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/jms94-10-usenet

1020 lines
41 KiB
Raw Permalink Blame History

===========================================================================
| 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 <offical>
"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