Administrator
|
Hi all,
Just to let you know, I am moderating/deleting some of these messages about parallel universes, as they no longer seem to be particularly relevant for a group that is supposed to be about Gerry Anderson's "UFO". So did anyone get a chance to read the original script for MINDBENDER? Any comments? Marc |
A few...
I read through it, and then ran a few seconds, sometimes a scene, and compared as I went. I wonder why the name change, change from all cowboys to *banditos*, only a single POV switch in the initial confrontation... There are some substantial changes. Apparently a few people felt the script wasn't well thought out initially. Any history, or other notes or afterwards? I'd love to have some thoughts from the writers and Gerry... On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Marc Martin <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > Just to let you know, I am moderating/deleting some of these messages about > parallel universes, as they no longer seem to be particularly relevant for a > group that is supposed to be about Gerry Anderson's "UFO". > > So did anyone get a chance to read the original script for MINDBENDER? Any > comments? > > Marc > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
Administrator
|
> Any history, or other notes or afterwards? I'd love to have some
> thoughts from the writers and Gerry... The director (Ken Turner) said that he thought the script needed improvement, although I felt that the script is basically the same as the episode. If you do a direct comparison between the script and the episode, there are lots of little changes throughout, with things added, subtracted, changed, re-ordered, but overall in the "big picture" it is still basically the same I think. The copy of the script that I got from Paolo did have some extra revision pages, but these simply changed the script to be more like the episode (e.g. Straker refused script approval for Howard Byrne) Marc |
In reply to this post by Marc Martin
--- In [hidden email], "Marc Martin" <marc@...> wrote:
> > Hi all, > > Just to let you know, I am moderating/deleting some of these > messages about parallel universes, as they no longer seem > to be particularly relevant for a group that is supposed > to be about Gerry Anderson's "UFO". > > So did anyone get a chance to read the original script > for MINDBENDER? Any comments? > > Marc > I believe Mindbender was the UFO Episode about the Radio-Active Asteroid...In which Individuals were being Exposed on different Trace and or Series Parallel Levels... Past Lives et cetera... Under the Influence... Taken over... By some Unknown UFO Treat... Straker... I always picture his name spelled with a Wye... Stryker... Over comes the Side Effects... Warns SHADO... Pat!!! P.S. Mainly there are many Side Tracks... Cross Roads... Derails here at this Situation... Which all Branch into other Avenues... Pat!!! |
In reply to this post by Marc Martin
Hi Marc,
I have a question, and please please don't think I am being picky here. I am just really curious. In your transcription of the Mindbender script (...and thanks again ever sofor taking the time and trouble), it states: "MINDBENDER" by Tony Barwich Is Barwich a typo in the original script, or is it of more recent origin (if I can put it that way)... Thanks, Griff --- In [hidden email], "Marc Martin" <marc@...> wrote: > > Hi all, > > Just to let you know, I am moderating/deleting some of these > messages about parallel universes, as they no longer seem > to be particularly relevant for a group that is supposed > to be about Gerry Anderson's "UFO". > > So did anyone get a chance to read the original script > for MINDBENDER? Any comments? > > Marc > |
Administrator
|
> "MINDBENDER"
> > by > > Tony Barwich > > Is Barwich a typo in the original script, or is it of more recent origin > (if I can put it that way)... That typo was in the original script. I'm sure that I did introduce my own typos into the transcription, but that's not one of them... :-) I did make one proofreading pass on my transcription, but I'm sure that it would take several passes to make sure everything is exactly the same as the original. As it stands now, it is probably 99.99% correct. :-) Marc |
Hi Marc,
Thanks for clearing that up. I'm sure making UFO was at some times a fraught and unbelievably busy time and process. I just found it amazing that either no one noticed this at thetime, or just let it pass... I know there were no word-processors to speak of at the time, mostly typewriters and carbon paper. So copying scripts (I remember the old 'copy' machines when I was at school near the same time...) for all the participants must have been a very time consuming and costly process. So, I guess making anew front/header page for one typo would have been a big issue. Also, having once met Tony Barwick (a really nice, genuine and jovial man) he probably would have just laughed it off... ...unless no one noticed it... Ideas/comments... Griff --- In [hidden email], "Marc Martin" <marc@...> wrote: That typo was in the original script. I'm sure that I did introduce my own > typos into the transcription, but that's not one of them... :-) > > I did make one proofreading pass on my transcription, but I'm sure that it > would take several passes to make sure everything is exactly the same as > the original. As it stands now, it is probably 99.99% correct. :-) > > Marc > |
Hi All,
I suppose while thinking about this subject, it's very easy to forget just how easy we all have things today: - Perfect prints on demand - WYSIWYG - Dynamic spell and grammar checking - Multiple language option - Personal printers, colour printing, multiple copies - Instantaneous Secure Document collaboration over the web - etc. etc. Hardly any of these existed when I did my college exams, and some of these were only just starting when I was at University (I did my first using WordStar and SpellStar) running under CPM... Yes, we certainly have it easier today... BTW, I've always wondered what word processor Miss Ealand is using? Maybe with Gerry's foresight, it had an LCD display like some of the later digitaltypewriters in the middle 80's... Mmm.. just about the right time to be real for UFO. Maybe Gerry knew more than he is letting on? Best to all :) Griff |
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Griff
> I'm sure making UFO was at some times a fraught and unbelievably busy
> time and process. I just found it amazing that either no one noticed this > at the time, or just let it pass... There are actually quite a few typos in the original MINDBENDER script, but I agree that this one does stand out... having seen a lot of these scripts, I think they just used "white-out" on the minor errors that they judged worth correcting. But I'm sure this was done in somewhat of a rush, having to film a new episode every 10 days... Marc |
In reply to this post by Griff
Writing a weekly science fiction show can be daunting. There is a story about one of the Star Trek directors like to tell. How he was so pissed with Roddenberry rewriting a story while the show was being filmed, that he stood over Roddenberry while he typed. That is, he stood on the table with the typewriter between his legs. :)
Bruce ----- Original Message ----- From: Griff Wason To: [hidden email] Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 4:54 PM Subject: [SHADO] Re: Mindbender Script Hi Marc, Thanks for clearing that up. I'm sure making UFO was at some times a fraught and unbelievably busy time and process. I just found it amazing that either no one noticed this at the time, or just let it pass... I know there were no word-processors to speak of at the time, mostly typewriters and carbon paper. So copying scripts (I remember the old 'copy' machines when I was at school near the same time...) for all the participants must have been a very time consuming and costly process. So, I guess making a new front/header page for one typo would have been a big issue. Also, having once met Tony Barwick (a really nice, genuine and jovial man) he probably would have just laughed it off... ...unless no one noticed it... Ideas/comments... Griff --- In [hidden email], "Marc Martin" <marc@...> wrote: That typo was in the original script. I'm sure that I did introduce my own > typos into the transcription, but that's not one of them... :-) > > I did make one proofreading pass on my transcription, but I'm sure that it > would take several passes to make sure everything is exactly the same as > the original. As it stands now, it is probably 99.99% correct. :-) > > Marc > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
presents a rather gay image.... ---------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce Sherman To: [hidden email] Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 7:33 PM Subject: Re: [SHADO] Re: Mindbender Script Writing a weekly science fiction show can be daunting. There is a story about one of the Star Trek directors like to tell. How he was so pissed with Roddenberry rewriting a story while the show was being filmed, that he stood over Roddenberry while he typed. That is, he stood on the table with the typewriter between his legs. :) Bruce ----- Original Message ----- From: Griff Wason To: [hidden email] Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 4:54 PM Subject: [SHADO] Re: Mindbender Script Hi Marc, Thanks for clearing that up. I'm sure making UFO was at some times a fraught and unbelievably busy time and process. I just found it amazing that either no one noticed this at the time, or just let it pass... I know there were no word-processors to speak of at the time, mostly typewriters and carbon paper. So copying scripts (I remember the old 'copy' machines when I was at school near the same time...) for all the participants must have been a very time consuming and costly process. So, I guess making a new front/header page for one typo would have been a big issue. Also, having once met Tony Barwick (a really nice, genuine and jovial man) he probably would have just laughed it off... ...unless no one noticed it... Ideas/comments... Griff --- In [hidden email], "Marc Martin" <marc@...> wrote: That typo was in the original script. I'm sure that I did introduce my own > typos into the transcription, but that's not one of them... :-) > > I did make one proofreading pass on my transcription, but I'm sure that it > would take several passes to make sure everything is exactly the same as > the original. As it stands now, it is probably 99.99% correct. :-) > > Marc > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.12.11/2089 - Release Date: 4/30/2009 5:53 PM [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |