While I enjoyed this episode, I have always thought
that the scene where Straker continuously directs the "fan" at Foster was a little odd. I have often wondered why he, (or the script writers for the matter), did that. The only thing I can think of was that Straker was trying to "psych" Foster out. . . Anyone care to elaborate on why he did this? Jason Sweet __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com |
I really like this episode, but it always makes me wonder what hoops they
jumped through to get the other operatives at SHADO. I wonder how much of the attempted cover-up in this episode is deflection of Paul or an intent to snare his curiosity so his potential in SHADO can be determined? I agree with David Levine about Paul's proclivity for disobeying orders making his credibility questionable. Why did Straker seem to accept this in him? Mary |
In reply to this post by jason sweet
Marc wrote: "P.S. If we do continue, the current episode up for discussion
is EXPOSED, and there's a week left for this episode." I'd like to continue the ExE but like you say more participants are needed. I really liked the episode when I saw it the first time as a teen, and still like it now that I've seen it again on DVD. But... I guess it's post 90's and X-FILES cynicism, but the ease with which SHADO executed "Project Foster" sort of bugged me. Straker as the "Cigar Smoking Man" orchestrating every last detail, having Foster beat up and wielding the power of life and death? Granted it was a product of its times (and SHADO certainly had the highest goals in mind and an extremely honor and duty-bound leader to boot) but in retrospect, I wish Foster had thrown them a curve intstead of being so predictable for SHADO operatives. Just my opinion... |
Hi All :)
Sorry if this one's off current UFO episode topic, (I've just returned from vacation...) but here goes: I was just watching (er re-watching for the umpteenth time) 'Identified', and it occurred to me that the security briefcase Straker has strapped so securely to his wrist isn't all that clever as after he asks the minister to return the documents, you clearly see Straker actuate the Destruct Interlock on the briefcase, and yet after the crash the interlock is clearly set to non-destruct, thus nullifying its operation. This I presume happened as a result of the accident. It would have been a requirement that in the case of stress-induced impact (indistinguishable from an attempted forced opening) the case should have exploded! This design flaw would never be tolerated in the real world by the security services! Also, the case becomes detached as the chain (previously secured to Straker wrist) breaks. I know from personal experience that "however dreadful the thought" it would have been Straker's wrist that would have come adrift first - In the real world those chains or diplomatic security bags just don't break, and would have to be industrially cut or torched in order to become detached. There is a design specification tolerance for security chains and mountings for diplomatic bags (certainly US and UK issue) that states the chain or high-tensile cable have to have a breaking tolerance of several tons! Sorry if I sound like I'm in 'anorak' mode, but I thought I'd just mention it - normally I 'hate' nitpicking (I love UFO as much for its vulnerabilities as its spectacular strengths :)... but, accuracy 'is' accuracy... Best to all :) Griff |
Mmm... I think I tripped over my own use of English in my previous email..
snip ---------------- ...I know from personal experience that "however dreadful the thought" it would have been Straker's wrist that would have come adrift first - In the real world those chains or diplomatic security bags just don't break..... snip ---------------- By personal experience, I didn't mean that my wrist has come adrift... ugh! ...I meant, I have some knowledge of incidents with these diplomatic bags - and I have to say they are NOT popular at all - no self-respecting terrorist would have any compunction in 'doing away' or dispensing with any offending hand, wrist or extremity of the bearers of the said cases... don't think about it... it's really happened... Best to all :) Griff ps. Hope none of you were eating whilst reading this... |
In reply to this post by Griff!
"Griff" wrote:
> By personal experience, I didn't mean that my wrist has come > adrift... ugh! ...I meant, I have some knowledge of incidents > with these diplomatic bags - and I have to say they are NOT > popular at all - no self-respecting terrorist would have any > compunction in 'doing away' or dispensing with any offending > hand, wrist or extremity of the bearers of the said cases... > don't think about it... it's really happened... > I can imagine .. I've heard of people having their hands chopped off by thieves in the pursuit of gold Rolexes in Macau, and I'm sure they come off a lot more easily than security chains. |
In reply to this post by jason sweet
Mary wrote:
>I really like this episode, but it always makes me wonder what hoops they >jumped through to get the other operatives at SHADO. I wonder how much of >the attempted cover-up in this episode is deflection of Paul or an intent >to >snare his curiosity so his potential in SHADO can be determined? I agree >with David Levine about Paul's proclivity for disobeying orders making his >credibility questionable. Why did Straker seem to accept this in him? According to Michael Billington, it was because the character of Straker was secretly in love with Foster. But looking at things realistically, Straker probably saw Foster's insubordination as determination, a trait he himself had in abundance. Yours, Denise _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
Straker, somehow it's always about you.
|
----- Original Message -----
From: "Denise Felt" <[hidden email]> To: <[hidden email]> Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 11:22 AM Subject: Re: [SHADO] EXPOSED <snip> > > According to Michael Billington, it was because the character of Straker was > secretly in love with Foster. Really? :) I think at a recent Con or something, Michael mentions something about the Straker/Foster relationship (I think there was a snippet here on SHADO?) but I thought it was done in jest. Did Billington really think that about the characters? If so, was this a modern idea or something he could see in the scripts back in the '70s? > But looking at things realistically, Straker > probably saw Foster's insubordination as determination, a trait he himself > had in abundance. > Yours, > Denise |
In reply to this post by jason sweet
I think Michael has been pulling everyones leg over this thing about
Straker having a secret romantic interest in Foster. Mike has always seem rather put out that from all the stuff he has done that it is UFO that he is most remember for. So perhaps this is his way of sticking it to fans who are too caught up in things and take everything "WAY" too serious! imho James K. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
In reply to this post by jason sweet
Denise wrote:
According to Michael Billington, it was because the character of Straker was secretly in love with Foster. But looking at things realistically, Straker probably saw Foster's insubordination as determination, a trait he himself had in abundance. This is an interesting thought. I hadn't heard it before now, but I guess it's possible. Given the time of the series run, I can understand that they couldn't really be obvious about such a relationship---if there was an intended relationship--but wouldn't you think there'd be a teaser or two just to get the audience excited, frustrated, curious, etc? Mary |
In reply to this post by jason sweet
>"Anthony D" asked:
>Really? :) > >I think at a recent Con or something, Michael mentions something about the >Straker/Foster relationship (I think there was a snippet here on SHADO?) >but I >thought it was done in jest. Did Billington really think that about the >characters? If so, was this a modern idea or something he could see in the >scripts back in the '70s? I think he answered an interviewer's question concerning this sometime in the 70's. And he holds to his original opinion even now. Whether in jest or not, he hasn't changed his mind. No one else, of course, will collaborate his viewpoint. Denise _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Straker, somehow it's always about you.
|
In reply to this post by jason sweet
Paul Foster is the living, breathing, human heart of
'UFO' and 'Exposed' is a great episode because it introduces his character to the 'UFO' audience. Just think how boring 'UFO' would've been without Paul Foster ... it would've just been Straker surrounded by a bunch of 'yes' men! In reality, an organisation like SHADO wouldn't employ someone like Paul Foster. 'UFO', however, is a TV series and good TV series require tension and drama between the characters to make them essential viewing and this is where Paul Foster is crucial. Foster is a 'wild card', a little bit foolhardy and headstrong at times but someone who acts on a hunch when something is wrong and goes against SHADO's strict, disciplinarian protocol. He doesn't break the rules, he bends them to get the right result. Neil __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com |
In reply to this post by SumitonJD
Well I have to totally agree with James on this.
And as Mary pointed out, there was never an inkling. I have watched the UFO series through numerous times and the notion of any romantic feelings that Straker had for Foster has *never* raised itself in my mind. Neither of them are gay or reveal any gay tendencies. It's a load of rubbish!! (imho) But hey... it has certainly generated some conversation, so it's not all bad :O) Jaime http://jaime.net On Friday, October 4, 2002, at 02:24 AM, [hidden email] wrote: > I think Michael has been pulling everyones leg over this thing > about > Straker having a secret romantic interest in Foster. Mike has always > seem > rather put out that from all the stuff he has done that it is UFO that > he is > most remember for. So perhaps this is his way of sticking it to fans > who are > too caught up in things and take everything "WAY" too serious! > > imho > James K. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
In reply to this post by Neil May
Neil's comments are right on the money! I see Foster as UFO's answer to Kirk
in TOS or Riker in TNG - Foster puts the word action in action-adventure! Yay Foster! I also have to weigh in on the gay issue some people bring up between Foster and Straker - I think Mike B. was pulling everyone's leg about it (he has that option 32 yrs later) and I personally never saw any evidence of it in any of the eps I saw. I've carefully watched the eps I have on tape here and none of them suggest any gay themes at all - no matter who. Any gay situs are purely from the brains of the slash writers. Pam > Paul Foster is the living, breathing, human heart of > 'UFO' and 'Exposed' is a great episode because it > introduces his character to the 'UFO' audience. Just > think how boring 'UFO' would've been without Paul > Foster ... it would've just been Straker surrounded by > a bunch of 'yes' men! |
In reply to this post by Griff!
----- Original Message ----- From: "Griff" <[hidden email]> > Mmm... I think I tripped over my own use of English in my previous email.. > > snip ---------------- > > ...I know from personal experience that "however dreadful the thought" it > would have been Straker's wrist that would have come adrift first - In the > real world those chains or diplomatic security bags just don't break..... Interesting. I wonder if they were that efficient back in the 70's, when that ep's story was happening... --Anny |
In reply to this post by Griff!
I believe if I remember correctly from what I read at the time from
one of the leading makers of handcuffs and restraints and other items of that type that the cuff and chain of those sercurity cases were very solid. For that reason and the one mentioned about the easiest way to get one off was not to remove the cuff but the hand of the person wearing it that for the safety of the officer carrying the case that perhaps the case Straker had was set up so that the cuff and chain holding it to the case could be cut but doing his would activate a time delay and this would destroy the contents of the case. Then when the crash happen when Straker was thrown clear of the Rolls the door closed shearing the chain and activating the destrust of the file and photos. Just my thinking on how it happened anyway. James K. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |