JMS on GEnie July 1996 postings SFRT II RoundTable Category 18, Topic 1 Message 374 Mon Jul 08, 1996 STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 01:43 EDT If GEnie should go away -- and I haven't heard anything either way on this -- I'd just stick with the other services I'm on already, mainly CIS, AOL and rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated. jms ------------ SFRT II RoundTable Category 18, Topic 1 Message 381 Tue Jul 09, 1996 STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 22:27 EDT I've said it before, I'll say it again: this show was born under a black star. Starting from the debut of the pilot in New York, where we were literally blown off the air by the World Trade Center blast, which took out WWOR's antenna, until now, anything that can go wrong, does. After 3 years, we're finally, FINALLY, going to get a good sized article in TV Guide (July 27th) as part of their SF round up. They sent a photo crew out to do the shoot. Very difficult and elaborate, cast came in on breaks and cut short time away to do it. So today WB calls to say that after Federal Expressing the original negatives, transparencies, everything, to NY in time for the article, the truck carrying the art was hijacked at gunpoint, and everything inside went with it. So now it's too late to redo the shoot, and they'll have to go with older art provided by WB. We can't catch a break on this show.... jms ------------ SFRT II RoundTable Category 18, Topic 1 Message 390 Wed Jul 10, 1996 STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 01:49 EDT No, the driver was fine, only the stuff was taken, driven off. Boy, those Paramount boys'll stop at nothing.... (the preceding was a joke, for the jocularity deficient) jms ------------ SFRT II RoundTable Category 18, Topic 2 Message 234 Tue Jul 09, 1996 STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 15:50 EDT Yes, the UK will be getting the final 5 starting in August. WB Int'l had agreed to the run straight through, and C4 held them to it. To change it would've caused problems. jms ------------ SFRT II RoundTable Category 18, Topic 2 Message 241 Tue Jul 09, 1996 STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 22:31 EDT Allen: yes, that's a correct statement. Trys: why can't they change us? Situation is this: the UK doesn't have ratings periods. The US does. They check their ratings all the time, and determine their rates for advertising, and don't generally have rerun periods. So they play straight through. If WB plays the shows in July, August, or September, those aren't sweeps periods. Also, those months are when TV viewership figures (they call them HUTs, Households Using Television) are at their lowest, because people are away from home, on vacation, at the beach, whatever. The November sweeps are *crucial* to keeping a show on the air. So WB wants to air the final 5 in October, to ramp up the ratings in November, for that reason. (It often takes weeks for people not online to discover there ARE new episodes on.) If they play us out of sweeps, we're a less valuable commodity to the stations, and thus it's more likely we'd get canceled. Pick your poison. jms ------------ SFRT II RoundTable Category 18, Topic 1 Message 427 Fri Jul 12, 1996 STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 16:37 EDT I think part of the disagreement here comes over how you define what a STORY is. A story is the connotation of consequences, and context, as opposed to a PLOT, which is the series of events in which the story takes place, A, B, C, D. "The king died, and then the queen died" is a basic plot. "The king died, and then the queen died of grief" is a story. I preface this by saying I haven't seen ID4 yet, so take what follows cum granus salus, but.... As I understand it, ID4 is an incident/plot driven movie. Bad aliens come to Earth. Bad aliens smash. Good humans smash back. Good humans win. The aliens are there to shoot and be shot at, and we don't really know much about who they are, where they come from, their cosmology, any of that. It's a series of incidents. With Star Wars, you got the sense of things happening outside the plot, and you got the sense of context and consequences. It delved into matters of belief, the use of the Force, the Zen notion of letting go of the conscious self. It carried with it a sense of history, the notion that there had been prior wars, and the whole history of the Jedi Knights, which carried with it a sense of mystery and wonder. There was a fairly well realized political framework, with Imperials and rebels and other planets that chose not to get involved. You got the sense that the events in the story came from somewhere, and would lead to something. There's not much question that Star Wars contains more actual story than ID4. Which isn't the same thing as saying that one is *better* than the other. That's a mug's game, because whatever's better for us is a purely subjective decision. But one can point to the two movies and say, with a fair amount of objectivity, which one contains *more* story than the other, which involved the most creativity and world-building. Just to try and clarify the argument a little.... jms ------------ SFRT II RoundTable Category 18, Topic 33 Message 278 Fri Jul 12, 1996 STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 00:46 EDT So given that all of season 3 has only one author, given that you can easily define a season (apparently there was some confusion about what a season is) as Year 3, episodes 301-322, given that this year they're MUCH more directly linked as one dramatic unit...what d'you think the odds would be of getting all of season 3 of B5 considered as one dramatic unit for Hugo consideration next season? (Heck, we gotta compete with ID4 *somehow*....) jms ------------ SFRT II RoundTable Category 18, Topic 33 Message 281 Fri Jul 12, 1996 STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 16:51 EDT But is it really an exception? You have two books as potential nominees. One is 100,000 words long, the other is a huge 300,000 word potboiler. But they're both written by one author, so they're both eligible. If a two-part episode can be considered a dramatic unit because it has one author, and a single episode can be considered because it has one author, then why not a 22- parter with only one author? Just because the unit has more pages shouldn't mitigate against it any more than the 300,000 word novel should be disqualified. If you stop and think about it dispassionately for a moment, the exception would be in NOT allowing a whole one-author season be nominated. The committee has already allowed the notion of multiple-part nominees by accepting two-parters. You've crossed the one-episode barrier already. So logically if you've accepted that, why suddenly change it to just one episode? Conceivably, I could take all 22 scripts, put a huge binder on it, and slap a cover page on it reading SEASON THREE, WRITTEN BY J. MICHAEL STRACZYNSKI, and drop that one single unit on the desk of the committee and say, "Here, here's one dramatic unit." On one level, it's really kind of an intellectual exercise; I like to feather around the rules and see what things mean when little things get changed, and what the *sense* of the rule is vs. how it's applied sometimes. jms ------------ SFRT II RoundTable Category 18, Topic 1 Message 458 Tue Jul 16, 1996 STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 03:14 EDT I was in college when Star Wars hit, first year or so, I think, and had somehow managed to utterly and completely miss ALL of the hype and PR about the movie *for the entire duration of its run*. (I was, by turns, studying heavily, writing heavily and dating heavily.) I finally wandered in to see it on the last day of a screening run at a small theater in Chula Vista, about the last place on earth still playing it by that late date. Sat down to watch it, figuring it'd be another cheesy awful film like the (I think) Star Invasion movie I'd seen just before, with Robert Vaughn, I think, and Christopher Lee.... No expectations, no knowledge. Tabula rasa. Two or three other people in the theater as it went dark. That first shot pinned my ears to the back of the room and never left. jms ------------ SFRT II RoundTable Category 18, Topic 1 Message 467 Wed Jul 17, 1996 STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 00:20 EDT I'd say Sinclair and Garibaldi both caught traces of that future. jms ------------ SFRT II RoundTable Category 18, Topic 26 Message 448 Sat Jul 13, 1996 STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 02:14 EDT The videos were the same, in the case of "Requiem," but the projection system wasn't really up to snuff. Now, I toss out a philosophical question for general consideration. When they first showed "Requiem," I was watching from the back, as is my wont. I always try to make sure *everybody* can see and hear stuff as well as conceivable. The lights were on low in the middle of the room, which washed out about 60% of the video; there were whole sections where you couldn't see squat. I was very bugged about this, and when I went to the stage, and set up things to show, I said bring the lights down *all the way*. One person with the con said "We can't do that." This seemed remarkable to me, as I understood that most electrical devices had on and off switches. So I cupped the mike and indicated that if the lights didn't go down I'd shoot them out. They went down. The second time we went dark, I found out what was going on sub rosa. There were, I think, 3 or 5 deaf people in the front of the room, and had someone signing for them to tell them what was being said on the clips. The person doing the signing was very upset with me, to say the least. So here's the dilemma: you keep the lights up, and 2,400 people can't SEE the screens. If you lower the lights, they can, but the 3-5 people with hearing problems can't hear what's being said. The logical solution, I believe, was what I did: the lights go down, on the theory that the 2,400 outnumber the 3-5. But at the same time, I'm sensitive to the problem. I know that the signer was upset...but at the same time, I figure, if you knew you were going to be signing in a room where a SCREENING was going on, which therefore would get dark, you'd bring a low-level light or flashlight for those periods. Comments? Discussions? I think I made the right decision...but it's a tough call, y'know? jms ------------ SFRT II RoundTable Category 18, Topic 26 Message 463 Sun Jul 14, 1996 STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 03:26 EDT Unfortunately, my master copies aren't closed-captioned, only the broadcast copies, because that takes 'em down a generation. jms ------------ SFRT II RoundTable Category 18, Topic 33 Message 297 Mon Jul 15, 1996 STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 00:16 EDT Actually, I'd mitigate *against* the 5-year story being considered as a whole dramatic unit because it has multiple writers. I think that would tend to violate the spirit of the Hugos. jms ------------ SFRT II RoundTable Category 18, Topic 1 Message 501 Fri Jul 19, 1996 STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 20:14 EDT For those with questions about the fan club, or who haven't yet received some of the material, B5FC head Jim Lockett now has an email address: JPLB5@AOL.COM. jms ------------ SFRT II RoundTable Category 18, Topic 1 Message 532 Mon Jul 22, 1996 STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 04:44 EDT Peter: well, as you note, if the response hadn't been as strong as it is, we'd likely be off the air and it'd be a moot point. (Or, if the show were swallowed into silence, maybe that'd be a mute point.) But for the sake of argument, let's take a middle ground...sufficient ratings to stay on the air, but zip in the way of direct response: no B5 forums, topics, web pages...a silence vast as space. I'd do exactly what I'm doing. I can't work any other way. I believe in this show, in the story I'm telling, right down to my socks. Not to be grandious, because I'm not even within 50 light years of this class, but...in his lifetime, Van Gogh sold exactly 1 painting, for (I believe) 40 francs. Everyone considered him a failure. He lived with his brother, who paid his bills, kept him in food and clothing, which he felt VERY guilty about...nobody knew him, or his work. But what he painted, he painted. He painted what moved him, what *meant* something to him. And if the world noticed, or if it did not, that didn't change what he saw, or the way he presented it on canvas. He suffered greatly, endured greatly, but the work was the work. It was in-between that his life was most disasterous, when he wasn't working, when he wasn't *seeing*. And it was in that dry stretch that, on a warm Spring afternoon, he went out into a field five miles from his brother Theo's home, put a gun to his chest, and fired...out of guilt for taking up so much of his brother's money, out of fear, out of failure, the vessel not the equal of the talent it contained. (And even at that, he failed; the bullet did not kill him at once. He lay there for almost an hour, then crawled back to Theo's home, where several hours later, he died in his brother's arms.) And now, today, industrialists and collectors pay millions of dollars to hold one of his paintings to their eyes and peer through the bars to greatness...for the chance to see what Van Gogh saw through those tragic eyes. The work is the work. To fall prey to despair when it isn't seen for what (you hope) it is...or to puff proud like a pouter pigeon when the crowds cry out your name...both are equally anathema to the creative drive. You have to listen to the calm, clear voice in the back of your head and paint what you must paint, write what you must write, dance what you must dance and sing what you must sing, because to *not* do so is suicide, and to do so for the wrong reasons, to appeal to the momentary trends of the crowd, is a much slower but just as sure a death. The story is the story, and the work is the work. There is no other answer that would mean a damn. jms ------------ SFRT II RoundTable Category 18, Topic 1 Message 547 Tue Jul 23, 1996 STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 16:58 EDT Vampyr: Zelazny collected 500 rejection slips before he sold anything, so you've got at least 499 more to go before you're entitled to get depressed. And yes, the piece can be reprinted, as can anything I write here. I'd hoped not to generally have this known...but no, I don't drive. I have a bit of a proble with depth perception that only comes into play really in any significant way when I'm behind the wheel of a car. Translation: I hit things, and they frown on that. So for the good of the Commonweal, I stay off the roads. So I don't know who drove off at LosCon, but it weren't me. jms ------------ SFRT II RoundTable Category 18, Topic 1 Message 553 Wed Jul 24, 1996 STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 01:26 EDT I get around...it just requires a certain degree of creativity some days. (And yes, I have the stamp, thanks, it's very cool.) jms ------------ SFRT II RoundTable Category 18, Topic 1 Message 557 Wed Jul 24, 1996 STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 04:45 EDT Hmmm...I don't know this for a fact, I'm only speculating, but the station could be burning off its committment to clear the decks and the ledgers. Could be interesting if it backfires and starts doing well for them, which has the potential to happen when someone starts stripping the show nightly.... jms ------------ SFRT II RoundTable Category 18, Topic 1 Message 586 Thu Jul 25, 1996 STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 14:51 EDT The driving *can* be done...but from my perspective, knowing me, not as safely as I feel should be the case. Unless I'm 100% confident of my ability, I won't get behind the wheel of a car and risk hurting someone. It's just not something I can do with a clear conscience. jms ------------ SFRT II RoundTable Category 18, Topic 12 Message 354 Tue Jul 23, 1996 STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 17:02 EDT It's "arc," as story arc, he kinda misunderstood. I'm rather conflicted about the article...on one hand, it's a positive article, and one should be properly thankful for that. On the other, I'd thought it'd be about the show, and the cast (I wasn't even in the photo shoot, which is standard, so again I figured it was about the show per se), and instead it's mainly jms stuff, which I'm kinda so-so about. And on the third hand (I have a third hand now), it feels like he was looking for some kind of angle on the story, found this one -- that we are ABOUT something -- and kinda ran it into the ground. It seems these days that if you care about something, if you want to make a statement, or believe in your work, somehow that's passe, and it's trendy to poke fun at passion. The trouble with cynicism is that it tends to devolve into contempt, and these are cynical times. So I dunno...good article, in most ways, others...just kinda sets my teeth on edge. But again, this is the first time they've really acknowledged us, so I have no complaints. I'm happy they did it. jms ------------ SFRT II RoundTable Category 18, Topic 1 Message 608 Fri Jul 26, 1996 STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 15:19 EDT Re: a gold-plated limo...dream on. Syndication pays roughly half what network shows pay. My agent still shakes her head that I left Murder, She Wrote and took a 50% pay cut to do B5. The Pegasus Publishing bumper stickers are definitely unlicensed. Script #3 title: "The Summoning." jms ------------ SFRT II RoundTable Category 18, Topic 1 Message 624 Fri Jul 26, 1996 STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 23:58 EDT BMW? Please, it's a Mercedes 300E, my only concession to working in TV, also because it's a very safe car. (1990 model, still going strong.) jms ------------ SFRT II RoundTable Category 18, Topic 2 Message 320 Sat Jul 27, 1996 STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 05:46 EDT There are no current plans for Talia's return. jms ------------ SFRT II RoundTable Category 18, Topic 1 Message 648 Sun Jul 28, 1996 STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 23:48 EDT Mike: the problem is we're telling different stories. What makes it interesting for me is that Sheridan *isn't* prepared, Kosh *didn't* finish his training. It isn't nice and tidy. And to stop and explain the dream in "Interludes" would've meant taking, oh, about 3-5 minutes OUT of that episode, and it's very tight as it is. And it would've just been a case of, "Here, here's this bit of exposition relating to something you've seen before." No, the dream *does* get explained...and it gets explained *this season*, in the course of the final five. In detail. But at the right time, and in the right place. To have explained it sooner wouldn't work, it has to come at the right moment, with the last bits of information our characters need to *use* that interpretation. jms ------------ SFRT II RoundTable Category 18, Topic 1 Message 372 Tue Jul 30, 1996 STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 16:37 EDT Van Dyke had considerable problems with alcohol for many years before finally coming out the other side, which were widely known and reported, and he's been very open in talking about them. And yes, definitely know that Rod's no longer with us, I was just playing into the TZ sensibility for a moment. (While on TZ3 I did a posthumous collaboration with Serling, taking his outline for "Our Selena Is Dying" and turning it into a full episode of the show.) jms ------------