FLM films - My Webpage

1999-07-26 00:00:00 - Inconsistent Michael - (Terri Tattan <territ@ibm.net>)


Really enjoyed the corporate powerplays in "All Good Things." I think the Oversight vs. Mad/Ops angle is an exciting twist. Something is bothering me about Michael's character, though. In this episode, we are lead to believe that Michael can be ambitious and risk-taking. Obviously, it's EXTREMELY dangerous to disobey a direct order from Ops, especially since it was made clear that he would only be away temporarily. Yet, when Michael talks to others (or rather, responds blandly to their questions), he gets this half-dazed look on this face, then starts casting his gaze all over the room. Most of the time, he'll look anywhere except AT the person he is speaking with. Isn't this behaviour very non-characteristic for an ambitious, goal-oriented type? We never see Ops gaze around the room like he's not paying attention. He stares right at the person he is talking to (shouting at). I liked the idea of Michael taking on the Siamese twins head-to-head. But if the character, Michael, is going to be convincing as a threat to their power, he need to be more of a hard man with his current superiors. The "Is there a satisfactory answer ... then why ask the question?" line was great stuff, but it could have been delivered more effectively. (NOTE: This is NOT a slam of Roy Dupuis; he's surely acting it the way it is written.) Anyone else notice this? Terri

1999-07-26 00:00:00 - Re: Inconsistent Michael - (jryan <jryan@infinet.com>)


Yes I have noticed it. When he does it to Nikita, I think it's a way of avoiding her questions. I'm not sure. It just seems that way. As far as Ops, I don't know why he didn't look at him. Now I kinda got a little spoiler. So don't look if you don't wanna. Spoiler space. Mostly, I'M CONFUSED!!! And from what I hear about the upcoming ep, I'M EVEN MORE CONFUSED!! Is this stripping of power from Michael necessary? It says that they are stripping Michael of his status and bringing him waaaay down the ladder. I don't get it. AGH! Is it serious?? I hope it isn't. That's too unfair! Oh, I'm sooo mad if it is. Jess Terri Tattan <territ@ibm.net> wrote in message news:379CB5D9.7FFF@ibm.net... > Really enjoyed the corporate powerplays in "All Good Things." I think > the Oversight vs. Mad/Ops angle is an exciting twist. > > Something is bothering me about Michael's character, though. In this > episode, we are lead to believe that Michael can be ambitious and > risk-taking. Obviously, it's EXTREMELY dangerous to disobey a direct > order from Ops, especially since it was made clear that he would only be > away temporarily. > > Yet, when Michael talks to others (or rather, responds blandly to their > questions), he gets this half-dazed look on this face, then starts > casting his gaze all over the room. Most of the time, he'll look > anywhere except AT the person he is speaking with. Isn't this behaviour > very non-characteristic for an ambitious, goal-oriented type? We never > see Ops gaze around the room like he's not paying attention. He stares > right at the person he is talking to (shouting at). > > I liked the idea of Michael taking on the Siamese twins head-to-head. > But if the character, Michael, is going to be convincing as a threat to > their power, he need to be more of a hard man with his current > superiors. The "Is there a satisfactory answer ... then why ask the > question?" line was great stuff, but it could have been delivered more > effectively. (NOTE: This is NOT a slam of Roy Dupuis; he's surely acting > it the way it is written.) > > Anyone else notice this? > > Terri

1999-07-26 00:00:00 - Re: Inconsistent Michael - (Chris Touhey <ctouhey@CUTonramp.net>)


Terri Tattan wrote: > [snip] > > Yet, when Michael talks to others (or rather, responds blandly to their > questions), he gets this half-dazed look on this face, then starts > casting his gaze all over the room. Most of the time, he'll look > anywhere except AT the person he is speaking with. Isn't this behaviour > very non-characteristic for an ambitious, goal-oriented type? We never > see Ops gaze around the room like he's not paying attention. He stares > right at the person he is talking to (shouting at). > > [snip] > Anyone else notice this? > > Terri Yes, Terri, I've noticed it since Season One. But the part you left out is when he makes direct eye contact at the end of his statement. This could be an effective way to punctuate communication, if it were not so predictable on his part. He holds eye contact when being spoken to, begins to look away as he answers, and usually finishes by reengaging eye contact and holding it. He does this with Nikita, Maddy, Ops, -- probably even does it with Louise (Section's cleaning lady). If the character maintained eye contact most of the time and used the "look away, look back" technique to reinforce a message, I think the effect could be chilling. Chris

1999-07-26 00:00:00 - Re: Inconsistent Michael - (Lynn Goodrich <goodrich@flash.net>)


Terri Tattan wrote: > Really enjoyed the corporate powerplays in "All Good Things." I think > the Oversight vs. Mad/Ops angle is an exciting twist. > > Something is bothering me about Michael's character, though. In this > episode, we are lead to believe that Michael can be ambitious and > risk-taking. Obviously, it's EXTREMELY dangerous to disobey a direct > order from Ops, especially since it was made clear that he would only be > away temporarily. > > Yet, when Michael talks to others (or rather, responds blandly to their > questions), he gets this half-dazed look on this face, then starts > casting his gaze all over the room. Most of the time, he'll look > anywhere except AT the person he is speaking with. Isn't this behaviour > very non-characteristic for an ambitious, goal-oriented type? We never > see Ops gaze around the room like he's not paying attention. He stares > right at the person he is talking to (shouting at). That's why Ops is not hard to read. We know where he is coming from. He is blatantly power hungry and ego-centric. Michael is much harder to read - on purpose. He doesn't want anyone to know what's going on with him. Then he has the element of surprise. Remember that Ops and Maddie both were surprised by Michael in AGT. > > > I liked the idea of Michael taking on the Siamese twins head-to-head. > But if the character, Michael, is going to be convincing as a threat to > their power, he need to be more of a hard man with his current > superiors. The "Is there a satisfactory answer ... then why ask the > question?" line was great stuff, but it could have been delivered more > effectively. (NOTE: This is NOT a slam of Roy Dupuis; he's surely acting > it the way it is written.) It would have been out of character to me if Michael had said anything with a lot of force. He is the epitome of talk softly and carry a big stick (to paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt). He is rather like a serpent you don't hear or see until it's way too late. Lynn G. > > > Anyone else notice this? > > Terri

1999-07-26 00:00:00 - Re: Inconsistent Michael - (Lynn Goodrich <goodrich@flash.net>)


jryan wrote: > Yes I have noticed it. > > When he does it to Nikita, I think it's a way of avoiding her questions. > I'm not sure. It just seems that way. > > As far as Ops, I don't know why he didn't look at him. > > Now I kinda got a little spoiler. So don't look if you don't wanna. > > Spoiler space. > > Mostly, I'M CONFUSED!!! And from what I hear about the upcoming ep, I'M EVEN > MORE CONFUSED!! Is this stripping of power from Michael necessary? It says > that they are stripping Michael of his status and bringing him waaaay down > the ladder. I don't get it. AGH! Is it serious?? I hope it isn't. That's > too unfair! Oh, I'm sooo mad if it is. > > Jess Don't forget what Birkoff said about the position of Operations - there is no right or wrong, he can do anything he wants to. Lynn G.

1999-07-27 00:00:00 - Re: Inconsistent Michael - (nicole5682@aol.com5604N)


>Subject: Re: Inconsistent Michael >From: Lynn Goodrich goodrich@flash.net >Date: Mon, 26 July 1999 07:57 PM EDT >Message-id: <379CF680.2303DFBC@flash.net> > >That's why Ops is not hard to read. We know where he is coming from. He is blatantly power hungry and ego-centric. Michael is much harder to read - on purpose. He doesn't want anyone to know what's going on with him. Then he has the element of surprise. > >> Completely agree with your analysis. The fact that he outwardly reacts the same way to everything makes it virtually impossible to tell what he's really thinking.