Talk:Blake's 7/Archive 1

Archive 1

Personal Point

Personal note: I fucking hate the phrase "In spite of (or perhaps because of)". It just seems completely meaningless to me. "Adolf Hitler lost World War II In spite of (or perhaps because of) the genius of Winston Churchill...?" Lee M 02:28, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

While I agree that the phrase can be misused, I don't think it is in this circumstance. The phrase implies that although the subject is believed to have had a significant effect on the outcome of something, it's hard to tell whether the effect was to help or to hinder that outcome. In the case of the Churchill example above, the phrase would only be meaningful of we're not sure whether Churchill's genius helped Hitler lose or whether his genius was instead helping (intentionally or unintentionally) Hitler to win. I can't think of any situation where one might argue that Churchill's genius was helping Hitler to win, though. In the case of its usage in this article, the question is whether the unresolved cliffhanger at the end of the series helped or hindered fanfic writers, and I can much more easily imagine an argument for both of these. Bryan 04:12, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Opening Line

Blake's 7 was a BBC science fiction television series ... .

Now, to me, the way science fiction television is all one link looks odd, because it was obviously a science fiction (adjective) television series (compound noun). And linking half the noun in with the adjective just seems wrong. And science-fiction should certainly be hyphenated.

I appreciate that the link science fiction television does point somewhere relevent, but it seems messy.

Any thoughts?

TRiG 21:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Anorakzone

195.93.21.66 recently added a link to The Anorak's Guide to Blake's 7. While this is potentially quite a good link, I found that the site itself doesn't work in the web browser, konqueror. Specifically, there is no way to get the episode guide working. For this reason, I am reverting the modification. I welcome a discussion on adding this link despite the site not working on some browsers. Please do not revert my reversion without a discussion, however. --Yamla 23:18, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

195.93.21.66 readded the anorakzone link without any further discussion. I reverted these modifications. While we may want to add this site, I would like some discussion first. --Yamla 21:48, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

195.93.21.66 readded the anorakzone link again, AGAIN without any discussion. I am beginning to suspect he's just a spammer. --Yamla 00:08, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, which parts of the Anorak Zone Guide don't work for you? I don't have Konquerer, but it seems to work fine on Camino, which is also XUL-based. --khaosworks 00:34, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Note that Konqueror is not XUL-based.

I took a quick look at the site in Safari, which is based on (somewhat modified versions of) the same core rendering and JavaScript engines as Konqueror, and it appears to work fine. Yamla mentioned the episode guide; this seems to work fine in Safari, so if you have problems in an older version of Konqueror try a more recent version of KDE. However the tree view in the left frame is dependent on JavaScript and won't work right if JavaScript is disabled (the 'season one' etc can't be expanded so the individual episode links can't be accessed). --Brion 00:41, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

I'll try with a newer version of KDE, hopefully tomorrow, and post my findings. I'm a little annoyed that the site requires JavaScript, which not everyone enables, to access the content. The content is quite decent, I've read it in Firefox. Anyway, I'll post my findings tomorrow, hopefully, or later in the week. Assuming it works, I'll withdraw my objection to posting the link if everyone else thinks it is okay. But it may still be worth discussing. Of course, I won't withdraw my objection if it does not work, but hey. --Yamla 04:27, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

What you might want to do is drop a note to the author of the site to let them know that some people can't read that part of the site due to JavaScript problems (or whatever it is that's hitting you). Chances are very good that they just aren't aware of the problem. --Brion 06:51, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. But when I tried that (before my initial complaint on here, by the way), my message was returned as undeliverable. His mail server refused my message based on the fact that my mail server is a spam-free but dynamic IP address. Things are just very difficult at times. --Yamla 13:57, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

Okay, I've checked it out with the version of Konqueror that ships with KDE 3.4. It works fine. I have no objection to putting the link in place and will do so myself. It may not work with older versions of Konqueror (though I'm not sure, the webmaster has changed his site somewhat) but it at least now works in later versions of Konqueror as well as Firefox and MSIE. --Yamla 04:45, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)

Season naming/numbering

Why are the "seasons" of this show labelled A,B,C and D, instead of referred to, properly, as "Series 1, series 2" etc, as is the practice with British television? (unsigned question from User:24.90.94.112)

I have no idea what the usual practice is, but David Maloney (the producer of the thing) definitely refers to "C" rather than to 3 during the Terminal episode's commentary track on the season 3/C DVD. The actors on the commentary even make some comments about "Oh, you call it C, not 3, then?" Telsa 19:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

From recollection both the programme guide and the mid 1990s Marvel magazines also use the letters rather than the numbers. I'd presume it was the production office practice. Timrollpickering 12:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

What about season (American style) vs series (British style)? —Tamfang 03:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm presently taking the plunge and gradually changing all occurences of 'season' to 'series', no offence to US editors who may have contributed but Wikipedia does have a convention of using terms appropiate to a show's 'home market', in this case Britain. Cheers, Ian Rose 23:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that this clashes with the terms appropriate for the show in question. Virtually all the writing on Blake's 7 that I've seen uses "season" rather than "series" (there's probably a crossover influence from Doctor Who fandom) and it seems more natural to use the standard terminology for that show. Timrollpickering 11:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it's something of a myth that the British only use "series" and the Americans only use "season" (although the latter is more common). I've read articles saying that there are examples of a British production team using "season" back in the 60's. I only wish I could remember where so I could cite it here! Stephenb (Talk) 14:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

No denying there's significant usage of 'season', although my reading also indicates 'series' being used more often. If the official term used by the production is 'season' (and indeed season A/B/C/D) I wouldn't set out to contradict that, although I think it may look odd to the average reader who's used to seeing 'series 1/2/3/4' rather than 'season A/B/C/D' - unless we spell it out somewhere. In any case the article still has a mixture of 'series' and 'season' and numbers and letters. For the moment I'll replace a couple of instances I inserted an official-looking 'Series 1/2/etc' with a more generic 'first/second/etc series' and see about rationalising the letters v. numbers. Cheers, Ian Rose 15:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

As noted below, I'm planning to standardise the season denominators. I'll likely chose the letter convention, simply because this convention is used in the 'History...' page, although my personal preference is the opposite. Just as long as it makes sense... Baffle gab1978 (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A Blake's 7 animated series?

Isn't this show a little too dark for children? Cyberia23 21:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but the thing is animation doesn't have to be just for children. 80.6.151.193 15:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Tenchi Muyo

Indeed. Some anime is darker even than Blake's Seven and in no way intended for children. Bryan 18:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand that, but the text says: "Blake's 7: The Animated Adventures, a 26-part children's animated adventure series to be written by Ben Aaronovitch, Andrew Cartmel, Marc Platt and James Swallow; as well as two further children's series unrelated to Blake's 7." and the "children's" part threw me off. That is why I said - I think Blake's 7 would be too dark for children. Cyberia23 21:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I think kids like dark things. I watched the original Blakes Seven as a child and absolutely loved it. I don't think we should patronise kids by pretending everything is lovely when they know full well it isn't. 82.21.102.176 (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Episode Guides

Do you think it would be worth investing time in making an episode guide? I was looking up episodes on the site and couldn't find anything. 80.1.224.13 18:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Tenchi Muyo

Try List of Blake's 7 episodes Stephenb (Talk) 19:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Didn't realise. Tenchi Muyo 12:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Tenchi Muyo

Character and Ship Pages

There are already articles for most of the characters on this series, but none that I can find for the ships. I'm not much of a writer, so I'll just suggest that someone start them.

Additionally, I was appaled to see that Blake himself has no article of his own. Roj Blake merely redirects to Blake's 7. This should be remedied. I don't know how to do it, but hopefully someone who does will.

Character pages have already been started for all the main players in the series, which I hope to expand upon in due course.Ben King 08:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I've started a Liberator page, although it's kinda stubby (I just recently watched Orac and Redemption again, but otherwise it's mainly from memory). Nude Amazon 13:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Calendar

The article mentions the series occurring in "the second century of the third calendar" - I was always under the impression it was the third century of the second calendar - besides which, as far as I know it was never mentioned in the shows themselves, more as fan lore (Blake does, however, mention in Pressure Point that churches were dissolved at the end of "the Old Calendar", implying that there where two calendars, and that the earlier may have been the Gregorian one). The phrase third century of the second calendar does appear in some of the trailers on the recent Blakes 7 DVDs, but as these were created considerably after the programmes themselves it seems illogical to mention this date as an acknowledged fact about B7's premise. Should this be removed, or moved to 'Trivia', or...? --Mister Macbeth 15:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The correct phrase is indeed "the third Century of the second calendar", according to Andrew Pixley's article "The Dirty Dozen In Space" for TV Zone Issue #156. The primary source, according to Pixley, is "Blake's Seven - A Space Adventure Series of the Future", a press release issued by the BBC on Thursday, 15 September 1977. Article corrected accordingly. Joe King 18:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

B7 ?

In Peter F. Hamilton's The Night's Dawn Trilogy, it transpires that a shadowy government organisation called Bureau 7, or simply B7, are in fact in control of Confederation more so than the actual government. B7?? Coincidence? --Commking 02:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars

About this Star Wars screening stuff: I have repeatedly heard it said in interviews that (producer David Maloney, director Pennant Roberts, and designer Roger Murray-Leach?) went to see Star Wars fairly early on during the production of B7 - ie, before it was broadcast - and were dismayed by how good it was, and came away saying "we shouldn't even be attempting what we're doing on our budget". I don't see how this tallies with "The Way Back" being transmitted on the same day as Star Wars opens.--feline1 13:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The contemporary producer of Doctor Who, Graham Williams, saw Star Wars in a special advanced screening before its UK release. (Source Doctor Who Magazine winter special 1992) It's probable that some of the Blake's 7 crew also saw it in advance, possibly even in the same screening. Timrollpickering 13:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

B7 The Sequel

The site for the current holders of the copyright is fairly inactive. It is not clear when the sequel will be made. Jackiespeel 17:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

DVDs by region

The DVD section should indicate they've only been released in Region 2. That is, if that's the case. I've got conflicting reports on whether they've been released elsewhere, so I leave it up to someone who has better knowledge to fix this.

I know I can't find them for Region 1, despite Amazon having a listing for them. --Suttkus 13:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC) All four series have been released in Region 4. I know this, because I own them.Cally73 13:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

How to improve the quality of this article?

There's a lot of good stuff in this article but it's mostly buried through poor structuring and excessive amounts of un-encyclopedic trivia. In an effort to try to make a few improvements I have done the following:

• Removed the “Locations” section and placed it into an article of its own – List of Blake's 7 planets, ala the List of Doctor Who planets article, with links to it from this page from the “See also” section and the infobox.
• Removed the “Cast” section and placed it into the programme infobox which, I feel, is a better way of conveying this information
• Removed some of the trivia information:

• The story that the Liberator model was pointed the wrong way. According to Roger Murray-Leach, in Blake's 7 The Inside Story by Nazzaro and Wells, he “turned the ship around, so it was drawn to look as if it was going one way but flew the other way. In fact, if you take the line of flow, the angles go with it to get a sense of speed, and we turned that around so the 'wings' all canted forwards, not backwards”. Which would seem to blow that theory out of the water. In any case, the editor who added this point attributed it to Matt Irvine, who didn't join the show until Season 2 after the Liberator’s orientation had been settled.
• The last minute reprieve for the fourth season – this is now in the history section (or the article that leads from it)

This still leaves considerable scope for improvement. I would suggest:

• The lead section needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD. (Maybe leave this until after the article has been improved?)
• “The series” section is unfocused – I would see that it should give one paragraph on the series' concept and setting: e.g. “Blake is a political prisoner who steals an alien spaceship and goes after the baddies in the Federation”, one paragraph on the series' influences and one or two paragraphs on the main themes of the series (Stephens and Moore's Liberation and Muir's History and Critical Analysis of "Blake's 7" would be useful references in this respect.
• The “Plot Summary” could be reworked to incorporate the “End-of-season cliffhangers” section – I'll go to work on this over the next few days.
• The “Music and Sound Effects” section – interesting but, perhaps, too detailed a section for an article that should be providing an overview of Blake's 7 as a whole?
• “Trivia” sections as a whole are frowned upon on Wikipedia these days. Most of what's here could either be deleted for being too obscure or trivial or incorporated somewhere into the main article.
• The “Video and DVD” section should be renamed “Merchandise” and expanded to include the magazine, the annuals, the corgi models etc.

Advice and opinions on these comments is sought please before I do any more damage :). Joe King 16:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: The current 'Characters' section - do you think it is suitable? Is it inforative enogh? Perhaps there should be a seperate page for this information. Opinions sought. (okay, i just saw the comments above and perhaps this would be a good way to proceed, concidering the info box that's present.) Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Tony Attwood

User:InsiderInformation added the following, which I have removed as being unencyclopaedic:
"Blake's 7: Afterlife - a short note of explanation. As the author of this book mentioned in the text I thought it might be helpful to add a couple of words. Having written "Blake's 7 The Programme Guide" (Target Books) with Terry Nation, Terry and his agent became concerned that the excitement of the series might be lost when the fifth series did not materialise. I suggested the notion of a couple of novels to keep the story going - the novels being written in a manner that would allow them to become parts of a new 5th season - if it ever happened. State of Mind (the second of the two planned stories, which resolved all the issues left outstanding in the series) did not happen because by the time it was ready for publication there was a significant dispute going on about the use of Daleks (a property owned by Terry Nation) by the BBC in episodes of Dr Who not written by Terry. Thus the proposed very end of Blake's never appeared not because of any Blake's issue, but because of a totally unrelated dispute. Tony Attwood"
Nice to know, but we have no way of verifying this, and it is not in the appropriate Wikipedia style Stephenb (Talk) 08:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It would be great if a verifiable source could be found for this. Robert Brockway 08:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It sounds familiar. I think it comes from the 1994 re-issue of "Blake's 7 The Programme Guide", but I don't have a copy to check it. Anyone got a copy? Duggy 1138 (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I do have a copy. Attwood says "In the end, State of Mind was not written - I was commissioned to write other books, and there was talk of actually making another TV series which would have meant the need to take the plot in a different direction" (p. 232). It was never written, so the above rumour is untrue. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Delays in BBC video release

Some B7 fans believed that the (perceived) delay in the BBC issuing videos of the series (despite campaigns) - or even repeats - was to prevent any potential consequential pressure to bring back the series. As experienced when Dr Who went into indefinite hiatus in the late 80s. Was the Beeb deliberately attempting to keep fandoms at bay with the inexplicable non-appearance of certain cult series? This when the BBC were issuing quantities of back catalogue onto video (and making themselves a nice earner from it) during the late 80's and early 90's. B7 was THE programme cited whenever such beliefs were aired. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum. What you say sounds implausible (and there was no real delay: the BBC released 4 edited videos in 1985/86, followed by the complete series starting in 1990, which was pretty normal for the time); I doubt you have any reliable source for your claims, so please don't add such scuttlebutt to the article. Stephenb (Talk) 20:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Name

The show is actually called "Blakes 7," not "Blake's 7," according to the title and IMDB. Should the article name be changed? Guesty-Persony-Thingy (talk) 06:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No. It is called "Blake's 7". This is how the BBC title it. The IMDB entry is wrong in this respect, and apostrophe is lost in the stylised titles. Sawatts (talk) 14:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Renewal

'...unexpectedly renewed for a further season at the last moment, after a BBC continuity announcer mistakenly said it would "return next year".' Seems highly unlikely to me. Leushenko (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The first the cast knew about it was certainly when the announcer made the announcement; I don't think the renewal was caused by the announcement though. I don't have my sources to hand to correct it ATM... Stephenb (Talk) 09:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

An article in a very early issue of TV Zone stated that the Controller of BBC-1 (IIRC) at the time was sitting watching Terminal and really liked it, so on a whim he rang up the office ten minutes before the end of the episode and had announce that the show was coming back. I'll see if I can dig it up some time to be sourced. The continuity announcement was the first that the production team or the actors knew about the show coming back, though.--Werthead (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me - it was also in "Liberation" so I have added the ref. Stephenb (Talk) 07:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's probably COMING BACK! : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7364663.stm --81.105.243.17 (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably is a bit strong, given the previous history of B7E/M/P (as per the article, how long has this been mooted?), but I've added the news story. Stephenb (Talk) 14:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Warlord (Video) 1981

is a feature-length compilation of the last two episodes ("Warlord" and "Blake").

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289612/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.189.26.42 (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Planned clean-up

Hi,

I'm planning to begin a clean-up of this page. I've held off since beginning last week because I've been editing the 'History...' page. At the moment, I'm planning to:

• Re-write the Intro to give a more concise overview of the series (rather than the originator);
• Edit the main text sections, condensing, paragraphing and revising as necessary;
• Moving info to the proper section, for example, there's details about the writing of Blake in the 'Legacy' section;
• Begin new section on B7 fandom - maybe this warrants its own page.

A few thoughts:

• Is the 'Critical reception' section really necessary? This section cites three positive reviews - there has been much negative criticism of the series. Much has been written on both sides, and continues to be written. Balance or remove?

• Should the 'Season' denominator be a number or a letter? This page uses number convention, the 'History...' letters. I think they need to be standardised. I've read the above non-conclusive commentary.

• I'll post major changes here.

Any other comments before I dive in..? Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Began Clean-up:

• Copy-edited the 'Overview' section - added 'citation needed' tag where refs are missing.

Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Heavily edited 'Sources and Influences' section - removed much OT text and placed on this page as a temporary measure, because I think it has some merits and may be able to re-incorporate elsewhere.

Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Renamed sub-section 'Season 1' to 'Season A' for consisitency with 'History...' article - see above for comments on this.
• Copy-edited 'Season A' sub-section.

Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Copy-Edited 'Season B' sub-section; added info about 'Star One'.Changed picture captions for consistency with text.

Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Copy-Edited 'Season C' sub-section

Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Copy-edited 'Season D' sub-section; added programme information.

Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Copy-edited 'Production History' section; renamed 'Music and sound effects' to 'music', merged 'Music' and 'Incidental Music' sub-sections, added refs and citation tags where appropriate. Will endevour to find these references.

Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Copy-edited 'Critical reception' section - added POV-Check tag because there are no negative reviews quoted. Comments?
• Copy-edited 'Legacy' section - removed much text to temporary 'dump' section on discussion page due to its irrelevence. The ref to 'Blake's Junction 7' might be better in the 'Revivals' section. I've left the polls and surveys there for now - might move it later. Comments?

Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Swapped the first two paragraphs of the 'legacy' section, i think the former second paragraph gives a smoother introduction. Also, i'm unsure of whether to keep the paragraphs about fan polls, viewers' reception of the series etc. Is a new section required here? Comments please.

Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

'Removed material' section

I am 'dumping' this text here because I think it has some merit. However, it was off-topic in the section in was posted into. Please DO NOT edit this section because I aim to re-incorporate the text if possible, either here or on the 'History...' page. Thanks.Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Having reviewed this material, I cannot realistically re-incorporate it into this article in good faith because of its un-encyclopaedic style and use of unsupported opinions. So I'll leave it here in case anyone else finds it useful. Baffle gab1978 (talk)

'Influences...'

Servalan, who was originally intended to be a man, quickly became a very popular character, mainly because having a female character in the role of the main villain was unusual at the time. It has been suggested that her popularity also stemmed from the rise of Margaret Thatcher who became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom during the years Blake's 7 aired.

Just as the complexity of the characters was unusual at the time, so also was the extent to which the regular characters were killed off. This trend began in the second season with the demise of Gan in the episode Pressure Point, a decision that was taken by the production team to make Blake and the Liberator crew more vulnerable. Other regulars – Travis, Jenna, Cally, Zen and even Blake – followed while key series icons such as the Liberator, Xenon Base and Scorpio were also destroyed. Avon and Vila were the only members of the original seven to make it to the end of the series and Vila was the only character to appear in all fifty-two episodes. While Blake's 7 was not the first science fiction series to kill off a regular character – notably, the series Doomwatch killed the popular character Toby Wren in 1970 – the extent to which this happens in Blake's 7 makes the series distinctive and contributes to its dark, pessimistic tone. By the end, depending on how the viewer interprets the denouement of the final episode, Blake, it can be said that every member of the seven, except perhaps Orac, has met their demise at the hands of the Federation. In this respect, according to critic Una McCormack, "rather than allowing the Liberator crew to battle through to vindicate their world-view against hostile interventions, the series sees them losing and dying. In bringing its narrative to such a definitive and dramatic conclusion, Blake's 7 broke with the constraints of episodic series drama". Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

One aspect of Blake's 7 that has been picked up by commentators is its superficial similarities to the seminal US science fiction series Star Trek in that both series feature a mixed crew, on board an advanced starship equipped with a teleportation device roaming the universe. Blake's 7 and Star Trek both have a Federation as well but it is in this respect that the two series diverge – the crew of the starship Enterprise work for the United Federation of Planets which is a benign utopian civilisation whereas the Earth Federation of Blake's 7 is totalitarian and aggressively expansionist and is actively resisted by the crew of the Liberator. Similarly, the camaraderie of the Enterprise crew contrasts sharply with the dysfunctional nature of the relationships between the characters in Blake's 7. For this reason, Blake's 7 is viewed in some quarters as the "anti-Trek".

Another notable aspect of Blake's 7 is that it tells an unfolding story in a semi-serial manner, making it an early example of an ongoing science fiction series to employ a story arc. By contrast, most contemporary series employed a "reset button" at the end of each episode leaving the overall situation unchanged at the end of each adventure. The story arc is at its most explicit in the first two seasons which deal with Blake's trial and subsequent escape, Blake assembling the crew for the Liberator and beginning the fight back against the Federation culminating in the attempt to take down the Federation computer control in Star One. With Blake absent from the third season onwards, the arc is much looser but still present in Servalan's efforts to restore the Federation's power and later, in season four, in Avon's efforts to recruit scientists to resist the Federation's expansion. Blake's 7 was also one of the first television series to make use of the end of season cliffhanger.

Dump No.2 from 'Legacy'

I'm 'dumping' this text here, as it's clearly irrelevent to the section. I'll review this text when i'm done copy-editing, but atm I think it'll get mostly deleted as the material is covered elsewhere in the article. Discuss above if you wish.

It was apparent quite early on to producer Vere Lorrimer and script editor Chris Boucher that Blake's 7 was unlikely to be renewed for a fifth season. In considering how to best wrap up the series, the notion of having Blake return to lead a final all-out assault on the Federation was considered and then rejected on the grounds that it stretched credulity. Instead Lorrimer and Boucher chose to craft a memorable conclusion in which the final fates of the cast would be left hanging. Conscious that the series had received a last-minute reprieve the previous year, Boucher deliberately kept the ending ambiguous so that if the show was to return for a fifth year "anybody who didn't want to sign their contract was dead, and there were ways of bringing the others back". The one exception to this was the fate of Blake – Gareth Thomas had agreed to reprise the role again only on the condition that Blake was killed off once and for all. Terry Nation, who had not been informed of what was planned, was upset by the conclusion and briefly considered taking legal action against the BBC. He recalled, "They were really dumb to do it. I killed off the Daleks remember, and what a dumb thing that was to do, so I learned that lesson, and it should have applied to this". The final episode also provoked a strong reaction from the viewing public especially from parents of younger viewers upset at the apparent deaths of their heroes. Lorrimer issued a standard letter to concerned viewers telling them that all good things come to an end and reminded them that no blood was seen when the Scorpio crew fell. In 1982, Blake's 7 was the subject of 2007 letters to the BBC demanding the return of the series, making it the single most popular subject of viewer correspondence that year, in spite of the fact that it was no longer a current programme.

In spite of (or perhaps because of) the cliffhanger ending, stories about possible resolutions are a popular topic among Blake's 7 fans. These are generally referred to as "Post Gauda Prime" stories – Gauda Prime being the planet on which the final episode took place. A novel, Afterlife, written by Tony Attwood was published by Target Books in 1984. Set five months after the final episode, it attempted to continue the story with Avon, Vila and Orac having survived the massacre. Attwood planned a follow up novel, titled State of Mind, but this did not materialise. Post Gauda Prime stories also crop up frequently in Blake's 7 fan fiction with many stories finding means for the characters, including Blake, to have survived. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)