brennen
/
lurkers-guide
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 0 Pull Requests 0 Releases 0 Wiki Activity
The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5
You can not select more than 25 topics Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.
51 Commits
1 Branch
88 MiB
 
 
 
 
Branch: master
Branches Tags
${ item.name }
Create branch ${ searchTerm }
from 'master'
${ noResults }
lurkers-guide/ftp/Usenet/jms93-11-usenet

1411 lines
59 KiB
Raw Permalink Blame History

===========================================================================
| This text is compiled from posts by J. Michael Straczynski on the Usenet
| group alt.tv.babylon-5. This document contains material Copyright 1993
| 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 Nov 1993 00:46:49 -0500
Subject: Comments on B5
Thus far, with 22 stories ready and slugged for this season, we
haven't done any of the ones you warn against...so I guess we're doing
something right....
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 1 Nov 1993 02:48:23 -0500
Subject: A (trivial) suggestion
Happily, we're doing that; the bartender is generally the same, we
have a recurring character as one of the techs in the observation dome,
some of our security people are repeaters, and so on.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 2 Nov 1993 05:31:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Trek vs. B5
One thing we're trying to do on B5 in this respect is to really use
three-dimensional space, on the full x-y-z axis for ship movements and
the like. Opens up all kinds of wonderful opportunities.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 2 Nov 1993 06:13:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Trek vs. B5
Thanks. The process has sometimes not been easy. More often than
not, one runs into fairly blunt opinions. But that's part of the process.
Many people I know in the TV or film business have tried to maintain such
a line, and just get turned off or insulted and go away. Or they come in
briefly to get the PR invovled, a la "Sneakers," and then they're gone. A
few stay...George Martin, others. And sometimes it's very hard to take it
on the chin from someone you've never met, who's just called something you
worked on for five years "crap" and sometimes for reasons that are more in
the perception than the reality (such as the internet user who flamed me
for using wrist links when it's clearly established that in the future we
will all be using chest-communicators a la TNG, and thus every time I used
our links it broke the illusion for him)....
But in the long run, it's been, and continues to be more of a positive
experience than a negative one. Because some of the criticisms have merit,
and need to be addressed. Other times, hard questions get asked, and I
have to sit down and really think about this character or that situation,
and in doing so, those answers end up helping the show. Every day, I find
anywhere from 30-60 messages in my GEnie box, most of them Internet relays,
and it's like opening a puzzle box...you're never entirely sure what you're
going to find inside.
And most of the messages are informed, and literate, and challenging,
which is the part I enjoy most. As for the rest...my sense is this: a long
time ago, when we began this journey -- and I've been on-line talking about
B5 on the nets for several *years* now -- the one thing that was foremost
in my mind was the sense that SF media fans are probably the most exploited
such fans around. They're expected to be cash cows who line up and buy
the products, no talking or shoving in the lines, and for god's sake no
questions or hassle. They're often valued for as long as they continue to
buy the merchandise. Every year, producers who don't know SF, and don't
know fandom, and really don't care, trundle out their shows as the Next
Best Thing Since Sliced Bread, raise a lot of attention...and when the show
turns into crap, they're suddenly nowhere to be found.
When the pilot aired, I stuck around. And I'll do all I can to stick
around while the series is airing. (The only glitches may be when I'm hip
deep in production.) This is my audience, and I feel that one should be
responsive and receptive to one's audience, and not run out when things get
uncomfortable. You knew the job was dangerous when you took it. See, the
thing is, I *am* a fan, and I've *been* a fan, from a kid growing up on
Bradbury and Clarke and Tolkein and Doc Smith to the present...I've sat in
the audience and listened to those aforementioned producers at conventions
and waited, only to be disappointed.
And when the time came to do B5, I swore that I'd try and do it
differently...that there would be an ongoing dialogue with the viewers of
the show, that we'd listen and be responsive and not just exploit, and if
we didn't have answers to the hard questions then by god we'd go and we'd
GET the answers. Or look like idiots. Because it's the fans who keep
this medium alive, and to ingore that aspect seems to me inappropriate.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 3 Nov 1993 01:11:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Lifespan of a Centauri / h
We're using a tachyon communications system to handle the FTL problem
regarding communications. As for the coloration of the jump gate (if
we're talking about the same thing), the wave effect is red-shifted when
you enter the jump gate, and blue-shifted when coming out. I think we
had that slightly out of phase in the pilot; it's since been corrected to
match correct red-shift.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 3 Nov 1993 01:20:18 -0500
Subject: Re: JMS: Recent? stuff...
Actually, your description of how it would work is closer to how it
does work and what's been done. My description was less than perfect.
When Ron does ship movement stuff, he programs in the dynamics of motion
so that it's pre-calculated to be correct.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 3 Nov 1993 14:00:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Comments on B5
Re: "wonder at the mystery of life." Hold that thought and write it
down, and yank it out before watching "Mind War" and "The Parliament of
Dreams." You'll understand.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 4 Nov 1993 02:53:12 -0500
Subject: Question for JMS...
Kosh will "speak" in the series. After a fashion. But not as you
might expect. Suffice to say we've seen the final effect now in the mix
of finished episodes, and it's *real* creepy.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 4 Nov 1993 02:53:34 -0500
Subject: Starfury launch error in cgi?
I'm sorry, but I don't agree that this is an error. This launch
scenario is the one best suggested by some of the techie types we've gone
to. In addition, you want to fire with the nose facing out because you
want to get the engines going as quickly as possible, once you're clear
of the bay, to get the ship *outward* as soon as possible, because the
primary docking bay is at the "front" of the station, and you don't want
to have a flight of fighters entering your primary traffic lane. The
noses of the furies when releeased are pointing in the "down" direction of
centrifugal force, and that's the direction in which they should be
released. Nor would they travel diagonally along the station in any
event; they'd go at a nominal curve away from the cobra launch bays much
the same as a rock tied to a string flies away from you when you release
it after whirling it around your head.
This works, and makes the most common, and scientific sense.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 4 Nov 1993 02:54:02 -0500
Subject: Starfury launch error in cgi?
P.S. The traveling diagonally alongside the station only works if
the station is accellerating forward as well as rotating. But the station
isn't moving forward, it's stationary.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 4 Nov 1993 02:54:09 -0500
Subject: StarFuries
The Starfuries are intended ONLY for non-atmospheric combat. They're
not really built for atmospheres; they'd have all the aerodynamic facility
of a brick. There are "wings" of a sort which mainly exist to put the
multidirectional thrusters in the right locations to be of most use, to
allow the craft to fire engines in any direction at any time, so it can go
forward, sideways, upside down, backwards, you name it. The closer you
put them to the center of a small ship, the less effective they are; you
want them some distance away...and far enough so that when they fire to
the side, they're not flashing right next to your field of vision.
The weaponry is mainly forward mounted.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 4 Nov 1993 02:54:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Trek vs. B5
"Would it be fair to compare the original ST pilot to B5's pilot?"
No, it would not. Because there is nothing in common with them other
than that they are both SF. You can compare TNG to DS9 to TOS, because
they're in the same universe.
Would it be fair to compare Cagney and Lacey with NYPD Blue? After
all, they're both cop shows. But in fact, they're not the same kind of
cop show; they share the same genre, but there ends the overlap. The two
shows are distinct, separate entities, just as Harlan Ellison's work is
distinct from Bill Gibson's work, even though both incorprorate elements
of SF.
The ST pilot existed in its own universe, and was primarily an action
show. The B5 pilot exists in its own universe, and primarily sets the
stage for a political mystery/intrigue series. It wasn't meant to serve
the same functions as the ST pilot.
It seems to me that many SF fans continue to compare everything to
ST because that's their primary frame of reference, and they continue to
apply it whether it's relevant or not. My suggestion...get another frame
of reference.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 5 Nov 1993 00:48:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Trek vs. B5
Once again, there's a lot of false analogies here in any attempt to
compare pilots, as in this TOS and B5 thread. You're talking about
transporters and other *technological* items. And you're right, they
didn't explain their tech. Neither did we, with the exception of the
changling net in the pilot, and only because it was a plot point. We
didn't explain how the jump gates worked, how centrifugal force kept the
gravity in place, or any of that.
The difference isn't *technology*, it's *context*. Once again, B5 is
in many ways a *political* story. Consequently it's necessary to explain
who the players are in some detail, something that ST didn't have to
worry about. If you're reading a political thriller about the U.S. and
the (now defunct) USSR, it helps a lot to know who's who.
Also, when ST started, there wasn't really a clear agenda, a place
that they were going, story-wise. B5 is a novel for TV. And that puts
on some pressures and problems other shows don't have. Others may not
see it that way, but it isn't their call. It's my call, and I stand
behind it, even while seeing some of the flaws in the pilot.
All of which again points up the...well, *pointlessness* of trying
to compare the two shows. Compare MASH to ALL IN THE FAMILY. They're
both comedies. The similarity ends there. Everything doesn't have to
be comparable or dissectable (to coin a term) in reference to ST.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 5 Nov 1993 03:48:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Trek vs. B5
The first one-hour episode of the series, "Midnight on the Firing
Line," does a fair amount of re-introduction, for those who've seen the
pilot and need to be up to speed, and some introducing for those who
haven't. It is, however, largely an action-oriented story, into which we
weave the characterization. It manages to convey some of the same info as
the pilot, but in a *much* more dramatic fashion.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 6 Nov 1993 02:03:19 -0500
Subject: Why fighters at all?
Why fighters? Real simple. The stations shielding is good, but not
great; fighters could punch a hole in it. So on that level, they're there
for defense. But aside from that, B5 is charged with being a port of call,
and thus must keep those traffic lanes in its general vicinity safe. So
fighters are sometimes called upon to protect civilian vessels from a
variety of threats. Also, if a ship is disabled and unable to find the
station, or otherwise hobbled, a fighter escort can be sent to get them
to the station. They're *very* useful.
jms
(P.S. Just a thought...but I've been watching the discussion of the
Starfury launch sequence with great interest, particularly in light of the
fact that only -- what? -- 20 seconds of B5 material has been released,
and that alone has triggered off a detailed scientific discussion of
rotational gravity, centripidal force, and other aspects of physics. I
can only wonder what more detailed discussions will be triggered once we
actually begin showing whole *episodes*.)
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 6 Nov 1993 20:44:08 -0500
Subject: Re: Starfury launch error in c
Yes, this is what we were going for. The use of outward force to
push the fighters away from the station (rotational force) has nothing to
do with catapulting the ships, it's just a low-fuel, high-economy way of
getting the ships away by taking advantage of the station's rotation, so
they can fire their engines at a safe distance from the station. It's the
fastest way overall to launch a whole bunch of fighters while leaving the
primary docking bay clear for larger ships.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 8 Nov 1993 01:46:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Trek vs. B5
Then again, by the definition you apply, no good characterization
can be done, no surprises can come along, in a novel, since a novel is
generally planned out and outlined prior to being written.
But in fact you CAN do solid characterizations in novels; if anything
a novel-like approach (as with B5) lets you do *more* characterization by
virtue of constructing a whole person.
I would also point you toward "The Prisoner," which had a definite
story, a definite beginning, middle and end, but is very MUCH a character
story, with lots of surprises.
In any event, you may want to check out the series before pronouncing
judgment...who knows, you might just be...surprised.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 8 Nov 1993 01:59:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Trek vs. B5
The other problem with "Twin Peaks," of course, is that they opened
up a lot of questions, but never *really* answered any of them. In B5,
every question we ask, will be answered.
jms
(I would also, btw, not characterize B5 as a "mystery" series; like
Casablanca, it's a character-based story which uses intrigue and mystery
to heighten the characters.)
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 9 Nov 1993 01:04:36 -0500
Subject: B5 schedule.
Babylon 5 is on schedule, and on-budget. You can't be ahead of
schedule in TV, because you have to allocate so many days for any single
episode, and that's written in stone. But we're absolutely spot on, and
keeping to the budget, which is something of a first for an SF series.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 9 Nov 1993 01:20:31 -0500
Subject: JMS comments and encouriagemen
Thanks. Anytime....
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 9 Nov 1993 11:06:44 -0500
Subject: B5's Weapons
One thing to bear in mind is that the hand-weapon used by the assassin
in the B5 pilot was the equivilent of a derringer; it wasn't made for such
consistent use. It has a longer recharge period than, say, a full-fledged
hand-held PPG or a rifle version. One thing we're trying to get into is
the reality of how beam weapons would operate. They would chew through a
lot of energy, very fast, and need large energy supplies; the smaller the
gun, the longer the power build. What we've instituted with our regular
weaponry is to include energy pods in the same basic holster as the guns.
So you have a hand-held PPG with energy pod in place, looking more or less
like a regular gun (in silhouette, anyway, meaning that it's hand held),
with an additional pod at the ready for when that one runs out. You run
out, pop the pod, slap in another, and you're ready to go. The rifle
versions have larger pods which can fire even more quickly, and can go
longer without recharging.
Though it's TV, we're trying to hew at least to some degree to what
seems reasonable; guns shouldn't have an infinite firing capability, there
is no such thing as an infinite power source that can fit into a small
space, like a gun.
We've also redesigned the actual burst of the gun to make it look
faster, and deadlier, than before.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 9 Nov 1993 21:24:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Why is it "Coming in Janua
Just some corrections to your message....
The January start time has little to do with the points you raise.
It doesn't give us (or any other show) a longer lead time, because what
you do is backtrack from when you want to be on the air, to when you should
start preproduction to meet that date, then factor in about a month just
to be on the safe side, as a buffer. That applies whether your show goes
on the air in January or September. It's no longer a shooting schedule
than any other show. Our schedule is seven working days per episode,
which is pretty much standard.
There's no "smaller episode package to try and peddle" because we're
doing 22 episodes, which were pre-sold to the stations. And nobody does
27 episodes of any series anymore, not in years and years. Even the most
successful top-10 series -- and I was on one -- doesn't usually get more
than 24 episodes total per season.
There's also no financial roll-over to the show, since it began in
July (for pre-production), and continues throughout.
There are really only a few factors involved in a January launch: it
does come toward mid-season when people have seen what else is out there,
and you're not competing in the fall season push with major network
shows that outnumber you 10-1. Also, January/February are the next big
Sweeps period for ratings after the fall, so that's the time you pick.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 9 Nov 1993 21:27:10 -0500
Subject: Minor visual discrepency final
That ain't it.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 10 Nov 1993 04:26:27 -0500
Subject: Re-runs of Capt. Power?
Better check the temperature in hell first...ain't gonna happen.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 15 Nov 1993 06:33:20 -0500
Subject: .AVI request
With regrets, a) I don't know how to do an AVI file, and b) even if
I did, PTEN (which won't let me post gifs) wouldn't let me post that,
either.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 16 Nov 1993 13:04:48 -0500
Subject: Re: StarFurries?
That notion of waivers has been proposed, repeatedly, and shot down,
repeatedly unfortunately. Not seeing ideas is the only way to protect
oneself in these lawsuit-happy times.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 16 Nov 1993 14:16:16 -0500
Subject: Master plan, was Re: Trek vs.
I approached B5 with the theory that *every episode* must be able to
stand completely alone, and be appreciated completely on its own terms. If
you never saw another episode of B5, you got a solid hour's entertainment
out of it. It's only as you see more episodes that you gradually become
aware of a much larger story going on here.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 16 Nov 1993 14:42:24 -0500
Subject: Re: B5's Weapons
You want helium gas bursts when the PPG is fired? You want it to
look more like projectile weaponry when fired? You want recoil? You want
the impact to diminish over distance? You want the kind of sound you
would get if something that superheated burst through a section of the
air?
Guess what? You got it. That's *exactly* how a PPG operates.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 16 Nov 1993 16:44:02 -0500
Subject: Re: B5 computer screens
We've redesigned the monitors to look less like conventional CRTs and
more like flatscreens.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 17 Nov 1993 07:38:36 -0500
Subject: There is no BOOM in space!
Unless extreme conditions merit it, we've generally gone more for
music than for sound effects in space. It works better, looks better,m
sounds better.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 17 Nov 1993 08:02:53 -0500
Subject: Re: JMS: Recent stuff
Either you or I should definitely cut back on caffeine.
Go, and sin no more.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 17 Nov 1993 13:07:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Re-runs of Capt. Power?
I liked POWER as well. Quite a lot. We did some good work. But it
has this rep for being violent, there was a lot of controversy around it,
and thus far, at least insofar as I know, there's been no movement by the
skiffy channel or anyone else to pick up that one season.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 17 Nov 1993 16:20:57 -0500
Subject: Re: text in pilot
Re: "Universe Today," my feeling was that there are specialized
editions beamed out to various places...the Mars Colony gets one with
stories skewed to their interest, and so on. Including B5, since it's a
major port. The issues are printed on recycled material; finish a copy,
dump it in a drop, and it's put out again the next day. Synthetic
material.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 17 Nov 1993 16:23:21 -0500
Subject: Re: List of "Magical" Technolo
Funnily, everyone has operated off the assumption that Knight One and
Knight Two are telepaths or psi cops. But I've never said that, or to my
knowledge implied it. (And no, neither character comes under that
heading.)
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 17 Nov 1993 17:29:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Trek vs. B5
"It (B5) will be a show that is not based on characters but based on
mystery."
Wrong.
Point a gun at someone's head. See how it affects them. Is the
resultant story about the gun, or about the person it's aimed at?
On all of the series I've worked on, the one strong suit I've found,
the only story I'm really interested in telling, is a character story. I
am not a big mystery fan. What I enjoy are the characters. While the
background of our series forms a low-level subtext, every single story
produced so far this season is a character story. Very *strong*
character story. The only episode in which it's a little light is in
the first episode, because we kind of re-establish our cast after the
delay of the pilot. Even so, there's more character stuff there than in
the pilot, by quite a lot. And the very next episode up, "Soul Hunter,"
is an extremely powerful character story.
Anyway, it kind of amuses me to see someone say that B5 "will be"
one kind of show or another. The only person who knows what the B5 story
will be is at this end of the keyboard. And that *ain't* it.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 17 Nov 1993 22:31:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Question about Lita (sp?)
We're definitely keeping the Psi Corps, with the presence of our new
station telepath Talia Winters, played by Andrea Thompson. And I can say
that the Corps will play a fairly substantial role in the series, in one
way or another.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 18 Nov 1993 07:49:56 -0500
Subject: Re: Trek vs. B5
Thank you. Be assured that we are working very hard not to
disappoint you, and I don't think we will. This is, as you perceive,
not just another job for most of us involved with Babylon 5. It is a
labor of love by those who enjoy SF, *for* those who enjoy SF. It's the
show that *we* would want to watch, as fans. Many of us are putting in
20 hour days, fighting to make every frame just right, because it means a
lot to us...and it is our hope that someday it may mean as much to others.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 18 Nov 1993 08:10:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Gravity Ring
Actually, it was always our thought that the recorders were made of
an extremely ultralight material -- there's an actual term for this sort
of thing that has just fallen out of my head -- kept in place by a fan
system operating at high speed, gyroscopically controlled to remain
stable.
Sort of small hovercraft technology up 200 years or so. Ain't much
magic or, for that matter, much high-tech involved in it.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 18 Nov 1993 08:14:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Observations from the pilo
Your assumption is correct; the assassin's weapon was a very small
one...limited power, and a charge-up sequence that becomes longer the
more it's used. If the Minbari had shot Lyta, it would've taken too long
for the gun to power-up again for him to shoot Sinclair...and he would've
been captured. We slightly expanded the power-up whine for each shot
after the first one. You'll note that the first shot, the one that takes
out Varner, is almost immediate. Points and fires. Gradually it takes
longer, and finally the gun runs out altogether (which is why, though we
probably should've been clearer in showing this, the assassin finally
went hand-to-hand with Sinclair...the gun was never meant as an assault
weapon, more as a derringer, with a few shots in case he got into
trouble).
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 18 Nov 1993 08:21:03 -0500
Subject: Will B-5 be a "cartoon"?
I don't have anything to do with the promos, for the most part,
don't make the promos, and in this case still haven't seen this
particular promo. Sometimes I think they stress the action aspect more
than the character stuff, because it's easier to blow out action in 15 to
30 seconds than character.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 18 Nov 1993 08:42:44 -0500
Subject: Here's Info on LOSCON, where j
At the LosCon presentation on Thanksgiving Saturday, I'll be showing
scenes from upcoming shows, one nifty out-take, and "Midnight on the
Firing Line," our debut episode, *in its entirety*. Present will be me,
story editor Larry DiTillio, and tentatively, Harlan Ellison and several
of our cast members. They've given us the biggest room at the con, but
it's already looking like it's going to be packed to the rafters, so I
would suggest that anyone attending show up early...when we screened the
B5 pilot at last year's LosCon, its west coast debut, there was nearly a
mini-riot over seating.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 19 Nov 1993 01:34:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Series plot, was Re: Trek
Shawn, excuse me if I'm just a tad curt here, but given that you have
not seen a single episode, have not read a single script for the series,
for you to say that in the B5 series, characters "have been forced to take
subordinate roles" is, frankly, more than a little nuts. In the message
from you just preceding that, you indicate that you don't think the show
may work on ANY level, all based on your assumptions which have nothing --
I repeat, nothing -- to do with the *reality* of what we're doing here.
If I might be so bold, may I suggest that you actually *see* an
episode or two before reviewing the series? One can review the pilot all
one wants, but we've changed a *lot* since that pilot, including some
elements of how we're going to approach the series and the overall arc of
the story.
Call me crazy, but I kinda like to *see* the painting before I decide
whether or not I like the brush strokes.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 19 Nov 1993 01:47:03 -0500
Subject: Re: Series plot, was Re: Trek
"The pilot wasn't good. Face it!"
I'm at the head of the line to point out flaws in the pilot. Flaws
that we've dealt with. But a) it still holds up, and b) you are trying to
make your opinion into *fact*. It ain't. An awful lot of people liked
the pilot a lot. To them, it was good. Maybe to you, it wasn't, but
that's only true for you. That you may think persimmon yoghurt is the
best flavor ever created doesn't make it true for everybody else. Just a
moment for perspective here....
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 19 Nov 1993 01:56:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Will B-5 be a "cartoon"?
The point you make is absolutely true. For every person who wants to
do something, there are always 15 people to tell him or her why it can't
be done, why it won't work, why you'll fail. Okay, fine, there are risks.
Nothing of substance is ever accomplished WITHOUT taking risks. Sometimes
you fail, sometimes you don't. But what's the alternative?
One of my prize items in my office is a WWII pin from the Royal
Air Force. It has the following motto emblazoned on it: "Who Dares, Wins."
You have to dare from time to time.
For six years -- seven by the time this series hits air -- there have
been people saying that this show couldn't be done...that it couldn't be
done for the money (we proved otherwise), that you couldn't get the kind
of EFX you'd need in television (proved that wrong), and now this comes
along. And we'll prove that wrong as well.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 19 Nov 1993 16:41:27 -0500
Subject: User-Friendly and MSG to JMS
Interesting info re: the phone company. I may use that at some point
if the question comes up. Also, our PR people are definitely working with
the print media; I would imagine the push will start really manifesting
itself toward the end of the year.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 19 Nov 1993 16:41:48 -0500
Subject: Why not guns?
Why use PPGs instead of Uzi-style projectile weapons/automatic
weapons?
Most of the walls inside B5 are metal.
Does the term "ricochet" ring a bell...?
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 19 Nov 1993 20:06:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Trek vs. B5
Re: jms/jms...don't worry. Everybody misspells Straczynski.
smj
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 19 Nov 1993 20:30:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Story Ideas Problem
The whole idea as to what constitutes an idea, and what constitutes
a story, is fuzzy. And the sad reality is that one need not be able to
win a case in order to *file* a case. And fighting a lawsuit can cost
upwards of $100,000, which is usually unrecoverable. It's just an
increasingly ugly situation.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 20 Nov 1993 04:11:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Series plot, was Re: Trek
"If JMS had not mentioned the hole in Sinclair's mind, what would
have been the reason for the assassin to try and kill Sinclair?"
Hello...did you see the same movie that I wrote? The assassin was
not there to kill Sinclair. He was there to kill Kosh. He tried to kill
Kosh. He tried to stay AWAY from Sinclair, did everything in his power
to avoid Sinclair, ran from
Sinclair, and only finally encountered Sinclair when Sinclair came after
HIM. Then it was nominal self-defense.
Had the "hole in the mind" reference never been made, it would have
been clear -- at least clear to every other carbon-based lifeform who saw
the movie -- that the assassin 1) came to try and kill Kosh, 2) in the
hope of disrupting the purpose of Babylon 5, with the added benefit of
3) if he failed in his mission, setting up Sinclair to take the rap for
his actions. At the very end, rather than be captured and interrogated,
the Minbari assassin killed himself with an implanted bomb. His comment
to Sinclair at that moment was more of an "Up yours" comment, designed to
shatter Sinclair with the knowledge that he knew something Sinclair
didn't.
You keep saying he was there to kill Sinclair. He wasn't. He didn't.
He didn't try. It makes it hard to have this conversation with you if
your comments don't touch reality at any two contiguous points.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 21 Nov 1993 00:28:40 -0500
Subject: JMS' demons
An interesting bit of demonology. And there is certainly some
measure of validity to it. A story is only as good as the questions that
it answers. The writer's job is to always ask the next question. The
problem is as often in finding the right question as it is in finding the
right response. One thing I've discovered in something like 10 years of
net-surfing is that I'm always surprised. And in the case of B5, there
have been many questions raised, many challenges made, for which I didn't
have immediate, ready answers. It's forced me to think about things and
come up with answers I didn't know I needed until the question was posed.
All things considered, it's been a valuable and educational experience.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 21 Nov 1993 00:32:51 -0500
Subject: Blooper Reel
There is, for lack of a better term, a Christmas reel...but it's
strictly internal.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 21 Nov 1993 00:58:31 -0500
Subject: Who did it?
I don't even know why I'm dignifying this with a response...but a)
MGM does not produce B5, the PTEN and Warner Bros. are the B5 umbrella,
and b) B5's treatment and screenplay and bible go back to 1987.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 21 Nov 1993 00:58:32 -0500
Subject: Famous people
We're doing a few things in that area, mainly background stuff,
using a consistent news network (Interstellar Network News, ISN), building
up a picture about politics back home; the problem is that when someone
says, "Did you see Ross Perot on TV last night?", we have a shared
societal understanding of who Perot is. That carries more meaning than
just a random name. But I take your point; it's something we've done a
little, and don't mind expanding if we can avoid getting obscure.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 21 Nov 1993 01:22:45 -0500
Subject: Straczynski seems to be an ann
Let me, in far less pejorative terms than those used by you, try and
set your mind at ease. Or not.
Regarding how I present myself here...I don't think about it one
way or another. I honestly don't much care how I'm perceived. Who and
what I am, if I'm annoying or a saint or just another Joe, is utterly and
completely irrelevant to the work. Fifty years from now, when I'm long
gone to dust, no one's going to remember me for being a swell guy, or a
rotten guy. All that matters, all that remains, is the work...if I did a
good job, the work will live on. If not...nothing matters.
My job here, as I perceive it, is to provide an inside glimpse into
how a TV series is produced; to engage the viewers of SF television in a
genuine dialogue and thus *engage* them instead of simply *exploiting*
them, as is generally the rule, out of some measure of respect, and
by virtue of being a fan myself. I'm frequently asked by studio people
why, in an average day where I get maybe 4 hours sleep, I continue to
take part in a process that, overall, will maybe reach a few thousand
people...a number so small it doesn't even show up in the ratings. They
sense, and they're probably right, that all of this dialogue probably
won't add a single ratings point to the show. Which is fine by me; that's
not the entirety of why I'm here. I could try to explain it to them, but
I doubt very much it would work.
Okay, you find me annoying. My response: that's life. I never said
I was bunny-rabbit cute. Never promised that you'd like me. Being well
liked is not why I'm here. I hope to provide a service. If you find that
service useful, that's great. If you don't like the service, well, like
I said...that's life.
To your point that I "don't understand the background in cyber
politics," and that I should understand how these nets work...I've been
modeming since 300 bps modems were considered speed-demons. I was one
of the first subscribers to Compuserve. I completely understand how
the nets work. What I don't understand, and don't allow to fly without
challenge, is an attack that stems from plain, mean-spirited vindictiveness
by that small slice of the fan community that feels it is not only correct
but *required* to tear down others. If someone has an honest question or
a problem with something, I try to answer that question with as much
grace and politeness as I can. And sometimes, when those questions come
in very blunt terms, it's hard. But I do try. On the other hand, if I
see someone coming into visual range with nothing more on his agenda than
to slam people, insult people, villify and destroy someone out of an
excess of bile and a notable lack of good manners...the kind of fan who
gives the rest of us a bad name...then I feel no compunction
whatsoever against firing back. Hard. Generally in proportion to the
offensiveness of the original message.
This is the one thing that I've noted, time and time again, on this
and other nets. I've seen someone call down the vilest terms to describe
a particular writer, smear the person, demean and debase the person, but
when someone has the nerve to actually respond in kind, and call this
person out in the same terms he used on someone else...well, THAT'S
outRAgeous! How rude!
My feeling: tough. You don't want to get your face bit off, don't
do something as monumentally stupid as sticking it in the lion cage. Or
more simply...try the Golden Rule sometime: do unto others as you would
have them do unto you (a tenet that seems to be lost on a certain portion
of BBSers).
Which brings me back around to Harlan Ellison. You don't like my
defending Harlan. Or the fact that I am forceful in doing so.
So?
Harlan is my friend. He has also been the target of cheap,
unwarranted, vicious attacks by that lunatic fringe that sits festering
on the edge of legitimate fandom. Maybe you're content to see your
friend jumped by strangers and beaten up for kicks. Maybe you'd sit by
the side of the road and watch. Or turn away. Or sell tickets.
I can't do that. One thing that Harlan and I have in common is
that we're both out of the streets. I'm basically a New Jersey kid,
born in Paterson, and raised for a long time in the streets of Newark. If
you know Newark, you understand what that means without further need of
explanation. Much of my attitude was formed in the streets. And one of
the first things you learn, the first rule you take to heart, is that if
somebody jumps your buddy, or attacks your buddy, he's attacking you as
well. YOu don't cut and run. Whatever the cost. Maybe you think that's
"macho posturing," as you put it. It's the way I run my life. I know
such things aren't fashionable just now, but I happen to care deeply for
and about my friends, and if they're in trouble, if someone is smearing
their reputation or trying to harm them out of mean-spiritedness, I will
not stand idly by with my finger up my nose pretending it isn't happening.
Maybe you can do that. I can't.
I have no difficulty in, as you say, "letting water roll off (my)
back." But this wasn't my back. It was a friend's. I've put up with a
LOT from people on some of these systems. And not taken it personally. It
does roll off my back. But a vicious smear or an attack on a *friend*
will not go unanswered.
You don't like it, that's your choice. I'm not doing it for you, and
I'm not doing it to impress anyone, or make friends, or be nice. This is
what I do because I can't do otherwise, because this is who and what I am.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 21 Nov 1993 19:26:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Here's Info on LOSCON, whe
As an advisory, in addition to me, story editor Larry DiTillio, and
tentatively Harlan Ellison, we've confirmed that Michael O'Hare, Mira
Furlan, and Peter Jurasik will be at the LosCon presentation next
Saturday. More names may be added to that.
I request that I will make at the presentation, and which I'll set up
here, is to minimize any kind of spoiler discussion of the episode until
it airs. It's two months to airdate, and we'd like some parts of the show
to be a surprise to the viewers. General reactions are great, but if we
could keep spoiler-type discussions to a minimum, I'd be very happy.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 21 Nov 1993 19:31:28 -0500
Subject: Walter Koenig on QVC
Darn, I missed Walter's appearance on QVC; e it.
As for when you can expect to see me on QVC...never. That just isn't
something I care to get into. Merchandising is fine and inevitable, but
I think that if you get too into it, it begins to change your direction a
bit.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 21 Nov 1993 20:00:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Straczynski seems to be an
Much of the response I have to your message on a personal level I've
said elsewhere, so I won't repeat it here. But to deal with a couple of
the things you mention....
"...because (I) knew this woman (Tamlyn, I) would use
her on this show regardless of what people unconnected with her
emotionally thought of her acting ability."
This is, frankly, untrue and a distortion of the facts. Prior to
casting Tamlyn, I had never before met her, and except at the screening of
the pilot and one live TV gig, have not seen her again since doing the
pilot. I am not "emotionally connected" to her. This is not nepotism.
What you are doing is taking a thread that was on another system and
distorting it. There were some very harsh, demeaning things said about
Tamlyn, many of them flat-out uncalled for...hurtful and ugly comments. I
stood up for Tamlyn as a performer. When we did a later analysis of the
pilot, our decision to recast the role of the lieutenant commander was
influenced not by anyone's individual performance, but by the synergy of
the performers as an ensemble.
Tamlyn is a terrific performer; if you've seen her in the Joy Luck
Club, or her appearance on Quantum Leap, or elsewhere, her skill is much
in evidence. She is a kind and decent person, and no, I wouldn't allow
her to be BBS brutalized by a certain small fringe element, and won't do
so now, and won't allow myself to be bullied by that small fringe. Any
decisions made will not be based on that kind of crap.
Nepotism doesn't enter into it. On that you're simply dead wrong.
On this "mental model" you've constructed of me based upon my many
posts here...I am not liable for your perceptions. A French writer once
observed, "A book is like a mirror. If an ass peers in, you can't very
well expect an apostle to peer out."
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 21 Nov 1993 20:01:51 -0500
Subject: Re: Here's Info on LOSCON, whe
BTW, I suspect that the Woody Harper you're responding to, is the
same Woody Harper who engaged in a bit of BBS terrorism/deliberate
misinformation, and who I had to take a couple days to hunt down.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 22 Nov 1993 05:13:05 -0500
Subject: A PLOT REQUEST
No "evil alternate universe" episodes are planned, nor do I think
they will be.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 23 Nov 1993 07:16:46 -0500
Subject: When will the Laserdisc of the
I know that the plan is to eventually release the episodes on disk
in all their widescreen/surround-sound glory, but when that might be is
anyone's guess. Heck, I'll be first in line at the video store....
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 23 Nov 1993 07:18:28 -0500
Subject: Air Date
The date I've heard most often for the series' debut is January 26th.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 23 Nov 1993 07:20:19 -0500
Subject: Re: Babylon 5
Oops, the letter just sent to you was intended for Gharlane, and
sent by accident (the letter about the
B5 bathroom). Sorry for the mis-type,and hope it gets to Gharlane.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 23 Nov 1993 07:21:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Babylon 5
The bathroom scene was written, but shifted back a bit because we
decided to go for some different sets, and felt that the money could be
used better there. We have an *amazing* number of sets as it is; 16
standing sets and another 10 or so swing sets. So we'll either do that
scene later in the season, or wait until season two, and a fresh
construction budget.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 23 Nov 1993 07:26:43 -0500
Subject: Re: JMS' demons
You're right; the events of the Line are something that Sinclair
doesn't much like talking about, and has been advised *against* talking
about. When the Minbari surrendered, Earth put the best possible spin on
it, tried to make the survivors of the Line look like heroes, but there's
a general sense of what happened. And a great deal of dismay over it.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 23 Nov 1993 08:04:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Babylon 5
I'd say that, in certain instances, you may be more right than
wrong in your speculations.
While I've certainly been positive about the show -- and believe I
have good reason to be positive -- I have avoid directly over-hyping the
show. I've never, to the best of my knowledge, said that this will be
the best series in SF-TV history. What I've said, by and large, is what
we're *doing*, and not much more. When I get excited about something, I
say so, and I'm specific to that episode. The greater measure of what you
might term "hype" comes from those who've followed the show, and from one
important fact: any promise I make on the content of a show, I keep. I'm
very careful about that.
The problem, though, with a show like this, presented in this
fashion, is that when people come to expect a Great Show, long ahead of
airdate, they begin to sketch out in their heads the show that *they*
would most like to see, the show they would make if given the chance. And
that means you've got -- what? -- ten thousand different versions of a
show. There's no way that anything I do can be exactly what every single
person would most like to see, what he or she sees in his/her mind's eye.
So there will have to be some readjustment to what the show *is*
I think, though, that the average SF-TV viewer is sharp enough to
figure that out, and adjust. For myself, all I can do is make the best
show I can, the show that *I* would like to see made, that I would like to
watch...and hope for the best.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 23 Nov 1993 09:58:24 -0500
Subject: Question on names
G'Kar's first assistant was Ko D'ath, who met with an unfortunate
accident with an airlock. The replacement is Na'Toth (no L), who will be
staying around for a while.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 23 Nov 1993 18:22:17 -0500
Subject: Re: jms's "attitude"
You have now made several charges of nepotism against me. If we all
speak the same langauge, then nepotism is hiring people not qualified to
do a particular job because they're cronies or relatives. If someone is
eminently qualified to do the job, it's not nepotism. If the person is
neither a friend nor a relative, it's not nepotism.
Please cite to me one single instance in which I have engaged in this
kind of behavior, or withdraw your allegation.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 23 Nov 1993 18:22:50 -0500
Subject: Open response to Mr. Straczyns
So let me get this straight...your problem is that I have moments
when I'm cheerful, and polite...and moments when, fatigued by 20 hour days,
I sometimes get a little sharper than I might like. Okay, I'm human. So
what?
Your other problem, at the center of this, is that I don't behave the
way YOU think I should behave. Once again...so what? I don't HAVE to
fit your definition. I didn't fight all these years to find my own voice,
and become my own person, and produce my own show, only to worry about
whether I fit Rob's picture of a perfect person. I'm sorry, but I have
substantially more interesting things to worry about.
You use the word "sophmoric" a lot. I could just as easily turn
that around. I could sit and dissect your messages, what I think you are
by your language choice, approach, and similar subjects. But you state,
"You don't know how I (Rob) am, where I came from, or my background; I'd
also rather not bring it up." Curious how you seem to feel that YOU are
off-limits to speculation, but others aren't...even though we're both
on the nets.
This discussion, absent your unsubstantiated allegations, is rather
pointless. I am who I am, I behave the way I behave. You don't like it.
I don't like your behavior or your tendency to stick your nose in my
psyche and engage in some long-distance dime-store psychoanalysis, for
which you are neither qualified nor welcome.
That's showbiz.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 23 Nov 1993 20:46:30 -0500
Subject: Query to JMS on a minor point
I've noticed the same thing; he blinks when he wants to, and refuses
to let go of you the rest of the time. We've also given him a LOT more
to do of a character-based nature, and I think people are going to be
very pleased in what they see. The problem with the role of commander is
that it's the toughest one in the bunch...he has to be firm and
commanding, but vulnerable...able to be angry, but compassionate...ready
to fight but just as ready for affection...and I think that what was shown
of the pilot (minus the nearly half-hour that was cut) only really showed
one side. We're showing a lot more now, and Michael's doing a hell of a
job carrying it all.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 23 Nov 1993 21:34:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Series plot, was Re: Trek
I never said that the commander's intent wasn't to set up Sinclair; I
only said that he wasn't there to *kill* Sinclair. That aspect of making
Sinclair the patsy was very much part of the thing.
(Oops, just realized that I mis-typed; that should be "I never said
that the ASSASSIN'S intent wasn't to set up Sinclair," not "the
commander's intent." Slip of the tongue.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 23 Nov 1993 21:45:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Here's Info on LOSCON, whe
Then in the spirit of goodwill I apologize and we begin anew.
jms (no smiley face)
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 23 Nov 1993 21:47:50 -0500
Subject: Request for JMS's Address
I can be reached at the following address:
14431 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 260, Sherman Oaks, CA 91423.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 24 Nov 1993 03:36:23 -0500
Subject: Stories I never want to see on
Going over your list of stories...nope, nope...nopenopenopenope....
Guess we must be doing something wrong.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 25 Nov 1993 03:14:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Trek vs. B5
The advance plotting on the series has made the show neither more nor
less difficult. It's mainly just...*different*. In addition to threading
the arc through many episodes (sometimes in a big way, sometimes in very
small, subtle ways), you've often got an A and a B story, plus we've got
14 regular and recurring characters (though not all 14 appear in every
episode), all of whom have their *own* individual character arcs...and
that's a LOT of balls to keep up in the air at any given moment. What it
HAS done is to enrich the texture of all of our individual episodes. You
get a) a genuine sense that there are PEOPLE in your story, each with his
or her own life, agenda, problems, and b) that these people are GOING
somewhere, that there's a submerged thread that ties them together that is
slowly, gradually coming into view.
This is a trick that I've learned to do on earlier shows, in different
ways. On Captain Power, we had an arc for that series, though less complex
than this one...and we learned how to drop in just a reference here or
there, continuing the feeling of a spider at the center of the story that,
when it moved, caused the whole web to vibrate slightly. Also, on the
animated series The Real Ghostbusters, I had to write/story edit on two
levels...making sure the show was understandable to non-adults, while
at the same time slipping things in that only adults could appreciate. The
younger audience wouldn't get the references, but they'd go by so fast
that they wouldn't notice, and that wouldn't get in the way of enjoying the
story. (And we got REAL obscure...an episode story requiring the presence
of a specific small group of eskimos in order to conduct a ritual was
explained to someone as "sort of an Inuit minyan." Probably only five
people on the planet caught that one, but hey, why not?)
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 25 Nov 1993 23:17:58 -0500
Subject: Making of Babylon 5 -document?
There have been several behind-the-scenes pieces cut already; one at
8 minutes, slated mainly toward potential advertisers, has already gone
out on the downlink. At some point a 12 and 30 minute piece will go out.
When that happens, I don't know.
It's been sold overseas, to Channel 4 in the U.K., but don't have the
specifics yet on other markets.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 25 Nov 1993 23:21:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Query to JMS on a minor po
At this point, I suspect that the only version of the pilot that will
ever be released (barring major success on our part) is the one that's now
in distribution. Making a new version with the missing 25 minutes would
require massive editing (there was never a full version made, since we're
editing on computer file graphics, only going to film when we're done), and
right now that's not in anyone's budget.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 29 Nov 1993 01:20:19 -0500
Subject: Re: B5 at LosCon
What you and the others seem to be pointing out is what I've been
trying -- imperfectly, as best I can -- to communicate for some time. In
the case of "Midnight," can you follow that show and enjoy it absolutely
on its own terms? I believe that is the case. There's another level
there, the "little clues and hints" you mention, which will just skate
past most casual viewers and not in any way interfere with their viewing
of the episode...but if you're paying attention, and you catch them, it
adds a new level. The more you see, the more you begin to perceive that
second level. It's a cumulative effect that doesn't diminish the single
episodes as stand-alones.
jms
From: straczynski@genie.geis.com
Date: 29 Nov 1993 01:44:10 -0500
Subject: Re: B5 at LosCon
(Lost the last paragraph of my message.) In any event, what I'm
striving for is the idea that you can watch the episodes for the
character stories, OR the story arc, OR the individual stories, OR all
three at the same time, all in the same exact episodes. You can get out
as much as you're willing to find.
It's a very weird kind of writing...but at least on this end, it's
kinda fun, actually.
jms