Question about S1 in general

[hippyroo]

I don't understand how I am being negative? I'm saying people are putting too much into a silly show and mentioning the missing dog as an example of how the show wasn't all that planned out. Please, I honestly don't see how I'm being negative? Make it more clear?

[Raven Wolf]

I'm quoting this so it will have top of the page attention, since this was the origional intent of this thread.

WHEW!!! You know, when I posted this question, my fear was that I was going to be shrugged off with the standard "It's nice to see you posting here, but this matter was conclusively settled once already in thread _____; please use the search engine from now on." I never expected it to extend to four pages and elicit such vociferous opinions and declarations. Also, I admit, it didn't take long before the S1 references found herein started whizzing over my head. (The claim in the sidebar that S1 is my "favorite season" is some kind of mistake I need to fix.) As mentioned before, I've only watched "Pilot," "Gehanna," and "Dead Letters" in their entirety, as well as a portion of "Paper Dove" (My God! Is that Kathryn and Frank in...bed(!!!) together...locked in a...gasp...post-coital embrace????? I thought they were just roommates!) This particular (seeming) discrepancy about Frank's exact involvement in The Group reminds me of a scene from an old Simpsons episode where fans were allowed to ask Lucy Lawless as "Xena" questions about the show at some kind of convention; one fan's query revealed a continuity error that could in no way be rationalized or explained away. Her answer was something to the effect of "Uh...when something like that happens, a wizard did it." "Ohhh," the crowd murmurs. Because I absolutely HATE continuity errors in television shows/movies, I'm always trying to somehow "explain" them. In the case of MillenniuM, I'd never say that "a wizard did it," but, perhaps along those lines, events transpired involving the organization of The Group, the motives of The Group, etc, that we, as viewers, were simply not privy to. I realize...that's relatively weak as these things go, but The Group's motivations and actions--from S2 on--were so bizarre and ofttimes contradictory to everything we knew about them, I sometimes have to think, while taking in the S1 oeuvre, that something is brewing just beyond our peripheral vision. Perhaps this was intended. I see a hint of what's to come in "Dove" when Frank is sitting among the FBI agents, discussing the case involving the son of the friend of his father's, and the agents beginning prodding Frank about The Group's true purpose. Does its members really think the rise in violence, etc. (a questionable claim in itself) is somehow related to the approaching millennium? Frank can only answer, "I don't think it's the meat."

At this state in my fandom (and I'll explain more later), I'm torn between regarding these apparent retcons as either true retcons that only a wizard's actions can explain, so to speak, or if we, the fans, can reasonably fill in the gaps.

And, hippyroo, I wasn't saying you were being too negative. The mention of "Ben" was actually a tool I was about to use to illustrate how out of control this was getting. While I don't share you're opinion of this being a "silly" show, it does seem to be bring out some silly reactions, and I was hoping to encourage people to chill out. Having opinions is great.... The problem just comes along when people get SO heated in proving their point that they forget we're all supposed to be friends here.... and that friends "play nice". Oversimplifying, yes...but it's late and I'm tired. Goodnight!

[Guest F_Black]

Boy, compared to the rest of the Internets, this place is a model of civility!

I never got the impression in S1 that FB was either a "member" *or* some sort of "outside consultant". He just seemed to work for this group and that was that. I'll bet the distinction never even occurred to the writers during S1 either, though maybe it was something they started to think about over the source of the season.

Kinda weird getting all heated about what "Frank Black" did or didn't do, or was or wasn't, since it's a fictional character anyhow. I used to get really irritated at book club type discussions where people would discuss the motivations of characters. They don't have motivations, "they're" just words on a page.

"Mere. . . .words."

[Guest Laurent.]

Even though I agree that there is no point in making this a personal argumentation.. I don't think that we should look at characters as mere words acting without reason or motivations. It's actually the motivations of a character that will give any story, fable or myth some kind of credibility and realism. I don't think Millennium would have affected me the way it did if I didn't feel Frank Black's inner struggle (or curse). Millennium's profundity lies mostly within its characters, not always in the stories themselves. Just my opinion... no need "to get really irritated". Hehe.

[Guest Jim McLean]

Even though I agree that there is no point in making this a personal argumentation.. I don't think that we should look at characters as mere words acting without reason or motivations. It's actually the motivations of a character that will give any story, fable or myth some kind of credibility and realism. I don't think Millennium would have affected me the way it did if I didn't feel Frank Black's inner struggle (or curse). Millennium's profundity lies mostly within its characters, not always in the stories themselves. Just my opinion... no need "to get really irritated". Hehe.

I think with all fiction, we should be able to aptly disassociate fiction from the construction of fiction. We can see that season 2 shows us that Frank wasn't a full member - however you want to reconcile that is up to the audience. Personally, I find the notion of a full time freelance member with no real understanding of the core truths of the group works fine for me. That's the fiction

We should also be able to see that beyond the fiction, the production took a turn and built a deeper and different perspective on the group using the very vague notions of the Group to expand on the premise in a different way. The Group was never meant to be as it was in season 2, and if Carter had stayed on board, we'd probably seen that Frank was with no doubt a full member because all the Group was could be summed up as an FBI consultancy like in real life. And in such spheres if you work with a group like that, be it as contract or full time, you are simply a member. But that was never truly defined (probably because no one saw the need to) and season two took the idea of making the Group carry deeper layers of membership.

One is the construction blocks of fiction, one is assessing the dramatic narrative within the fiction universe. Both hold their own answers. We should - and can - be able to see both angles without abrasion. Yes, this has been a tense thread, but this is a place which has them few and far between, and no community is without its occasional slip. As has been said, compared to the forums on the internet, this wasn't even a drop in the pond. Just stands out when a forum is usual so relaxed.

But then, I've been on Blade Runner forums and seen anger over whether Deckard is a replicant surge up - all shows have Achilles heels (and the answer is he is in the Directors/Final Cut, and most likely isn't in the others - see, not worth get upset over!), I think MM is the diverse contrast in seasons, making people a little more defensive to an age old question than any party genuinely intended.

[Guest F_Black]

One is the construction blocks of fiction, one is assessing the dramatic narrative within the fiction universe. Both hold their own answers.

Indeed. At some point, you just have to acknowledge that it's just fiction and you can't apply real life rules and go on from there.

[Guest Sheree Dawn]

I agree, Frank was never a group member. In season 1, he was a consultant for the group. In season two, we see episodes like Luminary, where he sits in the middle of the group members in what he refers to as the "trick bag", and is questioned by group members. This, to me, is clearly a meeting for them to consider Frank, a candidate, as a group member. From that point on, Frank's relationship with the group only gets worse. My interpretation was that Peter was chosen to work with Frank and to groom Frank as a candidate in season one, but Frank was never an official group member. Frank even refers to himself as doing some "consulting" when talking to the neighbor in the Pilot. In Dead Letters, we see the group team Frank up with Jim Horn, who is doing similar work for the group, but who Peter refers to as someone who is "being considered as a member". To me, it's clear that Frank is also a candidate who is being considered as a member in season one. And yes, welcome to the board.

Frank was a member of the Outer Court; he worked with them as a consultant, but was kept in the shadows regarding the theology of the group and their beliefs. Then in S2, they began to discuss whether or not to let him know all of their dark little secrets. Just my opinion, but it's up for interpretation.

[Guest charlie98210]

wow! What a thread.

I started watching Millennium during Season Two. Later, when the series showed up on FX, I watched the first season and was struck by the absence of a rich undertone, which hinted that things were happening just under surface, which might not bode well for the protagonist.

My wife worked as the Office Manager at the headquarters of a country-wide chain of computer stores and they had just gone to using "outside salespeople" instead of instore sales employees. These "outside sales reps," as they were called, were free-lance contract people. They had no employee status (except to sell product), no benefits, no pensions, and their contracts were set up so they were paid on a strictly commission basis. And if they didn't meet their weekly sales goal, they were out of a job the next week.

I have always assumed that Frank Black was working for the Millennium Group as an outside consultant while the Group decided whether or not to make him a permanent member. In "Sense and Antisense," when Watts chides him for taking a job outside the group, Frank comments that, "I've got bills to pay."

So...that's my two cents, from where I sit.

Edited May 31, 2008 by charlie98210

[hippyroo]

wow! What a thread.

I started watching Millennium during Season Two. Later, when the series showed up on FX, I watched the first season and was struck by the absence of a rich undertone, which hinted that things were happening just under surface, which might not bode well for the protagonist.

My wife worked as the Office Manager at the headquarters of a country-wide chain of computer stores and they had just gone to using "outside salespeople" instead of instore sales employees. These "outside sales reps," as they were called, were free-lance contract people. They had no employee status (except to sell product), no benefits, no pensions, and their contracts were set up so they were paid on a strictly commission basis. And if they didn't meet their weekly sales goal, they were out of a job the next week.

I have always assumed that Frank Black was working for the Millennium Group as an outside consultant while the Group decided whether or not to make him a permanent member. In "Sense and Antisense," when Watts chides him for taking a job outside the group, Frank comments that, "I've got bills to pay."

So...that's my two cents, from where I sit.

Your keen insight helps me to better understand why Catherine was so cool to Lance; he wasn't bringing home the dough. It's my observation that women crave security. We all think Frank is a great guy. He's strong. A good father. A hard worker. Usually does the right thing. Fighting for justice and truth. But that's not enough for Catherine; she needs the big fat check.

[Guest charlie98210]

Your keen insight helps me to better understand why Catherine was so cool to Lance; he wasn't bringing home the dough. It's my observation that women crave security. We all think Frank is a great guy. He's strong. A good father. A hard worker. Usually does the right thing. Fighting for justice and truth. But that's not enough for Catherine; she needs the big fat check.

It certainly helps.

Edited June 1, 2008 by charlie98210