Exposed

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

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...

"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.

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 world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com

----- 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

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]

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

>"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

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

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:

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

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!

----- 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

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]