It's starting to be re-watch season

[redstarrobot]

We're starting to talk about a Pretender re-watch, coordinated here. If we get a few folks who've never seen the show before, I'll put up spoiler-free posts in addition to the spoileriffic ones, so feel free to recruit. (No, really, please do. There's nothing like the fantastic look of shock when they realize what they're actually in for. I

Comments

[starwatcher307]

.
I was an avid watcher when the series was new; never ever missed an episode. I have all the DVDs, and have re-watched about 2-1/2 seasons. But both those watchings were without fandom support; I'd enjoy watching discussions.

Does it drive anyone else crazy that everyone but Miss Parker had a first name? One of my pet peeves; people deserve to have a personal identity. (I always thought "Angel" was her father's pet name for her, rather than her given name. Does anyone have any canon support or rejection of that thought?)
.

[astrogirl2]

She wasn't the only one. Mr. Parker and Broots never had their first names given, either. Meanwhile, Sydney didn't appear to have a last name, and of course, neither did Jarod, or at least he didn't know what it was. The show just had an odd thing about names. :)

I'm quite certain "Angel" was just a pet name, myself, but I don't have any canonical support to point to, alas.

[kerravonsen]

Are we assuming that Sydney was his first name, rather than his last name?

[starwatcher307]

.
I always did. It makes sense that he'd use his first name with child patients, to establish a closer connection with them. Otherwise, I expect child Jarod would have called him Mr. Sydney.
.

[astrogirl2]

Also based on the episode I just watched (which led to the conversation that led to this post), it's canon that child patients did call his brother "Dr. Jacob." Jarod in the flashbacks always did just call him Sydney, though.

[astrogirl2]

Actually, that one I can support from canon, because I happened to just watch an episode in which we see him signing his name on something. It starts off with "Sydney" and then the camera sneakily cuts away so we can't see the rest of what he writes. :)

[starwatcher307]

.
Oh, cool for the confirmation! And sneaky of the cut-away.

I remember an episode of The New Avengers, about the computerized building. All during the series, I'd been simmering; John Steed had two names. Mike Gambit had two names. Purdey had only one. So, as part of the procedure for gaining access to the building, we saw print-out cards with their vital stats: Name, height, weight, etc. When the camera focused on Purdey's card, I leaped closer to the TV (poor eyesight) to be sure I'd catch her name. And she still had only the one. Argh!
.

[astrogirl2]

Oh, that sort of thing can be maddening! But maybe she was like Cher, and only had one. :)

[starwatcher307]

.
But even Cher, if we delve, has another name. She's just so famous, she doesn't need to use it.

I suspect it was either [1] woman trying to fit in a man's world or [2] like MacGyver, she didn't like her given name. But they could have mentioned it once! After all, we learned Mac's first name in the final episode, and it was a real thrill. (At least, I was tickled... it was Angus.)
.

[starwatcher307]

.
(thinks hard) I'm pretty sure we heard Broots' first name once, but I certainly don't remember it. Maybe we'll notice on re-watch.

I guess my bias is showing - since Mr. Parker wasn't a character we liked, I don't care that he didn't have a first name.

Jarod, of course is understandable; they never told him. Sydney...

I guess what I actually mean is, I feel 'closer' to the characters if I know their first name, so it really leaves a hole in my perceptions if I don't have that info for the characters we're supposed to care about. IOW, if they're only going to give us one name, I'm more comfortable having just the first instead of just the last name.

Actually, this is neither logical nor consistent. OTOH, the world won't fall because of it, so I guess I won't worry about it.
.

[astrogirl2]

I'm pretty sure we never heard Broots', but listening for possible missed details like that should indeed be part of the fun of a re-watch.

And, actually, the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced it was deliberate. "People deserve to have a personal identity" was of the major themes of the show, and the fact was that the Centre tended to do all too good of a job at taking that away from them, in one way or another.

(Um, why, yes, I think way too hard about this show. I didn't actually mean to sort of take over the comments on this post, honest. :))

[starwatcher307]

.
"People deserve to have a personal identity" was of the major themes of the show, and the fact was that the Centre tended to do all too good of a job at taking that away from them, in one way or another.

Ooh, excellent point! Thank you; that helps a lot.

Um, why, yes, I think way too hard about this show.

I appreciate it. By myself, I'm not very analytical, but reading others' thinky thoughts gets my own going. I'll look forward to more of your ideas.
.

[astrogirl2]

Glad it helps. :)

And I historically have had probably more thinky thoughts about this show than it actually deserves. :)

[starwatcher307]

.
Ah, but does passion need to be 'deserved'? If that were the case, there would be no fandom. I think we should just enjoy whatever sparks for us.
.

[astrogirl2]

I do in fact agree. Which is why the possible lack of "deserving" absolutely isn't stopping me. :)