden, be kicked when they are down.
Ultimately, that is bad business and loses money.

Politics

[Mark Brown]

*SNIP*

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
This "rule" is better known as a cliche. It's a sign that the writing
is somewhat lacking in the quality department. There are no less than
three exceptions to this in Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season 2 alone.
1) Angel turns evil, betraying everybody. Not only did he not die, he
got his own spinoff after season 3.

Since I do not watch that series, it is pointless to use it as an

example.

. . .

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Note how my example comes from a series most science fiction viewers
saw. Charmed is a 'Magic Show' and as such has nothing in common
with science fiction.

Okay, ~one:~ he wasn't talking about Charmed, he's talking about
Buffy_The_Vampire_Slayer and its spinoff Angel(_the_Series). Two. . . Sci-fi
and fantasy do (or at least ~should~) have a great deal in common. They both
use a dramatic conceit to distance themselves from accepted "reality" in
order to place characters in dramatic situations. Whether the conceit is
that magic works or that there are aliens and high technology is ultimately
immaterial. The stories are about the characters being portrayed.

Angel losing his soul and becoming Angelus (who tries to kill everyone) is
really no different than (in Andromeda terms) if the Abyss had
telepathically turned Rev Bem into Redplague (his magog name/identity) and
made him try to destroy the Andromeda.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by Mike Meyer
Oh, so now you're claiming your "screenwriters rules" only apply
to scifi?

No, just that as a 'Magic Show' I never watch that show. I did watch
Bewitched a long time ago though.

Bewitched was a sitcom, was it not? (I'm honestly asking, 'cause I'm not
sure.) Sitcoms, as I'm sure a discerning and analytically-minded viewer such
as yourself knows, are very different from prime-time dramas (as Buffy,
Angel, Andromeda, and even Charmed are classified). Sitcoms are, for one,
intended to be more episodic (one-shot stand-alone eps) than serial (a
narrative progression through an ongoing story). They are also made for more
general audiences, and tend to shy away from major themes/motifs.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by Mike Meyer
FWIW, Charmed is fantasy. Fantasy is close kin, if not a member of,
the sci-fi genre. They have a *lot* in common.

I know that you have been sold that by the entertainment business,
and they even invented the term SF&F to pair the two, but they
are as similar as Boxing and Pro Wresting.

Based on what, perchance?

Your comments and tone seem to imply a strong bias against "magic shows,"
when the only real difference between them is the exact nature of the plot
devices. This makes you seem shallow and ignorant, and is hurting your
argument (assuming that's what this is, and not just knee-jerk
contradiction).

Here's some sci-fi examples for you:

In Firefly, Simon betrays Mal by smuggling River aboard and thus endangering
Mal's crew. Not only does Simon not die, but he and River become main
characters. Later, Jayne sells out Simon & River (there's a bounty on their
heads) after Mal promises to protect them. Jayne gets in trouble, and (after
being rescued) gets threatened by Mal (who nearly chucks him out an
airlock), River ("I can kill you with my brain"), and tacitly by Simon as
well ("I'm a doctor. As long as you're ~on~that~table,~ I won't hurt you"),
but doesn't die. Previous to the series, Jayne had betrayed a previous
partner. When said partner gets out of jail, he comes after Jayne and
promptly gets killed. And that's not even mentioning Jayne's brief career as
a bounty hunter, in which he (apparently) killed his boss and a fellow
henchman when Mal (the bounty hunter's target) offered him a better deal. At
an earlier point, Mal and crew betray Niska and murder one of his henchmen.
This is the whole crew that's involved, mind, and none of them die (well,
Mal flatlines for a few seconds, but Niska brings him back [to torture him
some more], then ends up losing him).

Transformers:_Beast_Wars, Dinobot betrays the Predacons, then the Maximals,
then the Predacons again, before finally dying as a Hero (with full honours,
a "missing man" flyby, a funeral pyre, and everything). Later (in
Beast_Machines), Rattrap betrays the Maximals, but is eventually welcomed
back, and ends up surviving (well, being revived after) the Cybertronian
Apocalypse.

Star_Trek_Voyager: Half the crew are made up of Maquis rebels who betrayed
the Federation. Paris betrays Janeway, and gets busted down to ensign, then
claws his way back up and ends the series as a hero (and a husband and
father). Seven of Nine betrays the Collective a few times and survives
(okay, that was more weak/clichéed writing, but is still contradicts your
point).

Star_Trek_DS9: Betrayals all over the place here: Kira betrays her people by
accepting Starfleet, and then the Cardassians (even fighting to liberate
their homeworld). Odo betrays his people, siding with the Federation in the
Dominion War. Garak betrays his people, then the DS9 crew, then returns to
Cardassia a hero. Worf betrays the Klingon Empire when they declare war, and
ends up as Federation Ambassador to Qo'nos. Rom and Nog both betray their
Ferengi heritage and end up as a Starfleet veteran and Grand Nagus,
respectively. . .

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
2) Buffy betrays Angel after he turns good. In one of the final scenes
of the season, she kisses him, then shoves a sword through his

I do not know what you are referring to but it is quite common for
a betrayer to be killed after 'turning good'.

Except - as per point 1 - *he wasn't killed*. He was just betrayed.

And Buffy was the betrayer in this instance.

To recap: Angel(us) betrays Buffy, then (when Angel regains his soul, but
not his Angelus-memories) Buffy has no choice but to betray him by killing
him (which she does tearfully, and only because it means saving the world).
This would, on the surface, appear to help your point, John, except that:

Angel didn't ~stay~ dead. He returned, whole and healthy, and eventually
went on to his own spinoff series (where he again betrayed his [new] allies,
they betrayed him, and yet everyone survived until the unrelated finale
arc[s]). Meanwhile, Buffy dies (a coupla' times), but her deaths are
presented as being completely unrelated to any betrayals.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
In fact, what you describe reminds me of the identical scene I just
watched today on Sliders,

You dismiss fantasy, but you hold up Sliders as an example?

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
where a Cro-Mag betrays her people
to help 'our heroes' and then at the end of the show she is stabbed
by one of her own people whom she betrayed, even though they
were evil people who wanted to kill 'our heroes'.
It (The Dying Fields episode) was just on about 3 hours ago.

In your example, the kromagg was killed by one of the people she
betrayed. This follows the cliche. In the example I gave, the person
who betrayed Angel isn't someone he knowingly betrayed.

No, the Rule is not specific on who does the killing.
Sometimes, it is accidental.
In fact, the example I gave you from The Odyssey was
accidental, but given the 'Gods' context of that show,
it was Fate or Parcae.

Fate is no accident. In both cases (Sliders and the Odyssey), the death is
presented as being directly related to the betrayal as a sort of dramatic
standard. This is simply not the case, as Mike's Buffyverse example proved.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by Mike Meyer
The logic of the plot and characterizations *requires* that Angel have
that sword shoved through his chest at that point in time. He must be
betrayed. But killing off the title character of a series is *really*
frowned upon, so your "rule" really can't be followed in this case.

Unless you are now talking about a different series, I do not see the
name "Angel" in the title.

It was Buffy's show (Angel's series doesn't start 'till a couple of years
later). Mike's saying that Buffy betrayed Angel, and therefore couldn't be
killed. Okay, granted, she did die later, but she was revived both times
(and neither death had anything to do with Angel --he wasn't even present
for the second one). In fact the one who revived her the first time was
Xander, whom she had "betrayed" (romantically) by becoming involved with
Angel.

You could argue that Xander betrayed her (he knew that Angelus would revert
back into Angel, but didn't tell Buffy 'cause he wanted Angel dead [again,
that whole jealousy thing]), but Xander didn't even die once. It was years
before he even lost an eye.

Post by Mike Meyer
But since I have not seen this series and you clearly do not watch
TV with the same perception that I do, it would be difficult
for you to present the important facts of the script that led up to
these events.

Obviously. He disaggrees with you, so he must be an ignorant hump.

*SNIP*

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
The Rules are all about the producers entertaining people
and making money.
They merely express the will of the average moral viewer.

This makes them sound like formulas used by hack writers to turn out
crud. Which is pretty much what I said. Better writers will ignore
them - when it produces a better script to do so.

Witness Joss Whedon, RHW, Rumiko Takahashi, and others.

Post by Mike Meyer
When the US finally becomes a completely Amoral populace
which I believe is the intent of the current crop of Hollywood Homosexuals
who control Hollywood today,

. . .

You are aware that this statement just screams BIGOTTED CONSERVATIVE TROLL,
aren't you?

Wow; you'd probably ~hate~ Firefly (about thieves, smugglers, killers, and a
whore). And Buffy/Angel (betrayal, murder, sex, lesbianism, attempted rape,
implied off-camera rape [of nuns], adultery. . .). And Gargoyles (betrayal,
murder, attempted suicide). And InuYasha (at least three of the "heroes" are
mass-murderers and thieves, the monk is a lecher, several are oath-breakers,
there's implied adultery, on-screen child abuse [yes, even in the
Americanized dub], and more than half the cast are demons). I kinda feel
sorry for you, missing such brilliantly-written and intelligent shows.

Post by Mike Meyer
screenwriters may one day be free to ignore
these Rules and still be able to make money.
Ultimately, the driving force behind Hollywood is making money
on each movie. They do not make movies to lose money.

Agreed. But some writers write movies/series because they enjoy it, and
because they genuinely want to produce good stories.

*SNIP*

Post by Mike Meyer
As I said, moral people cringe when they see someone who is already
downtrodden, be kicked when they are down.
Ultimately, that is bad business and loses money.

Then explain the prevalence of "Reality" TV.

Mark
"Hopes I didn't overload anybody's sarcasm-detector."

[John Shocked]

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
This "rule" is better known as a cliche. It's a sign that the writing
is somewhat lacking in the quality department. There are no less than
three exceptions to this in Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season 2 alone.
1) Angel turns evil, betraying everybody. Not only did he not die, he
got his own spinoff after season 3.

Since I do not watch that series, it is pointless to use it as an example.

. . .

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Note how my example comes from a series most science fiction viewers
saw. Charmed is a 'Magic Show' and as such has nothing in common
with science fiction.

Okay, ~one:~ he wasn't talking about Charmed, he's talking about
Buffy_The_Vampire_Slayer and its spinoff Angel(_the_Series). Two. . . Sci-fi
and fantasy do (or at least ~should~) have a great deal in common. They both
use a dramatic conceit to distance themselves from accepted "reality" in
order to place characters in dramatic situations. Whether the conceit is
that magic works or that there are aliens and high technology is ultimately
immaterial. The stories are about the characters being portrayed.

Again a lot of this comes down to one's willingness to accept make-believe
as reality. Magic is much easier to write because anything is possible and
thus credible and the weak minded viewers do not apply any sort of
litmus test to the world portrayed.

Post by Mark Brown
Angel losing his soul and becoming Angelus (who tries to kill everyone) is
really no different than (in Andromeda terms) if the Abyss had
telepathically turned Rev Bem into Redplague (his magog name/identity) and
made him try to destroy the Andromeda.

These sorts of transformations just are not acceptable to any other than
weak minds who will literally accept any nonsense portrayed on screen.
I mean, if characters in the show can undergo these "transformations",
what was the point of your watching the show up to that point ?
Just because some producer claims that the "ratings are stale and we need
a big change" should not allow them to throw out the existing character base
and introduce a new person. If they want a new character, have them
introduce someone new to the show. And if that means the existing
characters receive decreased air time, so be it.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
Oh, so now you're claiming your "screenwriters rules" only
apply to scifi?

No, just that as a 'Magic Show' I never watch that show. I did watch
Bewitched a long time ago though.

Bewitched was a sitcom, was it not? (I'm honestly asking, 'cause I'm not
sure.) Sitcoms, as I'm sure a discerning and analytically-minded viewer such
as yourself knows, are very different from prime-time dramas (as Buffy,
Angel, Andromeda, and even Charmed are classified). Sitcoms are, for one,
intended to be more episodic (one-shot stand-alone eps) than serial (a
narrative progression through an ongoing story). They are also made for more
general audiences, and tend to shy away from major themes/motifs.

Comedy was an aspect of Bewitched, I do recall.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
FWIW, Charmed is fantasy. Fantasy is close kin, if not a member of,
the sci-fi genre. They have a *lot* in common.

I know that you have been sold that by the entertainment business,
and they even invented the term SF&F to pair the two, but they
are as similar as Boxing and Pro Wresting.

Based on what, perchance?

Boxing is real, Pro Wrestling is always fixed.
Actually, I would say 10% of boxing matches are fixed, but that is
considered
a crime and if found out people could go to prison.

Post by Mark Brown
Your comments and tone seem to imply a strong bias against "magic shows,"
when the only real difference between them is the exact nature of the plot
devices. This makes you seem shallow and ignorant, and is hurting your
argument (assuming that's what this is, and not just knee-jerk
contradiction).
In Firefly, Simon betrays Mal by smuggling River aboard and thus endangering
Mal's crew. Not only does Simon not die, but he and River become main
characters. Later, Jayne sells out Simon & River (there's a bounty on their
heads) after Mal promises to protect them. Jayne gets in trouble, and (after
being rescued) gets threatened by Mal (who nearly chucks him out an
airlock), River ("I can kill you with my brain"), and tacitly by Simon as
well ("I'm a doctor. As long as you're ~on~that~table,~ I won't hurt you"),
but doesn't die. Previous to the series, Jayne had betrayed a previous
partner. When said partner gets out of jail, he comes after Jayne and
promptly gets killed. And that's not even mentioning Jayne's brief career as
a bounty hunter, in which he (apparently) killed his boss and a fellow
henchman when Mal (the bounty hunter's target) offered him a better deal. At
an earlier point, Mal and crew betray Niska and murder one of his henchmen.
This is the whole crew that's involved, mind, and none of them die (well,
Mal flatlines for a few seconds, but Niska brings him back [to torture him
some more], then ends up losing him).

Firefly ? I have never even heard of this show.
However, with the amount of betrayal you describe, I doubt that I would
find any of the characters interesting enough to watch the show.
And that is what The Rules are about -- inducing people to watch and
keep watching the show.

Post by Mark Brown
Transformers:_Beast_Wars, Dinobot betrays the Predacons, then the Maximals,
then the Predacons again, before finally dying as a Hero (with full honours,
a "missing man" flyby, a funeral pyre, and everything). Later (in
Beast_Machines), Rattrap betrays the Maximals, but is eventually welcomed
back, and ends up surviving (well, being revived after) the Cybertronian
Apocalypse.
Star_Trek_Voyager: Half the crew are made up of Maquis rebels who betrayed
the Federation. Paris betrays Janeway, and gets busted down to ensign, then
claws his way back up and ends the series as a hero (and a husband and
father). Seven of Nine betrays the Collective a few times and survives
(okay, that was more weak/clichéed writing, but is still contradicts your
point).
Star_Trek_DS9: Betrayals all over the place here: Kira betrays her people by
accepting Starfleet, and then the Cardassians (even fighting to liberate
their homeworld). Odo betrays his people, siding with the Federation in the
Dominion War. Garak betrays his people, then the DS9 crew, then returns to
Cardassia a hero. Worf betrays the Klingon Empire when they declare war, and
ends up as Federation Ambassador to Qo'nos. Rom and Nog both betray their
Ferengi heritage and end up as a Starfleet veteran and Grand Nagus,
respectively. . .

I watched a little of DS9 but recall little of what you describe.
However, "betrayal" in drama involves a character developing another
on-screen
character's trust to a point where they have expectations of you
specifically, then
acting against their interests.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
2) Buffy betrays Angel after he turns good. In one of the final scenes
of the season, she kisses him, then shoves a sword through his

I do not know what you are referring to but it is quite common for
a betrayer to be killed after 'turning good'.

Except - as per point 1 - *he wasn't killed*. He was just betrayed.

And Buffy was the betrayer in this instance.
To recap: Angel(us) betrays Buffy, then (when Angel regains his soul, but
not his Angelus-memories) Buffy has no choice but to betray him by killing
him (which she does tearfully, and only because it means saving the world).

Frankly, this sounds like script Chaos. Pro Wrestling fans would love
to watch something like that. Somewhere else I think you said that
Buffy died twice and then returned ? This is laughable.

Post by Mark Brown
Angel didn't ~stay~ dead. He returned, whole and healthy, and eventually
went on to his own spinoff series (where he again betrayed his [new] allies,
they betrayed him, and yet everyone survived until the unrelated finale
arc[s]). Meanwhile, Buffy dies (a coupla' times), but her deaths are
presented as being completely unrelated to any betrayals.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
In fact, what you describe reminds me of the identical scene I just
watched today on Sliders,

You dismiss fantasy, but you hold up Sliders as an example?

Sliders is science fiction, based on a device they designed called "The
Timer".
It is a ripoff of Doctor Who, except that time stays the same (which saves
on wardrobe and makeup costs, not to mention writers having to read
some history or think creatively about the future) and they transport
to parallel worlds.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
where a Cro-Mag betrays her people
to help 'our heroes' and then at the end of the show she is stabbed
by one of her own people whom she betrayed, even though they
were evil people who wanted to kill 'our heroes'.
It (The Dying Fields episode) was just on about 3 hours ago.

In your example, the kromagg was killed by one of the people she
betrayed. This follows the cliche. In the example I gave, the person
who betrayed Angel isn't someone he knowingly betrayed.

No, the Rule is not specific on who does the killing.
Sometimes, it is accidental.
In fact, the example I gave you from The Odyssey was
accidental, but given the 'Gods' context of that show,
it was Fate or Parcae.

Fate is no accident. In both cases (Sliders and the Odyssey), the death is
presented as being directly related to the betrayal as a sort of dramatic
standard. This is simply not the case, as Mike's Buffyverse example proved.

I have never stated that screenwriters are required to follow The Rules.
However, I would guess that many more billions of dollars have been
made by movies and series which followed The Rules in the history
of Hollywood. Hollywood only makes and adheres to rules for the
purpose of making money.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
The logic of the plot and characterizations *requires* that Angel have
that sword shoved through his chest at that point in time. He must be
betrayed. But killing off the title character of a series is *really*
frowned upon, so your "rule" really can't be followed in this case.

Unless you are now talking about a different series, I do not see the
name "Angel" in the title.

It was Buffy's show (Angel's series doesn't start 'till a couple of years
later). Mike's saying that Buffy betrayed Angel, and therefore couldn't be

Since I do not watch this show it is difficult to discuss the show.
Describe the details of this "betrayal".
It is hard for me to imagine a star and hero of a show ever being
shown to commit real dramatic betrayal.

Post by Mark Brown
killed. Okay, granted, she did die later, but she was revived both times
(and neither death had anything to do with Angel --he wasn't even present
for the second one). In fact the one who revived her the first time was
Xander, whom she had "betrayed" (romantically) by becoming involved with
Angel.
You could argue that Xander betrayed her (he knew that Angelus would revert
back into Angel, but didn't tell Buffy 'cause he wanted Angel dead [again,
that whole jealousy thing]), but Xander didn't even die once. It was years
before he even lost an eye.

Post by John Shocked
But since I have not seen this series and you clearly do not watch
TV with the same perception that I do, it would be difficult
for you to present the important facts of the script that led up to
these events.

Obviously. He disagrees with you, so he must be an ignorant hump.

No, but given the content of this thread, anyone participating on your
side of the discussion would realize the importance of presenting the
details
of this "betrayal" committed by the 'hero' Buffy.

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
The Rules are all about the producers entertaining people
and making money.
They merely express the will of the average moral viewer.

This makes them sound like formulas used by hack writers to turn out
crud. Which is pretty much what I said. Better writers will ignore
them - when it produces a better script to do so.

Witness Joss Whedon, RHW, Rumiko Takahashi, and others.

Post by John Shocked
When the US finally becomes a completely Amoral populace
which I believe is the intent of the current crop of Hollywood Homosexuals
who control Hollywood today,

You are aware that this statement just screams BIGOTTED
CONSERVATIVE TROLL, aren't you?

First, I do not care what the Truth sounds like.
Second, as I have mentioned in several other debates in the BSG Newsgroup,
homosexuals are generally wealthy and Conservative/Libertarian and want the
government out of their life. They have nothing to do with the Left, other
than
that they Buy the Left, every 4 years to tout their Sodomy issue and lose.
If you disagree with my point of view, you are free to dispute the
statement.
And that is a lot more respect for other people's views than you will find
from the Hollywood Homosexual hacks who work on these Newsgroups
conning weak minds here into believing that 'Sodomy is ok'.

Post by Mark Brown
Wow; you'd probably ~hate~ Firefly (about thieves, smugglers, killers, and a
whore). And Buffy/Angel (betrayal, murder, sex, lesbianism, attempted rape,

Buffy shows lesbianism ? How so ?

Post by Mark Brown
implied off-camera rape [of nuns], adultery. . .). And Gargoyles (betrayal,
murder, attempted suicide). And InuYasha (at least three of the "heroes" are
mass-murderers and thieves, the monk is a lecher, several are oath-breaker

s,

Post by Mark Brown
there's implied adultery, on-screen child abuse [yes, even in the
Americanized dub], and more than half the cast are demons). I kinda feel
sorry for you, missing such brilliantly-written and intelligent shows.

Wow, that does not sound like stuff I would want to watch, let alone
have children watch. How are these shows labelled. Age 18 and up ?
A show with no heroes is not much to watch. Thus, I do not believe
your descriptions could be completely accurate.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
screenwriters may one day be free to ignore
these Rules and still be able to make money.
Ultimately, the driving force behind Hollywood is making money
on each movie. They do not make movies to lose money.

Agreed. But some writers write movies/series because they enjoy it, and
because they genuinely want to produce good stories.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
As I said, moral people cringe when they see someone who is already
downtrodden, be kicked when they are down.
Ultimately, that is bad business and loses money.

Then explain the prevalence of "Reality" TV.
Mark

Question does not make sense. To some extent, I have believed that
Reality TV is a public reaction against the Hollywood Homosexual scripts
coming out of Hollywood. However. the public does not realize that the
same Hollywood Homosexuals produce shows like Survivor too.

Politics

[Mike Meyer]

Post by John Shocked
Again a lot of this comes down to one's willingness to accept make-believe
as reality. Magic is much easier to write because anything is possible and
thus credible and the weak minded viewers do not apply any sort of
litmus test to the world portrayed.

Another thing sf and fantasy have in common - they both require the
audience to suspend disbelief.

You clearly haven't encountered much rigorously-written fantasy. There
are fantasies where the rules for magic are clearly defined for the
audience, and things outside those rules shouldn't be possible. When
such fantasy is well-written, things outside those rules don't
happen. They can be a lot like puzzle sf. I can't think of any
rigorous fantasy that's been done as video. Then again, I can't think
of any rigorous science fiction that's been done as video,
either. Even the adaptions of rigorous written science fiction to the
screen tend to screw it up.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Angel losing his soul and becoming Angelus (who tries to kill everyone) is
really no different than (in Andromeda terms) if the Abyss had
telepathically turned Rev Bem into Redplague (his magog name/identity) and
made him try to destroy the Andromeda.

These sorts of transformations just are not acceptable to any other than
weak minds who will literally accept any nonsense portrayed on screen.
I mean, if characters in the show can undergo these "transformations",
what was the point of your watching the show up to that point ?

Except that this particular transformation wasn't pulled from a
hat. It was clearly explained in the previous season why Angel was
special, with the implication that changing that facet of his
character would change him in major ways. The possibility of this
transformation was foreshadowed a number of times during the second
season.

Post by John Shocked
Just because some producer claims that the "ratings are stale and we need
a big change" should not allow them to throw out the existing character base
and introduce a new person. If they want a new character, have them
introduce someone new to the show. And if that means the existing
characters receive decreased air time, so be it.

This particular change wasn't "a big change for the ratings". If it
were, he wouldn't have changed back at the end of the season, or been
removed from the show for an indefinite period of time at the end of
the season.

No, these two transformations - turning evil and then turning back -
where the major story line for the second season.

Have you ever heard to what the screenwriters have to say about the
scripts they've written? I've listened to what Buffy's authors have to
say about it, and at no time do they ever make comments about doing
things to "appease the audience" or "improve ratings". They talk about
not having money to do things the way they'd like, or that the
problems they have finding people to put into danger (Buffy's
characters grow, usually into competent individuals - something every
moral viewer should enjoy).

Post by John Shocked
Firefly ? I have never even heard of this show.

It was an HBO series. A little check on tvtome or imdb would turn that
out. I've personally never seen it, but it always sounded
interesting. I'm hoping one of the channels I have available will pick
it up for reruns.

Post by John Shocked
I watched a little of DS9 but recall little of what you describe.
However, "betrayal" in drama involves a character developing another
on-screen
character's trust to a point where they have expectations of you
specifically, then
acting against their interests.

Now you're changing your rules to avoid the counterexamples. Betraying
your race/nation/people/history isn't sufficient. You have to betray
an individual. Well, that all happened on the "Double Helix" episode
of Andromeda.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
2) Buffy betrays Angel after he turns good. In one of the final

scenes

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
of the season, she kisses him, then shoves a sword through his

I do not know what you are referring to but it is quite common for
a betrayer to be killed after 'turning good'.

Except - as per point 1 - *he wasn't killed*. He was just betrayed.

And Buffy was the betrayer in this instance.
To recap: Angel(us) betrays Buffy, then (when Angel regains his soul, but
not his Angelus-memories) Buffy has no choice but to betray him by killing
him (which she does tearfully, and only because it means saving the

world).
Frankly, this sounds like script Chaos. Pro Wrestling fans would love
to watch something like that. Somewhere else I think you said that
Buffy died twice and then returned ? This is laughable.

The first time Buffy died and came back was something that I've seen
happen uncountable times on medical dramas. Her heart stopped and she
quit breathing. She was revived by standard medical technics. No magic
needed. If that's laughable - well, it describes a standard thing on
medical dramas. And on comedies, as it happened at least once on MASH.

The second time was a major event, and was indeed heavily dependent on
magic. So what? Science Fiction does this kind of thing as well. The
Stargate movie gave them a way to bring characters back from the
dead. The series has seen that same plot device used a number of
times. The ascension of Dr. Daniel Jackson comes to mind as a second
example.

In other words, if you're going to bash fantasy for not being
rigorous, you should be prepared to give a healthy dose of the same
medicine to your favorite science fiction shows.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Angel didn't ~stay~ dead. He returned, whole and healthy, and eventually

Actually, Angel didn't die. He was banished to a hell dimension. The
First Evil claimed to have returned him to use against Buffy, but it's
not clear whether or not the first was lying. The episode is "Amends",
which first aired as "A Buffy Christmas."

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
In fact, what you describe reminds me of the identical scene I just
watched today on Sliders,

You dismiss fantasy, but you hold up Sliders as an example?

Sliders is science fiction, based on a device they designed called "The
Timer".
It is a ripoff of Doctor Who, except that time stays the same (which saves
on wardrobe and makeup costs, not to mention writers having to read
some history or think creatively about the future) and they transport
to parallel worlds.

Except the time doesn't stay the same - they at least once landed in
the "past", even though time that wasn't supposed to happen. They also
wound up in one world where time flowed backwards for them and the
rest of the world, so it's not clear what "the same time" meant at
all.

Now Sliders is an example of a show that underwent massive changes for
no logical reason. Adding the brother. Merging the two Quinns. No
foreshadowing, not imperative from the plot line. They clearly just
needed to change actors, and made up excuses on the spur of the moment.

Now *that's* laughable. Except it's also standard practice for tv
series, so I'm going to suspend my disbelief and swallow it.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
where a Cro-Mag betrays her people
to help 'our heroes' and then at the end of the show she is stabbed
by one of her own people whom she betrayed, even though they
were evil people who wanted to kill 'our heroes'.
It (The Dying Fields episode) was just on about 3 hours ago.

In your example, the kromagg was killed by one of the people she
betrayed. This follows the cliche. In the example I gave, the person
who betrayed Angel isn't someone he knowingly betrayed.

No, the Rule is not specific on who does the killing.
Sometimes, it is accidental.
In fact, the example I gave you from The Odyssey was
accidental, but given the 'Gods' context of that show,
it was Fate or Parcae.

Fate is no accident. In both cases (Sliders and the Odyssey), the death is
presented as being directly related to the betrayal as a sort of dramatic
standard. This is simply not the case, as Mike's Buffyverse example

proved.
I have never stated that screenwriters are required to follow The Rules.

This entire argument started because you said that the script for
Andromeda would never have included Beka mentioning steroids in
reference to Tyr, because that would violate the rules.

Post by John Shocked
However, I would guess that many more billions of dollars have been
made by movies and series which followed The Rules in the history
of Hollywood. Hollywood only makes and adheres to rules for the
purpose of making money.

Probably. This sounds like my summation of what your rules are:
formulas for hacks to follow to turn out acceptable scripts without
needing any talent. Except your initial mention of them doesn't even
come up to that low standard.

Only elsewhere you've said that Hollywood is drifting away from the
rules due to something that sounded like paranoid delusion.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
The logic of the plot and characterizations *requires* that Angel have
that sword shoved through his chest at that point in time. He must be
betrayed. But killing off the title character of a series is *really*
frowned upon, so your "rule" really can't be followed in this case.

Unless you are now talking about a different series, I do not see the
name "Angel" in the title.

It was Buffy's show (Angel's series doesn't start 'till a couple of years
later). Mike's saying that Buffy betrayed Angel, and therefore couldn't be

Since I do not watch this show it is difficult to discuss the show.
Describe the details of this "betrayal".
It is hard for me to imagine a star and hero of a show ever being
shown to commit real dramatic betrayal.

Buffy and Angel are/were lovers. Angelus (angel minus the soul that
the first season explained made him rather unique)
constructs/rebuilds/reconstitutes a demon that, when awake, will suck
the world into a hell dimension, effectively killing everyone in the
world. This process is started, while Angelus and Buffy are fighting,
with Buffy trying to prevent the end of the world (which was a regular
event on Buffy - her gravestone even said "She saved the world a
lot").

At this point, Willow succeeds in casting the spell she's been working
on for a couple of episodes, which is the same one that gave Angel his
soul in the first place. Angelus turns back into Angel. Buffy realizes
this, reaffirms their love, then shoves the sword through his
chest. In doing so, she is following instructions she has been given
as to the only way to stop the end of the world.

Basically, it's "I love you". Banish to hell dimension. Buffy's
punishment for this act of betrayal is mental anguish over the next
several (well, at least one) episodes, while Giles (her father figure
in the series) tries to get her to talk about what actually happened.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
But since I have not seen this series and you clearly do not watch
TV with the same perception that I do, it would be difficult
for you to present the important facts of the script that led up to
these events.

Obviously. He disagrees with you, so he must be an ignorant hump.

No, but given the content of this thread, anyone participating on your
side of the discussion would realize the importance of presenting the
details
of this "betrayal" committed by the 'hero' Buffy.

Given the popularity of Buffy, I assumed you'd be familiar with it. I
was wrong. BFD. I provided the details as soon as you asked.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
You are aware that this statement just screams BIGOTTED
CONSERVATIVE TROLL, aren't you?

First, I do not care what the Truth sounds like.

Do you care that capitalizing truth makes you sound like an idiot?

Post by John Shocked
Second, as I have mentioned in several other debates in the BSG Newsgroup,
homosexuals are generally wealthy and Conservative/Libertarian and want the
government out of their life.

I'm curious - how many homosexuals do you know? For that manner, how
many libertarians do you know? Most of the libertarians - and
homosexuals - I know would be offended at being lumped in with the
conservatives.

If the homosexuals so badly want the government out of their lifes, why
are they making such a big stink about getting legal recognition from
the government for their partners?

Post by John Shocked
They have nothing to do with the Left, other
than
that they Buy the Left, every 4 years to tout their Sodomy issue and lose.
If you disagree with my point of view, you are free to dispute the
statement.
And that is a lot more respect for other people's views than you will find
from the Hollywood Homosexual hacks who work on these Newsgroups
conning weak minds here into believing that 'Sodomy is ok'.

I take it you know from practical experience that sodomy isn't ok? If
not, care to back up that belief of yours with some facts (not that I
expect you to)?

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Wow; you'd probably ~hate~ Firefly (about thieves, smugglers, killers, and

a

Post by Mark Brown
whore). And Buffy/Angel (betrayal, murder, sex, lesbianism, attempted

rape,
Buffy shows lesbianism ? How so ?

Actually, Willow (one of the key characters, for the entire run of the
series) claimed to turn lesbian during the fourth season. Personally,
I always figured she was bi. After all, when Oz returns during "New
Moon Rising" , she appears to give returning to him rather than
staying with Tara - who is clearly a lesbian - some consideration.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
As I said, moral people cringe when they see someone who is already
downtrodden, be kicked when they are down.
Ultimately, that is bad business and loses money.

Then explain the prevalence of "Reality" TV.
Mark

Question does not make sense. To some extent, I have believed that
Reality TV is a public reaction against the Hollywood Homosexual scripts
coming out of Hollywood. However. the public does not realize that the
same Hollywood Homosexuals produce shows like Survivor too.

The first reality tv show ever - The Gong Show - was all about kicking
people when they were down. They get up on stage and make fools of
themselves - then you publicly acknowledge that they are being fools.

In that light, the question makes an incredible amount of sense. If
most people cringe at seeing the downtrodden kicked - and it would
have to be "most people", otherwise this rule wouldn't make sense when
it comes to turning a buck - then why are shows that apparently exist
to kick the downtrodden doing so well?

<mike

[John Shocked]

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Again a lot of this comes down to one's willingness to accept make-believe
as reality. Magic is much easier to write because anything is possible and
thus credible and the weak minded viewers do not apply any sort of
litmus test to the world portrayed.

Another thing sf and fantasy have in common - they both require the
audience to suspend disbelief.

Science Fiction requires the viewer to think creatively about the future
but not to suspend disbelief. Researchers, scientists and engineers
are often working on items which do not yet exist, but through
educated judgments they hope exist and wish to prove or implement.
What they do is controlled creative investigation.
Science Fiction writers engage in controlled creative writing.
Except when the character Q was on Star Trek: The Next Generation.

Post by Mike Meyer
You clearly haven't encountered much rigorously-written fantasy. There
are fantasies where the rules for magic are clearly defined for the
audience, and things outside those rules shouldn't be possible. When
such fantasy is well-written, things outside those rules don't
happen. They can be a lot like puzzle sf. I can't think of any
rigorous fantasy that's been done as video. Then again, I can't think
of any rigorous science fiction that's been done as video,
either. Even the adaptions of rigorous written science fiction to the
screen tend to screw it up.

You mean a video game ?

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Angel losing his soul and becoming Angelus (who tries to kill everyone) is
really no different than (in Andromeda terms) if the Abyss had
telepathically turned Rev Bem into Redplague (his magog name/identity) and
made him try to destroy the Andromeda.

These sorts of transformations just are not acceptable to any other than
weak minds who will literally accept any nonsense portrayed on screen.
I mean, if characters in the show can undergo these "transformations",
what was the point of your watching the show up to that point ?

Except that this particular transformation wasn't pulled from a
hat. It was clearly explained in the previous season why Angel was
special, with the implication that changing that facet of his
character would change him in major ways. The possibility of this
transformation was foreshadowed a number of times during the second
season.

How do you change a facet of someone's character ? Character creation
is what a writer's job is. Now they can juggle the character's character
at will ?

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Just because some producer claims that the "ratings are stale and we need
a big change" should not allow them to throw out the existing character base
and introduce a new person. If they want a new character, have them
introduce someone new to the show. And if that means the existing
characters receive decreased air time, so be it.

This particular change wasn't "a big change for the ratings". If it
were, he wouldn't have changed back at the end of the season, or been
removed from the show for an indefinite period of time at the end of
the season.
No, these two transformations - turning evil and then turning back -
where the major story line for the second season.
Have you ever heard to what the screenwriters have to say about the
scripts they've written? I've listened to what Buffy's authors have to
say about it, and at no time do they ever make comments about doing
things to "appease the audience" or "improve ratings". They talk about

The writer's work should be on-screen. The writer publishing himself
off screen is simply a distraction. His job is to fit his ideas into
the set and existing budget of the existing show.
Of course, if a writer came forward and claimed that Kevin Sorbo
told me to write something nasty about Keith Hamilton Cobb,
I would sit up and listen to that.
Other than something like that, when these guys claim that they never
receive pressure from brass concerning ratings and budgets,
usually 'no means yes'.

Post by Mike Meyer
not having money to do things the way they'd like, or that the
problems they have finding people to put into danger (Buffy's
characters grow, usually into competent individuals - something every
moral viewer should enjoy).

"grow into competent individuals" ? Not sure I follow this.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Firefly ? I have never even heard of this show.

It was an HBO series. A little check on tvtome or imdb would turn that
out. I've personally never seen it, but it always sounded
interesting. I'm hoping one of the channels I have available will pick
it up for reruns.

HBO is homosexual controlled crap. They just need to let go of
the Boxing from that channel and let some other premium channel
have that franchise, then let the Hollywood Homosexuals control the
rest of that channel.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
I watched a little of DS9 but recall little of what you describe.
However, "betrayal" in drama involves a character developing another
on-screen character's trust to a point where they have expectations
of you specifically, then acting against their interests.

Now you're changing your rules to avoid the counterexamples. Betraying
your race/nation/people/history isn't sufficient. You have to betray
an individual. Well, that all happened on the "Double Helix" episode
of Andromeda.

No change at all. I have not seen some of this material to which you
refer but I just wanted to clarify this concept since you clearly
do not seen to recognize these themes in the stuff you are watching.
How could you possibly believe for instance that Worf's living
with humans in Star Trek: The Next Generation to be a 'dramatic
betrayal' of the Klingons ?

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
2) Buffy betrays Angel after he turns good. In one of the
final scenes of the season, she kisses him, then shoves a
sword through his

I do not know what you are referring to but it is quite common for
a betrayer to be killed after 'turning good'.

Except - as per point 1 - *he wasn't killed*. He was just betrayed.

And Buffy was the betrayer in this instance.
To recap: Angel(us) betrays Buffy, then (when Angel regains his soul, but
not his Angelus-memories) Buffy has no choice but to betray him by killing
him (which she does tearfully, and only because it means saving the

world).
Frankly, this sounds like script Chaos. Pro Wrestling fans would love
to watch something like that. Somewhere else I think you said that
Buffy died twice and then returned ? This is laughable.

The first time Buffy died and came back was something that I've seen
happen uncountable times on medical dramas. Her heart stopped and she
quit breathing. She was revived by standard medical technics. No magic
needed. If that's laughable - well, it describes a standard thing on
medical dramas. And on comedies, as it happened at least once on MASH.
The second time was a major event, and was indeed heavily dependent on
magic. So what? Science Fiction does this kind of thing as well. The
Stargate movie gave them a way to bring characters back from the
dead. The series has seen that same plot device used a number of
times. The ascension of Dr. Daniel Jackson comes to mind as a second
example.
In other words, if you're going to bash fantasy for not being
rigorous, you should be prepared to give a healthy dose of the same
medicine to your favorite science fiction shows.

I am not sure here if you are claiming SG-1 to be one of my favorite shows:
it is Not. I have stated on other Newsgroups within the past few weeks
in fact that Richard Dean Anderson's acting is crap and he should be forced
to surrender the Executive Producer position to someone else.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Angel didn't ~stay~ dead. He returned, whole and healthy,
and eventually

Actually, Angel didn't die. He was banished to a hell dimension. The
First Evil claimed to have returned him to use against Buffy, but it's
not clear whether or not the first was lying. The episode is "Amends",
which first aired as "A Buffy Christmas."

A Hell Dimension does not sound like something that kids should
be watching. It reminds me a little of Dr. Strange from way back.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
In fact, what you describe reminds me of the identical scene I just
watched today on Sliders,

You dismiss fantasy, but you hold up Sliders as an example?

Sliders is science fiction, based on a device they designed
called "The Timer".
It is a ripoff of Doctor Who, except that time stays the same (which saves
on wardrobe and makeup costs, not to mention writers having to read
some history or think creatively about the future) and they transport
to parallel worlds.

Except the time doesn't stay the same - they at least once landed in
the "past", even though time that wasn't supposed to happen. They also
wound up in one world where time flowed backwards for them and the
rest of the world, so it's not clear what "the same time" meant at all.
Now Sliders is an example of a show that underwent massive changes for
no logical reason. Adding the brother. Merging the two Quinns. No
foreshadowing, not imperative from the plot line. They clearly just
needed to change actors, and made up excuses on the spur of the moment.
Now *that's* laughable. Except it's also standard practice for tv
series, so I'm going to suspend my disbelief and swallow it.

The changes I do believe damaged the series. I actually did not watch
the show when it originally aired but it seems to have been an interesting
series. However, it seems that Scifi Channel only owns about
30 episodes and just recycles them.
The original cast with Rhys-Davies, Cleavant Derricks (who was the best
actor of the series), O'Connell and Lloyd was best.
I assume changes come about because of ratings, so it would be useful
to find a web site that graphed the ratings of these series year to year.
Both Wuhrer and Locke and Floyd were miscast and badly written.
The O'Connell brother also damaged the show but he was not as
repellent as the other two changes.
Surprising how Derricks has disappeared since that series ended.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
where a Cro-Mag betrays her people
to help 'our heroes' and then at the end of the show she is stabbed
by one of her own people whom she betrayed, even though they
were evil people who wanted to kill 'our heroes'.
It (The Dying Fields episode) was just on about 3 hours ago.

In your example, the kromagg was killed by one of the people she
betrayed. This follows the cliche. In the example I gave, the person
who betrayed Angel isn't someone he knowingly betrayed.

No, the Rule is not specific on who does the killing.
Sometimes, it is accidental.
In fact, the example I gave you from The Odyssey was
accidental, but given the 'Gods' context of that show,
it was Fate or Parcae.

Fate is no accident. In both cases (Sliders and the Odyssey), the death is
presented as being directly related to the betrayal as a sort of dramatic
standard. This is simply not the case, as Mike's Buffyverse example

proved.
I have never stated that screenwriters are required to follow The Rules.

This entire argument started because you said that the script for
Andromeda would never have included Beka mentioning steroids in
reference to Tyr, because that would violate the rules.

Right. Most of these series do follow The Rules, so when they deviate
from them the viewer should immediately ask the question: why ?

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
However, I would guess that many more billions of dollars have been
made by movies and series which followed The Rules in the history
of Hollywood. Hollywood only makes and adheres to rules for the
purpose of making money.

formulas for hacks to follow to turn out acceptable scripts without
needing any talent. Except your initial mention of them doesn't even
come up to that low standard.
Only elsewhere you've said that Hollywood is drifting away from the
rules due to something that sounded like paranoid delusion.

The Rules have nothing to do with restricting the creative possibilities
in a script. They more have to do with the morality of the audience and
what will make the audience happy and walk away from the movie
saying "it was great" and recommending others go see it.
And if the viewer is sitting there and watches a chaarcter betray another
in whom he had invested, he wants that betrayer to die.
And if that betrayer does not die, he is likely to walk away from that
movie, either consciously or subconsciously, feeling that the movie
failed and that ultimately hurts to word-of-mouth follow on business
for that movie. It is really that simple.
In Titanic, if the Winslet character in the end wound up with the Billy
Zane character, it would have seriously hurt that movie at the box office,
no matter how dressed up, skillfully written or as Patrick Stewart on
SNL put it, having "leaves of spun sugar", it was.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
The logic of the plot and characterizations *requires* that Angel have
that sword shoved through his chest at that point in time. He must be
betrayed. But killing off the title character of a series is *really*
frowned upon, so your "rule" really can't be followed in this case.

Unless you are now talking about a different series, I do not see the
name "Angel" in the title.

It was Buffy's show (Angel's series doesn't start 'till a couple of years
later). Mike's saying that Buffy betrayed Angel, and therefore couldn't be

Since I do not watch this show it is difficult to discuss the show.
Describe the details of this "betrayal".
It is hard for me to imagine a star and hero of a show ever being
shown to commit real dramatic betrayal.

Buffy and Angel are/were lovers. Angelus (angel minus the soul that
the first season explained made him rather unique)
constructs/rebuilds/reconstitutes a demon that, when awake, will suck
the world into a hell dimension, effectively killing everyone in the
world. This process is started, while Angelus and Buffy are fighting,
with Buffy trying to prevent the end of the world (which was a regular
event on Buffy - her gravestone even said "She saved the world a
lot").
At this point, Willow succeeds in casting the spell she's been working
on for a couple of episodes, which is the same one that gave Angel his
soul in the first place. Angelus turns back into Angel. Buffy realizes
this, reaffirms their love, then shoves the sword through his
chest. In doing so, she is following instructions she has been given
as to the only way to stop the end of the world.
Basically, it's "I love you". Banish to hell dimension. Buffy's
punishment for this act of betrayal is mental anguish over the next
several (well, at least one) episodes, while Giles (her father figure
in the series) tries to get her to talk about what actually happened.

I am surprised at the deep diabolical nature of this series. What are the
Hollywood Homosexuals writers and producers trying to do.
Portray Sodomy engaged hell demons as acceptable guys once
you get to know them ?

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
But since I have not seen this series and you clearly do not watch
TV with the same perception that I do, it would be difficult
for you to present the important facts of the script that led up to
these events.

Obviously. He disagrees with you, so he must be an ignorant hump.

No, but given the content of this thread, anyone participating on your
side of the discussion would realize the importance of presenting the
details of this "betrayal" committed by the 'hero' Buffy.

Given the popularity of Buffy, I assumed you'd be familiar with it. I
was wrong. BFD. I provided the details as soon as you asked.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
You are aware that this statement just screams BIGOTTED
CONSERVATIVE TROLL, aren't you?

First, I do not care what the Truth sounds like.

Do you care that capitalizing truth makes you sound like an idiot?

Again, I do not care what The Truth sounds like.
If you disagree with anything I am saying, you are free to dispute it.
As soon as anyone in a discussion like this one fails to counter an
assertion on the facts, then it is clear that there is something dishonest
about their position.
This is a public forum and you are free to support or attack anything
I or anyone else says. Just do that honestly.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Second, as I have mentioned in several other debates in the BSG
Newsgroup, homosexuals are generally wealthy and
Conservative/Libertarian and want the government out of their life.

I'm curious - how many homosexuals do you know? For that manner,
how many libertarians do you know? Most of the libertarians - and
homosexuals - I know would be offended at being lumped in with the
conservatives.

Conservatives and Libertarians both agree with expunging government
from their lives. And that is what Homosexuals want to.

Post by Mike Meyer
If the homosexuals so badly want the government out of their lifes, why
are they making such a big stink about getting legal recognition from
the government for their partners?

Simple: government law protects people who are married to each other
in financial ways, since government has found it advantageous to support
family building. Homosexual unions have nothing to do with building
of families and thus are an attempt to assign government protections
to sex acts -- in this case, deviant sex acts.
For instance, when homosexuals die, which with AIDS has been
happening a lot, they want their partner to inherit their money, not their
own family who rejected them when they discovered they were homosexual.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
They have nothing to do with the Left, other than that they
Buy the Left, every 4 years to tout their Sodomy issue and lose.
If you disagree with my point of view, you are free to dispute the
statement.
And that is a lot more respect for other people's views than you will find
from the Hollywood Homosexual hacks who work on these Newsgroups
conning weak minds here into believing that 'Sodomy is ok'.

I take it you know from practical experience that sodomy isn't ok? If
not, care to back up that belief of yours with some facts (not that I
expect you to)?

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Wow; you'd probably ~hate~ Firefly (about thieves, smugglers,
killers, and a whore). And Buffy/Angel (betrayal, murder, sex,
lesbianism, attempted rape,

Buffy shows lesbianism ? How so ?

Actually, Willow (one of the key characters, for the entire run of the
series) claimed to turn lesbian during the fourth season. Personally,
I always figured she was bi. After all, when Oz returns during "New
Moon Rising" , she appears to give returning to him rather than
staying with Tara - who is clearly a lesbian - some consideration.

Have they shown these two women making out ?

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
As I said, moral people cringe when they see someone who is already
downtrodden, be kicked when they are down.
Ultimately, that is bad business and loses money.

Then explain the prevalence of "Reality" TV.
Mark

Question does not make sense. To some extent, I have believed that
Reality TV is a public reaction against the Hollywood Homosexual scripts
coming out of Hollywood. However. the public does not realize that the
same Hollywood Homosexuals produce shows like Survivor too.

The first reality tv show ever - The Gong Show - was all about kicking
people when they were down. They get up on stage and make fools of
themselves - then you publicly acknowledge that they are being fools.

I remember the Gong Show and Chuck Barris but I do not remember what
happened on that show. But generally, it is a script failure when producers
rely on the extemporaneous statements of guests to entertain rather than
their own writing skills.
What bothers me the most about Reality TV is the tiny proportion
of the advertising revenue on these shows which ends up in the pockets
of the guests who are the true entertainers on those shows.
However, I do not consider that the average viewer consider the
contestants on these reality shows to be downtrodden.

Post by Mike Meyer
In that light, the question makes an incredible amount of sense. If
most people cringe at seeing the downtrodden kicked - and it would
have to be "most people", otherwise this rule wouldn't make sense when
it comes to turning a buck - then why are shows that apparently exist
to kick the downtrodden doing so well?
<mike

Again, I do not consider reality contestants to be perceived by the public
as downtrodden. However when an average citizen on one of these
shows is forced to eat worms or cockroaches, they are being downtrodden
on the show and it is weird that anyone would watch that.

Politics

[Mike Meyer]

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Again a lot of this comes down to one's willingness to accept

make-believe

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
as reality. Magic is much easier to write because anything is possible

and

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
thus credible and the weak minded viewers do not apply any sort of
litmus test to the world portrayed.

Another thing sf and fantasy have in common - they both require the
audience to suspend disbelief.

Science Fiction requires the viewer to think creatively about the future
but not to suspend disbelief. Researchers, scientists and engineers
are often working on items which do not yet exist, but through
educated judgments they hope exist and wish to prove or implement.
What they do is controlled creative investigation.
Science Fiction writers engage in controlled creative writing.
Except when the character Q was on Star Trek: The Next Generation.

Or faster than light drives, or the interspecies breeding that runs
rampant through the ST universe (yeah, that includes Spock), or -
well, or time machines, or - well, the list goes on. If I *think*
about those things, I realize they are absurdities, requiring major
rewrites of the laws of science as we know them. Certain things shown
as "magic" bend those laws less than these examples. If I didn't
suspend my disbelieve, I'd be laughing all the way through the
show. They aren't quite as bad as "Lost In Space", but they aren't a
hell of a lot better, either.

Really, what's the difference between the infamous ST technobabble
solution to a problem, and a spell read by a witch to solve a problem?
Both are just collections of words that have no meaning in reality,
used to "explain" the solution.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
You clearly haven't encountered much rigorously-written fantasy. There
are fantasies where the rules for magic are clearly defined for the
audience, and things outside those rules shouldn't be possible. When
such fantasy is well-written, things outside those rules don't
happen. They can be a lot like puzzle sf. I can't think of any
rigorous fantasy that's been done as video. Then again, I can't think
of any rigorous science fiction that's been done as video,
either. Even the adaptions of rigorous written science fiction to the
screen tend to screw it up.

You mean a video game ?

No, I mean taking rigorously written science fiction story and
adopting it as a movie or TV series. I've never seen that done in a
way that doesn't loose the rigor. The science fiction presented in the
movies and on tv would more accurately be called science fantasy.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Angel losing his soul and becoming Angelus (who tries to kill everyone)

is

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
really no different than (in Andromeda terms) if the Abyss had
telepathically turned Rev Bem into Redplague (his magog name/identity)

and

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
made him try to destroy the Andromeda.

These sorts of transformations just are not acceptable to any other than
weak minds who will literally accept any nonsense portrayed on screen.
I mean, if characters in the show can undergo these "transformations",
what was the point of your watching the show up to that point ?

Except that this particular transformation wasn't pulled from a
hat. It was clearly explained in the previous season why Angel was
special, with the implication that changing that facet of his
character would change him in major ways. The possibility of this
transformation was foreshadowed a number of times during the second
season.

How do you change a facet of someone's character ? Character creation
is what a writer's job is. Now they can juggle the character's character
at will ?

That's called "character development". It plays a major port in
well-written fiction. Character development can be poorly done, of
course. The audience has to be willing to believe that the character,
when exposed to the events given in the story, would change in the way
described.

Fiction without character development is mindless drivel.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Just because some producer claims that the "ratings are stale and we

need

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
a big change" should not allow them to throw out the existing character

base

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
and introduce a new person. If they want a new character, have them
introduce someone new to the show. And if that means the existing
characters receive decreased air time, so be it.

This particular change wasn't "a big change for the ratings". If it
were, he wouldn't have changed back at the end of the season, or been
removed from the show for an indefinite period of time at the end of
the season.
No, these two transformations - turning evil and then turning back -
where the major story line for the second season.
Have you ever heard to what the screenwriters have to say about the
scripts they've written? I've listened to what Buffy's authors have to
say about it, and at no time do they ever make comments about doing
things to "appease the audience" or "improve ratings". They talk about

The writer's work should be on-screen. The writer publishing himself
off screen is simply a distraction. His job is to fit his ideas into
the set and existing budget of the existing show.
Of course, if a writer came forward and claimed that Kevin Sorbo
told me to write something nasty about Keith Hamilton Cobb,
I would sit up and listen to that.
Other than something like that, when these guys claim that they never
receive pressure from brass concerning ratings and budgets,
usually 'no means yes'.

I see. So writers who agree with you are to be listened to, but
writers who don't agree with you are to be ignored. That's one sure
way to ensure you're never confused by the facts.

FWIW, look at a DVD some day. Most of them come with "special
features" (so they can justify charging you for a second disk), and
many of those include writers commentaries on the product in hand.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
not having money to do things the way they'd like, or that the
problems they have finding people to put into danger (Buffy's
characters grow, usually into competent individuals - something every
moral viewer should enjoy).

"grow into competent individuals" ? Not sure I follow this.

That's *positive* character development. The characters on Buffy tend
to develop from helpless victims into people who can take care of
themselves. This is a *good* thing.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Firefly ? I have never even heard of this show.

It was an HBO series. A little check on tvtome or imdb would turn that
out. I've personally never seen it, but it always sounded
interesting. I'm hoping one of the channels I have available will pick
it up for reruns.

HBO is homosexual controlled crap. They just need to let go of
the Boxing from that channel and let some other premium channel
have that franchise, then let the Hollywood Homosexuals control the
rest of that channel.

Can you actually justify this paranoid, homophobic drivel?

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
I watched a little of DS9 but recall little of what you describe.
However, "betrayal" in drama involves a character developing another
on-screen character's trust to a point where they have expectations
of you specifically, then acting against their interests.

Now you're changing your rules to avoid the counterexamples. Betraying
your race/nation/people/history isn't sufficient. You have to betray
an individual. Well, that all happened on the "Double Helix" episode
of Andromeda.

No change at all. I have not seen some of this material to which you
refer but I just wanted to clarify this concept since you clearly
do not seen to recognize these themes in the stuff you are watching.

Oh, I recognize the themes you mention. I just recognize them for what
they are - hackwork - instead of trying to justify it as some sort of
unwritten rule of screenwriting.

Post by John Shocked
How could you possibly believe for instance that Worf's living
with humans in Star Trek: The Next Generation to be a 'dramatic
betrayal' of the Klingons ?

First, you're confusing two different people. I never mentioned
anything about Worf betraying the Klingons. Second, the person who did
point him out as an example used his siding with the Federation when
the Klingons went to war (in DS9) as that betrayal, *not* his merely
living with humans.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
In other words, if you're going to bash fantasy for not being
rigorous, you should be prepared to give a healthy dose of the same
medicine to your favorite science fiction shows.

it is Not. I have stated on other Newsgroups within the past few weeks
in fact that Richard Dean Anderson's acting is crap and he should be forced
to surrender the Executive Producer position to someone else.

Nah, I'm not claiming that SG-1 is one of your favorite science
fiction shows. I'm claiming that all televised science fiction is full
of such idiocies. Many science fiction series will include
faster-than-light travel. The only one that ever got the physics of
space travel right was Babylon 5. I've already mentioned the
interspecies breeding that runs rampant through the ST universe. Tell
me what your favorite SF series is/was. If I've seen it, I'll be glad
to tell you what's wrong with it.

I happened to pick on Stargate - the movie, not SG-1 - because it
provided a means for people to come back from the dead, which event you were calling laughable. SG-1 got stuck with this device because it showed up in the movie. They didn't hesitate to use it.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Angel didn't ~stay~ dead. He returned, whole and healthy,
and eventually

Actually, Angel didn't die. He was banished to a hell dimension. The
First Evil claimed to have returned him to use against Buffy, but it's
not clear whether or not the first was lying. The episode is "Amends",
which first aired as "A Buffy Christmas."

A Hell Dimension does not sound like something that kids should
be watching. It reminds me a little of Dr. Strange from way back.

I don't recall recommending Buffy for children. I don't think anyone
else has, either. Of course, they never showed us the hell
dimension. They just showed Angel being sucked into it, and falling
out of it.

Limiting your fiction to that which is suitable for children is a
serious handicap. I'm a grown up - I want my entertainment to deal
with material for grown ups. Babylon 5 had two episodes that involved
mass bombing of civilians. That's not something that I want my
children exposed to. But it happens in real life, and the series
showed it having a profound effect on the characters, which it should.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
where a Cro-Mag betrays her people
to help 'our heroes' and then at the end of the show she is

stabbed

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
by one of her own people whom she betrayed, even though they
were evil people who wanted to kill 'our heroes'.
It (The Dying Fields episode) was just on about 3 hours ago.

In your example, the kromagg was killed by one of the people she
betrayed. This follows the cliche. In the example I gave, the person
who betrayed Angel isn't someone he knowingly betrayed.

No, the Rule is not specific on who does the killing.
Sometimes, it is accidental.
In fact, the example I gave you from The Odyssey was
accidental, but given the 'Gods' context of that show,
it was Fate or Parcae.

Fate is no accident. In both cases (Sliders and the Odyssey), the death

is

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
presented as being directly related to the betrayal as a sort of

dramatic

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
standard. This is simply not the case, as Mike's Buffyverse example

proved.
I have never stated that screenwriters are required to follow The Rules.

This entire argument started because you said that the script for
Andromeda would never have included Beka mentioning steroids in
reference to Tyr, because that would violate the rules.

Right. Most of these series do follow The Rules, so when they deviate
from them the viewer should immediately ask the question: why ?

Actually, the answer is usually obvious - they hired a writer with
some talent, rather than a formula-following hack.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
However, I would guess that many more billions of dollars have been
made by movies and series which followed The Rules in the history
of Hollywood. Hollywood only makes and adheres to rules for the
purpose of making money.

formulas for hacks to follow to turn out acceptable scripts without
needing any talent. Except your initial mention of them doesn't even
come up to that low standard.
Only elsewhere you've said that Hollywood is drifting away from the
rules due to something that sounded like paranoid delusion.

The Rules have nothing to do with restricting the creative possibilities
in a script. They more have to do with the morality of the audience and
what will make the audience happy and walk away from the movie
saying "it was great" and recommending others go see it.

Again, *how* does casting a fat person in the role of a fat person
cause the audience to change their perception of the movie? Until the
relatively recent advent of fat suites, doing otherwise would only
weaken the reality the movie was trying to create.

Post by John Shocked
And if the viewer is sitting there and watches a chaarcter betray another
in whom he had invested, he wants that betrayer to die.

Now *that* sounds like something you that's not suitable fair for
children. You're advocating the death penalty in cases that don't
involve murder - and even in those cases the death penalty is
considered by many to be to severe a punishment.

Post by John Shocked
And if that betrayer does not die, he is likely to walk away from that
movie, either consciously or subconsciously, feeling that the movie
failed and that ultimately hurts to word-of-mouth follow on business
for that movie. It is really that simple.

Only if the viewer is very simple. There are *lots* of ways to achieve
success without killing the betrayer. Taking the two examples from
Buffy I already posted, we hav Angel being punished for betraying
Buffy by being sent to a hell dimension. Considering that he's
immortal, and may have experienced centuries of pure torment, that's a
fate worse than death. We have Buffy agonizing and growing as a
character after she betrayed Angel. In the context of the series, this
seems right and appropriate.

Post by John Shocked
In Titanic, if the Winslet character in the end wound up with the Billy
Zane character, it would have seriously hurt that movie at the box office,
no matter how dressed up, skillfully written or as Patrick Stewart on
SNL put it, having "leaves of spun sugar", it was.

Yes, but that's because the Winslet character winding up with Billy
Zane would have been out of character. If the Winslet character had
been such that winding up with Billy Zane would have been in
character, the audience would have cared a lot less about her. It's
got nothing to do with some fictitious set of rules, and everything to
do with good writing.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
The logic of the plot and characterizations *requires* that Angel

have

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
that sword shoved through his chest at that point in time. He must

be

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
betrayed. But killing off the title character of a series is

*really*

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
frowned upon, so your "rule" really can't be followed in this case.

Unless you are now talking about a different series, I do not see the
name "Angel" in the title.

It was Buffy's show (Angel's series doesn't start 'till a couple of

years

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
later). Mike's saying that Buffy betrayed Angel, and therefore couldn't

be

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Since I do not watch this show it is difficult to discuss the show.
Describe the details of this "betrayal".
It is hard for me to imagine a star and hero of a show ever being
shown to commit real dramatic betrayal.

Buffy and Angel are/were lovers. Angelus (angel minus the soul that
the first season explained made him rather unique)
constructs/rebuilds/reconstitutes a demon that, when awake, will suck
the world into a hell dimension, effectively killing everyone in the
world. This process is started, while Angelus and Buffy are fighting,
with Buffy trying to prevent the end of the world (which was a regular
event on Buffy - her gravestone even said "She saved the world a
lot").
At this point, Willow succeeds in casting the spell she's been working
on for a couple of episodes, which is the same one that gave Angel his
soul in the first place. Angelus turns back into Angel. Buffy realizes
this, reaffirms their love, then shoves the sword through his
chest. In doing so, she is following instructions she has been given
as to the only way to stop the end of the world.
Basically, it's "I love you". Banish to hell dimension. Buffy's
punishment for this act of betrayal is mental anguish over the next
several (well, at least one) episodes, while Giles (her father figure
in the series) tries to get her to talk about what actually happened.

I am surprised at the deep diabolical nature of this series. What are the
Hollywood Homosexuals writers and producers trying to do.
Portray Sodomy engaged hell demons as acceptable guys once
you get to know them ?

Please get off your political hobby horse, and answer the
question. Why - other than simply being better than formulaic writing
- does this betrayal not end with the death of the betrayer?

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
But since I have not seen this series and you clearly do not watch
TV with the same perception that I do, it would be difficult
for you to present the important facts of the script that led up to
these events.

Obviously. He disagrees with you, so he must be an ignorant hump.

No, but given the content of this thread, anyone participating on your
side of the discussion would realize the importance of presenting the
details of this "betrayal" committed by the 'hero' Buffy.

Given the popularity of Buffy, I assumed you'd be familiar with it. I
was wrong. BFD. I provided the details as soon as you asked.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
You are aware that this statement just screams BIGOTTED
CONSERVATIVE TROLL, aren't you?

First, I do not care what the Truth sounds like.

Do you care that capitalizing truth makes you sound like an idiot?

Again, I do not care what The Truth sounds like.
If you disagree with anything I am saying, you are free to dispute it.
As soon as anyone in a discussion like this one fails to counter an
assertion on the facts, then it is clear that there is something dishonest
about their position.
This is a public forum and you are free to support or attack anything
I or anyone else says. Just do that honestly.

You seem to be pretty good at making claims and failing to back them
up. In particular, you're using this forum to mouth homophobic slogans
without a single shred of support. I'd much prefer it if you stuck to
the point, and tried to come up with some justification of your
fictitious rules.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Second, as I have mentioned in several other debates in the BSG
Newsgroup, homosexuals are generally wealthy and
Conservative/Libertarian and want the government out of their life.

I'm curious - how many homosexuals do you know? For that manner,
how many libertarians do you know? Most of the libertarians - and
homosexuals - I know would be offended at being lumped in with the
conservatives.

Conservatives and Libertarians both agree with expunging government
from their lives. And that is what Homosexuals want to.

Um, no. Conservatives think the government should provide for the
national defense, keep people from committing "deviant sex acts", and
otherwise enforcing a moral code on the populace. Libertarians want
none of these things. Homosexuals oppose the conservative morals on
sex, and are pretty much spread out all over the political spectrum on
other issues.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
If the homosexuals so badly want the government out of their lifes, why
are they making such a big stink about getting legal recognition from
the government for their partners?

Simple: government law protects people who are married to each other
in financial ways, since government has found it advantageous to support
family building. Homosexual unions have nothing to do with building
of families and thus are an attempt to assign government protections
to sex acts -- in this case, deviant sex acts.
For instance, when homosexuals die, which with AIDS has been
happening a lot, they want their partner to inherit their money, not their
own family who rejected them when they discovered they were homosexual.

Reality check time. The homosexuals I know cared very little about
government protection. The big issue was getting employer-sponsored
health care for their SO. That's why some companies already provide
that, and some jurisdictions require that companies provide it.

None of the homosexuals I know had parents so bigoted that they
rejected their children based on their sexuality. Most were bright
enough to love their children for who they were, no matter who they
were.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Wow; you'd probably ~hate~ Firefly (about thieves, smugglers,
killers, and a whore). And Buffy/Angel (betrayal, murder, sex,
lesbianism, attempted rape,

Buffy shows lesbianism ? How so ?

Actually, Willow (one of the key characters, for the entire run of the
series) claimed to turn lesbian during the fourth season. Personally,
I always figured she was bi. After all, when Oz returns during "New
Moon Rising" , she appears to give returning to him rather than
staying with Tara - who is clearly a lesbian - some consideration.

Have they shown these two women making out ?

Yes.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
As I said, moral people cringe when they see someone who is already
downtrodden, be kicked when they are down.
Ultimately, that is bad business and loses money.

Then explain the prevalence of "Reality" TV.
Mark

Question does not make sense. To some extent, I have believed that
Reality TV is a public reaction against the Hollywood Homosexual scripts
coming out of Hollywood. However. the public does not realize that the
same Hollywood Homosexuals produce shows like Survivor too.

The first reality tv show ever - The Gong Show - was all about kicking
people when they were down. They get up on stage and make fools of
themselves - then you publicly acknowledge that they are being fools.

I remember the Gong Show and Chuck Barris but I do not remember what
happened on that show. But generally, it is a script failure when producers
rely on the extemporaneous statements of guests to entertain rather than
their own writing skills.

Reality TV doesn't *have* a script. How can something that doesn't
exist fail?

Post by John Shocked
What bothers me the most about Reality TV is the tiny proportion
of the advertising revenue on these shows which ends up in the pockets
of the guests who are the true entertainers on those shows.
However, I do not consider that the average viewer consider the
contestants on these reality shows to be downtrodden.

Well, my experience is just the opposite. When I've been with people
who insisted on watching the things - which is pretty much the only
way I'll watch them - they were doing so to make fun of the people on
the show. Nuts - even scripted TV shows depict people watching reality
TV to make fun of the people on the show.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
In that light, the question makes an incredible amount of sense. If
most people cringe at seeing the downtrodden kicked - and it would
have to be "most people", otherwise this rule wouldn't make sense when
it comes to turning a buck - then why are shows that apparently exist
to kick the downtrodden doing so well?

Again, I do not consider reality contestants to be perceived by the public
as downtrodden. However when an average citizen on one of these
shows is forced to eat worms or cockroaches, they are being downtrodden
on the show and it is weird that anyone would watch that.

You may be right - the public may not consider those people to be
downtrodden. But the public is still flocking in droves to watch
people be humiliated by doing things like eating worms and bugs, which
you say makes them downtrodden. You don't understand it, but it still
raises the question - if picking on the downtrodden is something the
public doesn't want to see, why are they flocking to reality TV?

<mike

[John Shocked]

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Again a lot of this comes down to one's willingness
to accept make-believe
as reality. Magic is much easier to write because
anything is possible and
thus credible and the weak minded viewers do not apply
any sort of litmus test to the world portrayed.

Another thing sf and fantasy have in common - they both require the
audience to suspend disbelief.

Science Fiction requires the viewer to think creatively about the future
but not to suspend disbelief. Researchers, scientists and engineers
are often working on items which do not yet exist, but through
educated judgments they hope exist and wish to prove or implement.
What they do is controlled creative investigation.
Science Fiction writers engage in controlled creative writing.
Except when the character Q was on Star Trek: The Next Generation.

Or faster than light drives, or the interspecies breeding that runs
rampant through the ST universe (yeah, that includes Spock), or -
well, or time machines, or - well, the list goes on. If I *think*
about those things, I realize they are absurdities, requiring major
rewrites of the laws of science as we know them. Certain things shown
as "magic" bend those laws less than these examples. If I didn't
suspend my disbelieve, I'd be laughing all the way through the
show. They aren't quite as bad as "Lost In Space", but they aren't a
hell of a lot better, either.
Really, what's the difference between the infamous ST technobabble
solution to a problem, and a spell read by a witch to solve a problem?
Both are just collections of words that have no meaning in reality,
used to "explain" the solution.

I believe one encourages you and your kids to engage in the Occult
and Satanism, the other encourages you and your kids to involve
yourselves in science.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
You clearly haven't encountered much rigorously-written fantasy. There
are fantasies where the rules for magic are clearly defined for the
audience, and things outside those rules shouldn't be possible. When
such fantasy is well-written, things outside those rules don't
happen. They can be a lot like puzzle sf. I can't think of any
rigorous fantasy that's been done as video. Then again, I can't think
of any rigorous science fiction that's been done as video,
either. Even the adaptions of rigorous written science fiction to the
screen tend to screw it up.

You mean a video game ?

No, I mean taking rigorously written science fiction story and
adopting it as a movie or TV series. I've never seen that done in a
way that doesn't loose the rigor. The science fiction presented in the
movies and on tv would more accurately be called science fantasy.

Hollywood always believes it has a right to fictionalize a script
for 'creative' reasons. Heck they even claimed that Alexander The Great
was a homosexual. That is rich. And so are the wealthy fatcat
Hollywood Homosexuals who butchered this guys reputation
when he was dead and could not deny it.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Angel losing his soul and becoming Angelus (who tries
to kill everyone) is really no different than (in Andromeda terms)
if the Abyss had telepathically turned Rev Bem into Redplague
(his magog name/identity) and made him try to destroy
the Andromeda.

These sorts of transformations just are not acceptable to any other than
weak minds who will literally accept any nonsense portrayed on screen.
I mean, if characters in the show can undergo these

"transformations",

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
what was the point of your watching the show up to that point ?

Except that this particular transformation wasn't pulled from a
hat. It was clearly explained in the previous season why Angel was
special, with the implication that changing that facet of his
character would change him in major ways. The possibility of this
transformation was foreshadowed a number of times during the second
season.

How do you change a facet of someone's character ? Character creation
is what a writer's job is. Now they can juggle the character's character
at will ?

That's called "character development". It plays a major port in
well-written fiction. Character development can be poorly done, of
course. The audience has to be willing to believe that the character,
when exposed to the events given in the story, would change in the way
described.
Fiction without character development is mindless drivel.

But a complete transformation ? This reminds me of the Atavus
element of the Earth: Final Conflict script which was just as nonsensical,
in which the Taelon alien species would transform into a devolved
malicious being based on some stimulus I forget.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Just because some producer claims that the "ratings are stale and
we need a big change" should not allow them to throw out the existing
character base and introduce a new person. If they want a new
character, have them introduce someone new to the show.
And if that means the existing
characters receive decreased air time, so be it.

This particular change wasn't "a big change for the ratings". If it
were, he wouldn't have changed back at the end of the season, or been
removed from the show for an indefinite period of time at the end of
the season.
No, these two transformations - turning evil and then turning back -
where the major story line for the second season.
Have you ever heard to what the screenwriters have to say about the
scripts they've written? I've listened to what Buffy's authors have to
say about it, and at no time do they ever make comments about doing
things to "appease the audience" or "improve ratings". They talk about

The writer's work should be on-screen. The writer publishing himself
off screen is simply a distraction. His job is to fit his ideas into
the set and existing budget of the existing show.
Of course, if a writer came forward and claimed that Kevin Sorbo
told me to write something nasty about Keith Hamilton Cobb,
I would sit up and listen to that.
Other than something like that, when these guys claim that they never
receive pressure from brass concerning ratings and budgets,
usually 'no means yes'.

I see. So writers who agree with you are to be listened to, but
writers who don't agree with you are to be ignored. That's one sure
way to ensure you're never confused by the facts.
FWIW, look at a DVD some day. Most of them come with "special
features" (so they can justify charging you for a second disk), and
many of those include writers commentaries on the product in hand.

That is anogther development in this business that damages the
integrity of the product these writers produce in that they add stuff
specially for the DVD that is in there solely to help sell the DVD,
and the more shocking and crazy that content, the more likely
it will sell the DVD. Even if it runs counter to the storyline of the
TV show people saw.
When the producer comes to the writer and states I want something
wacky on that DVD. What do you have ? You better have some
demons, and transformations and Sex, Lesbianism and Sodomy, etc.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
not having money to do things the way they'd like, or that the
problems they have finding people to put into danger (Buffy's
characters grow, usually into competent individuals - something every
moral viewer should enjoy).

"grow into competent individuals" ? Not sure I follow this.

That's *positive* character development. The characters on Buffy tend
to develop from helpless victims into people who can take care of
themselves. This is a *good* thing.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Firefly ? I have never even heard of this show.

It was an HBO series. A little check on tvtome or imdb would turn that
out. I've personally never seen it, but it always sounded
interesting. I'm hoping one of the channels I have available will pick
it up for reruns.

HBO is homosexual controlled crap. They just need to let go of
the Boxing from that channel and let some other premium channel
have that franchise, then let the Hollywood Homosexuals control the
rest of that channel.

Can you actually justify this paranoid, homophobic drivel?

I have not watched HBO in about 4 years and last I saw, that was the crap
that was on that channel. Sopranos was the only show which resisted
this content, although there was an implication of homosexuality in
one of the last episodes we saw.
Strong Sexual Content every night -- well at least they label it.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
I watched a little of DS9 but recall little of what you describe.
However, "betrayal" in drama involves a character developing another
on-screen character's trust to a point where they have expectations
of you specifically, then acting against their interests.

Now you're changing your rules to avoid the counterexamples. Betraying
your race/nation/people/history isn't sufficient. You have to betray
an individual. Well, that all happened on the "Double Helix" episode
of Andromeda.

No change at all. I have not seen some of this material to which you
refer but I just wanted to clarify this concept since you clearly
do not seen to recognize these themes in the stuff you are watching.

Oh, I recognize the themes you mention. I just recognize them for what
they are - hackwork - instead of trying to justify it as some sort of
unwritten rule of screenwriting.

Post by John Shocked
How could you possibly believe for instance that Worf's living
with humans in Star Trek: The Next Generation to be a 'dramatic
betrayal' of the Klingons ?

First, you're confusing two different people. I never mentioned
anything about Worf betraying the Klingons. Second, the person who did
point him out as an example used his siding with the Federation when
the Klingons went to war (in DS9) as that betrayal, *not* his merely
living with humans.

Of course that is an absurd conclusion, since all of Worf's trust
relationships are with the Federation. I still think he ought to be
conflicted about something like that but there is no clear loyalty path
either way.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
In other words, if you're going to bash fantasy for not being
rigorous, you should be prepared to give a healthy dose of the same
medicine to your favorite science fiction shows.

it is Not. I have stated on other Newsgroups within the past few weeks
in fact that Richard Dean Anderson's acting is crap and he should be forced
to surrender the Executive Producer position to someone else.

Nah, I'm not claiming that SG-1 is one of your favorite science
fiction shows. I'm claiming that all televised science fiction is full
of such idiocies. Many science fiction series will include
faster-than-light travel. The only one that ever got the physics of
space travel right was Babylon 5. I've already mentioned the
interspecies breeding that runs rampant through the ST universe. Tell
me what your favorite SF series is/was. If I've seen it, I'll be glad
to tell you what's wrong with it.
I happened to pick on Stargate - the movie, not SG-1 - because it
provided a means for people to come back from the dead, which
event you were calling laughable. SG-1 got stuck with this device
because it showed up in the movie. They didn't hesitate to use it.

Richard Dean Anderson is the key guy who has prevented me
from watching that show. He is a terrible actor.
Does not even try to carry the material.
Thus I have not seen that content in that series although
I have seen some of the episodes.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Angel didn't ~stay~ dead. He returned, whole and healthy, and eventually

Actually, Angel didn't die. He was banished to a hell dimension. The
First Evil claimed to have returned him to use against Buffy, but it's
not clear whether or not the first was lying. The episode is "Amends",
which first aired as "A Buffy Christmas."

A Hell Dimension does not sound like something that kids should
be watching. It reminds me a little of Dr. Strange from way back.

I don't recall recommending Buffy for children. I don't think anyone
else has, either. Of course, they never showed us the hell
dimension. They just showed Angel being sucked into it, and falling
out of it.
Limiting your fiction to that which is suitable for children is a
serious handicap. I'm a grown up - I want my entertainment to deal
with material for grown ups. Babylon 5 had two episodes that involved
mass bombing of civilians. That's not something that I want my
children exposed to. But it happens in real life, and the series
showed it having a profound effect on the characters, which it should.

Actually, I would be somewhat disturbed if I was sitting next to someone
at work who was into demons, ghouls, zombies, lesbianism and Hell.
Do you actually talk about this stuff around the watercooler ?

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
where a Cro-Mag betrays her people
to help 'our heroes' and then at the end of the
show she is stabbed by one of her own
people whom she betrayed, even though they
were evil people who wanted to kill 'our heroes'.
It (The Dying Fields episode) was just on about 3 hours ago.

In your example, the kromagg was killed by one of the people she
betrayed. This follows the cliche. In the example I gave, the person
who betrayed Angel isn't someone he knowingly betrayed.

No, the Rule is not specific on who does the killing.
Sometimes, it is accidental.
In fact, the example I gave you from The Odyssey was
accidental, but given the 'Gods' context of that show,
it was Fate or Parcae.

Fate is no accident. In both cases (Sliders and the Odyssey),
the death is presented as being directly related to the betrayal
as a sort of dramatic standard. This is simply not the case,
as Mike's Buffyverse example proved.

I have never stated that screenwriters are required to follow The Rules.

This entire argument started because you said that the script for
Andromeda would never have included Beka mentioning steroids
in reference to Tyr, because that would violate the rules.

Right. Most of these series do follow The Rules, so when they deviate
from them the viewer should immediately ask the question: why ?

Actually, the answer is usually obvious - they hired a writer with
some talent, rather than a formula-following hack.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
However, I would guess that many more billions of dollars have been
made by movies and series which followed The Rules in the history
of Hollywood. Hollywood only makes and adheres to rules for the
purpose of making money.

formulas for hacks to follow to turn out acceptable scripts without
needing any talent. Except your initial mention of them doesn't even
come up to that low standard.
Only elsewhere you've said that Hollywood is drifting away from the
rules due to something that sounded like paranoid delusion.

The Rules have nothing to do with restricting the creative possibilities
in a script. They more have to do with the morality of the audience and
what will make the audience happy and walk away from the movie
saying "it was great" and recommending others go see it.

Again, *how* does casting a fat person in the role of a fat person
cause the audience to change their perception of the movie? Until the
relatively recent advent of fat suits, doing otherwise would only
weaken the reality the movie was trying to create.

I cannot recall a movie where the target was the obesity of one of the
characters where the actor was indeed obese.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
And if the viewer is sitting there and watches a character betray
another in whom he had invested, he wants that betrayer to die.

Now *that* sounds like something you that's not suitable fare for
children. You're advocating the death penalty in cases that don't
involve murder - and even in those cases the death penalty is
considered by many to be to severe a punishment.

The way it normally happens is that they normally 'do it to themselves'.
They are on roof of a 20 storey skyscraper:
"I trusted you Mike, and you betrayed me"
"I always hated you John, ever since you said that stuff about Sodomy"
"So that is what is what about. But Mike, you did not need to subscribe
to those views. You could have objected to my arguments".
"I would not dirty my hands arguing with scum like you Mark" as he backs
way...
"Mike come back ! Stop ! you're back over that....."
Splat !
"......ledge.".

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
And if that betrayer does not die, he is likely to walk away from that
movie, either consciously or subconsciously, feeling that the movie
failed and that ultimately hurts to word-of-mouth follow on business
for that movie. It is really that simple.

Only if the viewer is very simple. There are *lots* of ways to achieve
success without killing the betrayer. Taking the two examples from
Buffy I already posted, we have Angel being punished for betraying
Buffy by being sent to a hell dimension. Considering that he's
immortal, and may have experienced centuries of pure torment, that's a
fate worse than death. We have Buffy agonizing and growing as a
character after she betrayed Angel. In the context of the series, this
seems right and appropriate.

I thought I asked someone already: what are the details of this
"betrayal by this title character ?

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
In Titanic, if the Winslet character in the end wound up with the Billy
Zane character, it would have seriously hurt that movie at the box office,
no matter how dressed up, skillfully written or as Patrick Stewart on
SNL put it, having "leaves of spun sugar", it was.

Yes, but that's because the Winslet character winding up with Billy
Zane would have been out of character. If the Winslet character had
been such that winding up with Billy Zane would have been in
character, the audience would have cared a lot less about her. It's
got nothing to do with some fictitious set of rules, and everything to
do with good writing.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
The logic of the plot and characterizations *requires*
that Angel have that sword shoved through
his chest at that point in time. He must
be betrayed. But killing off the title character of a series
is *really* frowned upon, so your "rule" really can't
be followed in this case.

Unless you are now talking about a different series,
I do not see the name "Angel" in the title.

It was Buffy's show (Angel's series doesn't start 'till a couple
of years later). Mike's saying that Buffy betrayed Angel,
and therefore couldn't be

Since I do not watch this show it is difficult to discuss the show.
Describe the details of this "betrayal".
It is hard for me to imagine a star and hero of a show ever being
shown to commit real dramatic betrayal.

Buffy and Angel are/were lovers. Angelus (angel minus the soul that
the first season explained made him rather unique)
constructs/rebuilds/reconstitutes a demon that, when awake, will suck
the world into a hell dimension, effectively killing everyone in the
world. This process is started, while Angelus and Buffy are fighting,
with Buffy trying to prevent the end of the world (which was a regular
event on Buffy - her gravestone even said "She saved the world a
lot").
At this point, Willow succeeds in casting the spell she's been working
on for a couple of episodes, which is the same one that gave Angel his
soul in the first place. Angelus turns back into Angel. Buffy realizes
this, reaffirms their love, then shoves the sword through his
chest. In doing so, she is following instructions she has been given
as to the only way to stop the end of the world.
Basically, it's "I love you". Banish to hell dimension. Buffy's
punishment for this act of betrayal is mental anguish over the next
several (well, at least one) episodes, while Giles (her father figure
in the series) tries to get her to talk about what actually happened.

I see this is the betrayal. It is nonsensical to claim that this is a
'dramatic
betrayal'. "constructs/rebuilds/reconstitutes a demon that, when awake,
will suck
the world into a hell dimension" implies that this character took a
conscious
act to destroy the world. He should die, but as you state he is immortal.
Hopefully he has some reading material in this eternal condemnation.
So why would he want to destroy the world ?

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
I am surprised at the deep diabolical nature of this series. What are the
Hollywood Homosexuals writers and producers trying to do.
Portray Sodomy engaged hell demons as acceptable guys once
you get to know them ?

Please get off your political hobby horse, and answer the
question. Why - other than simply being better than formulaic writing
- does this betrayal not end with the death of the betrayer?

I just answered that question above. Rules that conflict then have
a pecking order. I would say that "saving the world" trumps
4 aces.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
But since I have not seen this series and you clearly do not watch
TV with the same perception that I do, it would be difficult
for you to present the important facts of the script that led up to
these events.

Obviously. He disagrees with you, so he must be an ignorant hump.

No, but given the content of this thread, anyone participating on your
side of the discussion would realize the importance of presenting the
details of this "betrayal" committed by the 'hero' Buffy.

Given the popularity of Buffy, I assumed you'd be familiar with it. I
was wrong. BFD. I provided the details as soon as you asked.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
You are aware that this statement just screams BIGOTTED
CONSERVATIVE TROLL, aren't you?

First, I do not care what the Truth sounds like.

Do you care that capitalizing truth makes you sound like an idiot?

Again, I do not care what The Truth sounds like.
If you disagree with anything I am saying, you are free to dispute it.
As soon as anyone in a discussion like this one fails to counter an
assertion on the facts, then it is clear that there is something dishonest
about their position.
This is a public forum and you are free to support or attack anything
I or anyone else says. Just do that honestly.

You seem to be pretty good at making claims and failing to back them
up. In particular, you're using this forum to mouth homophobic slogans
without a single shred of support. I'd much prefer it if you stuck to
the point, and tried to come up with some justification of your
fictitious rules.

You know, one of the reasons it is important to talk about homosexuality
here is your and others determination to intimidate me and I assume others
from doing so. And this strategy seems to work well: most people on these
Newsgroups seem to be terrified about receiving this crazy allegation
of "homophobia". Some have tried to have my ISP pull my service even.
No scum on these Newsgroups is going to tell me what I can say and where
and when I can say it.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Second, as I have mentioned in several other debates in the BSG
Newsgroup, homosexuals are generally wealthy and
Conservative/Libertarian and want the government out of their life.

I'm curious - how many homosexuals do you know? For that manner,
how many libertarians do you know? Most of the libertarians - and
homosexuals - I know would be offended at being lumped in with the
conservatives.

Conservatives and Libertarians both agree with expunging government
from their lives. And that is what Homosexuals want to.

Um, no. Conservatives think the government should provide for the
national defense, keep people from committing "deviant sex acts", and
otherwise enforcing a moral code on the populace. Libertarians want
none of these things. Homosexuals oppose the conservative morals on
sex, and are pretty much spread out all over the political spectrum on
other issues.

Everyone supports the National Defense, even libertarians.
Right Neo-Conservatives are Conservatives who are libertarian
on moral issues and Zionist on the Middle East to the point of
mass murdering Arabs/Moslems even when there is no justification for it.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
If the homosexuals so badly want the government out of their lifes, why
are they making such a big stink about getting legal recognition from
the government for their partners?

Simple: government law protects people who are married to each other
in financial ways, since government has found it advantageous to support
family building. Homosexual unions have nothing to do with building
of families and thus are an attempt to assign government protections
to sex acts -- in this case, deviant sex acts.
For instance, when homosexuals die, which with AIDS has been
happening a lot, they want their partner to inherit their money, not their
own family who rejected them when they discovered they were homosexual.

Reality check time. The homosexuals I know cared very little about
government protection. The big issue was getting employer-sponsored
health care for their SO. That's why some companies already provide
that, and some jurisdictions require that companies provide it.
None of the homosexuals I know had parents so bigoted that they
rejected their children based on their sexuality. Most were bright
enough to love their children for who they were, no matter who they
were.

Most parents I know want their children to create grandchildren, of
the biological persuasion.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Wow; you'd probably ~hate~ Firefly (about thieves, smugglers,
killers, and a whore). And Buffy/Angel (betrayal, murder, sex,
lesbianism, attempted rape,

Buffy shows lesbianism ? How so ?

Actually, Willow (one of the key characters, for the entire run of the
series) claimed to turn lesbian during the fourth season. Personally,
I always figured she was bi. After all, when Oz returns during "New
Moon Rising" , she appears to give returning to him rather than
staying with Tara - who is clearly a lesbian - some consideration.

Have they shown these two women making out ?

Yes.

That is disgusting. What channel is this crap on and what time of day ?

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
As I said, moral people cringe when they see someone who is already
downtrodden, be kicked when they are down.
Ultimately, that is bad business and loses money.

Then explain the prevalence of "Reality" TV.
Mark

Question does not make sense. To some extent, I have believed that
Reality TV is a public reaction against the Hollywood Homosexual scripts
coming out of Hollywood. However. the public does not realize that the
same Hollywood Homosexuals produce shows like Survivor too.

The first reality tv show ever - The Gong Show - was all about kicking
people when they were down. They get up on stage and make fools of
themselves - then you publicly acknowledge that they are being fools.

I remember the Gong Show and Chuck Barris but I do not remember what
happened on that show. But generally, it is a script failure when producers
rely on the extemporaneous statements of guests to entertain rather than
their own writing skills.

Reality TV doesn't *have* a script. How can something that doesn't
exist fail?

They do have producers who steer the so-called "reality"
e.g. the current Paula Adbul scandal. I doubt you could post a camera
even on the corner of 42nd St with no production and generate a
healthy audience.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
What bothers me the most about Reality TV is the tiny proportion
of the advertising revenue on these shows which ends up in the pockets
of the guests who are the true entertainers on those shows.
However, I do not consider that the average viewer consider the
contestants on these reality shows to be downtrodden.

Well, my experience is just the opposite. When I've been with people
who insisted on watching the things - which is pretty much the only
way I'll watch them - they were doing so to make fun of the people on
the show. Nuts - even scripted TV shows depict people watching reality
TV to make fun of the people on the show.

Scripted TV and the writers thereof are naturally hostile to Reality TV
for obvious reasons -- Reality TV eliminates the scriptwriter which
limits the writers' opportunities for jobs.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
In that light, the question makes an incredible amount of sense. If
most people cringe at seeing the downtrodden kicked - and it would
have to be "most people", otherwise this rule wouldn't make sense when
it comes to turning a buck - then why are shows that apparently exist
to kick the downtrodden doing so well?

Again, I do not consider reality contestants to be perceived by the public
as downtrodden. However when an average citizen on one of these
shows is forced to eat worms or cockroaches, they are being downtrodden
on the show and it is weird that anyone would watch that.

You may be right - the public may not consider those people to be
downtrodden. But the public is still flocking in droves to watch
people be humiliated by doing things like eating worms and bugs, which
you say makes them downtrodden. You don't understand it, but it still
raises the question - if picking on the downtrodden is something the
public doesn't want to see, why are they flocking to reality TV?
<mike

As I just said: they do not consider the guests on those shows to be
downtrodden in their real lives. They are usually good looking people
full of verve.

Politics

[PettyFan]

On Thu, 12 May 2005 08:33:48 -0700, "John Shocked"

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Again a lot of this comes down to one's willingness
to accept make-believe
as reality. Magic is much easier to write because
anything is possible and
thus credible and the weak minded viewers do not apply
any sort of litmus test to the world portrayed.

Another thing sf and fantasy have in common - they both require the
audience to suspend disbelief.

Science Fiction requires the viewer to think creatively about the future
but not to suspend disbelief. Researchers, scientists and engineers
are often working on items which do not yet exist, but through
educated judgments they hope exist and wish to prove or implement.
What they do is controlled creative investigation.
Science Fiction writers engage in controlled creative writing.
Except when the character Q was on Star Trek: The Next Generation.

Or faster than light drives, or the interspecies breeding that runs
rampant through the ST universe (yeah, that includes Spock), or -
well, or time machines, or - well, the list goes on. If I *think*
about those things, I realize they are absurdities, requiring major
rewrites of the laws of science as we know them. Certain things shown
as "magic" bend those laws less than these examples. If I didn't
suspend my disbelieve, I'd be laughing all the way through the
show. They aren't quite as bad as "Lost In Space", but they aren't a
hell of a lot better, either.
Really, what's the difference between the infamous ST technobabble
solution to a problem, and a spell read by a witch to solve a problem?
Both are just collections of words that have no meaning in reality,
used to "explain" the solution.

I believe one encourages you and your kids to engage in the Occult
and Satanism, the other encourages you and your kids to involve
yourselves in science.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
You clearly haven't encountered much rigorously-written fantasy. There
are fantasies where the rules for magic are clearly defined for the
audience, and things outside those rules shouldn't be possible. When
such fantasy is well-written, things outside those rules don't
happen. They can be a lot like puzzle sf. I can't think of any
rigorous fantasy that's been done as video. Then again, I can't think
of any rigorous science fiction that's been done as video,
either. Even the adaptions of rigorous written science fiction to the
screen tend to screw it up.

You mean a video game ?

No, I mean taking rigorously written science fiction story and
adopting it as a movie or TV series. I've never seen that done in a
way that doesn't loose the rigor. The science fiction presented in the
movies and on tv would more accurately be called science fantasy.

Hollywood always believes it has a right to fictionalize a script
for 'creative' reasons. Heck they even claimed that Alexander The Great
was a homosexual. That is rich. And so are the wealthy fatcat
Hollywood Homosexuals who butchered this guys reputation
when he was dead and could not deny it.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Angel losing his soul and becoming Angelus (who tries
to kill everyone) is really no different than (in Andromeda terms)
if the Abyss had telepathically turned Rev Bem into Redplague
(his magog name/identity) and made him try to destroy
the Andromeda.

These sorts of transformations just are not acceptable to any other

than

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
weak minds who will literally accept any nonsense portrayed on

screen.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
I mean, if characters in the show can undergo these

"transformations",

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
what was the point of your watching the show up to that point ?

Except that this particular transformation wasn't pulled from a
hat. It was clearly explained in the previous season why Angel was
special, with the implication that changing that facet of his
character would change him in major ways. The possibility of this
transformation was foreshadowed a number of times during the second
season.

How do you change a facet of someone's character ? Character creation
is what a writer's job is. Now they can juggle the character's character
at will ?

That's called "character development". It plays a major port in
well-written fiction. Character development can be poorly done, of
course. The audience has to be willing to believe that the character,
when exposed to the events given in the story, would change in the way
described.
Fiction without character development is mindless drivel.

But a complete transformation ? This reminds me of the Atavus
element of the Earth: Final Conflict script which was just as nonsensical,
in which the Taelon alien species would transform into a devolved
malicious being based on some stimulus I forget.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Just because some producer claims that the "ratings are stale and
we need a big change" should not allow them to throw out the existing
character base and introduce a new person. If they want a new
character, have them introduce someone new to the show.
And if that means the existing
characters receive decreased air time, so be it.

This particular change wasn't "a big change for the ratings". If it
were, he wouldn't have changed back at the end of the season, or been
removed from the show for an indefinite period of time at the end of
the season.
No, these two transformations - turning evil and then turning back -
where the major story line for the second season.
Have you ever heard to what the screenwriters have to say about the
scripts they've written? I've listened to what Buffy's authors have to
say about it, and at no time do they ever make comments about doing
things to "appease the audience" or "improve ratings". They talk about

The writer's work should be on-screen. The writer publishing himself
off screen is simply a distraction. His job is to fit his ideas into
the set and existing budget of the existing show.
Of course, if a writer came forward and claimed that Kevin Sorbo
told me to write something nasty about Keith Hamilton Cobb,
I would sit up and listen to that.
Other than something like that, when these guys claim that they never
receive pressure from brass concerning ratings and budgets,
usually 'no means yes'.

I see. So writers who agree with you are to be listened to, but
writers who don't agree with you are to be ignored. That's one sure
way to ensure you're never confused by the facts.
FWIW, look at a DVD some day. Most of them come with "special
features" (so they can justify charging you for a second disk), and
many of those include writers commentaries on the product in hand.

That is anogther development in this business that damages the
integrity of the product these writers produce in that they add stuff
specially for the DVD that is in there solely to help sell the DVD,
and the more shocking and crazy that content, the more likely
it will sell the DVD. Even if it runs counter to the storyline of the
TV show people saw.
When the producer comes to the writer and states I want something
wacky on that DVD. What do you have ? You better have some
demons, and transformations and Sex, Lesbianism and Sodomy, etc.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
not having money to do things the way they'd like, or that the
problems they have finding people to put into danger (Buffy's
characters grow, usually into competent individuals - something every
moral viewer should enjoy).

"grow into competent individuals" ? Not sure I follow this.

That's *positive* character development. The characters on Buffy tend
to develop from helpless victims into people who can take care of
themselves. This is a *good* thing.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Firefly ? I have never even heard of this show.

It was an HBO series. A little check on tvtome or imdb would turn that
out. I've personally never seen it, but it always sounded
interesting. I'm hoping one of the channels I have available will pick
it up for reruns.

HBO is homosexual controlled crap. They just need to let go of
the Boxing from that channel and let some other premium channel
have that franchise, then let the Hollywood Homosexuals control the
rest of that channel.

Can you actually justify this paranoid, homophobic drivel?

I have not watched HBO in about 4 years and last I saw, that was the crap
that was on that channel. Sopranos was the only show which resisted
this content, although there was an implication of homosexuality in
one of the last episodes we saw.
Strong Sexual Content every night -- well at least they label it.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
I watched a little of DS9 but recall little of what you describe.
However, "betrayal" in drama involves a character developing another
on-screen character's trust to a point where they have expectations
of you specifically, then acting against their interests.

Now you're changing your rules to avoid the counterexamples. Betraying
your race/nation/people/history isn't sufficient. You have to betray
an individual. Well, that all happened on the "Double Helix" episode
of Andromeda.

No change at all. I have not seen some of this material to which you
refer but I just wanted to clarify this concept since you clearly
do not seen to recognize these themes in the stuff you are watching.

Oh, I recognize the themes you mention. I just recognize them for what
they are - hackwork - instead of trying to justify it as some sort of
unwritten rule of screenwriting.

Post by John Shocked
How could you possibly believe for instance that Worf's living
with humans in Star Trek: The Next Generation to be a 'dramatic
betrayal' of the Klingons ?

First, you're confusing two different people. I never mentioned
anything about Worf betraying the Klingons. Second, the person who did
point him out as an example used his siding with the Federation when
the Klingons went to war (in DS9) as that betrayal, *not* his merely
living with humans.

Of course that is an absurd conclusion, since all of Worf's trust
relationships are with the Federation. I still think he ought to be
conflicted about something like that but there is no clear loyalty path
either way.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
In other words, if you're going to bash fantasy for not being
rigorous, you should be prepared to give a healthy dose of the same
medicine to your favorite science fiction shows.

I am not sure here if you are claiming SG-1 to be one of my favorite
it is Not. I have stated on other Newsgroups within the past few weeks
in fact that Richard Dean Anderson's acting is crap and he should be

forced

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
to surrender the Executive Producer position to someone else.

Nah, I'm not claiming that SG-1 is one of your favorite science
fiction shows. I'm claiming that all televised science fiction is full
of such idiocies. Many science fiction series will include
faster-than-light travel. The only one that ever got the physics of
space travel right was Babylon 5. I've already mentioned the
interspecies breeding that runs rampant through the ST universe. Tell
me what your favorite SF series is/was. If I've seen it, I'll be glad
to tell you what's wrong with it.
I happened to pick on Stargate - the movie, not SG-1 - because it
provided a means for people to come back from the dead, which
event you were calling laughable. SG-1 got stuck with this device
because it showed up in the movie. They didn't hesitate to use it.

Richard Dean Anderson is the key guy who has prevented me
from watching that show. He is a terrible actor.
Does not even try to carry the material.
Thus I have not seen that content in that series although
I have seen some of the episodes.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Angel didn't ~stay~ dead. He returned, whole and healthy, and eventually

Actually, Angel didn't die. He was banished to a hell dimension. The
First Evil claimed to have returned him to use against Buffy, but it's
not clear whether or not the first was lying. The episode is "Amends",
which first aired as "A Buffy Christmas."

A Hell Dimension does not sound like something that kids should
be watching. It reminds me a little of Dr. Strange from way back.

I don't recall recommending Buffy for children. I don't think anyone
else has, either. Of course, they never showed us the hell
dimension. They just showed Angel being sucked into it, and falling
out of it.
Limiting your fiction to that which is suitable for children is a
serious handicap. I'm a grown up - I want my entertainment to deal
with material for grown ups. Babylon 5 had two episodes that involved
mass bombing of civilians. That's not something that I want my
children exposed to. But it happens in real life, and the series
showed it having a profound effect on the characters, which it should.

Actually, I would be somewhat disturbed if I was sitting next to someone
at work who was into demons, ghouls, zombies, lesbianism and Hell.
Do you actually talk about this stuff around the watercooler ?

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
where a Cro-Mag betrays her people
to help 'our heroes' and then at the end of the
show she is stabbed by one of her own
people whom she betrayed, even though they
were evil people who wanted to kill 'our heroes'.
It (The Dying Fields episode) was just on about 3 hours ago.

In your example, the kromagg was killed by one of the people she
betrayed. This follows the cliche. In the example I gave, the

person

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
who betrayed Angel isn't someone he knowingly betrayed.

No, the Rule is not specific on who does the killing.
Sometimes, it is accidental.
In fact, the example I gave you from The Odyssey was
accidental, but given the 'Gods' context of that show,
it was Fate or Parcae.

Fate is no accident. In both cases (Sliders and the Odyssey),
the death is presented as being directly related to the betrayal
as a sort of dramatic standard. This is simply not the case,
as Mike's Buffyverse example proved.

I have never stated that screenwriters are required to follow The

Rules.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
This entire argument started because you said that the script for
Andromeda would never have included Beka mentioning steroids
in reference to Tyr, because that would violate the rules.

Right. Most of these series do follow The Rules, so when they deviate
from them the viewer should immediately ask the question: why ?

Actually, the answer is usually obvious - they hired a writer with
some talent, rather than a formula-following hack.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
However, I would guess that many more billions of dollars have been
made by movies and series which followed The Rules in the history
of Hollywood. Hollywood only makes and adheres to rules for the
purpose of making money.

formulas for hacks to follow to turn out acceptable scripts without
needing any talent. Except your initial mention of them doesn't even
come up to that low standard.
Only elsewhere you've said that Hollywood is drifting away from the
rules due to something that sounded like paranoid delusion.

The Rules have nothing to do with restricting the creative possibilities
in a script. They more have to do with the morality of the audience and
what will make the audience happy and walk away from the movie
saying "it was great" and recommending others go see it.

Again, *how* does casting a fat person in the role of a fat person
cause the audience to change their perception of the movie? Until the
relatively recent advent of fat suits, doing otherwise would only
weaken the reality the movie was trying to create.

I cannot recall a movie where the target was the obesity of one of the
characters where the actor was indeed obese.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
And if the viewer is sitting there and watches a character betray
another in whom he had invested, he wants that betrayer to die.

Now *that* sounds like something you that's not suitable fare for
children. You're advocating the death penalty in cases that don't
involve murder - and even in those cases the death penalty is
considered by many to be to severe a punishment.

The way it normally happens is that they normally 'do it to themselves'.
"I trusted you Mike, and you betrayed me"
"I always hated you John, ever since you said that stuff about Sodomy"
"So that is what is what about. But Mike, you did not need to subscribe
to those views. You could have objected to my arguments".
"I would not dirty my hands arguing with scum like you Mark" as he backs
way...
"Mike come back ! Stop ! you're back over that....."
Splat !
"......ledge.".

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
And if that betrayer does not die, he is likely to walk away from that
movie, either consciously or subconsciously, feeling that the movie
failed and that ultimately hurts to word-of-mouth follow on business
for that movie. It is really that simple.

Only if the viewer is very simple. There are *lots* of ways to achieve
success without killing the betrayer. Taking the two examples from
Buffy I already posted, we have Angel being punished for betraying
Buffy by being sent to a hell dimension. Considering that he's
immortal, and may have experienced centuries of pure torment, that's a
fate worse than death. We have Buffy agonizing and growing as a
character after she betrayed Angel. In the context of the series, this
seems right and appropriate.

I thought I asked someone already: what are the details of this
"betrayal by this title character ?

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
In Titanic, if the Winslet character in the end wound up with the Billy
Zane character, it would have seriously hurt that movie at the box

office,

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
no matter how dressed up, skillfully written or as Patrick Stewart on
SNL put it, having "leaves of spun sugar", it was.

Yes, but that's because the Winslet character winding up with Billy
Zane would have been out of character. If the Winslet character had
been such that winding up with Billy Zane would have been in
character, the audience would have cared a lot less about her. It's
got nothing to do with some fictitious set of rules, and everything to
do with good writing.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
The logic of the plot and characterizations *requires*
that Angel have that sword shoved through
his chest at that point in time. He must
be betrayed. But killing off the title character of a series
is *really* frowned upon, so your "rule" really can't
be followed in this case.

Unless you are now talking about a different series,
I do not see the name "Angel" in the title.

It was Buffy's show (Angel's series doesn't start 'till a couple
of years later). Mike's saying that Buffy betrayed Angel,
and therefore couldn't be

Since I do not watch this show it is difficult to discuss the show.
Describe the details of this "betrayal".
It is hard for me to imagine a star and hero of a show ever being
shown to commit real dramatic betrayal.

Buffy and Angel are/were lovers. Angelus (angel minus the soul that
the first season explained made him rather unique)
constructs/rebuilds/reconstitutes a demon that, when awake, will suck
the world into a hell dimension, effectively killing everyone in the
world. This process is started, while Angelus and Buffy are fighting,
with Buffy trying to prevent the end of the world (which was a regular
event on Buffy - her gravestone even said "She saved the world a
lot").
At this point, Willow succeeds in casting the spell she's been working
on for a couple of episodes, which is the same one that gave Angel his
soul in the first place. Angelus turns back into Angel. Buffy realizes
this, reaffirms their love, then shoves the sword through his
chest. In doing so, she is following instructions she has been given
as to the only way to stop the end of the world.
Basically, it's "I love you". Banish to hell dimension. Buffy's
punishment for this act of betrayal is mental anguish over the next
several (well, at least one) episodes, while Giles (her father figure
in the series) tries to get her to talk about what actually happened.

I see this is the betrayal. It is nonsensical to claim that this is a
'dramatic
betrayal'. "constructs/rebuilds/reconstitutes a demon that, when awake,
will suck
the world into a hell dimension" implies that this character took a
conscious
act to destroy the world. He should die, but as you state he is immortal.
Hopefully he has some reading material in this eternal condemnation.
So why would he want to destroy the world ?

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
I am surprised at the deep diabolical nature of this series. What are

the

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Hollywood Homosexuals writers and producers trying to do.
Portray Sodomy engaged hell demons as acceptable guys once
you get to know them ?

Please get off your political hobby horse, and answer the
question. Why - other than simply being better than formulaic writing
- does this betrayal not end with the death of the betrayer?

I just answered that question above. Rules that conflict then have
a pecking order. I would say that "saving the world" trumps
4 aces.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
But since I have not seen this series and you clearly do not watch
TV with the same perception that I do, it would be difficult
for you to present the important facts of the script that led up

to

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
these events.

Obviously. He disagrees with you, so he must be an ignorant hump.

No, but given the content of this thread, anyone participating on

your

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
side of the discussion would realize the importance of presenting the
details of this "betrayal" committed by the 'hero' Buffy.

Given the popularity of Buffy, I assumed you'd be familiar with it. I
was wrong. BFD. I provided the details as soon as you asked.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
You are aware that this statement just screams BIGOTTED
CONSERVATIVE TROLL, aren't you?

First, I do not care what the Truth sounds like.

Do you care that capitalizing truth makes you sound like an idiot?

Again, I do not care what The Truth sounds like.
If you disagree with anything I am saying, you are free to dispute it.
As soon as anyone in a discussion like this one fails to counter an
assertion on the facts, then it is clear that there is something

dishonest

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
about their position.
This is a public forum and you are free to support or attack anything
I or anyone else says. Just do that honestly.

You seem to be pretty good at making claims and failing to back them
up. In particular, you're using this forum to mouth homophobic slogans
without a single shred of support. I'd much prefer it if you stuck to
the point, and tried to come up with some justification of your
fictitious rules.

You know, one of the reasons it is important to talk about homosexuality
here is your and others determination to intimidate me and I assume others
from doing so. And this strategy seems to work well: most people on these
Newsgroups seem to be terrified about receiving this crazy allegation
of "homophobia". Some have tried to have my ISP pull my service even.
No scum on these Newsgroups is going to tell me what I can say and where
and when I can say it.

proof you hate everyone. and more proof you are just picking fights!

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Second, as I have mentioned in several other debates in the BSG
Newsgroup, homosexuals are generally wealthy and
Conservative/Libertarian and want the government out of their life.

I'm curious - how many homosexuals do you know? For that manner,
how many libertarians do you know? Most of the libertarians - and
homosexuals - I know would be offended at being lumped in with the
conservatives.

Conservatives and Libertarians both agree with expunging government
from their lives. And that is what Homosexuals want to.

Um, no. Conservatives think the government should provide for the
national defense, keep people from committing "deviant sex acts", and
otherwise enforcing a moral code on the populace. Libertarians want
none of these things. Homosexuals oppose the conservative morals on
sex, and are pretty much spread out all over the political spectrum on
other issues.

Everyone supports the National Defense, even libertarians.
Right Neo-Conservatives are Conservatives who are libertarian
on moral issues and Zionist on the Middle East to the point of
mass murdering Arabs/Moslems even when there is no justification for it.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
If the homosexuals so badly want the government out of their lifes, why
are they making such a big stink about getting legal recognition from
the government for their partners?

Simple: government law protects people who are married to each other
in financial ways, since government has found it advantageous to support
family building. Homosexual unions have nothing to do with building
of families and thus are an attempt to assign government protections
to sex acts -- in this case, deviant sex acts.
For instance, when homosexuals die, which with AIDS has been
happening a lot, they want their partner to inherit their money, not

their

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
own family who rejected them when they discovered they were homosexual.

Reality check time. The homosexuals I know cared very little about
government protection. The big issue was getting employer-sponsored
health care for their SO. That's why some companies already provide
that, and some jurisdictions require that companies provide it.
None of the homosexuals I know had parents so bigoted that they
rejected their children based on their sexuality. Most were bright
enough to love their children for who they were, no matter who they
were.

Most parents I know want their children to create grandchildren, of
the biological persuasion.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Wow; you'd probably ~hate~ Firefly (about thieves, smugglers,
killers, and a whore). And Buffy/Angel (betrayal, murder, sex,
lesbianism, attempted rape,

Buffy shows lesbianism ? How so ?

Actually, Willow (one of the key characters, for the entire run of the
series) claimed to turn lesbian during the fourth season. Personally,
I always figured she was bi. After all, when Oz returns during "New
Moon Rising" , she appears to give returning to him rather than
staying with Tara - who is clearly a lesbian - some consideration.

Have they shown these two women making out ?

Yes.

That is disgusting. What channel is this crap on and what time of day ?

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
As I said, moral people cringe when they see someone who is

already

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
downtrodden, be kicked when they are down.
Ultimately, that is bad business and loses money.

Then explain the prevalence of "Reality" TV.
Mark

Question does not make sense. To some extent, I have believed that
Reality TV is a public reaction against the Hollywood Homosexual

scripts

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
coming out of Hollywood. However. the public does not realize that

the

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
same Hollywood Homosexuals produce shows like Survivor too.

The first reality tv show ever - The Gong Show - was all about kicking
people when they were down. They get up on stage and make fools of
themselves - then you publicly acknowledge that they are being fools.

I remember the Gong Show and Chuck Barris but I do not remember what
happened on that show. But generally, it is a script failure when

producers

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
rely on the extemporaneous statements of guests to entertain rather than
their own writing skills.

Reality TV doesn't *have* a script. How can something that doesn't
exist fail?

They do have producers who steer the so-called "reality"
e.g. the current Paula Adbul scandal. I doubt you could post a camera
even on the corner of 42nd St with no production and generate a
healthy audience.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
What bothers me the most about Reality TV is the tiny proportion
of the advertising revenue on these shows which ends up in the pockets
of the guests who are the true entertainers on those shows.
However, I do not consider that the average viewer consider the
contestants on these reality shows to be downtrodden.

Well, my experience is just the opposite. When I've been with people
who insisted on watching the things - which is pretty much the only
way I'll watch them - they were doing so to make fun of the people on
the show. Nuts - even scripted TV shows depict people watching reality
TV to make fun of the people on the show.

Scripted TV and the writers thereof are naturally hostile to Reality TV
for obvious reasons -- Reality TV eliminates the scriptwriter which
limits the writers' opportunities for jobs.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
In that light, the question makes an incredible amount of sense. If
most people cringe at seeing the downtrodden kicked - and it would
have to be "most people", otherwise this rule wouldn't make sense when
it comes to turning a buck - then why are shows that apparently exist
to kick the downtrodden doing so well?

Again, I do not consider reality contestants to be perceived by the

public

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
as downtrodden. However when an average citizen on one of these
shows is forced to eat worms or cockroaches, they are being downtrodden
on the show and it is weird that anyone would watch that.

You may be right - the public may not consider those people to be
downtrodden. But the public is still flocking in droves to watch
people be humiliated by doing things like eating worms and bugs, which
you say makes them downtrodden. You don't understand it, but it still
raises the question - if picking on the downtrodden is something the
public doesn't want to see, why are they flocking to reality TV?
<mike

As I just said: they do not consider the guests on those shows to be
downtrodden in their real lives. They are usually good looking people
full of verve.
Politics

[John Shocked]

Post by PettyFan
On Thu, 12 May 2005 08:33:48 -0700, "John Shocked"

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Again a lot of this comes down to one's willingness
to accept make-believe
as reality. Magic is much easier to write because
anything is possible and
thus credible and the weak minded viewers do not apply
any sort of litmus test to the world portrayed.

Another thing sf and fantasy have in common - they both require the
audience to suspend disbelief.

Science Fiction requires the viewer to think creatively about the future
but not to suspend disbelief. Researchers, scientists and engineers
are often working on items which do not yet exist, but through
educated judgments they hope exist and wish to prove or implement.
What they do is controlled creative investigation.
Science Fiction writers engage in controlled creative writing.
Except when the character Q was on Star Trek: The Next Generation.

Or faster than light drives, or the interspecies breeding that runs
rampant through the ST universe (yeah, that includes Spock), or -
well, or time machines, or - well, the list goes on. If I *think*
about those things, I realize they are absurdities, requiring major
rewrites of the laws of science as we know them. Certain things shown
as "magic" bend those laws less than these examples. If I didn't
suspend my disbelieve, I'd be laughing all the way through the
show. They aren't quite as bad as "Lost In Space", but they aren't a
hell of a lot better, either.
Really, what's the difference between the infamous ST technobabble
solution to a problem, and a spell read by a witch to solve a problem?
Both are just collections of words that have no meaning in reality,
used to "explain" the solution.

I believe one encourages you and your kids to engage in the Occult
and Satanism, the other encourages you and your kids to involve
yourselves in science.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
You clearly haven't encountered much rigorously-written fantasy. There
are fantasies where the rules for magic are clearly defined for the
audience, and things outside those rules shouldn't be possible. When
such fantasy is well-written, things outside those rules don't
happen. They can be a lot like puzzle sf. I can't think of any
rigorous fantasy that's been done as video. Then again, I can't think
of any rigorous science fiction that's been done as video,
either. Even the adaptions of rigorous written science fiction to the
screen tend to screw it up.

You mean a video game ?

No, I mean taking rigorously written science fiction story and
adopting it as a movie or TV series. I've never seen that done in a
way that doesn't loose the rigor. The science fiction presented in the
movies and on tv would more accurately be called science fantasy.

Hollywood always believes it has a right to fictionalize a script
for 'creative' reasons. Heck they even claimed that Alexander The Great
was a homosexual. That is rich. And so are the wealthy fatcat
Hollywood Homosexuals who butchered this guys reputation
when he was dead and could not deny it.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Angel losing his soul and becoming Angelus (who tries
to kill everyone) is really no different than (in Andromeda terms)
if the Abyss had telepathically turned Rev Bem into Redplague
(his magog name/identity) and made him try to destroy
the Andromeda.

These sorts of transformations just are not acceptable to any other

than

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
weak minds who will literally accept any nonsense portrayed on

screen.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
I mean, if characters in the show can undergo these

"transformations",

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
what was the point of your watching the show up to that point ?

Except that this particular transformation wasn't pulled from a
hat. It was clearly explained in the previous season why Angel was
special, with the implication that changing that facet of his
character would change him in major ways. The possibility of this
transformation was foreshadowed a number of times during the second
season.

How do you change a facet of someone's character ? Character creation
is what a writer's job is. Now they can juggle the character's character
at will ?

That's called "character development". It plays a major port in
well-written fiction. Character development can be poorly done, of
course. The audience has to be willing to believe that the character,
when exposed to the events given in the story, would change in the way
described.
Fiction without character development is mindless drivel.

But a complete transformation ? This reminds me of the Atavus
element of the Earth: Final Conflict script which was just as

nonsensical,

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked
in which the Taelon alien species would transform into a devolved
malicious being based on some stimulus I forget.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Just because some producer claims that the "ratings are stale and
we need a big change" should not allow them to throw out the existing
character base and introduce a new person. If they want a new
character, have them introduce someone new to the show.
And if that means the existing
characters receive decreased air time, so be it.

This particular change wasn't "a big change for the ratings". If it
were, he wouldn't have changed back at the end of the season, or been
removed from the show for an indefinite period of time at the end of
the season.
No, these two transformations - turning evil and then turning back -
where the major story line for the second season.
Have you ever heard to what the screenwriters have to say about the
scripts they've written? I've listened to what Buffy's authors have to
say about it, and at no time do they ever make comments about doing
things to "appease the audience" or "improve ratings". They talk about

The writer's work should be on-screen. The writer publishing himself
off screen is simply a distraction. His job is to fit his ideas into
the set and existing budget of the existing show.
Of course, if a writer came forward and claimed that Kevin Sorbo
told me to write something nasty about Keith Hamilton Cobb,
I would sit up and listen to that.
Other than something like that, when these guys claim that they never
receive pressure from brass concerning ratings and budgets,
usually 'no means yes'.

I see. So writers who agree with you are to be listened to, but
writers who don't agree with you are to be ignored. That's one sure
way to ensure you're never confused by the facts.
FWIW, look at a DVD some day. Most of them come with "special
features" (so they can justify charging you for a second disk), and
many of those include writers commentaries on the product in hand.

That is anogther development in this business that damages the
integrity of the product these writers produce in that they add stuff
specially for the DVD that is in there solely to help sell the DVD,
and the more shocking and crazy that content, the more likely
it will sell the DVD. Even if it runs counter to the storyline of the
TV show people saw.
When the producer comes to the writer and states I want something
wacky on that DVD. What do you have ? You better have some
demons, and transformations and Sex, Lesbianism and Sodomy, etc.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
not having money to do things the way they'd like, or that the
problems they have finding people to put into danger (Buffy's
characters grow, usually into competent individuals - something every
moral viewer should enjoy).

"grow into competent individuals" ? Not sure I follow this.

That's *positive* character development. The characters on Buffy tend
to develop from helpless victims into people who can take care of
themselves. This is a *good* thing.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Firefly ? I have never even heard of this show.

It was an HBO series. A little check on tvtome or imdb would turn that
out. I've personally never seen it, but it always sounded
interesting. I'm hoping one of the channels I have available will pick
it up for reruns.

HBO is homosexual controlled crap. They just need to let go of
the Boxing from that channel and let some other premium channel
have that franchise, then let the Hollywood Homosexuals control the
rest of that channel.

Can you actually justify this paranoid, homophobic drivel?

I have not watched HBO in about 4 years and last I saw, that was the crap
that was on that channel. Sopranos was the only show which resisted
this content, although there was an implication of homosexuality in
one of the last episodes we saw.
Strong Sexual Content every night -- well at least they label it.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
I watched a little of DS9 but recall little of what you describe.
However, "betrayal" in drama involves a character developing another
on-screen character's trust to a point where they have

expectations

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
of you specifically, then acting against their interests.

Now you're changing your rules to avoid the counterexamples. Betraying
your race/nation/people/history isn't sufficient. You have to betray
an individual. Well, that all happened on the "Double Helix" episode
of Andromeda.

No change at all. I have not seen some of this material to which you
refer but I just wanted to clarify this concept since you clearly
do not seen to recognize these themes in the stuff you are watching.

Oh, I recognize the themes you mention. I just recognize them for what
they are - hackwork - instead of trying to justify it as some sort of
unwritten rule of screenwriting.

Post by John Shocked
How could you possibly believe for instance that Worf's living
with humans in Star Trek: The Next Generation to be a 'dramatic
betrayal' of the Klingons ?

First, you're confusing two different people. I never mentioned
anything about Worf betraying the Klingons. Second, the person who did
point him out as an example used his siding with the Federation when
the Klingons went to war (in DS9) as that betrayal, *not* his merely
living with humans.

Of course that is an absurd conclusion, since all of Worf's trust
relationships are with the Federation. I still think he ought to be
conflicted about something like that but there is no clear loyalty path
either way.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
In other words, if you're going to bash fantasy for not being
rigorous, you should be prepared to give a healthy dose of the same
medicine to your favorite science fiction shows.

I am not sure here if you are claiming SG-1 to be one of my favorite
it is Not. I have stated on other Newsgroups within the past few weeks
in fact that Richard Dean Anderson's acting is crap and he should be

forced

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
to surrender the Executive Producer position to someone else.

Nah, I'm not claiming that SG-1 is one of your favorite science
fiction shows. I'm claiming that all televised science fiction is full
of such idiocies. Many science fiction series will include
faster-than-light travel. The only one that ever got the physics of
space travel right was Babylon 5. I've already mentioned the
interspecies breeding that runs rampant through the ST universe. Tell
me what your favorite SF series is/was. If I've seen it, I'll be glad
to tell you what's wrong with it.
I happened to pick on Stargate - the movie, not SG-1 - because it
provided a means for people to come back from the dead, which
event you were calling laughable. SG-1 got stuck with this device
because it showed up in the movie. They didn't hesitate to use it.

Richard Dean Anderson is the key guy who has prevented me
from watching that show. He is a terrible actor.
Does not even try to carry the material.
Thus I have not seen that content in that series although
I have seen some of the episodes.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Angel didn't ~stay~ dead. He returned, whole and healthy, and eventually

Actually, Angel didn't die. He was banished to a hell dimension. The
First Evil claimed to have returned him to use against Buffy, but it's
not clear whether or not the first was lying. The episode is "Amends",
which first aired as "A Buffy Christmas."

A Hell Dimension does not sound like something that kids should
be watching. It reminds me a little of Dr. Strange from way back.

I don't recall recommending Buffy for children. I don't think anyone
else has, either. Of course, they never showed us the hell
dimension. They just showed Angel being sucked into it, and falling
out of it.
Limiting your fiction to that which is suitable for children is a
serious handicap. I'm a grown up - I want my entertainment to deal
with material for grown ups. Babylon 5 had two episodes that involved
mass bombing of civilians. That's not something that I want my
children exposed to. But it happens in real life, and the series
showed it having a profound effect on the characters, which it should.

Actually, I would be somewhat disturbed if I was sitting next to someone
at work who was into demons, ghouls, zombies, lesbianism and Hell.
Do you actually talk about this stuff around the watercooler ?

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
where a Cro-Mag betrays her people
to help 'our heroes' and then at the end of the
show she is stabbed by one of her own
people whom she betrayed, even though they
were evil people who wanted to kill 'our heroes'.
It (The Dying Fields episode) was just on about 3 hours ago.

In your example, the kromagg was killed by one of the people she
betrayed. This follows the cliche. In the example I gave, the

person

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
who betrayed Angel isn't someone he knowingly betrayed.

No, the Rule is not specific on who does the killing.
Sometimes, it is accidental.
In fact, the example I gave you from The Odyssey was
accidental, but given the 'Gods' context of that show,
it was Fate or Parcae.

Fate is no accident. In both cases (Sliders and the Odyssey),
the death is presented as being directly related to the betrayal
as a sort of dramatic standard. This is simply not the case,
as Mike's Buffyverse example proved.

I have never stated that screenwriters are required to follow The

Rules.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
This entire argument started because you said that the script for
Andromeda would never have included Beka mentioning steroids
in reference to Tyr, because that would violate the rules.

Right. Most of these series do follow The Rules, so when they deviate
from them the viewer should immediately ask the question: why ?

Actually, the answer is usually obvious - they hired a writer with
some talent, rather than a formula-following hack.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
However, I would guess that many more billions of dollars have been
made by movies and series which followed The Rules in the history
of Hollywood. Hollywood only makes and adheres to rules for the
purpose of making money.

formulas for hacks to follow to turn out acceptable scripts without
needing any talent. Except your initial mention of them doesn't even
come up to that low standard.
Only elsewhere you've said that Hollywood is drifting away from the
rules due to something that sounded like paranoid delusion.

The Rules have nothing to do with restricting the creative possibilities
in a script. They more have to do with the morality of the audience and
what will make the audience happy and walk away from the movie
saying "it was great" and recommending others go see it.

Again, *how* does casting a fat person in the role of a fat person
cause the audience to change their perception of the movie? Until the
relatively recent advent of fat suits, doing otherwise would only
weaken the reality the movie was trying to create.

I cannot recall a movie where the target was the obesity of one of the
characters where the actor was indeed obese.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
And if the viewer is sitting there and watches a character betray
another in whom he had invested, he wants that betrayer to die.

Now *that* sounds like something you that's not suitable fare for
children. You're advocating the death penalty in cases that don't
involve murder - and even in those cases the death penalty is
considered by many to be to severe a punishment.

The way it normally happens is that they normally 'do it to themselves'.
"I trusted you Mike, and you betrayed me"
"I always hated you John, ever since you said that stuff about Sodomy"
"So that is what is what about. But Mike, you did not need to subscribe
to those views. You could have objected to my arguments".
"I would not dirty my hands arguing with scum like you Mark" as he backs
way...
"Mike come back ! Stop ! you're back over that....."
Splat !
"......ledge.".

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
And if that betrayer does not die, he is likely to walk away from that
movie, either consciously or subconsciously, feeling that the movie
failed and that ultimately hurts to word-of-mouth follow on business
for that movie. It is really that simple.

Only if the viewer is very simple. There are *lots* of ways to achieve
success without killing the betrayer. Taking the two examples from
Buffy I already posted, we have Angel being punished for betraying
Buffy by being sent to a hell dimension. Considering that he's
immortal, and may have experienced centuries of pure torment, that's a
fate worse than death. We have Buffy agonizing and growing as a
character after she betrayed Angel. In the context of the series, this
seems right and appropriate.

I thought I asked someone already: what are the details of this
"betrayal by this title character ?

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
In Titanic, if the Winslet character in the end wound up with the Billy
Zane character, it would have seriously hurt that movie at the box

office,

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
no matter how dressed up, skillfully written or as Patrick Stewart on
SNL put it, having "leaves of spun sugar", it was.

Yes, but that's because the Winslet character winding up with Billy
Zane would have been out of character. If the Winslet character had
been such that winding up with Billy Zane would have been in
character, the audience would have cared a lot less about her. It's
got nothing to do with some fictitious set of rules, and everything to
do with good writing.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
The logic of the plot and characterizations *requires*
that Angel have that sword shoved through
his chest at that point in time. He must
be betrayed. But killing off the title character of a series
is *really* frowned upon, so your "rule" really can't
be followed in this case.

Unless you are now talking about a different series,
I do not see the name "Angel" in the title.

It was Buffy's show (Angel's series doesn't start 'till a couple
of years later). Mike's saying that Buffy betrayed Angel,
and therefore couldn't be

Since I do not watch this show it is difficult to discuss the show.
Describe the details of this "betrayal".
It is hard for me to imagine a star and hero of a show ever being
shown to commit real dramatic betrayal.

Buffy and Angel are/were lovers. Angelus (angel minus the soul that
the first season explained made him rather unique)
constructs/rebuilds/reconstitutes a demon that, when awake, will suck
the world into a hell dimension, effectively killing everyone in the
world. This process is started, while Angelus and Buffy are fighting,
with Buffy trying to prevent the end of the world (which was a regular
event on Buffy - her gravestone even said "She saved the world a
lot").
At this point, Willow succeeds in casting the spell she's been working
on for a couple of episodes, which is the same one that gave Angel his
soul in the first place. Angelus turns back into Angel. Buffy realizes
this, reaffirms their love, then shoves the sword through his
chest. In doing so, she is following instructions she has been given
as to the only way to stop the end of the world.
Basically, it's "I love you". Banish to hell dimension. Buffy's
punishment for this act of betrayal is mental anguish over the next
several (well, at least one) episodes, while Giles (her father figure
in the series) tries to get her to talk about what actually happened.

I see this is the betrayal. It is nonsensical to claim that this is a
'dramatic
betrayal'. "constructs/rebuilds/reconstitutes a demon that, when awake,
will suck
the world into a hell dimension" implies that this character took a
conscious
act to destroy the world. He should die, but as you state he is immortal.
Hopefully he has some reading material in this eternal condemnation.
So why would he want to destroy the world ?

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
I am surprised at the deep diabolical nature of this series. What are

the

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Hollywood Homosexuals writers and producers trying to do.
Portray Sodomy engaged hell demons as acceptable guys once
you get to know them ?

Please get off your political hobby horse, and answer the
question. Why - other than simply being better than formulaic writing
- does this betrayal not end with the death of the betrayer?

I just answered that question above. Rules that conflict then have
a pecking order. I would say that "saving the world" trumps
4 aces.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
But since I have not seen this series and you clearly do not watch
TV with the same perception that I do, it would be difficult
for you to present the important facts of the script that led up

to

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
these events.

Obviously. He disagrees with you, so he must be an ignorant hump.

No, but given the content of this thread, anyone participating on

your

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
side of the discussion would realize the importance of presenting the
details of this "betrayal" committed by the 'hero' Buffy.

Given the popularity of Buffy, I assumed you'd be familiar with it. I
was wrong. BFD. I provided the details as soon as you asked.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
You are aware that this statement just screams BIGOTTED
CONSERVATIVE TROLL, aren't you?

First, I do not care what the Truth sounds like.

Do you care that capitalizing truth makes you sound like an idiot?

Again, I do not care what The Truth sounds like.
If you disagree with anything I am saying, you are free to dispute it.
As soon as anyone in a discussion like this one fails to counter an
assertion on the facts, then it is clear that there is something

dishonest

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
about their position.
This is a public forum and you are free to support or attack anything
I or anyone else says. Just do that honestly.

You seem to be pretty good at making claims and failing to back them
up. In particular, you're using this forum to mouth homophobic slogans
without a single shred of support. I'd much prefer it if you stuck to
the point, and tried to come up with some justification of your
fictitious rules.

You know, one of the reasons it is important to talk about homosexuality
here is your and others determination to intimidate me and I assume others
from doing so. And this strategy seems to work well: most people on these
Newsgroups seem to be terrified about receiving this crazy allegation
of "homophobia". Some have tried to have my ISP pull my service even.
No scum on these Newsgroups is going to tell me what I can say and where
and when I can say it.

proof you hate everyone. and more proof you are just picking fights!

Nonsense. It is those who support Sodomy on these Newsgroups
who are full of hate.
To them the world is full of weak people to manipulate or run over.

Politics

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Second, as I have mentioned in several other debates in the BSG
Newsgroup, homosexuals are generally wealthy and
Conservative/Libertarian and want the government out of their life.

I'm curious - how many homosexuals do you know? For that manner,
how many libertarians do you know? Most of the libertarians - and
homosexuals - I know would be offended at being lumped in with the
conservatives.

Conservatives and Libertarians both agree with expunging government
from their lives. And that is what Homosexuals want to.

Um, no. Conservatives think the government should provide for the
national defense, keep people from committing "deviant sex acts", and
otherwise enforcing a moral code on the populace. Libertarians want
none of these things. Homosexuals oppose the conservative morals on
sex, and are pretty much spread out all over the political spectrum on
other issues.

Everyone supports the National Defense, even libertarians.
Right Neo-Conservatives are Conservatives who are libertarian
on moral issues and Zionist on the Middle East to the point of
mass murdering Arabs/Moslems even when there is no justification for it.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
If the homosexuals so badly want the government out of their lifes, why
are they making such a big stink about getting legal recognition from
the government for their partners?

Simple: government law protects people who are married to each other
in financial ways, since government has found it advantageous to support
family building. Homosexual unions have nothing to do with building
of families and thus are an attempt to assign government protections
to sex acts -- in this case, deviant sex acts.
For instance, when homosexuals die, which with AIDS has been
happening a lot, they want their partner to inherit their money, not

their

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
own family who rejected them when they discovered they were homosexual.

Reality check time. The homosexuals I know cared very little about
government protection. The big issue was getting employer-sponsored
health care for their SO. That's why some companies already provide
that, and some jurisdictions require that companies provide it.
None of the homosexuals I know had parents so bigoted that they
rejected their children based on their sexuality. Most were bright
enough to love their children for who they were, no matter who they
were.

Most parents I know want their children to create grandchildren, of
the biological persuasion.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Wow; you'd probably ~hate~ Firefly (about thieves, smugglers,
killers, and a whore). And Buffy/Angel (betrayal, murder, sex,
lesbianism, attempted rape,

Buffy shows lesbianism ? How so ?

Actually, Willow (one of the key characters, for the entire run of the
series) claimed to turn lesbian during the fourth season. Personally,
I always figured she was bi. After all, when Oz returns during "New
Moon Rising" , she appears to give returning to him rather than
staying with Tara - who is clearly a lesbian - some consideration.

Have they shown these two women making out ?

Yes.

That is disgusting. What channel is this crap on and what time of day ?

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
As I said, moral people cringe when they see someone who is

already

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
downtrodden, be kicked when they are down.
Ultimately, that is bad business and loses money.

Then explain the prevalence of "Reality" TV.
Mark

Question does not make sense. To some extent, I have believed that
Reality TV is a public reaction against the Hollywood Homosexual

scripts

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
coming out of Hollywood. However. the public does not realize that

the

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
same Hollywood Homosexuals produce shows like Survivor too.

The first reality tv show ever - The Gong Show - was all about kicking
people when they were down. They get up on stage and make fools of
themselves - then you publicly acknowledge that they are being fools.

I remember the Gong Show and Chuck Barris but I do not remember what
happened on that show. But generally, it is a script failure when

producers

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
rely on the extemporaneous statements of guests to entertain rather than
their own writing skills.

Reality TV doesn't *have* a script. How can something that doesn't
exist fail?

They do have producers who steer the so-called "reality"
e.g. the current Paula Adbul scandal. I doubt you could post a camera
even on the corner of 42nd St with no production and generate a
healthy audience.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
What bothers me the most about Reality TV is the tiny proportion
of the advertising revenue on these shows which ends up in the pockets
of the guests who are the true entertainers on those shows.
However, I do not consider that the average viewer consider the
contestants on these reality shows to be downtrodden.

Well, my experience is just the opposite. When I've been with people
who insisted on watching the things - which is pretty much the only
way I'll watch them - they were doing so to make fun of the people on
the show. Nuts - even scripted TV shows depict people watching reality
TV to make fun of the people on the show.

Scripted TV and the writers thereof are naturally hostile to Reality TV
for obvious reasons -- Reality TV eliminates the scriptwriter which
limits the writers' opportunities for jobs.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
In that light, the question makes an incredible amount of sense. If
most people cringe at seeing the downtrodden kicked - and it would
have to be "most people", otherwise this rule wouldn't make sense when
it comes to turning a buck - then why are shows that apparently exist
to kick the downtrodden doing so well?

Again, I do not consider reality contestants to be perceived by the

public

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
as downtrodden. However when an average citizen on one of these
shows is forced to eat worms or cockroaches, they are being downtrodden
on the show and it is weird that anyone would watch that.

You may be right - the public may not consider those people to be
downtrodden. But the public is still flocking in droves to watch
people be humiliated by doing things like eating worms and bugs, which
you say makes them downtrodden. You don't understand it, but it still
raises the question - if picking on the downtrodden is something the
public doesn't want to see, why are they flocking to reality TV?
<mike

As I just said: they do not consider the guests on those shows to be
downtrodden in their real lives. They are usually good looking people
full of verve.
Politics

[PettyFan]

On Thu, 12 May 2005 08:33:48 -0700, "John Shocked"

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Again a lot of this comes down to one's willingness
to accept make-believe
as reality. Magic is much easier to write because
anything is possible and
thus credible and the weak minded viewers do not apply
any sort of litmus test to the world portrayed.

Another thing sf and fantasy have in common - they both require the
audience to suspend disbelief.

Science Fiction requires the viewer to think creatively about the future
but not to suspend disbelief. Researchers, scientists and engineers
are often working on items which do not yet exist, but through
educated judgments they hope exist and wish to prove or implement.
What they do is controlled creative investigation.
Science Fiction writers engage in controlled creative writing.
Except when the character Q was on Star Trek: The Next Generation.

Or faster than light drives, or the interspecies breeding that runs
rampant through the ST universe (yeah, that includes Spock), or -
well, or time machines, or - well, the list goes on. If I *think*
about those things, I realize they are absurdities, requiring major
rewrites of the laws of science as we know them. Certain things shown
as "magic" bend those laws less than these examples. If I didn't
suspend my disbelieve, I'd be laughing all the way through the
show. They aren't quite as bad as "Lost In Space", but they aren't a
hell of a lot better, either.
Really, what's the difference between the infamous ST technobabble
solution to a problem, and a spell read by a witch to solve a problem?
Both are just collections of words that have no meaning in reality,
used to "explain" the solution.

I believe one encourages you and your kids to engage in the Occult
and Satanism, the other encourages you and your kids to involve
yourselves in science.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
You clearly haven't encountered much rigorously-written fantasy. There
are fantasies where the rules for magic are clearly defined for the
audience, and things outside those rules shouldn't be possible. When
such fantasy is well-written, things outside those rules don't
happen. They can be a lot like puzzle sf. I can't think of any
rigorous fantasy that's been done as video. Then again, I can't think
of any rigorous science fiction that's been done as video,
either. Even the adaptions of rigorous written science fiction to the
screen tend to screw it up.

You mean a video game ?

No, I mean taking rigorously written science fiction story and
adopting it as a movie or TV series. I've never seen that done in a
way that doesn't loose the rigor. The science fiction presented in the
movies and on tv would more accurately be called science fantasy.

Hollywood always believes it has a right to fictionalize a script
for 'creative' reasons. Heck they even claimed that Alexander The Great
was a homosexual. That is rich. And so are the wealthy fatcat
Hollywood Homosexuals who butchered this guys reputation
when he was dead and could not deny it.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Angel losing his soul and becoming Angelus (who tries
to kill everyone) is really no different than (in Andromeda terms)
if the Abyss had telepathically turned Rev Bem into Redplague
(his magog name/identity) and made him try to destroy
the Andromeda.

These sorts of transformations just are not acceptable to any other

than

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
weak minds who will literally accept any nonsense portrayed on

screen.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
I mean, if characters in the show can undergo these

"transformations",

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
what was the point of your watching the show up to that point ?

Except that this particular transformation wasn't pulled from a
hat. It was clearly explained in the previous season why Angel was
special, with the implication that changing that facet of his
character would change him in major ways. The possibility of this
transformation was foreshadowed a number of times during the second
season.

How do you change a facet of someone's character ? Character creation
is what a writer's job is. Now they can juggle the character's character
at will ?

That's called "character development". It plays a major port in
well-written fiction. Character development can be poorly done, of
course. The audience has to be willing to believe that the character,
when exposed to the events given in the story, would change in the way
described.
Fiction without character development is mindless drivel.

But a complete transformation ? This reminds me of the Atavus
element of the Earth: Final Conflict script which was just as nonsensical,
in which the Taelon alien species would transform into a devolved
malicious being based on some stimulus I forget.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Just because some producer claims that the "ratings are stale and
we need a big change" should not allow them to throw out the existing
character base and introduce a new person. If they want a new
character, have them introduce someone new to the show.
And if that means the existing
characters receive decreased air time, so be it.

This particular change wasn't "a big change for the ratings". If it
were, he wouldn't have changed back at the end of the season, or been
removed from the show for an indefinite period of time at the end of
the season.
No, these two transformations - turning evil and then turning back -
where the major story line for the second season.
Have you ever heard to what the screenwriters have to say about the
scripts they've written? I've listened to what Buffy's authors have to
say about it, and at no time do they ever make comments about doing
things to "appease the audience" or "improve ratings". They talk about

The writer's work should be on-screen. The writer publishing himself
off screen is simply a distraction. His job is to fit his ideas into
the set and existing budget of the existing show.
Of course, if a writer came forward and claimed that Kevin Sorbo
told me to write something nasty about Keith Hamilton Cobb,
I would sit up and listen to that.
Other than something like that, when these guys claim that they never
receive pressure from brass concerning ratings and budgets,
usually 'no means yes'.

I see. So writers who agree with you are to be listened to, but
writers who don't agree with you are to be ignored. That's one sure
way to ensure you're never confused by the facts.
FWIW, look at a DVD some day. Most of them come with "special
features" (so they can justify charging you for a second disk), and
many of those include writers commentaries on the product in hand.

That is anogther development in this business that damages the
integrity of the product these writers produce in that they add stuff
specially for the DVD that is in there solely to help sell the DVD,
and the more shocking and crazy that content, the more likely
it will sell the DVD. Even if it runs counter to the storyline of the
TV show people saw.
When the producer comes to the writer and states I want something
wacky on that DVD. What do you have ? You better have some
demons, and transformations and Sex, Lesbianism and Sodomy, etc.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
not having money to do things the way they'd like, or that the
problems they have finding people to put into danger (Buffy's
characters grow, usually into competent individuals - something every
moral viewer should enjoy).

"grow into competent individuals" ? Not sure I follow this.

That's *positive* character development. The characters on Buffy tend
to develop from helpless victims into people who can take care of
themselves. This is a *good* thing.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Firefly ? I have never even heard of this show.

It was an HBO series. A little check on tvtome or imdb would turn that
out. I've personally never seen it, but it always sounded
interesting. I'm hoping one of the channels I have available will pick
it up for reruns.

HBO is homosexual controlled crap. They just need to let go of
the Boxing from that channel and let some other premium channel
have that franchise, then let the Hollywood Homosexuals control the
rest of that channel.

Can you actually justify this paranoid, homophobic drivel?

I have not watched HBO in about 4 years and last I saw, that was the crap
that was on that channel. Sopranos was the only show which resisted
this content, although there was an implication of homosexuality in
one of the last episodes we saw.
Strong Sexual Content every night -- well at least they label it.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
I watched a little of DS9 but recall little of what you describe.
However, "betrayal" in drama involves a character developing another
on-screen character's trust to a point where they have expectations
of you specifically, then acting against their interests.

Now you're changing your rules to avoid the counterexamples. Betraying
your race/nation/people/history isn't sufficient. You have to betray
an individual. Well, that all happened on the "Double Helix" episode
of Andromeda.

No change at all. I have not seen some of this material to which you
refer but I just wanted to clarify this concept since you clearly
do not seen to recognize these themes in the stuff you are watching.

Oh, I recognize the themes you mention. I just recognize them for what
they are - hackwork - instead of trying to justify it as some sort of
unwritten rule of screenwriting.

Post by John Shocked
How could you possibly believe for instance that Worf's living
with humans in Star Trek: The Next Generation to be a 'dramatic
betrayal' of the Klingons ?

First, you're confusing two different people. I never mentioned
anything about Worf betraying the Klingons. Second, the person who did
point him out as an example used his siding with the Federation when
the Klingons went to war (in DS9) as that betrayal, *not* his merely
living with humans.

Of course that is an absurd conclusion, since all of Worf's trust
relationships are with the Federation. I still think he ought to be
conflicted about something like that but there is no clear loyalty path
either way.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
In other words, if you're going to bash fantasy for not being
rigorous, you should be prepared to give a healthy dose of the same
medicine to your favorite science fiction shows.

I am not sure here if you are claiming SG-1 to be one of my favorite
it is Not. I have stated on other Newsgroups within the past few weeks
in fact that Richard Dean Anderson's acting is crap and he should be

forced

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
to surrender the Executive Producer position to someone else.

Nah, I'm not claiming that SG-1 is one of your favorite science
fiction shows. I'm claiming that all televised science fiction is full
of such idiocies. Many science fiction series will include
faster-than-light travel. The only one that ever got the physics of
space travel right was Babylon 5. I've already mentioned the
interspecies breeding that runs rampant through the ST universe. Tell
me what your favorite SF series is/was. If I've seen it, I'll be glad
to tell you what's wrong with it.
I happened to pick on Stargate - the movie, not SG-1 - because it
provided a means for people to come back from the dead, which
event you were calling laughable. SG-1 got stuck with this device
because it showed up in the movie. They didn't hesitate to use it.

Richard Dean Anderson is the key guy who has prevented me
from watching that show. He is a terrible actor.
Does not even try to carry the material.
Thus I have not seen that content in that series although
I have seen some of the episodes.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Angel didn't ~stay~ dead. He returned, whole and healthy, and eventually

Actually, Angel didn't die. He was banished to a hell dimension. The
First Evil claimed to have returned him to use against Buffy, but it's
not clear whether or not the first was lying. The episode is "Amends",
which first aired as "A Buffy Christmas."

A Hell Dimension does not sound like something that kids should
be watching. It reminds me a little of Dr. Strange from way back.

I don't recall recommending Buffy for children. I don't think anyone
else has, either. Of course, they never showed us the hell
dimension. They just showed Angel being sucked into it, and falling
out of it.
Limiting your fiction to that which is suitable for children is a
serious handicap. I'm a grown up - I want my entertainment to deal
with material for grown ups. Babylon 5 had two episodes that involved
mass bombing of civilians. That's not something that I want my
children exposed to. But it happens in real life, and the series
showed it having a profound effect on the characters, which it should.

Actually, I would be somewhat disturbed if I was sitting next to someone
at work who was into demons, ghouls, zombies, lesbianism and Hell.
Do you actually talk about this stuff around the watercooler ?

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
where a Cro-Mag betrays her people
to help 'our heroes' and then at the end of the
show she is stabbed by one of her own
people whom she betrayed, even though they
were evil people who wanted to kill 'our heroes'.
It (The Dying Fields episode) was just on about 3 hours ago.

In your example, the kromagg was killed by one of the people she
betrayed. This follows the cliche. In the example I gave, the

person

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
who betrayed Angel isn't someone he knowingly betrayed.

No, the Rule is not specific on who does the killing.
Sometimes, it is accidental.
In fact, the example I gave you from The Odyssey was
accidental, but given the 'Gods' context of that show,
it was Fate or Parcae.

Fate is no accident. In both cases (Sliders and the Odyssey),
the death is presented as being directly related to the betrayal
as a sort of dramatic standard. This is simply not the case,
as Mike's Buffyverse example proved.

I have never stated that screenwriters are required to follow The

Rules.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
This entire argument started because you said that the script for
Andromeda would never have included Beka mentioning steroids
in reference to Tyr, because that would violate the rules.

Right. Most of these series do follow The Rules, so when they deviate
from them the viewer should immediately ask the question: why ?

Actually, the answer is usually obvious - they hired a writer with
some talent, rather than a formula-following hack.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
However, I would guess that many more billions of dollars have been
made by movies and series which followed The Rules in the history
of Hollywood. Hollywood only makes and adheres to rules for the
purpose of making money.

formulas for hacks to follow to turn out acceptable scripts without
needing any talent. Except your initial mention of them doesn't even
come up to that low standard.
Only elsewhere you've said that Hollywood is drifting away from the
rules due to something that sounded like paranoid delusion.

The Rules have nothing to do with restricting the creative possibilities
in a script. They more have to do with the morality of the audience and
what will make the audience happy and walk away from the movie
saying "it was great" and recommending others go see it.

Again, *how* does casting a fat person in the role of a fat person
cause the audience to change their perception of the movie? Until the
relatively recent advent of fat suits, doing otherwise would only
weaken the reality the movie was trying to create.

I cannot recall a movie where the target was the obesity of one of the
characters where the actor was indeed obese.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
And if the viewer is sitting there and watches a character betray
another in whom he had invested, he wants that betrayer to die.

Now *that* sounds like something you that's not suitable fare for
children. You're advocating the death penalty in cases that don't
involve murder - and even in those cases the death penalty is
considered by many to be to severe a punishment.

The way it normally happens is that they normally 'do it to themselves'.
"I trusted you Mike, and you betrayed me"
"I always hated you John, ever since you said that stuff about Sodomy"
"So that is what is what about. But Mike, you did not need to subscribe
to those views. You could have objected to my arguments".
"I would not dirty my hands arguing with scum like you Mark" as he backs
way...
"Mike come back ! Stop ! you're back over that....."
Splat !
"......ledge.".

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
And if that betrayer does not die, he is likely to walk away from that
movie, either consciously or subconsciously, feeling that the movie
failed and that ultimately hurts to word-of-mouth follow on business
for that movie. It is really that simple.

Only if the viewer is very simple. There are *lots* of ways to achieve
success without killing the betrayer. Taking the two examples from
Buffy I already posted, we have Angel being punished for betraying
Buffy by being sent to a hell dimension. Considering that he's
immortal, and may have experienced centuries of pure torment, that's a
fate worse than death. We have Buffy agonizing and growing as a
character after she betrayed Angel. In the context of the series, this
seems right and appropriate.

I thought I asked someone already: what are the details of this
"betrayal by this title character ?

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
In Titanic, if the Winslet character in the end wound up with the Billy
Zane character, it would have seriously hurt that movie at the box

office,

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
no matter how dressed up, skillfully written or as Patrick Stewart on
SNL put it, having "leaves of spun sugar", it was.

Yes, but that's because the Winslet character winding up with Billy
Zane would have been out of character. If the Winslet character had
been such that winding up with Billy Zane would have been in
character, the audience would have cared a lot less about her. It's
got nothing to do with some fictitious set of rules, and everything to
do with good writing.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
The logic of the plot and characterizations *requires*
that Angel have that sword shoved through
his chest at that point in time. He must
be betrayed. But killing off the title character of a series
is *really* frowned upon, so your "rule" really can't
be followed in this case.

Unless you are now talking about a different series,
I do not see the name "Angel" in the title.

It was Buffy's show (Angel's series doesn't start 'till a couple
of years later). Mike's saying that Buffy betrayed Angel,
and therefore couldn't be

Since I do not watch this show it is difficult to discuss the show.
Describe the details of this "betrayal".
It is hard for me to imagine a star and hero of a show ever being
shown to commit real dramatic betrayal.

Buffy and Angel are/were lovers. Angelus (angel minus the soul that
the first season explained made him rather unique)
constructs/rebuilds/reconstitutes a demon that, when awake, will suck
the world into a hell dimension, effectively killing everyone in the
world. This process is started, while Angelus and Buffy are fighting,
with Buffy trying to prevent the end of the world (which was a regular
event on Buffy - her gravestone even said "She saved the world a
lot").
At this point, Willow succeeds in casting the spell she's been working
on for a couple of episodes, which is the same one that gave Angel his
soul in the first place. Angelus turns back into Angel. Buffy realizes
this, reaffirms their love, then shoves the sword through his
chest. In doing so, she is following instructions she has been given
as to the only way to stop the end of the world.
Basically, it's "I love you". Banish to hell dimension. Buffy's
punishment for this act of betrayal is mental anguish over the next
several (well, at least one) episodes, while Giles (her father figure
in the series) tries to get her to talk about what actually happened.

I see this is the betrayal. It is nonsensical to claim that this is a
'dramatic
betrayal'. "constructs/rebuilds/reconstitutes a demon that, when awake,
will suck
the world into a hell dimension" implies that this character took a
conscious
act to destroy the world. He should die, but as you state he is immortal.
Hopefully he has some reading material in this eternal condemnation.
So why would he want to destroy the world ?

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
I am surprised at the deep diabolical nature of this series. What are

the

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Hollywood Homosexuals writers and producers trying to do.
Portray Sodomy engaged hell demons as acceptable guys once
you get to know them ?

Please get off your political hobby horse, and answer the
question. Why - other than simply being better than formulaic writing
- does this betrayal not end with the death of the betrayer?

I just answered that question above. Rules that conflict then have
a pecking order. I would say that "saving the world" trumps
4 aces.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
But since I have not seen this series and you clearly do not watch
TV with the same perception that I do, it would be difficult
for you to present the important facts of the script that led up

to

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
these events.

Obviously. He disagrees with you, so he must be an ignorant hump.

No, but given the content of this thread, anyone participating on

your

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
side of the discussion would realize the importance of presenting the
details of this "betrayal" committed by the 'hero' Buffy.

Given the popularity of Buffy, I assumed you'd be familiar with it. I
was wrong. BFD. I provided the details as soon as you asked.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
You are aware that this statement just screams BIGOTTED
CONSERVATIVE TROLL, aren't you?

First, I do not care what the Truth sounds like.

Do you care that capitalizing truth makes you sound like an idiot?

Again, I do not care what The Truth sounds like.
If you disagree with anything I am saying, you are free to dispute it.
As soon as anyone in a discussion like this one fails to counter an
assertion on the facts, then it is clear that there is something

dishonest

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
about their position.
This is a public forum and you are free to support or attack anything
I or anyone else says. Just do that honestly.

You seem to be pretty good at making claims and failing to back them
up. In particular, you're using this forum to mouth homophobic slogans
without a single shred of support. I'd much prefer it if you stuck to
the point, and tried to come up with some justification of your
fictitious rules.

You know, one of the reasons it is important to talk about homosexuality
here is your and others determination to intimidate me and I assume others
from doing so. And this strategy seems to work well: most people on these
Newsgroups seem to be terrified about receiving this crazy allegation
of "homophobia". Some have tried to have my ISP pull my service even.
No scum on these Newsgroups is going to tell me what I can say and where
and when I can say it.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Second, as I have mentioned in several other debates in the BSG
Newsgroup, homosexuals are generally wealthy and
Conservative/Libertarian and want the government out of their life.

I'm curious - how many homosexuals do you know? For that manner,
how many libertarians do you know? Most of the libertarians - and
homosexuals - I know would be offended at being lumped in with the
conservatives.

Conservatives and Libertarians both agree with expunging government
from their lives. And that is what Homosexuals want to.

Um, no. Conservatives think the government should provide for the
national defense, keep people from committing "deviant sex acts", and
otherwise enforcing a moral code on the populace. Libertarians want
none of these things. Homosexuals oppose the conservative morals on
sex, and are pretty much spread out all over the political spectrum on
other issues.

Everyone supports the National Defense, even libertarians.
Right Neo-Conservatives are Conservatives who are libertarian
on moral issues and Zionist on the Middle East to the point of
mass murdering Arabs/Moslems even when there is no justification for it.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
If the homosexuals so badly want the government out of their lifes, why
are they making such a big stink about getting legal recognition from
the government for their partners?

Simple: government law protects people who are married to each other
in financial ways, since government has found it advantageous to support
family building. Homosexual unions have nothing to do with building
of families and thus are an attempt to assign government protections
to sex acts -- in this case, deviant sex acts.
For instance, when homosexuals die, which with AIDS has been
happening a lot, they want their partner to inherit their money, not

their

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
own family who rejected them when they discovered they were homosexual.

Reality check time. The homosexuals I know cared very little about
government protection. The big issue was getting employer-sponsored
health care for their SO. That's why some companies already provide
that, and some jurisdictions require that companies provide it.
None of the homosexuals I know had parents so bigoted that they
rejected their children based on their sexuality. Most were bright
enough to love their children for who they were, no matter who they
were.

Most parents I know want their children to create grandchildren, of
the biological persuasion.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Wow; you'd probably ~hate~ Firefly (about thieves, smugglers,
killers, and a whore). And Buffy/Angel (betrayal, murder, sex,
lesbianism, attempted rape,

Buffy shows lesbianism ? How so ?

Actually, Willow (one of the key characters, for the entire run of the
series) claimed to turn lesbian during the fourth season. Personally,
I always figured she was bi. After all, when Oz returns during "New
Moon Rising" , she appears to give returning to him rather than
staying with Tara - who is clearly a lesbian - some consideration.

Have they shown these two women making out ?

Yes.

That is disgusting. What channel is this crap on and what time of day ?

proof that it turns you on! as if it did not you would not care!

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
As I said, moral people cringe when they see someone who is

already

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
downtrodden, be kicked when they are down.
Ultimately, that is bad business and loses money.

Then explain the prevalence of "Reality" TV.
Mark

Question does not make sense. To some extent, I have believed that
Reality TV is a public reaction against the Hollywood Homosexual

scripts

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
coming out of Hollywood. However. the public does not realize that

the

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
same Hollywood Homosexuals produce shows like Survivor too.

The first reality tv show ever - The Gong Show - was all about kicking
people when they were down. They get up on stage and make fools of
themselves - then you publicly acknowledge that they are being fools.

I remember the Gong Show and Chuck Barris but I do not remember what
happened on that show. But generally, it is a script failure when

producers

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
rely on the extemporaneous statements of guests to entertain rather than
their own writing skills.

Reality TV doesn't *have* a script. How can something that doesn't
exist fail?

They do have producers who steer the so-called "reality"
e.g. the current Paula Adbul scandal. I doubt you could post a camera
even on the corner of 42nd St with no production and generate a
healthy audience.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
What bothers me the most about Reality TV is the tiny proportion
of the advertising revenue on these shows which ends up in the pockets
of the guests who are the true entertainers on those shows.
However, I do not consider that the average viewer consider the
contestants on these reality shows to be downtrodden.

Well, my experience is just the opposite. When I've been with people
who insisted on watching the things - which is pretty much the only
way I'll watch them - they were doing so to make fun of the people on
the show. Nuts - even scripted TV shows depict people watching reality
TV to make fun of the people on the show.

Scripted TV and the writers thereof are naturally hostile to Reality TV
for obvious reasons -- Reality TV eliminates the scriptwriter which
limits the writers' opportunities for jobs.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
In that light, the question makes an incredible amount of sense. If
most people cringe at seeing the downtrodden kicked - and it would
have to be "most people", otherwise this rule wouldn't make sense when
it comes to turning a buck - then why are shows that apparently exist
to kick the downtrodden doing so well?

Again, I do not consider reality contestants to be perceived by the

public

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
as downtrodden. However when an average citizen on one of these
shows is forced to eat worms or cockroaches, they are being downtrodden
on the show and it is weird that anyone would watch that.

You may be right - the public may not consider those people to be
downtrodden. But the public is still flocking in droves to watch
people be humiliated by doing things like eating worms and bugs, which
you say makes them downtrodden. You don't understand it, but it still
raises the question - if picking on the downtrodden is something the
public doesn't want to see, why are they flocking to reality TV?
<mike

As I just said: they do not consider the guests on those shows to be
downtrodden in their real lives. They are usually good looking people
full of verve.
Politics

[Mike Meyer]

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
Really, what's the difference between the infamous ST technobabble
solution to a problem, and a spell read by a witch to solve a problem?
Both are just collections of words that have no meaning in reality,
used to "explain" the solution.

I believe one encourages you and your kids to engage in the Occult
and Satanism, the other encourages you and your kids to involve
yourselves in science.

We now switch from comparing quality - which we were doing - to
comparing the effect of the show on the audience. I take it you've
given up on the quality issue.

By your own admission, you don't watch "magic" shows. As such, it's no
surprise that your beliefs about them are totally and completely
wrong. I've seen nary a touch of Satanism in any of them. Then again,
Satan is a invention of the christian mythos. Other religions don't
believe in that particular diety - which includes witches and other
pagans. Almost inevitably, in a series the protagonists are set up as
a force for good, fighting the forces of evil - after all, how much
interest is there going to be in a show where the hero is a mean
sumbitch perpetually doing wrong? As such, these shows encourage good
behavior in your kids, to about the same extent that science fiction
shows do.

"Occult" is an ambiguous term, used by christians to label pretty much
any religious practice they don't agree with. Personally, I want my
kids exposed to as many different religiouns as possible. That way
they are more likely to choose one they are comfortable with, and lead
happier lifes. Anything that encourages them to stretch their mind and
explore other cultures and ethos is welcome in my house.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
You clearly haven't encountered much rigorously-written fantasy. There
are fantasies where the rules for magic are clearly defined for the
audience, and things outside those rules shouldn't be possible. When
such fantasy is well-written, things outside those rules don't
happen. They can be a lot like puzzle sf. I can't think of any
rigorous fantasy that's been done as video. Then again, I can't think
of any rigorous science fiction that's been done as video,
either. Even the adaptions of rigorous written science fiction to the
screen tend to screw it up.

You mean a video game ?

No, I mean taking rigorously written science fiction story and
adopting it as a movie or TV series. I've never seen that done in a
way that doesn't loose the rigor. The science fiction presented in the
movies and on tv would more accurately be called science fantasy.

Hollywood always believes it has a right to fictionalize a script
for 'creative' reasons. Heck they even claimed that Alexander The Great
was a homosexual. That is rich. And so are the wealthy fatcat
Hollywood Homosexuals who butchered this guys reputation
when he was dead and could not deny it.

Once again, you've abandoned the point to make a bogus political
claim. Further, you do it in a way that makes my point for
me. Hollywood typically removes the rigor from stories they present on
screen. As such, they water down the science fiction and fantasy to
the point where the viewer has little choice but to accept whatever
they choose to do - or laugh in derision.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Angel losing his soul and becoming Angelus (who tries
to kill everyone) is really no different than (in Andromeda terms)
if the Abyss had telepathically turned Rev Bem into Redplague
(his magog name/identity) and made him try to destroy
the Andromeda.

These sorts of transformations just are not acceptable to any other

than

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
weak minds who will literally accept any nonsense portrayed on

screen.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
I mean, if characters in the show can undergo these

"transformations",

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
what was the point of your watching the show up to that point ?

Except that this particular transformation wasn't pulled from a
hat. It was clearly explained in the previous season why Angel was
special, with the implication that changing that facet of his
character would change him in major ways. The possibility of this
transformation was foreshadowed a number of times during the second
season.

How do you change a facet of someone's character ? Character creation
is what a writer's job is. Now they can juggle the character's character
at will ?

That's called "character development". It plays a major port in
well-written fiction. Character development can be poorly done, of
course. The audience has to be willing to believe that the character,
when exposed to the events given in the story, would change in the way
described.
Fiction without character development is mindless drivel.

But a complete transformation ? This reminds me of the Atavus
element of the Earth: Final Conflict script which was just as nonsensical,
in which the Taelon alien species would transform into a devolved
malicious being based on some stimulus I forget.

Sure, a complete transformation - and back. It's made clear in season
one that Angel is different from other vampires because he has a soul,
and before he had a soul he was just as evil as all the other
vampires. So the writers - with suitable foreshadowings and warnings -
strip him of his soul, and he reverts to type. Later on, with similar
foreshadowings and warnings, they give it back - and he reverts to his
previous behavior.

Look at what we're doing here - encouraging the belief in a
soul. Encouraging the belief that souls are responsible for the good
in people.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Just because some producer claims that the "ratings are stale and
we need a big change" should not allow them to throw out the existing
character base and introduce a new person. If they want a new
character, have them introduce someone new to the show.
And if that means the existing
characters receive decreased air time, so be it.

This particular change wasn't "a big change for the ratings". If it
were, he wouldn't have changed back at the end of the season, or been
removed from the show for an indefinite period of time at the end of
the season.
No, these two transformations - turning evil and then turning back -
where the major story line for the second season.
Have you ever heard to what the screenwriters have to say about the
scripts they've written? I've listened to what Buffy's authors have to
say about it, and at no time do they ever make comments about doing
things to "appease the audience" or "improve ratings". They talk about

The writer's work should be on-screen. The writer publishing himself
off screen is simply a distraction. His job is to fit his ideas into
the set and existing budget of the existing show.
Of course, if a writer came forward and claimed that Kevin Sorbo
told me to write something nasty about Keith Hamilton Cobb,
I would sit up and listen to that.
Other than something like that, when these guys claim that they never
receive pressure from brass concerning ratings and budgets,
usually 'no means yes'.

I see. So writers who agree with you are to be listened to, but
writers who don't agree with you are to be ignored. That's one sure
way to ensure you're never confused by the facts.
FWIW, look at a DVD some day. Most of them come with "special
features" (so they can justify charging you for a second disk), and
many of those include writers commentaries on the product in hand.

That is anogther development in this business that damages the
integrity of the product these writers produce in that they add stuff
specially for the DVD that is in there solely to help sell the DVD,
and the more shocking and crazy that content, the more likely
it will sell the DVD. Even if it runs counter to the storyline of the
TV show people saw.
When the producer comes to the writer and states I want something
wacky on that DVD. What do you have ? You better have some
demons, and transformations and Sex, Lesbianism and Sodomy, etc.

I take it you've never actually looked at the extras on a DVD? I defy
you to find one that adds any of those things to a show that didn't
have them before. Or a writers/whatever commentary that goes much
beyond explaining *why* things were done the way they were done, or
gives you an insite into the show that didn't exist before.

You really should hold off on judging things until you've actually
checked them out.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
Can you actually justify this paranoid, homophobic drivel?

I have not watched HBO in about 4 years and last I saw, that was the crap
that was on that channel. Sopranos was the only show which resisted
this content, although there was an implication of homosexuality in
one of the last episodes we saw.
Strong Sexual Content every night -- well at least they label it.

Sure you're not thinking of Skinemax? That's the premium selection
that gets strong sexual content every night

I don't watch much of the series on HBO. I used to watch Arliss, which
was a comedy about a sports agent. No homosexuality that I ever saw -
though sex did enter into the show. After all, it was an adult
comedy. The movies range from pure family fair on HBO Family to some -
very rare - skin flicks on the other channels. Nothing hardcore
anywhere (then again, I'm in a red state where hardcore is illegal, so
I wouldn't see it if it was available). The movies mostly tended to be
stuff that had seen theatre release. I.e. - it wasn't any worse than
any other source of movies you're liable to run into.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
First, you're confusing two different people. I never mentioned
anything about Worf betraying the Klingons. Second, the person who did
point him out as an example used his siding with the Federation when
the Klingons went to war (in DS9) as that betrayal, *not* his merely
living with humans.

Of course that is an absurd conclusion, since all of Worf's trust
relationships are with the Federation. I still think he ought to be
conflicted about something like that but there is no clear loyalty path
either way.

You forget that Worf had fammily - that he trusted, and that trusted
him - in the Klingon Empire. At least until his betrayal of the
Klingon Empire caused the Empire to basically destroy the family. His
brother even came to DS9 to complain about Worf having betrayed his
family.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
Nah, I'm not claiming that SG-1 is one of your favorite science
fiction shows. I'm claiming that all televised science fiction is full
of such idiocies. Many science fiction series will include
faster-than-light travel. The only one that ever got the physics of
space travel right was Babylon 5. I've already mentioned the
interspecies breeding that runs rampant through the ST universe. Tell
me what your favorite SF series is/was. If I've seen it, I'll be glad
to tell you what's wrong with it.
I happened to pick on Stargate - the movie, not SG-1 - because it
provided a means for people to come back from the dead, which
event you were calling laughable. SG-1 got stuck with this device
because it showed up in the movie. They didn't hesitate to use it.

Richard Dean Anderson is the key guy who has prevented me
from watching that show. He is a terrible actor.
Does not even try to carry the material.
Thus I have not seen that content in that series although
I have seen some of the episodes.

Why do you keep harping on things you've already said. Answer the
question, all right all ready. What's your favorite science fiction
show?

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
Limiting your fiction to that which is suitable for children is a
serious handicap. I'm a grown up - I want my entertainment to deal
with material for grown ups. Babylon 5 had two episodes that involved
mass bombing of civilians. That's not something that I want my
children exposed to. But it happens in real life, and the series
showed it having a profound effect on the characters, which it should.

Actually, I would be somewhat disturbed if I was sitting next to someone
at work who was into demons, ghouls, zombies, lesbianism and Hell.
Do you actually talk about this stuff around the watercooler ?

I think you're confusing reality and and make-believe again. Demons,
ghouls, zombies and Hell are make-believe. Discussing them is no more
disturbing to me than discussing other make-believe things, like warp
drive engines, phasers, and transporters.

I'm not sure why lesbianism belongs on that list, but I've certainly
worked with lesbians in the past. Like most rational people, they
considered their choice of sexual partners *their business*, and
didn't discuss it at work - or at office parties. No more than I
discussed my choice of sexual partners with them.

On the other hand, mass bombings are reality. Various governments have
perpetrated such horrors on civilians in the past. Discussing these -
except in terms of deepest contempt and possibly shame - bother me no
end. There are some things that are simply inappropriate for polite
conversation.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
However, I would guess that many more billions of dollars have been
made by movies and series which followed The Rules in the history
of Hollywood. Hollywood only makes and adheres to rules for the
purpose of making money.

formulas for hacks to follow to turn out acceptable scripts without
needing any talent. Except your initial mention of them doesn't even
come up to that low standard.
Only elsewhere you've said that Hollywood is drifting away from the
rules due to something that sounded like paranoid delusion.

The Rules have nothing to do with restricting the creative possibilities
in a script. They more have to do with the morality of the audience and
what will make the audience happy and walk away from the movie
saying "it was great" and recommending others go see it.

Again, *how* does casting a fat person in the role of a fat person
cause the audience to change their perception of the movie? Until the
relatively recent advent of fat suits, doing otherwise would only
weaken the reality the movie was trying to create.

I cannot recall a movie where the target was the obesity of one of the
characters where the actor was indeed obese.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - unless you're now
claiming to have seen every movie ever made. Of course, you've once
again failed to answer the question. *how* does doing that change the
way the audience percieves the movie?

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
And if the viewer is sitting there and watches a character betray
another in whom he had invested, he wants that betrayer to die.

Now *that* sounds like something you that's not suitable fare for
children. You're advocating the death penalty in cases that don't
involve murder - and even in those cases the death penalty is
considered by many to be to severe a punishment.

The way it normally happens is that they normally 'do it to themselves'.

In other words, it's just hack writing. But it still caters to the
bloodthirsty, immoral savage in the audience. So much for your claims
that they are pandering to the "average moral viewer".

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
And if that betrayer does not die, he is likely to walk away from that
movie, either consciously or subconsciously, feeling that the movie
failed and that ultimately hurts to word-of-mouth follow on business
for that movie. It is really that simple.

Only if the viewer is very simple. There are *lots* of ways to achieve
success without killing the betrayer. Taking the two examples from
Buffy I already posted, we have Angel being punished for betraying
Buffy by being sent to a hell dimension. Considering that he's
immortal, and may have experienced centuries of pure torment, that's a
fate worse than death. We have Buffy agonizing and growing as a
character after she betrayed Angel. In the context of the series, this
seems right and appropriate.

I thought I asked someone already: what are the details of this
"betrayal by this title character ?

I gave them to you. You chose to focus on other aspects of the
description. You want to read them, go back and do it.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
The logic of the plot and characterizations *requires*
that Angel have that sword shoved through
his chest at that point in time. He must
be betrayed. But killing off the title character of a series
is *really* frowned upon, so your "rule" really can't
be followed in this case.

Unless you are now talking about a different series,
I do not see the name "Angel" in the title.

It was Buffy's show (Angel's series doesn't start 'till a couple
of years later). Mike's saying that Buffy betrayed Angel,
and therefore couldn't be

Since I do not watch this show it is difficult to discuss the show.
Describe the details of this "betrayal".
It is hard for me to imagine a star and hero of a show ever being
shown to commit real dramatic betrayal.

Buffy and Angel are/were lovers. Angelus (angel minus the soul that
the first season explained made him rather unique)
constructs/rebuilds/reconstitutes a demon that, when awake, will suck
the world into a hell dimension, effectively killing everyone in the
world. This process is started, while Angelus and Buffy are fighting,
with Buffy trying to prevent the end of the world (which was a regular
event on Buffy - her gravestone even said "She saved the world a
lot").
At this point, Willow succeeds in casting the spell she's been working
on for a couple of episodes, which is the same one that gave Angel his
soul in the first place. Angelus turns back into Angel. Buffy realizes
this, reaffirms their love, then shoves the sword through his
chest. In doing so, she is following instructions she has been given
as to the only way to stop the end of the world.
Basically, it's "I love you". Banish to hell dimension. Buffy's
punishment for this act of betrayal is mental anguish over the next
several (well, at least one) episodes, while Giles (her father figure
in the series) tries to get her to talk about what actually happened.

I see this is the betrayal.

You've got a dangling "this". Please state exactly what it is you see
as the betrayal.

Post by John Shocked
Hopefully he has some reading material in this eternal condemnation.

Nah, he's being tortured for the entire period. Remember, he's being
punished for a basically evil act.

Post by John Shocked
So why would he want to destroy the world ?

Because he ain't human, and doesn't have a soul. In a truly amazing
act of writing, they managed to provide a non-human character with a
motive that humans don't understand. It's a rare thing, but it does
happen every now and then.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
Please get off your political hobby horse, and answer the
question. Why - other than simply being better than formulaic writing
- does this betrayal not end with the death of the betrayer?

I just answered that question above. Rules that conflict then have
a pecking order. I would say that "saving the world" trumps
4 aces.

No, you didn't answer that question. At least, you didn't do so
clearly. But it appears that you once again provide an "exception" to
your "rule". At this rate, your rules will soon be more exception than
rule.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
You seem to be pretty good at making claims and failing to back them
up. In particular, you're using this forum to mouth homophobic slogans
without a single shred of support. I'd much prefer it if you stuck to
the point, and tried to come up with some justification of your
fictitious rules.

You know, one of the reasons it is important to talk about homosexuality
here is your and others determination to intimidate me and I assume others
from doing so. And this strategy seems to work well: most people on these
Newsgroups seem to be terrified about receiving this crazy allegation
of "homophobia". Some have tried to have my ISP pull my service even.
No scum on these Newsgroups is going to tell me what I can say and where
and when I can say it.

Except you don't talk about homosexuality, except to say that it's
bad. You have as yet to provide a single reason why it's bad. All you
do is rant about how bad it is. If you want to talk about it, then
talk about it, and quit bitching about how evil it is. If you don't
want to talk about it, then shut up about it, and stick to the point.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Second, as I have mentioned in several other debates in the BSG
Newsgroup, homosexuals are generally wealthy and
Conservative/Libertarian and want the government out of their life.

I'm curious - how many homosexuals do you know? For that manner,
how many libertarians do you know? Most of the libertarians - and
homosexuals - I know would be offended at being lumped in with the
conservatives.

Conservatives and Libertarians both agree with expunging government
from their lives. And that is what Homosexuals want to.

Um, no. Conservatives think the government should provide for the
national defense, keep people from committing "deviant sex acts", and
otherwise enforcing a moral code on the populace. Libertarians want
none of these things. Homosexuals oppose the conservative morals on
sex, and are pretty much spread out all over the political spectrum on
other issues.

Everyone supports the National Defense, even libertarians.

Now *that's* funny. Google for "libertarian national defense". The
first link that comes up is a description of a book by libertarians
debunking the myth of national defense. Libertarians can't even agree
that a court system ought to be provided by the government, much less
national defense.

And libertarians aren't even the most radical anti-government
political group around. Try talking to some anarchists.

Post by John Shocked
Right Neo-Conservatives are Conservatives who are libertarian
on moral issues and Zionist on the Middle East to the point of
mass murdering Arabs/Moslems even when there is no justification for it.

Well, "libertarian on moral issues" pretty much means the same thing
as "liberal on moral issues", so calling them neo-liberals would be
equally accurate. Except that racism to the level of mass murder of
arabs/moslems isn't a conservative value - the conservatives just want
to install puppet governments in all the arab/moslem states. So
neo-liberal is actually *more* accurate than neo-conservative.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
None of the homosexuals I know had parents so bigoted that they
rejected their children based on their sexuality. Most were bright
enough to love their children for who they were, no matter who they
were.

Most parents I know want their children to create grandchildren, of
the biological persuasion.

As if sexual preference had something to do with whether or not you
have biological children. People chose not to have children for lots
of reasons. And, since you claim to think about science, you might
have noticed that nothing prevents homosexuals from having biological
children.

Of course, any parent who places their own wants above the happiness
of their children isn't much of a parent in my book, no matter *what*
the reason that the child decides not to have children.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Wow; you'd probably ~hate~ Firefly (about thieves, smugglers,
killers, and a whore). And Buffy/Angel (betrayal, murder, sex,
lesbianism, attempted rape,

Buffy shows lesbianism ? How so ?

Actually, Willow (one of the key characters, for the entire run of the
series) claimed to turn lesbian during the fourth season. Personally,
I always figured she was bi. After all, when Oz returns during "New
Moon Rising" , she appears to give returning to him rather than
staying with Tara - who is clearly a lesbian - some consideration.

Have they shown these two women making out ?

Yes.

That is disgusting. What channel is this crap on and what time of day ?

Actually, since the scene that came to mind was a male characters
fantasy about a three way while his girlfriend (or was she his fiancee
at the time?) watched, it's disgusting to most lesbians as well.

If you're going to let a little sexual squeamishness - after all,
didn't your sisters kiss your mother goodbye and goodnight and the
like - deprive you of some of the best written f&sf on tv, that's your
loss.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
I remember the Gong Show and Chuck Barris but I do not remember what
happened on that show. But generally, it is a script failure when

producers

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
rely on the extemporaneous statements of guests to entertain rather than
their own writing skills.

Reality TV doesn't *have* a script. How can something that doesn't
exist fail?

They do have producers who steer the so-called "reality"
e.g. the current Paula Adbul scandal. I doubt you could post a camera
even on the corner of 42nd St with no production and generate a
healthy audience.

The Paula Abdul scandal seems to support the point that they don't
have scripts. She's being accused of coaching one of the contestants,
and this is viewed as a *bad* thing, that shouldn't have happened.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
Well, my experience is just the opposite. When I've been with people
who insisted on watching the things - which is pretty much the only
way I'll watch them - they were doing so to make fun of the people on
the show. Nuts - even scripted TV shows depict people watching reality
TV to make fun of the people on the show.

Scripted TV and the writers thereof are naturally hostile to Reality TV
for obvious reasons -- Reality TV eliminates the scriptwriter which
limits the writers' opportunities for jobs.

In other words, reality tv doesn't have a script - which is what I
said.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
In that light, the question makes an incredible amount of sense. If
most people cringe at seeing the downtrodden kicked - and it would
have to be "most people", otherwise this rule wouldn't make sense when
it comes to turning a buck - then why are shows that apparently exist
to kick the downtrodden doing so well?

Again, I do not consider reality contestants to be perceived by the

public

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
as downtrodden. However when an average citizen on one of these
shows is forced to eat worms or cockroaches, they are being downtrodden
on the show and it is weird that anyone would watch that.

You may be right - the public may not consider those people to be
downtrodden. But the public is still flocking in droves to watch
people be humiliated by doing things like eating worms and bugs, which
you say makes them downtrodden. You don't understand it, but it still
raises the question - if picking on the downtrodden is something the
public doesn't want to see, why are they flocking to reality TV?

As I just said: they do not consider the guests on those shows to be
downtrodden in their real lives. They are usually good looking people
full of verve.

You must be watching a different set of realty tv programs than I
am. The ones I see range from barely average to downright ugly. Some
are even fat - and get called fat by others on the shows. The people I
watch them with *clearly* consider the particpants to be downtrodden
in some way or another. Do you have any evidence other than your own
opinion?

<mike

[John Shocked]

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
Really, what's the difference between the infamous ST technobabble
solution to a problem, and a spell read by a witch to solve a problem?
Both are just collections of words that have no meaning in reality,
used to "explain" the solution.

I believe one encourages you and your kids to engage in the Occult
and Satanism, the other encourages you and your kids to involve
yourselves in science.

We now switch from comparing quality - which we were doing - to
comparing the effect of the show on the audience. I take it you've
given up on the quality issue.

The intended effect definitely has a lot to do with the quality, on a per se
basis, but also, shows that take short cuts to generate buzz by shocking
people with deviant and perverse muck do so because they have no
other qualities to put forth.

Post by Mike Meyer
By your own admission, you don't watch "magic" shows. As such, it's no
surprise that your beliefs about them are totally and completely
wrong. I've seen nary a touch of Satanism in any of them. Then again,
Satan is a invention of the christian mythos. Other religions don't
believe in that particular diety - which includes witches and other
pagans. Almost inevitably, in a series the protagonists are set up as
a force for good, fighting the forces of evil - after all, how much
interest is there going to be in a show where the hero is a mean
sumbitch perpetually doing wrong? As such, these shows encourage good
behavior in your kids, to about the same extent that science fiction
shows do.
"Occult" is an ambiguous term, used by christians to label pretty much
any religious practice they don't agree with. Personally, I want my
kids exposed to as many different religiouns as possible. That way
they are more likely to choose one they are comfortable with, and lead
happier lifes. Anything that encourages them to stretch their mind and
explore other cultures and ethos is welcome in my house.

Do you find that Christians consider atheists, catholics, protestants, jews
or buddhists as Satanists ?

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
You clearly haven't encountered much rigorously-written fantasy. There
are fantasies where the rules for magic are clearly defined for the
audience, and things outside those rules shouldn't be possible. When
such fantasy is well-written, things outside those rules don't
happen. They can be a lot like puzzle sf. I can't think of any
rigorous fantasy that's been done as video. Then again, I can't think
of any rigorous science fiction that's been done as video,
either. Even the adaptions of rigorous written science fiction to the
screen tend to screw it up.

You mean a video game ?

No, I mean taking rigorously written science fiction story and
adopting it as a movie or TV series. I've never seen that done in a
way that doesn't loose the rigor. The science fiction presented in the
movies and on tv would more accurately be called science fantasy.

Hollywood always believes it has a right to fictionalize a script
for 'creative' reasons. Heck they even claimed that Alexander
The Great was a homosexual. That is rich. And so are the wealthy
fatcat Hollywood Homosexuals who butchered this guys reputation
when he was dead and could not deny it.

Once again, you've abandoned the point to make a bogus political
claim. Further, you do it in a way that makes my point for
me. Hollywood typically removes the rigor from stories they present on
screen. As such, they water down the science fiction and fantasy to
the point where the viewer has little choice but to accept whatever
they choose to do - or laugh in derision.

It is Hollywood Homosexuals abusing that man and others dead
names to make cheap political and cultural points that is the reality
here. Let us assume you are not a Homosexual. Would
you be happy if after you were dead, some punk in Hollywood claimed
that you were a flaming homosexual and used your name to promote
its own selfish agenda of selling Sodomy to others people and their kids ?

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Angel losing his soul and becoming Angelus (who tries
to kill everyone) is really no different than (in Andromeda terms)
if the Abyss had telepathically turned Rev Bem into Redplague
(his magog name/identity) and made him try to destroy
the Andromeda.

These sorts of transformations just are not acceptable
to any other than weak minds who will literally accept
any nonsense portrayed on screen.
I mean, if characters in the show can undergo these
"transformations", what was the point of your watching
the show up to that point ?

Except that this particular transformation wasn't pulled from a
hat. It was clearly explained in the previous season why Angel
was special, with the implication that changing that facet of his
character would change him in major ways. The possibility of this
transformation was foreshadowed a number of times during the
second season.

How do you change a facet of someone's character ? Character
creation is what a writer's job is. Now they can juggle the

character's

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
character at will ?

That's called "character development". It plays a major port in
well-written fiction. Character development can be poorly done, of
course. The audience has to be willing to believe that the character,
when exposed to the events given in the story, would change in the way
described.
Fiction without character development is mindless drivel.

But a complete transformation ? This reminds me of the Atavus
element of the Earth: Final Conflict script which was just as nonsensical,
in which the Taelon alien species would transform into a devolved
malicious being based on some stimulus I forget.

Sure, a complete transformation - and back. It's made clear in season
one that Angel is different from other vampires because he has a soul,
and before he had a soul he was just as evil as all the other
vampires. So the writers - with suitable foreshadowings and warnings -
strip him of his soul, and he reverts to type. Later on, with similar
foreshadowings and warnings, they give it back - and he reverts to his
previous behavior.
Look at what we're doing here - encouraging the belief in a
soul. Encouraging the belief that souls are responsible for the good
in people.

Why not introduce a new actor to the show to play this vampire with a soul
part, rather than corrupt the existing character of one of the existing
characters
in the show ?
You appear to have a misunderstanding of the term "character development".
This term applies to the ongoing presentation of character traits from one
of the cast in order to bring a more full understanding of that cast member
to
the viewer. Not throwing all possible character traits into hat and then
playing pot luck with all cast members and hoping what pops out
attracts new viewers.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Just because some producer claims that the "ratings are stale and
we need a big change" should not allow them to throw out the existing
character base and introduce a new person. If they want a new
character, have them introduce someone new to the show.
And if that means the existing
characters receive decreased air time, so be it.

This particular change wasn't "a big change for the ratings". If it
were, he wouldn't have changed back at the end of the season,
or been removed from the show for an indefinite period of time
at the end of the season.
No, these two transformations - turning evil and then turning back -
where the major story line for the second season.
Have you ever heard to what the screenwriters have to say about the
scripts they've written? I've listened to what Buffy's authors have to
say about it, and at no time do they ever make comments about doing
things to "appease the audience" or "improve ratings". They talk about

The writer's work should be on-screen. The writer publishing himself
off screen is simply a distraction. His job is to fit his ideas into
the set and existing budget of the existing show.
Of course, if a writer came forward and claimed that Kevin Sorbo
told me to write something nasty about Keith Hamilton Cobb,
I would sit up and listen to that.
Other than something like that, when these guys claim that they never
receive pressure from brass concerning ratings and budgets,
usually 'no means yes'.

I see. So writers who agree with you are to be listened to, but
writers who don't agree with you are to be ignored. That's one sure
way to ensure you're never confused by the facts.
FWIW, look at a DVD some day. Most of them come with "special
features" (so they can justify charging you for a second disk), and
many of those include writers commentaries on the product in hand.

That is another development in this business that damages the
integrity of the product these writers produce in that they add stuff
specially for the DVD that is in there solely to help sell the DVD,
and the more shocking and crazy that content, the more likely
it will sell the DVD. Even if it runs counter to the storyline of the
TV show people saw.
When the producer comes to the writer and states I want something
wacky on that DVD. What do you have ? You better have some
demons, and transformations and Sex, Lesbianism and Sodomy, etc.

I take it you've never actually looked at the extras on a DVD? I defy
you to find one that adds any of those things to a show that didn't
have them before. Or a writers/whatever commentary that goes much
beyond explaining *why* things were done the way they were done, or
gives you an insite into the show that didn't exist before.

I have never bought a DVD, partly because so many DVD sales
people on Newsgroups like these try to pose deceitfully as
'just another viewer' and continually advertise them.

Post by Mike Meyer
You really should hold off on judging things until you've actually
checked them out.

I hear about contents of DVDs all the time which have this stupid crap
on them in order to drive the sales of the DVD as a separate item.
And that corrupts the integrity of the script, adding crap to the DVD
just to sell it regardless of the script integrity.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
Can you actually justify this paranoid, homophobic drivel?

I have not watched HBO in about 4 years and last I saw, that was the crap
that was on that channel. Sopranos was the only show which resisted
this content, although there was an implication of homosexuality in
one of the last episodes we saw.
Strong Sexual Content every night -- well at least they label it.

Sure you're not thinking of Skinemax? That's the premium selection
that gets strong sexual content every night
I don't watch much of the series on HBO. I used to watch Arliss, which
was a comedy about a sports agent. No homosexuality that I ever saw -
though sex did enter into the show. After all, it was an adult
comedy. The movies range from pure family fair on HBO Family to some -
very rare - skin flicks on the other channels. Nothing hardcore
anywhere (then again, I'm in a red state where hardcore is illegal, so
I wouldn't see it if it was available). The movies mostly tended to be
stuff that had seen theatre release. I.e. - it wasn't any worse than
any other source of movies you're liable to run into.

I am pretty certain there were episodes of Arliss where he
represented a closet homosexual athlete.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
First, you're confusing two different people. I never mentioned
anything about Worf betraying the Klingons. Second, the person who
did point him out as an example used his siding with the Federation
when the Klingons went to war (in DS9) as that betrayal, *not* his
merely living with humans.

Of course that is an absurd conclusion, since all of Worf's trust
relationships are with the Federation. I still think he ought to be
conflicted about something like that but there is no clear loyalty path
either way.

You forget that Worf had family - that he trusted, and that trusted
him - in the Klingon Empire. At least until his betrayal of the
Klingon Empire caused the Empire to basically destroy the family. His
brother even came to DS9 to complain about Worf having betrayed his
family.

I did not watch enough of that series to see that but as I have already
stated, Worf if I recall correctly was adopted by humans and those
humans raised his son. Worf spent most of his life around humans
and thus the only bond he had with Klingons was genetic, which are
significant, but not dispositive, given his life.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
Nah, I'm not claiming that SG-1 is one of your favorite science
fiction shows. I'm claiming that all televised science fiction is full
of such idiocies. Many science fiction series will include
faster-than-light travel. The only one that ever got the physics of
space travel right was Babylon 5. I've already mentioned the
interspecies breeding that runs rampant through the ST universe.
Tell me what your favorite SF series is/was. If I've seen it, I'll be
glad to tell you what's wrong with it.
I happened to pick on Stargate - the movie, not SG-1 - because it
provided a means for people to come back from the dead, which
event you were calling laughable. SG-1 got stuck with this device
because it showed up in the movie. They didn't hesitate to use it.

Richard Dean Anderson is the key guy who has prevented me
from watching that show. He is a terrible actor.
Does not even try to carry the material.
Thus I have not seen that content in that series although
I have seen some of the episodes.

Why do you keep harping on things you've already said. Answer the
question, all right all ready. What's your favorite science fiction
show?

I do not have a favorite. But Star Trek: The Next Generation was
the last of the Star Treks that I watched, since its successor,
Deep Space Nine introduced a huge amount of homosexual muck to the
storyline and caused most viewers to switch it off.
As I have mentioned I did watch Earth: Final Conflict which was
a good show.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
Limiting your fiction to that which is suitable for children is a
serious handicap. I'm a grown up - I want my entertainment to deal
with material for grown ups. Babylon 5 had two episodes that involved
mass bombing of civilians. That's not something that I want my
children exposed to. But it happens in real life, and the series
showed it having a profound effect on the characters, which it should.

Actually, I would be somewhat disturbed if I was sitting next to someone
at work who was into demons, ghouls, zombies, lesbianism and Hell.
Do you actually talk about this stuff around the watercooler ?

I think you're confusing reality and make-believe again. Demons,
ghouls, zombies and Hell are make-believe. Discussing them is no more
disturbing to me than discussing other make-believe things, like warp
drive engines, phasers, and transporters.

So then I repeat the question: do you talk about demons, ghouls,
vampires, lesbianism, zombies, Hell etc around the watercooler ?

Post by Mike Meyer
I'm not sure why lesbianism belongs on that list, but I've certainly
worked with lesbians in the past. Like most rational people, they
considered their choice of sexual partners *their business*, and
didn't discuss it at work - or at office parties. No more than I
discussed my choice of sexual partners with them.
On the other hand, mass bombings are reality. Various governments have
perpetrated such horrors on civilians in the past. Discussing these -
except in terms of deepest contempt and possibly shame - bother me no
end. There are some things that are simply inappropriate for polite
conversation.

What do "mass bombings" have to do with "demons, ghouls,
vampires, lesbianism, zombies, Hell" ?

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
However, I would guess that many more billions of dollars have been
made by movies and series which followed The Rules in the history
of Hollywood. Hollywood only makes and adheres to rules for the
purpose of making money.

formulas for hacks to follow to turn out acceptable scripts without
needing any talent. Except your initial mention of them doesn't even
come up to that low standard.
Only elsewhere you've said that Hollywood is drifting away from the
rules due to something that sounded like paranoid delusion.

The Rules have nothing to do with restricting the creative possibilities
in a script. They more have to do with the morality of the audience and
what will make the audience happy and walk away from the movie
saying "it was great" and recommending others go see it.

Again, *how* does casting a fat person in the role of a fat person
cause the audience to change their perception of the movie? Until the
relatively recent advent of fat suits, doing otherwise would only
weaken the reality the movie was trying to create.

I cannot recall a movie where the target was the obesity of one of the
characters where the actor was indeed obese.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - unless you're now
claiming to have seen every movie ever made. Of course, you've once
again failed to answer the question. *how* does doing that change the
way the audience perceives the movie?

As I have mentioned, the audience despite bombardments by amoral
Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservatives still has a certain sense of
morality and is repelled by the kicking of a downtrodden person when
they are down.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
And if the viewer is sitting there and watches a character betray
another in whom he had invested, he wants that betrayer to die.

Now *that* sounds like something you that's not suitable fare for
children. You're advocating the death penalty in cases that don't
involve murder - and even in those cases the death penalty is
considered by many to be to severe a punishment.

The way it normally happens is that they normally 'do it to themselves'.

In other words, it's just hack writing. But it still caters to the
bloodthirsty, immoral savage in the audience. So much for your claims
that they are pandering to the "average moral viewer".

What is morality without accountability for one's actions ?
You think viewers would walk away from a movie happy if they saw
a mass murderer or homosexual paedophile go free without penalty
at the end of the movie ?

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
And if that betrayer does not die, he is likely to walk away from that
movie, either consciously or subconsciously, feeling that the movie
failed and that ultimately hurts to word-of-mouth follow on business
for that movie. It is really that simple.

Only if the viewer is very simple. There are *lots* of ways to achieve
success without killing the betrayer. Taking the two examples from
Buffy I already posted, we have Angel being punished for betraying
Buffy by being sent to a hell dimension. Considering that he's
immortal, and may have experienced centuries of pure torment, that's a
fate worse than death. We have Buffy agonizing and growing as a
character after she betrayed Angel. In the context of the series, this
seems right and appropriate.

I thought I asked someone already: what are the details of this
"betrayal by this title character ?

I gave them to you. You chose to focus on other aspects of the
description. You want to read them, go back and do it.

Someone here wrote something about Buffy saving the world
from destruction by betraying someone in the show and then
shoving a sword through his chest to save the world.
That was the 'dramatic betrayal' to which you refer ?

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
The logic of the plot and characterizations *requires*
that Angel have that sword shoved through
his chest at that point in time. He must
be betrayed. But killing off the title character of a series
is *really* frowned upon, so your "rule" really can't
be followed in this case.

Unless you are now talking about a different series,
I do not see the name "Angel" in the title.

It was Buffy's show (Angel's series doesn't start 'till a couple
of years later). Mike's saying that Buffy betrayed Angel,
and therefore couldn't be

Since I do not watch this show it is difficult to discuss the show.
Describe the details of this "betrayal".
It is hard for me to imagine a star and hero of a show ever being
shown to commit real dramatic betrayal.

Buffy and Angel are/were lovers. Angelus (angel minus the soul that
the first season explained made him rather unique)
constructs/rebuilds/reconstitutes a demon that, when awake, will suck
the world into a hell dimension, effectively killing everyone in the
world. This process is started, while Angelus and Buffy are fighting,
with Buffy trying to prevent the end of the world (which was a regular
event on Buffy - her gravestone even said "She saved the world a
lot").
At this point, Willow succeeds in casting the spell she's been working
on for a couple of episodes, which is the same one that gave Angel his
soul in the first place. Angelus turns back into Angel. Buffy realizes
this, reaffirms their love, then shoves the sword through his
chest. In doing so, she is following instructions she has been given
as to the only way to stop the end of the world.
Basically, it's "I love you". Banish to hell dimension. Buffy's
punishment for this act of betrayal is mental anguish over the next
several (well, at least one) episodes, while Giles (her father figure
in the series) tries to get her to talk about what actually happened.

I see this is the betrayal.

You've got a dangling "this". Please state exactly what it is you see
as the betrayal.

I just stated what I think you or the other guy on this Newsgroup
stated was the betrayal. To save the world, right ?
Seems to be that saving the world trumps betrayal as a script
priority.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Hopefully he has some reading material in this eternal condemnation.

Nah, he's being tortured for the entire period. Remember, he's being
punished for a basically evil act.

Wait, that actually sounds like Hell, rather than that Dr. Strange
'other dimension' stuff. Is this material actually rooted in the Bible
and judaeo-christianity ?

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
So why would he want to destroy the world ?

Because he ain't human, and doesn't have a soul. In a truly amazing
act of writing, they managed to provide a non-human character with a
motive that humans don't understand. It's a rare thing, but it does
happen every now and then.

This writing is nonsense. Do you think it is possible that the writer
thought
up this transformation crap because it saved having to pay another actor to
appear in the series to play that role ? Straight up ?
If so, what would it say about the decision to write this crap, corrupting
what should be carefully configured character delineations ?

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
Please get off your political hobby horse, and answer the
question. Why - other than simply being better than formulaic writing
- does this betrayal not end with the death of the betrayer?

I just answered that question above. Rules that conflict then have
a pecking order. I would say that "saving the world" trumps
4 aces.

No, you didn't answer that question. At least, you didn't do so
clearly. But it appears that you once again provide an "exception" to
your "rule". At this rate, your rules will soon be more exception than
rule.

It is absurd to consider that to be an exception. Complex plots will
obviously have a multiplicity of moral issues. There must be a precedence
of priorities and in fact therein one finds a further detail of the
characters
as they choose between these Rules.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
You seem to be pretty good at making claims and failing to back them
up. In particular, you're using this forum to mouth homophobic slogans
without a single shred of support. I'd much prefer it if you stuck to
the point, and tried to come up with some justification of your
fictitious rules.

You know, one of the reasons it is important to talk about homosexuality
here is your and others determination to intimidate me and I assume others
from doing so. And this strategy seems to work well: most people on these
Newsgroups seem to be terrified about receiving this crazy allegation
of "homophobia". Some have tried to have my ISP pull my service even.
No scum on these Newsgroups is going to tell me what I can say and where
and when I can say it.

Except you don't talk about homosexuality, except to say that it's
bad. You have as yet to provide a single reason why it's bad. All you
do is rant about how bad it is. If you want to talk about it, then
talk about it, and quit bitching about how evil it is. If you don't
want to talk about it, then shut up about it, and stick to the point.

I do not think I said homosexuality was "evil" Selling it to you and
your kids through devious means is "evil".
Sodomy itself is more disgusting and repulsive.
And ultimately it is a life choice with rejects the procreation and
nurturing of life.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Second, as I have mentioned in several other debates in the BSG
Newsgroup, homosexuals are generally wealthy and
Conservative/Libertarian and want the government out of their life.

I'm curious - how many homosexuals do you know? For that manner,
how many libertarians do you know? Most of the libertarians - and
homosexuals - I know would be offended at being lumped in with the
conservatives.

Conservatives and Libertarians both agree with expunging government
from their lives. And that is what Homosexuals want to.

Um, no. Conservatives think the government should provide for the
national defense, keep people from committing "deviant sex acts", and
otherwise enforcing a moral code on the populace. Libertarians want
none of these things. Homosexuals oppose the conservative morals on
sex, and are pretty much spread out all over the political spectrum on
other issues.

Everyone supports the National Defense, even libertarians.

Now *that's* funny. Google for "libertarian national defense". The
first link that comes up is a description of a book by libertarians
debunking the myth of national defense. Libertarians can't even agree
that a court system ought to be provided by the government, much less
national defense.
And libertarians aren't even the most radical anti-government
political group around. Try talking to some anarchists.

Every 4 years I hear or read speeches by the libertarian candidates;
they always support a strong national defense. Never deviates.
And they leave you alone to commit whatever Sodomy acts
you wish in the privacy of your own home. Homosexuals love
that and put that together tiwht the basic Conservatives ideals
to create Neo-Conservatism.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Right Neo-Conservatives are Conservatives who are libertarian
on moral issues and Zionist on the Middle East to the point of
mass murdering Arabs/Moslems even when there is no justification for it.

Well, "libertarian on moral issues" pretty much means the same thing
as "liberal on moral issues", so calling them neo-liberals would be
equally accurate. Except that racism to the level of mass murder of
arabs/moslems isn't a conservative value - the conservatives just want
to install puppet governments in all the arab/moslem states. So
neo-liberal is actually *more* accurate than neo-conservative.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
None of the homosexuals I know had parents so bigoted that they
rejected their children based on their sexuality. Most were bright
enough to love their children for who they were, no matter who they
were.

Most parents I know want their children to create grandchildren, of
the biological persuasion.

As if sexual preference had something to do with whether or not you
have biological children. People chose not to have children for lots
of reasons. And, since you claim to think about science, you might
have noticed that nothing prevents homosexuals from having biological
children.

Sure it does. Some women are not easy to knock up. Some couples
have been trying for years before they receive the positive pregnancy test.
Even millionaire Hollywood actresses have trouble with fertility.

Post by Mike Meyer
Of course, any parent who places their own wants above the happiness
of their children isn't much of a parent in my book, no matter *what*
the reason that the child decides not to have children.

Life and its perpetuation often trumps simple love of one's child.
These are conflicting Rules and each parent has to choose what method
to motivate their child, now grown, to choose life.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Wow; you'd probably ~hate~ Firefly (about thieves, smugglers,
killers, and a whore). And Buffy/Angel (betrayal, murder, sex,
lesbianism, attempted rape,

Buffy shows lesbianism ? How so ?

Actually, Willow (one of the key characters, for the entire run of the
series) claimed to turn lesbian during the fourth season. Personally,
I always figured she was bi. After all, when Oz returns during "New
Moon Rising" , she appears to give returning to him rather than
staying with Tara - who is clearly a lesbian - some consideration.

Have they shown these two women making out ?

Yes.

That is disgusting. What channel is this crap on and what time of day ?

Actually, since the scene that came to mind was a male characters
fantasy about a three way while his girlfriend (or was she his fiancee
at the time?) watched, it's disgusting to most lesbians as well.
If you're going to let a little sexual squeamishness - after all,
didn't your sisters kiss your mother goodbye and goodnight and the
like - deprive you of some of the best written f&sf on tv, that's your
loss.

This is one of the silliest statements you ahve made. But there are
certainly plenty to choose from.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
I remember the Gong Show and Chuck Barris but I do not remember
what happened on that show. But generally, it is a script failure

when

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
producers rely on the extemporaneous statements of guests
to entertain rather than their own writing skills.

Reality TV doesn't *have* a script. How can something that doesn't
exist fail?

They do have producers who steer the so-called "reality"
e.g. the current Paula Adbul scandal. I doubt you could post a camera
even on the corner of 42nd St with no production and generate a
healthy audience.

By the way, is HBO still showing Hookers On The Point ?

Post by Mike Meyer
The Paula Abdul scandal seems to support the point that they don't
have scripts. She's being accused of coaching one of the contestants,
and this is viewed as a *bad* thing, that shouldn't have happened.

Right, she is alleged to have "given one of the contestants the answers".
That is illegal and could result in prison time or loss of TV licence.
Ever heard of the $64,000 Question or watched the movie Quiz Show ?

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
Well, my experience is just the opposite. When I've been with people
who insisted on watching the things - which is pretty much the only
way I'll watch them - they were doing so to make fun of the people on
the show. Nuts - even scripted TV shows depict people watching reality
TV to make fun of the people on the show.

Scripted TV and the writers thereof are naturally hostile to Reality TV
for obvious reasons -- Reality TV eliminates the scriptwriter which
limits the writers' opportunities for jobs.

In other words, reality tv doesn't have a script - which is what I
said.

As I said, they often have heavy production and sometimes the answers
or song choices are scripted, illegally.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
In that light, the question makes an incredible amount of sense.
If most people cringe at seeing the downtrodden kicked - and it
would have to be "most people", otherwise this rule wouldn't make
sense when it comes to turning a buck - then why are shows that
apparently exist to kick the downtrodden doing so well?

Again, I do not consider reality contestants to be perceived
by the public as downtrodden. However when an average
citizen on one of these shows is forced to eat worms or
cockroaches, they are being downtrodden
on the show and it is weird that anyone would watch that.

You may be right - the public may not consider those people to be
downtrodden. But the public is still flocking in droves to watch
people be humiliated by doing things like eating worms and bugs, which
you say makes them downtrodden. You don't understand it, but it still
raises the question - if picking on the downtrodden is something the
public doesn't want to see, why are they flocking to reality TV?

As I just said: they do not consider the guests on those shows to be
downtrodden in their real lives. They are usually good looking people
full of verve.

You must be watching a different set of realty tv programs than I
am. The ones I see range from barely average to downright ugly. Some
are even fat - and get called fat by others on the shows. The people I
watch them with *clearly* consider the particpants to be downtrodden
in some way or another. Do you have any evidence other than your own
opinion?
<mike

You must be referring to some singular fringe show.
I would not consider any of the first 2 Survivor contestants to fit that
category.

Politics

[Mark Brown]

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
I believe one encourages you and your kids to engage in the Occult
and Satanism, the other encourages you and your kids to involve
yourselves in science.

Ironically, ~both~ things that have gotten people burned at the stake.

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Actually, I would be somewhat disturbed if I was sitting next to someone
at work who was into demons, ghouls, zombies, lesbianism and Hell.
Do you actually talk about this stuff around the watercooler ?

I do (well, not lesbianism, 'cause I don't know any that I'm aware of, and
don't think it's worth commenting on anyway).

But demons, ghouls, zombies, Hell, gods, monsters, Satan and Angels, yeah.
Most of my friends have at least a passing interest in the
paranormal/occult. And in shows/movies/books with good writing. In most
cases, that's why they're my friends.

Of course, I may be outside your definition of normal. I dated a witch in
high school, many of my friends are atheists or agnostics, and one of my
University friends was a Satanist (nice guy, great sense of humour --one of
the few people who could ~take~ a joke as well as he could dish it out). Of
course, another of my friends was in the seminary (one of the most devout
and kind-hearted beings I know, but he was kicked out 'cause his grades
weren't quite good enough), and another wants to go into politics.

Only one that really worries me is the politician. ;)

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
I see this is the betrayal. It is nonsensical to claim that this is a
'dramatic
betrayal'. "constructs/rebuilds/reconstitutes a demon that, when awake,
will suck
the world into a hell dimension" implies that this character took a
conscious
act to destroy the world.

Yes, ~Angelus~ made a conscious decision to destroy the world. But it was
~Angel~ who was punished for it (Angelus spent the time sealed away in a
little corner of Angel's mind, probably enjoying it).

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
You know, one of the reasons it is important to talk about homosexuality
here is your and others determination to intimidate me and I assume others
from doing so.

Who's intimidating? We just want you to use logic to back up your claims.
Until and unless you do, you can hardly blame us for assigning little truth
value to your words.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Without this, most of
your post resembles the ravings of a paranoid, self-righteous loon with an
agenda.

Post by John Shocked
And this strategy seems to work well: most people on these
Newsgroups seem to be terrified about receiving this crazy allegation
of "homophobia".

Only homophobe I'm seeing around here is you.

Post by John Shocked
Some have tried to have my ISP pull my service even.

9_9

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
Homosexuals oppose the conservative morals on
sex, and are pretty much spread out all over the political spectrum on
other issues.

*SNIP*

Just like any group of normal people.

Mark
"It's fun to shock the morally superior, isn't it?"

[John Shocked]

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
I believe one encourages you and your kids to engage in the Occult
and Satanism, the other encourages you and your kids to involve
yourselves in science.

Ironically, ~both~ things that have gotten people burned at the stake.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Actually, I would be somewhat disturbed if I was sitting next to someone
at work who was into demons, ghouls, zombies, lesbianism and Hell.
Do you actually talk about this stuff around the watercooler ?

I do (well, not lesbianism, 'cause I don't know any that I'm aware of, and
don't think it's worth commenting on anyway).

What about homosexuals in general. Are there homosexuals who like
watching a show with demons, ghouls, zombies and fallen angels ?

Post by Mark Brown
But demons, ghouls, zombies, Hell, gods, monsters, Satan and Angels, yeah.
Most of my friends have at least a passing interest in the
paranormal/occult. And in shows/movies/books with good writing. In most
cases, that's why they're my friends.

Are you all members of the Pagan Federation and other Wiccan organizations ?

Post by Mark Brown
Of course, I may be outside your definition of normal. I dated a witch in
high school, many of my friends are atheists or agnostics, and one of my
University friends was a Satanist (nice guy, great sense of humour --one of
the few people who could ~take~ a joke as well as he could dish it out). Of
course, another of my friends was in the seminary (one of the most devout
and kind-hearted beings I know, but he was kicked out 'cause his grades
weren't quite good enough), and another wants to go into politics.
Only one that really worries me is the politician. ;)

At least politics lives in the real world. Most of this stuff is fringe
existence which can isolate someone to the point that they might behave
without an understanding or acceptance of general rules of the road.

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
I see this is the betrayal. It is nonsensical to claim that this is a
'dramatic betrayal'. "constructs/rebuilds/reconstitutes a demon that,
when awake, will suck the world into a hell dimension" implies
that this character took a conscious act to destroy the world.

Yes, ~Angelus~ made a conscious decision to destroy the world. But it was
~Angel~ who was punished for it (Angelus spent the time sealed away in a
little corner of Angel's mind, probably enjoying it).
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
You know, one of the reasons it is important to talk about homosexuality
here is your and others determination to intimidate me and I assume others
from doing so.

Who's intimidating? We just want you to use logic to back up your claims.
Until and unless you do, you can hardly blame us for assigning little truth
value to your words.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Without this, most of
your post resembles the ravings of a paranoid, self-righteous loon with an
agenda.

All of that proof I have presented in spades. You can read the bulk of
it on the alt.battlestar-galactica newsgroup.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
And this strategy seems to work well: most people on these
Newsgroups seem to be terrified about receiving this crazy allegation
of "homophobia".

Only homophobe I'm seeing around here is you.

This indicates you lack perception and the ability to recognize the
difference betwen reality and make-believe.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
Some have tried to have my ISP pull my service even.

9_9
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
Homosexuals oppose the conservative morals on
sex, and are pretty much spread out all over the political spectrum
on other issues.

*SNIP*
Just like any group of normal people.
Mark

There is nothing Left about Sodomy. Libertarians support Sodomy and
Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservatives differ from Conservatives
in that they incorporate that Sodomy component from
libertarianism into their credo.
And they Hate and want to mass murder Arabs/Moslems and they
also want to legalize drugs.

Politics

[Mark Brown]

"Mike Meyer" <***@mired.org> wrote in message news:***@guru.mired.org...
*SNIP*

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Firefly ? I have never even heard of this show.

It was an HBO series.

*SNIP*

FOX, actually.

They sabotaged it from the get-go, 'cause they were apparently expecting
Buffy-in-Space.

They refused to air the pilot, ordered Joss to write a new one (he found out
on Friday night and turned in a new script by Monday morning, which is
deserving of some kinda award), then put it in the timeslot-of-Doom (Friday
nights at 8), aired eps out of order, pre-empted it for several weeks at a
time, and failed to advertise. After they cancelled the show, ~then~ they
aired the pilot.

Mark
"They are now sitting on the TV rights so that 'Serenity' can't possibly
spawn a new series."

[Mark Brown]

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Angel losing his soul and becoming Angelus (who tries to kill everyone) is
really no different than (in Andromeda terms) if the Abyss had
telepathically turned Rev Bem into Redplague (his magog name/identity) and
made him try to destroy the Andromeda.

These sorts of transformations just are not acceptable to any other than
weak minds who will literally accept any nonsense portrayed on screen.
I mean, if characters in the show can undergo these "transformations",
what was the point of your watching the show up to that point ?
Just because some producer claims that the "ratings are stale and we need
a big change" should not allow them to throw out the existing character base
and introduce a new person. If they want a new character, have them
introduce someone new to the show. And if that means the existing
characters receive decreased air time, so be it.

Yes, but neither Angelus nor (my hypothetical version of) Redplague are
"new" characters; they both have connections to the other characters and the
world around them.

Buffy's Angelus arc was about how Buffy (in love with Angel) dealt with
having to destroy him, and how Angel's love for Buffy became twisted and
murderous when Angelus took over. Plus it was a chance for David Boreanaz to
stretch his acting chops (Angel = dark, brooding, and romantic, Angelus =
wild, fun-loving, and sadistic). It also allowed the writers to present a
villain that could have more of an effect on the heroes than any previous
('cause they'd invited him into their homes, and he ~knew~ them, and exactly
what buttons to push to truly terrorize them).

And then, when Buffy had finally accepted that the man she loved was gone,
and that Angelus had to be destroyed. . . Angel returned. By then, however,
it was too late. Angelus had started a spell that would destroy the world,
and could only be stopped with a vampire's blood. Angel didn't have Angelus'
memories, but Buffy still had to kill him.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
In Firefly, Simon betrays Mal by smuggling River aboard and thus

endangering

Post by Mark Brown
Mal's crew. Not only does Simon not die, but he and River become main
characters. Later, Jayne sells out Simon & River (there's a bounty on

their

Post by Mark Brown
heads) after Mal promises to protect them. Jayne gets in trouble, and

(after

Post by Mark Brown
being rescued) gets threatened by Mal (who nearly chucks him out an
airlock), River ("I can kill you with my brain"), and tacitly by Simon as
well ("I'm a doctor. As long as you're ~on~that~table,~ I won't hurt

you"),

Post by Mark Brown
but doesn't die. Previous to the series, Jayne had betrayed a previous
partner. When said partner gets out of jail, he comes after Jayne and
promptly gets killed. And that's not even mentioning Jayne's brief career

as

Post by Mark Brown
a bounty hunter, in which he (apparently) killed his boss and a fellow
henchman when Mal (the bounty hunter's target) offered him a better deal.

At

Post by Mark Brown
an earlier point, Mal and crew betray Niska and murder one of his

henchmen.

Post by Mark Brown
This is the whole crew that's involved, mind, and none of them die (well,
Mal flatlines for a few seconds, but Niska brings him back [to torture him
some more], then ends up losing him).

Firefly ? I have never even heard of this show.
However, with the amount of betrayal you describe, I doubt that I would
find any of the characters interesting enough to watch the show.
And that is what The Rules are about -- inducing people to watch and
keep watching the show.

Created by Joss Whedon (the man behind Buffy and Angel), who wanted to try
something new. It's a sci-fi "space-western," about a crew of perpetually
hard-luck misfits and their ship (Firefly-class "Serenity"). I'll let
Shepherd Book (a preacher) explain from his voice-over:

"After the Earth was used up, we found a new solar system, and hundreds of
new Earths were terraformed and colonized. The central planets formed the
Alliance, and decided all the planets had to join under their rule. There
was some disagreement on that point. After the War, many of the Independents
who had fought and lost drifted to the edges of the system, far from
Alliance control. Out here, people struggled to get by with the most basic
technologies. A ship would bring you work, a gun would help you keep it. A
captain's goal was simple; find a crew, find a job. Keep flying."

Since its sabotage and cancellation by Fox (your fellow Conservatives), the
Firefly DVD has moved over 200,000 units (that was last year; I haven't been
keeping track), is consistently listed in "Top-5" lists of TV series, and
has a movie (_Serenity_) coming out (and comics, and novels) that will
likely start up Joss' newest franchise. The movie wouldn't exist if not for
the dogged devotion of the fans; no cancelled series has had this much of a
following since Star_Trek. There's a book of essays out now ("Finding
Serenity") by some of the top names in the SF field (similar books came out
for The_Matrix, so you may know the format). There are Firefly fans around
the world, including places where the show never actually aired (they bought
the DVDs on word-of-mouth).

I think we can agree that violating "The Rules" can pay off. Big time.

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Somewhere else I think you said that
Buffy died twice and then returned ? This is laughable.

The first time, that was the point; The Master (the main villain for the
season) held her head under water until she drowned. After he left, Xander
and Angel arrived, and Xander gave Buffy CPR. It revived her, but (as per
the rules of Joss' universe --the only ones he needs to follow), Buffy's
momentary death Called the next Slayer (when one Slayer dies, the next is
Called, one after another), Kendra. Later, Kendra was murdered by Drusilla,
and her death Called Faith (which touched off a whole other storyline).

The second time was when Buffy sacrificed herself to save her sister. Willow
(a witch, and Buffy's best friend) did a spell to revive her, which kinda
backfired; Buffy had been pulled out of Heaven, and started spiralling into
depression and a nervous breakdown (which led to her reaching out to Spike,
which in turn pushed ~him~ over an edge). Meanwhile, the spell touched off a
drug addiction storyline for Willow, which led (indirectly) to her turning
Evil, and having to deal with the consequences of ~that.~ It took a whole
season for Buffy to really forgive her "friends," and she never fully
recovered (see, the second death led to heavy character-development all
around).

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by John Shocked
In fact, what you describe reminds me of the identical scene I just
watched today on Sliders,

You dismiss fantasy, but you hold up Sliders as an example?

Sliders is science fiction, based on a device they designed called "The
Timer".
It is a ripoff of Doctor Who, except that time stays the same (which saves
on wardrobe and makeup costs, not to mention writers having to read
some history or think creatively about the future) and they transport
to parallel worlds.

It's also (after John Rhys-Davies left) kinda lousy, with no real grasp of
science or interesting characters.

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Describe the details of this "betrayal".

See above. Sorry for not doing that sooner.

Post by John Shocked
It is hard for me to imagine a star and hero of a show ever being
shown to commit real dramatic betrayal.

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
When the US finally becomes a completely Amoral populace
which I believe is the intent of the current crop of Hollywood

Homosexuals

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
who control Hollywood today,

You are aware that this statement just screams BIGOTTED
CONSERVATIVE TROLL, aren't you?

First, I do not care what the Truth sounds like.
Second, as I have mentioned in several other debates in the BSG Newsgroup,

Which I don't read (I like BSG, but by the time the eps reached me in
Canada, everyone else had seen them and I was avoiding spoilers).

Post by John Shocked
homosexuals are generally wealthy and Conservative/Libertarian and want the
government out of their life.

Based on?

Post by John Shocked
They have nothing to do with the Left, other
than
that they Buy the Left, every 4 years to tout their Sodomy issue and lose.

That. . . doesn't even make sense. I think I'm misunderstanding you.

Post by John Shocked
If you disagree with my point of view, you are free to dispute the
statement.

I dispute it. You're attributing things to a vast and organized conspiracy
that can just as easily be attributed to a combination of dumb luck
(Dubbya's re-election) and genuine non-covert lobbying (gays/lesbians who
genuinely want to not have to break laws in the process of minding their own
business).

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Wow; you'd probably ~hate~ Firefly (about thieves, smugglers, killers,
and

a

Post by Mark Brown
whore). And Buffy/Angel (betrayal, murder, sex, lesbianism, attempted

rape,
Buffy shows lesbianism ? How so ?

Willow becomes a lesbian when she falls in love with Tara. They're shown in
bed together and everything. There're even a variety of not-too-impolite
jokes about it (from the characters, and ~in~ character).

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
implied off-camera rape [of nuns], adultery. . .). And Gargoyles

(betrayal,

Post by Mark Brown
murder, attempted suicide). And InuYasha (at least three of the "heroes"

are

Post by Mark Brown
mass-murderers and thieves, the monk is a lecher, several are
oath-breaker

s,

Post by Mark Brown
there's implied adultery, on-screen child abuse [yes, even in the
Americanized dub], and more than half the cast are demons). I kinda feel
sorry for you, missing such brilliantly-written and intelligent shows.

Wow, that does not sound like stuff I would want to watch, let alone
have children watch. How are these shows labelled. Age 18 and up ?

Buffy & Angel are prime time, so teenagers-to-adults.

Gargoyles was a kids' show from Disney. Yes, Disney. It aired Saturday
mornings.

InuYasha is an adult show in America (teen show in Japan), but it has a
sizeable "cult" following among kids and the young-at-heart (there're toys,
and trading cards, and a video game). The lead characters are 15-17 years
old (well, InuYasha himself is over 50, but demons age very slowly, so he's
portrayed as about 16-18 [Sesshoumaru is pushing 100, but looks early-20s at
most]).

Post by John Shocked
A show with no heroes is not much to watch.

I'm guessing you're not a fan of Shakespeare.

Post by John Shocked
Thus, I do not believe
your descriptions could be completely accurate.

Well, there's an old saying about how you can't see the stars unless the sky
is black.

There's a lot of darkness in Gargoyles and InuYasha, but there are a lot of
good characters too. They're not cardboard cutouts of Good and Evil, they're
fully developed and multi-faceted, heroes and antagonists both. You can
cheer at a hero's pain, and you can be brought to tears for a villain. This
(IMHO) is what makes for interesting characters and good writing --art is
about getting an emotional reaction from viewers. They're like real people,
in all their flawed beauty, and they aspire to improve themselves --much
like us in the audience, who are not perfect (anyone who says otherwise is
selling something).

InuYasha has a cast of almost a hundred, each one-shot "guest of the week"
more developed than the leads on most prime-time dramas. Each one has flaws,
problems, and weaknesses, but so does the audience. We can't help but
sympathize with them and care about them, like the lecherous monk who
secretly wants someone to give him an excuse to ~try~ to change, or the
"heroic" demon-slayer who lost her entire family and wants vengeance, or the
demonic assassin who wants nothing more than to be free, like the unchained
wind.

There are exactly two wholly "good" characters in the entire show, but they
have an effect on the people around them. Kagome is the first person to
treat InuYasha with the kindness and dignity of a human (he's a half-demon,
a "monster," according to other humans and a weak, stupid animal by demon
standards). She walks with him when no one else would dare, and sees the
things in him that he won't let anyone else see (like tears for the people
he's killed). When people call him a monster, she is the first person in
InuYasha's entire life to deny it (even his own mother couldn't say the
words).

His half-brother Sesshoumaru (the ~legitimate~ son) is a cold and heartless
killer, who regards humans as little better than ants in his path. He kills
not out of intent, but just out of convenience. Then a young human girl
(with missing teeth and bruises on her face that we ~see~ being inflicted)
offers him kindness. He doesn't need it, but later, when the girl is killed,
he uses magic to revive her, and goes on to protect her, even risking his
life (more importantly, his Honour) for this "insignificant little creature"
that has somehow become important to him.

Over on Gargoyles, the Gargoyles are betrayed and murdered in their sleep
for no other reason than that they look monstrous (even though it is their
nature to protect). Turns out they were betrayed by one of their own --the
Mate of the clan-leader. Meanwhile, the whole clan is being manipulated by
Xanatos, who wants to become immortal. He starts out as their cunning,
brilliantly manipulative enemy, then gradually becomes an ally as he falls
in love, gets married, and first holds his newborn son (all the immortality
a man needs, or deserves).

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
As I said, moral people cringe when they see someone who is already
downtrodden, be kicked when they are down.
Ultimately, that is bad business and loses money.

Then explain the prevalence of "Reality" TV.
Mark

Question does not make sense.

*SNIP*

Most "Reality" TV (in quotes 'cause it has nothing to do with any reality I
know about) is all ~about~ kicking the downtrodden. It's about being brutal
and cut-throat and needlessly cruel, and panders to the worst things in
human nature.

Gimme a good scripted, rule-breaking series any day of the week.

Mark
"We're all lying in the gutter, but some of us are looking to the stars."

[John Shocked]

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Angel losing his soul and becoming Angelus (who tries to kill everyone) is
really no different than (in Andromeda terms) if the Abyss had
telepathically turned Rev Bem into Redplague (his magog name/identity) and
made him try to destroy the Andromeda.

These sorts of transformations just are not acceptable to any other than
weak minds who will literally accept any nonsense portrayed on screen.
I mean, if characters in the show can undergo these "transformations",
what was the point of your watching the show up to that point ?
Just because some producer claims that the "ratings are stale and we need
a big change" should not allow them to throw out the existing character base
and introduce a new person. If they want a new character, have them
introduce someone new to the show. And if that means the existing
characters receive decreased air time, so be it.

Yes, but neither Angelus nor (my hypothetical version of) Redplague are
"new" characters; they both have connections to the other characters and the
world around them.
Buffy's Angelus arc was about how Buffy (in love with Angel) dealt with
having to destroy him, and how Angel's love for Buffy became twisted and
murderous when Angelus took over. Plus it was a chance for David Boreanaz to
stretch his acting chops (Angel = dark, brooding, and romantic, Angelus =
wild, fun-loving, and sadistic). It also allowed the writers to present a
villain that could have more of an effect on the heroes than any previous
('cause they'd invited him into their homes, and he ~knew~ them, and exactly
what buttons to push to truly terrorize them).
And then, when Buffy had finally accepted that the man she loved was gone,
and that Angelus had to be destroyed. . . Angel returned. By then, however,
it was too late. Angelus had started a spell that would destroy the world,
and could only be stopped with a vampire's blood. Angel didn't have Angelus'
memories, but Buffy still had to kill him.

And why do you believe it was important for an existing character to
tranform into this threat to the world, rather than to introduce a new
character and have him play anti-christ ?
That is, other than to guarantee the existing paid actors consistent face
time on screen.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
In Firefly, Simon betrays Mal by smuggling River aboard and thus

endangering Mal's crew. Not only does Simon not die, but he and

Post by Mark Brown
River become main characters. Later, Jayne sells out Simon &
River (there's a bounty on their heads) after Mal promises to
protect them. Jayne gets in trouble, and (after
being rescued) gets threatened by Mal (who nearly chucks him out an
airlock), River ("I can kill you with my brain"), and tacitly by Simon as
well ("I'm a doctor. As long as you're ~on~that~table,~ I won't hurt

you"),

Post by Mark Brown
but doesn't die. Previous to the series, Jayne had betrayed a previous
partner. When said partner gets out of jail, he comes after Jayne and
promptly gets killed. And that's not even mentioning Jayne's brief career

as

Post by Mark Brown
a bounty hunter, in which he (apparently) killed his boss and a fellow
henchman when Mal (the bounty hunter's target) offered him a better deal.

At

Post by Mark Brown
an earlier point, Mal and crew betray Niska and murder one of his

henchmen.

Post by Mark Brown
This is the whole crew that's involved, mind, and none of them die (well,
Mal flatlines for a few seconds, but Niska brings him back [to torture him
some more], then ends up losing him).

Firefly ? I have never even heard of this show.
However, with the amount of betrayal you describe, I doubt that I would
find any of the characters interesting enough to watch the show.
And that is what The Rules are about -- inducing people to watch and
keep watching the show.

Created by Joss Whedon (the man behind Buffy and Angel), who wanted to try
something new. It's a sci-fi "space-western," about a crew of perpetually
hard-luck misfits and their ship (Firefly-class "Serenity"). I'll let
"After the Earth was used up, we found a new solar system, and hundreds of
new Earths were terraformed and colonized. The central planets formed the
Alliance, and decided all the planets had to join under their rule. There
was some disagreement on that point. After the War, many of the Independents
who had fought and lost drifted to the edges of the system, far from
Alliance control. Out here, people struggled to get by with the most basic
technologies. A ship would bring you work, a gun would help you keep it. A
captain's goal was simple; find a crew, find a job. Keep flying."
Since its sabotage and cancellation by Fox (your fellow Conservatives), the
Firefly DVD has moved over 200,000 units (that was last year; I haven't been
keeping track), is consistently listed in "Top-5" lists of TV series, and
has a movie (_Serenity_) coming out (and comics, and novels) that will
likely start up Joss' newest franchise. The movie wouldn't exist if not for
the dogged devotion of the fans; no cancelled series has had this much of a
following since Star_Trek. There's a book of essays out now ("Finding
Serenity") by some of the top names in the SF field (similar books came out
for The_Matrix, so you may know the format). There are Firefly fans around
the world, including places where the show never actually aired (they bought
the DVDs on word-of-mouth).
I think we can agree that violating "The Rules" can pay off. Big time.

I am not sure you understand the Rules. And Rules can conflict
with other Rules.
I think someone said that Firefly has Sodomy in it. Obviously it is a HBO
show so that is no surprise. How much homosexual sex is shown in this
series ?

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Somewhere else I think you said that
Buffy died twice and then returned ? This is laughable.

The first time, that was the point; The Master (the main villain for the
season) held her head under water until she drowned. After he left, Xander
and Angel arrived, and Xander gave Buffy CPR. It revived her, but (as per
the rules of Joss' universe --the only ones he needs to follow), Buffy's
momentary death Called the next Slayer (when one Slayer dies, the next is
Called, one after another), Kendra. Later, Kendra was murdered by Drusilla,
and her death Called Faith (which touched off a whole other storyline).
The second time was when Buffy sacrificed herself to save her sister. Willow
(a witch, and Buffy's best friend) did a spell to revive her, which kinda
backfired; Buffy had been pulled out of Heaven, and started spiralling into
depression and a nervous breakdown (which led to her reaching out to Spike,
which in turn pushed ~him~ over an edge). Meanwhile, the spell touched off a
drug addiction storyline for Willow, which led (indirectly) to her turning
Evil, and having to deal with the consequences of ~that.~ It took a whole
season for Buffy to really forgive her "friends," and she never fully
recovered (see, the second death led to heavy character-development all
around).

So all of these people have superpowers and can cast spells ?

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by John Shocked
In fact, what you describe reminds me of the identical scene
I just watched today on Sliders,

You dismiss fantasy, but you hold up Sliders as an example?

Sliders is science fiction, based on a device they designed called "The
Timer".
It is a ripoff of Doctor Who, except that time stays the same (which saves
on wardrobe and makeup costs, not to mention writers having to read
some history or think creatively about the future) and they transport
to parallel worlds.

It's also (after John Rhys-Davies left) kinda lousy, with no real grasp of
science or interesting characters.

As I have stated, it declined in quality the initial foursome was broken up.
I thought Derricks (Rembrandt) was the best actor of the bunch and
Rhys-Davies was no slouch either, and those two carried the show.

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Describe the details of this "betrayal".

See above. Sorry for not doing that sooner.

I still do not see the betrayal.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
It is hard for me to imagine a star and hero of a show ever being
shown to commit real dramatic betrayal.

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
When the US finally becomes a completely Amoral populace
which I believe is the intent of the current crop of Hollywood
Homosexuals who control Hollywood today,

You are aware that this statement just screams BIGOTTED
CONSERVATIVE TROLL, aren't you?

First, I do not care what the Truth sounds like.
Second, as I have mentioned in several other debates in the
BSG Newsgroup,

Which I don't read (I like BSG, but by the time the eps reached me in
Canada, everyone else had seen them and I was avoiding spoilers).

Post by John Shocked
homosexuals are generally wealthy and Conservative/Libertarian
and want the government out of their life.

Based on?

Based on the positions they take on the issues.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
They have nothing to do with the Left, other than that they Buy the

Left,

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
every 4 years to tout their Sodomy issue and lose.

That. . . doesn't even make sense. I think I'm misunderstanding you.

The Hollywood Homosexuals each 4 years Buys the Democrat
candidate through pumping huge amount of money into the Democrat
campaign in Hollywood fundraisers and directly contributions and
force him to support the homosexual agenda, which is suicidal crap
which the public in this country violently opposes.
Can you imagine any politician supporting any issue which lost in 11
out of 11 Statewide ballot question plebiscital votes in 2004 ?
Democrat poliiticians are not fools, but they have limited sources of
income.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
If you disagree with my point of view, you are free to dispute the
statement.

I dispute it. You're attributing things to a vast and organized conspiracy
that can just as easily be attributed to a combination of dumb luck
(Dubbya's re-election) and genuine non-covert lobbying (gays/lesbians who
genuinely want to not have to break laws in the process of minding their own
business).
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Wow; you'd probably ~hate~ Firefly (about thieves, smugglers,
killers, and a whore). And Buffy/Angel (betrayal, murder, sex,
lesbianism, attempted rape, Buffy shows lesbianism ? How so ?

Willow becomes a lesbian when she falls in love with Tara. They're
shown in bed together and everything. There're even a variety of
not-too-impolite jokes about it (from the characters, and ~in~ character).

What time is this on and on what channel ?
Are these shows labelled as Strong Sexual Content ?

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
implied off-camera rape [of nuns], adultery. . .). And Gargoyles

Rape of Nuns ? They show the lead into this or the aftermath
of the rapist or nun who is raped ?

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
(betrayal, murder, attempted suicide). And InuYasha (at least
three of the "heroes" are mass-murderers and thieves, the monk
is a lecher, several are oath-breakers,
there's implied adultery, on-screen child abuse [yes, even in the
Americanized dub], and more than half the cast are demons). I kinda feel

I thought Buffy was a Hollywood based show ?

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
sorry for you, missing such brilliantly-written and intelligent shows.

Wow, that does not sound like stuff I would want to watch, let alone
have children watch. How are these shows labelled. Age 18 and up ?

Buffy & Angel are prime time, so teenagers-to-adults.
Gargoyles was a kids' show from Disney. Yes, Disney. It aired Saturday
mornings.
InuYasha is an adult show in America (teen show in Japan), but it has a
sizeable "cult" following among kids and the young-at-heart (there're toys,
and trading cards, and a video game). The lead characters are 15-17 years
old (well, InuYasha himself is over 50, but demons age very slowly, so he's
portrayed as about 16-18 [Sesshoumaru is pushing 100, but looks early-20s at
most]).

Post by John Shocked
A show with no heroes is not much to watch.

I'm guessing you're not a fan of Shakespeare.

It is long ago, but I recall there being some heroes in Shakespeare.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
Thus, I do not believe your descriptions could be completely accurate.

Well, there's an old saying about how you can't see the stars unless
the sky is black.
There's a lot of darkness in Gargoyles and InuYasha, but there are a lot of
good characters too. They're not cardboard cutouts of Good and Evil, they're
fully developed and multi-faceted, heroes and antagonists both. You can
cheer at a hero's pain, and you can be brought to tears for a villain. This
(IMHO) is what makes for interesting characters and good writing --art is
about getting an emotional reaction from viewers. They're like real people,
in all their flawed beauty, and they aspire to improve themselves --much
like us in the audience, who are not perfect (anyone who says otherwise is
selling something).
InuYasha has a cast of almost a hundred, each one-shot "guest of the week"
more developed than the leads on most prime-time dramas. Each one has flaws,
problems, and weaknesses, but so does the audience. We can't help but
sympathize with them and care about them, like the lecherous monk who
secretly wants someone to give him an excuse to ~try~ to change, or the
"heroic" demon-slayer who lost her entire family and wants vengeance, or the
demonic assassin who wants nothing more than to be free, like the unchained
wind.
There are exactly two wholly "good" characters in the entire show, but they
have an effect on the people around them. Kagome is the first person to
treat InuYasha with the kindness and dignity of a human (he's a half-demon,
a "monster," according to other humans and a weak, stupid animal by demon
standards). She walks with him when no one else would dare, and sees the
things in him that he won't let anyone else see (like tears for the people
he's killed). When people call him a monster, she is the first person in
InuYasha's entire life to deny it (even his own mother couldn't say the
words).
His half-brother Sesshoumaru (the ~legitimate~ son) is a cold and heartless
killer, who regards humans as little better than ants in his path. He kills
not out of intent, but just out of convenience. Then a young human girl
(with missing teeth and bruises on her face that we ~see~ being inflicted)
offers him kindness. He doesn't need it, but later, when the girl is killed,
he uses magic to revive her, and goes on to protect her, even risking his
life (more importantly, his Honour) for this "insignificant little creature"
that has somehow become important to him.
Over on Gargoyles, the Gargoyles are betrayed and murdered in their sleep
for no other reason than that they look monstrous (even though it is their
nature to protect). Turns out they were betrayed by one of their own --the
Mate of the clan-leader. Meanwhile, the whole clan is being manipulated by
Xanatos, who wants to become immortal. He starts out as their cunning,
brilliantly manipulative enemy, then gradually becomes an ally as he falls
in love, gets married, and first holds his newborn son (all the immortality
a man needs, or deserves).

Are these Cartoon shows ? I am not sure that cartoons have the same impact
as real actors, but still these does appear to be too strong material to
present
to kids.

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
As I said, moral people cringe when they see someone who is already
downtrodden, be kicked when they are down.
Ultimately, that is bad business and loses money.

Then explain the prevalence of "Reality" TV.
Mark

Question does not make sense.

*SNIP*
Most "Reality" TV (in quotes 'cause it has nothing to do with any reality I
know about) is all ~about~ kicking the downtrodden. It's about being brutal
and cut-throat and needlessly cruel, and panders to the worst things in
human nature.
Gimme a good scripted, rule-breaking series any day of the week.
Mark
"We're all lying in the gutter, but some of us are looking to the stars."

Are they inviting trailer park people or welfare recipients on these
reality TV shows nowadays ?

Politics

[PettyFan]

On Thu, 12 May 2005 11:42:07 -0700, "John Shocked"

Post by Mark Brown

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Angel losing his soul and becoming Angelus (who tries to kill everyone) is
really no different than (in Andromeda terms) if the Abyss had
telepathically turned Rev Bem into Redplague (his magog name/identity) and
made him try to destroy the Andromeda.

These sorts of transformations just are not acceptable to any other than
weak minds who will literally accept any nonsense portrayed on screen.
I mean, if characters in the show can undergo these "transformations",
what was the point of your watching the show up to that point ?
Just because some producer claims that the "ratings are stale and we

need

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
a big change" should not allow them to throw out the existing character base
and introduce a new person. If they want a new character, have them
introduce someone new to the show. And if that means the existing
characters receive decreased air time, so be it.

Yes, but neither Angelus nor (my hypothetical version of) Redplague are
"new" characters; they both have connections to the other characters and

the

Post by Mark Brown
world around them.
Buffy's Angelus arc was about how Buffy (in love with Angel) dealt with
having to destroy him, and how Angel's love for Buffy became twisted and
murderous when Angelus took over. Plus it was a chance for David Boreanaz

to

Post by Mark Brown
stretch his acting chops (Angel = dark, brooding, and romantic, Angelus =
wild, fun-loving, and sadistic). It also allowed the writers to present a
villain that could have more of an effect on the heroes than any previous
('cause they'd invited him into their homes, and he ~knew~ them, and

exactly

Post by Mark Brown
what buttons to push to truly terrorize them).
And then, when Buffy had finally accepted that the man she loved was gone,
and that Angelus had to be destroyed. . . Angel returned. By then,

however,

Post by Mark Brown
it was too late. Angelus had started a spell that would destroy the world,
and could only be stopped with a vampire's blood. Angel didn't have

Angelus'

Post by Mark Brown
memories, but Buffy still had to kill him.

And why do you believe it was important for an existing character to
tranform into this threat to the world, rather than to introduce a new
character and have him play anti-christ ?
That is, other than to guarantee the existing paid actors consistent face
time on screen.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
In Firefly, Simon betrays Mal by smuggling River aboard and thus

endangering Mal's crew. Not only does Simon not die, but he and

Post by Mark Brown
River become main characters. Later, Jayne sells out Simon &
River (there's a bounty on their heads) after Mal promises to
protect them. Jayne gets in trouble, and (after
being rescued) gets threatened by Mal (who nearly chucks him out an
airlock), River ("I can kill you with my brain"), and tacitly by Simon

as

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
well ("I'm a doctor. As long as you're ~on~that~table,~ I won't hurt

you"),

Post by Mark Brown
but doesn't die. Previous to the series, Jayne had betrayed a previous
partner. When said partner gets out of jail, he comes after Jayne and
promptly gets killed. And that's not even mentioning Jayne's brief

career

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
as

Post by Mark Brown
a bounty hunter, in which he (apparently) killed his boss and a fellow
henchman when Mal (the bounty hunter's target) offered him a better

deal.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
At

Post by Mark Brown
an earlier point, Mal and crew betray Niska and murder one of his

henchmen.

Post by Mark Brown
This is the whole crew that's involved, mind, and none of them die

(well,

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Mal flatlines for a few seconds, but Niska brings him back [to torture him
some more], then ends up losing him).

Firefly ? I have never even heard of this show.
However, with the amount of betrayal you describe, I doubt that I would
find any of the characters interesting enough to watch the show.
And that is what The Rules are about -- inducing people to watch and
keep watching the show.

Created by Joss Whedon (the man behind Buffy and Angel), who wanted to try
something new. It's a sci-fi "space-western," about a crew of perpetually
hard-luck misfits and their ship (Firefly-class "Serenity"). I'll let
"After the Earth was used up, we found a new solar system, and hundreds of
new Earths were terraformed and colonized. The central planets formed the
Alliance, and decided all the planets had to join under their rule. There
was some disagreement on that point. After the War, many of the

Independents

Post by Mark Brown
who had fought and lost drifted to the edges of the system, far from
Alliance control. Out here, people struggled to get by with the most basic
technologies. A ship would bring you work, a gun would help you keep it. A
captain's goal was simple; find a crew, find a job. Keep flying."
Since its sabotage and cancellation by Fox (your fellow Conservatives),

the

Post by Mark Brown
Firefly DVD has moved over 200,000 units (that was last year; I haven't

been

Post by Mark Brown
keeping track), is consistently listed in "Top-5" lists of TV series, and
has a movie (_Serenity_) coming out (and comics, and novels) that will
likely start up Joss' newest franchise. The movie wouldn't exist if not

for

Post by Mark Brown
the dogged devotion of the fans; no cancelled series has had this much of

a

Post by Mark Brown
following since Star_Trek. There's a book of essays out now ("Finding
Serenity") by some of the top names in the SF field (similar books came

out

Post by Mark Brown
for The_Matrix, so you may know the format). There are Firefly fans around
the world, including places where the show never actually aired (they

bought

Post by Mark Brown
the DVDs on word-of-mouth).
I think we can agree that violating "The Rules" can pay off. Big time.

I am not sure you understand the Rules. And Rules can conflict
with other Rules.
I think someone said that Firefly has Sodomy in it. Obviously it is a HBO
show so that is no surprise. How much homosexual sex is shown in this
series ?

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Somewhere else I think you said that
Buffy died twice and then returned ? This is laughable.

The first time, that was the point; The Master (the main villain for the
season) held her head under water until she drowned. After he left, Xander
and Angel arrived, and Xander gave Buffy CPR. It revived her, but (as per
the rules of Joss' universe --the only ones he needs to follow), Buffy's
momentary death Called the next Slayer (when one Slayer dies, the next is
Called, one after another), Kendra. Later, Kendra was murdered by

Drusilla,

Post by Mark Brown
and her death Called Faith (which touched off a whole other storyline).
The second time was when Buffy sacrificed herself to save her sister.

Willow

Post by Mark Brown
(a witch, and Buffy's best friend) did a spell to revive her, which kinda
backfired; Buffy had been pulled out of Heaven, and started spiralling

into

Post by Mark Brown
depression and a nervous breakdown (which led to her reaching out to

Spike,

Post by Mark Brown
which in turn pushed ~him~ over an edge). Meanwhile, the spell touched off

a

Post by Mark Brown
drug addiction storyline for Willow, which led (indirectly) to her turning
Evil, and having to deal with the consequences of ~that.~ It took a whole
season for Buffy to really forgive her "friends," and she never fully
recovered (see, the second death led to heavy character-development all
around).

So all of these people have superpowers and can cast spells ?

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by John Shocked
In fact, what you describe reminds me of the identical scene
I just watched today on Sliders,

You dismiss fantasy, but you hold up Sliders as an example?

Sliders is science fiction, based on a device they designed called "The
Timer".
It is a ripoff of Doctor Who, except that time stays the same (which

saves

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
on wardrobe and makeup costs, not to mention writers having to read
some history or think creatively about the future) and they transport
to parallel worlds.

It's also (after John Rhys-Davies left) kinda lousy, with no real grasp of
science or interesting characters.

As I have stated, it declined in quality the initial foursome was broken up.
I thought Derricks (Rembrandt) was the best actor of the bunch and
Rhys-Davies was no slouch either, and those two carried the show.

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Describe the details of this "betrayal".

See above. Sorry for not doing that sooner.

I still do not see the betrayal.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
It is hard for me to imagine a star and hero of a show ever being
shown to commit real dramatic betrayal.

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
When the US finally becomes a completely Amoral populace
which I believe is the intent of the current crop of Hollywood
Homosexuals who control Hollywood today,

You are aware that this statement just screams BIGOTTED
CONSERVATIVE TROLL, aren't you?

First, I do not care what the Truth sounds like.
Second, as I have mentioned in several other debates in the
BSG Newsgroup,

Which I don't read (I like BSG, but by the time the eps reached me in
Canada, everyone else had seen them and I was avoiding spoilers).

Post by John Shocked
homosexuals are generally wealthy and Conservative/Libertarian
and want the government out of their life.

Based on?

Based on the positions they take on the issues.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
They have nothing to do with the Left, other than that they Buy the

Left,

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
every 4 years to tout their Sodomy issue and lose.

That. . . doesn't even make sense. I think I'm misunderstanding you.

The Hollywood Homosexuals each 4 years Buys the Democrat
candidate through pumping huge amount of money into the Democrat
campaign in Hollywood fundraisers and directly contributions and
force him to support the homosexual agenda, which is suicidal crap
which the public in this country violently opposes.
Can you imagine any politician supporting any issue which lost in 11
out of 11 Statewide ballot question plebiscital votes in 2004 ?
Democrat poliiticians are not fools, but they have limited sources of
income.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
If you disagree with my point of view, you are free to dispute the
statement.

I dispute it. You're attributing things to a vast and organized conspiracy
that can just as easily be attributed to a combination of dumb luck
(Dubbya's re-election) and genuine non-covert lobbying (gays/lesbians who
genuinely want to not have to break laws in the process of minding their

own

Post by Mark Brown
business).
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Wow; you'd probably ~hate~ Firefly (about thieves, smugglers,
killers, and a whore). And Buffy/Angel (betrayal, murder, sex,
lesbianism, attempted rape, Buffy shows lesbianism ? How so ?

Willow becomes a lesbian when she falls in love with Tara. They're
shown in bed together and everything. There're even a variety of
not-too-impolite jokes about it (from the characters, and ~in~ character).

What time is this on and on what channel ?
Are these shows labelled as Strong Sexual Content ?

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
implied off-camera rape [of nuns], adultery. . .). And Gargoyles

Rape of Nuns ? They show the lead into this or the aftermath
of the rapist or nun who is raped ?

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
(betrayal, murder, attempted suicide). And InuYasha (at least
three of the "heroes" are mass-murderers and thieves, the monk
is a lecher, several are oath-breakers,
there's implied adultery, on-screen child abuse [yes, even in the
Americanized dub], and more than half the cast are demons). I kinda

feel
I thought Buffy was a Hollywood based show ?

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
sorry for you, missing such brilliantly-written and intelligent shows.

Wow, that does not sound like stuff I would want to watch, let alone
have children watch. How are these shows labelled. Age 18 and up ?

Buffy & Angel are prime time, so teenagers-to-adults.
Gargoyles was a kids' show from Disney. Yes, Disney. It aired Saturday
mornings.
InuYasha is an adult show in America (teen show in Japan), but it has a
sizeable "cult" following among kids and the young-at-heart (there're

toys,

Post by Mark Brown
and trading cards, and a video game). The lead characters are 15-17 years
old (well, InuYasha himself is over 50, but demons age very slowly, so

he's

Post by Mark Brown
portrayed as about 16-18 [Sesshoumaru is pushing 100, but looks early-20s

at

Post by Mark Brown
most]).

Post by John Shocked
A show with no heroes is not much to watch.

I'm guessing you're not a fan of Shakespeare.

It is long ago, but I recall there being some heroes in Shakespeare.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
Thus, I do not believe your descriptions could be completely accurate.

Well, there's an old saying about how you can't see the stars unless
the sky is black.
There's a lot of darkness in Gargoyles and InuYasha, but there are a lot

of

Post by Mark Brown
good characters too. They're not cardboard cutouts of Good and Evil,

they're

Post by Mark Brown
fully developed and multi-faceted, heroes and antagonists both. You can
cheer at a hero's pain, and you can be brought to tears for a villain.

This

Post by Mark Brown
(IMHO) is what makes for interesting characters and good writing --art is
about getting an emotional reaction from viewers. They're like real

people,

Post by Mark Brown
in all their flawed beauty, and they aspire to improve themselves --much
like us in the audience, who are not perfect (anyone who says otherwise is
selling something).
InuYasha has a cast of almost a hundred, each one-shot "guest of the week"
more developed than the leads on most prime-time dramas. Each one has

flaws,

Post by Mark Brown
problems, and weaknesses, but so does the audience. We can't help but
sympathize with them and care about them, like the lecherous monk who
secretly wants someone to give him an excuse to ~try~ to change, or the
"heroic" demon-slayer who lost her entire family and wants vengeance, or

the

Post by Mark Brown
demonic assassin who wants nothing more than to be free, like the

unchained

Post by Mark Brown
wind.
There are exactly two wholly "good" characters in the entire show, but

they

Post by Mark Brown
have an effect on the people around them. Kagome is the first person to
treat InuYasha with the kindness and dignity of a human (he's a

half-demon,

Post by Mark Brown
a "monster," according to other humans and a weak, stupid animal by demon
standards). She walks with him when no one else would dare, and sees the
things in him that he won't let anyone else see (like tears for the people
he's killed). When people call him a monster, she is the first person in
InuYasha's entire life to deny it (even his own mother couldn't say the
words).
His half-brother Sesshoumaru (the ~legitimate~ son) is a cold and

heartless

Post by Mark Brown
killer, who regards humans as little better than ants in his path. He

kills

Post by Mark Brown
not out of intent, but just out of convenience. Then a young human girl
(with missing teeth and bruises on her face that we ~see~ being inflicted)
offers him kindness. He doesn't need it, but later, when the girl is

killed,

Post by Mark Brown
he uses magic to revive her, and goes on to protect her, even risking his
life (more importantly, his Honour) for this "insignificant little

creature"

Post by Mark Brown
that has somehow become important to him.
Over on Gargoyles, the Gargoyles are betrayed and murdered in their sleep
for no other reason than that they look monstrous (even though it is their
nature to protect). Turns out they were betrayed by one of their own --the
Mate of the clan-leader. Meanwhile, the whole clan is being manipulated by
Xanatos, who wants to become immortal. He starts out as their cunning,
brilliantly manipulative enemy, then gradually becomes an ally as he falls
in love, gets married, and first holds his newborn son (all the

immortality

Post by Mark Brown
a man needs, or deserves).

Are these Cartoon shows ? I am not sure that cartoons have the same impact
as real actors, but still these does appear to be too strong material to
present
to kids.

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
As I said, moral people cringe when they see someone who is already
downtrodden, be kicked when they are down.
Ultimately, that is bad business and loses money.

Then explain the prevalence of "Reality" TV.
Mark

Question does not make sense.

*SNIP*
Most "Reality" TV (in quotes 'cause it has nothing to do with any reality

I

Post by Mark Brown
know about) is all ~about~ kicking the downtrodden. It's about being

brutal

Post by Mark Brown
and cut-throat and needlessly cruel, and panders to the worst things in
human nature.
Gimme a good scripted, rule-breaking series any day of the week.
Mark
"We're all lying in the gutter, but some of us are looking to the stars."

Are they inviting trailer park people

if they were why were you not invited? you are a rude ass!


or welfare recipients on these

Post by Mark Brown
reality TV shows nowadays ?
Politics

[John Shocked]

Post by PettyFan
On Thu, 12 May 2005 11:42:07 -0700, "John Shocked"

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Angel losing his soul and becoming Angelus (who tries to kill
everyone) is really no different than (in Andromeda terms) if the
Abyss had telepathically turned Rev Bem into Redplague (his
magog name/identity) and made him try to destroy the Andromeda.

These sorts of transformations just are not acceptable to any other than
weak minds who will literally accept any nonsense portrayed on screen.
I mean, if characters in the show can undergo these

"transformations",

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
what was the point of your watching the show up to that point ?
Just because some producer claims that the "ratings are stale and
we need a big change" should not allow them to throw out the
existing character base and introduce a new person.
If they want a new character, have them introduce
someone new to the show. And if that means the existing
characters receive decreased air time, so be it.

Yes, but neither Angelus nor (my hypothetical version of) Redplague
are "new" characters; they both have connections to the other
characters and the world around them.

What is Redplague ?

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Buffy's Angelus arc was about how Buffy (in love with Angel) dealt with
having to destroy him, and how Angel's love for Buffy became twisted
and murderous when Angelus took over. Plus it was a chance for
David Boreanaz to stretch his acting chops (Angel = dark, brooding,
and romantic, Angelus = wild, fun-loving, and sadistic). It also
allowed the writers to present a villain that
could have more of an effect on the heroes than any previous
('cause they'd invited him into their homes, and he ~knew~ them, and
exactly what buttons to push to truly terrorize them).
And then, when Buffy had finally accepted that the man she loved was
gone, and that Angelus had to be destroyed. . . Angel returned.
By then, however, it was too late. Angelus had started a spell
that would destroy the world, and could only be
stopped with a vampire's blood. Angel didn't have Angelus'
memories, but Buffy still had to kill him.

And why do you believe it was important for an existing character to
tranform into this threat to the world, rather than to introduce a new
character and have him play anti-christ ?
That is, other than to guarantee the existing paid actors consistent face
time on screen.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
In Firefly, Simon betrays Mal by smuggling River aboard and thus

endangering Mal's crew. Not only does Simon not die, but he and

Post by Mark Brown
River become main characters. Later, Jayne sells out Simon &
River (there's a bounty on their heads) after Mal promises to
protect them. Jayne gets in trouble, and (after
being rescued) gets threatened by Mal (who nearly
chucks him out an airlock), River ("I can kill you with my
brain"), and tacitly by Simon as well ("I'm a doctor.
As long as you're ~on~that~table,~ I won't hurt you"),
but doesn't die. Previous to the series, Jayne had betrayed
a previous partner. When said partner gets out of jail, he comes
after Jayne and promptly gets killed. And that's not even
mentioning Jayne's brief career as
a bounty hunter, in which he (apparently) killed his boss and
a fellow henchman when Mal (the bounty hunter's target)
offered him a better deal.

At an earlier point, Mal and crew betray Niska and murder
one of his henchmen.

Post by Mark Brown
This is the whole crew that's involved, mind, and none of them
die (well, Mal flatlines for a few seconds, but Niska brings
him back [to torture him some more], then ends up losing him).

Firefly ? I have never even heard of this show.
However, with the amount of betrayal you describe, I doubt that I would
find any of the characters interesting enough to watch the show.
And that is what The Rules are about -- inducing people to watch and
keep watching the show.

Created by Joss Whedon (the man behind Buffy and Angel), who wanted to try
something new. It's a sci-fi "space-western," about a crew of perpetually
hard-luck misfits and their ship (Firefly-class "Serenity"). I'll let
"After the Earth was used up, we found a new solar system, and hundreds of
new Earths were terraformed and colonized. The central planets formed the
Alliance, and decided all the planets had to join under their rule. There
was some disagreement on that point. After the War, many of the

Independents

Post by Mark Brown
who had fought and lost drifted to the edges of the system, far from
Alliance control. Out here, people struggled to get by with the most basic
technologies. A ship would bring you work, a gun would help you keep

it.

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
A captain's goal was simple; find a crew, find a job. Keep flying."
Since its sabotage and cancellation by Fox (your fellow Conservatives),

the

Post by Mark Brown
Firefly DVD has moved over 200,000 units (that was last year; I haven't

been

Post by Mark Brown
keeping track), is consistently listed in "Top-5" lists of TV series, and
has a movie (_Serenity_) coming out (and comics, and novels) that will
likely start up Joss' newest franchise. The movie wouldn't exist if not

for

Post by Mark Brown
the dogged devotion of the fans; no cancelled series has had this much of

a

Post by Mark Brown
following since Star_Trek. There's a book of essays out now ("Finding
Serenity") by some of the top names in the SF field (similar books came

out

Post by Mark Brown
for The_Matrix, so you may know the format). There are Firefly fans around
the world, including places where the show never actually aired (they

bought

Post by Mark Brown
the DVDs on word-of-mouth).
I think we can agree that violating "The Rules" can pay off. Big time.

I am not sure you understand the Rules. And Rules can conflict
with other Rules.
I think someone said that Firefly has Sodomy in it. Obviously it is a HBO
show so that is no surprise. How much homosexual sex is shown in this
series ?

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Somewhere else I think you said that
Buffy died twice and then returned ? This is laughable.

The first time, that was the point; The Master (the main villain for the
season) held her head under water until she drowned. After he left, Xander
and Angel arrived, and Xander gave Buffy CPR. It revived her, but (as per
the rules of Joss' universe --the only ones he needs to follow), Buffy's
momentary death Called the next Slayer (when one Slayer dies, the next is
Called, one after another), Kendra. Later, Kendra was murdered by

Drusilla,

Post by Mark Brown
and her death Called Faith (which touched off a whole other storyline).
The second time was when Buffy sacrificed herself to save her sister.

Willow

Post by Mark Brown
(a witch, and Buffy's best friend) did a spell to revive her, which kinda
backfired; Buffy had been pulled out of Heaven, and started spiralling

into

Post by Mark Brown
depression and a nervous breakdown (which led to her reaching out to

Spike,

Post by Mark Brown
which in turn pushed ~him~ over an edge). Meanwhile, the spell touched off

a

Post by Mark Brown
drug addiction storyline for Willow, which led (indirectly) to her turning
Evil, and having to deal with the consequences of ~that.~ It took a whole
season for Buffy to really forgive her "friends," and she never fully
recovered (see, the second death led to heavy character-development all
around).

So all of these people have superpowers and can cast spells ?

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by John Shocked
In fact, what you describe reminds me of the identical scene
I just watched today on Sliders,

You dismiss fantasy, but you hold up Sliders as an example?

Sliders is science fiction, based on a device they designed called "The
Timer".
It is a ripoff of Doctor Who, except that time stays the same (which

saves

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
on wardrobe and makeup costs, not to mention writers having to read
some history or think creatively about the future) and they transport
to parallel worlds.

It's also (after John Rhys-Davies left) kinda lousy, with no real grasp of
science or interesting characters.

As I have stated, it declined in quality the initial foursome was broken up.
I thought Derricks (Rembrandt) was the best actor of the bunch and
Rhys-Davies was no slouch either, and those two carried the show.

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Describe the details of this "betrayal".

See above. Sorry for not doing that sooner.

I still do not see the betrayal.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
It is hard for me to imagine a star and hero of a show ever being
shown to commit real dramatic betrayal.

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
When the US finally becomes a completely Amoral populace
which I believe is the intent of the current crop of Hollywood
Homosexuals who control Hollywood today,

You are aware that this statement just screams BIGOTTED
CONSERVATIVE TROLL, aren't you?

First, I do not care what the Truth sounds like.
Second, as I have mentioned in several other debates in the BSG Newsgroup,

Which I don't read (I like BSG, but by the time the eps reached me in
Canada, everyone else had seen them and I was avoiding spoilers).

Post by John Shocked
homosexuals are generally wealthy and Conservative/Libertarian
and want the government out of their life.

Based on?

Based on the positions they take on the issues.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
They have nothing to do with the Left, other than that they Buy the

Left,

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
every 4 years to tout their Sodomy issue and lose.

That. . . doesn't even make sense. I think I'm misunderstanding you.

The Hollywood Homosexuals each 4 years Buys the Democrat
candidate through pumping huge amount of money into the Democrat
campaign in Hollywood fundraisers and directly contributions and
force him to support the homosexual agenda, which is suicidal crap
which the public in this country violently opposes.
Can you imagine any politician supporting any issue which lost in 11
out of 11 Statewide ballot question plebiscital votes in 2004 ?
Democrat poliiticians are not fools, but they have limited sources of
income.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
If you disagree with my point of view, you are free to dispute the
statement.

I dispute it. You're attributing things to a vast and organized conspiracy
that can just as easily be attributed to a combination of dumb luck
(Dubbya's re-election) and genuine non-covert lobbying (gays/lesbians who
genuinely want to not have to break laws in the process of minding their

own

Post by Mark Brown
business).
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Wow; you'd probably ~hate~ Firefly (about thieves, smugglers,
killers, and a whore). And Buffy/Angel (betrayal, murder, sex,
lesbianism, attempted rape, Buffy shows lesbianism ? How so ?

Willow becomes a lesbian when she falls in love with Tara. They're
shown in bed together and everything. There're even a variety of
not-too-impolite jokes about it (from the characters, and ~in~ character).

What time is this on and on what channel ?
Are these shows labelled as Strong Sexual Content ?

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
implied off-camera rape [of nuns], adultery. . .). And Gargoyles

Rape of Nuns ? They show the lead into this or the aftermath
of the rapist or nun who is raped ?

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
(betrayal, murder, attempted suicide). And InuYasha (at least
three of the "heroes" are mass-murderers and thieves, the monk
is a lecher, several are oath-breakers,
there's implied adultery, on-screen child abuse [yes, even in the
Americanized dub], and more than half the cast are demons). I kinda

feel
I thought Buffy was a Hollywood based show ?

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
sorry for you, missing such brilliantly-written and intelligent shows.

Wow, that does not sound like stuff I would want to watch, let alone
have children watch. How are these shows labelled. Age 18 and up ?

Buffy & Angel are prime time, so teenagers-to-adults.
Gargoyles was a kids' show from Disney. Yes, Disney. It aired Saturday
mornings.
InuYasha is an adult show in America (teen show in Japan), but it has a
sizeable "cult" following among kids and the young-at-heart (there're

toys,

Post by Mark Brown
and trading cards, and a video game). The lead characters are 15-17 years
old (well, InuYasha himself is over 50, but demons age very slowly, so

he's

Post by Mark Brown
portrayed as about 16-18 [Sesshoumaru is pushing 100, but looks early-20s

at

Post by Mark Brown
most]).

Post by John Shocked
A show with no heroes is not much to watch.

I'm guessing you're not a fan of Shakespeare.

It is long ago, but I recall there being some heroes in Shakespeare.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
Thus, I do not believe your descriptions could be completely accurate.

Well, there's an old saying about how you can't see the stars unless
the sky is black.
There's a lot of darkness in Gargoyles and InuYasha, but there are a lot

of

Post by Mark Brown
good characters too. They're not cardboard cutouts of Good and Evil,

they're

Post by Mark Brown
fully developed and multi-faceted, heroes and antagonists both. You can
cheer at a hero's pain, and you can be brought to tears for a villain.

This

Post by Mark Brown
(IMHO) is what makes for interesting characters and good writing --art is
about getting an emotional reaction from viewers. They're like real

people,

Post by Mark Brown
in all their flawed beauty, and they aspire to improve

themselves --much

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
like us in the audience, who are not perfect (anyone who says otherwise is
selling something).
InuYasha has a cast of almost a hundred, each one-shot "guest of the week"
more developed than the leads on most prime-time dramas. Each one has

flaws,

Post by Mark Brown
problems, and weaknesses, but so does the audience. We can't help but
sympathize with them and care about them, like the lecherous monk who
secretly wants someone to give him an excuse to ~try~ to change, or the
"heroic" demon-slayer who lost her entire family and wants vengeance, or

the

Post by Mark Brown
demonic assassin who wants nothing more than to be free, like the

unchained

Post by Mark Brown
wind.
There are exactly two wholly "good" characters in the entire show, but

they

Post by Mark Brown
have an effect on the people around them. Kagome is the first person to
treat InuYasha with the kindness and dignity of a human (he's a

half-demon,

Post by Mark Brown
a "monster," according to other humans and a weak, stupid animal by demon
standards). She walks with him when no one else would dare, and sees the
things in him that he won't let anyone else see (like tears for the people
he's killed). When people call him a monster, she is the first person in
InuYasha's entire life to deny it (even his own mother couldn't say the
words).
His half-brother Sesshoumaru (the ~legitimate~ son) is a cold and

heartless

Post by Mark Brown
killer, who regards humans as little better than ants in his path. He

kills

Post by Mark Brown
not out of intent, but just out of convenience. Then a young human girl
(with missing teeth and bruises on her face that we ~see~ being inflicted)
offers him kindness. He doesn't need it, but later, when the girl is

killed,

Post by Mark Brown
he uses magic to revive her, and goes on to protect her, even risking his
life (more importantly, his Honour) for this "insignificant little

creature"

Post by Mark Brown
that has somehow become important to him.
Over on Gargoyles, the Gargoyles are betrayed and murdered in their sleep
for no other reason than that they look monstrous (even though it is their
nature to protect). Turns out they were betrayed by one of their own --the
Mate of the clan-leader. Meanwhile, the whole clan is being manipulated by
Xanatos, who wants to become immortal. He starts out as their cunning,
brilliantly manipulative enemy, then gradually becomes an ally as he falls
in love, gets married, and first holds his newborn son (all the

immortality

Post by Mark Brown
a man needs, or deserves).

Are these Cartoon shows ? I am not sure that cartoons have the same impact
as real actors, but still these does appear to be too strong material to
present
to kids.

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
As I said, moral people cringe when they see someone who is already
downtrodden, be kicked when they are down.
Ultimately, that is bad business and loses money.

Then explain the prevalence of "Reality" TV.
Mark

Question does not make sense.

*SNIP*
Most "Reality" TV (in quotes 'cause it has nothing to do with any reality

I

Post by Mark Brown
know about) is all ~about~ kicking the downtrodden. It's about being

brutal

Post by Mark Brown
and cut-throat and needlessly cruel, and panders to the worst things in
human nature.
Gimme a good scripted, rule-breaking series any day of the week.
Mark
"We're all lying in the gutter, but some of us are looking to the stars."

Are they inviting trailer park people

if they were why were you not invited? you are a rude ass!

Oh I'm so hurt by this. Thanks for agreeing with my whole message.

Politics

Post by PettyFan
or welfare recipients on these reality TV shows nowadays ?

Post by John Shocked
Politics

[Mike Meyer]

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Willow becomes a lesbian when she falls in love with Tara. They're
shown in bed together and everything. There're even a variety of
not-too-impolite jokes about it (from the characters, and ~in~ character).

What time is this on and on what channel ?
Are these shows labelled as Strong Sexual Content ?

No, they aren't labelled as Strong Sexual Content. They don't need
that label - they don't have any sexual content any stronger than a
typical primetime drama. Actually, they have *less* sexual content
than some of the prime-time dramas currently being aired. There's no
nudity, no fondling, etc. I don't ever recall seeing so much as a bra
in the series, and that's common fair on primetime dramas these
days. It carries a PG rating. That seems about right - the sexual
content is minimal, and the violence isn't realistic enough to warrant
a TV-14: they seldom kill humans, seldom show blood, and the bodies of
monsters have a habit of turning into a pile of dust.

Buffy is no longer being produces. It wasn't cancelled, they decided
they had said all there was to say, and moved on. You can find it in
reruns all over the place - it was a hit.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
A show with no heroes is not much to watch.

I'm guessing you're not a fan of Shakespeare.

It is long ago, but I recall there being some heroes in Shakespeare.

Not many. I'll admit that the things that stick in my mind are the
tragedies - I found them his most powerfull works - so my not being
able to recall any may be due to that bias.

Post by John Shocked
Are these Cartoon shows ? I am not sure that cartoons have the same impact
as real actors, but still these does appear to be too strong material to
present
to kids.

Cartoons aren't just for kids any more. These days, they tackle very
adult themes. I'm not familiar with the work that john is quoting
here, but they sound like Japanese entries into the field. To check
out American work, "American Dad", "King of the Hill" and "The
Simpsons" are currently in production. "Family Guy" has some amazing
references. They did an entire episode that was a parody of the
Hope/Crosby road movies of the 30s and 40s. To try and stay on topic,
"Futurama" is science fiction, being set in the year 3000 (give or
take a little), and uses that setting to take a (very) skewed look a
things. Some of these run on the cartoon networks "Adult Swim"
segment.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Most "Reality" TV (in quotes 'cause it has nothing to do with any reality

I

Post by Mark Brown
know about) is all ~about~ kicking the downtrodden. It's about being

brutal

Post by Mark Brown
and cut-throat and needlessly cruel, and panders to the worst things in
human nature.
Gimme a good scripted, rule-breaking series any day of the week.
Mark
"We're all lying in the gutter, but some of us are looking to the stars."

Are they inviting trailer park people or welfare recipients on these
reality TV shows nowadays ?

As a matter of fact, that pretty much describes the people on the
reality tv shows my friends watch.

<mike

[John Shocked]

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Willow becomes a lesbian when she falls in love with Tara. They're
shown in bed together and everything. There're even a variety of
not-too-impolite jokes about it (from the characters, and ~in~ character).

What time is this on and on what channel ?
Are these shows labelled as Strong Sexual Content ?

No, they aren't labelled as Strong Sexual Content. They don't need
that label - they don't have any sexual content any stronger than a
typical primetime drama. Actually, they have *less* sexual content
than some of the prime-time dramas currently being aired. There's no
nudity, no fondling, etc. I don't ever recall seeing so much as a bra
in the series, and that's common fair on primetime dramas these
days. It carries a PG rating. That seems about right - the sexual
content is minimal, and the violence isn't realistic enough to warrant
a TV-14: they seldom kill humans, seldom show blood, and the bodies of
monsters have a habit of turning into a pile of dust.

It is not an issue of sexual content shown but Deviance shown.

Post by Mike Meyer
Buffy is no longer being produced. It wasn't cancelled, they decided
they had said all there was to say, and moved on. You can find it in
reruns all over the place - it was a hit.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
A show with no heroes is not much to watch.

I'm guessing you're not a fan of Shakespeare.

It is long ago, but I recall there being some heroes in Shakespeare.

Not many. I'll admit that the things that stick in my mind are the
tragedies - I found them his most powerfull works - so my not being
able to recall any may be due to that bias.

Do not remember. I am pretty certain Shakespeare did not
sell Sodomy to you and your kids.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Are these Cartoon shows ? I am not sure that cartoons have the
same impact as real actors, but still these does appear to be too
strong material to present to kids.

Cartoons aren't just for kids any more. These days, they tackle very
adult themes. I'm not familiar with the work that john is quoting
here, but they sound like Japanese entries into the field. To check
out American work, "American Dad", "King of the Hill" and "The
Simpsons" are currently in production. "Family Guy" has some amazing
references. They did an entire episode that was a parody of the
Hope/Crosby road movies of the 30s and 40s. To try and stay on topic,

Are you claiming that Bob Hope and Bing Crosby were closet
homosexuals ? I really doubt that.

Post by Mike Meyer
"Futurama" is science fiction, being set in the year 3000 (give or
take a little), and uses that setting to take a (very) skewed look a
things. Some of these run on the cartoon networks "Adult Swim"
segment.

Sounds like we need some Congressional Hearings to investigate the
muck that is on TV, like we had in the courageous 1950's.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Most "Reality" TV (in quotes 'cause it has nothing to do with
any reality I know about) is all ~about~ kicking the downtrodden.
It's about being brutal and cut-throat and needlessly cruel, and
panders to the worst things in human nature.
Gimme a good scripted, rule-breaking series any day of the week.
Mark
"We're all lying in the gutter, but some of us are looking to the stars."

Are they inviting trailer park people or welfare recipients on these
reality TV shows nowadays ?

As a matter of fact, that pretty much describes the people on the
reality tv shows my friends watch.
<mike

Which shows are you referring to ? It might be of interest to check it out.

Politics

[Mark Brown]

*SNIP*

Post by Mark Brown

Post by Mark Brown
Yes, but neither Angelus nor (my hypothetical version of) Redplague are
"new" characters; they both have connections to the other characters and

the

Post by Mark Brown
world around them.
Buffy's Angelus arc was about how Buffy (in love with Angel) dealt with
having to destroy him, and how Angel's love for Buffy became twisted and
murderous when Angelus took over. Plus it was a chance for David Boreanaz

to

Post by Mark Brown
stretch his acting chops (Angel = dark, brooding, and romantic, Angelus =
wild, fun-loving, and sadistic). It also allowed the writers to present a
villain that could have more of an effect on the heroes than any previous
('cause they'd invited him into their homes, and he ~knew~ them, and

exactly

Post by Mark Brown
what buttons to push to truly terrorize them).

*SNIP*

Post by Mark Brown
And why do you believe it was important for an existing character to
tranform into this threat to the world, rather than to introduce a new
character and have him play anti-christ ?
That is, other than to guarantee the existing paid actors consistent face
time on screen.

I just said; the other characters were invested in him. If they'd brought in
someone new, it'd have been all "oh, look, a new Big Bad. Let's just find
where he's hiding out and kill him." This way was "OMG, it's Angel!
Allright, quick, let's meet at --oh, wait, he knows we always meet there.
OMG, he's murdered the woman Giles has been flirting with. No, he's been in
Willow's house, it's not safe there anymore! . .). Angelus knew exactly how
to torment the gang ~psychologically.~ He knew all their fears and
weaknesses. A new character would've had to spend time learning all this
stuff.

*SNIP*

Post by Mark Brown

Post by Mark Brown
Created by Joss Whedon (the man behind Buffy and Angel), who wanted to try
something new. It's a sci-fi "space-western," about a crew of perpetually
hard-luck misfits and their ship (Firefly-class "Serenity").

*SNIP*

Post by Mark Brown

Post by Mark Brown
Since its sabotage and cancellation by Fox (your fellow Conservatives),

the

Post by Mark Brown
Firefly DVD has moved over 200,000 units (that was last year; I haven't

been

Post by Mark Brown
keeping track), is consistently listed in "Top-5" lists of TV series, and
has a movie (_Serenity_) coming out (and comics, and novels) that will
likely start up Joss' newest franchise. The movie wouldn't exist if not

for

Post by Mark Brown
the dogged devotion of the fans; no cancelled series has had this much of

a

Post by Mark Brown
following since Star_Trek. There's a book of essays out now ("Finding
Serenity") by some of the top names in the SF field (similar books came

out

Post by Mark Brown
for The_Matrix, so you may know the format). There are Firefly fans around
the world, including places where the show never actually aired (they

bought

Post by Mark Brown
the DVDs on word-of-mouth).

*SNIP*

Post by Mark Brown
I think someone said that Firefly has Sodomy in it. Obviously it is a HBO
show so that is no surprise.

Not HBO, Fox. Completely different network.

Post by Mark Brown
How much homosexual sex is shown in this
series ?

Well, there's one scene of not-even-really-sex, when Inara (the whore) is
giving a female client a backrub/massage. All the other (implied and/or
off-camera) sex is straight. Even married, in one case (Wash/Zoe). Of
course, there's exactly one time when sex is an actual plot point, and
that's more about Inara's reaction to Mal "cheating" on her (after she
categorically turned him down. Women).

Not that this has anything to do with the ~quality~ of a show, of course.

*SNIP* Re: Buffy's deaths

Post by Mark Brown
So all of these people have superpowers and can cast spells ?

Not all of them:
Buffy, Kendra, and Faith are Slayers, which is basically a human with super
strength, speed, and prophetic dreams that don't always work right.
Willow and Tara are witches and can use magic, but there are consequences;
the more powerful a spell, the bigger the consequences. Giles also has magic
powers that he's learned not to use (he's old, and his main skill is years
of experience and training).
Anya is a quasi-retired demon (basically human).
Xander, and Dawn (Buffy's sister) are human.
There's also Spike, who's a vampire but can't bite anyone (long story), so
he has strength, speed, and regenerative abilities, but no magic, and he's
subject to all the vampire rules (sunlight bad, can't enter a home unless
invited, crosses & holy water burn, no soul).
Angel is also a vampire, but with a soul (so he ~chooses~ not to bite
people). If he loses the soul, he becomes Angelus.

However, the show isn't about the powers, it's about the ~people.~ That's
the point I'm trying to make.

*SNIP*

Post by Mark Brown

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
Describe the details of this "betrayal".

See above. Sorry for not doing that sooner.

I still do not see the betrayal.

Buffy had to kill Angel. She didn't die for it.

*SNIP*

Post by Mark Brown
What time is this on and on what channel ?
Are these shows labelled as Strong Sexual Content ?

Uh, was around 8-9 pm (it varied over the 7 years it ran). I don't know
where/when it plays now 'cause both Buffy and Angel are finished (and I
don't watch the reruns). No, not strong sexual content.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
implied off-camera rape [of nuns], adultery. . .). And Gargoyles

Rape of Nuns ? They show the lead into this or the aftermath
of the rapist or nun who is raped ?

The raping was done by Angelus (flashbacks to, like, 15th-17th centuries,
before he had the soul) and his gang (Darla, then Drusilla, then Spike). The
circumstance I'm thinking of involved the aftermath; it was about how he and
Darla drove Dru insane before they Turned her (into a vampire). Angelus
tormented her (also, she had visions), killing off her family, chasing her
into a convent. Then, on the night she was to take Orders (like a graduation
from the nun-seminary, I assume), he and Darla attacked and "feasted,"
forcing her to watch. Then they Turned her. End result: Dru, the insane,
psychopathic vampire.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
(betrayal, murder, attempted suicide). And InuYasha (at least
three of the "heroes" are mass-murderers and thieves, the monk
is a lecher, several are oath-breakers,
there's implied adultery, on-screen child abuse [yes, even in the
Americanized dub], and more than half the cast are demons). I kinda

feel
I thought Buffy was a Hollywood based show ?

Buffy was, I'm talking about InuYasha here, which is animé (from and based
in Japan, and dubbed by Ocean Studios, Vancouver). Gargoyles, FWIW was a
Disney show (based mostly in New York), and as American as McDonalds. ;)

*SNIP*

Post by Mark Brown

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
A show with no heroes is not much to watch.

I'm guessing you're not a fan of Shakespeare.

It is long ago, but I recall there being some heroes in Shakespeare.

Some, but not many. And usually pretty conflicted.

*SNIP*

Post by Mark Brown
Are these Cartoon shows ? I am not sure that cartoons have the same impact
as real actors, but still these does appear to be too strong material to
present
to kids.

*SNIP*

As Mike observes, cartoons aren't just for kids. I expressly picked two
shows that I know have young followings (Gargoyles was Saturday mornings,
and I've seen kids with InuYasha merchandise). Animé especially.

There's also Cardcaptors (ten-year-old girl traffics with demons and
monsters), Shaman_King (kids hang out with ghosts and beat each other up,
sometimes nearly dying themselves), Spirited_Away (young girl ends up in a
surreal Japanese wonderland, and straddles a dragon), the original Japanese
Sailor_Moon (suicides, lesbians, gender-switching). . .

If I went into the specifically adult-oriented animé (GunslingerGirl,
Macross_Plus, Ghost_in_the_Shell, Witch_Hunter_Robin, et all) your head
would spin around. Neon_Genesis_Evangelion would probably kill you. ;)

Mark
"Shinji's tryin' to get some!" --Amanda Winn Lee, Evangelion DVD commentary.

[John Shocked]

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by Mark Brown

Post by Mark Brown
Yes, but neither Angelus nor (my hypothetical version of) Redplague
are "new" characters; they both have connections to the other

characters and the world around them.

Post by Mark Brown
Buffy's Angelus arc was about how Buffy (in love with Angel)
dealt with having to destroy him, and how Angel's love for Buffy
became twisted and murderous when Angelus took over.
Plus it was a chance for David Boreanaz to stretch his acting
chops (Angel = dark, brooding, and romantic, Angelus = wild,
fun-loving, and sadistic). It also allowed the writers to present a
villain that could have more of an effect on the heroes than any
previous ('cause they'd invited him into their homes, and he
~knew~ them, and exactly what buttons to push to truly terrorize them).

*SNIP*

Post by Mark Brown
And why do you believe it was important for an existing character
to tranform into this threat to the world, rather than to introduce
a new character and have him play anti-christ ?
That is, other than to guarantee the existing paid actors consistent
face time on screen.

I just said; the other characters were invested in him. If they'd brought
in someone new, it'd have been all "oh, look, a new Big Bad.
Let's just find where he's hiding out and kill him." This way was
"OMG, it's Angel! Allright, quick, let's meet at --oh, wait,
he knows we always meet there.
OMG, he's murdered the woman Giles has been flirting with.
No, he's been in Willow's house, it's not safe there anymore! . .).
Angelus knew exactly how to torment the gang ~psychologically
.~ He knew all their fears and weaknesses. A new character
would've had to spend time learning all this stuff.
*SNIP*

Post by Mark Brown

Post by Mark Brown
Created by Joss Whedon (the man behind Buffy and Angel),
who wanted to try something new. It's a sci-fi "space-western,"
about a crew of perpetually hard-luck misfits and their ship
(Firefly-class "Serenity").

*SNIP*

Post by Mark Brown

Post by Mark Brown
Since its sabotage and cancellation by Fox (your fellow
Conservatives), the Firefly DVD has moved over 200,000 units
(that was last year; I haven't been keeping track), is consistently
listed in "Top-5" lists of TV series, and has a movie (_Serenity_)
coming out (and comics, and novels) that will likely start up Joss'
newest franchise. The movie wouldn't exist if not for the dogged
devotion of the fans; no cancelled series has had this much of
a following since Star_Trek. There's a book of essays out now
("Finding Serenity") by some of the top names in the SF field
(similar books came out for The_Matrix, so you may know the
format). There are Firefly fans around the world, including places
where the show never actually aired (they bought the DVDs
on word-of-mouth).

*SNIP*

Post by Mark Brown
I think someone said that Firefly has Sodomy in it.
Obviously it is a HBO show so that is no surprise.

Not HBO, Fox. Completely different network.

Absolutely. Sliders I believe is a Fox created show.
Of course, Fox News is dishonest crap.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by Mark Brown
How much homosexual sex is shown in this series ?

Well, there's one scene of not-even-really-sex, when Inara (the whore)
is giving a female client a backrub/massage. All the other (implied and/or
off-camera) sex is straight. Even married, in one case (Wash/Zoe).
Of course, there's exactly one time when sex is an actual plot point, and
that's more about Inara's reaction to Mal "cheating" on her (after she
categorically turned him down. Women).
Not that this has anything to do with the ~quality~ of a show, of course.
*SNIP* Re: Buffy's deaths

Post by Mark Brown
So all of these people have superpowers and can cast spells ?

Buffy, Kendra, and Faith are Slayers, which is basically a human with
super strength, speed, and prophetic dreams that don't always work right.
Willow and Tara are witches and can use magic, but there are consequences;
the more powerful a spell, the bigger the consequences. Giles also has magic
powers that he's learned not to use (he's old, and his main skill is years
of experience and training).
Anya is a quasi-retired demon (basically human).
Xander, and Dawn (Buffy's sister) are human.
There's also Spike, who's a vampire but can't bite anyone (long story), so
he has strength, speed, and regenerative abilities, but no magic, and he's
subject to all the vampire rules (sunlight bad, can't enter a home unless
invited, crosses & holy water burn, no soul).
Angel is also a vampire, but with a soul (so he ~chooses~ not to bite
people). If he loses the soul, he becomes Angelus.
However, the show isn't about the powers, it's about the ~people.~
That's the point I'm trying to make.

It looks like this show is having a deleterious effect on children already,
according to the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/864984.stm

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by Mark Brown

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
Describe the details of this "betrayal".

See above. Sorry for not doing that sooner.

I still do not see the betrayal.

Buffy had to kill Angel. She didn't die for it.
*SNIP*

Post by Mark Brown
What time is this on and on what channel ?
Are these shows labelled as Strong Sexual Content ?

Uh, was around 8-9 pm (it varied over the 7 years it ran). I don't know
where/when it plays now 'cause both Buffy and Angel are finished (and I
don't watch the reruns). No, not strong sexual content.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
implied off-camera rape [of nuns], adultery. . .). And Gargoyles

Rape of Nuns ? They show the lead into this or the aftermath
of the rapist or nun who is raped ?

The raping was done by Angelus (flashbacks to, like, 15th-17th centuries,
before he had the soul) and his gang (Darla, then Drusilla, then Spike). The
circumstance I'm thinking of involved the aftermath; it was about how he and
Darla drove Dru insane before they Turned her (into a vampire). Angelus
tormented her (also, she had visions), killing off her family, chasing her
into a convent. Then, on the night she was to take Orders (like a graduation
from the nun-seminary, I assume), he and Darla attacked and "feasted,"
forcing her to watch. Then they Turned her. End result: Dru, the insane,
psychopathic vampire.

And how do you Turn someone in this series ?

Post by Mark Brown

Post by Mark Brown

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
(betrayal, murder, attempted suicide). And InuYasha (at least
three of the "heroes" are mass-murderers and thieves, the monk
is a lecher, several are oath-breakers,
there's implied adultery, on-screen child abuse [yes, even in the

You mean parental paedophilia ?

Post by Mark Brown

Post by Mark Brown

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Americanized dub], and more than half the cast are demons). I kinda feel

I thought Buffy was a Hollywood based show ?

Buffy was, I'm talking about InuYasha here, which is animé (from and based
in Japan, and dubbed by Ocean Studios, Vancouver). Gargoyles, FWIW was a
Disney show (based mostly in New York), and as American as McDonalds. ;)
*SNIP*

Post by Mark Brown

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
A show with no heroes is not much to watch.

I'm guessing you're not a fan of Shakespeare.

It is long ago, but I recall there being some heroes in Shakespeare.

Some, but not many. And usually pretty conflicted.
*SNIP*

Post by Mark Brown
Are these Cartoon shows ? I am not sure that cartoons have the same
impact as real actors, but still these does appear to be too strong
material to present to kids.

*SNIP*
As Mike observes, cartoons aren't just for kids. I expressly picked two
shows that I know have young followings (Gargoyles was Saturday mornings,
and I've seen kids with InuYasha merchandise). Animé especially.
There's also Cardcaptors (ten-year-old girl traffics with demons and
monsters), Shaman_King (kids hang out with ghosts and beat each other up,
sometimes nearly dying themselves), Spirited_Away (young girl ends up in a
surreal Japanese wonderland, and straddles a dragon), the original Japanese
Sailor_Moon (suicides, lesbians, gender-switching). . .

This sounds like a clear attempt to sell Sodomy to your kids.

Post by Mark Brown
If I went into the specifically adult-oriented animé (GunslingerGirl,
Macross_Plus, Ghost_in_the_Shell, Witch_Hunter_Robin, et all) your head
would spin around. Neon_Genesis_Evangelion would probably kill you. ;)
Mark

Are you gaining all this information from watching these shows every day
or have you been performing a study of this crap ?

Politics

[Mike Meyer]

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by John Shocked
An Ugly Person is not normally chosen to play an ugly
person in a movie.

So explain Suzanne Krull in the recent Charmed episode "Freaky
Phoebe", playing what the teasers called "the ugliest demon in the
world."

I looked at a picture of this woman on IMDB and she clearly
is not ugly

We clearly disagree on this point. I find her very unattractive.

Again, she may have been 'uglied down' in the makeup room for
that role.
As all women age, their looks decline, but I still would not say she
is repulsive at 39.
Again, the picture on IMDB is reality.
However she looked on that show is Make-Believe.
Reality. Make-Believe.
Do you understand the difference between the two ?

Yes, I do. *You're* the one who keeps insisting that you can't ask an
actor to make-believe something that they might be accused of being in
reality.

The reality is, I find her to be an unattractive, bordering on ugly,
woman. The character she played was clearly made up to be much
uglier. You claimed that's against your so-called "rules".

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
One rule is that a betrayer must die.

And by the way, this rule would apply to Tyr, if you are correct that
the intended arc of his character was to betray Dylan Hunt.
And if that was the intent of the creators of this series, then they
are definitely crazy people.

I think you're confusing me with someone else. I never claimed that
the intended arc was that Tyr betray Dylan Hunt. I haven't said much
about what I thought they planned to do with him.

In fact, I find the tension produced by Tyr's divided loyalties -
between his genetic material and Dylan - to be an incredibly plot
device. This was shown off in the episode "Double Helix", where he
played a double agent, apparently working for both the Nietzscheans
and for Dylan, never clear as to which side he was going to betray
until the very end.

You should ask yourself why Tyr wasn't killed in that episode. After
all, he clearly betrayed the Nietzscheans, who took him in and made
him one of their own. Of course, any time you have this type of double
agent plot line, it's pretty clear that someone is going to be
betrayed. If your rule actually applied, that would be a *serious*
constraint on what the writers could do with that kind of plot line.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
FWIW, Charmed is fantasy. Fantasy is close kin, if not a member of,
the sci-fi genre. They have a *lot* in common.

I know that you have been sold that by the entertainment business,
and they even invented the term SF&F to pair the two, but they
are as similar as Boxing and Pro Wresting.

Boy, are you confused. For that to be the case, the "entertainment
industry" would have had to invent the term before the FCC had even
allocated frequencies for television channels, because it dates to at
least 1949, with the founding of the Magazine of Fantasy and Science
Fiction. They also would have had to convine any number of public
libraries to create a separate pull-out section for the two combined,
even though they didn't belong together. Librarians are generally
pretty sharp people, and I don't think they'd be fooled like that.

Maybe you only pay attention to video media, so you've missed some of
the genre-blurring, genre-blending and crossover work that's been
done in the print media. The two genres are so interlinked that
you'll never get a majority of people to agree on a line between the
two.

But, just for grins, let's look at what they have in common.

They're both escapist literature.

They both tend to produce insight into the human condition by
examining humans in cultures that don't exist, or introducing elements
that don't really exist into a real culture.

They both use non-human races to provide contrast to the behavior of
humans. In poorly written sf/f, they non-human races tend to act like
monomaniacal humans.

They both tend to give people/devices abilities that aren't possible
according to modern science. SF justifies the "science" in it's
moniker by claiming to use as-yet undiscovered principles of science,
whereas fantasy justifies everything by calling it "magic".

Both genres can be written so that the extra abilities have to follow
a rigorous set of rules, and the author has to work in that
framework. Both can also be written so that the author is free to pull
whatever the plot requires out of their hat. The former is harder, but
generally results in a better story. The latter is far more common.

They also share a number of writers. In video, Joss Whedon comes to
mind, doing Buffy, Angle and Firefly. In print - well, there are
simply to many to list.

The magic/undiscovered principles point is an excellent source of
genre-crossing work, like Niven's "Svetz" stories. Those are very
clearly futuristic SF, with a time machine. Except Niven believed that
time travel was fantasy, and so felt free to use elements from
fantasy. So you had a very futuristic setting: in the far future, the
environment has been destroyed; the air is so polluted that people
from our time can't breath their air, and vice versa; and almost all
animals are extinct. Clearly science fiction, right? Until Svetz
travels back into the past to get a horse - and comes back with a
unicorn. Or drops into a parallel timeline (another science fiction
staple) that is ruled by werewolves and vampires (a couple of fantasy
staples).

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
The logic of the plot and characterizations *requires* that Angel have
that sword shoved through his chest at that point in time. He must be
betrayed. But killing off the title character of a series is *really*
frowned upon, so your "rule" really can't be followed in this case.

Unless you are now talking about a different series, I do not see the
name "Angel" in the title.

You're once again confused. Buffy betrayed Angel. Her name is in the
title. By your rule, she should be killed. Being the title character,
it's not going to happen.

Post by John Shocked
But since I have not seen this series and you clearly do not watch
TV with the same perception that I do, it would be difficult
for you to present the important facts of the script that led up to
these events.

Yeah, I have this bad habit of actually perceiving what was written,
instead of dreaming up imaginary rules that have to be followed. Sorry
'bout that.

Post by John Shocked
When the US finally becomes a completely Amoral populace
which I believe is the intent of the current crop of Hollywood Homosexuals
who control Hollywood today, screenwriters may one day be free to ignore
these Rules and still be able to make money.
Ultimately, the driving force behind Hollywood is making money
on each movie. They do not make movies to lose money.

I'll concede your point about Hollywood, but not your homophobic
drivel. Fortunately, Hollywood isn't the only place in the world
making movies, or television. I personally believe that there are
still screenwriters who love the art, and do the work out of
love. They will continue to try and produce the best possible scripts
they can, ignoring any fictional "rules". These are the people who
will produce quality shows.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
On the other hand, how does not having X actors play X characters
(where X can be ugly, possibly-drug-abusing, fat, etc.) have anything
to do with entertaining people, making money or expressing the will of
the average moral viewer?

As I said, moral people cringe when they see someone who is already
downtrodden, be kicked when they are down.
Ultimately, that is bad business and loses money.

Please try and keep the distinction between reality and make-believe
clear in your mind. What happens to actors on screen is
make-believe. Nobody is being kicked because they are asked to play
the part of a fat/ugly/whatever actor. They're being offered
work. That's a complement.

While we're on the topic, I would hope that most people are moral
enough not to believe that someone who is fat or ugly is
downtrodden. Do you also believe that differently abled people are
downtrodden?

Hmm - gee, that brings to mind another example of where your rule is
regularly broken. Christopher Reeves kept right on acting after his
accident. I've personally seen him as the star of one film (Rear
Window) and as a recurring character in the Smallville series. Guess
what - he plays a paraplegic. And he *is* one! That does mean he'd
have trouble playing anything else. Good thing for him your rule only
exists in your head - otherwise he'd be completely out of work.

<mike

[John Shocked]

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by John Shocked
An Ugly Person is not normally chosen to play an ugly
person in a movie.

So explain Suzanne Krull in the recent Charmed episode "Freaky
Phoebe", playing what the teasers called "the ugliest demon in the
world."

I looked at a picture of this woman on IMDB and she clearly
is not ugly

We clearly disagree on this point. I find her very unattractive.

Again, she may have been 'uglied down' in the makeup room for
that role.
As all women age, their looks decline, but I still would not say she
is repulsive at 39.
Again, the picture on IMDB is reality.
However she looked on that show is Make-Believe.
Reality. Make-Believe.
Do you understand the difference between the two ?

Yes, I do. *You're* the one who keeps insisting that you can't ask an
actor to make-believe something that they might be accused of being in
reality.
The reality is, I find her to be an unattractive, bordering on ugly,
woman. The character she played was clearly made up to be much
uglier. You claimed that's against your so-called "rules".

I said that ? where ? Makeup is basic to any Hollywood operation.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
One rule is that a betrayer must die.

And by the way, this rule would apply to Tyr, if you are correct that
the intended arc of his character was to betray Dylan Hunt.
And if that was the intent of the creators of this series, then they
are definitely crazy people.

I think you're confusing me with someone else. I never claimed that
the intended arc was that Tyr betray Dylan Hunt. I haven't said much
about what I thought they planned to do with him.
In fact, I find the tension produced by Tyr's divided loyalties -
between his genetic material and Dylan - to be an incredibly plot
device. This was shown off in the episode "Double Helix", where he
played a double agent, apparently working for both the Nietzscheans
and for Dylan, never clear as to which side he was going to betray
until the very end.

It would be interesting to do a survey on what people thought
about this. I do not believe you would find many people enjoyed
that aspect of the story.

Post by Mike Meyer
You should ask yourself why Tyr wasn't killed in that episode. After
all, he clearly betrayed the Nietzscheans, who took him in and made
him one of their own. Of course, any time you have this type of double
agent plot line, it's pretty clear that someone is going to be
betrayed. If your rule actually applied, that would be a *serious*
constraint on what the writers could do with that kind of plot line.

They never shared trust with Tyr. The only thing they respected about
Tyr was the quality of his DNA. In fact, if I recall correctly they
would have double-crossed and killed him exacept for the fact he
out-maneuvered them in the fight and bargained for his life
with his knife at the throat of one of their own.
Thus, viewers did not have the impression Tyr betrayed them.
They would have killed him if not for his DNA.
In fact, if he refused to marry her he might have been killed.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
FWIW, Charmed is fantasy. Fantasy is close kin, if not a
member of, the sci-fi genre. They have a *lot* in common.

I know that you have been sold that by the entertainment business,
and they even invented the term SF&F to pair the two, but they
are as similar as Boxing and Pro Wresting.

Boy, are you confused. For that to be the case, the "entertainment
industry" would have had to invent the term before the FCC had even
allocated frequencies for television channels, because it dates to at
least 1949, with the founding of the Magazine of Fantasy and Science
Fiction. They also would have had to connive any number of public
libraries to create a separate pull-out section for the two combined,
even though they didn't belong together. Librarians are generally
pretty sharp people, and I don't think they'd be fooled like that.

You would have a lot of trouble finding people who consider Bewitched
and Star Trek-Original to have been related.

Post by Mike Meyer
Maybe you only pay attention to video media, so you've missed some of
the genre-blurring, genre-blending and crossover work that's been
done in the print media. The two genres are so interlinked that
you'll never get a majority of people to agree on a line between the
two.
But, just for grins, let's look at what they have in common.
They're both escapist literature.
They both tend to produce insight into the human condition by
examining humans in cultures that don't exist, or introducing elements
that don't really exist into a real culture.

And Boxing and Pro Wrestling have 2 guys in the rings who appear to
be hitting each other.

Post by Mike Meyer
They both use non-human races to provide contrast to the behavior of
humans. In poorly written sf/f, the non-human races tend to act like
monomaniacal humans.
They both tend to give people/devices abilities that aren't possible
according to modern science. SF justifies the "science" in it's
moniker by claiming to use as-yet undiscovered principles of science,
whereas fantasy justifies everything by calling it "magic".
Both genres can be written so that the extra abilities have to follow
a rigorous set of rules, and the author has to work in that
framework. Both can also be written so that the author is free to pull
whatever the plot requires out of their hat. The former is harder, but
generally results in a better story. The latter is far more common.
They also share a number of writers. In video, Joss Whedon comes to
mind, doing Buffy, Angel and Firefly. In print - well, there are
simply to many to list.

I thought Buffy, Angel and Firefly were all magic shows.

Post by Mike Meyer
The magic/undiscovered principles point is an excellent source of
genre-crossing work, like Niven's "Svetz" stories. Those are very
clearly futuristic SF, with a time machine. Except Niven believed that
time travel was fantasy, and so felt free to use elements from
fantasy. So you had a very futuristic setting: in the far future, the
environment has been destroyed; the air is so polluted that people
from our time can't breath their air, and vice versa; and almost all
animals are extinct. Clearly science fiction, right? Until Svetz
travels back into the past to get a horse - and comes back with a
unicorn. Or drops into a parallel timeline (another science fiction
staple) that is ruled by werewolves and vampires (a couple of fantasy
staples).

There were problems in the 1950's in which Congressional Hearings
declared that many of the comics of this ilk were perverse and
harmful to the kids to whom they were targetted, leading to
the Comics Code. Some EC Comics, Marvel and other comics
were banned in the UK. 1950's were a stellar period for
media regulation. We need some of those Congressmen and
Senators right now.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
The logic of the plot and characterizations *requires* that Angel have
that sword shoved through his chest at that point in time. He must be
betrayed. But killing off the title character of a series is *really*
frowned upon, so your "rule" really can't be followed in this case.

Unless you are now talking about a different series, I do not see the
name "Angel" in the title.

You're once again confused. Buffy betrayed Angel. Her name is in the
title. By your rule, she should be killed. Being the title character,
it's not going to happen.

There definitely can be issues with conflict between rules, or whether
the circumstances really invoke a rule. Tyr never was in a situation
of trust with the other pride in Double Helix.
Again, in the Odyssey example, Odysseus could not kill the fictional
character Melanthe in the TV version (who seems to be a fictionalized
blur of two characters in Homer's work) because another Rule says
a man cannot kill a woman; at least not intentionally.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
But since I have not seen this series and you clearly do not watch
TV with the same perception that I do, it would be difficult
for you to present the important facts of the script that led up to
these events.

Yeah, I have this bad habit of actually perceiving what was written,
instead of dreaming up imaginary rules that have to be followed. Sorry
'bout that.

Post by John Shocked
When the US finally becomes a completely Amoral populace
which I believe is the intent of the current crop of Hollywood Homosexuals
who control Hollywood today, screenwriters may one day be free to ignore
these Rules and still be able to make money.
Ultimately, the driving force behind Hollywood is making money
on each movie. They do not make movies to lose money.

I'll concede your point about Hollywood, but not your homophobic
drivel. Fortunately, Hollywood isn't the only place in the world
making movies, or television. I personally believe that there are
still screenwriters who love the art, and do the work out of
love. They will continue to try and produce the best possible scripts
they can, ignoring any fictional "rules". These are the people who
will produce quality shows.

I read something a few weeks ago about Bollywood (in India)
claiming they wanted more exposure in the American movie houses
and media. Apparently they are being shut out.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
On the other hand, how does not having X actors play X characters
(where X can be ugly, possibly-drug-abusing, fat, etc.) have anything
to do with entertaining people, making money or expressing the will of
the average moral viewer?

As I said, moral people cringe when they see someone who is already
downtrodden, be kicked when they are down.
Ultimately, that is bad business and loses money.

Please try and keep the distinction between reality and make-believe
clear in your mind. What happens to actors on screen is
make-believe. Nobody is being kicked because they are asked to play
the part of a fat/ugly/whatever actor. They're being offered
work. That's a complement.

People would not accept a fat person being degraded for being
fat on TV. A joke about the fatness of such a person would not fly.
Of course some fat comedians can make jokes about themselves
and pull it off but that is completely different.

Post by Mike Meyer
While we're on the topic, I would hope that most people are moral
enough not to believe that someone who is fat or ugly is
downtrodden. Do you also believe that differently abled people are
downtrodden?
Hmm - gee, that brings to mind another example of where your rule is
regularly broken. Christopher Reeves kept right on acting after his
accident. I've personally seen him as the star of one film (Rear
Window) and as a recurring character in the Smallville series. Guess
what - he plays a paraplegic. And he *is* one! That does mean he'd
have trouble playing anything else. Good thing for him your rule only
exists in your head - otherwise he'd be completely out of work.
<mike

That does not fit the rule. No one in these roles is making pejorative
statements like "you invalid you" or "you paraplegic you" etc
to Reeve or accusing him of riding a horse badly to put himself
in that situation (we have no idea whether his riding had anything to
do with it).

Politics

[Mike Meyer]

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by John Shocked
An Ugly Person is not normally chosen to play an ugly
person in a movie.

So explain Suzanne Krull in the recent Charmed episode "Freaky
Phoebe", playing what the teasers called "the ugliest demon in the
world."

I looked at a picture of this woman on IMDB and she clearly
is not ugly

We clearly disagree on this point. I find her very unattractive.

Again, she may have been 'uglied down' in the makeup room for
that role.
As all women age, their looks decline, but I still would not say she
is repulsive at 39.
Again, the picture on IMDB is reality.
However she looked on that show is Make-Believe.
Reality. Make-Believe.
Do you understand the difference between the two ?

Yes, I do. *You're* the one who keeps insisting that you can't ask an
actor to make-believe something that they might be accused of being in
reality.
The reality is, I find her to be an unattractive, bordering on ugly,
woman. The character she played was clearly made up to be much
uglier. You claimed that's against your so-called "rules".

I said that ? where ? Makeup is basic to any Hollywood operation.

Right at the top of this extract.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
One rule is that a betrayer must die.

And by the way, this rule would apply to Tyr, if you are correct that
the intended arc of his character was to betray Dylan Hunt.
And if that was the intent of the creators of this series, then they
are definitely crazy people.

I think you're confusing me with someone else. I never claimed that
the intended arc was that Tyr betray Dylan Hunt. I haven't said much
about what I thought they planned to do with him.
In fact, I find the tension produced by Tyr's divided loyalties -
between his genetic material and Dylan - to be an incredibly plot
device. This was shown off in the episode "Double Helix", where he
played a double agent, apparently working for both the Nietzscheans
and for Dylan, never clear as to which side he was going to betray
until the very end.

It would be interesting to do a survey on what people thought
about this. I do not believe you would find many people enjoyed
that aspect of the story.

Post by Mike Meyer
You should ask yourself why Tyr wasn't killed in that episode. After
all, he clearly betrayed the Nietzscheans, who took him in and made
him one of their own. Of course, any time you have this type of double
agent plot line, it's pretty clear that someone is going to be
betrayed. If your rule actually applied, that would be a *serious*
constraint on what the writers could do with that kind of plot line.

They never shared trust with Tyr. The only thing they respected about
Tyr was the quality of his DNA. In fact, if I recall correctly they
would have double-crossed and killed him exacept for the fact he
out-maneuvered them in the fight and bargained for his life
with his knife at the throat of one of their own.
Thus, viewers did not have the impression Tyr betrayed them.
They would have killed him if not for his DNA.
In fact, if he refused to marry her he might have been killed.

If they didn't trust Tyr, why did they let him work on their big
honking space gun unsupervised? They even *talked* to him about this
at one point. If they hadn't trusted him to that point, he never would
have been able to blow the thing up at the end of the episode.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
FWIW, Charmed is fantasy. Fantasy is close kin, if not a
member of, the sci-fi genre. They have a *lot* in common.

I know that you have been sold that by the entertainment business,
and they even invented the term SF&F to pair the two, but they
are as similar as Boxing and Pro Wresting.

Boy, are you confused. For that to be the case, the "entertainment
industry" would have had to invent the term before the FCC had even
allocated frequencies for television channels, because it dates to at
least 1949, with the founding of the Magazine of Fantasy and Science
Fiction. They also would have had to connive any number of public
libraries to create a separate pull-out section for the two combined,
even though they didn't belong together. Librarians are generally
pretty sharp people, and I don't think they'd be fooled like that.

You would have a lot of trouble finding people who consider Bewitched
and Star Trek-Original to have been related.

Lets look for commonalities, shall we? They are both escapist
shows. They both feature people dealing with fantastic situations, as
opposed to what mundane shows deal with. Both have characters (Spock
on TOS, Sam on Bewitched) whose existence is highly unlikely when you
think about it. Both have characters with abiilities - mechanically
provided in ST - that violate the tenets of modern science. Both have
a tendency to pull solutions out of a hat, without much regard for
logic or reality. Both have a facility that is so powerful that it
provides an instant solution to many problems unless it's somehow
disabled (the teleporter in TOS, her magic in Bewitched).

Many of these things are true of all science fiction and fantasy
shows. Then again, the two genres are related, None of these things
are true of shows that aren't science fiction or fantasy.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
Maybe you only pay attention to video media, so you've missed some of
the genre-blurring, genre-blending and crossover work that's been
done in the print media. The two genres are so interlinked that
you'll never get a majority of people to agree on a line between the
two.
But, just for grins, let's look at what they have in common.
They're both escapist literature.
They both tend to produce insight into the human condition by
examining humans in cultures that don't exist, or introducing elements
that don't really exist into a real culture.

And Boxing and Pro Wrestling have 2 guys in the rings who appear to
be hitting each other.

Right. And if you believe that science fiction as presented on TV or
the movies is real in the way boxing is real, you're sadly
mistaken. While there exists science fiction that does deal with hard
science, I've as yet to see any of it make the transition to either TV
or movies. It requires quite a bit of exposition of things the viewer
doesn't really care about. It's much easier - and more entertaining -
to make up some technobabble and substitute that for real
science. This carries over to other genres as well. The recent series
Numbers claims to be about a mathematician, but the math is all
bogus. Doing it right is hard, and probably expensive.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
They both use non-human races to provide contrast to the behavior of
humans. In poorly written sf/f, the non-human races tend to act like
monomaniacal humans.
They both tend to give people/devices abilities that aren't possible
according to modern science. SF justifies the "science" in it's
moniker by claiming to use as-yet undiscovered principles of science,
whereas fantasy justifies everything by calling it "magic".
Both genres can be written so that the extra abilities have to follow
a rigorous set of rules, and the author has to work in that
framework. Both can also be written so that the author is free to pull
whatever the plot requires out of their hat. The former is harder, but
generally results in a better story. The latter is far more common.
They also share a number of writers. In video, Joss Whedon comes to
mind, doing Buffy, Angel and Firefly. In print - well, there are
simply to many to list.

I thought Buffy, Angel and Firefly were all magic shows.

Firefly was science fiction.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
The magic/undiscovered principles point is an excellent source of
genre-crossing work, like Niven's "Svetz" stories. Those are very
clearly futuristic SF, with a time machine. Except Niven believed that
time travel was fantasy, and so felt free to use elements from
fantasy. So you had a very futuristic setting: in the far future, the
environment has been destroyed; the air is so polluted that people
from our time can't breath their air, and vice versa; and almost all
animals are extinct. Clearly science fiction, right? Until Svetz
travels back into the past to get a horse - and comes back with a
unicorn. Or drops into a parallel timeline (another science fiction
staple) that is ruled by werewolves and vampires (a couple of fantasy
staples).

There were problems in the 1950's in which Congressional Hearings
declared that many of the comics of this ilk were perverse and
harmful to the kids to whom they were targetted, leading to
the Comics Code. Some EC Comics, Marvel and other comics
were banned in the UK. 1950's were a stellar period for
media regulation. We need some of those Congressmen and
Senators right now.

Since we're talking about genre-crossing science fiction and fantasy
stories, I *have* to assume that you think such things are nasty, and
congres needs to step in and censor them.

Personally, I think that's silly. There's nothing harmfull in a little
genre mixing. In fact, it broadens the mind.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
The logic of the plot and characterizations *requires* that Angel have
that sword shoved through his chest at that point in time. He must be
betrayed. But killing off the title character of a series is *really*
frowned upon, so your "rule" really can't be followed in this case.

Unless you are now talking about a different series, I do not see the
name "Angel" in the title.

You're once again confused. Buffy betrayed Angel. Her name is in the
title. By your rule, she should be killed. Being the title character,
it's not going to happen.

There definitely can be issues with conflict between rules, or whether
the circumstances really invoke a rule. Tyr never was in a situation
of trust with the other pride in Double Helix.

No, he was *clearly* trusted by the other pride in Double Helix. They
let him work on their big honking space gun unsupervised.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
But since I have not seen this series and you clearly do not watch
TV with the same perception that I do, it would be difficult
for you to present the important facts of the script that led up to
these events.

Yeah, I have this bad habit of actually perceiving what was written,
instead of dreaming up imaginary rules that have to be followed. Sorry
'bout that.

Post by John Shocked
When the US finally becomes a completely Amoral populace
which I believe is the intent of the current crop of Hollywood

Homosexuals

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
who control Hollywood today, screenwriters may one day be free to ignore
these Rules and still be able to make money.
Ultimately, the driving force behind Hollywood is making money
on each movie. They do not make movies to lose money.

I'll concede your point about Hollywood, but not your homophobic
drivel. Fortunately, Hollywood isn't the only place in the world
making movies, or television. I personally believe that there are
still screenwriters who love the art, and do the work out of
love. They will continue to try and produce the best possible scripts
they can, ignoring any fictional "rules". These are the people who
will produce quality shows.

I read something a few weeks ago about Bollywood (in India)
claiming they wanted more exposure in the American movie houses
and media. Apparently they are being shut out.

It's deeper than that. Read Jacki Chan's autobiography to discover
what he went through breaking into the American market. However, what
shows in the American market does not all come from Hollywood. Now
that Jackie Chan has become known in the US, his older movies are
being dubbed and played in the US. Independent filmmakers are making
a dent. Canadian shows - though you wouldn't recognize them as such -
are also doing fairly well.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
On the other hand, how does not having X actors play X characters
(where X can be ugly, possibly-drug-abusing, fat, etc.) have anything
to do with entertaining people, making money or expressing the will of
the average moral viewer?

As I said, moral people cringe when they see someone who is already
downtrodden, be kicked when they are down.
Ultimately, that is bad business and loses money.

Please try and keep the distinction between reality and make-believe
clear in your mind. What happens to actors on screen is
make-believe. Nobody is being kicked because they are asked to play
the part of a fat/ugly/whatever actor. They're being offered
work. That's a complement.

People would not accept a fat person being degraded for being
fat on TV. A joke about the fatness of such a person would not fly.
Of course some fat comedians can make jokes about themselves
and pull it off but that is completely different.

But they're perfectly willing to watch - and they do in droves - an
talentless person being degraded for being talentless. This makes me
doubt your claims. Got any proof to back them up, other than the
"rules" whose very existence is the subject of this debate?

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
While we're on the topic, I would hope that most people are moral
enough not to believe that someone who is fat or ugly is
downtrodden. Do you also believe that differently abled people are
downtrodden?
Hmm - gee, that brings to mind another example of where your rule is
regularly broken. Christopher Reeves kept right on acting after his
accident. I've personally seen him as the star of one film (Rear
Window) and as a recurring character in the Smallville series. Guess
what - he plays a paraplegic. And he *is* one! That does mean he'd
have trouble playing anything else. Good thing for him your rule only
exists in your head - otherwise he'd be completely out of work.
<mike

That does not fit the rule. No one in these roles is making pejorative
statements like "you invalid you" or "you paraplegic you" etc
to Reeve or accusing him of riding a horse badly to put himself
in that situation (we have no idea whether his riding had anything to
do with it).

Not true. Rear Window (it's a remake; if you go looking for it, make
sure you get the Reeves version) specifically featured slurs on him
for being a helpless invalid.

<mike

[John Shocked]

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by John Shocked
An Ugly Person is not normally chosen to play an ugly
person in a movie.

So explain Suzanne Krull in the recent Charmed episode "Freaky
Phoebe", playing what the teasers called "the ugliest demon in the
world."

I looked at a picture of this woman on IMDB and she clearly
is not ugly

We clearly disagree on this point. I find her very unattractive.

Again, she may have been 'uglied down' in the makeup room for
that role.
As all women age, their looks decline, but I still would not say she
is repulsive at 39.
Again, the picture on IMDB is reality.
However she looked on that show is Make-Believe.
Reality. Make-Believe.
Do you understand the difference between the two ?

Yes, I do. *You're* the one who keeps insisting that you can't ask an
actor to make-believe something that they might be accused of being in
reality.
The reality is, I find her to be an unattractive, bordering on ugly,
woman. The character she played was clearly made up to be much
uglier. You claimed that's against your so-called "rules".

I said that ? where ? Makeup is basic to any Hollywood operation.

Right at the top of this extract.

She is not ugly. She is apparently 38. I cannot believe she
just showed up here.
I would not be surprised if she had Casting Directors chasing her around
the table when she was 22 and entering the business.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
One rule is that a betrayer must die.

And by the way, this rule would apply to Tyr, if you are correct that
the intended arc of his character was to betray Dylan Hunt.
And if that was the intent of the creators of this series, then they
are definitely crazy people.

I think you're confusing me with someone else. I never claimed that
the intended arc was that Tyr betray Dylan Hunt. I haven't said much
about what I thought they planned to do with him.
In fact, I find the tension produced by Tyr's divided loyalties -
between his genetic material and Dylan - to be an incredibly plot
device. This was shown off in the episode "Double Helix", where he
played a double agent, apparently working for both the Nietzscheans
and for Dylan, never clear as to which side he was going to betray
until the very end.

It would be interesting to do a survey on what people thought
about this. I do not believe you would find many people enjoyed
that aspect of the story.

Post by Mike Meyer
You should ask yourself why Tyr wasn't killed in that episode. After
all, he clearly betrayed the Nietzscheans, who took him in and made
him one of their own. Of course, any time you have this type of double
agent plot line, it's pretty clear that someone is going to be
betrayed. If your rule actually applied, that would be a *serious*
constraint on what the writers could do with that kind of plot line.

They never shared trust with Tyr. The only thing they respected about
Tyr was the quality of his DNA. In fact, if I recall correctly they
would have double-crossed and killed him except for the fact he
out-maneuvered them in the fight and bargained for his life
with his knife at the throat of one of their own.
Thus, viewers did not have the impression Tyr betrayed them.
They would have killed him if not for his DNA.
In fact, if he refused to marry her he might have been killed.

If they didn't trust Tyr, why did they let him work on their big
honking space gun unsupervised? They even *talked* to him about this
at one point. If they hadn't trusted him to that point, he never would
have been able to blow the thing up at the end of the episode.

As I recall he had to lie when they came over and inspected his work.
They did not demonstrate trust in him.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
FWIW, Charmed is fantasy. Fantasy is close kin, if not a
member of, the sci-fi genre. They have a *lot* in common.

I know that you have been sold that by the entertainment business,
and they even invented the term SF&F to pair the two, but they
are as similar as Boxing and Pro Wresting.

Boy, are you confused. For that to be the case, the "entertainment
industry" would have had to invent the term before the FCC had even
allocated frequencies for television channels, because it dates to at
least 1949, with the founding of the Magazine of Fantasy and Science
Fiction. They also would have had to connive any number of public
libraries to create a separate pull-out section for the two combined,
even though they didn't belong together. Librarians are generally
pretty sharp people, and I don't think they'd be fooled like that.

You would have a lot of trouble finding people who consider Bewitched
and Star Trek-Original to have been related.

Lets look for commonalities, shall we? They are both escapist
shows. They both feature people dealing with fantastic situations, as
opposed to what mundane shows deal with. Both have characters (Spock
on TOS, Sam on Bewitched) whose existence is highly unlikely when you
think about it. Both have characters with abiilities - mechanically
provided in ST - that violate the tenets of modern science. Both have
a tendency to pull solutions out of a hat, without much regard for
logic or reality. Both have a facility that is so powerful that it
provides an instant solution to many problems unless it's somehow
disabled (the teleporter in TOS, her magic in Bewitched).
Many of these things are true of all science fiction and fantasy
shows. Then again, the two genres are related, None of these things
are true of shows that aren't science fiction or fantasy.

String Theory seems to be the science around which much of this based,
including Sliders. String Theory sounds absurd but a lot of physicists
and mathematicians seem to believe in it.
There is no reason why aliens should be biped have two eyes
or two hands. Much of this seems to be simplification to allow
humans to act the part.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
Maybe you only pay attention to video media, so you've missed some of
the genre-blurring, genre-blending and crossover work that's been
done in the print media. The two genres are so interlinked that
you'll never get a majority of people to agree on a line between the
two.
But, just for grins, let's look at what they have in common.
They're both escapist literature.
They both tend to produce insight into the human condition by
examining humans in cultures that don't exist, or introducing elements
that don't really exist into a real culture.

And Boxing and Pro Wrestling have 2 guys in the rings who
appear to be hitting each other.

Right. And if you believe that science fiction as presented on TV or
the movies is real in the way boxing is real, you're sadly
mistaken. While there exists science fiction that does deal with hard
science, I've as yet to see any of it make the transition to either TV
or movies. It requires quite a bit of exposition of things the viewer
doesn't really care about. It's much easier - and more entertaining -
to make up some technobabble and substitute that for real
science. This carries over to other genres as well. The recent series
Numbers claims to be about a mathematician, but the math is all
bogus. Doing it right is hard, and probably expensive.

When someone finally declares that String Theory is a fraud, then
maybe this will hold water.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
They both use non-human races to provide contrast to the behavior of
humans. In poorly written sf/f, the non-human races tend to act like
monomaniacal humans.
They both tend to give people/devices abilities that aren't possible
according to modern science. SF justifies the "science" in it's
moniker by claiming to use as-yet undiscovered principles of science,
whereas fantasy justifies everything by calling it "magic".
Both genres can be written so that the extra abilities have to follow
a rigorous set of rules, and the author has to work in that
framework. Both can also be written so that the author is free to pull
whatever the plot requires out of their hat. The former is harder, but
generally results in a better story. The latter is far more common.
They also share a number of writers. In video, Joss Whedon comes to
mind, doing Buffy, Angel and Firefly. In print - well, there are
simply to many to list.

I thought Buffy, Angel and Firefly were all magic shows.

Firefly was science fiction.

Homosexual HBO science fiction ? That must have been a weird show.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
The magic/undiscovered principles point is an excellent source of
genre-crossing work, like Niven's "Svetz" stories. Those are very
clearly futuristic SF, with a time machine. Except Niven believed that
time travel was fantasy, and so felt free to use elements from
fantasy. So you had a very futuristic setting: in the far future, the
environment has been destroyed; the air is so polluted that people
from our time can't breath their air, and vice versa; and almost all
animals are extinct. Clearly science fiction, right? Until Svetz
travels back into the past to get a horse - and comes back with a
unicorn. Or drops into a parallel timeline (another science fiction
staple) that is ruled by werewolves and vampires (a couple of fantasy
staples).

There were problems in the 1950's in which Congressional Hearings
declared that many of the comics of this ilk were perverse and
harmful to the kids to whom they were targetted, leading to
the Comics Code. Some EC Comics, Marvel and other comics
were banned in the UK. 1950's were a stellar period for
media regulation. We need some of those Congressmen and
Senators right now.

Since we're talking about genre-crossing science fiction and fantasy
stories, I *have* to assume that you think such things are nasty, and
congress needs to step in and censor them.
Personally, I think that's silly. There's nothing harmful in a little
genre mixing. In fact, it broadens the mind.

Why would Congress be interested in Science Fiction crossing into Magic
and vice versa ?

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
The logic of the plot and characterizations *requires* that Angel have
that sword shoved through his chest at that point in time. He must be
betrayed. But killing off the title character of a series is *really*
frowned upon, so your "rule" really can't be followed in this case.

Unless you are now talking about a different series, I do not see the
name "Angel" in the title.

You're once again confused. Buffy betrayed Angel. Her name is in the
title. By your rule, she should be killed. Being the title character,
it's not going to happen.

There definitely can be issues with conflict between rules, or whether
the circumstances really invoke a rule. Tyr never was in a situation
of trust with the other pride in Double Helix.

No, he was *clearly* trusted by the other pride in Double Helix. They
let him work on their big honking space gun unsupervised.

As I mentioned, they inspected while he was working and he was forced
to lie to them to protect the work he did to disable their weapon
which protected the Andromeda

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
But since I have not seen this series and you clearly do not watch
TV with the same perception that I do, it would be difficult
for you to present the important facts of the script that led up to
these events.

Yeah, I have this bad habit of actually perceiving what was written,
instead of dreaming up imaginary rules that have to be followed. Sorry
'bout that.

Post by John Shocked
When the US finally becomes a completely Amoral populace
which I believe is the intent of the current crop of Hollywood
Homosexuals who control Hollywood today, screenwriters
may one day be free to ignore
these Rules and still be able to make money.
Ultimately, the driving force behind Hollywood is making money
on each movie. They do not make movies to lose money.

I'll concede your point about Hollywood, but not your homophobic
drivel. Fortunately, Hollywood isn't the only place in the world
making movies, or television. I personally believe that there are
still screenwriters who love the art, and do the work out of
love. They will continue to try and produce the best possible scripts
they can, ignoring any fictional "rules". These are the people who
will produce quality shows.

I read something a few weeks ago about Bollywood (in India)
claiming they wanted more exposure in the American movie houses
and media. Apparently they are being shut out.

It's deeper than that. Read Jackie Chan's autobiography to discover
what he went through breaking into the American market. However, what
shows in the American market does not all come from Hollywood. Now
that Jackie Chan has become known in the US, his older movies are
being dubbed and played in the US. Independent filmmakers are making
a dent. Canadian shows - though you wouldn't recognize them as such -
are also doing fairly well.

Many Canadian productions and Australian productions are in fact
Hollywood productions, filmed in those places to avoid American union
workers and black people they might be required not to discriminate against.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
On the other hand, how does not having X actors play X characters
(where X can be ugly, possibly-drug-abusing, fat, etc.) have anything
to do with entertaining people, making money or expressing the will of
the average moral viewer?

As I said, moral people cringe when they see someone who is already
downtrodden, be kicked when they are down.
Ultimately, that is bad business and loses money.

Please try and keep the distinction between reality and make-believe
clear in your mind. What happens to actors on screen is
make-believe. Nobody is being kicked because they are asked to play
the part of a fat/ugly/whatever actor. They're being offered
work. That's a complement.

People would not accept a fat person being degraded for being
fat on TV. A joke about the fatness of such a person would not fly.
Of course some fat comedians can make jokes about themselves
and pull it off but that is completely different.

But they're perfectly willing to watch - and they do in droves - an
talentless person being degraded for being talentless. This makes me
doubt your claims. Got any proof to back them up, other than the
"rules" whose very existence is the subject of this debate?

Much of these talentless situations are frauds. Much of these
American Idol "that was the worst singing I ever heard" crap is
staged by the producers.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
While we're on the topic, I would hope that most people are moral
enough not to believe that someone who is fat or ugly is
downtrodden. Do you also believe that differently abled people are
downtrodden?
Hmm - gee, that brings to mind another example of where your rule is
regularly broken. Christopher Reeves kept right on acting after his
accident. I've personally seen him as the star of one film (Rear
Window) and as a recurring character in the Smallville series. Guess
what - he plays a paraplegic. And he *is* one! That does mean he'd
have trouble playing anything else. Good thing for him your rule only
exists in your head - otherwise he'd be completely out of work.
<mike

That does not fit the rule. No one in these roles is making pejorative
statements like "you invalid you" or "you paraplegic you" etc
to Reeve or accusing him of riding a horse badly to put himself
in that situation (we have no idea whether his riding had anything to
do with it).

Not true. Rear Window (it's a remake; if you go looking for it, make
sure you get the Reeves version) specifically featured slurs on him
for being a helpless invalid.
<mike

And was the person making these statements a good or evil person ?
What end did they come to in the movie ?

Politics

[Mike Meyer]

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
An Ugly Person is not normally chosen to play an ugly
person in a movie.

So explain Suzanne Krull in the recent Charmed episode "Freaky
Phoebe", playing what the teasers called "the ugliest demon in

the

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
world."

I looked at a picture of this woman on IMDB and she clearly
is not ugly

We clearly disagree on this point. I find her very unattractive.

Again, she may have been 'uglied down' in the makeup room for
that role.
As all women age, their looks decline, but I still would not say she
is repulsive at 39.
Again, the picture on IMDB is reality.
However she looked on that show is Make-Believe.
Reality. Make-Believe.
Do you understand the difference between the two ?

Yes, I do. *You're* the one who keeps insisting that you can't ask an
actor to make-believe something that they might be accused of being in
reality.
The reality is, I find her to be an unattractive, bordering on ugly,
woman. The character she played was clearly made up to be much
uglier. You claimed that's against your so-called "rules".

I said that ? where ? Makeup is basic to any Hollywood operation.

Right at the top of this extract.

She is not ugly. She is apparently 38. I cannot believe she
just showed up here.
I would not be surprised if she had Casting Directors chasing her around
the table when she was 22 and entering the business.

Obviously, I disagree. Otherwise, I wouldn't have picked her as an
example.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
If they didn't trust Tyr, why did they let him work on their big
honking space gun unsupervised? They even *talked* to him about this
at one point. If they hadn't trusted him to that point, he never would
have been able to blow the thing up at the end of the episode.

As I recall he had to lie when they came over and inspected his work.
They did not demonstrate trust in him.

Of course he had to lie. He was in the middle of betraying them. They
trusted him, otherwise they wouldn't have believed him, and would
have supervised his work, or made him stop. Not only did they
demonstrate trust in him, the plot *required* that they demonstrate
trust in him.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
FWIW, Charmed is fantasy. Fantasy is close kin, if not a
member of, the sci-fi genre. They have a *lot* in common.

I know that you have been sold that by the entertainment business,
and they even invented the term SF&F to pair the two, but they
are as similar as Boxing and Pro Wresting.

Boy, are you confused. For that to be the case, the "entertainment
industry" would have had to invent the term before the FCC had even
allocated frequencies for television channels, because it dates to at
least 1949, with the founding of the Magazine of Fantasy and Science
Fiction. They also would have had to connive any number of public
libraries to create a separate pull-out section for the two combined,
even though they didn't belong together. Librarians are generally
pretty sharp people, and I don't think they'd be fooled like that.

You would have a lot of trouble finding people who consider Bewitched
and Star Trek-Original to have been related.

Lets look for commonalities, shall we? They are both escapist
shows. They both feature people dealing with fantastic situations, as
opposed to what mundane shows deal with. Both have characters (Spock
on TOS, Sam on Bewitched) whose existence is highly unlikely when you
think about it. Both have characters with abiilities - mechanically
provided in ST - that violate the tenets of modern science. Both have
a tendency to pull solutions out of a hat, without much regard for
logic or reality. Both have a facility that is so powerful that it
provides an instant solution to many problems unless it's somehow
disabled (the teleporter in TOS, her magic in Bewitched).
Many of these things are true of all science fiction and fantasy
shows. Then again, the two genres are related, None of these things
are true of shows that aren't science fiction or fantasy.

String Theory seems to be the science around which much of this based,
including Sliders. String Theory sounds absurd but a lot of physicists
and mathematicians seem to believe in it.

String theory didn't really exist when TOS was written. It's been a
hot topic for the last few decades, and as such showed up in TNG
fairly regularly. Of course, there use of it was all bogus in any case
- the writers didn't understand it, and just used the words because
they sounded good. And while string theory is a nice mathematical
model for explaining the observed behavior of the universe, it doesn't
change the already established laws underlying those observations.

FWIW, sliders isn't based on string theory. The idea of parallel
universes comes from a desire to conserve probability in quantum
mechanics. The basic premise behind sliders isn't as ludicrous as
something like faster than light travel. On the other hand, some of
the things they present in the series are totally idiotic.

Post by John Shocked
There is no reason why aliens should be biped have two eyes
or two hands. Much of this seems to be simplification to allow
humans to act the part.

I never said there was a reason for aliens to have two eyes or two
hands, or even a bilaterally symmetric bipedal shape.

You know, I have no idea where those last two statements of yours came
from, or where you think they're going to. They seem to be total
non-sequitors.

BTW, you might note that modern quantum physics has embraced the idea
that an observer must be part of the system, and the act of
observation changes the observed system. This includes action at a
distance. In other words, you can change the world around you by
properly altering your mental state. That puts "magic" on as sound a
scientific basis as most of the science fiction you see on television.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
Maybe you only pay attention to video media, so you've missed some of
the genre-blurring, genre-blending and crossover work that's been
done in the print media. The two genres are so interlinked that
you'll never get a majority of people to agree on a line between the
two.
But, just for grins, let's look at what they have in common.
They're both escapist literature.
They both tend to produce insight into the human condition by
examining humans in cultures that don't exist, or introducing elements
that don't really exist into a real culture.

And Boxing and Pro Wrestling have 2 guys in the rings who
appear to be hitting each other.

Right. And if you believe that science fiction as presented on TV or
the movies is real in the way boxing is real, you're sadly
mistaken. While there exists science fiction that does deal with hard
science, I've as yet to see any of it make the transition to either TV
or movies. It requires quite a bit of exposition of things the viewer
doesn't really care about. It's much easier - and more entertaining -
to make up some technobabble and substitute that for real
science. This carries over to other genres as well. The recent series
Numbers claims to be about a mathematician, but the math is all
bogus. Doing it right is hard, and probably expensive.

When someone finally declares that String Theory is a fraud, then
maybe this will hold water.

You clearly aren't letting the science fiction on television cause you
to think about science. Made up particle/radiation names to explain
some phenomenon, or describing the reconfiguration of imaginary
machinery - a classic star trek technobabble technic - has *nothing*
to do with string theory.

If they actually used the ideas from string theory in the show, as
opposed to swiping some terms to make their technobabble sound more
legitimate, I'd be impressed. I seriously doubt that the writers even
know how many dimensions strings exist in, much less have any real
understanding of the science behind the terms they are abusing.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
They also share a number of writers. In video, Joss Whedon comes to
mind, doing Buffy, Angel and Firefly. In print - well, there are
simply to many to list.

I thought Buffy, Angel and Firefly were all magic shows.

Firefly was science fiction.

Homosexual HBO science fiction ? That must have been a weird show.

Told you, I never saw it. Of course, we've already disproven your
contention that everything on HBO is homosexual in nature. Coming from
Joss Whedon, it probably did break new ground for television - he has
a tendency to do that.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
The magic/undiscovered principles point is an excellent source of
genre-crossing work, like Niven's "Svetz" stories. Those are very
clearly futuristic SF, with a time machine. Except Niven believed that
time travel was fantasy, and so felt free to use elements from
fantasy. So you had a very futuristic setting: in the far future, the
environment has been destroyed; the air is so polluted that people
from our time can't breath their air, and vice versa; and almost all
animals are extinct. Clearly science fiction, right? Until Svetz
travels back into the past to get a horse - and comes back with a
unicorn. Or drops into a parallel timeline (another science fiction
staple) that is ruled by werewolves and vampires (a couple of fantasy
staples).

There were problems in the 1950's in which Congressional Hearings
declared that many of the comics of this ilk were perverse and
harmful to the kids to whom they were targetted, leading to
the Comics Code. Some EC Comics, Marvel and other comics
were banned in the UK. 1950's were a stellar period for
media regulation. We need some of those Congressmen and
Senators right now.

Since we're talking about genre-crossing science fiction and fantasy
stories, I *have* to assume that you think such things are nasty, and
congress needs to step in and censor them.
Personally, I think that's silly. There's nothing harmful in a little
genre mixing. In fact, it broadens the mind.

Why would Congress be interested in Science Fiction crossing into Magic
and vice versa ?

You're the one who brought congress into the conversation. So you're
the one who should answer that question.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
The logic of the plot and characterizations *requires* that Angel

have

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
that sword shoved through his chest at that point in time. He must

be

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
betrayed. But killing off the title character of a series is

*really*

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
frowned upon, so your "rule" really can't be followed in this case.

Unless you are now talking about a different series, I do not see the
name "Angel" in the title.

You're once again confused. Buffy betrayed Angel. Her name is in the
title. By your rule, she should be killed. Being the title character,
it's not going to happen.

There definitely can be issues with conflict between rules, or whether
the circumstances really invoke a rule. Tyr never was in a situation
of trust with the other pride in Double Helix.

No, he was *clearly* trusted by the other pride in Double Helix. They
let him work on their big honking space gun unsupervised.

As I mentioned, they inspected while he was working and he was forced
to lie to them to protect the work he did to disable their weapon
which protected the Andromeda

Right. And they *believed* his lie, because they *trusted* him. If
they hadn't trusted him, they wouldn't have believed his lie, and
would have done something to stop him - thus destroying the episode.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
On the other hand, how does not having X actors play X characters
(where X can be ugly, possibly-drug-abusing, fat, etc.) have

anything

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
to do with entertaining people, making money or expressing the will

of

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
the average moral viewer?

As I said, moral people cringe when they see someone who is already
downtrodden, be kicked when they are down.
Ultimately, that is bad business and loses money.

Please try and keep the distinction between reality and make-believe
clear in your mind. What happens to actors on screen is
make-believe. Nobody is being kicked because they are asked to play
the part of a fat/ugly/whatever actor. They're being offered
work. That's a complement.

People would not accept a fat person being degraded for being
fat on TV. A joke about the fatness of such a person would not fly.
Of course some fat comedians can make jokes about themselves
and pull it off but that is completely different.

But they're perfectly willing to watch - and they do in droves - an
talentless person being degraded for being talentless. This makes me
doubt your claims. Got any proof to back them up, other than the
"rules" whose very existence is the subject of this debate?

Much of these talentless situations are frauds. Much of these
American Idol "that was the worst singing I ever heard" crap is
staged by the producers.

Yes, but some of them aren't. In particular, in his autobiography,
Chuck Barris claims that the reason they went to humiliating the
people on the Gong Show was because they couldn't get enough acts that
were actually good to fill the show.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
While we're on the topic, I would hope that most people are moral
enough not to believe that someone who is fat or ugly is
downtrodden. Do you also believe that differently abled people are
downtrodden?
Hmm - gee, that brings to mind another example of where your rule is
regularly broken. Christopher Reeves kept right on acting after his
accident. I've personally seen him as the star of one film (Rear
Window) and as a recurring character in the Smallville series. Guess
what - he plays a paraplegic. And he *is* one! That does mean he'd
have trouble playing anything else. Good thing for him your rule only
exists in your head - otherwise he'd be completely out of work.
<mike

That does not fit the rule. No one in these roles is making pejorative
statements like "you invalid you" or "you paraplegic you" etc
to Reeve or accusing him of riding a horse badly to put himself
in that situation (we have no idea whether his riding had anything to
do with it).

Not true. Rear Window (it's a remake; if you go looking for it, make
sure you get the Reeves version) specifically featured slurs on him
for being a helpless invalid.

And was the person making these statements a good or evil person ?
What end did they come to in the movie ?

Why? Do you want to add an after-the-fact exception to your rule to
explain why it's apparently ignored here?

As far as I'm concerned, anyone making fun of a person for being fat,
ugly or handicapped is evil. End of discussion.

<mike

[John Shocked]

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
An Ugly Person is not normally chosen to play an ugly
person in a movie.

So explain Suzanne Krull in the recent Charmed episode
"Freaky Phoebe", playing what the teasers called
"the ugliest demon in the world."

I looked at a picture of this woman on IMDB and she clearly
is not ugly

We clearly disagree on this point. I find her very unattractive.

Again, she may have been 'uglied down' in the makeup room for
that role.
As all women age, their looks decline, but I still would not say she
is repulsive at 39.
Again, the picture on IMDB is reality.
However she looked on that show is Make-Believe.
Reality. Make-Believe.
Do you understand the difference between the two ?

Yes, I do. *You're* the one who keeps insisting that you can't ask an
actor to make-believe something that they might be accused of being in
reality.
The reality is, I find her to be an unattractive, bordering on ugly,
woman. The character she played was clearly made up to be much
uglier. You claimed that's against your so-called "rules".

I said that ? where ? Makeup is basic to any Hollywood operation.

Right at the top of this extract.

She is not ugly. She is apparently 38. I cannot believe she
just showed up here.
I would not be surprised if she had Casting Directors chasing her around
the table when she was 22 and entering the business.

Obviously, I disagree. Otherwise, I wouldn't have picked her as an
example.

As the lady said, she was uglied down with makeup for the role.
She may not be Heidi Klum, but she is not what you described,
in reality.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
If they didn't trust Tyr, why did they let him work on their big
honking space gun unsupervised? They even *talked* to him about this
at one point. If they hadn't trusted him to that point, he never would
have been able to blow the thing up at the end of the episode.

As I recall he had to lie when they came over and inspected his work.
They did not demonstrate trust in him.

Of course he had to lie. He was in the middle of betraying them. They
trusted him, otherwise they wouldn't have believed him, and would
have supervised his work, or made him stop. Not only did they
demonstrate trust in him, the plot *required* that they demonstrate
trust in him.

The point of that scene when as I recall he is on one knee with a
configuration device defending the work he is performing from their
inquiries is to establish that they did Not trust him.
The writer could have had them approach him and talk about the
eather or his marriage to their woman, but the point was to dispel
any notion they had a trust based relationship.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
FWIW, Charmed is fantasy. Fantasy is close kin, if not a
member of, the sci-fi genre. They have a *lot* in common.

I know that you have been sold that by the entertainment business,
and they even invented the term SF&F to pair the two, but they
are as similar as Boxing and Pro Wresting.

Boy, are you confused. For that to be the case, the "entertainment
industry" would have had to invent the term before the FCC had even
allocated frequencies for television channels, because it dates to at
least 1949, with the founding of the Magazine of Fantasy and Science
Fiction. They also would have had to connive any number of public
libraries to create a separate pull-out section for the two combined,
even though they didn't belong together. Librarians are generally
pretty sharp people, and I don't think they'd be fooled like that.

You would have a lot of trouble finding people who consider Bewitched
and Star Trek-Original to have been related.

Lets look for commonalities, shall we? They are both escapist
shows. They both feature people dealing with fantastic situations, as
opposed to what mundane shows deal with. Both have characters (Spock
on TOS, Sam on Bewitched) whose existence is highly unlikely when you
think about it. Both have characters with abiilities - mechanically
provided in ST - that violate the tenets of modern science. Both have
a tendency to pull solutions out of a hat, without much regard for
logic or reality. Both have a facility that is so powerful that it
provides an instant solution to many problems unless it's somehow
disabled (the teleporter in TOS, her magic in Bewitched).
Many of these things are true of all science fiction and fantasy
shows. Then again, the two genres are related, None of these things
are true of shows that aren't science fiction or fantasy.

String Theory seems to be the science around which much of this based,
including Sliders. String Theory sounds absurd but a lot of physicists
and mathematicians seem to believe in it.

String theory didn't really exist when TOS was written. It's been a
hot topic for the last few decades, and as such showed up in TNG
fairly regularly. Of course, their use of it was all bogus in any case
- the writers didn't understand it, and just used the words because
they sounded good. And while string theory is a nice mathematical
model for explaining the observed behavior of the universe, it doesn't
change the already established laws underlying those observations.
FWIW, sliders isn't based on string theory. The idea of parallel
universes comes from a desire to conserve probability in quantum
mechanics. The basic premise behind sliders isn't as ludicrous as
something like faster than light travel. On the other hand, some of
the things they present in the series are totally idiotic.

I do not think there is any question Sliders was intent on utlizing
the ideas of String Theory to project parallel worlds which are
adjacent and can be slid back and forth between.
I do not expect a TV show to fully explain their complete theiries
of future discoveries with all the physics and calculus spelled out.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
There is no reason why aliens should be biped have two eyes
or two hands. Much of this seems to be simplification to allow
humans to act the part.

I never said there was a reason for aliens to have two eyes or two
hands, or even a bilaterally symmetric bipedal shape.
You know, I have no idea where those last two statements of yours
came from, or where you think they're going to. They seem to be total
non-sequiturs.

I assume those statements are derived from a previous statement
which you have deleted from the thread.
Again, I respect other people's views so I almost never delete anything
anyone else said. People whose views I care about can see who
is the liar who is the fool who is the bigot who hurls insults who
hurls threats and who attempts to interfere with another's ISP
access to the Internet. I trust other people's
ability to recognize those things and I do not fear their judgments
or disrespect them enough to try to deceive them.
All of these threads are available either here on the Usenet or on
Google Groups, so anyone who is interested can find the answer
to your question.

Post by Mike Meyer
BTW, you might note that modern quantum physics has embraced the idea
that an observer must be part of the system, and the act of
observation changes the observed system. This includes action at a
distance. In other words, you can change the world around you by
properly altering your mental state. That puts "magic" on as sound a
scientific basis as most of the science fiction you see on television.

Are you claiming that mental state is central to String Theory ?

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
Maybe you only pay attention to video media, so you've missed some of
the genre-blurring, genre-blending and crossover work that's been
done in the print media. The two genres are so interlinked that
you'll never get a majority of people to agree on a line between the
two.
But, just for grins, let's look at what they have in common.
They're both escapist literature.
They both tend to produce insight into the human condition by
examining humans in cultures that don't exist, or introducing elements
that don't really exist into a real culture.

And Boxing and Pro Wrestling have 2 guys in the rings who
appear to be hitting each other.

Right. And if you believe that science fiction as presented on TV or
the movies is real in the way boxing is real, you're sadly
mistaken. While there exists science fiction that does deal with hard
science, I've as yet to see any of it make the transition to either TV
or movies. It requires quite a bit of exposition of things the viewer
doesn't really care about. It's much easier - and more entertaining -
to make up some technobabble and substitute that for real
science. This carries over to other genres as well. The recent series
Numbers claims to be about a mathematician, but the math is all
bogus. Doing it right is hard, and probably expensive.

When someone finally declares that String Theory is a fraud, then
maybe this will hold water.

You clearly aren't letting the science fiction on television cause you
to think about science. Made up particle/radiation names to explain
some phenomenon, or describing the reconfiguration of imaginary
machinery - a classic star trek technobabble technic - has *nothing*
to do with string theory.

I never said they have anything to do with String Theory.
The ability to travel faster than light is central to humans being able
to travel to distant planets within a lifetime.
It is likely that human scientists will be working on methods to defeat
this barrier for the next 200 years and I would place bets on the
ability of human scientists to defeat that barrier sooner than that.
For instance, the speeds of today's microprocessors were never
anticipated just 10 years ago when many thought that we were
near the wall on increasing speed and miniaturization in
semiconductor processes.
Thus, science fiction is based on an assumption that this barrier
may be defeated. The other premise of human hibernation while
travellingto far away solar systems has been mined and that mine is dry.

Post by Mike Meyer
If they actually used the ideas from string theory in the show, as
opposed to swiping some terms to make their technobabble sound more
legitimate, I'd be impressed. I seriously doubt that the writers even
know how many dimensions strings exist in, much less have any real
understanding of the science behind the terms they are abusing.

Again, the idea of science fiction is the assumption of the continuing
trajectory of inventions in science will develop the level of science
we have today to a higher level. I am sure that there are novels
written today which are high-tech based on today's Internet and
military technology. Those novels do not qualify as science fiction.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
They also share a number of writers. In video, Joss Whedon comes
to mind, doing Buffy, Angel and Firefly. In print - well, there are
simply to many to list.

I thought Buffy, Angel and Firefly were all magic shows.

Firefly was science fiction.

Homosexual HBO science fiction ? That must have been a weird show.

Told you, I never saw it. Of course, we've already disproven your
contention that everything on HBO is homosexual in nature. Coming from
Joss Whedon, it probably did break new ground for television - he has
a tendency to do that.

One of you just stated that Firefly is not an HBO show. I thought
I had heard one of you say it was but I am now told it is a Fox show.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
The magic/undiscovered principles point is an excellent source of
genre-crossing work, like Niven's "Svetz" stories. Those are very
clearly futuristic SF, with a time machine. Except Niven believed that
time travel was fantasy, and so felt free to use elements from
fantasy. So you had a very futuristic setting: in the far future, the
environment has been destroyed; the air is so polluted that people
from our time can't breath their air, and vice versa; and almost all
animals are extinct. Clearly science fiction, right? Until Svetz
travels back into the past to get a horse - and comes back with a
unicorn. Or drops into a parallel timeline (another science fiction
staple) that is ruled by werewolves and vampires (a couple of fantasy
staples).

There were problems in the 1950's in which Congressional Hearings
declared that many of the comics of this ilk were perverse and
harmful to the kids to whom they were targetted, leading to
the Comics Code. Some EC Comics, Marvel and other comics
were banned in the UK. 1950's were a stellar period for
media regulation. We need some of those Congressmen and
Senators right now.

Since we're talking about genre-crossing science fiction and fantasy
stories, I *have* to assume that you think such things are nasty, and
congress needs to step in and censor them.
Personally, I think that's silly. There's nothing harmful in a little
genre mixing. In fact, it broadens the mind.

Why would Congress be interested in Science Fiction crossing into
Magic and vice versa ?

You're the one who brought congress into the conversation. So you're
the one who should answer that question.

As I mentioned, this Buffy etc crap is leading to children worshipping
Witchcraft according to the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/864984.stm

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
The logic of the plot and characterizations *requires* that
Angel have that sword shoved through his chest at that point
in time. He must be betrayed. But killing off the title character
of a series is *really* frowned upon, so your "rule" really
can't be followed in this case.

Unless you are now talking about a different series,
I do not see the name "Angel" in the title.

You're once again confused. Buffy betrayed Angel. Her name
is in the title. By your rule, she should be killed. Being ,
the title character it's not going to happen.

There definitely can be issues with conflict between rules, or whether
the circumstances really invoke a rule. Tyr never was in a situation
of trust with the other pride in Double Helix.

No, he was *clearly* trusted by the other pride in Double Helix. They
let him work on their big honking space gun unsupervised.

As I mentioned, they inspected while he was working and he was forced
to lie to them to protect the work he did to disable their weapon
which protected the Andromeda

Right. And they *believed* his lie, because they *trusted* him.
If they hadn't trusted him, they wouldn't have believed his lie, and
would have done something to stop him - thus destroying the episode.

No, that is not the way storytelling works. Trust means never asking
whether someone whether someone is acting against your interests.
He was forced to lie because they did not trust him.
If your point is that even here in the first season of Andromeda, Tyr
was already being chaarcterized as a dishonest person, there is a
point to be made there because that scene did force him to lie though
without that lie Dylan and the rest of the crew would have been killed.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
On the other hand, how does not having X actors play
X characters (where X can be ugly, possibly-drug-abusing,
fat, etc.) have anything to do with entertaining people,
making money or expressing the will of
the average moral viewer?

As I said, moral people cringe when they see someone who is already
downtrodden, be kicked when they are down.
Ultimately, that is bad business and loses money.

Please try and keep the distinction between reality and make-believe
clear in your mind. What happens to actors on screen is
make-believe. Nobody is being kicked because they are asked to play
the part of a fat/ugly/whatever actor. They're being offered
work. That's a complement.

People would not accept a fat person being degraded for being
fat on TV. A joke about the fatness of such a person would not fly.
Of course some fat comedians can make jokes about themselves
and pull it off but that is completely different.

But they're perfectly willing to watch - and they do in droves - an
talentless person being degraded for being talentless. This makes me
doubt your claims. Got any proof to back them up, other than the
"rules" whose very existence is the subject of this debate?

Much of these talentless situations are frauds. Much of these
American Idol "that was the worst singing I ever heard" crap is
staged by the producers.

Yes, but some of them aren't. In particular, in his autobiography,
Chuck Barris claims that the reason they went to humiliating the
people on the Gong Show was because they couldn't get enough acts that
were actually good to fill the show.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
While we're on the topic, I would hope that most people are moral
enough not to believe that someone who is fat or ugly is
downtrodden. Do you also believe that differently abled people are
downtrodden?
Hmm - gee, that brings to mind another example of where your rule is
regularly broken. Christopher Reeves kept right on acting after his
accident. I've personally seen him as the star of one film (Rear
Window) and as a recurring character in the Smallville series. Guess
what - he plays a paraplegic. And he *is* one! That does mean he'd
have trouble playing anything else. Good thing for him your rule only
exists in your head - otherwise he'd be completely out of work.
<mike

That does not fit the rule. No one in these roles is making pejorative
statements like "you invalid you" or "you paraplegic you" etc
to Reeve or accusing him of riding a horse badly to put himself
in that situation (we have no idea whether his riding had anything to
do with it).

Not true. Rear Window (it's a remake; if you go looking for it, make
sure you get the Reeves version) specifically featured slurs on him
for being a helpless invalid.

And was the person making these statements a good or evil person ?
What end did they come to in the movie ?

Why? Do you want to add an after-the-fact exception to your rule to
explain why it's apparently ignored here?
As far as I'm concerned, anyone making fun of a person for being fat,
ugly or handicapped is evil. End of discussion.
<mike

I have already stated that there is a pecking order of Rules.
The person making those statements may have been being set up to be
punished under some other Rule which may be at play in that movie.
Ultimately, the morality of the public is what the Rules echo and that is
as it should be.

Politics

[spruytlover]

Hello John and Mike.
This is Suzanne Krull and my nephew told me about your posts.
First let me tell you I am still "having my day" I am not "39" I am 38.
And those pictures on IMDB are very recent.
Secondly, let me explain to you what a character actor is. We play
"characters" ugly, fat, skinny, old, young. We are the only Actors in
the business with longetivity because working is not about our looks
it's about our craft and talent.
Nothing is more fun than to get down and dirty and play a part that
requires some balls and where the actor isn't worried about looking a
certain way. I have been fortunate to play a whole lot of great
characters because I can. And it's a blessing.
By the way... I have fake teeth, eyebrows, hair, and nose on for
charmed. If you think that's being "uglied down" but I think it's a
blast!
Cheers, Suzanne and her nephew

[John Shocked]

Post by spruytlover
Hello John and Mike.
This is Suzanne Krull and my nephew told me about your posts.
First let me tell you I am still "having my day" I am not "39" I am 38.
And those pictures on IMDB are very recent.
Secondly, let me explain to you what a character actor is. We play
"characters" ugly, fat, skinny, old, young. We are the only Actors in
the business with longevity because working is not about our looks
it's about our craft and talent.
Nothing is more fun than to get down and dirty and play a part that
requires some balls and where the actor isn't worried about looking a
certain way. I have been fortunate to play a whole lot of great
characters because I can. And it's a blessing.
By the way... I have fake teeth, eyebrows, hair, and nose on for
charmed. If you think that's being "uglied down" but I think it's a
blast!
Cheers, Suzanne and her nephew

Incredible. Could this be for real ? Thanks for checking in.
As you have seen, I have defended your honor to the
best of my ability.
If it is you, your TV and Movie career seems to have taken off
at around age 30.
That must be weird to be marketed as the "...ugliest..." etc.
Is that really what happened ? Do you have any control
over the marketing campaign ?

Politics

[Mike Meyer]

Post by spruytlover
Hello John and Mike.
This is Suzanne Krull and my nephew told me about your posts.

Welcome.

Post by spruytlover
Nothing is more fun than to get down and dirty and play a part that
requires some balls and where the actor isn't worried about looking a
certain way. I have been fortunate to play a whole lot of great
characters because I can. And it's a blessing.

That's the way I figured it would be. I'm glad to hear that you're
enjoying your career.

Post by spruytlover
By the way... I have fake teeth, eyebrows, hair, and nose on for
charmed. If you think that's being "uglied down" but I think it's a
blast!

I enjoyed watching you play the part. Just remember that dieing on
Charmed doesn't mean you're gone forever - you may get a chance to
play the role again.

Be well,
<mike

[OTL]

Post by John Shocked

Post by OTL

Post by John Shocked
Regardless of the response, it deviates from known
screenwriting guidelines since the viewer migbht actually believe the
statement about Cobb himself. There may even be legal defamatory
implications about such script statements.

If these screenwriting guidelines really do exist (which I'm 99.9999% sure
they don't), can you please cite the actual guidelines? Who established
them, what exactly do they say, where are they codified, etc.?

As I have stated before, they are not written down rules. They are simply
rules which are learnt, passed onto and inferred by all screenwriters who
wish to attract and hold an audience and make money, and also to avoid
being sued. They are based on basic morality and culture.

So in other words, you can't prove it. Can you at least provide a single
piece of supporting evidence? (Like, say, a screenwriter acknowledging this
supposed guideline? Plenty of writers have their own websites now; surely
some of them would be willing to discuss this?)

Post by John Shocked

Post by OTL

Post by John Shocked
An Ugly Person is not normally chosen to play an ugly person
in a movie. A Fat Person normally the same, although Kirstie Alley
is in a new TV series about a 'fat actress'. But here everyone
knows she has had her day as one of the beautiful people and
will again when she loses the weight, which is already happening.

Actually, it's far more rare for an ugly or fat person to *not* be played
by an ugly or fat person (respectively). Seriously, why would you spend
all that extra money on a fat suit, when you can just hire someone with a
natural "fat suit", unless you have a good reason? (Honestly, I'm sure
that for every "pretty person in ugly make-up" and "skinny person in fat
suit" role you can name, everyone else could list dozens (at least) of
roles with an ugly or fat actor.)

Partly because basic morality prevents one from gaining enjoyment from
watching someone 'kicked when they are down'.
There are numerous unattractive people in movies who are "character actors"
but when the role calls for someone to be Ugly or Fat and that is a factor
in the script, the person usually is neither.

Hence Roseanne, right?

But, please: how many examples can you name of these "ugly person played by
pretty person in make-up" or "fat person played by skinny person in fat suit"
roles? I'm sure most of them will have a valid reason for that situation, and
I'm also sure that far, far more examples of "ugly person played by ugly
person" and "fat person played by fat person" roles can be named as a
counterpoint.

Post by John Shocked
Also, the actor might claim harm from being forced to play a role
which could cause them embarassment off the set and could sue.

"Forced"? How do they get "forced" to play a role? Have they been sold into
slavery, with the studios as their owners? I don't get it.

Post by John Shocked

Post by OTL

Post by John Shocked
Again, I do not think you have competently read what I said.
And I really dislike being misquoted, whether intentionally
or through incompetence.
I never said that Cobb used steroids and doubt he did.
But it is possible to perceive that, and that is where the script
deviates from known rules.
In fact, I think it is Bo Jackson who is currently suing some newspaper
which claimed that in his heyday he used steroids, even though the
paper appears to have retracted the story.

Bo Jackson is a real person, and as such is protected against libelous
accusations by libel laws. Tyr Anasazi isn't. Keith Hamilton Cobb may be
a real person, but the accusations were made towards Tyr, not Cobb. (But
let's suppose they were. You say you don't think Cobb was on steroids.
If the line in script was an accusation against Cobb, not Tyr... why
didn't Cobb sue for libel, like Bo Jackson?)

That would not be a good career move for Cobb, especially since his career
should be taking off.

Why not? I mean, really, what would it say about him? That he won't allow
unfounded accusations to be leveled against him in scripts? Why would that
hurt his career? Since no other writer would write false accusations against
him (that is, if they followed these fictitious guidelines of yours), it's not
like other potential employers would have to worry, right?

Post by John Shocked

Post by OTL
To be honest, your idea about screenwriting guidelines is nonsense, pure
and simple. Anything said about any character can *always* be interpreted
by the audience as a comment about the actor. Always. Because there are
people in the audience who will confuse the character and the actor.
(Ever see a commercial for some kind of medication with an actor who says
"I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV"? That's because, without that
disclaimer, people would see the actor dispensing medical advice, and
think it was coming from a real doctor. Maybe not the brightest people in
the world, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't fall under your guidelines.)

That is a funny paragraph. And then you go ahead and support my point.
Your examples shows that there is a problems with non-perceptive people
or to be blunt 'chumps' who simply cannot separate the TV Image from
the real person who is the actor.

I'm not supporting your point, I'm proving how utterly false it is. Yes,
there will always be people who believe what they see on TV or movies is real,
and confuse actor with character. And that's exactly why your mythical
guidelines *cannot* exist. You claim that nothing can be written against a
character if it could be believed about the actor in turn. However,
*EVERYTHING* that is written about *ANY* character can *ALWAYS* be believed to
be about the actor. EVERYTHING. Given that, if your guidelines were true,
*NOTHING* could be written about a character *EVER* unless it were also true
of the actor. NOTHING. EVER.

[John Shocked]

Post by OTL

Post by John Shocked

Post by OTL

Post by John Shocked
Regardless of the response, it deviates from known
screenwriting guidelines since the viewer migbht actually believe the
statement about Cobb himself. There may even be legal defamatory
implications about such script statements.

If these screenwriting guidelines really do exist (which I'm 99.9999% sure
they don't), can you please cite the actual guidelines? Who established
them, what exactly do they say, where are they codified, etc.?

As I have stated before, they are not written down rules. They are simply
rules which are learnt, passed onto and inferred by all screenwriters who
wish to attract and hold an audience and make money, and also to avoid
being sued. They are based on basic morality and culture.

So in other words, you can't prove it. Can you at least provide a single
piece of supporting evidence? (Like, say, a screenwriter acknowledging this
supposed guideline? Plenty of writers have their own websites now; surely
some of them would be willing to discuss this?)

Just to be clear, any screenwriter can violate these Rules. However,
they are likely to lose money when they do. And no one in Hollywood
no matter how morally corrupt they are, likes a loser.

Post by OTL

Post by John Shocked

Post by OTL

Post by John Shocked
An Ugly Person is not normally chosen to play an ugly person
in a movie. A Fat Person normally the same, although Kirstie Alley
is in a new TV series about a 'fat actress'. But here everyone
knows she has had her day as one of the beautiful people and
will again when she loses the weight, which is already happening.

Actually, it's far more rare for an ugly or fat person to *not* be played
by an ugly or fat person (respectively). Seriously, why would you spend
all that extra money on a fat suit, when you can just hire someone with a
natural "fat suit", unless you have a good reason? (Honestly, I'm sure
that for every "pretty person in ugly make-up" and "skinny person in fat
suit" role you can name, everyone else could list dozens (at least) of
roles with an ugly or fat actor.)

Partly because basic morality prevents one from gaining enjoyment from
watching someone 'kicked when they are down'.
There are numerous unattractive people in movies who are "character actors"
but when the role calls for someone to be Ugly or Fat and that is a factor
in the script, the person usually is neither.

Hence Roseanne, right?

Again, you are failing to understand the point.
Roseanne's role did not call her "ugly" or "fat" on a regular
basis in the script.

Post by OTL
But, please: how many examples can you name of these "ugly person played by
pretty person in make-up" or "fat person played by skinny person in fat suit"
roles? I'm sure most of them will have a valid reason for that situation, and
I'm also sure that far, far more examples of "ugly person played by ugly
person" and "fat person played by fat person" roles can be named as a
counterpoint.

I do not have the time to enumerate the obvious. But if you make
a list of Fat roles (Eddie Murphy, Jiminy Glick) and Ugly roles (wicked
witch of whatever), then I could take a look at it.

Post by OTL

Post by John Shocked
Also, the actor might claim harm from being forced to play a role
which could cause them embarassment off the set and could sue.

"Forced"? How do they get "forced" to play a role? Have they been
sold into slavery, with the studios as their owners? I don't get it.

In a sense, yes. Roles are hard to come by in Hollywood and they
are awarded in a totally arbitrary manner. There already has been
a war on the Casting Couch in Hollywood.
In fact, some music impresarios in the UK, like Jonathan King,
have gone to prison for buggering young boys as a 'rite of passage'
to obtain a music career.

Post by OTL

Post by John Shocked

Post by OTL

Post by John Shocked
Again, I do not think you have competently read what I said.
And I really dislike being misquoted, whether intentionally
or through incompetence.
I never said that Cobb used steroids and doubt he did.
But it is possible to perceive that, and that is where the script
deviates from known rules.
In fact, I think it is Bo Jackson who is currently suing some newspaper
which claimed that in his heyday he used steroids, even though the
paper appears to have retracted the story.

Bo Jackson is a real person, and as such is protected against libelous
accusations by libel laws. Tyr Anasazi isn't. Keith Hamilton Cobb may be
a real person, but the accusations were made towards Tyr, not Cobb.

(But

Post by OTL

Post by John Shocked

Post by OTL
let's suppose they were. You say you don't think Cobb was on steroids.
If the line in script was an accusation against Cobb, not Tyr... why
didn't Cobb sue for libel, like Bo Jackson?)

That would not be a good career move for Cobb, especially since his career
should be taking off.

Why not? I mean, really, what would it say about him? That he won't allow
unfounded accusations to be leveled against him in scripts? Why would that
hurt his career? Since no other writer would write false accusations against
him (that is, if they followed these fictitious guidelines of yours), it's not
like other potential employers would have to worry, right?

To sue one of the Hollywood Homosexual billionaire chieftains
in Hollywood ? That is the end of an actor's career.
Maggie Gyllenhaal spoke up against the Iraq War recently, which is
fervently supported by that bunch of crooks and everyone is watching to see
what effect it has on her career.
She has just enough light on her because of this controversy that she
might survive, especially as the country is realizing it was duped by
Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservatives on the whole Anti-Arab
Hate campaign. But her fate is still worth watching.

Post by OTL

Post by John Shocked

Post by OTL
To be honest, your idea about screenwriting guidelines is nonsense, pure
and simple. Anything said about any character can *always* be interpreted
by the audience as a comment about the actor. Always. Because there are
people in the audience who will confuse the character and the actor.
(Ever see a commercial for some kind of medication with an actor who says
"I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV"? That's because, without that
disclaimer, people would see the actor dispensing medical advice, and
think it was coming from a real doctor. Maybe not the brightest people in
the world, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't fall under your guidelines.)

That is a funny paragraph. And then you go ahead and support my point.
Your examples shows that there is a problem with non-perceptive people
or to be blunt 'chumps' who simply cannot separate the TV Image from
the real person who is the actor.

I'm not supporting your point, I'm proving how utterly false it is. Yes,
there will always be people who believe what they see on TV or movies is
real, and confuse actor with character. And that's exactly why your

mythical

Post by OTL
guidelines *cannot* exist. You claim that nothing can be written against a
character if it could be believed about the actor in turn. However,
*EVERYTHING* that is written about *ANY* character can *ALWAYS*
be believed to be about the actor. EVERYTHING. Given that, if your
guidelines were true, *NOTHING* could be written about a character
*EVER* unless it were also true of the actor. NOTHING. EVER.

Nonsense. You fail to make a cogent point. I hope your computer logic
is better than that nonsense. You tripped up and fell into the trap.
Thank you for supporting my point.

Politics

[OTL]

Post by John Shocked

Post by OTL
But, please: how many examples can you name of these "ugly person played by
pretty person in make-up" or "fat person played by skinny person in fat
suit" roles? I'm sure most of them will have a valid reason for that
situation, and I'm also sure that far, far more examples of "ugly person
played by ugly person" and "fat person played by fat person" roles can be
named as a counterpoint.

I do not have the time to enumerate the obvious. But if you make
a list of Fat roles (Eddie Murphy, Jiminy Glick) and Ugly roles (wicked
witch of whatever), then I could take a look at it.

I have a better idea: if you want to insist that is the norm, *you* provide
the list of examples. Why should I make up that list for you?

(Of course, your two examples there aren't really all that great anyway.
Eddie Murphy was given the fat suit because the character was supposed to be
fat normally, but also transform into a thin person. In a case like that,
you'd want the same actor to play the character as both fat and skinny, for
consistency's sake. It wouldn't be feasible to cast a fat actor, and then
have them lost the weight to play the thin part, and that couldn't be faked.
You can have a thin actor, and fake the fat part. That was the only way to do
that.

As for Jiminy Glick, the point is that it's Martin Short playing that role.
They didn't cast Martin Short, Short created the role for himself. No one
else could play the role, because Short *is* Glick. Glick's being fat is
mostly just a way to create a barrier between Short and Glick.)

Post by John Shocked

Post by OTL

Post by John Shocked

Post by OTL

Post by John Shocked
Again, I do not think you have competently read what I said.
And I really dislike being misquoted, whether intentionally
or through incompetence.
I never said that Cobb used steroids and doubt he did.
But it is possible to perceive that, and that is where the script
deviates from known rules.
In fact, I think it is Bo Jackson who is currently suing some newspaper
which claimed that in his heyday he used steroids, even though the
paper appears to have retracted the story.

Bo Jackson is a real person, and as such is protected against libelous
accusations by libel laws. Tyr Anasazi isn't. Keith Hamilton Cobb may
be a real person, but the accusations were made towards Tyr, not Cobb.
(But let's suppose they were. You say you don't think Cobb was on
steroids. If the line in script was an accusation against Cobb, not
Tyr... why didn't Cobb sue for libel, like Bo Jackson?)

That would not be a good career move for Cobb, especially since his career
should be taking off.

Why not? I mean, really, what would it say about him? That he won't allow
unfounded accusations to be leveled against him in scripts? Why would that
hurt his career? Since no other writer would write false accusations
against him (that is, if they followed these fictitious guidelines of
yours), it's not like other potential employers would have to worry, right?

To sue one of the Hollywood Homosexual billionaire chieftains
in Hollywood ? That is the end of an actor's career.

Um... disregarding the tinfoil hat nature of your anti-"Hollywood Homosexual"
rants... which one would he be suing in that case? He'd be suing the
producers of "Andromeda". They're not exactly Hollywood billionaire
chieftans, y'know. (Actually, I'm rather sure you *don't* know, come to think
of it...)

Post by John Shocked

Post by OTL

Post by John Shocked

Post by OTL
To be honest, your idea about screenwriting guidelines is nonsense, pure
and simple. Anything said about any character can *always* be
interpreted by the audience as a comment about the actor. Always.
Because there are people in the audience who will confuse the character
and the actor. (Ever see a commercial for some kind of medication with
an actor who says "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV"? That's
because, without that disclaimer, people would see the actor dispensing
medical advice, and think it was coming from a real doctor. Maybe not
the brightest people in the world, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't
fall under your guidelines.)

That is a funny paragraph. And then you go ahead and support my point.
Your examples shows that there is a problem with non-perceptive people
or to be blunt 'chumps' who simply cannot separate the TV Image from
the real person who is the actor.

I'm not supporting your point, I'm proving how utterly false it is. Yes,
there will always be people who believe what they see on TV or movies is
real, and confuse actor with character. And that's exactly why your
mythical guidelines *cannot* exist. You claim that nothing can be written
against a character if it could be believed about the actor in turn.
However, *EVERYTHING* that is written about *ANY* character can *ALWAYS*
be believed to be about the actor. EVERYTHING. Given that, if your
guidelines were true, *NOTHING* could be written about a character
*EVER* unless it were also true of the actor. NOTHING. EVER.

Nonsense. You fail to make a cogent point. I hope your computer logic
is better than that nonsense. You tripped up and fell into the trap.
Thank you for supporting my point.

My "computer logic"? What are you talking about? And what "trap"? And what
point of yours am I supposedly supporting, and how?

And my point is perfectly valid. It is the logical extension of the poppycock
you've been spewing. But let's go over this again:

1) You claim that screenwriter guidelines prohibit writers from making
accusations against characters that could be interpreted as an accusation
against the actor.

2) People confuse actors with their roles all the time.

3) Therefore, anything said about a character can always be interpreted by
some portion of the audience as being about the actor.

4) Given #3, if #1 is true, no statement can ever be made against a character,
as it can always be interpreted as being about the actor.

That is a cogent point. If you're going to refute it, then point out *why*
the conclusion doesn't follow logically. (I've even numbered the steps for
you, so you can easily identify which step is invalid.)

Of course, I'd also like to point out a comment you yourself made in another

Post by John Shocked
As soon as anyone in a discussion like this one fails to counter an
assertion on the facts, then it is clear that there is something dishonest
about their position.

Given that you failed to counter my assertion on the facts, it's pretty
obvious what conclusion we should be drawing about your position.

But, please: explain where that logic fails. If you can. Which I'm rather
sure you can't. Because, in addition to being a bigot, it's becoming rather
obvious that you're either delusional, or a troll. Or maybe both.

[John Shocked]

Post by OTL

Post by John Shocked

Post by OTL
But, please: how many examples can you name of these "ugly person played by
pretty person in make-up" or "fat person played by skinny person in fat
suit" roles? I'm sure most of them will have a valid reason for that
situation, and I'm also sure that far, far more examples of "ugly person
played by ugly person" and "fat person played by fat person" roles can be
named as a counterpoint.

I do not have the time to enumerate the obvious. But if you make
a list of Fat roles (Eddie Murphy, Jiminy Glick) and Ugly roles (wicked
witch of whatever), then I could take a look at it.

I have a better idea: if you want to insist that is the norm, *you* provide
the list of examples. Why should I make up that list for you?
(Of course, your two examples there aren't really all that great anyway.
Eddie Murphy was given the fat suit because the character was supposed to be
fat normally, but also transform into a thin person. In a case like that,
you'd want the same actor to play the character as both fat and skinny, for
consistency's sake. It wouldn't be feasible to cast a fat actor, and then
have them lost the weight to play the thin part, and that couldn't be faked.
You can have a thin actor, and fake the fat part. That was the only way to do
that.
As for Jiminy Glick, the point is that it's Martin Short playing that role.
They didn't cast Martin Short, Short created the role for himself. No one
else could play the role, because Short *is* Glick. Glick's being fat is
mostly just a way to create a barrier between Short and Glick.)

They could easily have used a second actor who was obese to play the
obese version. However that would not have been funny when he was
on screen. Generally, moral people feel sorry for people that obese
and would not laugh at them.

Post by OTL

Post by John Shocked

Post by OTL

Post by John Shocked

Post by OTL

Post by John Shocked
Again, I do not think you have competently read what I said.
And I really dislike being misquoted, whether intentionally
or through incompetence.
I never said that Cobb used steroids and doubt he did.
But it is possible to perceive that, and that is where the script
deviates from known rules.
In fact, I think it is Bo Jackson who is currently suing some newspaper
which claimed that in his heyday he used steroids, even though the
paper appears to have retracted the story.

Bo Jackson is a real person, and as such is protected against libelous
accusations by libel laws. Tyr Anasazi isn't. Keith Hamilton Cobb may
be a real person, but the accusations were made towards Tyr, not Cobb.
(But let's suppose they were. You say you don't think Cobb was on
steroids. If the line in script was an accusation against Cobb, not
Tyr... why didn't Cobb sue for libel, like Bo Jackson?)

That would not be a good career move for Cobb, especially since his career
should be taking off.

Why not? I mean, really, what would it say about him? That he won't allow
unfounded accusations to be leveled against him in scripts? Why would that
hurt his career? Since no other writer would write false accusations
against him (that is, if they followed these fictitious guidelines of
yours), it's not like other potential employers would have to worry, right?

To sue one of the Hollywood Homosexual billionaire chieftains
in Hollywood ? That is the end of an actor's career.

Um... disregarding the tinfoil hat nature of your anti-"Hollywood Homosexual"
rants... which one would he be suing in that case? He'd be suing the
producers of "Andromeda". They're not exactly Hollywood billionaire
chieftans, y'know. (Actually, I'm rather sure you *don't* know, come to think
of it...)

Just because the show is filmed carefully away from location
in the US wheer US laws would protect the rights of deserving
members of The Poor, Blacks, Unions and Women (the true Left)
to obtain jobs on the Andromeda set, does not mean the show is
not controlled by Hollywood Homosexual fatcats.
Ever since Roddenberry died in 1991, the whole Star Trek franchise
has been under the control of Hollywood Homosexuals.

Post by OTL

Post by John Shocked

Post by OTL

Post by John Shocked

Post by OTL
To be honest, your idea about screenwriting guidelines is nonsense, pure

One of the funniest things about being on these Newsgroups is when
the sort of people who tend to hang out on these Newsgroups use
the word "honest".

Post by OTL

Post by John Shocked

Post by OTL

Post by John Shocked

Post by OTL
and simple. Anything said about any character can *always* be
interpreted by the audience as a comment about the actor. Always.
Because there are people in the audience who will confuse the character
and the actor. (Ever see a commercial for some kind of medication with
an actor who says "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV"? That's
because, without that disclaimer, people would see the actor dispensing
medical advice, and think it was coming from a real doctor. Maybe not
the brightest people in the world, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't
fall under your guidelines.)

That is a funny paragraph. And then you go ahead and support my point.
Your example shows that there is a problem with non-perceptive people
or to be blunt 'chumps' who simply cannot separate the TV Image from
the real person who is the actor.

I'm not supporting your point, I'm proving how utterly false it is.

Yes,

Post by OTL

Post by John Shocked

Post by OTL
there will always be people who believe what they see on TV or movies is
real, and confuse actor with character. And that's exactly why your
mythical guidelines *cannot* exist. You claim that nothing can be written
against a character if it could be believed about the actor in turn.
However, *EVERYTHING* that is written about *ANY*
character can *ALWAYS* be believed to be about the actor.
EVERYTHING. Given that, if your
guidelines were true, *NOTHING* could be written about a character
*EVER* unless it were also true of the actor. NOTHING. EVER.

Nonsense. You fail to make a cogent point. I hope your computer logic
is better than that nonsense. You tripped up and fell into the trap.
Thank you for supporting my point.

My "computer logic"? What are you talking about?
And what "trap"? And what point of yours am
I supposedly supporting, and how?
And my point is perfectly valid. It is the logical extension of the poppycock
1) You claim that screenwriter guidelines prohibit writers from making
accusations against characters that could be interpreted as an accusation
against the actor.

Right.

Post by OTL
2) People confuse actors with their roles all the time.

This can happen with a big breakout role like Topgun-Cruise,
Terminator-Schwarzenegger, etc. Not all the time. The capacity is there
in the public. However, context can augment this effect.

Post by OTL
3) Therefore, anything said about a character can always be interpreted by
some portion of the audience as being about the actor.

Not always.

Post by OTL
4) Given #3, if #1 is true, no statement can ever be made against a character,
as it can always be interpreted as being about the actor.
That is a cogent point. If you're going to refute it, then point out *why*
the conclusion doesn't follow logically. (I've even numbered the steps for
you, so you can easily identify which step is invalid.)
Of course, I'd also like to point out a comment you yourself made in another

Post by John Shocked
As soon as anyone in a discussion like this one fails to counter an
assertion on the facts, then it is clear that there is something dishonest
about their position.

This is an excellent statement of your part.

Post by OTL
Given that you failed to counter my assertion on the facts, it's pretty
obvious what conclusion we should be drawing about your position.
But, please: explain where that logic fails. If you can. Which I'm rather
sure you can't. Because, in addition to being a bigot, it's becoming rather
obvious that you're either delusional, or a troll. Or maybe both.

Your side of this debate has been focused on the claim that viewers do
not associate traits of the on air character to the actor playing the role.
Then you admitted accidentally this is the case. Then you went on to
exaggerate this position by saying this happens all the time.

My point is that there is a possibility of this occurring, and it is
increased
when it is possible through traits the viewer knows about the actor.
For instance, if Robert Downey Jr played a cokehead ina movie today
it is likely people would believe he the real person was back on the pipe
based on his past behavior.
And based on Cobb's physique, which is something the viewer is well
aware of since it is clear he is not wearing a muscle suit, an accusation
of steroids use could be believed.
That hurts Cobb's reputation as an actor and as a person.

Politics

[Mark Brown]

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
I find IMDB to be unusually accurate and thorough in biographical data.

IMBD is fan-maintained; if the fans get something wrong, it gets propagated.

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
It's certainly possible that Tyr was a "stream of
consciousness" character with no fixed trajectory beyond a season or so,

but

Post by Mark Brown
I doubt it; RHW is too good a writer to set up something like Tamerlane

and

Post by Mark Brown
not know how he'd follow through on it.

Right, and it would deviate from the norm in science fiction shows
not to have the big, muscular black heavy as part of the team.
That goes all the way back to Worf in Star Trek: The Next Generation.
It has become science fiction TV tradition.

Actually, the only others I can think of are Worf, Teal'c (Stargate_SG-1),
Bling (Dark_Angel, but he was more of a minor supporting character), and
Kurdy (Jeremiah).

Meanwhile, there's that one guy whose name I can't recall who kept turning
up on shows like Witchblade, Enterprise, First_Wave, and others, and who
never seems to play anything but bad guys.

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Her entire point in the story was to (A) demonstrate how
Nietzscheans make marriages, and (B) to birth Tamerlane.

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
I assume here that Tyr's son was named Tamerlane and appeared later in the
series, though. Which episode was that and what happened with Tamerlane ?

Yeah, Tamerlane Anasazi (out of Freya, by Tyr). He turned up in S2, when
Orca Pride (Freya's people) were attacked by. . . Either Genites or
Drago-Kazov, I can't recall. Genetic tests indicated that Tamerlane was the
Nietzschean Messiah --the genetic reincarnation of Drago Museveni. The
episode ended with Orca Pride supposedly wiped out (Freya dead), but Tyr had
rescued the Matriarch and Tamerlane and set them up on Midden (seen back in
S1).

There was a brief scene in a latter ep (possibly S3), where Tyr contacts
them and we get a glimpse of Tamerlane, now looking like a 5-year-old (Niets
grow fast) and sporting fuzzy little dreadlocks, apparently trying to look
like dad.

After that, the writers forgot about him, and he was never seen again.

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
I also don't feel the restored Commonwealth would've ~appeared~ out of the
blue as quickly as it ended up doing. Likely we were ~never~ supposed to

see

Post by Mark Brown
the "happily ever after."

As I mentioned, I was expecting the series to identify the various
factors which dominated the universe at that time, have the Andromeda
make peace with some, ally with others, and obliterated those who
could not be tamed in a "strike down the proud, spare the humble"
recreation of ancient literature Empire building.

We had a bit of that, with the Resters, the Genites, the Free Trade
Alliance, Sam Profitt Industries (headed by Beka's Uncle Sid), the
Drago-Kazov, Jaguar, and Sabra Prides (the three biggest Nietzschean
factions), the Than Hegemony, et al. We saw the merger between the Sabra and
Jaguars, making them big enough to take on the Drago-Kazov (a war that
lasted all of one episode).

For the most part though, it eventually turned into "anyone not us = Evil,"
and everyone was reduced to villains of the week.

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
I thought the progression would be that the Commonwealth would eventually
be established and a new Universe Government created and then Dylan
would refuse the Presidency and go back to his home planet.

Which would still have required a way to reconnect with Tarn-Vedra. I can't
really imagine Dylan retiring anyway, not when the universe has changed so
completely (everyone and everything he's ever known have been wiped away).

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
In an episode of. . . I think it was CSI, Sean Maher played a serial

rapist.

Post by Mark Brown
Sean Maher is not a rapist. In an episode of Dead_Like_Me, Jewel Stait
played a slut/prostitute. Jewel is currently (I assume happily) married.

*SNIP*

And just last night, Mark Sheppard played a child molester/murderer on
_Medium_.

Post by John Shocked
I find it disturbing you do not seem to understand the point I made.
Read it again.

No, the point you made (whether or not it's the point you ~intended~ to
make) was that "screenwriting rules" prevent anything that could be
considered as libel/slander against an actor/character (you seem not to note
the difference, as OTL spells out else-thread). Where do you draw the line?
If accusing KHC's character of drug use is bad, how is accusing Jewel
Stait's character of prostitution acceptable?

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
More to the point, Tyr (the character) is pretty obviously ~not~ on
steroids, as per the script. Doesn't Tyr's rebuttal carry just as much
weight as Beka's accusation?

I do not recall his giving a response.

Wasn't that where the Drugs/Dependency/Death line fits? I don't have the
DVDs and I haven't been watching the reruns on Space.

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Regardless of the response, it deviates from known
screenwriting guidelines since the viewer migbht actually believe the
statement about Cobb himself. There may even be legal defamatory
implications about such script statements.

If there were, it likely wouldn't have ended up in the script, and we
wouldn't be having this debate.

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
An Ugly Person is not normally chosen to play an ugly person
in a movie.

Danny Devito.

His entire ~gimmick~ is that he's a repulsive little toad --he's made it his
trademark.

(Disclaimer: No offense is intended. I ~like~ Devito, he's funny, and a much
better actor than most Hollywood pretty boys.)

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
I never said that Cobb used steroids and doubt he did.
But it is possible to perceive that, and that is where the script
deviates from known rules.
In fact, I think it is Bo Jackson who is currently suing some newspaper
which claimed that in his heyday he used steroids, even though the
paper appears to have retracted the story.

Did the paper use his real name? (Likely.) And did it present itself as
factual and accurate? (Being a newspaper, we can assume it did.) Those are
the critical issues; you have to consider the ~context~ in which the
accusation is made.

Going back to Andromeda, Beka is ~established~ as being intoxicated/unstable
when she says that line (about Tyr, not Cobb). There is no implied veracity
attached to the line, and there is ample reason to suggest the ~opposite.~

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Look at it this way, how would you rewrite that scene to take out the
steroids reference? How would you have Beka react to Tyr's accusation?

I would have to see the scene again, because I do not recall a Tyr
response to the accusation in the US feed I saw.

I don't mean Tyr's response (I'll accept that you may be right, and Beka got
the last word in). What I meant was this: Beka's just been outed as a drug
user by Tyr and is being taken to quarters (or Tyr is walking out, whichever
happened first). She's angry at Tyr, but can't deny anything he said. What
~should~ Beka have said? Insulted Tyr's mother? Started crying? Thrown a
temper tantrum? Stayed silent?

The whole point of the line is that Beka is, at that point, impotent. All
she ~can~ do is hurl weak (because they're baseless) accusations against
Tyr. If she'd accused him of being inbred, or a doody-head, would that be
better or worse?

Post by John Shocked
But that is immaterial.
If the show wanted to make a statement about steroids, they had to
make it without reference to someone in the show (especially an
up and coming unknown like Cobb whose career might be
damaged by this tag).

They weren't making a statement about steroids; they were making a statement
about the effects of addiction. The word "steroids" happened to come up.

Post by John Shocked
In fact, the impression I had from the scene was that Cobb
may not even have known of the Beka "steroids" statement
until he saw it on TV.

*SNIP*

. . .

I'm assuming Cobb read the script. You're now suggesting that the line was
ad-libbed on set by Ryder. It's possible, but again, if there was any chance
that this ~would~ count as slander, the director would've had them do
another take, or the editor would've cut the scene before she said it, or
the dialogue editor would've had Ryder re-loop it and say something else.

Mark
"As much as I would've loved to see The_Last_Samurai as a Danny Devito film.
. ." --a friend, discussing replacements for Tom Cruise.

[John Shocked]

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
I find IMDB to be unusually accurate and thorough in biographical data.

IMBD is fan-maintained; if the fans get something wrong, it gets propagated.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

It's certainly possible that Tyr was a "stream of consciousness"
character with no fixed trajectory beyond a season or so, but
I doubt it; RHW is too good a writer to set up
something like Tamerlane and
not know how he'd follow through on it.

Right, and it would deviate from the norm in science fiction shows
not to have the big, muscular black heavy as part of the team.
That goes all the way back to Worf in Star Trek: The Next Generation.
It has become science fiction TV tradition.

Actually, the only others I can think of are Worf, Teal'c (Stargate_SG-1),
Bling (Dark_Angel, but he was more of a minor supporting character), and
Kurdy (Jeremiah).
Meanwhile, there's that one guy whose name I can't recall who kept turning
up on shows like Witchblade, Enterprise, First_Wave, and others, and who
never seems to play anything but bad guys.

For many of us, the Star Trek series ended with the homosexual symbolism
of Star Trek Deep Space Nine. I have not watched any of that series since
maybe the first year of DS9 until Earth:Final Conflict and Andromeda.
So the characters I mentioned are fairly pervasive in the series that many
of
us watched.

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Her entire point in the story was to (A) demonstrate how
Nietzscheans make marriages, and (B) to birth Tamerlane.

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
I assume here that Tyr's son was named Tamerlane and appeared later in the
series, though. Which episode was that and what happened with Tamerlane ?

Yeah, Tamerlane Anasazi (out of Freya, by Tyr). He turned up in S2, when
Orca Pride (Freya's people) were attacked by. . . Either Genites or

Tamerlane grew up that fast ?

Post by Mark Brown
Drago-Kazov, I can't recall. Genetic tests indicated that Tamerlane was the
Nietzschean Messiah --the genetic reincarnation of Drago Museveni. The
episode ended with Orca Pride supposedly wiped out (Freya dead), but Tyr had
rescued the Matriarch and Tamerlane and set them up on Midden (seen back in
S1).

So the screenwriter went for the destruction of Freya's tribe too, to set up
the necessity for Tyr and Freya creating this new tribe between them.
Thus, she did not need to betray her own tribe in eloping with Tyr.

Post by Mark Brown
There was a brief scene in a latter ep (possibly S3), where Tyr contacts
them and we get a glimpse of Tamerlane, now looking like a 5-year-old (Niets
grow fast) and sporting fuzzy little dreadlocks, apparently trying to look
like dad.
After that, the writers forgot about him, and he was never seen again.

The Internet sites said that the episode Double Helix which I believe
was the episode where Tamerlane was conceived received a 3.8
Nielsen rating, which was considered a raging success.
I am still looking for my information on the ratings trajectory of
the series over the 5 year arc.
In looking at some fan reviews of the series on the Internet today, some
claim that there was no one other than Cobb who was black on the series.
Is that true ?
http://www.jumptheshark.com/a/andromeda.htm

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

I also don't feel the restored Commonwealth would've
~appeared~ out of the blue as quickly as it ended up doing.
Likely we were ~never~ supposed to see
the "happily ever after."

As I mentioned, I was expecting the series to identify the various
factors which dominated the universe at that time, have the Andromeda
make peace with some, ally with others, and obliterate those who
could not be tamed in a "strike down the proud, spare the humble"
recreation of ancient literature Empire building.

We had a bit of that, with the Resters, the Genites, the Free Trade
Alliance, Sam Profitt Industries (headed by Beka's Uncle Sid), the
Drago-Kazov, Jaguar, and Sabra Prides (the three biggest Nietzschean
factions), the Than Hegemony, et al. We saw the merger between the Sabra
and Jaguars, making them big enough to take on the Drago-Kazov (a war
that lasted all of one episode).
For the most part though, it eventually turned into "anyone not us = Evil,"
and everyone was reduced to villains of the week.
*SNIP*

Sounds like storyline chaos; it does not surprise me I stopped watching
somewhere in the middle of season two.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
I thought the progression would be that the Commonwealth would eventually
be established and a new Universe Government created and then Dylan
would refuse the Presidency and go back to his home planet.

Which would still have required a way to reconnect with Tarn-Vedra. I can't
really imagine Dylan retiring anyway, not when the universe has changed so
completely (everyone and everything he's ever known have been wiped away).
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

In an episode of. . . I think it was CSI, Sean Maher played a
serial rapist. Sean Maher is not a rapist. In an episode of
Dead_Like_Me, Jewel Stait played a slut/prostitute.
Jewel is currently (I assume happily) married.

*SNIP*
And just last night, Mark Sheppard played a child molester/murderer on
_Medium_.

Post by John Shocked
I find it disturbing you do not seem to understand the point I made.
Read it again.

No, the point you made (whether or not it's the point you ~intended~ to
make) was that "screenwriting rules" prevent anything that could be
considered as libel/slander against an actor/character (you seem not to note
the difference, as OTL spells out else-thread). Where do you draw the line?
If accusing KHC's character of drug use is bad, how is accusing Jewel
Stait's character of prostitution acceptable?

You obviously still have not understood the point.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

More to the point, Tyr (the character) is pretty obviously ~not~ on
steroids, as per the script. Doesn't Tyr's rebuttal carry just as much
weight as Beka's accusation?

I do not recall his giving a response.

Wasn't that where the Drugs/Dependency/Death line fits? I don't have the
DVDs and I haven't been watching the reruns on Space.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Regardless of the response, it deviates from known
screenwriting guidelines since the viewer might actually believe the
statement about Cobb himself. There may even be legal defamatory
implications about such script statements.

If there were, it likely wouldn't have ended up in the script, and we
wouldn't be having this debate.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
An Ugly Person is not normally chosen to play an ugly person
in a movie.

Danny Devito.

He is not Ugly. People do not cringe from the screen when he is on screen.
He does have a disability, being a midget. When a character requires a
midget, midgets have been known to play midgets, but being a midget is
not necessarily a pejorative and midgets need work.
This issue has actually been debated with midget groups claiming to
be offended and the midget actor claiming he needs the work.

Post by Mark Brown
His entire ~gimmick~ is that he's a repulsive little toad --he's made it his
trademark.

That is not even his gimmick. Are you serious ?
He is a comedic actor and has played a variety of roles.

Post by Mark Brown
(Disclaimer: No offense is intended. I ~like~ Devito, he's funny, and a much
better actor than most Hollywood pretty boys.)

I think Joe Pesci has him beat as an actor and as a comedic actor
but they are similar.

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
I never said that Cobb used steroids and doubt he did.
But it is possible to perceive that, and that is where the script
deviates from known rules.
In fact, I think it is Bo Jackson who is currently suing some newspaper
which claimed that in his heyday he used steroids, even though the
paper appears to have retracted the story.

Did the paper use his real name? (Likely.) And did it present itself as
factual and accurate? (Being a newspaper, we can assume it did.) Those are
the critical issues; you have to consider the ~context~ in which the
accusation is made.

Point is, accusing someone of steroid use damages their reputation.

Post by Mark Brown
Going back to Andromeda, Beka is ~established~ as being

intoxicated/unstable

Post by Mark Brown
when she says that line (about Tyr, not Cobb). There is no implied veracity
attached to the line, and there is ample reason to suggest the ~opposite.~

There is no acceptable explanation for making such an accusation in
the script of a series. And even at the last minute it could have been
edited out. They chose not to do that, because they meant it.

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Look at it this way, how would you rewrite that scene to take out the
steroids reference? How would you have Beka react to Tyr's accusation?

I would have to see the scene again, because I do not recall a Tyr
response to the accusation in the US feed I saw.

I don't mean Tyr's response (I'll accept that you may be right, and Beka got
the last word in). What I meant was this: Beka's just been outed as a drug
user by Tyr and is being taken to quarters (or Tyr is walking out, whichever
happened first). She's angry at Tyr, but can't deny anything he said. What
~should~ Beka have said? Insulted Tyr's mother? Started crying? Thrown a
temper tantrum? Stayed silent?

In such a situation, in reality, she might have called Tyr the N-word.
Do you think the script should have echoed that level of response to
Tyr as well ?

Post by Mark Brown
The whole point of the line is that Beka is, at that point, impotent. All
she ~can~ do is hurl weak (because they're baseless) accusations against
Tyr. If she'd accused him of being inbred, or a doody-head, would that be
better or worse?

Post by John Shocked
But that is immaterial.
If the show wanted to make a statement about steroids, they had to
make it without reference to someone in the show (especially an
up and coming unknown like Cobb whose career might be
damaged by this tag).

They weren't making a statement about steroids; they were making a statement
about the effects of addiction. The word "steroids" happened to come up.

Again, the script could have had Beka calling Tyr the N-word.
Ok with you ?

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
In fact, the impression I had from the scene was that Cobb
may not even have known of the Beka "steroids" statement
until he saw it on TV.

*SNIP*
I'm assuming Cobb read the script. You're now suggesting that the line was
ad-libbed on set by Ryder. It's possible, but again, if there was any chance

I was just reading an interview with Cobb wherein he states that one moment
when he growled at Woolvett and Woolvett runs away, was total ad lib.
So apparently that sort of thing happened on the set of this series.
http://www.starport.com/sciencefiction/tv/andromeda_cobb_001208.html

Post by Mark Brown
that this ~would~ count as slander, the director would've had them do
another take, or the editor would've cut the scene before she said it, or
the dialogue editor would've had Ryder re-loop it and say something else.
Mark

Politics

[Mark Brown]

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
For many of us, the Star Trek series ended with the homosexual symbolism
of Star Trek Deep Space Nine.

Wha?

*thinks*

You mean the Changelings merging? Part of the point of that was that it
~wasn't~ sexual. It was psychological and mental --a bond that he could
never truly share with Kira. The female Changeling said much the same thing
after she & Odo slept together; the way "solids" experience intimacy is so
inferior to the ways of Founders. This is even ignoring that Changelings
~aren't~ "male" or "female" in the sense of having different sexes. It's
just a form that they wear among bi-gendered solids.

Or maybe you mean the lesbian kiss between Jadzia and Curzon's re-hosted
lover. Again, the whole point of that was that it was socially deviant (for
being re-associative, since they didn't want to deal with lesbianism
directly). Both of these events were supposed to make the audience ask
"~why~ is this so wrong?" Shouldn't it be Jadzia's choice who she associates
with? Or Odo's to merge with Changelings (when it doesn't endanger his
friends and colleagues, which was ~also~ a plot-necessity attached to Odo's
dalliance --the writers needed him distracted).

Post by John Shocked
I have not watched any of that series since
maybe the first year of DS9 until Earth:Final Conflict and Andromeda.
So the characters I mentioned are fairly pervasive in the series that many
of
us watched.

"Many of us" = "you?"

'Cause ~I~ can certainly recall watching shows with That Actor Whose Name I
Can't Recall, and a variety of shows that contradict your "rules."

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Yeah, Tamerlane Anasazi (out of Freya, by Tyr). He turned up in S2, when
Orca Pride (Freya's people) were attacked by. . . Either Genites or

Tamerlane grew up that fast ?

Well, no. Nietzscheans grow fast, but not ~that~ fast. During the S2
appearance, Tamerlane was just a baby. The next time we saw him (on a
viewscreen, sitting on Matriarch's lap) could've been about a year later,
and he looked like a (very disciplined and alert) 4-5 year-old. From KHC's
own in-character essays ("Voices of the Ancestors") we know that a
Nietzschean 10-year-old is the physical match of a human 16-year-old
(approximately; I can't look for the website now to check). It makes sense
that Niets would gene-mod their kids to get them through puberty (with its
attendant clumsiness and vulnerability) and into breeding age as quickly as
possible.

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
So the screenwriter went for the destruction of Freya's tribe too, to set up
the necessity for Tyr and Freya creating this new tribe between them.

Actually, yeah. Tamerlane belongs to no Pride (though he could identify
himself as Kodiak, Orca, or Kodiak-Orca [Orca-Kodiak]), which would gel with
the Nietzschean prophecy about how the Progenitor's reincarnation would
unite ~all~ the Prides. With Tamerlane as an "orphan," he wouldn't have to
follow the policies of any one Pride, and would be free to be his own Alpha.

Post by John Shocked
Thus, she did not need to betray her own tribe in eloping with Tyr.

She didn't; IIRC Matriarch herself condoned the pairing. Tyr's only problem
was with the Alpha (who was attacking Andromeda, and was generally a d*ck),
but the Matriarch can over-rule the Alpha when it comes to breeding.

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
In looking at some fan reviews of the series on the Internet today, some
claim that there was no one other than Cobb who was black on the series.
Is that true ?

No. Just off the top of my head, I recall Christopher ("Lawrence Fishburne")
Judge (*) as the Wrath of Achilles, then Hector (two androids; Hector was
based on Achilles' design). There was Ellsbett Mossadim (later Ellsbett
Bolivar after marrying Charlemagne), who turned up twice, and the Machenite
android that Rommie killed in "All Too Human" (he was the guy on
First_Wave). Given the huge number of extras and generic thugs Dylan's blown
away, there were probably more. I'm fairly desensitized to race, so I expect
I've missed anyone who wasn't front-and-centre.

(* During the acceptance speech for the 2004 "Best Canadian Series" Spacey
Award, the SG-1 actors all introduced themselves, except for Judge, who
introduced himself as Lawrence Fishburne. He's funny like that.)

And of course there's baby Tamerlane, who looked pale mocha ('cause of his
mother being Norse and fair-haired).

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
We had a bit of that, with the Resters, the Genites, the Free Trade
Alliance, Sam Profitt Industries (headed by Beka's Uncle Sid), the
Drago-Kazov, Jaguar, and Sabra Prides (the three biggest Nietzschean
factions), the Than Hegemony, et al.

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Sounds like storyline chaos; it does not surprise me I stopped watching
somewhere in the middle of season two.

Actually, I liked the chaos; it really captured the idea that the universe
had fallen completely apart into thousands of tiny fiefdoms "each against
the other" (as Hobbes would've said).

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
You obviously still have not understood the point.

Then spell it out.

*SNIP* re: Danny Devito

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
His entire ~gimmick~ is that he's a repulsive little toad --he's made it

his

Post by Mark Brown
trademark.

That is not even his gimmick. Are you serious ?

No, I'm making a joke. It's a thing I sometimes do to avoid arguments from
becoming too heated and descending into flame-wars and ad hominem attacks.

Post by John Shocked
He is a comedic actor and has played a variety of roles.

Yes, and name one in which his clownish demeanor wasn't a contributing
factor to the comedy. He's done dramatic roles too, and even then, the parts
are written (and he plays them) with a certain self-mockery involved.

Like in Renaissance_Man, when he runs through the obstacle course. We see
the drill sergeant smirking as the fat little guy makes a fool of himself
(and it ~is~ played comedically), but the audience (like the cadets he's
been tutoring) feel pity (especially those of us [among 'em, myself] who are
equally pear-shaped). The rest of the emotional arc of the movie just
wouldn't work without that humiliation scene --people ~have~ to laugh at his
misery.

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Point is, accusing someone of steroid use damages their reputation.

Yes, but your whole argument is predicated on the point that "accusing Tyr
of using steroids" = "accusing KHC of using steroids." I've seen nothing
convincing to back ~that~ point up.

Let's face it, Tyr Anasazi's career is pretty much over anyway. KHC. . .
Doesn't seem overly concerned.

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
There is no acceptable explanation for making such an accusation in
the script of a series.

Yes, there is. Beka is defensive and irrational, as evidenced by her
behaviour throughout this scene. It's an in-character moment.

To explain, I believe there are two main types of writers: those who have a
natural talent with (and write primarily for) plot, and those who
write/think in terms of character. (There are of course some extraordinarily
gifted people who can do both equally [Shakespeare, Stan Lee, Joss Whedon,
etc.]. They are to be envied [for their natural talent] and emulated [via
study and practice].) For one kind of writer to explain to the other kind
~how~ s/he does this is difficult at best, impossible at worst. It's just a
natural skill. One feature (or problem) of writing for character (as I tend
to) is that the characters will sometimes take on a mind of their own.
They'll become "real" people, who will act, think, and speak ~their~ way,
which may not agree with what the writer has planned.

Example: Steven Spielberg had initially wanted (and planned out) a long,
complicated scimitar-vs-bullwhip duel in Raiders_of_the_Lost_Ark. Harrison
Ford had someplace else to be (and was apparently not feeling too well), and
suggested that Indy just pull out his gun and shoot the thug.

At this point, the writer has a choice; s/he can either force the characters
to follow the plot (which can often come across as stiff and artificial), or
s/he can throw out the plot and let the characters run with it. In this
case, the writer is less the God of the story-universe as the director of
the "Theatre of the Mind's Eye."

Example: Pragmatism being a big part of Indy's established character,
Spielberg decided that this was a better (and not incidentally, funnier)
idea, and rewrote the scene. In hindsight, he realized that playing through
the original duel (even if Ford had been at 100% and had all the time in the
world) just wouldn't have "fit" as well as the gunshot.

I believe that Ethlie is a character-writer, especially where Beka is
concerned. (Possibly that's why RHW hired her; he seems like a plot-writer
[long ongoing arcs, with multiple threads stretching from
episode-to-episode], and he may well be smart enough to surround himself
with oppositely-talented people [unlike a certain Star Wars Director].)
Beka, effectively clapped in irons and being dragged away, simply ~would~
mouth off. Pretty much the only relevant thing she could say would be to
accuse Tyr of drug use. What drug to use? Heroine? Tobacco? Alcohol? She
knows full well that Tyr wouldn't use any of these. Flash? Nope, that's
~her~ act. Glitterstim? Ryll? Bota? (Ethlie intervenes to point out that the
audience wouldn't know what they are, and ~she's~ not gonna go searching for
someplace to add an explanation.) Well, pretty much the only thing that
~could~ wound Tyr would be to imply that those muscles aren't his, so how
'bout a muscle-enhancer?

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
In such a situation, in reality, she might have called Tyr the N-word.
Do you think the script should have echoed that level of response to
Tyr as well ?

*blink*

Well, first, I like to think Beka's civilization is too evolved to make it a
race issue. That whole style of thought would've been outdated ~before~
first contact with the Perseids. Beka deals with other ~species~ on a daily
basis --hell, her preferred Confessor is a Magog. I honestly can't think
that skin colour would be anything she'd notice. Hell, I live on
21st-century Earth, and ~I~ often don't notice it, 'cause I've
watched/read/played enough SF, and met enough truly wierd people IRL, to be
about as acclimated as I think Beka would be. I just can't imagine that,
even strung out on Flash, she'd really assume any sort of fundamental
difference based on skin colour.

Besides which, it wouldn't be the "N-word," it would be "Uber," which Beka
~has~ used in the past (and which she probably knows by now is the ~only~
thing guaranteed to bring Tyr down on her [short of shooting at him]).

Secondly, in what way would Tyr's genetic heritage help her case? It'd just
underline the fact that he wouldn't need drugs (he's already superior). More
likely it just. . . wouldn't be relevant, any more than calling him a
Doody-head.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
The whole point of the line is that Beka is, at that point, impotent. All
she ~can~ do is hurl weak (because they're baseless) accusations against
Tyr. If she'd accused him of being inbred, or a doody-head, would that be
better or worse?

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Again, the script could have had Beka calling Tyr the N-word.
Ok with you ?

No, 'cause it would've been out of character. And stupid.

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
I was just reading an interview with Cobb wherein he states that one moment
when he growled at Woolvett and Woolvett runs away, was total ad lib.
So apparently that sort of thing happened on the set of this series.
http://www.starport.com/sciencefiction/tv/andromeda_cobb_001208.html

*SNIP*

Happens on most series, I'd wager. Even most movies (well, except for Star
Wars, 'cause any deviation from Lucas' "Creative Vision" is thoughtcrime).
It all depends on how the director handles it.

Mark
"As I said, in-character."

[John Shocked]

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
For many of us, the Star Trek series ended with the homosexual symbolism
of Star Trek Deep Space Nine.

Wha?
*thinks*
You mean the Changelings merging? Part of the point of that was that it
~wasn't~ sexual. It was psychological and mental --a bond that he could
never truly share with Kira. The female Changeling said much the same thing
after she & Odo slept together; the way "solids" experience intimacy is so
inferior to the ways of Founders. This is even ignoring that Changelings
~aren't~ "male" or "female" in the sense of having different sexes. It's
just a form that they wear among bi-gendered solids.
Or maybe you mean the lesbian kiss between Jadzia and Curzon's re-hosted
lover. Again, the whole point of that was that it was socially deviant (for
being re-associative, since they didn't want to deal with lesbianism
directly). Both of these events were supposed to make the audience ask
"~why~ is this so wrong?" Shouldn't it be Jadzia's choice who she associates
with? Or Odo's to merge with Changelings (when it doesn't endanger his
friends and colleagues, which was ~also~ a plot-necessity attached to Odo's
dalliance --the writers needed him distracted).

The whole point of the male Symbiant inside actress Terry Farrell's
character
(Jadzia Dax) is to bring Sodomy into the show. Sisko refers to her regularly
as "Old Man". For some reason, the demographic that science fiction viewers
and apparently, from your descriptions of series, fantasy-magic shows
represent are being targetted by Hollywood Homosexual for sale of Sodomy
to the masses. Maybe the scum in Hollywood believe that if you are willing
to suspend your views of reality to watch a science fiction show, you will
accept that Sodomy is just another alternate reality.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
I have not watched any of that series since
maybe the first year of DS9 until Earth:Final Conflict and Andromeda.
So the characters I mentioned are fairly pervasive in the series that many
of us watched.

"Many of us" = "you?"

Lots of people thought Star Trek Deep Space Nine was crap
and stopped watching at that point.
Star Trek The Next Generation I believe enjoyed higher ratings than a
2 or 3.

Post by Mark Brown
'Cause ~I~ can certainly recall watching shows with That Actor Whose
Name I Can't Recall, and a variety of shows that contradict your "rules."

Based on this exchange I do not think you would have the perception to
recognize what may be competing Rules in the show you are watching
so it is difficult to disacuss it.

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Yeah, Tamerlane Anasazi (out of Freya, by Tyr). He turned up in S2, when
Orca Pride (Freya's people) were attacked by. . . Either Genites or

Tamerlane grew up that fast ?

Well, no. Nietzscheans grow fast, but not ~that~ fast. During the S2
appearance, Tamerlane was just a baby. The next time we saw him (on a
viewscreen, sitting on Matriarch's lap) could've been about a year later,
and he looked like a (very disciplined and alert) 4-5 year-old. From KHC's
own in-character essays ("Voices of the Ancestors") we know that a
Nietzschean 10-year-old is the physical match of a human 16-year-old
(approximately; I can't look for the website now to check). It makes sense
that Niets would gene-mod their kids to get them through puberty (with its
attendant clumsiness and vulnerability) and into breeding age as quickly as
possible.

I do not think that makes sense at all. What does make sense is that
the writers for some reason were determined to bring a grown up
child of white and black parents onto the show. Why they would want
to press the accelerator pedal on Tamerlane's growth for this reason
is unclear.

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
So the screenwriter went for the destruction of Freya's tribe too,
to set up the necessity for Tyr and Freya creating this new tribe
between them.

Actually, yeah. Tamerlane belongs to no Pride (though he could identify
himself as Kodiak, Orca, or Kodiak-Orca [Orca-Kodiak]), which would
gel with the Nietzschean prophecy about how the Progenitor's reincarnation
would unite ~all~ the Prides. With Tamerlane as an "orphan," he wouldn't
have to follow the policies of any one Pride, and would be free to be his
own Alpha.

Post by John Shocked
Thus, she did not need to betray her own tribe in eloping with Tyr.

She didn't; IIRC Matriarch herself condoned the pairing. Tyr's only problem
was with the Alpha (who was attacking Andromeda, and was generally a d*ck),
but the Matriarch can over-rule the Alpha when it comes to breeding.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
In looking at some fan reviews of the series on the Internet today, some
claim that there was no one other than Cobb who was black on the series.
Is that true ?

No. Just off the top of my head, I recall Christopher ("Lawrence Fishburne")

I know of nothing that Judge and Fishburne have in common than being
black.

Post by Mark Brown
Judge (*) as the Wrath of Achilles, then Hector (two androids; Hector was
based on Achilles' design). There was Ellsbett Mossadim (later Ellsbett

This sound slike an episode of the Iliad. You are saying these were two
black actors on the show ? I cannot say that I have seen any on there in
the last year of shows when I have glimpsed some of the shows after
the BSG episodes.

Post by Mark Brown
Bolivar after marrying Charlemagne), who turned up twice, and the Machenite
android that Rommie killed in "All Too Human" (he was the guy on
First_Wave). Given the huge number of extras and generic thugs Dylan's blown
away, there were probably more. I'm fairly desensitized to race, so I expect
I've missed anyone who wasn't front-and-centre.

Does not sound like many black actors gained work on this series.

Post by Mark Brown
(* During the acceptance speech for the 2004 "Best Canadian Series" Spacey
Award, the SG-1 actors all introduced themselves, except for Judge, who
introduced himself as Lawrence Fishburne. He's funny like that.)
And of course there's baby Tamerlane, who looked pale mocha
'cause of his mother being Norse and fair-haired).

[eave documentational web site URLs in the thread.
If you do not agree with what is in this document, oppose it.

That is what this reviewer of the series said:
http://www.jumptheshark.com/a/andromeda.htm

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
We had a bit of that, with the Resters, the Genites, the Free Trade
Alliance, Sam Profitt Industries (headed by Beka's Uncle Sid), the
Drago-Kazov, Jaguar, and Sabra Prides (the three biggest Nietzschean
factions), the Than Hegemony, et al.

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Sounds like storyline chaos; it does not surprise me I stopped watching
somewhere in the middle of season two.

Actually, I liked the chaos; it really captured the idea that the universe
had fallen completely apart into thousands of tiny fiefdoms "each against
the other" (as Hobbes would've said).
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
You obviously still have not understood the point.

Then spell it out.
*SNIP* re: Danny Devito

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
His entire ~gimmick~ is that he's a repulsive little toad --he's made it
his trademark.

That is not even his gimmick. Are you serious ?

No, I'm making a joke. It's a thing I sometimes do to avoid arguments from
becoming too heated and descending into flame-wars and ad hominem attacks.

I never make ad hominem attacks. I leave that to the scum who
work public relations on these Newsgroups representing
Hollywood Homosexuals.

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
He is a comedic actor and has played a variety of roles.

Yes, and name one in which his clownish demeanor wasn't a contributing
factor to the comedy. He's done dramatic roles too, and even then, the parts
are written (and he plays them) with a certain self-mockery involved.
Like in Renaissance_Man, when he runs through the obstacle course. We see
the drill sergeant smirking as the fat little guy makes a fool of himself
(and it ~is~ played comedically), but the audience (like the cadets he's
been tutoring) feel pity (especially those of us [among 'em, myself] who are
equally pear-shaped). The rest of the emotional arc of the movie just
wouldn't work without that humiliation scene --people ~have~ to laugh at his
misery.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Point is, accusing someone of steroid use damages their reputation.

Not to mention, hurts their feelings.

dicated on the point that "accusing Tyr

Post by Mark Brown
of using steroids" = "accusing KHC of using steroids." I've seen nothing
convincing to back ~that~ point up.
Let's face it, Tyr Anasazi's career is pretty much over anyway. KHC. . .
Doesn't seem overly concerned.

As I mentioned at the outset, Cobb should be a huge star by now.
Something big may be preventing that from happening.
And the the unprecedented "steroid" jab at Cobb in the episode in
question may indicate there were problems on the set and those problems
may be continuing to damage Cobb's career.

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
There is no acceptable explanation for making such an accusation in
the script of a series.

Yes, there is. Beka is defensive and irrational, as evidenced by her
behaviour throughout this scene. It's an in-character moment.

Again, you are failing to recognize the difference between Reality and
Make-Believe. Beka is just an empty vessel that the writer and producers
pour their axes to grind into.
Again, would it have been ok for the Beka character to call Tyr
the N-word. And if the Beka character called him the N-word,
would it in reality be Beka calling him that or Sorbo ?

Post by Mark Brown
To explain, I believe there are two main types of writers: those who have a
natural talent with (and write primarily for) plot, and those who
write/think in terms of character. (There are of course some

extraordinarily

Post by Mark Brown
gifted people who can do both equally [Shakespeare, Stan Lee, Joss Whedon,
etc.]. They are to be envied [for their natural talent] and emulated [via
study and practice].) For one kind of writer to explain to the other kind
~how~ s/he does this is difficult at best, impossible at worst. It's just a
natural skill. One feature (or problem) of writing for character (as I tend
to) is that the characters will sometimes take on a mind of their own.
They'll become "real" people, who will act, think, and speak ~their~ way,
which may not agree with what the writer has planned.
Example: Steven Spielberg had initially wanted (and planned out) a long,
complicated scimitar-vs-bullwhip duel in Raiders_of_the_Lost_Ark. Harrison
Ford had someplace else to be (and was apparently not feeling too well), and
suggested that Indy just pull out his gun and shoot the thug.

You may have read me address this issue in the alt.battlestar-galactica
Newsgroups just a few weeks ago.
That was a disgusting scene which laid the Anti-Arab Hate of
Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives clearly on the table.
Neo-Conservatives (NeoCons) are identical to regular Conservatives
except they Love Sodomy and Hate and want to Murder all
Arabs/Moslems.

Post by Mark Brown
At this point, the writer has a choice; s/he can either force the characters
to follow the plot (which can often come across as stiff and artificial), or
s/he can throw out the plot and let the characters run with it. In this
case, the writer is less the God of the story-universe as the director of
the "Theatre of the Mind's Eye."
Example: Pragmatism being a big part of Indy's established character,
Spielberg decided that this was a better (and not incidentally, funnier)
idea, and rewrote the scene. In hindsight, he realized that playing through
the original duel (even if Ford had been at 100% and had all the time in the
world) just wouldn't have "fit" as well as the gunshot.

Again, you are thinking too deeply about the chaarcter rather than the
writer. When you invest some automaton nature to the character
you do not see the reality of how you are being played.
To me, this is also simply crazy behavior. Someone wrote the script.
These characters are empty vessel the writers create.

Post by Mark Brown
I believe that Ethlie is a character-writer, especially where Beka is
concerned. (Possibly that's why RHW hired her; he seems like a plot-writer
[long ongoing arcs, with multiple threads stretching from
episode-to-episode], and he may well be smart enough to surround himself
with oppositely-talented people [unlike a certain Star Wars Director].)
Beka, effectively clapped in irons and being dragged away, simply ~would~
mouth off. Pretty much the only relevant thing she could say would be to
accuse Tyr of drug use. What drug to use? Heroine? Tobacco? Alcohol?
She knows full well that Tyr wouldn't use any of these. Flash? Nope,

that's

Post by Mark Brown
~her~ act. Glitterstim? Ryll? Bota? (Ethlie intervenes to point out that the
audience wouldn't know what they are, and ~she's~ not gonna go searching for
someplace to add an explanation.) Well, pretty much the only thing that
~could~ wound Tyr would be to imply that those muscles aren't his, so how
'bout a muscle-enhancer?

The episode was not about Tyr abusing drugs. If it was, he would have
had the option to object to a storyline he thought was offensive to him
and likely the episode would not have been made.
This line appears to have been snuck in to offend him specifically.
And when you couple this with Tyr's characterization as untrustworthy
throughout the series which I think was one of the reasons I stopped
watching the series, there seemed to be a high level of hostility
with the producers of that show, led by Executive Producer Sorbo
against Cobb. No wonder Cobb left the show.
By the way, which character shot Tyr in the back when he was killed off ?

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
In such a situation, in reality, she might have called Tyr the N-word.
Do you think the script should have echoed that level of response to
Tyr as well ?

*blink*
Well, first, I like to think Beka's civilization is too evolved to make it a
race issue. That whole style of thought would've been outdated ~before~
first contact with the Perseids. Beka deals with other ~species~ on a daily
basis --hell, her preferred Confessor is a Magog. I honestly can't think
that skin colour would be anything she'd notice. Hell, I live on
21st-century Earth, and ~I~ often don't notice it, 'cause I've
watched/read/played enough SF, and met enough truly wierd people IRL, to be
about as acclimated as I think Beka would be. I just can't imagine that,
even strung out on Flash, she'd really assume any sort of fundamental
difference based on skin colour.

Again, you are failing to recognize the difference between Reality and
Make-Believe. Beka is just an empty vessel that the writer and producers
pour their axes to grind into.
Again, would it have been ok for the Beka character to call Tyr
the N-word. And if the Beka character called him the N-word,
would it in reality be Beka calling him that or Sorbo ?
White people call black people the N-Word for one reason only:
they believe it will hurt the black person's feelings.
Just like accusing you of cheating on your SATs or 11-Plus,
or O-Levels or A-Levels, might hurt your feelings,
when you may have earned your way to your career and
standard of liviing.
And Cobb may well have earned his physique, through hard work.
We do not know, but the fact that Bo Jackson sued on such an
accusation indicates it hurt his feelings and reputation.

Post by Mark Brown
Besides which, it wouldn't be the "N-word," it would be "Uber," which Beka
~has~ used in the past (and which she probably knows by now is the ~only~
thing guaranteed to bring Tyr down on her [short of shooting at him]).
Secondly, in what way would Tyr's genetic heritage help her case? It'd just
underline the fact that he wouldn't need drugs (he's already superior). More
likely it just. . . wouldn't be relevant, any more than calling him a
Doody-head.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
The whole point of the line is that Beka is, at that point, impotent. All
she ~can~ do is hurl weak (because they're baseless) accusations against
Tyr. If she'd accused him of being inbred, or a doody-head, would that be
better or worse?

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Again, the script could have had Beka calling Tyr the N-word.
Ok with you ?

No, 'cause it would've been out of character. And stupid.

But what if Sorbo's intent was to hurt Cobb's feelings ?
Would it make sense then ?
What ifd the "untrustworthy" storyline was simply a ruse to
force Cobb to leave the show or be killed off ?

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
I was just reading an interview with Cobb wherein he states that one
moment when he growled at Woolvett and Woolvett runs away,
was total ad lib.
So apparently that sort of thing happened on the set of this series.
http://www.starport.com/sciencefiction/tv/andromeda_cobb_001208.html

*SNIP*
Happens on most series, I'd wager. Even most movies (well, except for Star
Wars, 'cause any deviation from Lucas' "Creative Vision" is thoughtcrime).
It all depends on how the director handles it.
Mark

It indicates that Sorbo had significant free will to steer the storyline
since
rules were not clearly enforced.
If Sorbo held malevolent feelings toward Cobb, he could put
Lisa Ryder (Beka) up to making accusations against Cobb on screen.

Politics

[Mike Meyer]

Post by John Shocked
The whole point of the male Symbiant inside actress Terry Farrell's
character
(Jadzia Dax) is to bring Sodomy into the show. Sisko refers to her regularly
as "Old Man". For some reason, the demographic that science fiction viewers
and apparently, from your descriptions of series, fantasy-magic shows
represent are being targetted by Hollywood Homosexual for sale of Sodomy
to the masses. Maybe the scum in Hollywood believe that if you are willing
to suspend your views of reality to watch a science fiction show, you will
accept that Sodomy is just another alternate reality.

Suddenly, the homophobic rants make sense. You're pissed off because
the world is changing to accept homosexuality, and Hollywood is -
belatedly - acknowledging that change by incorporating homosexual into
their shows.

On the other hand, the theme of changing sexes over time is very old
in science fiction, predating the sexual revolution. It goes back to
at least Heinlein's "All You Zombies" - where our hero was her own
mother and father - published in 1959. Of course, if something as
trivial as Jadzia bothers you, then Gerrold's "The Man Who Folded
Himself" (published in 1973) should drive you crazy. Here, our hero
travels through time and manages to have an orgy with no one but
different versions of him/her self.

Post by John Shocked
I do not think that makes sense at all. What does make sense is that
the writers for some reason were determined to bring a grown up
child of white and black parents onto the show. Why they would want
to press the accelerator pedal on Tamerlane's growth for this reason
is unclear.

Are you racist as well as sexist? The fact that Tamerlane was of mixed
race almost certainly had nothing to do with him growing up so
fast. They probably needed him grown up to make some plots work. So
they did it, without worrying about a reason. Rigorous logic is
missing from most video science fiction.

Post by John Shocked
I never make ad hominem attacks. I leave that to the scum who
work public relations on these Newsgroups representing
Hollywood Homosexuals.

Gee, that sure looks like an ad hominem attack to me.

Post by John Shocked
As I mentioned at the outset, Cobb should be a huge star by now.
Something big may be preventing that from happening.
And the the unprecedented "steroid" jab at Cobb in the episode in
question may indicate there were problems on the set and those problems
may be continuing to damage Cobb's career.

That jab isn't unprecedented. Watch enough football movies, and you'll
see plenty of people - pretty much all of them big, muscle-bound
types, as who else would you cast as a football player - being accused
of, or actually admitting to, using steroids. The one TV series I can
think of that does this is "Coach", where an ex player shows up,
having a fatal illness as a complication from steroid use.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
There is no acceptable explanation for making such an accusation in
the script of a series.

Yes, there is. Beka is defensive and irrational, as evidenced by her
behaviour throughout this scene. It's an in-character moment.

Again, you are failing to recognize the difference between Reality and
Make-Believe. Beka is just an empty vessel that the writer and producers
pour their axes to grind into.

Seems to me that you are the one who is failing to recognize the
difference between reality and make-believe. You're making the
accusation that Beka's mention of steroids - a *make-believe* thing -
is somehow a real indictment of KHB.

As for Beka, she's not an empty vessel. She's a character on a TV
series. She has a very specific personality and set of character
traits. Having her do things that are out of character is bad
writing. Doing *that* is a sure way to drive away viewers and lose
money.

Post by John Shocked
Again, would it have been ok for the Beka character to call Tyr
the N-word. And if the Beka character called him the N-word,
would it in reality be Beka calling him that or Sorbo ?

He's already answered that question, but I'll answer it again anyway.

It would be very much out of character for *any* character, as there
is no precedent on the show for the characters being racist (as
opposed to speciest, which they definitely are). As such, it wouldn't
be ok. The correct slur of this type, as already pointed out, would be
"uber".

On the other hand, we've just had a "drugs are bad" episode, so there
is precedent for a drug reference being a slur. It's also very much in
character for Beka to want to slur Tyr at that point in the
show. Given those two, the only choice left is what drug to
choose. The choice of steroids has already been explained.

Post by John Shocked
You may have read me address this issue in the alt.battlestar-galactica
Newsgroups just a few weeks ago.
That was a disgusting scene which laid the Anti-Arab Hate of
Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives clearly on the table.
Neo-Conservatives (NeoCons) are identical to regular Conservatives
except they Love Sodomy and Hate and want to Murder all
Arabs/Moslems.

The world must appear very simple to you. You put someone in a
category, and immediately know everything about them.

Do you only like entertainments that have that simplistic a world
view? Me, I prefer things where the characters are more like real
people. They have opinions that have been shaped by their past, and
will be shaped by events in the story. They'll grow, and change, and
the way a character reacts to a given situation at the end of the
story may well be radically different from the way they would have
reacted at the end of the story. Even if their political beliefs
didn't change.

Post by John Shocked
Again, you are thinking too deeply about the chaarcter rather than the
writer. When you invest some automaton nature to the character
you do not see the reality of how you are being played.
To me, this is also simply crazy behavior. Someone wrote the script.
These characters are empty vessel the writers create.

You're not thinking deeply enough about what the writer is doing. If,
as you claim, the goal of the writing is to make money, then spouting
voicing political opinions will take a back seat to being
entertaining. Being entertaining means that the viewer has to believe
the characters are real - which means they have to have a character,
and have to act in character. As such, Indy pulling a gun and shooting
is in character.

Post by John Shocked
The episode was not about Tyr abusing drugs. If it was, he would have
had the option to object to a storyline he thought was offensive to him
and likely the episode would not have been made.
This line appears to have been snuck in to offend him specifically.

You're confusing reality and make-believe again. Tyr is a *character*,
not a person. The authors don't do things to characters, they have the
characters do things.

Post by John Shocked
Again, you are failing to recognize the difference between Reality and
Make-Believe. Beka is just an empty vessel that the writer and producers
pour their axes to grind into.

While the writing on Andromeda wasn't stellar, it was by no means as
bad as it would have been if it had been nothing but political
hackwork on the part of the writers.

Post by John Shocked
Again, would it have been ok for the Beka character to call Tyr
the N-word. And if the Beka character called him the N-word,
would it in reality be Beka calling him that or Sorbo ?
they believe it will hurt the black person's feelings.
Just like accusing you of cheating on your SATs or 11-Plus,
or O-Levels or A-Levels, might hurt your feelings,
when you may have earned your way to your career and
standard of liviing.

Are you familiar with the concept of "acting"? It's all about
pretending to be someone you're not, and reacting to things as that
person would - or at least as the writers say that person would - as
opposed to the way you would. If an actor reacts to what the person
he's pretending to be is called while he's acting as he would if he
were called that, then he's failed as an actor. While you don't seem
to grasp that difference, I'm pretty sure that Cobb does.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
No, 'cause it would've been out of character. And stupid.

But what if Sorbo's intent was to hurt Cobb's feelings ?
Would it make sense then ?

No, because 1) Cobb is bright enough to know the difference between
reality and make-believe, and 2) Sorbo is bright enough not to let a
personal vendetta affect a show at that level. He may not be bright
enough to avoid letting it ruin the show with behind-the-scenes
maneuvers, but I think he's bright enough to keep it behind the
camera.

Post by John Shocked
What ifd the "untrustworthy" storyline was simply a ruse to
force Cobb to leave the show or be killed off ?

They established that untrustworthyness in the pilot. If they wanted
to get rid of him, why not simply cast someone else for the series?
Personally, I think this facet of Tyr's character presents an
opportunity for some great writing. It provides conflict, which is
pretty much a requirement for entertainment. It provides a point for
the character to grow around.

Post by John Shocked
It indicates that Sorbo had significant free will to steer the storyline
since
rules were not clearly enforced.
If Sorbo held malevolent feelings toward Cobb, he could put
Lisa Ryder (Beka) up to making accusations against Cobb on screen.

You are, once again, confusing reality and make-believe. What happens
on screen is *make-believe*. It has nothing to do with reality.

<mike

[John Shocked]

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
The whole point of the male Symbiant inside actress Terry Farrell's
character (Jadzia Dax) is to bring Sodomy into the show. Sisko
refers to her regularly as "Old Man". For some reason, the
demographic that science fiction viewers and apparently, from your
descriptions of series, fantasy-magic shows represent are being
targetted by Hollywood Homosexual for sale of Sodomy
to the masses. Maybe the scum in Hollywood believe that if you are
willing to suspend your views of reality to watch a science fiction
show, you will accept that Sodomy is just another alternate reality.

Suddenly, the homophobic rants make sense. You're pissed off because
the world is changing to accept homosexuality, and Hollywood is -
belatedly - acknowledging that change by incorporating homosexual
into their shows.

Again, if you support or practise Sodomy, you are free to support
it here. These insults simply expose you as a dishonest person.
You would not be engaging in Sodomy if you thought it was wrong.
Here is your forum -- support what you do.
I am not going to stop referring to it just because any scum on
these Newsgroups tries to threaten me to stop talking about it.
And I do not believe that the US has changed that much on Sodomy.
It lost every single vote in the last election.

Post by Mike Meyer
On the other hand, the theme of changing sexes over time is very old
in science fiction, predating the sexual revolution. It goes back to
at least Heinlein's "All You Zombies" - where our hero was her own
mother and father - published in 1959. Of course, if something as
trivial as Jadzia bothers you, then Gerrold's "The Man Who Folded
Himself" (published in 1973) should drive you crazy. Here, our hero
travels through time and manages to have an orgy with no one but
different versions of him/her self.

Amazing someone would write a whole book about those two
subjects. And have it published.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
I do not think that makes sense at all. What does make sense is that
the writers for some reason were determined to bring a grown up
child of white and black parents onto the show. Why they would want
to press the accelerator pedal on Tamerlane's growth for this reason
is unclear.

Are you racist as well as sexist? The fact that Tamerlane was of mixed
race almost certainly had nothing to do with him growing up so
fast. They probably needed him grown up to make some plots work. So
they did it, without worrying about a reason. Rigorous logic is
missing from most video science fiction.

One thing that irritates me is when homosexuals try to con the public
into believing that homosexuality has anything incommon with
being black or a woman or that those distinct groups, civil rights
and civil liberties, share any political goals in common.

For instance, for the past few days, you have spent an enormous amount
of time and energy defending a guy Sorbo and his henchmen who kicked
a black man in the teeth. Yet when the homosexual issue comes up,
you leap to the defense of it. Admit it. You have nothing common with
the Left. You spit on the Left and want to con the Left but when
it comes to the time to support the Left in one way or another,
you are determinedly on the other side of the issue.
Now you are free to hold your own views. The issue here is your
deceitful claim to be on the Left. You have nothing to do with the Left.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
I never make ad hominem attacks. I leave that to the scum who
work public relations on these Newsgroups representing
Hollywood Homosexuals.

Gee, that sure looks like an ad hominem attack to me.

Which specific "hominem" did I direct an attack at ?
That is required for an attack to be ad hominem.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
As I mentioned at the outset, Cobb should be a huge star by now.
Something big may be preventing that from happening.
And the the unprecedented "steroid" jab at Cobb in the episode in
question may indicate there were problems on the set and those
problems may be continuing to damage Cobb's career.

That jab isn't unprecedented. Watch enough football movies, and you'll
see plenty of people - pretty much all of them big, muscle-bound
types, as who else would you cast as a football player - being accused
of, or actually admitting to, using steroids. The one TV series I can
think of that does this is "Coach", where an ex player shows up,
having a fatal illness as a complication from steroid use.

I have not seen that but even if that occurred it would be clear that
that was in the script fromt he beginning and the actor could choose
if they wanted to act in that movie and take that jab.
However, once you sign onto a series, you have no control over what
happens in the subsequent scripts. And if Sorbo takes a dislike
to someone, he can frame scripts that might be unpleasant to a
member of the cast.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
There is no acceptable explanation for making such an accusation in
the script of a series.

Yes, there is. Beka is defensive and irrational, as evidenced by her
behaviour throughout this scene. It's an in-character moment.

Again, you are failing to recognize the difference between Reality and
Make-Believe. Beka is just an empty vessel that the writer and producers
pour their axes to grind into.

Seems to me that you are the one who is failing to recognize the
difference between reality and make-believe. You're making the
accusation that Beka's mention of steroids - a *make-believe* thing -
is somehow a real indictment of KHB.
As for Beka, she's not an empty vessel. She's a character on a TV
series. She has a very specific personality and set of character
traits. Having her do things that are out of character is bad
writing. Doing *that* is a sure way to drive away viewers and lose
money.

Again, you endeavor to defend the Steroids epithet thrown at Cobb
and the untrustworthy storyline assigned to him.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Again, would it have been ok for the Beka character to call Tyr
the N-word. And if the Beka character called him the N-word,
would it in reality be Beka calling him that or Sorbo ?

He's already answered that question, but I'll answer it again anyway.
It would be very much out of character for *any* character, as there
is no precedent on the show for the characters being racist (as
opposed to speciest, which they definitely are). As such, it wouldn't
be ok. The correct slur of this type, as already pointed out, would be
"uber".

The N-word is not only used by a white person to indicate racism.
Sometimes it is simply used to hurt the black man's feelings as it would
here.
Question still stands.

Post by Mike Meyer
On the other hand, we've just had a "drugs are bad" episode, so there
is precedent for a drug reference being a slur. It's also very much in
character for Beka to want to slur Tyr at that point in the
show. Given those two, the only choice left is what drug to
choose. The choice of steroids has already been explained.

Why did she not allege that he was on Uppers or Heroin
or Marijuana or some other drug. Why steroids ?

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
You may have read me address this issue in the alt.battlestar-galactica
Newsgroups just a few weeks ago.
That was a disgusting scene which laid the Anti-Arab Hate of
Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives clearly on the table.
Neo-Conservatives (NeoCons) are identical to regular Conservatives
except they Love Sodomy and Hate and want to Murder all
Arabs/Moslems.

The world must appear very simple to you. You put someone in a
category, and immediately know everything about them.
Do you only like entertainments that have that simplistic a world
view? Me, I prefer things where the characters are more like real
people. They have opinions that have been shaped by their past, and
will be shaped by events in the story. They'll grow, and change, and
the way a character reacts to a given situation at the end of the
story may well be radically different from the way they would have
reacted at the end of the story. Even if their political beliefs
didn't change.

Entertainment is free expression, just like publishing a newspaper,
or making a speech at Speakers' Corner.
And currently, some have commandeered the Hollywood machine
to sell a particular brand of political change.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Again, you are thinking too deeply about the character rather than the
writer. When you invest some automaton nature to the character
you do not see the reality of how you are being played.
To me, this is also simply crazy behavior. Someone wrote the script.
These characters are empty vessels the writers create.

You're not thinking deeply enough about what the writer is doing. If,
as you claim, the goal of the writing is to make money, then spouting
voicing political opinions will take a back seat to being
entertaining. Being entertaining means that the viewer has to believe
the characters are real - which means they have to have a character,
and have to act in character. As such, Indy pulling a gun and shooting
is in character.

No this does not demonstrate understanding of the production process.
Often, someone has to put up the money to make a movie.
In the case of Passion Of The Christ, the religious star behind that money
is said to have been forced to put his own money into that movie and
fortunately for him he received his money back and more.
Hollywood Homosexuals refused to back that movie, even though
it made a huge amount of money.
And as I have said before, Hollywood Homosexuals are one group in
Hollywood who are willing to put their money at risk if it will help
sell Sodomy to you and your kids.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
The episode was not about Tyr abusing drugs. If it was, he would have
had the option to object to a storyline he thought was offensive to him
and likely the episode would not have been made.
This line appears to have been snuck in to offend him specifically.

You're confusing reality and make-believe again. Tyr is a *character*,
not a person. The authors don't do things to characters, they have the
characters do things.

No such confusion. The "he" above is Cobb. The "Tyr" above is Tyr.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Again, you are failing to recognize the difference between Reality and
Make-Believe. Beka is just an empty vessel that the writer and
producers pour their axes to grind into.

While the writing on Andromeda wasn't stellar, it was by no means as
bad as it would have been if it had been nothing but political
hackwork on the part of the writers.

If you were Lisa Ryder playing the role of Beka and Sorbo walked
up to you on the set and whispered that he would love you to take a
steroids jab in the scene you were about to film, what would you do ?
He is signing your paycheck as Executive Producer.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Again, would it have been ok for the Beka character to call Tyr
the N-word. And if the Beka character called him the N-word,
would it in reality be Beka calling him that or Sorbo ?
they believe it will hurt the black person's feelings.
Just like accusing you of cheating on your SATs or 11-Plus,
or O-Levels or A-Levels, might hurt your feelings,
when you may have earned your way to your career and
standard of liviing.

Are you familiar with the concept of "acting"? It's all about
pretending to be someone you're not, and reacting to things as that
person would - or at least as the writers say that person would - as
opposed to the way you would. If an actor reacts to what the person
he's pretending to be is called while he's acting as he would if he
were called that, then he's failed as an actor. While you don't seem
to grasp that difference, I'm pretty sure that Cobb does.

Again, why did she not attack him on a different drug, like speed,
or marijuana. Why did Sorbo choose steroids for Ryder's polemic ?

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
No, 'cause it would've been out of character. And stupid.

But what if Sorbo's intent was to hurt Cobb's feelings ?
Would it make sense then ?

No, because 1) Cobb is bright enough to know the difference between
reality and make-believe, and 2) Sorbo is bright enough not to let a
personal vendetta affect a show at that level. He may not be bright
enough to avoid letting it ruin the show with behind-the-scenes
maneuvers, but I think he's bright enough to keep it behind the
camera.

You speak as if you know Sorbo personally. Is this the case ?
The storyline for Tyr in that series was repulsive and drove me away
from watching that show. If I stopped watching for that reason, it is
likely many others did the same. And it is clear that Tyr was popular
and helped the show. There was no excuse for this.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
What ifd the "untrustworthy" storyline was simply a ruse to
force Cobb to leave the show or be killed off ?

They established that untrustworthyness in the pilot. If they wanted
to get rid of him, why not simply cast someone else for the series?
Personally, I think this facet of Tyr's character presents an
opportunity for some great writing. It provides conflict, which is
pretty much a requirement for entertainment. It provides a point for
the character to grow around.

Post by John Shocked
It indicates that Sorbo had significant free will to steer the storyline
since rules were not clearly enforced.
If Sorbo held malevolent feelings toward Cobb, he could put
Lisa Ryder (Beka) up to making accusations against Cobb on screen.

You are, once again, confusing reality and make-believe. What happens
on screen is *make-believe*. It has nothing to do with reality.
<mike

What appears on screen is the product, the free expression, of the
producers.
Nothing else matters. Everything is loose in Hollywood nowadays.
Some use that expression to support Sodomy. Some to promote hatred
against Arabs/Moslems. The viewer has to be concerned about the content
of the crap coming out of Hollywood, especially since
Hollywood Homosexuals have been in control since around 1992.

Politics

[Mike Meyer]

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
The whole point of the male Symbiant inside actress Terry Farrell's
character (Jadzia Dax) is to bring Sodomy into the show. Sisko
refers to her regularly as "Old Man". For some reason, the
demographic that science fiction viewers and apparently, from your
descriptions of series, fantasy-magic shows represent are being
targetted by Hollywood Homosexual for sale of Sodomy
to the masses. Maybe the scum in Hollywood believe that if you are
willing to suspend your views of reality to watch a science fiction
show, you will accept that Sodomy is just another alternate reality.

Suddenly, the homophobic rants make sense. You're pissed off because
the world is changing to accept homosexuality, and Hollywood is -
belatedly - acknowledging that change by incorporating homosexual
into their shows.

Again, if you support or practise Sodomy, you are free to support
it here. These insults simply expose you as a dishonest person.
You would not be engaging in Sodomy if you thought it was wrong.

Insults? Calling you homophobic isn't insulting you - it's an accurate
description of your behavior. If you don't like hearing the truth
about yourself, you're free to change it.

On the other hand, you probably think you're insulting me by accusing
me of engaging in sodomy. The only thing you have to support that
accusation is that I don't unquestioningly accept your claims that
it's wrong. I've got news for you - it's completely possible for
someone to believe that some practice isn't wrong without engaging in
that practice themselves. For example, I completely support the right
of people to ingest various poisons, but don't use most of those
poisons myself.

Post by John Shocked
Here is your forum -- support what you do.
I am not going to stop referring to it just because any scum on
these Newsgroups tries to threaten me to stop talking about it.
And I do not believe that the US has changed that much on Sodomy.
It lost every single vote in the last election.

Every single vote? Maybe you should clarify exactly *what* election
you are talking about. I've never seen any election where people got
to vote on whether or not sodomy should be illegal. Then again, you
seem to be using an older definition of sodomy, using it to refer to
any form of homosexuality. The modern definition includes various
forms of intercourse that can occure between men and women. So if
you're going to clarify this point, maybe you should be explicit about
what you mean by "sodomy".

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
On the other hand, the theme of changing sexes over time is very old
in science fiction, predating the sexual revolution. It goes back to
at least Heinlein's "All You Zombies" - where our hero was her own
mother and father - published in 1959. Of course, if something as
trivial as Jadzia bothers you, then Gerrold's "The Man Who Folded
Himself" (published in 1973) should drive you crazy. Here, our hero
travels through time and manages to have an orgy with no one but
different versions of him/her self.

Amazing someone would write a whole book about those two
subjects. And have it published.

Not everybody is as afraid of sex as you appear to be. The Man Who
Folded Himself is considered a classic work of science fiction. It
looks at many of the paradoxes associated with time travel, and how
people will react to those situations. Looking at people in situations
that can't currently exist is what fantasy and science fiction is all
about.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
I do not think that makes sense at all. What does make sense is that
the writers for some reason were determined to bring a grown up
child of white and black parents onto the show. Why they would want
to press the accelerator pedal on Tamerlane's growth for this reason
is unclear.

Are you racist as well as sexist? The fact that Tamerlane was of mixed
race almost certainly had nothing to do with him growing up so
fast. They probably needed him grown up to make some plots work. So
they did it, without worrying about a reason. Rigorous logic is
missing from most video science fiction.

One thing that irritates me is when homosexuals try to con the public
into believing that homosexuality has anything incommon with
being black or a woman or that those distinct groups, civil rights
and civil liberties, share any political goals in common.

And what, pray tell, has this got to do with the point?

Post by John Shocked
For instance, for the past few days, you have spent an enormous amount
of time and energy defending a guy Sorbo and his henchmen who kicked
a black man in the teeth. Yet when the homosexual issue comes up,
you leap to the defense of it. Admit it. You have nothing common with
the Left. You spit on the Left and want to con the Left but when
it comes to the time to support the Left in one way or another,
you are determinedly on the other side of the issue.
Now you are free to hold your own views. The issue here is your
deceitful claim to be on the Left. You have nothing to do with the Left.

I never claimed to be on the left. I never made any claim to a
political stance at all. I never defended Sorbo. I merely argued that
your so-called "rules" for scriptwriters were so much hokum.

I do violently disagree with your homophobic ranting. But that's got
more to do with them suffering from a serious disconnection with
reality than anything else.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
As I mentioned at the outset, Cobb should be a huge star by now.
Something big may be preventing that from happening.
And the the unprecedented "steroid" jab at Cobb in the episode in
question may indicate there were problems on the set and those
problems may be continuing to damage Cobb's career.

That jab isn't unprecedented. Watch enough football movies, and you'll
see plenty of people - pretty much all of them big, muscle-bound
types, as who else would you cast as a football player - being accused
of, or actually admitting to, using steroids. The one TV series I can
think of that does this is "Coach", where an ex player shows up,
having a fatal illness as a complication from steroid use.

I have not seen that but even if that occurred it would be clear that
that was in the script fromt he beginning and the actor could choose
if they wanted to act in that movie and take that jab.
However, once you sign onto a series, you have no control over what
happens in the subsequent scripts. And if Sorbo takes a dislike
to someone, he can frame scripts that might be unpleasant to a
member of the cast.

Well, you're always at the mercy of your employer. And you *always*
have the choice to walk. If Cobb were really offended by something in
an Andromeda script, he could walk out. Sure, it will have serious
consequences, but it's still his choice. Personally, I think he's
bright enough to tell the difference between the make-believe of Tyr
being accused of using steroids and the reality of him being accused
of using steroids, and not to be offended by the make-believe.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
There is no acceptable explanation for making such an accusation in
the script of a series.

Yes, there is. Beka is defensive and irrational, as evidenced by her
behaviour throughout this scene. It's an in-character moment.

Again, you are failing to recognize the difference between Reality and
Make-Believe. Beka is just an empty vessel that the writer and

producers

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
pour their axes to grind into.

Seems to me that you are the one who is failing to recognize the
difference between reality and make-believe. You're making the
accusation that Beka's mention of steroids - a *make-believe* thing -
is somehow a real indictment of KHB.
As for Beka, she's not an empty vessel. She's a character on a TV
series. She has a very specific personality and set of character
traits. Having her do things that are out of character is bad
writing. Doing *that* is a sure way to drive away viewers and lose
money.

Again, you endeavor to defend the Steroids epithet thrown at Cobb
and the untrustworthy storyline assigned to him.

Again, you confuse make-believe with reality. The steroids epithet and
untrstuworthy label was given to Tyr, a fictional character. Cobb is a
real person, and bright enough to tell the difference.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Again, would it have been ok for the Beka character to call Tyr
the N-word. And if the Beka character called him the N-word,
would it in reality be Beka calling him that or Sorbo ?

He's already answered that question, but I'll answer it again anyway.
It would be very much out of character for *any* character, as there
is no precedent on the show for the characters being racist (as
opposed to speciest, which they definitely are). As such, it wouldn't
be ok. The correct slur of this type, as already pointed out, would be
"uber".

The N-word is not only used by a white person to indicate racism.
Sometimes it is simply used to hurt the black man's feelings as it would
here.
Question still stands.

The answer is still the same. It would have been completely out of
character. We've already got "uber" for hurting his feelings if that
was the sole point. But since Beka was going down for using drugs, a
drug-related remark works better.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
On the other hand, we've just had a "drugs are bad" episode, so there
is precedent for a drug reference being a slur. It's also very much in
character for Beka to want to slur Tyr at that point in the
show. Given those two, the only choice left is what drug to
choose. The choice of steroids has already been explained.

Why did she not allege that he was on Uppers or Heroin
or Marijuana or some other drug. Why steroids ?

Duh. Because that would hurt him more.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
You may have read me address this issue in the alt.battlestar-galactica
Newsgroups just a few weeks ago.
That was a disgusting scene which laid the Anti-Arab Hate of
Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives clearly on the table.
Neo-Conservatives (NeoCons) are identical to regular Conservatives
except they Love Sodomy and Hate and want to Murder all
Arabs/Moslems.

The world must appear very simple to you. You put someone in a
category, and immediately know everything about them.
Do you only like entertainments that have that simplistic a world
view? Me, I prefer things where the characters are more like real
people. They have opinions that have been shaped by their past, and
will be shaped by events in the story. They'll grow, and change, and
the way a character reacts to a given situation at the end of the
story may well be radically different from the way they would have
reacted at the end of the story. Even if their political beliefs
didn't change.

Entertainment is free expression, just like publishing a newspaper,
or making a speech at Speakers' Corner.
And currently, some have commandeered the Hollywood machine
to sell a particular brand of political change.

Care to offer some *prove* for that statement? It appears to
contradict reality. Homosexuality has become more acceptable, and
homosexuals have become more visible and started pressing for better
treatment in general. The gay marriage issue makes both of these
things obvious. That they are also pressing for better treatment from
Hollywood is only logical, as it's a fairly thing for a group that has
been unfairly represented by hollywood to ask for. Hollywood is, as
usual, caving in to the public pressure and doing what they want.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Again, you are thinking too deeply about the character rather than the
writer. When you invest some automaton nature to the character
you do not see the reality of how you are being played.
To me, this is also simply crazy behavior. Someone wrote the script.
These characters are empty vessels the writers create.

You're not thinking deeply enough about what the writer is doing. If,
as you claim, the goal of the writing is to make money, then spouting
voicing political opinions will take a back seat to being
entertaining. Being entertaining means that the viewer has to believe
the characters are real - which means they have to have a character,
and have to act in character. As such, Indy pulling a gun and shooting
is in character.

No this does not demonstrate understanding of the production process.

Of course not. It's about the *writing* process.

Post by John Shocked
Often, someone has to put up the money to make a movie.
In the case of Passion Of The Christ, the religious star behind that money
is said to have been forced to put his own money into that movie and
fortunately for him he received his money back and more.
Hollywood Homosexuals refused to back that movie, even though
it made a huge amount of money.

Since they couldn't know in advance that it would make a huge amount
of money (unless you believe in magic, anyway), this is hardly an
indictment of them. Got pointers to anyone saying *why* they wouldn't
back this movie?

Post by John Shocked
And as I have said before, Hollywood Homosexuals are one group in
Hollywood who are willing to put their money at risk if it will help
sell Sodomy to you and your kids.

If so, this is actionable for any publicly held production
company. The duty of the corporate officers to the shareholders is to
turn profit. Anything detracting from that constitutes breach of
contract, and can lead to lawsuits. Somehow, I don't see the corporate
lawyers letting them get away with this.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
The episode was not about Tyr abusing drugs. If it was, he would have
had the option to object to a storyline he thought was offensive to him
and likely the episode would not have been made.
This line appears to have been snuck in to offend him specifically.

You're confusing reality and make-believe again. Tyr is a *character*,
not a person. The authors don't do things to characters, they have the
characters do things.

No such confusion. The "he" above is Cobb. The "Tyr" above is Tyr.

Right. You're confusing the two. "he" is Cobb, a real person. Tyr is a
character, and make-believe. The line was about Tyr, not Cobb. Cobb
would have to be an idiot to let a line about his character offend
him. Sorbo would have to be an idiot to try offending an actor by
making comments about the character.

Of course, it could presage a direction for the character that the
actor playing him doesn't like, but that's a different issue.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Again, you are failing to recognize the difference between Reality and
Make-Believe. Beka is just an empty vessel that the writer and
producers pour their axes to grind into.

While the writing on Andromeda wasn't stellar, it was by no means as
bad as it would have been if it had been nothing but political
hackwork on the part of the writers.

If you were Lisa Ryder playing the role of Beka and Sorbo walked
up to you on the set and whispered that he would love you to take a
steroids jab in the scene you were about to film, what would you do ?
He is signing your paycheck as Executive Producer.

This is a *long* way from being the empty vessel you
describe. Personally, I take pride in what I do. If I were an actor,
and asked to do something I felt was out of character, I would resist.

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Again, would it have been ok for the Beka character to call Tyr
the N-word. And if the Beka character called him the N-word,
would it in reality be Beka calling him that or Sorbo ?
they believe it will hurt the black person's feelings.
Just like accusing you of cheating on your SATs or 11-Plus,
or O-Levels or A-Levels, might hurt your feelings,
when you may have earned your way to your career and
standard of liviing.

Are you familiar with the concept of "acting"? It's all about
pretending to be someone you're not, and reacting to things as that
person would - or at least as the writers say that person would - as
opposed to the way you would. If an actor reacts to what the person
he's pretending to be is called while he's acting as he would if he
were called that, then he's failed as an actor. While you don't seem
to grasp that difference, I'm pretty sure that Cobb does.

Again, why did she not attack him on a different drug, like speed,
or marijuana. Why did Sorbo choose steroids for Ryder's polemic ?

Polemic? Since when does a one-line comment constitute a polemic?

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
No, 'cause it would've been out of character. And stupid.

But what if Sorbo's intent was to hurt Cobb's feelings ?
Would it make sense then ?

No, because 1) Cobb is bright enough to know the difference between
reality and make-believe, and 2) Sorbo is bright enough not to let a
personal vendetta affect a show at that level. He may not be bright
enough to avoid letting it ruin the show with behind-the-scenes
maneuvers, but I think he's bright enough to keep it behind the
camera.

You speak as if you know Sorbo personally. Is this the case ?
The storyline for Tyr in that series was repulsive and drove me away
from watching that show. If I stopped watching for that reason, it is
likely many others did the same. And it is clear that Tyr was popular
and helped the show. There was no excuse for this.

Can you *please* make up your mind? You claim that Tyr's character
drove you - and presumably many others - from watching the show. Yet
you also say that Tyr's character was popular, and helped the
show. Those two are pretty much mutually contradictory.

Post by John Shocked
What appears on screen is the product, the free expression, of the
producers.

You say that as if no one else had a say in what goes into a video
product. Just looking at the credits makes it clear that that's not
the case.

Post by John Shocked
Nothing else matters. Everything is loose in Hollywood nowadays.
Some use that expression to support Sodomy. Some to promote hatred
against Arabs/Moslems. The viewer has to be concerned about the content
of the crap coming out of Hollywood, especially since
Hollywood Homosexuals have been in control since around 1992.

Yeah, some do use any means necessary to support a political
position. Any intelligent viewer/reader will recognize it for what it
is, and discount it as such. That's been going on pretty much since
the first motion pictures were made.

Of course, some viewers/readers aren't so intelligent, and will see
evidence of some conspiracy to undermine their political positions in
even the most innocent works. To quote Lehrer - "When correctly
viewed, everything is lewd." Recognizing such people and discounting
their paranoid rants is also an important skill.

<mike

[John Shocked]

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
The whole point of the male Symbiant inside actress Terry Farrell's
character (Jadzia Dax) is to bring Sodomy into the show. Sisko
refers to her regularly as "Old Man". For some reason, the
demographic that science fiction viewers and apparently, from your
descriptions of series, fantasy-magic shows represent are being
targetted by Hollywood Homosexual for sale of Sodomy
to the masses. Maybe the scum in Hollywood believe that if you are
willing to suspend your views of reality to watch a science fiction
show, you will accept that Sodomy is just another alternate reality.

Suddenly, the homophobic rants make sense. You're pissed off because
the world is changing to accept homosexuality, and Hollywood is -
belatedly - acknowledging that change by incorporating homosexual
into their shows.

Again, if you support or practise Sodomy, you are free to support
it here. These insults simply expose you as a dishonest person.
You would not be engaging in Sodomy if you thought it was wrong.

Insults? Calling you homophobic isn't insulting you - it's an accurate
description of your behavior. If you don't like hearing the truth
about yourself, you're free to change it.
On the other hand, you probably think you're insulting me by accusing
me of engaging in sodomy. The only thing you have to support that
accusation is that I don't unquestioningly accept your claims that
it's wrong. I've got news for you - it's completely possible for
someone to believe that some practice isn't wrong without engaging in
that practice themselves. For example, I completely support the right
of people to ingest various poisons, but don't use most of those
poisons myself.

Legalization of drugs is another classic position of Hollywood Homosexual
Neo-Conservatives, along with Sodomy and Mass Murder of Arabs/Moslems.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Here is your forum -- support what you do.
I am not going to stop referring to it just because any scum on
these Newsgroups tries to threaten me to stop talking about it.
And I do not believe that the US has changed that much on Sodomy.
It lost every single vote in the last election.

Every single vote? Maybe you should clarify exactly *what* election
you are talking about. I've never seen any election where people got
to vote on whether or not sodomy should be illegal. Then again, you
seem to be using an older definition of sodomy, using it to refer to
any form of homosexuality. The modern definition includes various
forms of intercourse that can occur between men and women. So if
you're going to clarify this point, maybe you should be explicit about
what you mean by "sodomy".

Here are the results from the 11 States who had the
Homosexual agenda on a ballot question 5 months ago:

=================================

Arkansas Ballot wording: Marriage consists
only of the union of one man and one woman. Legal
status for unmarried persons which is identical or
substantially similar to marital status shall not be
valid or recognized in Arkansas, except that the
legislature may recognize a common law marriage from
another state between a man and a woman. The
legislature has the power to determine the capacity
of persons to marry, subject to this amendment, and
the legal rights, obligations, privileges, and
immunities of marriage.Result: Passed 75% to 25%

Georgia The measure amends the state constitution to
include the following statement: (a) This state
shall recognize as marriage only the union of man
and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex
are prohibited in this state. (b) No union between
persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this
state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This
state shall not give effect to any public act,
record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or
jurisdiction respecting a relationship between
persons of the same sex that is treated as a
marriage under the laws of such other state or
jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no
jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate
maintenance with respect to any such relationship or
otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties'
respective rights arising as a result of or in
connection with such relationship.Result: Passed 77%
to 23%.

Kentucky Only a marriage between one man and one
woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in
Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially
similar to that of marriage for unmarried
individuals shall not be valid or recognized.Result:
Passed: 75% to 25%.

Michigan The measure amends the state constitution
to include the following statement: To secure and
preserve the benefits of marriage for our society
and for future generations of children, the union of
one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only
agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union
for any purpose.Result: Passed: 59% to 41%.

Mississippi The measure amends the state
constitution to read: Marriage may take place and
may be valid under the laws of this state only
between a man and a woman. A marriage in another
state or foreign jurisdiction between persons of the
same gender, regardless of when the marriage took
place, may not be recognized in this state and is
void and unenforceable under the laws of this
state.Result: Passed: 86% to 14%.

Montana The measure amends the state constitution to
read: Only a marriage between one man and one woman
shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this
state.Result: Passed: 66% to 34%.

North Dakota The measure amends the state
constitution to include the following statement:
Marriage consists only of the legal union between a
man and a woman. No other domestic union, however
denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or
given the same or substantially equivalent
effect.Result: Passed 73% to 24%.

Ohio The measure amends the state constitution to
include the following statement: Only a union
between one man and one woman may be a marriage
valid in or recognized by this state and its
political subdivisions. This state and its political
subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal
status for relationships of unmarried individuals
that intends to approximate the design, qualities,
significance or effect of marriage.Result: Passed
62% to 38%.

Oklahoma The measure amends the state constitution
to read: A Marriage in this state shall consist only
of the union of one man and one woman. Neither this
Constitution nor any other provision of law shall be
construed to require that marital status or the
legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried
couples or groups. B. A marriage between persons of
the same gender performed in another state shall not
be recognized as valid and binding in this state as
of the date of the marriage. C. Any person knowingly
issuing a marriage license in violation of this
section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.Result:
Passed 76% to 24%.

Oregon The measure would amend the state
constitution to read: It is the policy of Oregon,
and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage
between one man and one woman shall be valid or
legally recognized as a marriage.Result: Passed 57%
to 43%.

Utah The measure amends the state constitution to
read, 1. Marriage consists only of the legal union
between a man and a woman. 2. No other domestic
status or union, however denominated, between
persons is valid or recognized or may be authorized,
sanctioned, or given the same or substantially
equivalent legal effect as a marriage. Results:
Passed 66% to 34%.
==================================

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
On the other hand, the theme of changing sexes over time is very old
in science fiction, predating the sexual revolution. It goes back to
at least Heinlein's "All You Zombies" - where our hero was her own
mother and father - published in 1959. Of course, if something as
trivial as Jadzia bothers you, then Gerrold's "The Man Who Folded
Himself" (published in 1973) should drive you crazy. Here, our hero
travels through time and manages to have an orgy with no one but
different versions of him/her self.

Amazing someone would write a whole book about those two
subjects. And have it published.

Not everybody is as afraid of sex as you appear to be. The Man Who
Folded Himself is considered a classic work of science fiction. It
looks at many of the paradoxes associated with time travel, and how
people will react to those situations. Looking at people in situations
that can't currently exist is what fantasy and science fiction is all
about.

A classic work of science fiction where the man has sex with himself ?
Thus making it homosexual sex.
Such crap is only important to frustrated homosexuals.
Generally whenever you hear a buzz for any work coming out of Hollywood,
you always first have to ask two questions:
1) does this work have anything to do with Sodomy ? and
2) does this work have anything to do with supporting the
Anti-Arab/Moslems Hate campaign
(holocaust movies, Inidiana Jones and other deceitful crap like that)

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
I do not think that makes sense at all. What does make sense is that
the writers for some reason were determined to bring a grown up
child of white and black parents onto the show. Why they would want
to press the accelerator pedal on Tamerlane's growth for this reason
is unclear.

Are you racist as well as sexist? The fact that Tamerlane was of mixed

How do my statements imply sexism to you ?

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
race almost certainly had nothing to do with him growing up so
fast. They probably needed him grown up to make some plots work. So
they did it, without worrying about a reason. Rigorous logic is
missing from most video science fiction.

One thing that irritates me is when homosexuals try to con the public
into believing that homosexuality has anything in common with
being black or a woman or that those distinct groups, civil rights
and civil liberties, share any political goals in common.

And what, pray tell, has this got to do with the point?

Again, I am not the one deleting content from the discussion,
so you will have to go back and read the paragraph of back and forth
and see to what that comment may have referred.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
For instance, for the past few days, you have spent an enormous amount
of time and energy defending a guy Sorbo and his henchmen who kicked
a black man in the teeth. Yet when the homosexual issue comes up,
you leap to the defense of it. Admit it. You have nothing common with
the Left. You spit on the Left and want to con the Left but when
it comes to the time to support the Left in one way or another,
you are determinedly on the other side of the issue.
Now you are free to hold your own views. The issue here is your
deceitful claim to be on the Left. You have nothing to do with the Left.

I never claimed to be on the left. I never made any claim to a
political stance at all. I never defended Sorbo. I merely argued that
your so-called "rules" for scriptwriters were so much hokum.
I do violently disagree with your homophobic ranting. But that's got
more to do with them suffering from a serious disconnection with
reality than anything else.

Right, and that is obvious from this exchange. That is the point of this
exchange. You will lie and claim that my statements are "homophobic"
when it is obvious they are not, but when it comes to defending a guy who
actually is a member of a group on the Left, Cobb, and his treatment by
Sorbo in this series, you are hardline in the defense of this obvious
ill treatment.
We may have been meandering, but ultimately that is the point of
this exchange. That is the truth that emanated from this exchange.
And if you have read the messages I have sent about this general
subject on the BSG Newsgroups etc, that is a central point to my
statements: there is nothing in common between the people who
support Sodomy (some of whom are not Sodomites) and those
who support the Left.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
As I mentioned at the outset, Cobb should be a huge star by now.
Something big may be preventing that from happening.
And the the unprecedented "steroid" jab at Cobb in the episode in
question may indicate there were problems on the set and those
problems may be continuing to damage Cobb's career.

That jab isn't unprecedented. Watch enough football movies, and you'll
see plenty of people - pretty much all of them big, muscle-bound
types, as who else would you cast as a football player - being accused
of, or actually admitting to, using steroids. The one TV series I can
think of that does this is "Coach", where an ex player shows up,
having a fatal illness as a complication from steroid use.

I have not seen that but even if that occurred it would be clear that
that was in the script fromt he beginning and the actor could choose
if they wanted to act in that movie and take that jab.
However, once you sign onto a series, you have no control over what
happens in the subsequent scripts. And if Sorbo takes a dislike
to someone, he can frame scripts that might be unpleasant to a
member of the cast.

Well, you're always at the mercy of your employer. And you *always*
have the choice to walk. If Cobb were really offended by something in
an Andromeda script, he could walk out. Sure, it will have serious
consequences, but it's still his choice. Personally, I think he's
bright enough to tell the difference between the make-believe of Tyr
being accused of using steroids and the reality of him being accused
of using steroids, and not to be offended by the make-believe.

This is clearly a Conservative viewpoint. The Left is comprised
primarily of The Poor, Unions, Blacks and Women.
What do you think all 4 of those component groups would say
to your idea that when an employer is malicious, to just quit the job,
when they are desperately trying to put food on the table to
feed their families ?
Again, you are free to hold your views: but this exchange proves
my point. There is nothing in common between those who support
Sodomy and the Left.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
There is no acceptable explanation for making such an
accusation in the script of a series.

Yes, there is. Beka is defensive and irrational, as evidenced by
her behaviour throughout this scene. It's an in-character moment.

Again, you are failing to recognize the difference between Reality
and Make-Believe. Beka is just an empty vessel that the writer
and producers pour their axes to grind into.

Seems to me that you are the one who is failing to recognize the
difference between reality and make-believe. You're making the
accusation that Beka's mention of steroids - a *make-believe* thing -
is somehow a real indictment of KHB.
As for Beka, she's not an empty vessel. She's a character on a TV
series. She has a very specific personality and set of character
traits. Having her do things that are out of character is bad
writing. Doing *that* is a sure way to drive away viewers and
lose money.

Again, you endeavor to defend the Steroids epithet thrown at Cobb
and the untrustworthy storyline assigned to him.

Again, you confuse make-believe with reality. The steroids epithet and
untrustworthy label was given to Tyr, a fictional character. Cobb is a
real person, and bright enough to tell the difference.

As it turned out Cobb was forced out of his job on Andromeda and
was forced to take up Soaps again, which I doubt was his original intent.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Again, would it have been ok for the Beka character to call Tyr
the N-word. And if the Beka character called him the N-word,
would it in reality be Beka calling him that or Sorbo ?

He's already answered that question, but I'll answer it again anyway.
It would be very much out of character for *any* character, as there
is no precedent on the show for the characters being racist (as
opposed to speciest, which they definitely are). As such, it wouldn't
be ok. The correct slur of this type, as already pointed out, would be
"uber".

The N-word is not only used by a white person to indicate racism.
Sometimes it is simply used to hurt the black man's feelings as it would
here.
Question still stands.

The answer is still the same. It would have been completely out of
character. We've already got "uber" for hurting his feelings if that
was the sole point. But since Beka was going down for using drugs, a
drug-related remark works better.

Again, I would agree that the Beka character was not a racist in this
storyline.
That is why it is very likely she might have called Tyr the N-word in this
situation: just to hurt his feelings.
Would that have been ok for Sorbo to put that word in Lisa Ryder's mouth ?

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
On the other hand, we've just had a "drugs are bad" episode, so there
is precedent for a drug reference being a slur. It's also very much in
character for Beka to want to slur Tyr at that point in the
show. Given those two, the only choice left is what drug to
choose. The choice of steroids has already been explained.

Why did she not allege that he was on Uppers or Heroin
or Marijuana or some other drug. Why steroids ?

Duh. Because that would hurt him more.

Hurt Cobb more ? So you agree Cobb was the target.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
You may have read me address this issue in the

alt.battlestar-galactica

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Newsgroups just a few weeks ago.
That was a disgusting scene which laid the Anti-Arab Hate of
Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives clearly on the table.
Neo-Conservatives (NeoCons) are identical to regular Conservatives
except they Love Sodomy and Hate and want to Murder all
Arabs/Moslems.

The world must appear very simple to you. You put someone in a
category, and immediately know everything about them.
Do you only like entertainments that have that simplistic a world
view? Me, I prefer things where the characters are more like real
people. They have opinions that have been shaped by their past, and
will be shaped by events in the story. They'll grow, and change, and
the way a character reacts to a given situation at the end of the
story may well be radically different from the way they would have
reacted at the end of the story. Even if their political beliefs
didn't change.

Entertainment is free expression, just like publishing a newspaper,
or making a speech at Speakers' Corner.
And currently, some have commandeered the Hollywood machine
to sell a particular brand of political change.

Care to offer some *prove* for that statement? It appears to
contradict reality. Homosexuality has become more acceptable, and
homosexuals have become more visible and started pressing for better
treatment in general. The gay marriage issue makes both of these
things obvious. That they are also pressing for better treatment from
Hollywood is only logical, as it's a fairly thing for a group that has
been unfairly represented by hollywood to ask for. Hollywood is, as
usual, caving in to the public pressure and doing what they want.

The elections in the US in 2004 prove that there is intense
revulsion to Sodomy in the US, despite the huge campaign that
Hollywood has foisted on the public in the past 13 years.
Yet Hollywood continues to sell Sodomy to the masses.
That would crazy except that Hollywood billionaires are
willing to throw away money to help sell Sodomy. That is their
life and it is the one thing that they will sacrific money to support.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Again, you are thinking too deeply about the character rather than the
writer. When you invest some automaton nature to the character
you do not see the reality of how you are being played.
To me, this is also simply crazy behavior. Someone wrote the script.
These characters are empty vessels the writers create.

You're not thinking deeply enough about what the writer is doing. If,
as you claim, the goal of the writing is to make money, then spouting
voicing political opinions will take a back seat to being
entertaining. Being entertaining means that the viewer has to believe
the characters are real - which means they have to have a character,
and have to act in character. As such, Indy pulling a gun and shooting
is in character.

No this does not demonstrate understanding of the production process.

Of course not. It's about the *writing* process.

Spielberg controlled the creation of that movie and he clearly was intent
on selling Anti-Arab Hate to the public.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Often, someone has to put up the money to make a movie.
In the case of Passion Of The Christ, the religious star behind that money
is said to have been forced to put his own money into that movie and
fortunately for him he received his money back and more.
Hollywood Homosexuals refused to back that movie, even though
it made a huge amount of money.

Since they couldn't know in advance that it would make a huge amount
of money (unless you believe in magic, anyway), this is hardly an
indictment of them. Got pointers to anyone saying *why* they wouldn't
back this movie?

That is obvious. They were busy putting their money behind movies like
Alexander The Great which sold the lie that Alexander The Great was
a homosexual.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
And as I have said before, Hollywood Homosexuals are one group in
Hollywood who are willing to put their money at risk if it will help
sell Sodomy to you and your kids.

If so, this is actionable for any publicly held production
company. The duty of the corporate officers to the shareholders is to
turn profit. Anything detracting from that constitutes breach of
contract, and can lead to lawsuits. Somehow, I don't see the corporate
lawyers letting them get away with this.

One Hollywood Homosexual suing another Hollywood Homosexual
for putting his money at risk ? They are all in this together.
As far as the average stockholder is concerned, it is possible
that a stockholder could bring such a civil complaint in court.
Certainly more obscure cases have been brought.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
The episode was not about Tyr abusing drugs. If it was, he would have
had the option to object to a storyline he thought was offensive to him
and likely the episode would not have been made.
This line appears to have been snuck in to offend him specifically.

You're confusing reality and make-believe again. Tyr is a *character*,
not a person. The authors don't do things to characters, they have the
characters do things.

No such confusion. The "he" above is Cobb. The "Tyr" above is Tyr.

Right. You're confusing the two. "he" is Cobb, a real person. Tyr is a
character, and make-believe. The line was about Tyr, not Cobb. Cobb
would have to be an idiot to let a line about his character offend
him. Sorbo would have to be an idiot to try offending an actor by
making comments about the character.

This does not make sense. As has already been established, he could
have alleged marijuana or heroin, uppers or even aspirin abuse.
But Sorbo deftly chose an item which he thought would hurt Cobb
personally and hurt Cobb's career.

Post by Mike Meyer
Of course, it could presage a direction for the character that the
actor playing him doesn't like, but that's a different issue.

Before these actors start a role, they are given an idea of what the role
is about. I doubt untrustworthy and dishonest were in the description
Cobb received.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Again, you are failing to recognize the difference between Reality and
Make-Believe. Beka is just an empty vessel that the writer and
producers pour their axes to grind into.

While the writing on Andromeda wasn't stellar, it was by no means as
bad as it would have been if it had been nothing but political
hackwork on the part of the writers.

If you were Lisa Ryder playing the role of Beka and Sorbo walked
up to you on the set and whispered that he would love you to take a
steroids jab in the scene you were about to film, what would you do ?
He is signing your paycheck as Executive Producer.

This is a *long* way from being the empty vessel you
describe. Personally, I take pride in what I do. If I were an actor,
and asked to do something I felt was out of character, I would resist.

No, that is the empty vessel. Ryder has no control over the Beka
character and simply wants to hang onto her job and feed her family.
Previous time we saw Ryder, she was blown up in one of the
first episodes of Earth: Final Conflict. That was not a reliable
meal ticket. She wants to feast for the full 5 years on this role.
Up in Canada, US Unions do not count for squat.
How could you resist ?

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Again, would it have been ok for the Beka character to call Tyr
the N-word. And if the Beka character called him the N-word,
would it in reality be Beka calling him that or Sorbo ?
they believe it will hurt the black person's feelings.
Just like accusing you of cheating on your SATs or 11-Plus,
or O-Levels or A-Levels, might hurt your feelings,
when you may have earned your way to your career and
standard of liviing.

Are you familiar with the concept of "acting"? It's all about
pretending to be someone you're not, and reacting to things as that
person would - or at least as the writers say that person would - as
opposed to the way you would. If an actor reacts to what the person
he's pretending to be is called while he's acting as he would if he
were called that, then he's failed as an actor. While you don't seem
to grasp that difference, I'm pretty sure that Cobb does.

Again, why did she not attack him on a different drug, like speed,
or marijuana. Why did Sorbo choose steroids for Ryder's polemic ?

Polemic? Since when does a one-line comment constitute a polemic?

Since Sorbo discovered that Lisa Ryder is no Cato or Cicero.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
No, 'cause it would've been out of character. And stupid.

But what if Sorbo's intent was to hurt Cobb's feelings ?
Would it make sense then ?

No, because 1) Cobb is bright enough to know the difference between
reality and make-believe, and 2) Sorbo is bright enough not to let a
personal vendetta affect a show at that level. He may not be bright
enough to avoid letting it ruin the show with behind-the-scenes
maneuvers, but I think he's bright enough to keep it behind the
camera.

You speak as if you know Sorbo personally. Is this the case ?
The storyline for Tyr in that series was repulsive and drove me away
from watching that show. If I stopped watching for that reason, it is
likely many others did the same. And it is clear that Tyr was popular
and helped the show. There was no excuse for this.

Can you *please* make up your mind? You claim that Tyr's character
drove you - and presumably many others - from watching the show. Yet
you also say that Tyr's character was popular, and helped the
show. Those two are pretty much mutually contradictory.

Absolutely. Cobb's presence on screen was in large part his physical
presence and the way he voiced his lines in a very unemotional
detached perhaps Nietzchean manner. He was becoming the star.
Sorbo sought to attack this through two routes: by claiming that the
physical presence was not genuine but achieved through abuse of
steroids and also through distorting the storyline to portray Cobb's
Tyr as dishonest. It is simply unusual to have a hero portrayed as
dishonest and a steroid abuser.

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
What appears on screen is the product, the free expression, of the
producers.

You say that as if no one else had a say in what goes into a video
product. Just looking at the credits makes it clear that that's not
the case.

By the way, did anyone answer the question: which character shot
Tyr in the back ?

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
Nothing else matters. Everything is loose in Hollywood nowadays.
Some use that expression to support Sodomy. Some to promote hatred
against Arabs/Moslems. The viewer has to be concerned about the content
of the crap coming out of Hollywood, especially since
Hollywood Homosexuals have been in control since around 1992.

Yeah, some do use any means necessary to support a political
position. Any intelligent viewer/reader will recognize it for what it
is, and discount it as such. That's been going on pretty much since
the first motion pictures were made.
Of course, some viewers/readers aren't so intelligent, and will see
evidence of some conspiracy to undermine their political positions in
even the most innocent works. To quote Lehrer - "When correctly
viewed, everything is lewd." Recognizing such people and discounting
their paranoid rants is also an important skill.
<mike

People right here on these Newsgroups can observe underhanded
means being used to threaten people to support or at least not
criticize the Homosexual agenda. Those reading these Newsgroups
should easily be able to extrapolate these tactics to the halls of
Hollywood where Homosexuals are in control.
I know I could figure this out real quick, even if I was hardly
paying attention to the Newsgroup traffic.

Politics

[PettyFan]

On Thu, 12 May 2005 03:42:11 -0700, "John Shocked"

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
The whole point of the male Symbiant inside actress Terry Farrell's
character (Jadzia Dax) is to bring Sodomy into the show. Sisko
refers to her regularly as "Old Man". For some reason, the
demographic that science fiction viewers and apparently, from your
descriptions of series, fantasy-magic shows represent are being
targetted by Hollywood Homosexual for sale of Sodomy
to the masses. Maybe the scum in Hollywood believe that if you are
willing to suspend your views of reality to watch a science fiction
show, you will accept that Sodomy is just another alternate reality.

Suddenly, the homophobic rants make sense. You're pissed off because
the world is changing to accept homosexuality, and Hollywood is -
belatedly - acknowledging that change by incorporating homosexual
into their shows.

Again, if you support or practise Sodomy, you are free to support
it here. These insults simply expose you as a dishonest person.

he was not throwing insults at you! and it does not show him as a
dishonest person.

Post by John Shocked
You would not be engaging in Sodomy if you thought it was wrong.

where did he say he was ingaging in sodomy? again its ok for you too
attack people i see.

Post by John Shocked
Here is your forum -- support what you do.
I am not going to stop referring to it just because any scum on
these Newsgroups tries to threaten me to stop talking about it.

again personal attacks based on no facts. pure sign of a troll baiting
people to take his bait and keep him entertained.

[Mike Meyer]

Post by PettyFan
On Thu, 12 May 2005 03:42:11 -0700, "John Shocked"

Post by John Shocked
Here is your forum -- support what you do.
I am not going to stop referring to it just because any scum on
these Newsgroups tries to threaten me to stop talking about it.

again personal attacks based on no facts. pure sign of a troll baiting
people to take his bait and keep him entertained.

Yeah, I know he's a troll. Or maybe he really is a delusional,
paranoid homophobe with various unsavory habits (like accusing anyone
who doesn't support his view of practicing that which he disapproves
of). Either way, I find it amusing to argue with him.

I'll eventually get tired of it and stop. Until then, I apologize for
wasting everyone else's time. Or, since I'm trying to teach *him*
something about the history of science fiction and fantasy, and how
the printed materials relates to the video materials, you might tune
in and see if you can learn something.

Be well,
<mike

[PettyFan]

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by PettyFan
On Thu, 12 May 2005 03:42:11 -0700, "John Shocked"

Post by John Shocked
Here is your forum -- support what you do.
I am not going to stop referring to it just because any scum on
these Newsgroups tries to threaten me to stop talking about it.

again personal attacks based on no facts. pure sign of a troll baiting
people to take his bait and keep him entertained.

Yeah, I know he's a troll. Or maybe he really is a delusional,
paranoid homophobe with various unsavory habits (like accusing anyone
who doesn't support his view of practicing that which he disapproves
of). Either way, I find it amusing to argue with him.

i'm enjoying his double talk.

Post by Mike Meyer
I'll eventually get tired of it and stop. Until then, I apologize for
wasting everyone else's time. Or, since I'm trying to teach *him*
something about the history of science fiction and fantasy,

he is not interested in the facts just the game he is playing. as
evidenced by his blanket comment that everyone in newsgroups is trash.

and how

Post by Mike Meyer
the printed materials relates to the video materials, you might tune
in and see if you can learn something.
Be well,
<mike

[John Shocked]

Post by PettyFan

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by PettyFan
On Thu, 12 May 2005 03:42:11 -0700, "John Shocked"

Post by John Shocked
Here is your forum -- support what you do.
I am not going to stop referring to it just because any scum on
these Newsgroups tries to threaten me to stop talking about it.

again personal attacks based on no facts. pure sign of a troll baiting
people to take his bait and keep him entertained.

Yeah, I know he's a troll. Or maybe he really is a delusional,
paranoid homophobe with various unsavory habits (like accusing anyone

Again, dishonest namecalling by dishonest people is easily recognized
and discounted. People just are not going to listen to people whp
make these wild accusations, threats and false complaints.

Post by PettyFan

Post by Mike Meyer
who doesn't support his view of practicing that which he disapproves
of). Either way, I find it amusing to argue with him.

i'm enjoying his double talk.

Post by Mike Meyer
I'll eventually get tired of it and stop. Until then, I apologize for
wasting everyone else's time. Or, since I'm trying to teach *him*
something about the history of science fiction and fantasy,

he is not interested in the facts just the game he is playing. as
evidenced by his blanket comment that everyone in newsgroups is trash.

Of course I have never said anything of the sort.

Post by PettyFan
and how the printed materials relates to the video materials,

Post by Mike Meyer
you might tune in and see if you can learn something.
Be well,
<mike

Politics

[Mark Brown]

"John Shocked" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:5t%ge.31573$***@fed1read05...
*SNIP*
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer
Yeah, I know he's a troll. Or maybe he really is a delusional,
paranoid homophobe with various unsavory habits (like accusing anyone
who doesn't support his view of practicing that which he disapproves
of). Either way, I find it amusing to argue with him.

Again, dishonest namecalling by dishonest people is easily recognized
and discounted.

Yes, yes it is.

Post by John Shocked
People just are not going to listen to people whp
make these wild accusations, threats and false complaints.

*SNIP*

Divine knows I don't.

Mark
"Wow. Just wow." --Jane (Daria)

[John Shocked]

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by PettyFan
On Thu, 12 May 2005 03:42:11 -0700, "John Shocked"

Post by John Shocked
Here is your forum -- support what you do.
I am not going to stop referring to it just because any scum on
these Newsgroups tries to threaten me to stop talking about it.

again personal attacks based on no facts. pure sign of a troll baiting
people to take his bait and keep him entertained.

Yeah, I know he's a troll. Or maybe he really is a delusional,
paranoid homophobe with various unsavory habits (like accusing anyone
who doesn't support his view of practicing that which he disapproves
of). Either way, I find it amusing to argue with him.
I'll eventually get tired of it and stop. Until then, I apologize for
wasting everyone else's time. Or, since I'm trying to teach *him*
something about the history of science fiction and fantasy, and how
the printed materials relates to the video materials, you might tune
in and see if you can learn something.
Be well,
<mike

As is obvious, I have never made a personal attack against any specific
person in any public forum.I respect the views and speech of others
and that is obvious to anyone reading these exchanges. Of course
I respect my own views the most, especially since my views echo
the overwhelming will of the public in 11 out of 11 Statewide
Votes across the US in 2004.

Actually, this has been a very interesting exchange to find out more
about the Hollywood Homosexual deviance that is on TV and what
people and their kids are able to watch.

Here is some of that information.

====================================

One of the reasons the Hollywood Homosexuals behind
Battlestar Galactica are pushing Sodomy symbolisms
in BSG is because they would desperately like to
reverse some of the following results which they
encountered in all 11 states in the US on November 3
2004 (US election day) which had Ballot Questions
(plebiscital votes by voters in a state controlling
their own state's laws) on the Homosexual Marriage
agenda. So if you are watching your favorite science
fiction show and then you notice something in the
script which does not make sense, it may be that it
was time for Word From BSG's Sponsor, the
Hollywood Homosexuals who are using the script as
their advertisement vehicle.

Homosexuals have had control of Hollywood since
around 1992, when Clinton (and Jerry Brown) ran for
President the first time. Even though they have been
pushing their agenda hard for all these years, they
are yet to win a single statewide vote. Clinton took
homosexual money in 1992 and as soon as he was
inaugurated started to implement policies that he
was bought and paid to implement -- Gays In The
Military, in 1993. This was an intense unpopular
policy initiative, shocked the public, and resulted
in the Democrats losing both Houses of Congress in
1994, and started a series of investigations into
Clinton's personal life, resulting finally in his
Impeachment in 1998. John Kerry (Democrat 2004
Presidential Candidate) again took homosexual money
in the 2004 election year. Democrats do not have
many sources of money, representing the poorer
segments of society. Since Kerry was from the state
of Massachusetts, a state which earlier in 2004
legalized Homosexual Marriage through a corrupt
bribed out Judges judicial decision (not a vote by
its legislature) the onus was on John Kerry to
separate himself from this suicidal issue in a very
very public manner.

However, because Kerry took Hollywood Homosexual
money in the 2004 year and before, he simply was not
able to do that. Thus in a year when Kerry was
running for President against George W. Bush, who
had a terrible record, who had had the Economy
collapse early in his first year (2001) and it
stayed that way till mid 2004, who also failed to
prevent the 9-11 Attacks on the World Trade Center
in 2001, who lied to drag the US into a war against
Iraq, when his allegations that Iraq had Weapons Of
Mass Destruction were false and various other
failures, Kerry still could not win because of the
Homosexual agenda balla and chain around his neck.
Kerry should have won this race 55%-45% if he was
not carrying this Homosexual agenda ball and chain.
And the following votes are an in indication of how
strongly people felt against this homosexual agenda
Kerry was pushing.

Several of these 11 states were Swing States -- they
were close in the previous election and would decide
the election in 2004. Many people went to vote
against the Homosexual Agenda, and voted against
Kerry as an afterthought.

Now Hollywood Homosexuals are wealthy fatcats and,
despite popular misconceptions, are overwhelming
Republican. They do not want Democrats like John
Kerry to win and then raise their taxes. Thus, there
may well be a scam going on here, to buy the
Democrat candidate each year and ask him to support
something the US public despises -- this time it was
Homosexual Marriage. If this buying every 4 years
of the Democrat candidate by Hollywood Homosexual
fatcats continues, it could be an extremely long
time before the Democrats ever come close to taking
back any of the branches of government again.

Here are the results from the 11 States who had the
Homosexual agenda on a ballot question 5 months ago:

=================================

Arkansas Ballot wording: Marriage consists
only of the union of one man and one woman. Legal
status for unmarried persons which is identical or
substantially similar to marital status shall not be
valid or recognized in Arkansas, except that the
legislature may recognize a common law marriage from
another state between a man and a woman. The
legislature has the power to determine the capacity
of persons to marry, subject to this amendment, and
the legal rights, obligations, privileges, and
immunities of marriage.Result: Passed 75% to 25%

Georgia The measure amends the state constitution to
include the following statement: (a) This state
shall recognize as marriage only the union of man
and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex
are prohibited in this state. (b) No union between
persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this
state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This
state shall not give effect to any public act,
record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or
jurisdiction respecting a relationship between
persons of the same sex that is treated as a
marriage under the laws of such other state or
jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no
jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate
maintenance with respect to any such relationship or
otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties'
respective rights arising as a result of or in
connection with such relationship.Result: Passed 77%
to 23%.

Kentucky Only a marriage between one man and one
woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in
Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially
similar to that of marriage for unmarried
individuals shall not be valid or recognized.Result:
Passed: 75% to 25%.

Michigan The measure amends the state constitution
to include the following statement: To secure and
preserve the benefits of marriage for our society
and for future generations of children, the union of
one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only
agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union
for any purpose.Result: Passed: 59% to 41%.

Mississippi The measure amends the state
constitution to read: Marriage may take place and
may be valid under the laws of this state only
between a man and a woman. A marriage in another
state or foreign jurisdiction between persons of the
same gender, regardless of when the marriage took
place, may not be recognized in this state and is
void and unenforceable under the laws of this
state.Result: Passed: 86% to 14%.

Montana The measure amends the state constitution to
read: Only a marriage between one man and one woman
shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this
state.Result: Passed: 66% to 34%.

North Dakota The measure amends the state
constitution to include the following statement:
Marriage consists only of the legal union between a
man and a woman. No other domestic union, however
denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or
given the same or substantially equivalent
effect.Result: Passed 73% to 24%.

Ohio The measure amends the state constitution to
include the following statement: Only a union
between one man and one woman may be a marriage
valid in or recognized by this state and its
political subdivisions. This state and its political
subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal
status for relationships of unmarried individuals
that intends to approximate the design, qualities,
significance or effect of marriage.Result: Passed
62% to 38%.

Oklahoma The measure amends the state constitution
to read: A Marriage in this state shall consist only
of the union of one man and one woman. Neither this
Constitution nor any other provision of law shall be
construed to require that marital status or the
legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried
couples or groups. B. A marriage between persons of
the same gender performed in another state shall not
be recognized as valid and binding in this state as
of the date of the marriage. C. Any person knowingly
issuing a marriage license in violation of this
section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.Result:
Passed 76% to 24%.

Oregon The measure would amend the state
constitution to read: It is the policy of Oregon,
and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage
between one man and one woman shall be valid or
legally recognized as a marriage.Result: Passed 57%
to 43%.

Utah The measure amends the state constitution to
read, 1. Marriage consists only of the legal union
between a man and a woman. 2. No other domestic
status or union, however denominated, between
persons is valid or recognized or may be authorized,
sanctioned, or given the same or substantially
equivalent legal effect as a marriage. Results:
Passed 66% to 34%.
==================================

Politics

[John Shocked]

Post by PettyFan
On Thu, 12 May 2005 03:42:11 -0700, "John Shocked"

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mike Meyer

Post by John Shocked
The whole point of the male Symbiant inside actress Terry Farrell's
character (Jadzia Dax) is to bring Sodomy into the show. Sisko
refers to her regularly as "Old Man". For some reason, the
demographic that science fiction viewers and apparently, from your
descriptions of series, fantasy-magic shows represent are being
targetted by Hollywood Homosexual for sale of Sodomy
to the masses. Maybe the scum in Hollywood believe that if you are
willing to suspend your views of reality to watch a science fiction
show, you will accept that Sodomy is just another alternate reality.

Suddenly, the homophobic rants make sense. You're pissed off because
the world is changing to accept homosexuality, and Hollywood is -
belatedly - acknowledging that change by incorporating homosexual
into their shows.

Again, if you support or practise Sodomy, you are free to support
it here. These insults simply expose you as a dishonest person.

he was not throwing insults at you! and it does not show him as a
dishonest person.

Try making a point rather than throwing insults.

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked
You would not be engaging in Sodomy if you thought it was wrong.

where did he say he was engaging in sodomy? again its ok for you too
attack people i see.

I have not attacked any specific person.

Post by PettyFan

Post by John Shocked
Here is your forum -- support what you do.
I am not going to stop referring to it just because any scum on
these Newsgroups tries to threaten me to stop talking about it.

again personal attacks based on no facts. pure sign of a troll baiting
people to take his bait and keep him entertained.

Again, more dishonest statements.
You are not fooling anywhere near as many people as you might think.

Politics

[PettyFan]

On Mon, 9 May 2005 16:35:53 -0400, "Mark Brown"

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
(Who knows, if/when I succeed as a screenwriter, I might be able to give

him

Post by Mark Brown
something, assuming he's still acting then. I'd best get on that,

shouldn't I?)
IMDB has him at 43 right now. Interestingly, IMDB does not describe
Cobb as ever being married or having a family, so with a back ground
in theater there is aobvious supposition he might be homosexual.
Any truth to that ?

. . . Given the usual accuracy of such stereotypes (and, for that matter, of
IMDB itself), I think not.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Maybe this betrayal content is something the scripts expanded on
in the second or third year.

Possible. I note that Tyr's exit was unusually built up over numerous
episodes; unusual given the post RHW "no long-term arcs" policy.

Post by John Shocked
I cannot imagine that the producers could have
thought that portraying a major character in the show as traitor or
potential traitor would have been interesting to watch.

Actually, I think the opposite. I mean, look at Shakespeare's Tragedies, or
most "Reality" TV, or the Star Wars Prequels (okay, bad example, that one).
Having an obvious traitor increases both dramatic irony and the character
conflict. Especially when he aims (as Tyr likely would) to make alliances
and undermine Dylan's leadership. When Tyr makes his move, it wouldn't be
alone; he'd do whatever possible to get as many of the crew to side with
him.
It'd be like Survivor:_Andromeda.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
The storyline should have been more that Tyr agreed Dylan to reestablish
the Empire (or whatever they called it) because his race was wiped out
and it was his only hope for safety and justice against those who
exterminated
his tribe. Then, they might Tyr and Dylan could debate over strategy
(sometimes putting initiatives to the crew's vote) to
gain strength and support and eventually build to a point of domination,
deafeating and eliminating or absorbing foes as they went along.
I am surprised the grand scheme failed to pursue this.

Yeah, that's the result of the writers being shuffled. Also, "they" wanted
to paint Dylan as the Hero, which meant that moral ambiguity (Tyr's
specialty) had to be trimmed down.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Hopefully RHW's upcoming "Coda"

will

Post by Mark Brown
illuminate some of what he'd planned for Tyr as well as for Trance.

What Coda is this ? The final episode ?

A thing RHW is going to (or planning to) post around June 2nd. When he left
he took all his notes and story ideas with him. Specifically, he had a very
clear idea where to go with Trance and her secret, a direction that
apparently was greatly different from what the show did without him. The
"Coda" is RHW's epilogue to the series, where we find out Trance's true
nature. I'm hoping that he had an equally developed idea for Tyr's
development. It's certainly possible that Tyr was a "stream of
consciousness" character with no fixed trajectory beyond a season or so, but
I doubt it; RHW is too good a writer to set up something like Tamerlane and
not know how he'd follow through on it.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
There were little hints throughout S1, culminating in "It's Hour Come

Round

Post by Mark Brown
At Last," where Harper started freaking out during the magog invasion and
Tyr gave him a Nietzschean pep-talk. Then when the magog stormed in, Tyr
offered to euthanize Harper, who told him not to bother 'cause he'd rather
go down fighting. Just reading into Tyr's proud grin.

I do not hear any adoption in that story.

Well, Tyr ~could~ just as easily have turned up his nose or menaced Harper
into working. Instead he actually reached out to him, advising Harper to
~face~ his demons (the magog), like a Nietzschean, with "fire in [his]
blood," as Tyr knows Harper can. Then when Tyr has one bullet left, he
offers to do what Harper initially asked him to do (kill him before the
magog can rape him). When Harper says no, Tyr seems inordinately pleased,
and hands Harper one of his own knives. They end up fighting back-to-back,
like fellow Nietzscheans.
I feel it's telling that Tyr actually seems to give a crap what Harper does
(and has been paying enough attention to have seen Harper's Nietzschean-like
qualities), and seems pleased when Harper stands up for himself.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
I posit that, as his
time on Andromeda continued, Tyr would've (likely subconsciously) adopted
the crew as a surrogate Pride, much like cats & dogs adopt their human
"owners" as members of their pride/pack, and treat them accordingly.

I do not think that would have been a good idea or indicated by the
marriage that he had to that Nietzchean woman.

I don't see what Freya has to do with it. She has good genes, and is the
mother of his child. I don't believe he felt any particular attraction to
her that he wouldn't have felt for any breeding-age female who accepted his
genetic "resumé." Her entire point in the story was to (A) demonstrate how
Nietzscheans make marriages, and (B) to birth Tamerlane.

Post by John Shocked
The Andromeda members would be a team, and each of them should have
been paired off with mates or each other who would in the end flourish
in the new Empire.

I disagree. As much as I do like playing the 'shipper, having Andromeda's
crew pair off to a happy ending would've been trite and clichéed. Besides,
no writer will pair off couples too early without some sort of triangle.
We had the Harper => Rommie => Dylan (=> memory of Sarah) triangle, which
couldn't possibly end well for ~everyone,~ and the Beka/Tyr sparkage (Rev is
obviously celibate [aside from his being raped by the Hegira], and Trance
could've concievably ended up anywhere, relationship-wise). I feel that
these situations would've been drug out as long as possible, again, to
increase the inter-character drama.
I also don't feel the restored Commonwealth would've ~appeared~ out of the
blue as quickly as it ended up doing. Likely we were ~never~ supposed to see
the "happily ever after."
(In case anyone's wondering, I envisioned the series ending with Dylan's
death, and possibly with Beka's as well. Tyr would be forced to step in and
assume command, finally forced to choose between rebuilding the Kodiak, or
rebuilding the Commonwealth. By now though, it would have become obvious
that the Nietzschean system of every-Pride-for-itself warfare was terminally
flawed. As that Nietzschean High Guard captain said in "Banks of the Lethe,"
any Nietzschean worthy of the name would stand ~with~ the Commonwealth.
Quick flash-forward a few years, and the epilogue sees adult Tamerlane,
Alpha of the Unified Prides, taking his place as Commonwealth Triumvir. . .
[with Andromeda as an honour-guard, under the command of Captain Harper.
;) ])
Remember Harper's line about how the universe is a windshield and they're
all bugs, but how together (with Dylan and Andromeda), they might end up
being the only bugs in the universe strong enough to smash through? I think
that was several-years-in-advance foreshadowing for Tyr's epiphany.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Note that time Tyr made dinner for Beka. He was flirting with her (just as
he would've with any highly-placed Nietzschean female --especially one who
could gain him control of the Pride),

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
That episode I did see years back, and I do not recall it being cut and dry
like
that. I had the impression they might hook up later in the series.
It appeared to be way too early for members of the crew to already
be paired off.

Exactly; the Tyr/Beka sparkage would've been a great sub-plot to extend for
five years. On one hand, Tyr is attracted to her (no surprise; Nietzschean
males are even more hormone-driven than human males [perhaps another reason
Tyr & perpetually-desperate Harper would get along so well ;) ]), but on the
other, she's genetically inferior. . . but her skills are not
inconsiderable. He'd keep "accidentally" flirting with her, but then he'd
turn about and push her away, never quite understanding his own actions.
Eventually, Tyr would have to wonder exactly how much "superiority" is
genetic, and how much the result of individual will. It would take years for
him to concede that Beka is every bit as "worthy" a mate as a Nietzschean
(possibly more so --whenever Beka fights Nietzscheans, she tends to survive.
The Nietzscheans don't).
Meanwhile, Beka is equally attracted to Tyr, but can't figure out where he's
coming from. By the time Tyr comes around, she'd have hooked up with Rhade
(who doesn't seem to have Tyr's elitism), or maybe someone completely new
(which would result in more conflict as Tyr tries to win her affections).
Also, she'll have fully devoted herself to the Commonwealth long before Tyr
does, so her attraction to Tyr would conflict with her loyalty to
Dylan --and to her crew. Tyr would have to prove that he won't hurt ~them~
before he'll have any real chance with her.
Perhaps she & Tyr would've ended up working together on an adventure
focussing on Rafe, Uncle Sid, and the legacy of her father. He'd eventually
have to concede that her own family is no different to her than Kodiak Pride
is to him. Her ancestors are as valuable, and formidable in their way, as
his own. He'd probably learn her mother's name, and pay her a Nietzschean
compliment by identifying her as "Beka Valentine, of the Eureka Maru, out of
__ by Ignatius."
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
It is against the screenwriting rules. You never put someone on screen
and accuse their character of something that could possibly be true.

Yes we/they do. Writers do that all the time. That's why we use words like
"fiction" and "acting."

BINGO!

Post by Mark Brown
In an episode of. . . I think it was CSI, Sean Maher played a serial rapist.
Sean Maher is not a rapist. In an episode of Dead_Like_Me, Jewel Stait
played a slut/prostitute. Jewel is currently (I assume happily) married. In
The_Bourne_Supremacy, Matt Damon's character was skilled and intelligent.
You see where I'm going.

Again BINGO

Post by Mark Brown
More to the point, Tyr (the character) is pretty obviously ~not~ on
steroids, as per the script. Doesn't Tyr's rebuttal carry just as much
weight as Beka's accusation?

Post by John Shocked
Why do you think all these Fat Person movies always have a slim person
wearing a fat suit ?

Like in Beverly_Hills_Ninja? You can always make the skinny good-looking guy
fat and ugly (like Eddie Murphy in The_Klumps), but the fat, ugly guy can't
exactly be made up as Orlando Bloom.

Post by John Shocked
Or Ugly Person roles are filled by actors with
makeup-altered looks ?

Like the cast of NYPD_Blue, or CSI? Or the Cigarrette Smoking Man? (Who,
incidentally was a non-smoker, neatly disproving your thesis.)
It's Showbiz, and humans are intrinsically shallow. Slim, beautiful people
far, ~far~ outnumber normal people in Hollywood (which is exactly why
parents groups complain about anemia and low-self-esteem among
impressionable people who ~watch~ TV).

Post by John Shocked
Some actress I believe won the oscar when he looks and nose were
uglied down to fit the part, recently, if I recall correctly.

Well, first, the Oscars have more to do with politics than with actual
quality, and second, she likely "won" it for her acting, not her looks.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Again, you are failing to recognize the deviation from screenwriting rules
at play here. Now the Beka character is characterized as using drugs but
there is no reason to believe that the actress playing that role actually
has ever done that. There is based on musculature reason to believe that
Cobb may have used steroids and thus the allegation in the script
is out of bounds.

So, basically, you're relying on stereotype to back up your double-standard.
Isn't it just as likely that Lisa Ryder is being accused of having a drug
problem? Or being a slut? Or a thief? Or a bad driver? There seems to be no
more or less evidence either way, aside from your opinion that KHC's
physique comes from steroid use. Could it not just as easily come from a
strict excercise regimen and healthy diet? Especially given that Tyr's
character ~requires~ him to be muscular --he could likely have embarked on a
specialized workout plan before/upon getting the role.
IIRC, Kevin Sorbo did the same thing when he was on Hercules. When the show
ended he said (jokingly) that he's now allowed to eat junk food again (which
is why Dylan doesn't go shirtless as often as Hercules did; he just doesn't
have the same physique).
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Just to be clear: nothing ever appears in a script by chance.

*SNIP*
Of course not. But not everything is hint of something behind the scenes.
Look at it this way, how would you rewrite that scene to take out the
steroids reference? How would you have Beka react to Tyr's accusation?
Mark
"Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar." --Sigmund Freud

[John Shocked]

Post by PettyFan
On Mon, 9 May 2005 16:35:53 -0400, "Mark Brown"

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
(Who knows, if/when I succeed as a screenwriter, I might be able to give

him

Post by Mark Brown
something, assuming he's still acting then. I'd best get on that,

shouldn't I?)
IMDB has him at 43 right now. Interestingly, IMDB does not describe
Cobb as ever being married or having a family, so with a back ground
in theater there is aobvious supposition he might be homosexual.
Any truth to that ?

. . . Given the usual accuracy of such stereotypes (and, for that matter, of
IMDB itself), I think not.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Maybe this betrayal content is something the scripts expanded on
in the second or third year.

Possible. I note that Tyr's exit was unusually built up over numerous
episodes; unusual given the post RHW "no long-term arcs" policy.

Post by John Shocked
I cannot imagine that the producers could have
thought that portraying a major character in the show as traitor or
potential traitor would have been interesting to watch.

Actually, I think the opposite. I mean, look at Shakespeare's Tragedies, or
most "Reality" TV, or the Star Wars Prequels (okay, bad example, that one).
Having an obvious traitor increases both dramatic irony and the character
conflict. Especially when he aims (as Tyr likely would) to make alliances
and undermine Dylan's leadership. When Tyr makes his move, it wouldn't be
alone; he'd do whatever possible to get as many of the crew to side with
him.
It'd be like Survivor:_Andromeda.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
The storyline should have been more that Tyr agreed Dylan to reestablish
the Empire (or whatever they called it) because his race was wiped out
and it was his only hope for safety and justice against those who
exterminated
his tribe. Then, they might Tyr and Dylan could debate over strategy
(sometimes putting initiatives to the crew's vote) to
gain strength and support and eventually build to a point of domination,
deafeating and eliminating or absorbing foes as they went along.
I am surprised the grand scheme failed to pursue this.

Yeah, that's the result of the writers being shuffled. Also, "they" wanted
to paint Dylan as the Hero, which meant that moral ambiguity (Tyr's
specialty) had to be trimmed down.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Hopefully RHW's upcoming "Coda"

will

Post by Mark Brown
illuminate some of what he'd planned for Tyr as well as for Trance.

What Coda is this ? The final episode ?

A thing RHW is going to (or planning to) post around June 2nd. When he left
he took all his notes and story ideas with him. Specifically, he had a very
clear idea where to go with Trance and her secret, a direction that
apparently was greatly different from what the show did without him. The
"Coda" is RHW's epilogue to the series, where we find out Trance's true
nature. I'm hoping that he had an equally developed idea for Tyr's
development. It's certainly possible that Tyr was a "stream of
consciousness" character with no fixed trajectory beyond a season or so, but
I doubt it; RHW is too good a writer to set up something like Tamerlane and
not know how he'd follow through on it.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
There were little hints throughout S1, culminating in "It's Hour Come

Round

Post by Mark Brown
At Last," where Harper started freaking out during the magog invasion and
Tyr gave him a Nietzschean pep-talk. Then when the magog stormed in, Tyr
offered to euthanize Harper, who told him not to bother 'cause he'd rather
go down fighting. Just reading into Tyr's proud grin.

I do not hear any adoption in that story.

Well, Tyr ~could~ just as easily have turned up his nose or menaced Harper
into working. Instead he actually reached out to him, advising Harper to
~face~ his demons (the magog), like a Nietzschean, with "fire in [his]
blood," as Tyr knows Harper can. Then when Tyr has one bullet left, he
offers to do what Harper initially asked him to do (kill him before the
magog can rape him). When Harper says no, Tyr seems inordinately pleased,
and hands Harper one of his own knives. They end up fighting

back-to-back,

Post by PettyFan

Post by Mark Brown
like fellow Nietzscheans.
I feel it's telling that Tyr actually seems to give a crap what Harper does
(and has been paying enough attention to have seen Harper's

Nietzschean-like

Post by PettyFan

Post by Mark Brown
qualities), and seems pleased when Harper stands up for himself.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
I posit that, as his
time on Andromeda continued, Tyr would've (likely subconsciously) adopted
the crew as a surrogate Pride, much like cats & dogs adopt their human
"owners" as members of their pride/pack, and treat them accordingly.

I do not think that would have been a good idea or indicated by the
marriage that he had to that Nietzchean woman.

I don't see what Freya has to do with it. She has good genes, and is the
mother of his child. I don't believe he felt any particular attraction to
her that he wouldn't have felt for any breeding-age female who accepted his
genetic "resumé." Her entire point in the story was to (A) demonstrate how
Nietzscheans make marriages, and (B) to birth Tamerlane.

Post by John Shocked
The Andromeda members would be a team, and each of them should have
been paired off with mates or each other who would in the end flourish
in the new Empire.

I disagree. As much as I do like playing the 'shipper, having Andromeda's
crew pair off to a happy ending would've been trite and clichéed. Besides,
no writer will pair off couples too early without some sort of triangle.
We had the Harper => Rommie => Dylan (=> memory of Sarah) triangle, which
couldn't possibly end well for ~everyone,~ and the Beka/Tyr sparkage (Rev is
obviously celibate [aside from his being raped by the Hegira], and Trance
could've concievably ended up anywhere, relationship-wise). I feel that
these situations would've been drug out as long as possible, again, to
increase the inter-character drama.
I also don't feel the restored Commonwealth would've ~appeared~ out of the
blue as quickly as it ended up doing. Likely we were ~never~ supposed to see
the "happily ever after."
(In case anyone's wondering, I envisioned the series ending with Dylan's
death, and possibly with Beka's as well. Tyr would be forced to step in and
assume command, finally forced to choose between rebuilding the Kodiak, or
rebuilding the Commonwealth. By now though, it would have become obvious
that the Nietzschean system of every-Pride-for-itself warfare was terminally
flawed. As that Nietzschean High Guard captain said in "Banks of the Lethe,"
any Nietzschean worthy of the name would stand ~with~ the Commonwealth.
Quick flash-forward a few years, and the epilogue sees adult Tamerlane,
Alpha of the Unified Prides, taking his place as Commonwealth Triumvir. . .
[with Andromeda as an honour-guard, under the command of Captain Harper.
;) ])
Remember Harper's line about how the universe is a windshield and they're
all bugs, but how together (with Dylan and Andromeda), they might end up
being the only bugs in the universe strong enough to smash through? I think
that was several-years-in-advance foreshadowing for Tyr's epiphany.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
Note that time Tyr made dinner for Beka. He was flirting with her

(just

Post by PettyFan

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked

Post by Mark Brown
as
he would've with any highly-placed Nietzschean female --especially one who
could gain him control of the Pride),

*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
That episode I did see years back, and I do not recall it being cut and dry
like
that. I had the impression they might hook up later in the series.
It appeared to be way too early for members of the crew to already
be paired off.

Exactly; the Tyr/Beka sparkage would've been a great sub-plot to extend for
five years. On one hand, Tyr is attracted to her (no surprise; Nietzschean
males are even more hormone-driven than human males [perhaps another reason
Tyr & perpetually-desperate Harper would get along so well ;) ]), but on the
other, she's genetically inferior. . . but her skills are not
inconsiderable. He'd keep "accidentally" flirting with her, but then he'd
turn about and push her away, never quite understanding his own actions.
Eventually, Tyr would have to wonder exactly how much "superiority" is
genetic, and how much the result of individual will. It would take years for
him to concede that Beka is every bit as "worthy" a mate as a Nietzschean
(possibly more so --whenever Beka fights Nietzscheans, she tends to survive.
The Nietzscheans don't).
Meanwhile, Beka is equally attracted to Tyr, but can't figure out where he's
coming from. By the time Tyr comes around, she'd have hooked up with Rhade
(who doesn't seem to have Tyr's elitism), or maybe someone completely new
(which would result in more conflict as Tyr tries to win her affections).
Also, she'll have fully devoted herself to the Commonwealth long before Tyr
does, so her attraction to Tyr would conflict with her loyalty to
Dylan --and to her crew. Tyr would have to prove that he won't hurt ~them~
before he'll have any real chance with her.
Perhaps she & Tyr would've ended up working together on an adventure
focussing on Rafe, Uncle Sid, and the legacy of her father. He'd eventually
have to concede that her own family is no different to her than Kodiak Pride
is to him. Her ancestors are as valuable, and formidable in their way, as
his own. He'd probably learn her mother's name, and pay her a Nietzschean
compliment by identifying her as "Beka Valentine, of the Eureka Maru, out of
__ by Ignatius."
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
It is against the screenwriting rules. You never put someone on screen
and accuse their character of something that could possibly be true.

Yes we/they do. Writers do that all the time. That's why we use words like
"fiction" and "acting."

BINGO!

Post by Mark Brown
In an episode of. . . I think it was CSI, Sean Maher played a serial rapist.
Sean Maher is not a rapist. In an episode of Dead_Like_Me, Jewel Stait
played a slut/prostitute. Jewel is currently (I assume happily) married. In
The_Bourne_Supremacy, Matt Damon's character was skilled and intelligent.
You see where I'm going.

Again BINGO

If Sean Maher had actually a prison record for rape, then there would
be a problem casting him in that role, according to 'The Rules'.
If Jewel had a background for having turned tricks before she became
a star, there would have been a problem with her playing a prostitute.
However, some of these behavioral issues have become more acceptable
in this No-Shame trend in today's society.
However, personal foibles like Ugly, Fat, Stupid in an actor, cannot be
targetted in a script.

Politics

Post by PettyFan

Post by Mark Brown
More to the point, Tyr (the character) is pretty obviously ~not~ on
steroids, as per the script. Doesn't Tyr's rebuttal carry just as much
weight as Beka's accusation?

Post by John Shocked
Why do you think all these Fat Person movies always have a slim person
wearing a fat suit ?

Like in Beverly_Hills_Ninja? You can always make the skinny good-looking guy
fat and ugly (like Eddie Murphy in The_Klumps), but the fat, ugly guy can't
exactly be made up as Orlando Bloom.

Post by John Shocked
Or Ugly Person roles are filled by actors with
makeup-altered looks ?

Like the cast of NYPD_Blue, or CSI? Or the Cigarrette Smoking Man? (Who,
incidentally was a non-smoker, neatly disproving your thesis.)
It's Showbiz, and humans are intrinsically shallow. Slim, beautiful people
far, ~far~ outnumber normal people in Hollywood (which is exactly why
parents groups complain about anemia and low-self-esteem among
impressionable people who ~watch~ TV).

Post by John Shocked
Some actress I believe won the oscar when he looks and nose were
uglied down to fit the part, recently, if I recall correctly.

Well, first, the Oscars have more to do with politics than with actual
quality, and second, she likely "won" it for her acting, not her looks.
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Again, you are failing to recognize the deviation from screenwriting rules
at play here. Now the Beka character is characterized as using drugs but
there is no reason to believe that the actress playing that role actually
has ever done that. There is based on musculature reason to believe that
Cobb may have used steroids and thus the allegation in the script
is out of bounds.

So, basically, you're relying on stereotype to back up your

double-standard.

Post by PettyFan

Post by Mark Brown
Isn't it just as likely that Lisa Ryder is being accused of having a drug
problem? Or being a slut? Or a thief? Or a bad driver? There seems to be no
more or less evidence either way, aside from your opinion that KHC's
physique comes from steroid use. Could it not just as easily come from a
strict excercise regimen and healthy diet? Especially given that Tyr's
character ~requires~ him to be muscular --he could likely have embarked on a
specialized workout plan before/upon getting the role.
IIRC, Kevin Sorbo did the same thing when he was on Hercules. When the show
ended he said (jokingly) that he's now allowed to eat junk food again (which
is why Dylan doesn't go shirtless as often as Hercules did; he just doesn't
have the same physique).
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
Just to be clear: nothing ever appears in a script by chance.

*SNIP*
Of course not. But not everything is hint of something behind the scenes.
Look at it this way, how would you rewrite that scene to take out the
steroids reference? How would you have Beka react to Tyr's accusation?
Mark
"Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar." --Sigmund Freud

[OTL]

Post by John Shocked

Post by PettyFan

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
It is against the screenwriting rules. You never put someone on screen
and accuse their character of something that could possibly be true.

Yes we/they do. Writers do that all the time. That's why we use words like
"fiction" and "acting." BINGO!
In an episode of. . . I think it was CSI, Sean Maher played a serial
rapist. Sean Maher is not a rapist. In an episode of Dead_Like_Me, Jewel
Stait played a slut/prostitute. Jewel is currently (I assume happily)
married. In The_Bourne_Supremacy, Matt Damon's character was skilled and
intelligent. You see where I'm going.

Again BINGO

If Sean Maher had actually a prison record for rape, then there would
be a problem casting him in that role, according to 'The Rules'.
If Jewel had a background for having turned tricks before she became
a star, there would have been a problem with her playing a prostitute.

Wait... you couldn't cast a convicted rapist as a rapist... because people
might actually believe he's a rapist!? But it's okay to cast someone who's
not a rapist as a rapist, even though the audience might believe he is one?

Seriously, I think my brain is hurting trying to figure out the logic behind
that one...

[John Shocked]

Post by OTL

Post by John Shocked

Post by PettyFan

Post by Mark Brown

Post by John Shocked
It is against the screenwriting rules. You never put someone on screen
and accuse their character of something that could possibly be true.

Yes we/they do. Writers do that all the time. That's why we use words like
"fiction" and "acting." BINGO!
In an episode of. . . I think it was CSI, Sean Maher played a serial
rapist. Sean Maher is not a rapist. In an episode of Dead_Like_Me,
Jewel Stait played a slut/prostitute. Jewel is currently (I assume

happily)

Post by OTL

Post by John Shocked

Post by PettyFan

Post by Mark Brown
married. In The_Bourne_Supremacy, Matt Damon's character was
skilled and ntelligent. You see where I'm going.

Again BINGO

If Sean Maher had actually a prison record for rape, then there would
be a problem casting him in that role, according to 'The Rules'.
If Jewel had a background for having turned tricks before she became
a star, there would have been a problem with her playing a prostitute.

Wait... you couldn't cast a convicted rapist as a rapist... because people
might actually believe he's a rapist!? But it's okay to cast someone who's
not a rapist as a rapist, even though the audience might believe he is one?
Seriously, I think my brain is hurting trying to figure out the logic behind
that one...

That is close, yes. However, under the vice-like control of amoral Hollywood
Homosexuals, the movie business is steering the country in the direction
accepting illegal and/or amoral behavior, so those elements of The Rules
are evaporating. It is conceivable for instance that Robert Downey Jr.
might play a coke fiend in a future movie. He played that role before
in Less Than Zero, but that was before the public knew he was a coke fiend.
Roseanne Barr once was a prostitute.
But being "Fat" or "Ugly" are afflictions which are less faults of
commission
and as such it is harder to see someone kicked for being either.

Politics

[Rob Jensen]

On Sun, 8 May 2005 17:43:58 -0400, "Mark Brown"

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
What I actually find surprising is that Cobb is not a major Hollywood
Action Movie Star by now. I think anyone who watched the first
season of Andromeda would have considered Cobb easily as talented as,
for instance, The Rock in playing an action lead.

Agreed, wholeheartedly (imagining KHC as the new Triple-X instead of that
pudgy wannabe-thug). Trouble is, the break between TV and movies can be
almost impossible to cross without serious help --TV people work in TV,
movie people work in movies, and never the twain shall meet.

Glenn Close (Movies -> TV)

Jennifer Aniston, Lisa Kudrow and Matthew Perry (TV -> Movies)

Courteney Cox Arquette (Movies -> TV -> Movies)

The list goes on and on and on. The fact of the matter is that there
is no divide between movies and TV anymore -- actors go back and forth
all the time. TV actors who make the switch to movies generally after
successful runs on TV series generally don't go back to TV all that
often, but that's more because they're done with the weekly grind than
because of any prejudice against TV.

IMO, KHC's inability to translate his work in soaps and Andromeda into
a movie career has more to do with his vast limitations as an actor
than with anything else. He's the weakest actor ever to be listed in
Andromeda's opening credits -- and that includes Sorbo.

-- Rob


=============================
LORELAI: In the movie, only boy hobbits travel to Mount
Doom, but that's only because the girls went to do something
even more dangerous.
GIRL: What?
LORELAI: Have you ever heard of a Brazilian Bikini Wax?

[John Shocked]

Post by Rob Jensen
On Sun, 8 May 2005 17:43:58 -0400, "Mark Brown"

Post by Mark Brown
*SNIP*

Post by John Shocked
What I actually find surprising is that Cobb is not a major Hollywood
Action Movie Star by now. I think anyone who watched the first
season of Andromeda would have considered Cobb easily as talented as,
for instance, The Rock in playing an action lead.

Agreed, wholeheartedly (imagining KHC as the new Triple-X instead of that
pudgy wannabe-thug). Trouble is, the break between TV and movies can be
almost impossible to cross without serious help --TV people work in TV,
movie people work in movies, and never the twain shall meet.

Glenn Close (Movies -> TV)
Jennifer Aniston, Lisa Kudrow and Matthew Perry (TV -> Movies)
Courteney Cox Arquette (Movies -> TV -> Movies)

There are many more than these.

Post by Rob Jensen
The list goes on and on and on. The fact of the matter is that there
is no divide between movies and TV anymore -- actors go back and forth
all the time. TV actors who make the switch to movies generally after
successful runs on TV series generally don't go back to TV all that
often, but that's more because they're done with the weekly grind than
because of any prejudice against TV.
IMO, KHC's inability to translate his work in soaps and Andromeda into
a movie career has more to do with his vast limitations as an actor
than with anything else. He's the weakest actor ever to be listed in
Andromeda's opening credits -- and that includes Sorbo.
-- Rob

Give an example of your perception of Cobb as a poor actor.

Politics

[Mark Nobles]

Post by Rob Jensen
The list goes on and on and on. The fact of the matter is that there
is no divide between movies and TV anymore -- actors go back and forth
all the time.

Yep, it's been that way for a while.

And don't forget that both TV and movie actors often take a break to
work on Broadway for a while as well. I say a break, because I just
don't think the money is there like in movies.

iirc, more people watch ER every week than saw Cats in its entire run.

Post by Rob Jensen
TV actors who make the switch to movies generally after
successful runs on TV series generally don't go back to TV all that
often, but that's more because they're done with the weekly grind than
because of any prejudice against TV.

Unless they're David Caruso.

[Mark Brown]

Post by Rob Jensen
On Sun, 8 May 2005 17:43:58 -0400, "Mark Brown"

*SNIP*

Post by Rob Jensen

Post by Mark Brown
Agreed, wholeheartedly (imagining KHC as the new Triple-X instead of that
pudgy wannabe-thug). Trouble is, the break between TV and movies can be
almost impossible to cross without serious help --TV people work in TV,
movie people work in movies, and never the twain shall meet.

Glenn Close (Movies -> TV)
Jennifer Aniston, Lisa Kudrow and Matthew Perry (TV -> Movies)
Courteney Cox Arquette (Movies -> TV -> Movies)
The list goes on and on and on. The fact of the matter is that there
is no divide between movies and TV anymore -- actors go back and forth
all the time.

Yes, but, unless the actor is a major celebrity, it's considered a risk for
a movie casting director to hire them. This is the "Big Break" actors talk
about. Would Sarah Michelle Gellar have starred in Cruel_Intentions,
Scooby_Doo, or The_Grudge without first having been Buffy for several years?

If Andromeda had turned out differently, turned into a multi-million dollar
franchise, become the Star Trek of its generation, ~then~ I have no doubt
that we'd be seeing KHC (and GMW, and the three Ls) starring in movies left
and right. And yes, I know Lisa and Lexa have movie careers, but when was
the last time you heard one of them having top-billing (where their presence
is considered a bigger selling point than the title or concept or plot of
the movie)? There's a difference betwen being in a movie and starring in a
movie. Frex, who starred in I,_Robot? Everybody remembers Will Smith, but
who's this "Alan Tudyk" guy?

Actors are hired based on the strength of their previous performances; most
movie makers don't watch much TV (especially genre TV) --they're too busy
making movies. Movie makers also don't like taking chances (check out most
of Hollywood's recent product), so without some kind of celebrity, most
character actors just can't get in.

Here's an example: Firefly. A cast of relative unknowns (except for Ron
Glass, who is still mainly a TV guy, and Alan Tudyk who did movie bit parts
and is slowly working his way up the ladder on ~their~ influence). The
rags-to-riches story (cancelled by Fox, unprecedented DVD sales, new movie
coming out). When _Serenity_ blows away previous box office records, ~then~
movie casting agencies will take notice. Shortly, Nathan Filion, Adam
Baldwin, and Summer Glau (and likely the others) will be huge names, getting
jobs all over the damn place.

Meanwhile, the makers of the Transformers movie are having to pull teeth to
get Frank (Megatron) Welker and Peter (Optimus Prime) Cullen hired. Not
because the actors don't want to (they do, and are quite eager), but the
studios want to go with Bigger Names. Welker and Cullen haven't done much
movie voice work, despite the fact that Welker (for one) is a one-man cast
of thousands. None of the studio suits have heard much of Welker or Cullen's
performances, so they might as well be unknowns.

Post by Rob Jensen
TV actors who make the switch to movies generally after
successful runs on TV series generally don't go back to TV all that
often, but that's more because they're done with the weekly grind than
because of any prejudice against TV.

*SNIP*

Also 'cause of the money, perhaps. Lot of movie actors are just too
expensive for TV work (so it's up to the actors themselves to volunteer for
guest spots (Whoopi Goldberg on TNG).

Mark
"Horrified at the thought of Optimus Prime sounding like Mel Gibson."

[Philippa Chapman]

Post by Beth Smarr

Post by John Shocked
I considered his role in the series to be the prime selling point
of the series

So did a lot of people.

Post by Beth Smarr
Was it not due to the lack of development in his character?

Something like that, from what I've heard.

And BTW, thos of you who like to think Sorbo is to blame for Andromeda
going down the tubes, getting rid of Robert Hewitt Wolfe etc, he was
called on this last August face to face and utterly denied it. Yes, he
has the title 'executive producer' but that doesn't actually give him
much leverage. I understand he tried quite hard to get Keith to stay.



Philippa

[John Shocked]

Post by Philippa Chapman

Post by Beth Smarr

Post by John Shocked
I considered his role in the series to be the prime selling point
of the series

So did a lot of people.

Post by Beth Smarr
Was it not due to the lack of development in his character?

Something like that, from what I've heard.
And BTW, thos of you who like to think Sorbo is to blame for Andromeda
going down the tubes, getting rid of Robert Hewitt Wolfe etc, he was
called on this last August face to face and utterly denied it. Yes, he
has the title 'executive producer' but that doesn't actually give him
much leverage. I understand he tried quite hard to get Keith to stay.
Philippa

You can never believe what is said in these aftermath interviews.
Everyone wants to continue to work in the business and badmouthing
a previous boss is not likely to help your career, unless you are
already a hugely well-known in-demand star.

One of the items I would like to know about is the Ratings for
the Andromeda first and second seasons, since that would
control how much money the show had available to keep
everyone happy.

Politics

[Kate]

Post by Philippa Chapman
And BTW, thos of you who like to think Sorbo is to blame for

Andromeda

Post by Philippa Chapman
going down the tubes, getting rid of Robert Hewitt Wolfe etc, he was
called on this last August face to face and utterly denied it. Yes, he
has the title 'executive producer' but that doesn't actually give him
much leverage. I understand he tried quite hard to get Keith to stay.
Philippa

and for those who blatantly accuse Kevin using Steroids during HTLJ he
didn't so please think before you start typing stuff like that.

[Chester Chenoweth]

Ho Ho! Hiya, johnshocked. Over here, too? Do you see Canadian
Homosexuals controlling their media? What do you think of KHC leaving
Andromeda for the SOAPS, for christs sake!

[John Shocked]

Post by Chester Chenoweth
Ho Ho! Hiya, johnshocked. Over here, too? Do you see Canadian
Homosexuals controlling their media? What do you think of KHC leaving
Andromeda for the SOAPS, for christs sake!

Cobb is clearly a better actor than to be working in the soaps.
He should be making big Hollywood action movies by now.

Politics

[David B]

Post by John Shocked
This has probably been discussed here years back,
what was the reason for the exit of Keith Hamilton Cobb (Tyr)
from the Andromeda series ?
I considered his role in the series to be the prime selling point
of the series and when he was gone, I like I am certain, hordes
of other people simply stopped watching this series.
What was the reason why Keith Hamilton Cobb left the series ?

I think it was because he didn't like where the show was going. I also
heard rumors that he and Sorbo had some problems. Don't know if that's
true though.

[John Shocked]

Post by David B

Post by John Shocked
This has probably been discussed here years back,
what was the reason for the exit of Keith Hamilton Cobb (Tyr)
from the Andromeda series ?
I considered his role in the series to be the prime selling point
of the series and when he was gone, I like I am certain, hordes
of other people simply stopped watching this series.
What was the reason why Keith Hamilton Cobb left the series ?

I think it was because he didn't like where the show was going. I also
heard rumors that he and Sorbo had some problems. Don't know if that's
true though.

Problems between Cobb and Sorbo must have been involved in the
end of Cobb's character on the Andromeda series.
There seemed to be a deep seated resentment in the Andromeda script
against Cobb's character, when Cobb was clearly the main selling point
of the series.

Politics