JMS on CompuServe (Dec 23, 1996) *HAPPY HOLIDAYS*
Brent Barrett
bbarrett at speedlink.com
Mon Dec 23 23:50:58 EST 1996
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WARNING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The following posts may contain SPOILERS for
upcoming Babylon 5 episodes.
Continue at your own risk.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
P
R
O
T
E
C
T
I
O
N
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE FOLLOWING MATERIAL IS THE COPYRIGHT OF THE
RESPECTIVE MESSAGE AUTHORS AND CANNOT BE
REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED
PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR.
Note that JMS has expressed his public permission
that all of his messages may be reproduced freely.
I give permission for my summaries to be reposted in
any form, however I reserve all rights to them and
the right to revoke this permission at any time.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Archives of this material may be found at:
ftp://ftp.speedlink.com/pub/bbarrett/cis/
- or -
http://www.speedlink.com/bbarrett/b5/
**********************************************
###### Support Babylon 5! ######
## To get a fifth season of this ##
# ### wonderful epic, we need to # ###
. ## let local stations and Warner . ##
## ## Brothers know we want it! ## ##
##### www.babylon5.com/cmp/support #####
**********************************************
[ Summary of subjects in this section: ]
Sb: #629579-Spinoff arc?
Sb: #629585-Spinoff arc?
Sb: #629573-Longitudinal Orientation
Sb: #629549-attn jms: military?
Sb: #629747-Spinoff arc?
Sb: #629662-Z'ha'dum
Sb: #629687-What B5 is about?
[ Summary: "Did you ever consider doing Asimov's Robot-Foundation series?" ]
#: 629602 S5/Babylon 5: General
23-Dec-96 00:32:55
Sb: #629579-Spinoff arc?
Fm: J. MICHAEL STRACZYNSKI
It's been optioned by others and long unavailable.
jms
#: 629585 S5/Babylon 5: General
22-Dec-96 22:02:28
Sb: #629534-#Spinoff arc?
Fm: CARL CANTARELLA
>>.. the Cahiers du Cinema in France<<
Yep, gotchya --this I already know. So did Truffaut just publish a
comprehensive article on what they were all mulling over, or was it his own
baby? I thought he stirred it up in his own head and got everyone talking.
>>The whole "auteur" idea got corrupted to mean just one category, and that was
never the intent. Further, there's no such thing as an "auteur," that's just a
name a bunch of French intellectuals/critics came up with, because they feel
the need to somehow figure out who's responsible (and the author can't possibly
be the author, after all, no no no...)<<
This is what I don't like about it, and realize that it's also a major
criticism of the theory. As a writer I can see why you'd get upset, though it
didn't occur to me when I wrote my message making the comparison. I know that
Structuralism emerged by disgruntled people who didn't get the credit for the
work they contributed to the various, perhaps numerous projects. As an on the
side writer myself I wouldn't like being ignored in favor of some boob
director(though that *may be* a bit harsh toward the director<g>).
Nevertheless, what they were getting at was the distinct, uniqueness of vision
on the part of some early directors. I guess you shouldn't have taken what I
said so literally since I even allowed for bending the theory beyond its
original meaning when I applied it to you, as a compliment of course.
>>So you now have situations where a director can put "A Film By" in front of
his name, even though he came in LONG after pre production, long after the
script was finalized, who does nothing other than direct.<<
Well, how might James Cameron or Ridley Scott feel about your
description? <g> Though I realize Cameron also writes.
>> The possessory credit (which feeds right into the "auteur" notion) is
something heinous and offensive to most writers.<<
I agree, which again, is why I stretched it beyond its original intent
to include a writers vision in the work. I find that offensive as well, and
maybe the notion should be redefined to include more than just directors,
though no doubt many more people would prefer it to be dead totally. <g> But
like I said, I would get ruffled if I produced a film and was ignored in favor
of the director just because of some silly theory. However, I can look at it a
little more objectively in that I realize it was an early movement. Sure, it
didn't emerge in the 20's or even the 30's, but it did arise when people
started saying, "Hey wait a second, just what do we have here in terms of an
art form?" So they were off the mark, but at least they were trying, and let's
face it, Hitchcock and Welles are special individuals, and as such they get a
special form of credit under that notion. Hitchcock was regarded as little more
than an entertainer before that theory made people look at him and realize what
he had done. "Strangers on a Train," "The 39 Steps," and "North by Northwest"
are all variations on the same sort of theme: *'innocent man implicated in a
crime he didn't commit --the world becomes threatening --who is really
innocent?'* That's unique to Hitchcock as an artist, so he gets special praise.
>>...it was originally not allowed, until Hitchcock (who one could argue was
definitely the auteur of his films in many ways) asked for an exemption for his
films. The WGA agreed, but that was only supposed to be for HIS films, nobody
else...even called it "The Hitchcock Clause." Only once you let that
particular cat out of the bag, everybody begins using it.<<
Wow, this I didn't know. Cool. Somehow that part of it slipped by me.
>>Only once you let that particular cat out of the bag, everybody begins using
it. The whole "auteur" theory is utter nonsense.<<
Well, I don't blame you for feeling that way, and I guess I should have
thought better about making such a distinction. Sorry, I didn't mean it as a
slap or anything. It truly was meant as praise in its own, albeit it
'misguided' way. When you were talking about 'signature,' ie. what marks a
"Chris Carter show" and so forth, you expounded on it in such a way that it
brought the essence of what the French were trying to do right to the forefront
of my mind. They were out to accomplish the same thing, but their method was
very biased, hence "Structuralism" as the preferred method of classifying
films. Sorry if it annoyed you. ;-(
#: 629603 S5/Babylon 5: General
23-Dec-96 00:32:56
Sb: #629585-Spinoff arc?
Fm: J. MICHAEL STRACZYNSKI
It wasn't taken as a slap, or as an annoyance...a question is a question,
as valid as the next. It's the *topic* and the abuse behind it that sometimes
annoys me, but your question was in no way out of line.
jms
#: 629573 S5/Babylon 5: General
22-Dec-96 21:30:43
Sb: #Longitudinal Orientation
Fm: REBECCA ESCHLIMAN
jms -
OK, this may be the result of a neural short-circuit due to a head-cold, but on
rewatching "Shadow Dancing" I noticed an interesting pattern of
beds/sleep/dreams -- the problems of the Minbari bed for Ivanova, the mention
of her desired four-poster, the Delenn/Sheridan sleeping-revelation, the
Minbari telepaths in battle, Sheridan's recalling bits of his dream, Franklin's
self-division dream experience.
It made me realize that (whether or not it was your intention) the title of
"Shadow Dancing" could easily refer to the action of dreams.
It may have been an unintended consequence, but it certainly underlines the
holographic quality of B5.
-rje-
I can almost feel the rustling-in of some kind of enchantment already.
#: 629604 S5/Babylon 5: General
23-Dec-96 00:32:59
Sb: #629573-Longitudinal Orientation
Fm: J. MICHAEL STRACZYNSKI
I think, at times like this, all the characters just want to go back to
sleep and forget any of it is going on....
jms
[ Summary: "I was wondering if JMS ever has used military consultants
when putting together fight scenes or space battle scenes." ]
#: 629774 S5/Babylon 5: General
23-Dec-96 13:41:48
Sb: #629549-attn jms: military?
Fm: J. MICHAEL STRACZYNSKI
No, we generally don't consult military historians or military guys.
Producer John Copeland is a big military buff, and I have a decent grasp of
history, so together we can cover most stuff. In order to get permission to
use the Flying Tigers insignia, we had to check some stuff over with them, but
that's an isolated incident.
jms
#: 629747 S5/Babylon 5: General
23-Dec-96 11:59:42
Sb: #629535-#Spinoff arc?
Fm: SCOTT BAKER
So this story is about how this one event, The Shadow War, effects the lives of
these peple gathered at Babylon 5?
--Scott
#: 629775 S5/Babylon 5: General
23-Dec-96 13:51:01
Sb: #629747-Spinoff arc?
Fm: J. MICHAEL STRACZYNSKI
Not just that, but events back on Earth, Mars and elsewhere that are
either not touched by the shadow war, or barely touched by it. (In one
upcoming episode, where a couple of our characters have gone to Mars, they find
that very few on Mars know anything even *happened*.)
jms
[ Summary: Comments on the similarity between sections of Hitler's Mein
Kampf and the Shadows' philosophy. ]
#: 629776 S5/Babylon 5: General
23-Dec-96 13:51:03
Sb: #629662-Z'ha'dum
Fm: J. MICHAEL STRACZYNSKI
Well, Hitler probably drew on Hegel's work for that, and a portion of the
whole Shadow philosophy goes back to Hegelian notions of conflict.
jms
[ Summary: "Is the Vorlon/Shadow conflict an allegory of recent
history, namely the Cold War?" ]
#: 629777 S5/Babylon 5: General
23-Dec-96 13:51:07
Sb: #629687-What B5 is about?
Fm: J. MICHAEL STRACZYNSKI
There's no one-to-one corrolation to any particular war or event; it's a
synthesis of a lot of things.
jms
[END]
-***
-*** B5JMS SUBSCRIBERS: Replies to messages in this list go to the list
-*** maintainer, <b5jms-owner at cs.columbia.edu>. If you want to reply
-*** elsewhere, adjust the "To" field. The best way to reach JMS is to post
-*** to rastb5m, which can be done by sending email to <rastb5 at solon.com>.
More information about the B5JMS
mailing list