FLM films - My Webpage

1998-10-06 00:00:00 - Re: The RING - (cins1@aol.com)


well the ring was defenetly there whe he was talking to operations.. the other times it was really hard to see even if you did the pause button .. they never quite show all of his fingerssssssssssssssss .........well at this point we can only wait and see and hope that its all part of a mission he was working on.. ........ ~cin

1998-10-06 00:00:00 - Re: The RING - (va_linda@my-dejanews.com)


> well the ring was defenetly there whe he was talking to operations.. the other > times it was really hard to see even if you did the pause button .. they never > quite show all of his fingerssssssssssssssss .........well at this point we can > only wait and see and hope that its all part of a mission he was working on.. > ........ > ~cin If he has been married all along why all the sudden would he show up with a ring on? Also this just doesn't scare me because we have been reassured many times by Chris Hyen and TPTB that they would not do anything to upset a large portion of the viewers. va -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

1998-10-06 00:00:00 - Re: The RING - (pianolds1@aol.com)


I suppose it's too much to ask that Michael was wearing the ring to complete his clothing ensemble??? Gail

1998-10-06 00:00:00 - Re: The RING - (lafemme99@aol.com)


i definetly agree, this ring thing is driving me nuts, but i will take it as it comes, i am trying to have faith in the writers that they can pull this off without disappointing us too much. did thay throw that ring in to give as u clue about things to come or was it just a faux pa. . unfortunately i think it was a clue yuck yuck jen

1998-10-06 00:00:00 - Re: The RING - (catknsn@aol.com)


>Also this just doesn't scare me because we have been reassured many >times by Chris Hyen and TPTB that they would not do anything to upset a large >portion of the viewers. ITA. I think they'll give us all kinds of twisty, turning storylines but they know better than to really warp everything we believe about a major character, and make us view that person in a vastly more negative light. That would simply not make sense, because fans tend to stop watching when you practice character assassination, and even the most successful cable show cannot afford a mass exodus of angry fans. Everytime you get scared about what might happen, remember the simple principle that TPTB at LFN are not producing this show out of some desire to manipulate and torture us :-). They're doing this to make money. They are too smart to do something that will make a large portion of fans flip the channel/deprogram the VCR. Cathy

1998-10-06 00:00:00 - Re: The RING - (Siobhan <emmyr@home.com>)


Okay, so I did have a bizzare dream lastnite after watching EG so many times. I was running around as a operative and i was trying to hunt down the ring. But everyone spoke french and i couldn't understand a thing. to make it worse i was given this gun to use and some how it had been tampered with so that it wouldn't shut up and shoot. It kept talking? to me - in french. Siobhan Lafemme99 wrote in message <19981006123739.04966.00004803@ng132.aol.com>... > >i definetly agree, this ring thing is driving me nuts, but i will take it as it >comes, i am trying to have faith in the writers that they can pull this off >without disappointing us too much. did thay throw that ring in to give as u >clue about things to come or was it just a faux pa. . unfortunately i think it >was a clue yuck yuck >jen

1998-10-06 00:00:00 - Re: The RING - (granvia@aol.com)


ROFLMAO! You are so right, Gail. Hey, I'm not married, but I do wear rings, in any finger I like -- even a diamond, which is a remnant from a pair of earrings. Besides, as I had said before, Michael, married with children was to be a subplot in End Game, but Joel Sarnow nixed the idea. So the ring was there for a purpose that was not used. Now . . . whether they have decided to use it as the start of Season Three . . . . G > remains to be seen " Michael is the moon to Nikita's tide." gvd

1998-10-06 00:00:00 - Re: The RING - (pianolds1@aol.com)


Oh the horror of it all! I'm surprised you're not in counseling (or at least learning to speak French)!!!! Gail

1998-10-06 00:00:00 - The RING - (Siobhan <emmyr@home.com>)


okay, so after reading all the gossip about the ring, I've become intrigued, and slightly anxious. After all it is Micheal, and life is confusing enough. I've just finished watching "End Game" three times. Micheal's hands are distinctly visible in only three scenes. The first time, I'm saddened to report I saw the ring. It was in the scene, about 11 minutes into the show(not including commercials), when Micheal and System Ops are reviewing the three operatives who didn't scan. It's right there, a huge chunky gold thing, that looks like its intent is to break teeth. The second time you can see his hands is when he roughs Nakita up, it's only about a fraction of a second you can see it, so keep your hand on the pause button. No ring - strike one for continuity. The third time Micheal's hands are visible is in the final "End Game" scene. Most of the time his hands are too unclear, except when he hands over the keys to Nakita's restraints. Even then they are not absolutely clear. However, if they used the same huge chunky gold ring there would have been some sort of denotation of colour, instead of just plain flesh tone. I think I'm going to have nightmares about this. - My finger hovering over the pause button, never able to get the VCR off of fast forward. Siobhan

1998-10-06 00:00:00 - Re: The RING - (lmartin826@aol.com)


I also heard the rumors and saw that big chunk of gold too!

1998-10-07 00:00:00 - Re: The RING - (ttboyles@aol.com)


I too saw the ring in EG. While a part of me is glad that TPTB nixed the original tag, I do think it would have been a great cliff-hanger to keep us all on the edge of our seats till Jan. I believe that the whole "married w/children" scenario would be strictly mission related, and I think too that they will explore this angle in season 3. It's just a feeling I have. Done right, this storyline could be interesting...at the end of which M & N could "have it out" and M could open up some to N, and we could learn more about what keeps M at a distance from N. Traci

1998-10-07 00:00:00 - Re: The RING - (catknsn@aol.com)


>The ring may have been there for a reason but after the "family" >scene was cut, the ring thing was allowed to slide...... >(they probably didn't even think about it).... Look at your Section picture, ladies and gents - the one the goatee men signed. Alberta is wearing a ring on her wedding ring finger too. Ooops. So much for that meaning anything. >Then get a good laugh at us trying to find deep hidden meanings in totally >ordinary things.... > Yep, as CH told us, they print out stuff from the net and take it in to Joel and we give him a good laugh every time! Cathy, glad she's amusing if nothing else :-)

1998-10-07 00:00:00 - Re: The RING - (rita7@pacbell.net)


> I do think it would have been a great cliff-hanger to keep us all >on the edge of our seats till Jan. I totally disagree. I would have been very disappointed had the writers decided to do that. I just found it too out of character for Michael and would have seen it as a cop-out way just to come up with a cliffhanger ending. I, for one, am very glad they decided not to go with a so-called cliffhanger. It seems that ever since JR was shot, every show seems to think they have to leave us hanging to keep us anxiously waiting for the new season. Not true. I'm waiting just as anxiously for season three as I was for season two. Rita "Love will build a bridge . . . . Hmm, wish it would build me a patio."

1998-10-07 00:00:00 - Re: The RING - (catknsn@aol.com)


>Besides, as I had said before, Michael, married with children was to be a >subplot in End Game, but Joel Sarnow nixed the idea. So the ring was there >for >a purpose that was not used. Exactly, perhaps some scenes had already been shot and were kept in. Taping is expensive and there'd be no reason to reshoot scenes if they were fine except for one character wearing a ring he wasn't supposed to be wearing. Cathy

1998-10-07 00:00:00 - Re: The RING - (Julie A Peronto <jperonto@bellsouth.net>)


So, Michael being married would be a NEW mission since he has not worn the ring before? Julie CATKNSN wrote: > >Besides, as I had said before, Michael, married with children was to be a > >subplot in End Game, but Joel Sarnow nixed the idea. So the ring was there > >for > >a purpose that was not used. > > Exactly, perhaps some scenes had already been shot and were kept in. Taping is > expensive and there'd be no reason to reshoot scenes if they were fine except > for one character wearing a ring he wasn't supposed to be wearing. > > Cathy

1998-10-07 00:00:00 - Re: The RING - (EZBunnieBopper <ELZBURNS@prodigy.net>)


That is it in a nutshell... The ring may have been there for a reason but after the "family" scene was cut, the ring thing was allowed to slide...... (they probably didn't even think about it).... I mean, WE (me especially) tend to look much closer and take things much more seriously than most of the LFN folks...... Then get a good laugh at us trying to find deep hidden meanings in totally ordinary things.... like the crack in the section floor..... Right, Mr. Bubbles? EZBee, Who finds a post from CH like a cold beer on a hot day.... Wanna go by Red Dog now? CATKNSN wrote in message <19981006234851.12821.00012963@ng67.aol.com>... > >>Besides, as I had said before, Michael, married with children was to be a >>subplot in End Game, but Joel Sarnow nixed the idea. So the ring was there >>for >>a purpose that was not used. > >Exactly, perhaps some scenes had already been shot and were kept in. Taping is >expensive and there'd be no reason to reshoot scenes if they were fine except >for one character wearing a ring he wasn't supposed to be wearing. > >Cathy

1998-10-08 00:00:00 - Re: The RING - (Suzita <SUGEO@worldnet.att.net>)


Remember level 8 (?) where they kept Armel's kid? Although I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about the use of kids to accomplish mission - end games, (this is Section, after all....reprehensible to a tee ;-)), this would be a reasonable source for children, if there are others in addition to Armel's kid. Suzita TTBOYLES wrote in message <19981007212121.10255.00007020@ng149.aol.com>... > >va writes: ><Traci I agree it could be interesting but I just don't see how they could >overcome the negative reaction if it involves children. Anyway you look at it >if children are involved for the mission or whatever it is reprehensible. Not >my idea of entertainment.> > >Ya know, I hadn't thought about it that way! You're right. The married part >could be usable IMO, but kids shouldn't be part of the equation. After all, >there are no children operatives! That just wouldn't fly. Thanks for the new >perspective! > >Traci >who, like Rita, is just as anxious for season 3 as she was for season 2!!!

1998-10-08 00:00:00 - Re: The RING - (ttboyles@aol.com)


va writes: <Traci I agree it could be interesting but I just don't see how they could overcome the negative reaction if it involves children. Anyway you look at it if children are involved for the mission or whatever it is reprehensible. Not my idea of entertainment.> Ya know, I hadn't thought about it that way! You're right. The married part could be usable IMO, but kids shouldn't be part of the equation. After all, there are no children operatives! That just wouldn't fly. Thanks for the new perspective! Traci who, like Rita, is just as anxious for season 3 as she was for season 2!!!

1998-10-08 00:00:00 - Re: The RING - (va_linda@my-dejanews.com)


> I too saw the ring in EG. While a part of me is glad that TPTB nixed the > original tag, I do think it would have been a great cliff-hanger to keep us all > on the edge of our seats till Jan. I believe that the whole "married > w/children" scenario would be strictly mission related, and I think too that > they will explore this angle in season 3. It's just a feeling I have. Done > right, this storyline could be interesting...at the end of which M & N could > "have it out" and M could open up some to N, and we could learn more about what > keeps M at a distance from N. > > Traci Traci I agree it could be interesting but I just don't see how they could overcome the negative reaction if it involves children. Anyway you look at it if children are involved for the mission or whatever it is reprehensible. Not my idea of entertainment. va > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

1998-10-09 00:00:00 - Re: The RING - (revans7877@aol.com)


Has anyone ever read the book " The ransom of red chief" how do you think section would have delt? A>A>M> " Were all stars now in the dope show."

1998-10-09 00:00:00 - Re: The RING - ("Colin L. Whipple" <colincpaNOSPAM@soca.com>)


REvans7877 wrote in message <19981009044707.12756.00008928@ng13.aol.com>... > >Has anyone ever read the book " The ransom of red chief" > >how do you think section would have delt? I thin we got the answer in the Fuzzy Logic ep, unfortunately. Colin

1998-10-09 00:00:00 - Re: The RING - (jencchs@aol.com)


>From: "Suzita" <SUGEO@worldnet.att.net> >Remember level 8 (?) where they kept Armel's kid? Although I don't have >strong feelings one way or the other about the use of kids to accomplish >mission - end games, (this is Section, after all....reprehensible to a tee >;-)), this would be a reasonable source for children, if there are others in addition to Armel's kid. > I was thinking the same thing. GMTA!!! The Zygoate, Jen ~~~~~~~~~ CCHS Alumni- Class of '98 Go WCU Catamounts!!!!! Birkoff- "Uh-oh, she's hot for the guy." Nikita- "Up yours, Birkoff." Birkoff- "Any time, babe. My number's in the book." Nikita & Birkoff---La Femme Nikita....USA Network