JMS Usenet messages for January 1997. Date: 1 Jan 1997 22:39:09 -0500 Subject: Re: ATTN JMS: Actors in sequel Nothing has yet been finalized (or even near to it) on the cast. jms Date: 1 Jan 1997 23:19:34 -0500 Subject: Re: ATTN JMS: who can you hire/fire? "You're the writer and executive producer, and also big and tall. My question are, within the limitations of the budget you get, who controls the money? Who has the final say over who to hire or fire, and what to spend money on or not? Do you control all of that, or do you havemini-budgets for individual groups and let managers below you handle the smaller details within? Can you briefly list the parts of the management hierarchy above and below you for, say, 1-2 levels? Who's your boss and your boss' boss? To whom are you the immediate boss and who reports to them? Or maybe it's all a very flat hierarchy?" Doug and I own Babylonian Productions. Once the budget is allocated by WB, we have full, final and complete discretionary control over it all. Now, if we're going to do something major -- fire or hire a recurring actor or director -- we have to contact our liaison at WB and explain why, and what impact it has on standing contracts. Once they are brought into the loop, they generally stamp "okay" on it and we move on. They only get into the major issues, not the smaller, day to day things. Guest stars: Doug and I have final authority, no need to check with WB; costume designs, sets, CGI, prosthetics...I generally deal with all of that, with John Copeland. John handles a fair amount of this stuff as well, but if there's any kind of decision that needs to be made, to finalize stuff, it comes to me. And that's really the whole chain of command: me and Doug, then John; and at the approval process for major changes, WB. jms Date: 1 Jan 1997 23:26:36 -0500 Subject: Re: ATTN JMS: What about your emotions? (writing question) The emotional impact is always strongest in the writing of the scene itself. The only way to write scenes such as the ones you list is to feel them yourself, as strongly as the characters do. Anything less, and it comes across as fake or forced. I felt very strongly when I offed Kosh...it was very difficult for me, which was good, because then I knew it'd be hard on others as well. jms Date: 1 Jan 1997 23:27:46 -0500 Subject: Re: Attn JMS: Delay in Season 4 title - waiting on year 5? No, I'm mainly just sitting on the title because I'd like to set up the next movment into which that title plays; it's something that's said in an episode, and I want it to have the right context. So I'm just sitting on it for a bit. It's not waiting for any outside factors; John and others know the title, which is the title for episode 415. No big. jms Date: 4 Jan 1997 23:38:36 -0500 Subject: Re: ATTN JMS: faster graphics group? "So, my question is, do you see an improvement in the way or speed f/x are done nowadays? With what you have now, would you expect to ever have to change schedules b/c f/x was taking too long?" No, not really, because the system is about as fast as you can get it, and so far we haven't seen any need to rearrange episodes or put anything back due to cgi. (#406 is as big as anything we've ever done...usually, we do something that big toward the end of a season, with Severed Dreams an exception.) It's mainly faster now in terms of the approval process. Foundation would lay off a jpg image of a shot in process, but it's just one frame...when they'd deliver, it would be on an exobyte or laser disk transfer, and it would come down from their offices in Santa Clarita once a day. So often you can lose a day or so in that process. Now, it's over at post, which is 12 minutes away. We zip down, see the whole shot (sometimes in wireframe or low-res tests), and approve or make changes at that stage, saving a LOT of time in terms of re-do's and the like. jms Date: 5 Jan 1997 02:38:24 -0500 Subject: Re: ATTN JMS: Changes in belief "During the creation, writing and producing of Babylon5, have any of your everyday beliefs been changed by your work? Has the planning and construction of say an individual scene or theme ever had a profound effect upon any of your personal views?" Changed...no, I'd have to say not. What it has done is clarify much of it. If I'm going to deal with some of these issues, I have to sit down and really *think* about them...what do I think, what do others think, and why do I/they think what I/they think? So it has a tendency to make one more reflective. And while I've got pins stuck in a few things -- so I can come back and consider them again when I have time -- overall, no, not really. jms Date: 5 Jan 1997 02:40:27 -0500 Subject: Re: Attn JMS: characters in control "Has a character (not actor) ever suggested a direction to you that you didn't take, but later on seemed like the direction you should have taken? I would think they would all be fighting for screen-time, or is that just some actors?" Not really, mainly because if my subconscious mind is sufficiently up in arms about something as to throw a fictional character at me and yell at me, it's usually a sign that I should Shut The Hell Up And Do As I'm Told. So when it happens, I *very* rarely ignore it. jms Date: 5 Jan 1997 02:42:53 -0500 Subject: Re: ATTN: JMS -- several anecdotes Heath: It's very rare when I'm stunned into speachlessness. That one (actually all of that as a unit) just did it. Thanks. Who knows...maybe this show might work out yet.... jms Date: 5 Jan 1997 02:43:40 -0500 Subject: Re: ATTN JMS: We haven't got it yet. I think you'll be getting the rest of the big picture with the next batch of eps. Almost all the cards are on the table now. jms Date: 5 Jan 1997 02:45:31 -0500 Subject: Re: ATTN JMS: V script on-line I won't post the whole script, because I'm considering what can be done with it yet, including the possibility of getting WB to authorize a novelization, which would be the very last official chapter in the V story. jms Date: 8 Jan 1997 01:26:09 -0500 Subject: Re: Question For JMS Thanks...and the eyes were a projection of a shadow face, as you can note in the main title. jms Date: 8 Jan 1997 01:28:39 -0500 Subject: Re: B5 Content Rating Nobody asked me about it...so I don't know who puts it on. jms Date: 8 Jan 1997 01:29:02 -0500 Subject: Re: ATTN:JMS-On Location? We've only gotten as far out as the parking lot. jms Date: 8 Jan 1997 01:32:10 -0500 Subject: Re: ATTN JMS: Future Publications Actually, the writing book is out now...and I doubt the series bible will ever be made available. jms Date: 9 Jan 1997 15:01:16 -0500 Subject: Re: ATTN JMS: Will we see more about any of these people? Out of those six, you'll be seeing 4 of them again, soonish. jms Date: 9 Jan 1997 15:04:44 -0500 Subject: Re: ATTN: JMS heros? I think it's a matter of showing the formality and traditions of the other races. You're right, that humans don't honor their fallen heroes as much as they should, but they never really have.... jms Date: 10 Jan 1997 03:17:10 -0500 Subject: Re: ATTN JMS: Whence came Apotheosis ... Eye are a riter. Eye read buks and eye remember wurds. Wurds r my bizness. Eye have seen that wurd many, many times. Like in the dikshonary. Eye read the dikshonary for funn. Eye likes wurds. jms Date: 10 Jan 1997 19:53:37 -0500 Subject: Re: ATTN JMS: Legality of burning downloaded clips into CD If the clips were provided by WB, then I imagine it's legal, though again I'm not an attorney and am speaking off the cuff; if they're grabs off the broadcast, they're illegal to START with if they're being distributed over the net, so any secondary use is equally unlawful. jms Date: 14 Jan 1997 17:35:10 -0500 Subject: Re: Why was CC looking for work in the first place? (was: Claudia Christian loses LadyLaw roll to Marcia Clark Lots of our cast members have always done projects on the side; Stephen did the Misery sitcom, Andreas has done some feature work, including Executive Decision, Peter did a miniseries for cable...the Lady Law gig would've required one day a week just introducing stuff a la Robert Stack on Unsolved Mysteries. jms Date: 14 Jan 1997 17:35:12 -0500 Subject: Re: The WB and B5 Actually, the article got it wrong; at one point we went in to discuss the sequel to B5 with the WB network, but we have never talked to them about picking up B5, because we know that's not a possibility, given the competition between the two arms of WB. jms Date: 14 Jan 1997 21:13:46 -0500 Subject: Re: ATTN JMS: 415? 415 and 416 are both in (the latter entitled "The Exercise of Vital Powers"), and 417 should be in soonish. S4 is going great so far, we're very happy with it. jms Date: 16 Jan 1997 03:34:01 -0500 Subject: Re: ATTN JMS: Can you go crazy with sequel? In some ways, yeah, I think I will have some real opportunities that didn't exist with B5, in that for the first 3 years we had to fight to get ourselves taken seriously by everyone, including WB. Now we have some credibility, and that gives you a certain freedom. Also, the arc was, for me, a relatively new tool which took me about a year or so to really figure out how to use...then I used it relentlessly for a very long time. Now it's just one more tool on my belt, and I can use it with a bit more precision. It's the difference between using a rapier and a broadsword. It'll probably start out looking fairly conventional, as did B5 our first year, just until the suits get comfortable and start ignoring us (they're all OVER you in your first year), and then, again as with B5, we'll start getting really subversive...ah loves being subversive.... And there'll be the folks who'll say, "Oh, it's just X," just like they did with B5 in the beginning, saying "Oh, it's just like DS9," which is *perfect* because it lets me sneak up behind them and just WHACK 'em upside the head when they're not looking, as with B5. Basically, without saying too much, it'll be a MUCH larger canvas, and the kinds of stories I can tell will be CONSIDERABLY more varied and have more opportunities to explore all kinds of interesting stuff, so I can go a bit more nuts on production values, alien stuff, and other areas. jms Date: 16 Jan 1997 04:04:40 -0500 Subject: Re: ATTN JMS: I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU APPROVED! Thing about the autographed cards...there was no money involved in this, it was done as a cool thing for the fans. (Okay, I *did* ask for a full set of the Kingdom Come cardset, because I didn't want to run all over the planet running down chase cards)...and man, you have NO idea how long it takes to sign 900 cards. Hours, I tell you...hours and hours. I suppose I could've signed more, to make more available to fans, but my right hand fell off and it took a day and a half to stich it back on again. jms Date: 17 Jan 1997 18:41:12 -0500 Subject: Re: JMS has another job? And you stiffed me for a tip, buddy.... jms Date: 17 Jan 1997 18:50:44 -0500 Subject: Re: ATTN JMS: Why take net points? Because, if the show is successful in the long term, it gives you the authority to go back and audit the show so you *can* get something, maybe, years down the road. If you don't get it into your contract, you can never go back. So you just swallow it and hope you can do something with it someday. It just becomes a bitch to prove they made a profit, because they control the books. For instance...we know that the first 3 years of B5 made a profit for WB because WB has a policy of not renewing unless a profit is being made. Pure and simple. We've heard, off the record, that the show posted profits of between $1.5-2 million per season. (And mind, that's while we're still in production, spending money to make the show. The instant you stop production, and there's no more negative cash flow into filming, it's all income from that moment on.) But the actual, official profit statement sent to Doug and I for season 2 showed that we were about $42 million in the red. The only way for that to happen is for not one commercial to ever be sold, not one merchandising deal ever to be made, not one cassette sold overseas...nada. The process is to assign percentages to various arms of the company. The distribution fee is (these are off-the-cuff numbers, not necessarily accurate but indicative) 30%; then the overhead is 40% of all monies; 25% for publicity; 30% for production of prints, shipping, and the like. So what you're looking at here is over 100% in fees...and when you start from that position, it takes you YEARS to whittle away at the production costs, costs of film...by which time additional fees have been charged against you...and on and on and on.... jms Date: 18 Jan 1997 04:48:11 -0500 Subject: Re: ATTN JMS: FAN USE OF B5 STUFF You can use images, as I understand it, AS LONG AS they bear the proper copyright info, "copyright and trademark 1997 PTN Consortium." jms Date: 18 Jan 1997 23:38:45 -0500 Subject: Re: ATTN JMS: If WB owns B5, lock, stock, and barrel... "This is what concerns me about a B5 spin-off. If the show now becomes too popular, the anticipated spin-off just may turn into "Moppets in Space". I guess I don't have much confidence that the successors to B5 will not turn into Voyager." I created B5. I didn't create Voyager. And I have no interest in doing moppets in space or anywhere else unless I can run a truck over them. This ain't gonna be a problem. jms Date: 18 Jan 1997 23:39:30 -0500 Subject: Re: Just wanted to thank Joe again for the show Thanks. In some ways, the show created itself...but I'm more than happy to take the credit for it. jms Date: 19 Jan 1997 04:17:57 -0500 Subject: Re: ATTN JMS: 415? Let me clarify a small point in all this. We shoot straight through, from August to May. We don't stop, we can't stop, except for the occasional holiday, like Christmas or Thanksgiving, plus one four day hiatus in the fall, and one in the spring. That's the only way to make our delivery dates, and to produce this or any OTHER series. You can't take a position of, "Okay, I'm going to stop writing scripts and wait to see what happens." So if that's the point of concern -- why is Joe writing if he doesn't know? -- it's because you just can't stop filming. The cost alone would be hideous, and that alone would guarantee the death of B5. You have to get the basic script into the hopper literally 6 weeks before you shoot it, so that there's adequate time to build costumes, design and construct sets, plan EFX shots and the like. What you can do, though, and what's being done to some extent, is to plan out alternate scenes, and alternate endings to scenes, *within* those sets and using those EFX. It's not that unlike a computer game tree. Once we get closer to filming them, we'll have a better idea of where things stand, and I'll know which way to go. You want a bottom line, I'd say it's this: the last sweeps period, we averaged a 3.8 rating, the highest we've had in a long, long time. A huge jump. If we can crack a 4 rating in the February sweeps, I think it would be very hard for WB *not* to give us a fifth season. If we fall short, then it becomes more problematic. So as of now, it's all in the hands of the Neilsen gods, starting January 27th. jms Date: 19 Jan 1997 19:32:01 -0500 Subject: Re: JMS: Your bag of tricks "Is "the online experiment" also now in your bag of tricks? I.e. assuming you get to season 5, the 2 TV movies and/or Crusade, do you intend to have the same presence online or do you want to appear in forums and newsgroups less often?" Thing is...I don't consider the online thing part of my bag of tricks, which mainly I would consider technical or literary or structural devices used in the writing. You've got to understand that I didn't just jump online when B5 rolled around. I've been online since about 1984..logging onto Compuserve and other BBSs via a Kaypro II with 64K RAM and 128K floppies, NO hard drive. When B5 came along, I just kept doing what I'd been doing from the start. More of it, granted, but it's the same thing. So in future...yeah, I imagine I'd keep online, until it finally drove me nuts. Perhaps not as much as now, only because the CTS acts up more some days than others, and it's only going to get worse and I'll have to concentrate that on the writing...but yeah, I'll be here. I've always been here. jms Date: 19 Jan 1997 19:35:16 -0500 Subject: Re: ATTN JMS: 415? It would be inappropriate for me to address a direct question about or which would be conveyed to a Neilsen family...all I can say is that in the syndication market, which has a much smaller base to begin with, every little bit helps. jms Date: 20 Jan 1997 17:26:32 -0500 Subject: Re: JMS: Your bag of tricks I can't use voice recognition stuff...I think through my fingers. jms Date: 20 Jan 1997 17:27:06 -0500 Subject: Re: ''ATTN JMS'' I can only say that you'll get most of the answers to those questions soon. jms Date: 20 Jan 1997 17:22:28 -0500 Subject: Re: ATTN JMS: Is the future all it's cracked up to be? (repost) No, the future is now largely set...the Londo/G'Kar death scene will happen as foreseen. jms Date: 20 Jan 1997 17:24:25 -0500 Subject: Re: Babylon 5 & Mormonism "Two data points a statistical proof does not make, but the similarly between the names, and the similarity of the Mimbari/Earth soul transfer to the Mormon teaching (correct me here if I am wrong) that in the next life our souls go as a type of god to another planet to populate it make me wonder if there is some Mormon influence in the B5 mythos." Not no way, not no how. jms Date: 21 Jan 1997 17:15:24 -0500 Subject: Re: ATTN JMS: What about your comics about Marcus? The Marcus story was folded into one of the upcoming novels. jms Date: 21 Jan 1997 17:17:18 -0500 Subject: Re: ATTN JMS: Sweet Revenge Oh, I got him...but I'd prefer to save that story for the next convention rather than blow it online quite yet. I'd like to have *some* new material that people haven't already heard. jms Date: 21 Jan 1997 17:30:33 -0500 Subject: Re: Ratings for syndicated action shows DS9 is still toward the top of the ratings, but the "naysayers" are correct about the decline in actual numbers. (And DS9 does fall below Xena and Hercules in many cases, btw.) Here are the Neilsen figures for DS9 for the last several quarters: 4th quarter 95: 7.1 1st quarter 96: 6.7 2nd quarter 96: 5.9 3rd quarter 96: 4.8 The jump in 4th quarter 96 is apparently due to a lot of new eps airing, and some stunting...the Tribbles episode and the like. By comprison, here are B5's numbers of the last number of quarters: 3rd quarter 95: 2.7 4th quarter 95: 2.9 1st quarter 96: 3.0 2nd quarter 96: 3.1 3rd quarter 96: (being retablulated for some errors) 4th quarter 96: 3.6 DS9's season-to-date average has gone from 6.8 to 6.1. B5's STD average has gone from 3.0 to 3.3. And our demographics continue to be better than DS9. This isn't a qualitative statement, only to confirm what has been said: that DS9's ratings have been declining (also noted by the trades, which have found drops from 18% to 20% for both the ST shows) and that B5's ratings have been growing during the same period of time. jms Date: 22 Jan 1997 17:06:02 -0500 Subject: Re: ATTN JMS: Watching TV "when you're watching TV, especially shows like the Tick, which is clever and well written, how much of you can just watch the show, and how much takes mental notes and analyzes and second-guesses the writers?" It's about 50/50. In terms of comedy, I'm always subconsciously working out the punchline as soon as the setup comes in. I'm not one of those people who laughs out loud most of the time at TV shows or movies because I often get there early. Where I do lose it is when the comedy is totally unexpected and unpredictable. I love being surprised. But in general, part of me is always studying, whether I'm consciously aware of it or not...structure, rhythms of dialogue, that sort of thing. I didn't know quite how much I do this until one evening back in college...see, I have this habit of tapping my fingers to the rhythms of dialogue, on my knee, or on the desk, I'm not aware of it most days, it's just a way of physicalizing spoken rhythms, and we all have different rhythms when we speak that tell a lot about us...and I was at a movie with a young lady, and didn't realize I was tapping out the rhythms of the dialogue on her shoulder until she WHAPPED me a good one. jms Date: 22 Jan 1997 23:23:10 -0500 Subject: Re: ATT JMS: Visual look of Season 4? The lighting varies depending on what's being filmed; you go for a whole different mood in Z'ha'dum than in the Zocalo. You can do more. The sense and mood changes from episode to episode. jms Date: 23 Jan 1997 03:53:09 -0500 Subject: Re: JMS to Appear on IRC [97 jan 22] Hang on, though...I just found out tonight that they have a maximum capacity of 250 on this thing, and I'm determined not to have another debacle like the last one. So this may not come off. jms Date: 23 Jan 1997 03:59:30 -0500 Subject: Re: ATTN JMS: Season 5 vs. Sequel I know it seems like a weird contradiction...it comes from a weird situation. PTEN, the network that airs B5, is no more. Most of the stations have joined UPN, and the corporate structure is no more. Imagine, for instance, the hassles in keeping a show on ABC if ABC suddenly no longer existed. But the rights were tied to ABC, the people who once owned it want to cash in their chips and get out, and they can't take the show anywhere else...partly for competitive reasons, partly because the rights are held by a company that basically no longer exists. You may keep at it for a while, because you believe in it, and it's showing a profit, but there's always those guys in the corporation who keep pressuring you to let it go and clean out the books. Those guys are in a tussle over B5 that has almost zilch to do with ratings, or letters, and everything to do with corporations and the financial organization thereof. So while all this is going on...they're also saying, "Well, we believe in this, and if we can't move the show elsewhere, and the rights are tied up, perhaps another show that's free of the corporate entanglements and rights hassles would be a good idea, both on its own, as a fall back if the corporate wrangling gets too much, and/or if the series does go to 5 seasons as a companion show for crossovers." In other words...it's all in a state of total flux while the corporate guys try to figure out what to do next. And we're caught in the middle, unable to do anything but watch and see what happens. Does this explain some of the confusion and conflicting signals? jms Date: 23 Jan 1997 04:07:25 -0500 Subject: Re: Ratings for syndicated action shows To confirm demographics...this stuff is usually in detailed form in the networks hands, but places like Broadcasting Magazine often do updates on it as well. jms Date: 23 Jan 1997 06:57:59 -0500 Subject: Re: Ratings for syndicated action shows "Someone should tell me why someone like me can't like B5 AND DS9 without having to defend one or the other; I like 'em both, don't shoot me!" I couldn't agree more. My quibble was with those who look facts they don't like in the face and write them off as "naysayers." Numbers is numbers, but personal tastes are personal tastes, and as far as I'm concerned, the more SF the merrier. jms Date: 24 Jan 1997 08:57:54 -0500 Subject: Re: ATTN JMS: Atlanta Journal Article It's the same article that got printed in the NY Daily News, and a) it takes a comment of mine completely out of context, b) they're going to publish a follow up correction in a couple of days, and c) we get this every season. We won't know for a little bit yet. jms Date: 24 Jan 1997 01:41:07 -0500 Subject: Re: ATTN JMS: "End of History?" "the end of history" is a term used by some sociologists, historians and social scientists to describe significant changes...some of them are referring to the present as the end of history. That's a VERY poor and inadequate explanation of the term, and I'm confident that others here probably know the details and can explain it better than I can. jms Date: 24 Jan 1997 01:43:40 -0500 Subject: Re: ATTN JMS: Janet Greek. Janet's off doing network stuff these days. jms Date: 24 Jan 1997 16:55:48 -0500 Subject: Re: ATTN JMS: Fav tracks on new CD? I'm going to have to listen to this a few more times before I know which tracks I prefer. There's a nifty extended version of the first season theme music that's very nice...other stuff that's most impressive...I'm very pleased overall. jms Date: 25 Jan 1997 02:12:54 -0500 Subject: Re: ATTN: JMS - Title of Season 4 (SPOILER?) Yes, that's the correct title. jms Date: 25 Jan 1997 02:12:57 -0500 Subject: Re: ATTN JMS: Toys, premiums, tie-ins, and your input We haven't done a whole lot of merchandising mainly because I want to get into that slowly, and not let it begin to influence the show or put priorities in the wrong order. I work to varying extents with the licensees, but basically I get input at every stage of the product's development, from conceptual artwork or outlines, through to the final product. For instance, today I got the revised transparency for the Delenn collector plate coming out from Hamilton...and it's gorgeous, just signed right off on that one, probaby the best of the two I've seen so far (#1 being Sheridan). Delenn/Mira almost glows off the image at you. Others require more more work...when the novels come in, I do what I can, but often the deadlines are so tight that in the past it's been hard to get all the stuff I want revised, revised. This time on the next 3 I worked more hand-in-glove at the outine stage, so that they would be better. jms Date: 26 Jan 1997 04:12:38 -0500 Subject: Re: News Service Report: Season 5 "Looks Doubtful" The newspaper syndicated strip that carried the first report about the show being doubtful just ran a follow-up on Friday taking back that comment. jms Date: 26 Jan 1997 04:15:57 -0500 Subject: Re: ATTN JMS: At this point, can we help w/renewal No, at this point it's all between WB and the stations. One other complication to all this is that both WBN and UPN are adding another night each, and that chews up more available spots...and there are a LOT of other new syndicated shows coming out, from Stargate to Total Recall and others, and X-Files, NYPD Blue and Homicide are all also hitting syndication at the same time, so it's very, very, very scary out there right now. jms Date: 26 Jan 1997 04:11:02 -0500 Subject: Re: ATTN JMS : Whatever Happened To . . . Mike Vejar Mike got grabbed up by other shows for most of the fall before we got word of our pickup. Once we got renewed, we booked him as fast as we could, and he's directing one for us right now. jms Date: 26 Jan 1997 21:52:45 -0500 Subject: Re: ATTN JMS: Favorite SF authors Sheckley's stuff is great. His novel, "Mind Swap," I think the name was, is just hysterically funny. And Callahan's Crosstime Saloon is always great stuff. jms Date: 26 Jan 1997 21:57:36 -0500 Subject: Re: TNT, B5 Movies, and Reruns Your understanding is correct, and basically the show would start rerunning on TNT about 6 months after the show is finished. jms Date: 26 Jan 1997 22:41:08 -0500 Subject: Re: ATTN JMS: What if season 5 gets a go too late That scenario is not very likely. We should know soonish. jms Date: 26 Jan 1997 22:42:48 -0500 Subject: Re: Could B5 go to a network? No, there's no chance. The problem is that B5 is owned by a consortium, with WB on one side, and the station group on the other. When you see a show hopping networks, it's often (for instance) a Universal show that goes from ABC to CBS. Universal still is the sole owner of the show, it's just a question of which network shows it, and the network doesn't own it. With PTEN, WB and the stations own the show, though the copyright for most actual artifacts of the show belongs to WB. WB Network wants to carve out its own identity rather than taking leftovers from another, competing WB division. The regular networks won't take an off-syndication show. The idea of WB going to Paramount/UPN...well, that one's self-explanatory as a non-starter. It can't even go to TNT because of contractual elements between WB and the stations. So it's either this arrangement, or nothing. jms Date: 27 Jan 1997 04:32:42 -0500 Subject: Re: ATTN JMS: Favorite SF authors And before anyone yells at me, 10 seconds after I posted this, I remembered that the Callahan's books were by Spider Robinson, I know, I know, mea culpa, I stooged it, what can I say...? jms Date: 28 Jan 1997 20:20:40 -0500 Subject: Re: ATTN JMS: TNT Reruns of B5 It's my understanding that B5 will run daily on TNT, M-F, at 6:00 p.m. jms Date: 29 Jan 1997 01:41:03 -0500 Subject: Re: F1 Resolution - Too Easy? (Spoilers 406 -> ) >Thanks to the super-wonderful Spoiler Junkies page >the apparent resolution of the problems imposed by the >ultra-powerful First Ones is revealed. Except, of course, that ain't what happens in the episode. That's what you get for reading spoilers instead of watching the episode, especially summaries which a) sometimes don't present the whole picture, and b) which I've lately been able to get my hands on and, even though the main story has to go out, I'm able to...edit out...little but important details, JUST TO PISS OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO READ THE DAMNED THINGS! Finally, FINALLY, I have my vengeance over the spoiler junkies....ha HA ha-ha-HA ha HAAAA.... I need a vacation.... jms Date: 29 Jan 1997 09:46:48 -0500 Subject: Re: Harlan Ellison on "Politically Incorrect" "H.E. was saying that the McCarthy hearings and red-hunting trials in the USA from 1947 to 1954 were "just as bad" as Stalin's justice system. (Which is of course absurd, but it's very Harlan. It's unlikely he would actually defend such a claim if he weren't hyper-excited. Of course, it's also unlikely he'll ever cease to be hyper-excited.)" Absolutely incorrect. I and many other people feel the same way. The House UnAmerian Activities Committee (HUAC) destroyed innocent people with just as much efficiency and cruelty as the Stalinist courts ever did. (Remember the lesson from "Infection"..."when you become obsessed with the enemy, you BECOME the enemy.") J. Parnell Thomas and Joe McCarthy decided that there were X-number of communists in the military, industry, radio and the motion picture business, and they were determined to find them whether they existed or not. People were brought before the committee and told to name names of those they thought might be red. Not that they *were* red (and some, a very few, were), but that they *might be*. And even if you didn't know anyone who *might be*, if you didn't name SOMEbody, you might be assumed to be hiding something...and end up blacklisted yourself. It was crime by association, by implication, by innuendo, by distortion and by lie. People saw their careers destroyed, their lives ruined, their families devastated. They had to flee the country to work. Some went to jail. Some were so utterly destroyed by the process that they committed suicide. No, it wasn't equal to the sheer numbers of the Stalinist death camps...but in terms of a one-to-one experience, the one was every bit as vile, sadistic and unholy as the other. And just as random. One film maker, hired BY OUR OWN GOVERNMENT to make films during the second world war about the benefits of working with the Russians to defeat the Nazis later found those same films used to prove he was a commie sympathizer. A leading radio dramatist of his age was never even called before the committee, but his name was listed in Red Channels, a crummy little broadsheet published by the owner of a SUPERMARKET CHAIN in the East Coast, a guy who one day decided that this writer was a little too pink for his tastes...and that writer's career stopped THAT DAY. If Harlan got exercised about it...and if I got exercised about it...it's because we are writers, and many writers, actors and directors who had never done anything to anyone, who had nothing to do with reds, were destroyed in full light of the national media. Jeff Corey didn't work for about 20 years after his run-in; same for Zero Mostel. It's something we feel *very* strongly about. jms Date: 30 Jan 1997 02:03:01 -0500 Subject: Re: ATTN:JMS Are you at all concerned about "Farewell"? "Are you at all concerned that, when it's all said and done, that some fans will scratch their heads and wonder: "You mean thats it?"" No, I don't think so. The story for "Sleeping in Light," the last B5 episode, is such that it is completely moveable, and self-contained, and buttons down the arc in what I think is a very moving fashin. I think that when it's all said and done, the average reaction will be to sit back and say, "That was a good story." Obviously you can't please everyone, and you can't expect to. But basically, yeah, I think it's going to end well. jms Date: 30 Jan 1997 02:06:05 -0500 Subject: Re: YO JMS Dilbert & Geo. Washington "I've never actually seen the comic strip myself, but, gosh, I'd think Patrick McGoohan (sorry for the spelling) or one of the other actors or personalities (like yourself) we fans would like to see guest star or cameo on the program would be more appropriate?" We're still after McGoohan, but again that will depend entirely on the role. I'm toying with one now that we'll send along and see what happens. The Adams thing is a quick cameo...for McGoohan you want to do something major. "Another question: I was thumbing through some SF magazine or other when I spotted you posing with an award (sorry, I can't remember which one). Anyway, you weren't smiling. All the photos I've seen of you you never smile. Come on Joe - smile for the birdy!! Once in a while? Sometimes I think you've got wooden teeth or something." I hate cameras. I'm mind-bogglingly unphotographic. jms Date: 30 Jan 1997 21:59:50 -0500 Subject: Re: ATTN: JMS - What about "The Babylon Project"? I just got in the full-color proofs of the main book, and it's not only gorgeous, it's the best single compilation of B5 universe information that I've ever seen. They had to do a fair amount of filling in the gaps here and there, but what went in fits perfectly, and I highly recommend it. They went to a great deal of work and research on the show, and you can see it in every panel. So it should be out soon, since this is the final version. jms Date: 31 Jan 1997 09:17:37 -0500 Subject: Re: jms graphics note (cgal repost) "Joe, I don't think anyone *really* doubted that the new FX would be any good." Then, Mojo, if nobody "doubted that the new FX would be good," explain to me whence came all those messages from pseudonymous individuals posted on the newsgroup saying that they were going to be crap, that there wouldn't BE any EFX, that the show was going to hell...on and on. My message was in reply to those individuals who set out deliberately to trash us. If they didn't doubt the EFX would be good, then why did they say so? If they did post messages that the EFX would be crap, which they did, then why would you say that no one doubted it? Are you suggesting they deliberately lied in their messages? Or that the messages, which exist, did NOT really exist (dream state) or that they were in fact accidentally crossposted from Bizarro World. "New B5 EFX am bad!" meaning that they're great. Perhaps that's what you're suggesting. "I'm sure that your Foundation Imaging-trained team, using Foundation Imaging objects and Foundation animation techniques will turn out some very fine work indeed!" It's nothing to do with Foundation one way or another...the message posted was in reference to the people who were slamming the people who were now doing the B5 EFX...that has nothing whatsoever to do with what I was discussing. If you felt this strongly about the quality of those doing the EFX, then I'm surprised you didn't defend these individuals from the attacks then being made. If they're Foundation trained, using Foundation tech, and someone's out there trashing them, I'd think that Foundation would actively want to defend them. I guess when it looked like they'd be crap, there wouldn't be much point to defending them...but when they came out well, then I can see why one would want to jump in and make sure that Foundation shared the credit. (BTW, your note accidentally left out Eric Chauvin's fine work on the show, who created many of the images of Minbar, Earth, the Garden and other amazing sights...or Steve Burg, who helped design the Starfuries and many other ships, neither of whom are part of Foundation. It would be an error for people to assume that Foundation was the be-all and end-all of B5's EFX, and I know that neither you nor Ron would want to create that impression.) And certainly, we continue to use Eric on the show, and others, who were never a part of Foundation Imaging. So it wold be an error to imply that they all came to us from there. Our animators have acquired a wide range of experience, at Foundation and elsewhere. We have always spoken well of Foundation, which came into existence because Doug and I were willing to give Ron a chance. And we have never wished them anything but good fortune. Our continued best wishes to everyone there. jms