Controversial The IMDF Conflict Zone!

[Gavin]

Sounds like the perfect reason to view it from start to finish in the correct order.

Believe me that will happen. The only question is whether I do it with a group and share in the discussion or if I do it on my own and talk to myself (but then I might not get intelligent responses).

 

[ant-mac]

Believe me that will happen. The only question is whether I do it with a group and share in the discussion or if I do it on my own and talk to myself (but then I might not get intelligent responses).

There's no guarantee that you'll get that from a group discussion either...

 

[Gavin]

There's no guarantee that you'll get that from a group discussion either...

But at least I have a chance of winning an argument.

 

[Mad-Pac]

I dislike subjects such as magic or the supernatural. I do not believe in an afterlife.

As for me, I don't necessarily relate a supernatural fantasy with a belief. Once I wrote a book with short stories about demons ad I got tired of answering the question, "but do you think demons are real?" It's just a story, an allegory, an archetype, for chrissakes!

However, I do think it's entirely possible the Human species could send its first manned mission to Mars sometime within the next 15 to 20 years, if it chooses to do so. Therefore, I find the US version to be more believable and relevant. The UK version is simply nonsense to me.

So do I. The part that ruins my suspension of disbelief is that holodeck style mind trip with a computer running on windows controlling your dreams or something in 15 to 20. More like 100 to 150 years. Definitely not something for the near future.

I felt there were times in both versions were Sam was enjoying and not enjoying himself.

That's why I stated that I found both versions to be a mix of both lighter and darker themes.

From my careful and attentive observations, I think UK Sam started hating everything about his new life. (His reaction to the conditions of his shabby apartment were priceless.) But then he started getting attached to Annie, and she's the only thing that makes that place bearable. In time he starts to accept and even enjoy the situation. The story in the US version is much lighter. Sam is much less depressed and psychologically affected. In the end we learn why: he had chosen many elements of that simulation because he liked them. After all it was just a game, even if you think it didn't feel like. The UK version was heavier and scarier, the American one more directed at the adventure part of the experience. I felt the UK version was deeper, and the American one more superficial.

He has not always played such characters.

In fact, I didn't really find him to be such a character in LIFE ON MARS. Or at least, he wasn't my idea of an alpha male.

He just seemed like a nice guy.

Yes, but he's tall, athletic and good-looking. I'm definitely not an expert in male beauty, but John Simms looks more like a regular guy to me. And a character said US Sam looked like an astronaut. he does! He also looks like the inhuman superhero Jeffrey Mace in SHIELD. And yes, on top of that, he's super nice. What doesn't that guy have?

There's nothing wrong with straight forward story-telling - whether it's literal or not. In fact, I sometimes wonder if it's becoming a lost art. Hopefully not.

Metaphors are all very well, but I prefer clarity, conciseness, consistency and continuity.

Yes, we're definitely looking for different things. I'm more inclined to metaphoric symbolism, something that will bring about more reflection on the human spirit.

Both Liz White and Gretchen Mol were perfectly fine in their respective roles.

Surely they were. Annie Cartwright was sweet and delicate, at some point, the only thing keeping Same sane. Annie Norris, on the other hand, was more confident and took things with him less seriously because the entire story was less serious. And the actress has that kind of unrealistic beauty so common on American television these days.

To me personally, JK Rowling does come across as British, but Dan Brown, David Bowie, Elton John or Rod Stewart are just international celebrities to me. I have no real opinions concerning Paulo Coelho or George RR Martin.

Oh, no. Sir Paul McCartney, Sir Elton John and Sir Mick Jagger couldn't be more English in a "Rule Britannia" kind of way! And David Bowie just isn't a "sir" because he refused knighthood in 2003. But they tried to get him as well!

I have no opinion on the subject of John Constantine or whether he smokes or not. If he wasn't for the fact of who he is, I'd say that smoking would actually be more likely to kill him than any other factor.

Constantine is a DC comics fictional character who calls himself a dabbler in the occult. Believe me when I say, with his constant encounters with the Devil and other malignant entities, lung cancer is the last thing he has to worry about! And yes, in the comics one of his strongest suits is that he's a chain smoker.

James Bond had a long history of smoking - in both his written and filmed adventures. Now he doesn't smoke. I'm aware of - and somewhat sympathetic to - the point you're making, but ultimately, times change.

I totally agree, except that the James Bond is constantly modernized to fit the current times. But if they were to make a new James Bond movie set in the 1960s, when Sean Connery started, it would be very weird if nobody smoked and the women were all feminists.

Simply because Liverpool and Manchester have vastly lower populations than NY, they are in no way claustrophobic. However, many areas of NY do feel exceedingly claustrophobic due to the huge number of people that inhabit the concrete jungle. As for grittiness, I expect all three population centres are quite capable of feeling thus.

Los Angles is too big, or too vast, or too overwhelming. NY is much less so.

Well, Los Angeles is much ore spread and scattered than New York, especially Manhattan, of course, because of geography. I used to live in Los Angeles, and everything there is... just far and far away. And you spend a lot of time in your car. New York must be an oppressive city, but it's fascinating as well. Manchester, on the other hand, as Donald Trump would put it, looks more like a shithole city. And, like Detroit, a great place to represent Hell on Earth. So, by comparison, new York is much more preferable. In fact, anybody who is somebody at some point moves to New York.

I never mentioned validity. I simply made a comment regarding the objectiveness versus the subjectiveness of your previous post.

And speaking strictly for myself, I never read any objective points in your previous post, just subjective opinions.

When I spoke about the mood of the UK show, more somber, for instance, and several other points I made, I just wasn't technically objective because I don't remember the *exact* dialogue passages and scenes that support my claims. I'm doing all this by memory, but if I were to sift through the screenplays and episodes themselves, I would sure find concrete evidence for most of my claims. For instance, I can't objectively prove that they don't smoke in the American version and smoke a lot in the UK version, and I can't objectively prove to you that people smoked a lot in the 1960s, so you might think these statements are "subjective". But you can take my word I know what I'm talking about. Also, the fact David Bowie is English and the fact he wrote his memorable song as a reflection of the English culture prevalent at the time are objective truths as well. We could even go through the lyrics and analyze the expressions he used and how English they are, and then you might consider how different they would be if an Australian or an American had written the same song. So, yeah, from avery narrow and strict point of view, I was being entirely "subjective".

Well, at least we agree on one thing.

That seems like a good way to end a post.

No way! I'm just getting started! No, really I really need to go to bed...

 

[Mad-Pac]

Mind you, I'd choose her regardless of my avatar.

Really? I thought that was you back in the day!

 

[Mad-Pac]

I watched LIFE ON MARS all the way through - and I paid attention. That's how I came to the conclusions I have and developed the opinions I have of the UK version. You may like it, but I'm not keen on it. Each to their own.

But you said you only watched a few episodes of Ashes to Ashes. Considering how both shows are intertwined, then you don't have the complete picture.

Even in this day and age, in fiction and in reality, scientific laboratories can have a backlog of evidence to examine that extends back for days, if not weeks, if not much longer. There are some instances where evidence from more than a decade ago - if not longer - is still waiting to be processed.

If said evidence took two weeks two hours or two months to be processed, that's not the point. The fact is nowadays some things are possible and those things would have been considered something akin to magic back in the day. That was one of the main aspects of the original show.

He might not live in a bubble, but just because he's exposed to other opinions and perspectives, it doesn't mean he's going to pay any attention to them. If he's got seniority or is fixed in his ways, then he won't change without exceptional circumstances helping to make it happen. Of course, it depends upon the individual.

Sure, people set in their old ways os a real problem nowadays. But there is a difference between being stubborn and refuse to change and having no idea personal computers one day will exist or finding it impossible to conceive something like the Internet. I hardly ever use my cell phone and would rather not to. But I know they exist. On the other hand, I'd be very surprised if somebody expected me to understand time travel other than in a fantasy context, because as far as I can tell time travel is impossible (even if I'm proven wrong in a couple of decades).

Why not? It's just a variation on a theme.

In some ways, that's basically what LIFE ON MARS is all about. It's just presented in a slightly different way from the rest of the pack.

Oh, I have to agree with that. But I only got in the mood to start watching the show for two specific reasons: time travel and nostalgia. I never really cared about police work. So to me the time travel "detail", "gimmick" or "macguffin" is a crucial element to attract me to this kind of show.

Exactly. It's just a piece of entertainment.

And some people will be more entertained by it than others.

I've never contested that.

 

[Cloister56]

Thought I would throw in one more suggestion.

Hooten and the Lady

Cancelled after only 1 season. It's a fun show about an upper class historian (The Lady) and an American adventurer (Hooten) seeking treasures around the world.
Only 8 episodes. Not available in English on Youtube.

 

[michaellevenson]

LOL! OK, I'm curious about a little thing. Haven't you guys already seen this show? And I mean... literally... several times already?

Great banter between you and Ant Mac. I've not seen either version of LOM so I can't comment. But your question why are we keen to see B7 again is worth answering.
It's pretty obvious that you're a devotee of the genre , to have run this group so long, so to be dismissive of a show you've never seen is intriguing. I can understand your pleasure at being in a comfort zone with shows you know about and ones you don't know about but are comfortable with the expected style and pace .
You may feel you know what to expect from B7. Believe me you don't! Any thoughts along the lines of " I bet it'll be like this... or this" forget it.
I wish I could point you to another show and say " it's like this" but I can't.
As Doc Omega mentioned the creator of Babylon 5 was a fan of B7 , and B5 has similarities, not in the stories they tell,No!, but in character development, events alter characters , early John Sheridan is totally different to the one at the end , unlike Star Trek where Kirk is the same guy in episode 1 and episode 79. B7 is almost a space opera, with deeply flawed heroes who are possibly terrorists. I mustn't say too much, I know you thought I was too liberal in my comments about future episodes in our UFO run, yes I read your very first post on IMDF back in June 5th, so I'll be circumspect. But if we end up with B7 be prepared for the unexpected. Five minutes into the first episode you'll go " WTF bit strong isn't it," and near the end you might think " hells bells but those two ..
I thought that .....oh "
So to answer your original question I'd like to watch this again with the sages to get a stubborn Brazilian to say " mmm? ok sort of good different.Lexx Firefly Farscape yes I can see the B7 influence"
BTW I'm not criticizing, we all enjoy our safe zones, none more so than me, but we aren't all dedicated enough to run a group like The Sages.
If someone ran an American 70's cop show watching group, Kojak, Rockford Files, Columbo etc, it would be odd if they said " Hawaii 5 0 nah never seen it, not for our group, probably just Kojak with sunshine!".
Anyway judging by your and Ant Mac's discussions, B7 reviewing, if that's what happens is going to be awesome!

 

[ant-mac]

As for me, I don't necessarily relate a supernatural fantasy with a belief. Once I wrote a book with short stories about demons ad I got tired of answering the question, "but do you think demons are real?" It's just a story, an allegory, an archetype, for chrissakes!

But it has to be the type of story, allegory, or archetype that appeals to me. It has to be told in a style that interests me.

However, I'm not saying I haven't watched stories that don't appeal to me, that were told in ways that didn't interest me. After all, that's how I figured out what does and doesn't work for me.

So do I. The part that ruins my suspension of disbelief is that holodeck style mind trip with a computer running on windows controlling your dreams or something in 15 to 20. More like 100 to 150 years. Definitely not something for the near future.

They were kept in an induced sleep state for the journey, to save on resources. Medical science is capable of that now.

VR technology is advancing in leaps and strides with each passing year. And this progress doesn't take place at steady predictable pace.

There are already many computer operating systems available apart from Windows. And as civilians, we've got no idea of what the most cutting edge computer programs are currently capable of. As for what they'll be capable of in another 15 to 20 years? No one can know for sure.

It might be a bit of a stretch, but it's far from being impossible. Besides, I personally got the impression that the technology had not yet been perfected, which is possibly why there were issues during the process. Of course, if there had been no issues, there would've been no TV show.

In any case, I certainly found it far more believable, convincing and satisfying than that supernatural drivel we were fed in the UK version.

From my careful and attentive observations, I think UK Sam started hating everything about his new life. (His reaction to the conditions of his shabby apartment were priceless.) But then he started getting attached to Annie, and she's the only thing that makes that place bearable. In time he starts to accept and even enjoy the situation. The story in the US version is much lighter. Sam is much less depressed and psychologically affected. In the end we learn why: he had chosen many elements of that simulation because he liked them. After all it was just a game, even if you think it didn't feel like. The UK version was heavier and scarier, the American one more directed at the adventure part of the experience. I felt the UK version was deeper, and the American one more superficial.

As I said, I found both versions to be a mix of both lighter and darker themes.

I did not find either version to be significantly deeper or more superficial than the other.

Yes, but he's tall, athletic and good-looking. I'm definitely not an expert in male beauty, but John Simms looks more like a regular guy to me. And a character said US Sam looked like an astronaut. he does! He also looks like the inhuman superhero Jeffrey Mace in SHIELD. And yes, on top of that, he's super nice. What doesn't that guy have?

Both of them just look like regular guys to me. I'm sure they both have their admirers and detractors.

And there's a reason why the US Sam Tyler might look like an astronaut...

I'm sure both actors have many different strengths and weaknesses. We all do.

Yes, we're definitely looking for different things. I'm more inclined to metaphoric symbolism, something that will bring about more reflection on the human spirit.

I also enjoy discussion and reflection upon Human endeavours and spirit. I simply don't require metaphors to inspire or instigate such discussions or reflections.

We all do our own thing in our own way. Or at least I always have.

Surely they were. Annie Cartwright was sweet and delicate, at some point, the only thing keeping Same sane. Annie Norris, on the other hand, was more confident and took things with him less seriously because the entire story was less serious. And the actress has that kind of unrealistic beauty so common on American television these days.

Both actresses are beautiful and sexy in their own way, but neither are excessively so. At least not in my opinion.

I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Oh, no. Sir Paul McCartney, Sir Elton John and Sir Mick Jagger couldn't be more English in a "Rule Britannia" kind of way! And David Bowie just isn't a "sir" because he refused knighthood in 2003. But they tried to get him as well!

Were they?

They were just musicians to me.

I like a fair amount of their work, but their nationality never came into it for me.

Well, Los Angeles is much ore spread and scattered than New York, especially Manhattan, of course, because of geography. I used to live in Los Angeles, and everything there is... just far and far away. And you spend a lot of time in your car. New York must be an oppressive city, but it's fascinating as well. Manchester, on the other hand, as Donald Trump would put it, looks more like a shithole city. And, like Detroit, a great place to represent Hell on Earth. So, by comparison, new York is much more preferable. In fact, anybody who is somebody at some point moves to New York.

I spend a lot of time in my car too - if I can be bothered to go anywhere. I have to drive between 5 to 8 kilometres just to buy milk. Further if I want to do any shopping.

And when it comes to being a shithole, Trump would know.

Some people will find NY preferable to other cities and some people will not. And of course, many people will have no firm opinion one way or another. Everybody's different.

Everybody is somebody and the vast majority of them never go anywhere near NY.

When I spoke about the mood of the UK show, more somber, for instance, and several other points I made, I just wasn't technically objective because I don't remember the *exact* dialogue passages and scenes that support my claims. I'm doing all this by memory, but if I were to sift through the screenplays and episodes themselves, I would sure find concrete evidence for most of my claims. For instance, I can't objectively prove that they don't smoke in the American version and smoke a lot in the UK version, and I can't objectively prove to you that people smoked a lot in the 1960s, so you might think these statements are "subjective". But you can take my word I know what I'm talking about. Also, the fact David Bowie is English and the fact he wrote his memorable song as a reflection of the English culture prevalent at the time are objective truths as well. We could even go through the lyrics and analyze the expressions he used and how English they are, and then you might consider how different they would be if an Australian or an American had written the same song. So, yeah, from avery narrow and strict point of view, I was being entirely "subjective".

All works of art are open to subjective interpretation - regardless of the artist's original intention.

The song's repurposing and use in the TV show adds yet more material to the field of subjective interpretation.

On the most basic level, all of life and all of existence is a subjective experience. That's one of the reasons why two different people can view the same two TV series and come away from them with very different opinions and perspectives about them.

No way! I'm just getting started! No, really I really need to go to bed...

Been there and done that.

Now it's time to eat.

 

[ant-mac]

Really? I thought that was you back in the day!

My avatar does hold some basic similarities to my general physical appearance.

At least it did back when I was of a similar age to the image represented in it - and when my hairstyle was longer and thicker than my current one.

 

[ant-mac]

But you said you only watched a few episodes of Ashes to Ashes. Considering how both shows are intertwined, then you don't have the complete picture.

I watched all of LIFE ON MARS and season one of ASHES TO ASHES. I watched part of seasons two and three, including the final episode. I've also read various articles on the TV series.

As for the complete picture, it wasn't that complex. The backstory simply didn't appeal to me.

If said evidence took two weeks two hours or two months to be processed, that's not the point. The fact is nowadays some things are possible and those things would have been considered something akin to magic back in the day. That was one of the main aspects of the original show.

Yes, nowadays there are some things that are possible that would've been considered magical or miraculous in earlier periods of time. Scientific and technological advances are occurring on a daily basis in the modern world.

That's why I find the events depicted in the US version of LIFE ON MARS so credible. They might be a bit of a stretch, but not all that much.

Sure, people set in their old ways os a real problem nowadays. But there is a difference between being stubborn and refuse to change and having no idea personal computers one day will exist or finding it impossible to conceive something like the Internet. I hardly ever use my cell phone and would rather not to. But I know they exist. On the other hand, I'd be very surprised if somebody expected me to understand time travel other than in a fantasy context, because as far as I can tell time travel is impossible (even if I'm proven wrong in a couple of decades).

Some people are capable of living their entire lives without being greatly effected by the latest scientific and technological innovations - at least on a conscious level. Other people can't seem to survive without the latest gadget - whether they really need it or not.

Personally, I never conduct any sort of business on the internet. I do not bank on there and I do not shop on there. As for my mobile phone, I'm never quite sure what room it's in, or if it's even in the house. I often go shopping and find that I've left it at home. If I remember to take it with me, I'm just as likely to leave it in the car when I get home.

Of course there are the mobile phones and other pieces of technology that have annoyed or displeased me... But they are no longer a problem because they no longer exist.

As for time travel, even if we don't fully understand the practical or technical aspects, I'm sure we could still discuss some of the philosophical ones.

Oh, I have to agree with that. But I only got in the mood to start watching the show for two specific reasons: time travel and nostalgia. I never really cared about police work. So to me the time travel "detail", "gimmick" or "macguffin" is a crucial element to attract me to this kind of show.

I have to admit that I don't consider any of the TV shows - UK or US - to contain time travel. All of the events take place in the minds of those people through which we view the stories. I do have pleasant memories from the historical eras portrayed in the various TV programs, but that's not enough of a deciding factor for me to actually watch.

And I absolutely love a good police procedural - the older the better. I never grow tired of watching films or TV series either made or set in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and so on and so forth.

DRAGNET, THE NAKED CITY, ADAM 12, SWAT, HOMOCIDE, DIVISION 4, THE SWEENEY... I can't get enough of that sort of thing.

And if it's in black and white, that's a particular bonus!

I've never contested that.

No worries.

 

[Mad-Pac]

I have to admit that I don't consider any of the TV shows - UK or US - to contain time travel.

Yes, technically it's not time travel per se, but it's hard to classify that. Like that excellent movie The Thirteenth Floor, you start thinking it's time travel, then it turns out to be a VR adventure. I highly recommend it. Dramatically, though, at least the first part works the same way as Time Travel to me.

 

[Mad-Pac]

It's pretty obvious that you're a devotee of the genre , to have run this group so long, so to be dismissive of a show you've never seen is intriguing.

Be no longer intrigued, as the explanation is simple! And actually I think I've already mentioned this. The shows we tried were short, so even if somebody didn't like it, we knew that soon we'd be able to vote again and would surely move on. Just watching one season of a multi-season show is a tad inconvenient, because you know for a fact that the story continues, and it hurts not to know how things end, even if you're watching a bad movie, for instance, or reading a boring book. And people feel compelled to say yes to continue. Even if I had the power to determine whether a show would continue by an unilateral decision, I would feel embarrassed to deprive the others from their enjoyment, especially if they were everybody else. As for the whole "space opera" thing, well, I'll leave that for later.

 

[ant-mac]

Yes, technically it's not time travel per se, but it's hard to classify that. Like that excellent movie The Thirteenth Floor, you start thinking it's time travel, then it turns out to be a VR adventure. I highly recommend it. Dramatically, though, at least the first part works the same way as Time Travel to me.

That's fair enough.

 

[Mad-Pac]

But it has to be the type of story, allegory, or archetype that appeals to me. It has to be told in a style that interests me.

That was not the aspect I was presenting. Of course a story has to appeal to you. My example was to explain why it is irrelevant if I believe in literal demons. The good thing about writing a fantasy story is that you don't have to worry about whether it's plausible or probable at all. Unlike with science fiction.

There are already many computer operating systems available apart from Windows. And as civilians, we've got no idea of what the most cutting edge computer programs are currently capable of. As for what they'll be capable of in another 15 to 20 years? No one can know for sure.

If what they have in the show had the slightest possibility of happening in 20 years, then by now we'd already be able at least to record people's thoughts with Blu-Ray quality of image and sound. To me, from what I know of technology, that's utter fantasy. OK, so is warpspeed and teleporting, but we've had decades to get used to those concepts. And they wouldn't happen next decade.

In any case, I certainly found it far more believable, convincing and satisfying than that supernatural drivel we were fed in the UK version.

Yes, if one happens to be a hardcore nihilist atheist who is 101% sure there's no afterlife, everything about the theme would seem like impossible fantasy. But in this case, you'd also roll your eyes if you watched Lord Of The Rings, The Avengers or even The Twilight Zone. All silly fantasies.

I did not find either version to be significantly deeper or more superficial than the other.

OK, we'll never agree on that and many other points, but at least in terms of critic and audience, the UK version was far superior. I'm not saying that's an absolute criteria, but that's a useful indicator.

Were they?

Yes, they were. I mean, are. English and knighted, and these are objective facts.

They were just musicians to me.

To me too. But obviously if the Queen of England decided to knight them, there's something in their life and work we're not seeing. I'm not saying I understand the English any better than you (in fact I gave up trying to figure them out, LOL), but at least we have to acknowledge that they must have had some significant impact in the British society beyond music.

I like a fair amount of their work, but their nationality never came into it for me.

I don't think one can seriously deny an artist's cultural and national background as determinant to the art they produce. I speak more than one language, for instance, and with each language the context and references change a lot.

Both of them just look like regular guys to me.

Well, I sure would like to visit your town. It must be full of very good-looking people. My only concern is that I won't fit in.

And there's a reason why the US Sam Tyler might look like an astronaut...

Really? Aren't you going to tell me which?

I'm sure both actors have many different strengths and weaknesses. We all do.

Sure. I just think O'Mara has more the type of the traditional hero. Other actors, such as Tony Shalhoub, for instance are simply fantastic, but he doesn't necessarily have the looks of the cowboy who saves the day and kisses the girl in the last shot.

Everybody is somebody and the vast majority of them never go anywhere near NY.

LOL! It seems you didn't catch the idiom I used. Perhaps it might not be popular in Australian English? "Everybody that is somebody" usually refers to a major celebrity or big public figure. And sometimes it seems every celebrity in Brazil at some point has to try their luck in New York, or get some gig, or at least vacation there. Los Angeles too, but mostly NY.

Both actresses are beautiful and sexy in their own way, but neither are excessively so. At least not in my opinion.

Wow, it's official! I really want to visit your town now. At least for the "ordinary" women. You did get me enticed now.

 

[Mad-Pac]

Been there and done that.

Now it's time to eat.

Big deal. It's ALWAYS a good time to eat! Anyway, I was just thinking, you guys must be some 24 hours ahead of us... Or behind, I forget and am too lazy to check., so it's probably the middle of the night for you now.

 

[Mad-Pac]

I can understand your pleasure at being in a comfort zone with shows you know about and ones you don't know about but are comfortable with the expected style and pace .

You do raise an interesting point here. The comfort zone issue. I'm certain you love this show, and I never doubted that. But what I find intriguing is that you guys are really keen on watching a show you've seen more than once, and some of you, probably, several times. So, we have people like you, who have seen the show more than once, and I, who have not seen the show and, to put it bluntly, am not particularly interested in it, to be completely honest. And it's the "having watched it more than once" thing that bugs me.

You see, when I nominate a show, I choose two categories of shows.

1) Shows I know well, which means, shows I have seen once, preferably many, many years ago and I'd like to see again. This is useful because I have a good basis to recommend a show, and at the same time, I'll be partially surprised myself. But I never, ever nominated a show I've seen more than once or that I've seen recently. Life is too short to dwell on the same shows and books forever.

2) Shows I haven't seen yet. I always try to find a fair amount of shows I'll be watching a first time. Of course, I can have some information about it through reviews, articles and analyzing the cast and crew. But the show itself is new to me. By the way, when was the last time you nominated a show you haven't seen, even if it's inside your comfort zone? Or do you only consider a show to be in your comfort zone if you have seen it as a kid? Because I happened to notice you always nominate the very same shows.

Anyway, the nominations are full of interesting options, some I have seen, some I haven't. Let's see what the voters decide, and whether we all stick with the same show or split or whatever.

 

[michaellevenson]

You do raise an interesting point here. The comfort zone issue. I'm certain you love this show, and I never doubted that. But what I find intriguing is that you guys are really keen on watching a show you've seen more than once, and some of you, probably, several times. So, we have people like you, who have seen the show more than once, and I, who have not seen the show and, to put it bluntly, am not particularly interested in it, to be completely honest. And it's the "having watched it more than once" thing that bugs me.

You see, when I nominate a show, I choose two categories of shows.

1) Shows I know well, which means, shows I have seen once, preferably many, many years ago and I'd like to see again. This is useful because I have a good basis to recommend a show, and at the same time, I'll be partially surprised myself. But I never, ever nominated a show I've seen more than once or that I've seen recently. Life is too short to dwell on the same shows and books forever.

2) Shows I haven't seen yet. I always try to find a fair amount of shows I'll be watching a first time. Of course, I can have some information about it through reviews, articles and analyzing the cast and crew. But the show itself is new to me. By the way, when was the last time you nominated a show you haven't seen, even if it's inside your comfort zone? Or do you only consider a show to be in your comfort zone if you have seen it as a kid? Because I happened to notice you always nominate the very same shows.

Anyway, the nominations are full of interesting options, some I have seen, some I haven't. Let's see what the voters decide, and whether we all stick with the same show or split or whatever.

Interesting points; the intrigue I mentioned earlier is there again. You're not particularly interested in B7 , yes got that, but why? Have people told you bad things about it? Myself and Dr Omega, but mainly me, have put youtube clips on here, did they put you off? Or is it just a gut feeling? That could be because you expect it to be something that it might not be. I've dismissed shows after 3 or 4 episodes; Star Trek Enterprise for instance, the new Trek franchise Discovery I know nothing about and not really tried to discover anything, so I'm a blank canvas of opinion about it. I may get around to it , but until then I have no views on it. You seem to have a definite negative view of B7, that intrigues me and possibly others . There must be some core worry or anxiety, some kernel of angst that B7 is bad news for you. One thing is indisputable is that B7 has livened up the post Twin Peaks discussion threads.
I did previously nominate The Sandbaggers and League of Gentlemen so it's not quite always the same , but I accept your basic point.
I hope we don't "split" as you called it. That's never happened before, is the thought of B7 so overpoweringly awful , so OMG PLEASE NO AAAARRRGGGHHH.........
I hope it doesn't come to you saying something like; "The Blake Seveners will watch their show and us regulars who did Twin Peaks will watch whatever, but I'll still provide the threads, cast list etc, and pop.over to us if you feel like it "
I would not go there, because it wouldn't be the Sages doing B7 and there is already a whole series thread for the show that Doc Omega and myself did. No the Sages and ardent or not so ardent fans togetheris what makes the possible re-watch worthwhile.

 

[Doctor Omega]

Another factor is that, us old BLAKE fans would also find it genuinely interesting to see what someone who is a non-fan thinks of each and every episode; particularly if that person is erudite and articulate, as your banter with Ant-Mac has shown you to be, with you almost, but not quite, holding your own against that legend! (Hey, I'm biased in A-M's favour! It's a sort of, not quite bromance (Avon-Vila) thing, stretching back across years now!)

Even devastating reviews are interesting to read, as we watch sacred cow episodes fall to a brutal and convincing(?) analysis from Mad-Pac!

You might even end up convincing us that the whole show is a load of rubbish, to the point where we would never dream of watching it again. (Good luck with that one!)

Perhaps approach it partly from that aspect; as a bit of a challenge.

So go on, Mad-Pac! Voting permitting, perhaps dive in and give it a go!




*Avon/Vila: Again, you need to see the show to make sense of this reference!

 

[Mad-Pac]

Interesting points; the intrigue I mentioned earlier is there again. You're not particularly interested in B7 , yes got that, but why?

Fair enough. I was hoping to get into that later, but, I'll give you a clue. I have to start saying something that perhaps will shock you even more... I love Star Trek, but... I really don't like Star Wars... Shocked? Surprised? Anyway, because of several reasons I'd like to disclose later, the whole "space opera" concept is a turn-off for me. But I have solid reasons to love Star Trek, and I'll get into that eventually.

So, in general, it's basically...

- My problem with space operas and anything with heroic rebels fighting tyranny. I usually end rooting for the despotic regime! Rebels are overrated.

- Once again, I'm not happy about watching just one season. The feeling I have is that I'm going to end quite curious about how the series goes in the follwing seasons, but not interested enough to sit through the remainder of the episodes.

- Let's face it, the production values in the 1970s were poor, and British shows had even less money. In fact, I even think they were better in the 1960s, dropped in the 1970s, and improved again in the 1980s. There's something about late 1970s that bothers me terribly.

- I'm not very used to English shows. I grew up with American and, naturally, Brazilian productions. British productions, particularly back in the day when those productions were made mainly for domestic audiences. Nowadays a British production focuses much more on the international market, and you can't really tell apart many American, Canadian or British productions. But back then, shows looked and sounded much more regional. If the accents in English are standard American I just don't register them, but if the production is European, I notice something is off. Likewise, I find it a jarring and weird combination of strangeness and familiarity in Portuguese productions almost at a comedic level. Like, "they talk right, but not quite."

- After Twin Peaks I was really looking forward seeing something more like... from this millennium, you know. I grew up watching a lot of bad television. Oh, I enjoyed that quite a lot, but those shows were objectively bad. That doesn't mean everything is great now, but new dramatic techniques have been developed, and now writers are able to write something really good if they try and if the producers allow them. Take Black Mirror, for example (which is British, by the way.) It's brilliant and one of my favorite shows, if not my favorite one right now. And much, much better than the current iteration of Star Trek, ironically. Oh, hell, Black Mirror even did Star Trek better than Star Trek... Now, THAT's royal irony.

OK... But I have to concede a couple points. First, the writing in Blake's 7 must be above average considering what you guys say, though I take that with a grain of salt because you guys seem very passionate, and, well, passion is passion, not reason, and passion is something you develop over time and in the present circumstances, reason works better. And old shows don't have all the SJW crap that now infests many productions directed at millennials (although many shows usually become uncomfortable because they go to the other extreme and that's bad as well, like Straker telling a female officer to bring him coffee or telling another about how attractive she looks in a very "cringey" moment... LOL!)

One thing is indisputable is that B7 has livened up the post Twin Peaks discussion threads.

Yeah, that's the funniest part of it all. Who woulda thunk?

I did previously nominate The Sandbaggers and League of Gentlemen so it's not quite always the same , but I accept your basic point.

You haven't watched those yet?

I hope we don't "split" as you called it. That's never happened before, is the thought of B7 so overpoweringly awful , so OMG PLEASE NO AAAARRRGGGHHH.........

You put me now in a difficult situation. I have explained in details why we had never included longer shows in our nominations and how I felt about the whole idea, how I wouldn't like to watch just one season and have no time for a huge show, and how we always vote to continue because we have to finish it. I've explained my position. So, objectively, I don't know what I'm going to do next, I really don't.that's all I can say right now.

I would not go there, because it wouldn't be the Sages doing B7 and there is already a whole series thread for the show that Doc Omega and myself did.

You are right, it wouldn't be the Sages, but then it's like when a company is bought, then sold, then split, then goes bankrupt, then reopened, then changes its logo, then changes its name, then changes it back, then changes it for copyright reasons, then changes its product line completely and you wonder what the current company has to do with that one that opened in 1820. And... By the way, you already have a B7 thread? How many episodes did you do? (I'll have to check that out.) That brings back my early question. Doesn't it sound redundant if you guys have just done it?