=========================================================================== | This text is compiled from posts by J. Michael Straczynski on the Usenet | group rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5. This document contains material Copyright | 1994 J. Michael Straczynski. He has given permission for his words to be | redistributed online, as long as they are marked as being copyright JMS. | This document, as well as other Babylon-5 related material, is available | by anonymous FTP at ftp.hyperion.com. =========================================================================== From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 1 Oct 1994 01:00:50 -0400 Subject: ***[JMS]*** Grail question, an What is Sinclair seeking? What are we *all* seeking? Answers, and purpose, and the second half of the sentence beginning with the word "Why." jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 2 Oct 1994 05:53:24 -0400 Subject: JMS: Do a short bit in B5. As much as fans of the show have asked for me to do a cameo on the show...I can't. For starters, on many levels I'm making the show for myself...and if I see me up on the screen, it blows the illusion. For another, I've always thought it a bush-league thing to do; I'm a *writer*, I work behind the scenes, as should be; when I see somebody like John Landis or Mick Garris sticking their face in on camera, I can only shake my head, and refuse to do the same. It turns the exercise into a game of cutes. Finally...I've seen me. Ehhh. Tell you the truth, most folks who finally meet me generally conclude that there's far less to me than meets the eye. Besides...the cost in replacement camera lenses would be simply astronomical. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 2 Oct 1994 05:53:37 -0400 Subject: Commander Sinclair's middle in Sinclair's middle name is David. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 2 Oct 1994 05:55:09 -0400 Subject: ??????? "jms, what do YOU want?" I'll have fries with that. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 2 Oct 1994 05:56:41 -0400 Subject: Star Trek SPOILERS: Things tha Two items: 1) you will never see an episode of B5 which sets up all kinds of cool conflicts, only to learn it was all a dream. 2) In addition to your comment about stations having to buy TNG and DS9 to get Voyager, word keeps floating around that if stations want Voyager, they can't take B5. Interesting, huh? jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 2 Oct 1994 05:56:51 -0400 Subject: Ratings: DS9 vs. B5 I'm not sure what I feel about a head-to-head DS9-B5 deal over in your part of the world; I don't think it's necessary, and may be less than constructive. But I've always said, let the marketplace decide. Meanwhile we'll keep telling the best stories we can, and hope for the best. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 2 Oct 1994 05:57:00 -0400 Subject: Jeffrey Sinclair It's spelled Jeffrey. Jeffrey David Sinclair. And thanks for the comments on the TZ book. It's something very close to my heart.... jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 2 Oct 1994 19:29:52 -0400 Subject: JMS: Does it cost more to repl The cost of running B5 is the same if once or twice per week; some stations like to get a bigger rating for airing it once a night, than splitting it over two nights. (National sponsors like the combined rating; local stations can only sell according to what they get in their individual hours.) jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 2 Oct 1994 19:31:31 -0400 Subject: JMS: New Jerusalem? New Jerusalem is a planet; there's a side-story about it that I'm contemplating getting into, so don't want to blow it here. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 2 Oct 1994 21:03:20 -0400 Subject: B5 storyline question... There's the sense that A, B and sometimes C stories in TV should intersect. My attitude: sometimes yes, sometimes no. Depends on if you look at this as a real place or not, as opposed to a thematic exercise. What I go through in the course of a day has nothing to do with what happens to Larry DiTillio across town, except and unless it involves our mutual work. Sometimes, as in "Quality," the stories feel like they resonate, and can be used to illustrate one another, and so they're linked. In others, what I'm striving for is a sense of a "day in thed (the) life" of Babylon 5. The one kind of story is neither better nor worse than the other, they're simply different. One may like one more than the other, but to say they're "better" plots is just silly. There's NO padding in this show, no stories put in to fill out time; just stories that we want to tell, period. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 3 Oct 1994 02:04:56 -0400 Subject: JMS: Please don't ever do this The two most overdone types of stories are "it was all a dream" and "it was all a simulation to test humans." What I gather is that this story was BOTH. Be assured...you won't see any episode of B5 in which it's all a dream unless you know, in advance, that it's a dream...it won't be a bail-out clause later. (I mention this only because there's one episode I'm playing with where a character is injured, and dreaming, and so we see the dream going on, but again, we'd know that going in.) I think the other approach is just cheating the audience. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 3 Oct 1994 02:05:05 -0400 Subject: JMS: Grail Continuity Error? Re: missing cords................................eeek! jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 3 Oct 1994 06:17:54 -0400 Subject: Re: Star Trek SPOILERS: I do not recommend doing ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to Paramount, and would urge everyone to maintain the same stance. Let the market decide what happens; let the best show win (if you believe in competition) or let both shows win. Leave it be. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 3 Oct 1994 06:55:05 -0400 Subject: Re: Truth on Ohare "It wasn't JMS's call (re: O'Hare)." Okay, I've sat on the sidelines through enough of this; I feel that I have to dive in on this. Frankly, I don't much care what "the Hollywood" word is about Michael. The word from Hollywood also said that we had fired ALL the cast, that we had fired Michael *and* Richard Biggs, that Michael had quit, on and on and on. (The bit about firing Richard Biggs, btw, came up at a Conadian panel by someone who *swore* up down and sideways that it was true, and he'd heard it from someone at Warners. I've got the tape of the panel.) I don't know who you are. I *do* know that there were only four people in the room when we broached this with Michael, and you're not one of them. (Present: me, Michael, Doug Netter and John Copeland.) We indicated that there were some new and interesting directions that the story could take in season two, but it would mean Sinclair vanishing for a prolonged period of time, and what were his feelings on that? He noted that he'd been expecting this from where the scripts had been going, and that there were some opportunities that he wanted to explore on his own. It seemed like a good opportunity for both sides. It was made clear at that meeting that Sinclair was *not* gone for good, that he *would* be back at various points, but not in the same capacity...because we had some nifty ideas about something we could do with that character outside of the confining role of Commander. By the end of the meeting, it was decided that that was, indeed, what we would do. We knew that Michael would be returning to New York soon to pursue some long-standing options, and since we knew we'd be needing him (and I knew where and when), I scripted out material for when he is seen again, and we filmed that prior to his jaunt so we wouldn't have to shlep him clear across the country later, and in case he should indeed be busy at the time. I could frankly give a shit what anybody hears on the Hollywood rumor mill. More nonsense goes out on those particular jungle drums than anyone can even conceive of...and anyone who takes them to heart is more than a little foolish. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 3 Oct 1994 17:51:18 -0400 Subject: JMS: Are storylines in the co The B5 comic, novels and series are meant to be compartmentalized and independent, but complementary; if you never read the comic or the novel, you'll never have a problem with the series; but as with the show, the more you see, the more you'll get stuff coming down the road. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 3 Oct 1994 17:51:41 -0400 Subject: capitalism in babylon 5 lookin Garibaldi hustled Naomi out of there because she was the head of the strike, and he came specifically to arrest her. While to varying degrees there's less nationalism in the future of B5, it's not like everyone's suddenly talking like the folks on Melrose Place. Americans are, nominally, one country...but you can get accents of varying kinds all over the country, sometimes within miles of one another. This is just realism. The star on Ivanova's helmet is a traditional Russian star, going back to Tsarist russia and beyond, not a Red Star. The writer for "By Any Means Necessary" is Kathryn Drennan, who is very astute politically, a believer in the rights of workers (and all folks, actually), and think that characters are more interesting if they act smart than if they act stupid. And yes, Ivanova's a hoot. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 3 Oct 1994 18:16:18 -0400 Subject: ATTN JMS : Throw away. No, as a rule, there's no need to ask for the captain's blessings prior to a marriage. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 4 Oct 1994 02:14:11 -0400 Subject: Blue Script? I think the blue draft was the one just before we had our meeting on production and visual effects stuff, which led to some tailoring of the locations. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 5 Oct 1994 08:57:38 -0400 Subject: Chrysalis (Ooo) SPOILER ALERT Without going into details in case anyone stumbles across this as a spoiler...we *did* show the wound, blood, burn, the whole bit in a close-up in the medlab. If it wasn't shown, it might've been snipped there. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 5 Oct 1994 09:17:03 -0400 Subject: Re: Chrysalis (Ooo) SPOILER AL Now that you've seen this much, now you can begin putting together the other level of the metaphor that is B5...consider: a war that did not end satisfactorily for us, not winning or losing, a sort of peace with honor....the death of a president...the rise of intelligence agencies and military power...start to sound familiar? Now what we begin to do is to start moving around the pieces, shifting the mirror of the story to reveal different aspects of ourselves, as well as tell the other separate story of B5 itself. Again, the idea is for this story to function on *many* different levels: future-history, myth, adventure story, mystery and a metaphor. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 5 Oct 1994 09:20:18 -0400 Subject: My *good* friend mister Stra-c Thank you...I think.... jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 5 Oct 1994 09:20:30 -0400 Subject: jms, you are out of your mind! Hey...I do try.... jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 6 Oct 1994 02:31:08 -0400 Subject: B5 Pilot on Sunday (UK) What time on Sunday will the pilot be running? (Many folks have asked.) jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 8 Oct 1994 04:08:16 -0400 Subject: Any evidence of ATTENTION JMS I get 500 messages a day; I scan for ATT JMS, and always try to answer, when I can answer. Sometimes I can't, and remain silent. Mostly I talk. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 8 Oct 1994 04:08:34 -0400 Subject: Attn JMS: prostitution? I'd say that some forms of prostitution are likely legal at that time. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 8 Oct 1994 04:08:50 -0400 Subject: Re: Chrysalis SPOILERS Re: the staging of Morgan Clark taking the oath of office; I gave very particular instructions to re-create the staging of the photograph in which Lyndon Johnson takes over from JFK after the assassination. The same layout, posture, background, and so on. We even had a photo on set for reference. The creepy thing is that the day we shot the scene was the anniversary of the day it actually took place; very weird atmosphere on set that day. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 8 Oct 1994 04:09:04 -0400 Subject: "Chrysalis" -- MAJOR SPOILERS Re: being fooled into thinking the crystal construct in Delenn's quarters was nothing more than a meditation thing...in general, it helps to remember that I subscribe to Anton Chekov's First Rule of Playwriting: "If there's a gun on the wall in act one, scene one, you must fire the gun by act three, scene two. If you fire a gun in act three, scene two, you must see the gun on the wall in act one, scene one." Waste nothing. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 8 Oct 1994 04:09:23 -0400 Subject: Re: Chrysalis (Yeah, yeah - SP Kosh's brevity is one of the things I like best about him; in the year two episode "The Coming of Shadows," he has just two words in the whole episode...but they're guaranteed to give just about anyone the willies. BTW, Kosh's statement, "And so it begins." Referring to Delenn's situation, and to more than that. Sound familiar? jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 8 Oct 1994 04:28:02 -0400 Subject: Re: UK-Chrysalis What happens Only two Shadowman vessels hit the Narn base at Quadrant 37, not three. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 8 Oct 1994 04:28:18 -0400 Subject: JMS: PPG'S ? PPG = Phased Plasma Gun. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 8 Oct 1994 04:42:27 -0400 Subject: UK: B5 ratings Not currently planning anything for London, Ontario. In the fullness of time...who knows? jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 8 Oct 1994 04:53:46 -0400 Subject: ATTN JMS - Parallels (was Re: If the B5 story tracked reality too closely, it wouldn't be metaphor anymore, and would lose all its fancifulness. A metaphor creates a general state or feeling in this case, so no, it won't track history precisely; it's a blend of many things, history, the story of the original Babylon, various myths, lots of stuff. Throw it all into a pot, and out comes B5. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 8 Oct 1994 07:10:13 -0400 Subject: Spoilers You say that if people don't want to be spoiled, they shouldn't read spoilers. But I think their point is that unless your message says spoiler in the title (and yours didn't) there's no way to KNOW that it's a spoiler until you read the message...at which point it's too late. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 19 Oct 1994 01:40:57 -0400 Subject: Re: Ignore Ford Thaxton (was Far be it from me to contradict the erstwhile Thaxton, but I would point out that actors CAN get out of their options VERY easily, if they really want to. The simple reality is that if an actor DOES NOT want to be there, their presence can totally destroy the morale of a show, the cast and crew. Caitlin Brown, I'd point out here, opted out of B5 of her own volition, and we chose not to gainsay her. And I stated as much here. And now an aside to Mr. Ford Thaxton...frankly, what the hell business is it of yours anyway? Public figure? You're posting here on Internet before literally *thousands* of people. So how about you give me the last few employers you worked for, so that I may either a) contact them directly and obtain information on the reasons for your departure, or b) simply go ahead and make stuff up about the reason for your departures. Or is it only fair if you do it to somebody else? About every few weeks, I run across somebody else who has what he says is THE TRUE STORY...that posts on GEnie resulted in O'Hare being fired (stated as gospel at a convention by a journalist citing sources "inside Warner Bros."); that O'Hare walked over money issues (this one was on a number of systems); that Warners forced the issue; that JMS forced the issue...on and on and on. This has gone beyond the absurd. But some people, it seems, need to gossip, and to post rumors, and to get into areas that are, frankly, none of their business. Say O'Hare was fired. Why post that and ruin the man's career for the next several years. Say O'Hare quit. Why post that and generate huge fan animosity toward him? Say the decision was advanced by me, and well greeted by O'Hare. Why? Well, because as Kissinger said, it has the added benefit of being true. Mutual and amicable. The other crap is just based on the desire of some people to hurt someone, or spread dirt, or boost their egos on the notion that information is power, and if we seem to have it, we thus have power. Only four people were in the room when the conversation took place. You weren't one of them. For me, that's the end of the discussion. Until next time, when somebody posts that evil Martian microwaves were beamed into my head making me fire O'Hare...and that's the *true* truth. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 19 Oct 1994 01:49:40 -0400 Subject: ATTN JMS questions and questio Amazing....fifteen questions and not *one* I can answer, except to say that they'll all be cleared up in the second season. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 19 Oct 1994 02:27:37 -0400 Subject: Morden, a double agent?? Correct, there are two C&C's on B5, on opposite sides of the front section. In case one should be damaged, the other is a kind of backup. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 19 Oct 1994 03:39:27 -0400 Subject: Where was Sheridan? Sheridan was never on the original list because at that time when the EA needed Minbari financing for B5, they knew it'd piss off the Minbari to have it there, so he was never considered for the post at that time. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 19 Oct 1994 03:41:23 -0400 Subject: ATTN JMS: Final episode title My titles are often in a state of flux; "Signs and Portents" was originally titled "Raiding Party" in my notes, as the B5 FAQ notes somewhere. So it may change, but for the time being, in my notes for the series, the last episode of year five has this note: Title? -- "Farewell" or "Sleeping in Light." jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 19 Oct 1994 09:49:11 -0400 Subject: Centauri Future? The Centauri will, indeed, experience a renaissance of sorts; and we will see the Centauri emperor in "The Coming of Shadows." jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 20 Oct 1994 00:59:28 -0400 Subject: Sinclair, Garibaldi, Ivanova: Issues 6-9 of the B5 comic from DC will focus on how Sinclair and Garibaldi met and formed their friendship. (This is based on a premise from me, so it's canon.) jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 20 Oct 1994 20:06:32 -0400 Subject: Arrrgggggg!(CHRYSALIS SPOILS) There's another reason why Macauley was used as Tragedy in a dream mainly centered around Psi Corps; it's not really something anybody needs to see or catch. After "Revelations," it'll be clearer. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 20 Oct 1994 21:18:24 -0400 Subject: Straczynski pays homage to... Actually, these "homages" are all incorrect, and only exist in the perception of the perceiver.... 1) the Douglas Adams "homage." Nope. Eric Sevareid once wrote that "working in television is like being nibbled to death by ducks." I think it was in his book "Not So Wild A Dream," itself a line borrowed from a poem by Norman Corwin. It's also a fairly common phrase. 2) Whitley Streiber. Aliens like that in "Communion" have been shown and drawn a LOT longer than Streiber has been talking about them. No relation. 3) Forbidden Planet...the script called for a chasm. I got three different storyboards from Ron. The best looking was that one, and that's the one we went to, though I knew it would resonate. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 21 Oct 1994 02:59:24 -0400 Subject: JMS: Ivonova and Janine M. No, Janine never came to mind while creating Ivanova. I still like Janine a lot, but to me they're very different people. Mainly I was looking at other people I've known from that part of the world, and my own background in that area, and acting accordingly. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 21 Oct 1994 03:01:13 -0400 Subject: Attn JMS: Have You read Pourne Having previously crossed swords with Pournelle, I don't tend to read much of anything he writes. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 21 Oct 1994 04:17:49 -0400 Subject: Re: Ignore Ford Thaxton (was Bruce Boxleitner was not hired because of TVQ. Bruce was hired because he was the best actor for the part, *AND* because he had worked with Doug Netter and John Copeland before on other projects, and thus they knew him and had a very high regard for him. You conveniently ignore that aspect of it. Also, you ignore some of the other actors that we announced were also on the list, beneath Bruce, which included Roger Reece, who we were strongly considering as a backup to Bruce should Bruce not turn out to be available. Roger is a dynamite actor, but has zero TVQ. (To provide the "direct evidence" that Theron Fuller keeps nudging about, a call to his agent can confirm the discussions.) There were several other actors whose names you've probably never HEARD of on that list...so if the only thing we wanted was a TVQ actor, if that was the reason for replacing O'Hare, then why would we be wasting time talking to actors without a TVQ? "My only interest is that I can't stand BS." Meaning you came into this with the ASSUMPTION, based on nothing, that this was BS. As far as I'm concerned, it's your comments that are strictly bullshit. Your whole attitude is one of just wanting to make people upset (your note about some truth to your getting a kick out of irritating people), and disdain at the people here as "worshippers." It seems to me that anytime in the past, as with here, when somebody mouths off out of ignorance or bile or cupidity, and gets called on it, he tends to try and kill the messenger by describing the folks doing the disagreeing as "worshippers." This is an old gag, and we've seen it here before. Seen it, been there, boring. Re: O'Hare not saying much about the situation in Starlog...item number one is that you're relying on what was quoted, and that may not (almost certainly was not) all that was said. Item number two, and more important: Michael is a very private man. He didn't say anything about it because it's none of anyone's business, and he wants to keep the whole show on a positive basis because he believes in it. You operate off the boneheaded theory that someone who says nothing on the subject surely must have something to hide. Now me, I was born in America, where a person is innocent until proven guilty. You seem to operate from the assumption that everyone is guilty of whatever it is you think they're guilty of, until such time as they prove otherwise. You must come from a very odd, and very dark place. You can "stand your ground" all you want; you have nothing but your erroneous facts, misapprehensions, delusions and convenient misquotings to rely on. Obviously you're laboring under some sort of problem in maturity or some other area, but either way it's got nothing to do with my show, or the people here. And you have not answered my query: please provide for me the names of your last 3-4 employers, so that I may contact them, or speculate freely, about your reasons for departing said employment. After all, you haven't said anything about them in response to a direct query...thus by your own reasoning you MUST have something to hide. And by being here in front of several thousand "worshippers," you're as public a figure as O'Hare. Why would I possibly want to know this? Why, for the same reasons you express. "I can't stand BS." jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 21 Oct 1994 04:19:32 -0400 Subject: Re: Ignore Ford Thaxton (was A suggestion for those Theron Fuller is bugging about DIRECT EVIDENCE, and whose opinions he tends to dismiss for lack thereof...you're dancing a dance you can't win. You should be asking what CONSTITUTES "direct evidence." Insofar as I know, there are only two forms of direct evidence: eyewitness accounts at the time (viz: me), or physical evidence in the form of documents, DNA reports, fingerprints at the scene of the crime, and so forth. In short, you're being asked to provide material that simply does not exist. This is an old debate tactic, which works only so long as you don't ask the person to define the "direct evidence" in question. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 22 Oct 1994 00:32:42 -0400 Subject: IMPORTANT: JMS FIRED!!! Why does all this weird "JMS fired" shit always come out of an Arizona node, I wonder...? jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 22 Oct 1994 00:33:02 -0400 Subject: Re: Ignore Ford Thaxton (was "The show's ratings were going down at the end of last season." Sorry, another fabrication on your part. We were on an up-swing. The only time we dipped badly was when we hit the first batch of reruns. In point of fact, "at the end of last season," our final seven episodes EACH INCREASED OVER THE ONE BEFORE, by quite a substantial amount. It was a sharp, definite upward curve. You'd know that if you knew what you were talking about, instead of just making stuff up. It's amazing how, to try and make people think that I'm less than forthright, they inevitably resort to lying.... jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 22 Oct 1994 00:33:25 -0400 Subject: Re: Ignore Ford Thaxton (was Theron Fuller...you keep asking for "direct evidence." Please define what you would accept as "direct evidence" given that only four people were in the room? Please be specific. Obviously hearsay or direct statements (which are usually good enough for a court of law) don't seem good enough for you. So what would be? (IN a real world, not a hypothetical, as you state.) You're demanding of people things that do not exist. And trying to deride their opinion because they cannot provide that which does not exist. You keep talking about logic and reasonableness...but having studied logic, I'm afraid you're totally out to sea on this. YOU have taken a position for which there is *no* evidence whatsoever. If you don't have a point to make, what's the point of the conversation? If you do, what is your basis for that point? Please show YOUR direct evidence, and be sure that it meets the criteria you set up for others. Basically, and frankly, I think you're a mind-fucker, someone who comes on knowing full well that there's no way of proving anything (unless one wants to take the word of someone who was there), and thus tries to sow some dissension, some contention, to get people all riled up trying to meet and cater to YOUR demands...demands which you are not at liberty to make of them. Now, may I begin to speculate about your last few jobs? After all, I can hypothetically state that you were probably fired from your last few jobs for rather sordid reasons. Now, can anybody out there show me DIRECT EVIDENCE to the contrary? Oh, and I'm sorry, but the word of your employers doesn't count. The oldest debate trick is to try and make someone prove a negative, that something *didn't* happen...which is exactly what you're trying to do here, and the unfortunate thing is that some folks have fallen for it. I suggest you grow up and find another game to play. This one is getting real old. LOGICALLY, one never makes an assertion unless one has evidence. To start with assumptions, as you have, flies in the face of logic. So let's see YOUR direct evidence, Theron. Let's hold you up to the same standards you seem to require of everyone else. Well? You're so fast to demand it of everyone else...surely you MUST have something more than just hot air, Theron? Come on. Put up or shut up. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 22 Oct 1994 00:51:46 -0400 Subject: Re: claudia christian BTW, Claudia and I will be appearing at Stellar Occasions Convention in Dallas this weekend, at the Executive Hotel in Love Field. I'll be doing two B5 presentations, at noon and six p.m. Saturday, including a showing of "Chrysalis" and other material. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 24 Oct 1994 03:57:59 -0400 Subject: JMS: Why DC comics DC had kind of an edge because it's owned by Time/Warner. But so far what I've seen of the book has been great, and given the people doing it there, should be more than worthwhile. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 24 Oct 1994 04:03:44 -0400 Subject: B5 in Germany? B5 will appear on Sat Eintz in German starting around December, I'm told. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 24 Oct 1994 04:04:00 -0400 Subject: ATTN JMS: Were you in the prev Insofar as I know, no, I'm not in the B5 promo. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 24 Oct 1994 04:04:17 -0400 Subject: More Greys!!!! Actually, Christy has gone on record (otherwise I would not have noted it myself) that the trial scene at the top of "Grail" was written and inserted by me, since it was a bit short. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 24 Oct 1994 04:28:36 -0400 Subject: Demon Night and B5 This is way, way stretching it.... jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 24 Oct 1994 04:28:52 -0400 Subject: Szarabacha(sp?) on B5!?!? Yep, that's the same guy. I thought he did *excellent* work on The Equalizer as well. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 26 Oct 1994 01:05:54 -0400 Subject: B5 Soundtrack? Yes, there is a B5 soundtrack, and in the next couple of days I will be very pleased to announce who's doing it...and there just *might* be some good news for LosCon here in LA: we may have a limited edition available in time for the convention. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 26 Oct 1994 01:34:36 -0400 Subject: ATTN JMS: Licensing Model Kits We don't license out to manufacturers, but to distributers which then deal with manufacturers. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 26 Oct 1994 01:34:51 -0400 Subject: Re: Ignore Ford Thaxton (was Ford clearly doesn't know anything about the show, as you note or he'd be aware that "Chrysalis" was filmed #12. As for "Babylon Squared," which you mention...again, there's something interesting in timing here, which of course Ford will ignore, because he's a pinhead. B2 aired long, LONG after the O'Hare conversation took place. Months. Now, if we really intended to change the story, if Sinclair was never to show up again, it would have been absolutely simple (since we were still plugging stuff into that episode up until a few weeks before it aired in August) to either snip that scene out, or re-shoot it with someone else. It's a thirty-second shot, absolutely no problem. But we didn't. We left it in. (And we've left other mysteries unresolved, we could've gotten away with it.) We were about five minutes over in that episode, and there was plenty of stuff we could've stuck in to make up the time. But, again, we didn't. But naturally, none of this will matter to Ford, who is simply an idiot. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 26 Oct 1994 04:43:47 -0400 Subject: Ignore Ford Thaxton, maybe... Excuse me, but the points *are* disputed, particularly the statement that ratings were down at the end of the season, when (as posted by me at the time, and verifiable via the trades) ratings for the last seven eps in a ROW were UP, each one higher than the one before. This is really approaching theater of the absurd proportions.... jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 27 Oct 1994 03:46:35 -0400 Subject: *1* reason Trek is better... "If it weren't for Star Trek, B5 would NEVER have been accepted into the mainstream media." Wrong on just about every count. 1) Neither ST nor B5 have been accepted by the *mainstream* media; they're still SF, and thus well out of the mainstream. 2) If ST is responsible for making the environment such that B5 could get on the air, what made the media receptive to ST? Answer: Lost in Space, which was a ratings hit a year before ST hit the airwaves (and thus ST was looked upon in its first year as a cheap attempt to cash in on LiS's success, as pronounced by many reviewers at the time). And how does The Invaders fit into all this? Crediting ST with B5 getting on the air is simply silly, and against the facts. In point of fact, ST has made it *SUBSTANTIALLY HARDER* for new SF series to get on the air, especially if they're set in space, in our future. We were told, by every network and studio, that there is no room in the TV marketplace for more than ST; that the market won't sustain more than one show; that ST is a "non-repeating phenomenon" (direct quote), and that SF doesn't work on TV. (And, in fact, look at the number of SF shows other than ST that have gone on for more than two seasons in the last, say, ten years. Nearly zilch.) We had to fight to overcome the ST influence on the marketplace to get B5 on the air; so you'll understand why I blanch just a little when I hear something like that. I'd be much happier if ST just took credit for ST, rather than making them inappropriately responsible for B5, when ST was only one more obstacle for us to overcome. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 27 Oct 1994 05:56:54 -0400 Subject: JMS: Triple Damned? Actually, "triple-damned" is a fairly common Earth phrase as well. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 30 Oct 1994 17:39:25 -0500 Subject: Spoliers and Portents: A Seaso A good and thoughtful analysis. You also caught one of the aspects of "Chrysalis" that I was going for. The teaser of that episode is very much just the sort of thing we've seen before; designed to lull you into a sense of, "Yeah, yeah, we've seen this." Right down to the tired look on Sinclair's face. Been there, done that. Then you yank the viewer's blanket. And structurally, it was designed to somewhat mirror the events in the first episode; the balance is shifting, things are going in the reverse of what we saw before. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 30 Oct 1994 17:39:42 -0500 Subject: reaction: Points of Departure In a sense, yes, "Believers" now enters the arc...but so does "Soul Hunter," in a big way. Replay Lennier's talk to Sheridan and Ivanova, then play Delenn's conversation with Sinclair and the Soul Hunter in that episode, and suddenly a lot of elements begin to intersect. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 30 Oct 1994 21:39:04 -0500 Subject: Quotes to remember. POD spoile Re: you're noticing the line, "You talk like a Minbari" from Neroon to Sinclair in "Legacies"....yup. Sometimes this stuff is in broa strokes, sometimes in teeny little things like that. Also ties in even further with where Sinclair goes. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 31 Oct 1994 03:39:16 -0500 Subject: Point of Departure Some time ago, I mentioned (here and elsewhere) that "Points" was designed to be a less intense episode than either "Chrysalis" or the second episode of year two, "Revelations," which is in many ways even more intense than "Chrysalis." I think you need to give viewers a rest here and there; if you did "Chrysalis" every episode at this point you'd scare the hell out of people, and we're trying not to alienate those who might be interested in checking out the first episode this year. (I tend to use this approach overall as well; if we've had 2-3 serious episodes in a row, I write a funny episode, just to keep things varied.) jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 31 Oct 1994 20:43:48 -0500 Subject: Bab 5 in USA Today USA Today and TV Guide got that aspect more correct than the USA Today piece. Odds were *somebody* had to.... jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 31 Oct 1994 20:45:37 -0500 Subject: ATTN JMS:Thank You I very much appreciate your thoughts. I sometimes think that a few people get so caught up in what they want that we're not doing to their satisfaction, that they don't see what we *have* done. As for other books...DEMON NIGHT and OTHERSYDE are my first two novels from Dutton (hardcover); TALES FROM THE NEW TWILIGHT ZONE in paperback; and a bunch of short stories in various magazines. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 31 Oct 1994 22:50:17 -0500 Subject: USA TODAY and the Truth about In my hand, I hold a bunch of articles that came out today about the O'Hare/Bruce situation. TV Guide, the Washington Post, the Orange County Register and several others, all citing different sources, ALL CONFIRM what has been said here before by me and others. The USA Today piece is simply an editorial assumption by the reporter that is not buttressed by any other information. The other articles got it right; the one you cite did not. But hey...a half dozen get it right, one just misses...I'm not about to complain. Give it a rest and get a life, Ford. If you say people should "accept the truth" because it appears in print, then I assume that YOU will now "accept the truth" and shut up and quit being a nuisance. jms