Login

Username

Password



Not a rebel yet?
CLICK HERE to register.

Forgotten your password?
Request a new one from Orac HERE.

Current User Info

· Lurkers Lurking: 6

· Rebels Active: 0

· Total Rebels: 923
· Newest Rebel: Jon Crockford

Login Help

If you are having problems logging in, please bear in mind that if you originally registered at the site before 8th January 2014 and you haven't re-registered since that date your old login details will no longer work. If this is the case, please re-register, preferably with your former username. If you are having trouble with the registration process itself, try looking HERE and HERE for help and advice. If you need further assistance, please do CONTACT us.

Current Poll

Who is your Favourite Guest Rebel?

Avalon - (Project Avalon)
Avalon - (Project Avalon)
18% [17 Votes]

Selma - (Horizon)
Selma - (Horizon)
5% [5 Votes]

Tyce - (Bounty)
Tyce - (Bounty)
14% [14 Votes]

Norm One - (Redemption)
Norm One - (Redemption)
2% [2 Votes]

Bek - (Shadow)
Bek - (Shadow)
7% [7 Votes]

Kasabi - (Pressure Point)
Kasabi - (Pressure Point)
19% [18 Votes]

Hal Mellanby - (Aftermath)
Hal Mellanby - (Aftermath)
14% [14 Votes]

Hunda - (Traitor)
Hunda - (Traitor)
5% [5 Votes]

Deva - (Blake)
Deva - (Blake)
9% [9 Votes]

Other
Other
6% [6 Votes]

Votes: 97
Login to vote.
Started: 09 July 2016

Polls Archive

Forum Activity

Newest Articles

B7 Images

+ Cookies +

The Horizon website uses cookies to allow user log-in and navigation. The site does not host advertising that requires the use of third-party cookies. Registering as a member of this site implies your consent to the use of cookies.

View Thread

 Print Thread
Blake
Spaceship Dispatcher
Our respective visions of Blake's 7 are never going to match, so it's probably best to just accept that and move on. Blake to me is more interesting as a villain who, like all the best villains, thinks he's a hero; so do Servalan and Travis, which makes them interesting too. If the Federation is not evil or corrupt itself, but merely a society in which corruption and evil are found and often committed with positive intentions, then it's relatable to our own world; this is the same civilisation as ours, just some centuries further down the road. The fact that the rebels believe they have a just cause does not mean that is actually the case, but their convictions or doubts are interesting character development. I don't personally feel it necessary to pick a side, not that it's wrong to do so, or defend/condemn characters in order to enjoy the drama; I don't condemn Blake for being what I see as a terrorist, he's a fictional character, but also I don't condemn the Federation. What characters like Servalan do is out of an equally firm belief in their society. The fantasy nature of the setting enables us to view what happens there more objectively, whereas when similar actions occur in RL we would rightly be distressed by them.
Reversing the polarity of the neutron flow. I bet that means something. It sounds great.

Blake's 7: Trojan Horse (s4 fanfic) - Blake's 7: Through the Needle's Eye (s2 fanfic)

Spaceship Dispatcher's fanfic site
 
peladon
Spaceship Dispatcher wrote:

Our respective visions of Blake's 7 are never going to match, so it's probably best to just accept that and move on. Blake to me is more interesting as a villain who, like all the best villains, thinks he's a hero; so do Servalan and Travis, which makes them interesting too. If the Federation is not evil or corrupt itself, but merely a society in which corruption and evil are found and often committed with positive intentions, then it's relatable to our own world; this is the same civilisation as ours, just some centuries further down the road. The fact that the rebels believe they have a just cause does not mean that is actually the case, but their convictions or doubts are interesting character development. I don't personally feel it necessary to pick a side, not that it's wrong to do so, or defend/condemn characters in order to enjoy the drama; I don't condemn Blake for being what I see as a terrorist, he's a fictional character, but also I don't condemn the Federation. What characters like Servalan do is out of an equally firm belief in their society. The fantasy nature of the setting enables us to view what happens there more objectively, whereas when similar actions occur in RL we would rightly be distressed by them.




No, I don’t think we can agree, mainly because you haven’t offered any evidence in canon for your perspective on either Blake or the Federation, or even the wider issue of the rebels and their ‘terrorism’.Cool

I’d agree that both Travis and Servalan don’t see themselves as ‘bad’ (and I’ve never bought into the Servalan as a psychopath any more than I buy into Avon as such) but the evidence on screen suggests that an objective history would see them as being so. I don’t think they would have been found not guilty at Nuremberg, or today in the courts of The Hague.

As for the Federation, I’m not clear why you assume that it being evil or corrupt of itself (as a State) would prevent it being relatable to our world? It is relatable to our world, that’s what makes its evil and corruption interesting and still relevant 30yrs on. To say that it is nothing more than ‘a society in which corruption and evil are found and often committed with positive intentions’ you would have to have provide a balance of occasions where it behaved without those factors, I don’t recall seeing any such thing but I wasn’t aware that had to mean that I had ‘picked a side’

If you wish to see the Federation as basically good with a few rotten eggs – that’s up to you. If you want to see Blake as a terrorist because you see that more interesting than a within the rules freedom fighter then that’s fine – but that doesn’t make his acts terrorist. Which is where we started…...Smile
 
trevor travis
peladon wrote:
No, I don’t think we can agree, mainly because you haven’t offered any evidence in canon for your perspective on either Blake or the Federation, or even the wider issue of the rebels and their ‘terrorism’.Cool


Peladon, there's one major atrocity. It happens in "Time Squad". The debris on the Liberator screen confirms Blake didn't just blow up the base on Saurian Major; he blew up the planet.

That's a clear act of terrorism, killing everyone on the planet (not to mention the fact he's wiped out several species of intelligent plant life). No wonder he's infamous from that moment on, and it becomes the personal responsibility of the Supreme Commander to catch him.

There's no clear good and bad side in B7. In fact, it could be argued each side is "bad" (Terry's visions of the future were always quite wonderfully gloomy!!). There's a lot of grey in there. The Federation isn't totally "black" and there's no way the crew of the Liberator are completely "white".
Edited by trevor travis on 10 January 2015 18:33:09
 
peladon
trevor travis wrote:

peladon wrote:
No, I don’t think we can agree, mainly because you haven’t offered any evidence in canon for your perspective on either Blake or the Federation, or even the wider issue of the rebels and their ‘terrorism’.Cool


Peladon, there's one major atrocity. It happens in "Time Squad". The debris on the Liberator screen confirms Blake didn't just blow up the base on Saurian Major; he blew up the planet.

That's a clear act of terrorism, killing everyone on the planet (not to mention the fact he's wiped out several species of intelligent plant life). No wonder he's infamous from that moment on, and it becomes the personal responsibility of the Supreme Commander to catch him.

There's no clear good and bad side in B7. In fact, it could be argued each side is "bad" (Terry's visions of the future were always quite wonderfully gloomy!!). There's a lot of grey in there. The Federation isn't totally "black" and there's no way the crew of the Liberator are completely "white".


OK, some hard evidence offered at last, so let’s examine it.

Blake goes to Saurian Major to blow up a communications base (set out in discussion on the flight deck) the objective being to disrupt military communications. So he is going after a legitimate military target, for a stated and proportionate military gain using a standard weapon in a resistance leaders armoury (see French resistance for a pedigree). No mention of blowing up the planet is made at any point, so there is no on screen evidence that he intended to do so. He takes no explosives with him but relies on Avon to engineer a self destruct of the base generator; therefore he doesn’t go armed to blow up the planet.

Does the planet blow up incidentally following on that engineered self destruct? Well it’s possible. Is that confirmed? Actually, no. There is an explosion on the screen, but the script simply says ‘explosions on screen’ and there is no evidence about the viewpoint of that image, nor is there any comment about it – nothing to suggest that he has achieved more than he intended (see above), not even Avon comments on it. Zen does not report that the planet is destroyed. Another contrary indicator is that at this point Liberator has not left orbit, Blake did not order it and Jenna/Gan have been too busy elsewhere to do it. In addition they are still within teleport range (which you will recall is limited). A bit dangerous if your plan is to blow up the planet – or even might blow it up.

As for the destruction of life – Blake has already informed us that the (only incidentally corrupt) Federation butchered half the population when they declared independence and shipped out the other half, there are no non military people left other than the resistance fighters, and Cally tells us that they are all dead, killed by Federation biological weapons. Is accidentally blowing up a planet with no inhabitants (assuming it is blown up) disproportionate to the military gain? Well…I’m not a military strategist.

However as far as I can there is no actual canon based evidence of a civilian atrocity, you are interpreting one small aspect of a visual effect in a particular way with no supporting information to suggest that this interpretation is correct. Without the destruction of the planet, or population, what does the act become?


As for being infamous ‘from that moment on’ – is there any evidence in canon that it’s that act that makes him infamous? The conversations in SLD don’t suggest ‘infamous’ is the correct word anyway, and the implication is that his freedom and luck is the driving factor in the interest in him.

As for the black/white – I never suggested that it was. I explicitly stated that Blake wasn’t a white knight. In war there is never anyone who is totally good, though there can be those that are totally bad. I would certainly be interested to know what you see as being even light grey in the Federation.
 
trevor travis
peladon wrote:Is that confirmed? Actually, no. There is an explosion on the screen, but the script simply says ‘explosions on screen’ and there is no evidence about the viewpoint of that image, nor is there any comment about it – nothing to suggest that he has achieved more than he intended (see above), not even Avon comments on it. Zen does not report that the planet is destroyed.


Peladon, watch the end of the episode - I just have. Between 49:01 and 49:12, the planet is shown to explode. There's shots of space. And explosions in space. That is, something exploding in space i.e. the planet.

There's nothing within the dialogue of this episode to contradict this visual evidence. I count everything I see on screen as part of the canon. Therefore the planet Saurian Major is blown up.

And as for your claim to the planet being unpopulated, then who are those people chasing Blake into the nuclear reactor? Federation guards that's who. Nothing to do with the corrupt Administration on Earth that Blake is fighting against. Murdered Federation guards, their families left bereft.

And Blake's response to this act of terrorism? A rather smug: "That should cause them problems for a while".
Edited by trevor travis on 11 January 2015 01:29:25
 
peladon
trevor travis wrote:

peladon wrote:Is that confirmed? Actually, no. There is an explosion on the screen, but the script simply says ‘explosions on screen’ and there is no evidence about the viewpoint of that image, nor is there any comment about it – nothing to suggest that he has achieved more than he intended (see above), not even Avon comments on it. Zen does not report that the planet is destroyed.


Peladon, watch the end of the episode - I just have. Between 49:01 and 49:12, the planet is shown to explode. There's shots of space. And explosions in space. That is, something exploding in space i.e. the planet.

There's nothing within the dialogue of this episode to contradict this visual evidence. I count everything I see on screen as part of the canon. Therefore the planet Saurian Major is blown up.

And as for your claim to the planet being unpopulated, then who are those people chasing Blake into the nuclear reactor? Federation guards that's who. Nothing to do with the corrupt Administration on Earth that Blake is fighting against. Murdered Federation guards, their families left bereft.

And Blake's response to this act of terrorism? A rather smug: "That should cause them problems for a while".


Hmmm,
Interpret the image on the screen as the destruction of planet if that is what you wish to do, but there is no evidence anecdotal or otherwise to suggest it is the correct interpretation. Personally I would want to know more about the display technology, characteristics and its settings/filters before I made that assumption, - and I don’t know. But I don't necessarily see an area of blackness as space, (it might be a focussed in view of the planet surface with all detail removed) - however that’s just logical me.Smile I’d also want some evidence that the ‘reactor’ was nuclear as we understand it and could be assumed to be so by Blake. But the real issue with your interpretation, for me, is the assertion/assumption that it was Blake's intention. What Blake actually says to Cally is he intends to destroy the communications centre, and therefore assuming that he goes to destroy the planet requires that he is lying to Cally at this point, for which there is no evidence.
So stating that its canon that Blake' blows up the planet' on the otherwise unsupported evidence of a 10sec undefined visual effect in contrary to his stated intention seems both tortuous and perverse and something of a step too far in the direction of post hoc interpretation. As is the interpretation of Blake’s response as smug. But that’s my take; others may see it as you do.

Your second point is key to the whole discussion. Would you see it differently if Blake had contacted the Resistance groups and they had blown up the communications centre after Blake had got them in then teleported away?

The people Blake sees on the planet are Federation military forces, (security services is how it described in the script) so soldiers. If you see the killing of soldiers in the pursuit of a military act as murder, despite the fact that these soldiers would shoot Blake and Co without a second thought as the ‘enemy’, despite the fact that are supporting the structure and actions of the Federation State, then of course you will tend to see what Blake does as terrorist. Presumably if that is the case you will also tend to view any combatant killing another combatant as a similarly terrorist act, as they all result in the same personal loss (or you see something different in Blake as a combatant). However that is not the definition of terrorism held by any authority that I am aware of.

Which is where we started……
 
trevor travis
peladon wrote:
Hmmm,
Interpret the image on the screen as the destruction of planet if that is what you wish to do, but there is no evidence anecdotal or otherwise to suggest it is the correct interpretation.


Apart from the evidence of your own eyes. Grin An explosion in the blackness of space. The explosion of the planet.

But if you wish to continue to argue about that one, then I'll present a further example of Roj Blake - terrorist.

It actually occurs in a non-Federation episode, Mission To Destiny. It comes at the end. When Blake becomes judge, jury and executioner and decides to kill some people he's never even met - the accomplices of Sara (yes Sara is also killed, but that's accidental). Now these people are crooks, but then again Blake has no moral qualms to cavort around the galaxy in the presence of thieves and crooks.

And there was no need. The crew of both the Liberator and Ortega are both about to teleport off and return to Destiny at a speed which Sara's accomplices could never match. So they're not a threat.

It again shows how little Blake respects human life. And the needless destruction of a ship (the inhabitants of Destiny make have wished to recover it at some stage), plus taking human lives, is it an act of terrorism? I'd say so. And completely needless. Who is Blake actually trying to terrorise on this occasion? But he can't help himself.
 
Frankymole
trevor travis wrote:
There's no clear good and bad side in B7. In fact, it could be argued each side is "bad" (Terry's visions of the future were always quite wonderfully gloomy!!). There's a lot of grey in there. The Federation isn't totally "black" and there's no way the crew of the Liberator are completely "white".
Wonderfully put. That's why the show I enjoyed in childhood more than rewarded re-viewing as an adult. It's the antidote to Star Wars.

Avon can stand as a sympathetic figure because he operates in a universe where it is not just "the only show on television where the hero is a complete bastard", but where everybody has to be a complete bastard at some point in their lives, just to survive. Someone like Vila, a recidivist thief, turns out to be perhaps the most moral character in the galaxy. Someone like Avon, a potential psychopath, turns out to have one of the purest philosophies.

Despite being dismissed the "Softly, Softly" type viewers as not meriting attention due to having "ray guns and rubber monsters", it's proper adult drama that we've rarely seen before or since.
Edited by Frankymole on 11 January 2015 15:58:07
 
Spaceship Dispatcher
peladon wrote:

The people Blake sees on the planet are Federation military forces, (security services is how it described in the script) so soldiers. If you see the killing of soldiers in the pursuit of a military act as murder, despite the fact that these soldiers would shoot Blake and Co without a second thought as the ‘enemy’, despite the fact that are supporting the structure and actions of the Federation State, then of course you will tend to see what Blake does as terrorist. Presumably if that is the case you will also tend to view any combatant killing another combatant as a similarly terrorist act, as they all result in the same personal loss (or you see something different in Blake as a combatant). However that is not the definition of terrorism held by any authority that I am aware of.

In response to the terms I have highlighted red: its not a military act since Blake is non-military, he's a civilian who's got hold of some guns; as you're so keen on proving things by canon, can you quote a line where Blake directly describes himself by the term 'military'? Or is that just a tag fans have given him as an alternative to other words? Therefore he's also not legally a combatant. Of course the guards would shoot him, he's attacking them! Note that it's also canon that Blake is the instigator of the fighting on Saurian Major and is therefore the aggresor in that instance.
Reversing the polarity of the neutron flow. I bet that means something. It sounds great.

Blake's 7: Trojan Horse (s4 fanfic) - Blake's 7: Through the Needle's Eye (s2 fanfic)

Spaceship Dispatcher's fanfic site
 
Spaceship Dispatcher
Frankymole wrote:

Avon can stand as a sympathetic figure because he operates in a universe where it is not just "the only show on television where the hero is a complete bastard", but where everybody has to be a complete bastard at some point in their lives, just to survive. Someone like Vila, a recidivist thief, turns out to be perhaps the most moral character in the galaxy. Someone like Avon, a potential psychopath, turns out to have one of the purest philosophies.

Agree with all your points there, Frankymole; that's a good description of the show's pretty unique premise.
Reversing the polarity of the neutron flow. I bet that means something. It sounds great.

Blake's 7: Trojan Horse (s4 fanfic) - Blake's 7: Through the Needle's Eye (s2 fanfic)

Spaceship Dispatcher's fanfic site
 
peladon
trevor travis wrote:



But if you wish to continue to argue about that one, then I'll present a further example of Roj Blake - terrorist.

It actually occurs in a non-Federation episode, Mission To Destiny. It comes at the end. When Blake becomes judge, jury and executioner and decides to kill some people he's never even met - the accomplices of Sara (yes Sara is also killed, but that's accidental). Now these people are crooks, but then again Blake has no moral qualms to cavort around the galaxy in the presence of thieves and crooks.

And there was no need. The crew of both the Liberator and Ortega are both about to teleport off and return to Destiny at a speed which Sara's accomplices could never match. So they're not a threat.

It again shows how little Blake respects human life. And the needless destruction of a ship (the inhabitants of Destiny make have wished to recover it at some stage), plus taking human lives, is it an act of terrorism? I'd say so. And completely needless. Who is Blake actually trying to terrorise on this occasion? But he can't help himself.


I certainly agree that its a harsh and unnecessary act, though the people in question are not just thieves and crooks, they are people who will kill the crew of the Ortega (judged by Saras response to the shooting outside the control room), and who will consign the people of Destiny to starvation and possibly worse. They may also have stolen the ship. That aside I also agree that its almost certainly criminal, in this case either murder or manslaughter (probably the former), totally ruthless and unpleasent to 21st century eyes, but I never claimed Blake was spotless and would still dispute terrorist. Unless you consider all killing to be terrorist, though reading your comment again it would seem that that is what you are saying.

This incident is really strange, a very odd and discordant act in general, there is nothing leading up to it, no comment on it before, during or after and its totally inconsistent with Blake's attitude to life in the next episode, The Web and in several others where it is explictly referenced. It looks very much like an after thought - someone wanted at least one bang in the episode - but as canon evidence of Blake as terrorist, rather than just ruthless, I don't think it works.
 
Frankymole
Spaceship Dispatcher wrote:

peladon wrote:

The people Blake sees on the planet are Federation military forces, (security services is how it described in the script) so soldiers. If you see the killing of soldiers in the pursuit of a military act as murder, despite the fact that these soldiers would shoot Blake and Co without a second thought as the ‘enemy’, despite the fact that are supporting the structure and actions of the Federation State, then of course you will tend to see what Blake does as terrorist. Presumably if that is the case you will also tend to view any combatant killing another combatant as a similarly terrorist act, as they all result in the same personal loss (or you see something different in Blake as a combatant). However that is not the definition of terrorism held by any authority that I am aware of.

In response to the terms I have highlighted red: its not a military act since Blake is non-military, he's a civilian who's got hold of some guns; as you're so keen on proving things by canon, can you quote a line where Blake directly describes himself by the term 'military'? Or is that just a tag fans have given him as an alternative to other words? Therefore he's also not legally a combatant. Of course the guards would shoot him, he's attacking them! Note that it's also canon that Blake is the instigator of the fighting on Saurian Major and is therefore the aggresor in that instance.


But one could also argue that the Federation have declared war on Blake, so he is a military target. They're trying to kill him - not execution since his sentence was deportation, and in any case he hasn't been legally tried; the evidence was faked.

Like all the show, it's far from black and white. Wonderful to discuss, though.
 
peladon
Spaceship Dispatcher wrote:

[quote]peladon wrote:
s not a military act since Blake is non-military, he's a civilian who's got hold of some guns; as you're so keen on proving things by canon, can you quote a line where Blake directly describes himself by the term 'military'? Or is that just a tag fans have given him as an alternative to other words? Therefore he's also not legally a combatant. Of course the guards would shoot him, he's attacking them! Note that it's also canon that Blake is the instigator of the fighting on Saurian Major and is therefore the aggresor in that instance.


As I said before military is defined by the nature of something, not who is doing it. Cool A civilian can, and has, undertaken military actions across history. Of course he is a combatant, he has been given that role by the Federation, who are using military means to try and kill him, and he has accepted it. If he isn't a combatant why is the Supreme Commander in direct charge of his capture rather than simply assisting a civilian force? Why else would he be attacking the guards? If you take the view that all it needs for evil to prosper is for a good man to ignore it you could argue (I am not at this moment in timeSmile) that it would have been an immoral act not to engage the Federation when he came into possession of Liberator. But if your view is that Blake has to be a terrorist because he isn’t part of a formally recognised army, that you would see his acts differently if he had founded an army on Destiny, or joined the Lindor armed forces, then that’s fine- but it still doesn’t line up with the accepted defintion of terrorist.

As for ‘proving things by canon' – how else do you suggest that the nature of a character or event can be proved. Grin The 'real' character is as they are created, as they appear on the author’s page or the screen. A fanfic writer can chose to write the character differently and use the name, but they can’t claim their portrayal is that original character.

Blake doesn’t call himself military – but there isnt any point in canon where it would have been relevant for him to do so. That being the case we have to deduce by other things canon.

I don’t recall denying that Blake instigates some military action, he does indeed instigate the events of Saurian Major – after all given the Federations destruction of all the inhabitants, and quite how that has is down to an individual or has good intentions escapes me, there isn’t anyone else to do it. But the target and the objectives remain military, the issue would then be if they were proportionate or not.
 
Frankymole
peladon wrote:
As I said before military is defined by the nature of something, not who is doing it. Cool A civilian can, and has, undertaken military actions across history. Of course he is a combatant, he has been given that role by the Federation, who are using military means to try and kill him, and he has accepted it. If he isn't a combatant why is the Supreme Commander in direct charge of his capture rather than simply assisting a civilian force? Why else would he be attacking the guards? If you take the view that all it needs for evil to prosper is for a good man to ignore it you could argue (I am not at this moment in timeSmile) that it would have been an immoral act not to engage the Federation when he came into possession of Liberator. But if your view is that Blake has to be a terrorist because he isn’t part of a formally recognised army, that you would see his acts differently if he had founded an army on Destiny, or joined the Lindor armed forces, then that’s fine- but it still doesn’t line up with the accepted defintion of terrorist.


More a guerrilla. Or "resistance fighter" as the old VHS sleeves had it.

guer·ril·la

noun

noun: guerilla


A member of a small independent group taking part in irregular fighting, typically against larger regular forces.


Resistance: "armed or violent opposition.

"government forces were unable to crush guerrilla-style resistance"

Resistance fighter:

noun
someone who fights (for freedom, etc) against an invader in an occupied country, or against their government, etc, often secretly or illegally
 
Spaceship Dispatcher
peladon wrote:

As I said before military is defined by the nature of something, not who is doing it...

Where is that definition? Not all guns are military equipment for instance; personal handguns, such as are found in great quantity in the United States, are not regarded as military. If a private citizen gets hold of a gun and shoots someone that happens to belong to the army, that does not make them military personnel or legalise the attack.

...of course he is a combatant, he has been given that role by the Federation, who are using military means to try and kill him, and he has accepted it. If he isn't a combatant why is the Supreme Commander in direct charge of his capture rather than simply assisting a civilian force? Why else would he be attacking the guards?

The answer to both of your questions is the same: because he's an armed and dangerous criminal and terrorist.

...but it still doesn’t line up with the accepted defintion of terrorist.

Accepted by who? This is the definition of terrorist from Cambridge Online:

someone who uses violent action, or threats of violent action, for political purposes

You say this does not apply to Blake? He does use violent action and threats of same, and rebellion is political.

As for ‘proving things by canon' – how else do you suggest that the nature of a character or event can be proved. The 'real' character is as they are created, as they appear on the author’s page or the screen... Blake doesn’t call himself military – but there isnt any point in canon where it would have been relevant for him to do so. That being the case we have to deduce by other things canon.

So is canon only what is seen and stated or does it include deduction? This rule seems to change quite often. You dismiss what is on screen when TT presents clear, broadcast evidence; you say it isn't even necessary when asked to support your own claim that Blake counts as an independant military commander and therefore both a combatant and able to legally declare war on his entire civilsation with only one spaceship. Yet you say that all contrary arguments are non-canon and untrue, that Blake is a villain and that we might only see the worst of the Federation because that's the part that's relevant to the stories, because everything can't be proved on screen. All my deductions based on reasoning, in turn based on what we see while not specifically stated in dialogue, you either dismiss or ignore. So which way is it? Does deduction based on what we see require absolute statement on screen to be a valid interpretation of the series and characters or not?
Reversing the polarity of the neutron flow. I bet that means something. It sounds great.

Blake's 7: Trojan Horse (s4 fanfic) - Blake's 7: Through the Needle's Eye (s2 fanfic)

Spaceship Dispatcher's fanfic site
 
mrsbookmark
I'm relatively new to the B7 universe. Watched the episodes all through twice and now a new rewatch. But...the first I watched the series the thing that made the biggest impact was the character of Blake as a revolutionary and the cost to himself and those around him. I'm aging myself, butback in my college days I majored in history and one of my profs was really into all the revolutions going on in Latin America and all the rhetoric about planned socialism,etc. Most of those groups that he waxed poetic and heroic about then are pretty much just drug cartels now. The idealist have long sense gone or changed sides. When I saw Blakc, for some reason, I saw those types of characters. And that's why I was struck by the show. I wonder if it's sort of inevitable that 'revolution' will eventually go awry. Can you really have one? I think that Federation was a corrupt government that Blake fought against- but could he ever really expect to win? Was theFederation always corrupt? Could you really expect anything better? I love watching the Series because I love that mix of questions. I think differently each time I watch episodes.
 
meegat39
mrsbookmark wrote:

I'm relatively new to the B7 universe. Watched the episodes all through twice and now a new rewatch. But...the first I watched the series the thing that made the biggest impact was the character of Blake as a revolutionary and the cost to himself and those around him. I'm aging myself, butback in my college days I majored in history and one of my profs was really into all the revolutions going on in Latin America and all the rhetoric about planned socialism,etc. Most of those groups that he waxed poetic and heroic about then are pretty much just drug cartels now. The idealist have long sense gone or changed sides. When I saw Blakc, for some reason, I saw those types of characters. And that's why I was struck by the show. I wonder if it's sort of inevitable that 'revolution' will eventually go awry. Can you really have one? I think that Federation was a corrupt government that Blake fought against- but could he ever really expect to win? Was theFederation always corrupt? Could you really expect anything better? I love watching the Series because I love that mix of questions. I think differently each time I watch episodes.


It's great to get your point of view - from someone who has studied this type of scenario. I quite often find myself wishing I was more educated. Your questions at the end of your post are spot on. More please!! Grin
"If you didn't want the answer, you shouldn't have asked the question."
 
Spaceship Dispatcher
mrsbookmark wrote:

I'm relatively new to the B7 universe. Watched the episodes all through twice and now a new rewatch...
*snip*
...I think differently each time I watch episodes.

Thanks for joining in and sharing your thoughts on this, mrsbookmark; please do let us know what you think about Blake and his actions after your third time around the episodes!
Reversing the polarity of the neutron flow. I bet that means something. It sounds great.

Blake's 7: Trojan Horse (s4 fanfic) - Blake's 7: Through the Needle's Eye (s2 fanfic)

Spaceship Dispatcher's fanfic site
 
trevor travis
mrsbookmark wrote:

I'm relatively new to the B7 universe. Watched the episodes all through twice and now a new rewatch. But...the first I watched the series the thing that made the biggest impact was the character of Blake as a revolutionary and the cost to himself and those around him. I'm aging myself, butback in my college days I majored in history and one of my profs was really into all the revolutions going on in Latin America and all the rhetoric about planned socialism,etc. Most of those groups that he waxed poetic and heroic about then are pretty much just drug cartels now. The idealist have long sense gone or changed sides. When I saw Blakc, for some reason, I saw those types of characters. And that's why I was struck by the show. I wonder if it's sort of inevitable that 'revolution' will eventually go awry. Can you really have one? I think that Federation was a corrupt government that Blake fought against- but could he ever really expect to win? Was theFederation always corrupt? Could you really expect anything better? I love watching the Series because I love that mix of questions. I think differently each time I watch episodes.


Welcome aboard mrsbookmark. Intriguing to read your thoughts.

It’s true that we do see a corrupt Administration in “The Way Back”, and that’s what Blake is fighting, and has every to fight, the people who drugged and brainwashed him. But then, as we see his fight progress, it does start to raise so many questions, whether Blake is attacking the right people within the Federation (it’s odd he never really targets Earth Administration, who he has the beef with), and whether his whole motivation gets lost along the way, and whether he’s just as bad as who he is fighting against.

And I like we’re left to come to so many of the conclusions ourselves. We’re just shown glimpses of the Federation, from which we have to deduce whether the whole thing is an evil empire, or whether, actually, there’s a lot of decent people who work for the Federation. And yes how did it come to be in the first place? Humankind has clearly been through several disasters. Was the Federation their salvation? Did it give people their food and drink and warmth and clothing? And would Blake be able to provide people with the same as he was in charge?

Has Avon actually got the right idea (looking after No 1 and to survive), even though he tends to carry it out very badly, and ends up ruining his life and that of his acquaintances.

Interested to see how your thoughts develop as you watch the episodes again.
 
Spaceship Dispatcher
trevor travis wrote:

We’re just shown glimpses of the Federation, from which we have to deduce whether... there’s a lot of decent people who work for the Federation. And yes how did it come to be in the first place? Humankind has clearly been through several disasters. Was the Federation their salvation? Did it give people their food and drink and warmth and clothing? And would Blake be able to provide people with the same as he was in charge?

That's very much my take on the Second Calendar, and no I don't believe Blake has anything material to offer.

Has Avon actually got the right idea (looking after No 1 and to survive), even though he tends to carry it out very badly, and ends up ruining his life and that of his acquaintances.

It only goes wrong when he lets go of his own philosophies and tries to follow Blake as a 'leader of the rebellion'...
Reversing the polarity of the neutron flow. I bet that means something. It sounds great.

Blake's 7: Trojan Horse (s4 fanfic) - Blake's 7: Through the Needle's Eye (s2 fanfic)

Spaceship Dispatcher's fanfic site
 
Jump to Forum:
Orac rendered this page in 1.36 seconds
9,833,542 unique visits since 8th January 2014