- This topic has 29 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 22 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Stanley Tweedle is the best character i’ve seen on T.V in a long time. Everytime you watch an episode of LEXX you are guaranteed to get a laugh out of one of his jokes. He’s funny aswell because he is always horny and wants to have sex with Xev. I haven’t seen series 3, does Stan finally ‘do it’ with Xev?
Not wanting to spoil things for you: Stan has sex with a Xev but not the Xev.
——————
“My world is unaffected, there is an exit here. I say it is and it’s true. There is a dream inside a dream, I’m wide awake the more I sleep. You’ll understand when I’m dead. I went to God just to see and I was looking at me. Saw Heaven and Hell were lies, when I’m God every one dies…”I think Stanley Tweedle is an ab-so-lute dollface and a half! When he was tossing bolts off that android’s butt-cheeks at the beginning of IWHS, I felt his pain, being a gov’t grunt myself. He is the human element in Lexx and, with 790, keeps me in stitches all the time. Three cheers, Stanley Tweedle!
In his honor, the Stanley Tweedle Song!Stanley Tweedle is a god, a warrior and a gent.
We are not fit to suck his feet, or dine on his excrement.
At night we croon by the light of the moon, of his courage and his creed.
Hay ho there he goes oh woe for his foes, long live the Tweedle seed.
Stanley, Stanley, top of the hero class,
Stanley, Stanley, We live to kiss his ass.[This message has been edited by BlackCloud (edited May 12, 2001).]
I couldn’t stand Mr. Tweedle in the first four movies, but during season two, I started to warm up to him. By season three I was starting to like him. As Kai puts it, “Stanley has made a lot of bad choices.” Well haven’t we all at one time or another? Hopefully not as many though!
I am glad the writers let him develop as a person. Hopefully during season 4, they will let him start thinking with his brain, since most of his problems stem from letting another part of his body do his thinkin’ for him.
——————
thefrey
“Oh, come on. If you can’t laugh at the walking dead, who can you laugh at?” – Dan Fielding
quote:
Originally posted by thefrey:
Hopefully during season 4, they will let him start thinking with his brain, since most of his problems stem from letting another part of his body do his thinkin’ for him. thus adding another layer of fantasy to lexx
why do men give their little things names?
because they can’t stand the thought of a total stranger doing 90% of their thinking for them….
I think Stan is a great character. He is always trying to keep himself alive, and yet will risk his life for his friends or do the right thing when he figures he’s going to die. Kai’s comment about Stan in Stan’s Trial was very true, he is a “tainted hero”, although the same easily applies to Kai.
quote:
Originally posted by CrankyTemplar:
He is always trying to keep himself alive, and yet will risk his life for his friends or do the right thing when he figures he’s going to die. Kai’s comment about Stan in Stan’s Trial was very true, he is a “tainted hero”, although the same easily applies to Kai.
hi crankyt! i think i am about to disagree with you although i am not sure because your own statement points out the difference between kai and stanley….stanley does the right thing under duress, as in there are no atheists in the trenches…however, kai, now that he is no longer an “empty-headed little assassin”for hds, has a definite code which he adheres to, no unnecessary violence, and allow nothing to distract from his goals, ie to get rid of hds, or prince when he thought prince was evil, and so forth…kai does not know the meaning of duress as he has no fear of dying, …however, i do agree with you in the sense that both stan and kai will do anything if they think the ends justifies the means
they do differ in their views of the justifiable ends (stanley to survive, kai to rid the influenced of the Insects)I think that the reason that peapol like Stan is that he scared and somewhat selfiche persone but he still helps his friends and puts his life on the line when they need him!!! (Id dosent realy sound like I planed)
Peapol love when he risks his life for his friends and does something brave bekos it isent his caracter!!! And I agree with the part that he is the human part of the cruwe!!!
If he was totaly selfish and only cared about himself then I dont think we would have liked him at al!!!I remember the first real brave thing he did!!! I must have bein in Supernove! That was when he defiaded Giggarotta (forgot how to spell it) to save his friends and lost his hand!!!
He could have just goe with her and leave Zev and Kai but he dident! Well, he almost killed them when he tried to save them but he dident know!!!
That he did then was, I must say an unselfish act!!!Well, Im trying to explain how I se Stan but its dificult!!! I hope you understand what I mean!!!
I cant belive that Delatek790 compaird him with Worf in Star Trek!!! I realy cant se the resemblence!!!
——————
I am the crusaderStan is a delight because he is the most human and the most like the rest of us (that’s not to say I don’t identify with Xev’s frustrations or Kai’s crankiness *g*). Yeah, I wish I were incredibly sexy like Xev or a real bad ass like Kai, but, just like Stan, I wouldn’t survive long in the Lexx-verse without people like Kai and Xev watching my back. Stan’s incompetence is our incompetence.
Don’t we all struggle with our baser instincts? A previous poster pointed out that Stan has made some bad decisions and he doesn’t always do the right thing. Welcome to the life of Everyone.
Stan is a refreshing character in Sci Fi. He’s a bit of a loser, pathetic, selfish and cowardly. When he’s a hero it’s only because he’s been dragged into heroism kicking and screaming. Yet somehow we still have learned to love him. There have been other attempts at flawed heroes in the Sci-Fi genre, but no other show has ever embraced the flaws of one of its “heroes” in the way that Lexx has with Stan.
Are you guys suffering from a rare form of brain fever? A rotten fruit cake stomach ache? Or are you just nuts?
I write this you see, because Stanley Tweedle is the biggest wimp on Sci-Fi television today.
The wimpy attitude of the character makes him a terrible character on the series.
How any of you, my fellow Lexxians can like this miserable excuse for a character is beyond me.
Hating Stanley Tweedle, A gal that looks like Xev.Though the majority of you are correct in many of your claims about Stanley Tweedle, you all seem to leave out one important thing about the character. The show simply COULD NOT survive without him, I am not saying this because he is my favorite among the characters, but he actually is a cornerstone in the show. Would the show be even remotly as interesting if it were Xev, Kai and 790 gallavanting around the universe? I think not.
Stanley Tweedle in a sense keeps the show alive, with comic relief, good acting (cheers to Downey) and simply being well written.
Tellin’ it as it is, Cannedman
quote:
Originally posted by FX:
why do men give their little things names?
because they can’t stand the thought of a total stranger doing 90% of their thinking for them….
Geeze FX, that’s very chauvanist of you.
So most Female LEXX fans aren’t motivated by their attractioin to Micheal McManus? And no I wasn’t drawn to LEXX because of Xenia or Eva and yes I am a heteroseXual guy.What brought me to LEXX was when I finally sat down and watched an episode and saw that these characters were being portrayed as real people behaving like people probably would in those situations and not like the “John Chrichton” type, sorry I’m no longer a fan of Farscape, who always try to do the right thing and are always right and noble and John Chrichton is basically a super-jock. How many people can relate to him or even care about a guy like that?. Stan and Xev have a realistic vunerabilty and realistic character flaws. It’s the Humanism of the characters that keeps me coming back to this show over and over again.
I think Brian Downey said it best, “there are too many heroes out there.. we need humanity.”
To quote Brian again he said “Stanley is Charlie Chapman lost in space” and lol I believe that. He plays one hell of a guy and I hope I see him in more stuff.
-SM
quote:
Originally posted by X:
Geeze FX, that’s very chauvanist of you.yup, guilty as charged, but then again i tell women jokes too…(what do you call 25 women with their periods and 25 women with yeast infections all in the same room….)
What brought me to LEXX was when I finally sat down and watched an episode and saw that these characters were being portrayed as real people behaving like people probably would in those situationsagreed, i love the fact that noone in lexx is really noble or likeable…as i said before, none of the characters has any redeeming qualities,or at least damn few, and lexx is all about dystopia, rather than won’t the universe be wonderful when we can all fly around in big spaceships at incredible speeds…like you, i subscribe to the theory that humans is humans, and we will be just humans still, just ranging farther and faster..
John Chrichton is basically a super-jock. How many people can relate to him or even care about a guy like that
again, agreed, chrichton is a superjock, but i do enjoy farscape, for different reasons(old fashioned space opera, like star drek) and i enjoy chrichton’s little pop culture references, which will of course date farscape much more than lexx
I think Brian Downey said it best, “there are too many heroes out there.. we need humanity.”yup, but he appears to be a really nice guy, notwithstanding…sorry if i offended you with my joke
Hey thanX, FX.
But I unfortunately, being a straight white guy, have to watch everything I say so I can be a little pro-active sometimes.
Anyways, I use to be a Farscape fan. What turned me off was how inept all the other characters became to John Crichton.
Take LEXX for Xample, it has 3 main stars and up until season 3, it had 4 counting 790. But you never really felt any one star was the center focus of the show. Xev is not just eye candy, Stan isn’t just the comic relief, and Kai is a little more than a supporting character despite having no motivations of his own. A hard feat to pull off I think.
But John is the definitive star of Farscape. He always has the answer. He’s always able to beat Scorpious with his off beat “let’s get crazy Scorpious” Nicolas Cage like defying antics and always somehow beats him. That’s bad enough, but what really turned me away was that in season 2 it was like every episode or at least every other episode was to give the actor that played John Chrichton an Xcuse to play a different part ie: the body swap ep, the one where he was split into super smart John and cave man John, and don’t forget all those wonderfully believable Peacekeeper impressions he does.
Yes, I know LEXX can be accused of doing similar things with Kai but it was always played for either a comedic angle like in Twilight, for plot motivation like in Mantrid, or both in “Wake the Dead”. But in the usual LEXX fashion it was still inventive, fresh and not hard to stomach and obvisouly not done to gratify the actor Micheal McManus like they used to do for Nimoy on the old Star Trek just so he could deliberately show some range which is why I think they do it for the guy that plays John Chrichton.
So what does this have to do with Stan? Stan is the anti-thesis of John Chrichton and all those characters like that which is probably why I like him so much. He’s just a regular guy who always gets caught in all the wrong situations at all the wrong times yet somehow manages to survive in order to suffer through more and help cause more mishaps himself. Maybe I can just relate to Stan easier, although I am better looking
I guess I like Kai for similar reasons. He is the “living” dead mockery of the cliched hero type.
So, how does the rest of that joke go FX?
[This message has been edited by X (edited June 25, 2001).]
quote:
Originally posted by X:
Hey thanX, FX.But I unfortunately, being a straight white guy, have to watch everything I say so I can be a little pro-active sometimes.
So what does this have to do with Stan? Stan is the anti-thesis of John Chrichton and all those characters like that which is probably why I like him so much. He’s just a regular guy who always gets caught in all the wrong situations at all the wrong times yet somehow manages to survive in order to suffer through more and help cause more mishaps himself. Maybe I can just relate to Stan easier, although I am better looking
I guess I like Kai for similar reasons. He is the “living” dead mockery of the cliched hero type.
So, how does the rest of that joke go FX?
[This message has been edited by X (edited June 25, 2001).]
you asked for it,…a whine and cheese party (ba-dump-bump)
quote:
Originally posted by Xev Look alike:
Are you guys suffering from a rare form of brain fever? A rotten fruit cake stomach ache? Or are you just nuts?I write this you see, because Stanley Tweedle is the biggest wimp on Sci-Fi television today.
The wimpy attitude of the character makes him a terrible character on the series.
How any of you, my fellow Lexxians can like this miserable excuse for a character is beyond me.
Hating Stanley Tweedle, A gal that looks like Xev.
Of course he’s a wimp! That’s what makes him so lovable. He’s HUMAN.
It’s easy to be brave when you’re already dead, or when you can just convince your enemies not to kill you because you’re sexy…but Tweedle is a common human being. Kai has strength…Xev has beauty…what does Stan have to defend himself with? And, like it or not, most of us would be no braver than him in the same situations. Sure, we can fanrasize about being as brave and cool as Kai and Xev, but how many of us could actually pull that off?
Like someone pointed out earlier on this post, Stan’s faults and weaknesses are ours as well. We can’t despise him without despising ourselves.——————
Gideon: I thought you said you don’t hold a grudge.
Galen: I don’t. I have no living enemies. At all.
quote:
Originally posted by Catalina:
Of course he’s a wimp! That’s what makes him so lovable. He’s HUMAN.
And, like it or not, most of us would be no braver than him in the same situations.
wow! i think i just heard someone be more cynical than me
…look, we may not be as strong and clever as kai, or as sexy and sly as xev, but it is the hope and dreams of being so that keep most people going, so you could also look at it as despising stanley is the same as despising our own weaknesses(not ourselves), and maybe trying to overcome those weaknesses…i am playing devil’s advocate here, but i guess i hope that most people are trying to be better, and lexx gives them a chance to see themselves in the worst possible light, and maybe laugh at that view! i mean, if i really thought that we were all that bad, i might be sitting on the top of a tower somewhere with a rifle, or at least hiding in a cave
quote:
Originally posted by FX:
but i guess i hope that most people are trying to be better, and lexx gives them a chance to see themselves in the worst possible light, and maybe laugh at that view! i mean, if i really thought that we were all that bad, i might be sitting on the top of a tower somewhere with a rifle, or at least hiding in a cave
Cut! Halt! Desist! And any other number of ways I can’t think of to say ‘stop’!
Though we all love the series LEXX, or at least we had BETTER all love it, the unfaithful will not be tolerated, mark my words…
As I was trying to type before I went off and broke out into gibberish, must we really (“we” may or may not be used loosely) try to use this show as a instrument of…of… Hell, I don’t even know wtf to call it. I’ll just say: must we use the show to feel better about ourselves?
Sounds a little bit too off the wall if you ask me (I know ya didn’t).
And I hate to break it to ya, but you might as well climb that tower or hide in that cave (TOWER) ’cause the people on this muckball of a planet are that bad.
Looking at people through the “barrel”,
CannedmanStan’s real strength as a character is in the fact he is as human as the rest of us. He shows us that any average person can be a hero but not go looking for it. He shows us that true strength comes from being who you are and not trying to be something your not. He is a truly extraordinary example of humanity. He is a perfect microcosm of all of our faults and all of our strengths. I would rather have a hundred Stanley Tweedles than a million captain Picards.
-SM
-SM
[This message has been edited by Slopmaster (edited June 28, 2001).]
quote:
Originally posted by Cannedman The Bio Vizier:
As I was trying to type before I went off and broke out into gibberish, must we really (“we” may or may not be used loosely) try to use this show as a instrument of…of… Hell, I don’t even know wtf to call it. I’ll just say: must we use the show to feel better about ourselves?
why not? doesn’t seem as wierd as using drugs or alcohol to feel better about ourselves like a lot of people do…at least lexx doesn’t have negative long-term affects on our mental and physical health…or at least not on mine…
(i’ve been in an extremely argumentative mood these past few days…i think i need to get out of the house more…)——————
Gideon: I thought you said you don’t hold a grudge.
Galen: I don’t. I have no living enemies. At all.
quote:
Originally posted by Cannedman The Bio Vizier:
I’ll just say: must we use the show to feel better about ourselves?well not in any morality play sort of way
but it does sound like everyone here does feel more at home with stanley than with hero types chrichton or picard Sounds a little bit too off the wall if you ask me (I know ya didn’t).
‘sokay, nobody sent me an invitation for my opinion either
And I hate to break it to ya, but you might as well climb that tower or hide in that cave (TOWER) ’cause the people on this muckball of a planet are that bad.
yikes! another cynic! i may have to give up my s*** colored lenses for viewing the world through! i think i may be out of my league!
Looking at people through the “barrel”,
Cannedman
Hi! Been away for a while. Phone lines not working. Angry phone calls to BT. Long story. Boring too.
Anyway, back to Stan Tweedle, I can only point out that the “wimpy main character” idea is NOT unique to Lexx. I can list 3 example off the top off my head.
1) Arthur Dent. I admit, I haven’t seen the series and I only read the first book, but the setting seems very similar to Stan’s; ordinary bloke in out of control galaxy.2) Dave Lister. Again, similar situation, plus is in the same “Sole crewman of huge ship” scenario as well. He became more “heroic” in later series, but started off as a simple slob most people could relate to.
3) Rincewind the Wizzard. I know it’s not Sci-fi, or even on T.V, but Rincewind is almost the perfect example of the useless hero thrust by fate into major events.
Also worth pointing out is that 1), 2) and Stan are all the sole survivors of the human race (I think,) and have something to back up there feebleness (command of a ship, chance, friends, etc.) They are also all completely human, with no strange alien/robotic/interdimensional aspects to them.
Well, I veered a bit from Lexx there, but my point is that these are all good characters not because we want to be them, but because we can put ourselves in their shoes and perhaps even relate to them. Out of these four examples, Stan is one of the easiest to like, since a good side of him seems to surface occasionaly. Plus, everyone’s previous comments on representing humanity and feeling guilt for his actions are well represented in him more than in the other three.
Well, I’ve made up for lost time in terms of aimless ranting, but that’s my view (even if it is off the top of my head
).Hey, I love Hitchhiker’s Guide and Red Dwarf too, I even like Rimmer, whom only displayed re-deemable qualities once, maybe twice and even then it was questionable
Well, atliest noone eles is caling Stan “Just Worf with a red hat” like Daletek did! (I got a pic of it in my mind and couldnt sleap for a week) Star Trek and LEXX are just not compadeble!
But I would like to se Red Dwarf meating LEXX! That would be fun!
Red Dwarf have met Enterprise in a Red Dwarf/Star Trek:The Next Generasion book!
It wasnt so good! They had to make everything Red Dwarf style and seing Picard and the cruwe making jokes and dumb lines like in Red Dwarf wasnt that fun!
(An example: Picard got angery bekos Data wanted to scan Red Dwarf for lifeforms al the time! Riker sat in the Captins chair al the time so Picard had to drag him out of it! That kind of stuff!)
It was a little fun at start but it didnt feal like Picard and the outhers from Enterprice!——————
I am the crusader
quote:
Originally posted by X:
Hey, I love Hitchhiker’s Guide and Red Dwarf too, I even like Rimmer, whom only displayed re-deemable qualities once, maybe twice and even then it was questionable
Hey, that makes another point spring to mind; it’s the character’s which entertain us, not what kind of people they are.
OK, that didn’t make much sense.
Put it this way; if you shared a flat with Rimmer you would probably end up despising, attacking and, eventually, killing him. The same might even apply for Stan or Lister. But the qualities you would hate in real life are extremely entertaining to watch, since it’s a) being tolerated by someone else and b) well written. Basically, there are some characters you love to hate.
Once again I’m straying from Lexx, but topics on this site seem to go this way anyway.In a science fiction series, there are generally a number of non-human (alien, robot, mutant, cyborg, etc.) characters, but the makers always feel an obligation to make the main character human. In other words, the person we’re supposed to be sympathizing with and rooting for that most of the plots center around is just a boring, average guy like you we see every day in real life without any neat biomechanical implants or telapathic powers or alien symbionts or anything else that makes us watch sci-fi.
Rather than try to counter this, the makers of Lexx have taken it to the extreme, making Stanley Tweedle the ultimate average guy, overemphasizing his mundanity to the point of actually making him interesting, even though the character is, by his constitutional definition, un-interesting.
Stan is a great character because he’s a boring average guy like the kind that exists in real life. He doesn’t always see a situation from all angles, he doesn’t always consider the consequences of his actions, and he doesn’t solve every problem that comes up. In other words, he’s human. That’s what makes him a good main character for a show that, in all other facets, is anything but mundane. I know everybody is going to disagree with this, but that’s what I believe.
——————
Lee P. Sherman, code name DalekTek790
Whovian, Froudian, Lexxian, etc.What makes you think everyone’s going to disagree with you? Your view is simmilar to everyone else’s points and you put it across well. You put what everyone else was saying into a straightforward summary. Nobody will disagree with their own point of view, so why do you expect everyone to reply negatively?
quote:
Originally posted by Ptarg:
What makes you think everyone’s going to disagree with you? Your view is simmilar to everyone else’s points and you put it across well. You put what everyone else was saying into a straightforward summary. Nobody will disagree with their own point of view, so why do you expect everyone to reply negatively?
because this is one of the times when his viewpoint is shared…doesn’t always work that way
quote:
Originally posted by FX:
because this is one of the times when his viewpoint is shared…doesn’t always work that way
…And he also thinks that people disagree with him just to disagree with him, which would be a stupid and pointless thing to do.
For the record, this is one of the few times that I agree with DT. “Ordinary” folks are oftentimes the leads in sci-fi or fantasy because the viewer needs someone to identify with in order to be drawn into the story. Without a lead character with identifiably human traits of some sort, the story may (on TV or in films, anyway) serve as decent eye candy, but will push away the audiece by being inaccessible. Stan serves as our “eyes,” so to speak, by being “ordinary.” He stands as an entertaining character on his own because everything that is ordinary about him is pushed into overdrive. People are generally cowardly when faced with the unknown? Stan’s 10 times more cowardly. People are self-centered? Stan puts his *hat* before the fate of the universe. People are driven by their lusts? Stan…well, you get the picture.
–Aleck
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.