JMS on Genie: July Messages
B5JMS Poster
b5jms-owner at shekel.mcl.cs.columbia.edu
Thu Sep 26 18:14:42 EDT 1996
Forwarded message to B5JMS list.
Originally From: dstrauss at aiscom.com (David Strauss)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
JMS on Genie
July 1996
[possible spoiler space]
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
SFRT II RoundTable
Category 18, Topic 1
Message 374 Mon Jul 08, 1996
STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 01:43 EDT
If GEnie should go away -- and I haven't heard anything either
way on
this -- I'd just stick with the other services I'm on already, mainly
CIS, AOL
and rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated.
jms
------------
SFRT II RoundTable
Category 18, Topic 1
Message 381 Tue Jul 09, 1996
STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 22:27 EDT
I've said it before, I'll say it again: this show was born under
a black
star.
Starting from the debut of the pilot in New York, where we were
literally
blown off the air by the World Trade Center blast, which took out
WWOR's
antenna, until now, anything that can go wrong, does.
After 3 years, we're finally, FINALLY, going to get a good sized
article
in TV Guide (July 27th) as part of their SF round up. They sent a
photo crew
out to do the shoot. Very difficult and elaborate, cast came in on
breaks and
cut short time away to do it.
So today WB calls to say that after Federal Expressing the
original
negatives, transparencies, everything, to NY in time for the article,
the
truck carrying the art was hijacked at gunpoint, and everything inside
went
with it. So now it's too late to redo the shoot, and they'll have to
go with
older art provided by WB.
We can't catch a break on this show....
jms
------------
SFRT II RoundTable
Category 18, Topic 1
Message 390 Wed Jul 10, 1996
STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 01:49 EDT
No, the driver was fine, only the stuff was taken, driven off.
Boy, those Paramount boys'll stop at nothing....
(the preceding was a joke, for the jocularity deficient)
jms
------------
SFRT II RoundTable
Category 18, Topic 2
Message 234 Tue Jul 09, 1996
STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 15:50 EDT
Yes, the UK will be getting the final 5 starting in August. WB
Int'l had
agreed to the run straight through, and C4 held them to it. To change
it
would've caused problems.
jms
------------
SFRT II RoundTable
Category 18, Topic 2
Message 241 Tue Jul 09, 1996
STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 22:31 EDT
Allen: yes, that's a correct statement.
Trys: why can't they change us? Situation is this: the UK
doesn't have
ratings periods. The US does. They check their ratings all the time,
and
determine their rates for advertising, and don't generally have rerun
periods.
So they play straight through.
If WB plays the shows in July, August, or September, those aren't
sweeps
periods. Also, those months are when TV viewership figures (they call
them
HUTs, Households Using Television) are at their lowest, because people
are
away from home, on vacation, at the beach, whatever. The November
sweeps are
*crucial* to keeping a show on the air. So WB wants to air the final
5 in
October, to ramp up the ratings in November, for that reason. (It
often takes
weeks for people not online to discover there ARE new episodes on.)
If they play us out of sweeps, we're a less valuable commodity to
the
stations, and thus it's more likely we'd get canceled. Pick your
poison.
jms
------------
SFRT II RoundTable
Category 18, Topic 1
Message 427 Fri Jul 12, 1996
STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 16:37 EDT
I think part of the disagreement here comes over how you define
what a
STORY is. A story is the connotation of consequences, and context, as
opposed
to a PLOT, which is the series of events in which the story takes
place, A, B,
C, D. "The king died, and then the queen died" is a basic plot. "The
king
died, and then the queen died of grief" is a story.
I preface this by saying I haven't seen ID4 yet, so take what
follows cum
granus salus, but....
As I understand it, ID4 is an incident/plot driven movie. Bad
aliens
come to Earth. Bad aliens smash. Good humans smash back. Good
humans win.
The aliens are there to shoot and be shot at, and we don't really know
much
about who they are, where they come from, their cosmology, any of
that. It's
a series of incidents.
With Star Wars, you got the sense of things happening outside the
plot,
and you got the sense of context and consequences. It delved into
matters of
belief, the use of the Force, the Zen notion of letting go of the
conscious
self. It carried with it a sense of history, the notion that there
had been
prior wars, and the whole history of the Jedi Knights, which carried
with it a
sense of mystery and wonder. There was a fairly well realized
political
framework, with Imperials and rebels and other planets that chose not
to get
involved. You got the sense that the events in the story came from
somewhere,
and would lead to something.
There's not much question that Star Wars contains more actual
story than
ID4. Which isn't the same thing as saying that one is *better* than
the
other. That's a mug's game, because whatever's better for us is a
purely
subjective decision. But one can point to the two movies and say,
with a fair
amount of objectivity, which one contains *more* story than the other,
which
involved the most creativity and world-building.
Just to try and clarify the argument a little....
jms
------------
SFRT II RoundTable
Category 18, Topic 33
Message 278 Fri Jul 12, 1996
STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 00:46 EDT
So given that all of season 3 has only one author, given that you
can
easily define a season (apparently there was some confusion about what
a
season is) as Year 3, episodes 301-322, given that this year they're
MUCH more
directly linked as one dramatic unit...what d'you think the odds would
be of
getting all of season 3 of B5 considered as one dramatic unit for Hugo
consideration next season?
(Heck, we gotta compete with ID4 *somehow*....)
jms
------------
SFRT II RoundTable
Category 18, Topic 33
Message 281 Fri Jul 12, 1996
STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 16:51 EDT
But is it really an exception? You have two books as potential
nominees.
One is 100,000 words long, the other is a huge 300,000 word potboiler.
But
they're both written by one author, so they're both eligible. If a
two-part
episode can be considered a dramatic unit because it has one author,
and a
single episode can be considered because it has one author, then why
not a 22-
parter with only one author? Just because the unit has more pages
shouldn't
mitigate against it any more than the 300,000 word novel should be
disqualified.
If you stop and think about it dispassionately for a moment, the
exception would be in NOT allowing a whole one-author season be
nominated.
The committee has already allowed the notion of multiple-part nominees
by
accepting two-parters. You've crossed the one-episode barrier
already. So
logically if you've accepted that, why suddenly change it to just one
episode?
Conceivably, I could take all 22 scripts, put a huge binder on
it, and
slap a cover page on it reading SEASON THREE, WRITTEN BY J. MICHAEL
STRACZYNSKI, and drop that one single unit on the desk of the
committee and
say, "Here, here's one dramatic unit."
On one level, it's really kind of an intellectual exercise; I
like to
feather around the rules and see what things mean when little things
get
changed, and what the *sense* of the rule is vs. how it's applied
sometimes.
jms
------------
SFRT II RoundTable
Category 18, Topic 1
Message 458 Tue Jul 16, 1996
STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 03:14 EDT
I was in college when Star Wars hit, first year or so, I think,
and had
somehow managed to utterly and completely miss ALL of the hype and PR
about
the movie *for the entire duration of its run*. (I was, by turns,
studying
heavily, writing heavily and dating heavily.) I finally wandered in
to see it
on the last day of a screening run at a small theater in Chula Vista,
about
the last place on earth still playing it by that late date. Sat down
to watch
it, figuring it'd be another cheesy awful film like the (I think) Star
Invasion movie I'd seen just before, with Robert Vaughn, I think, and
Christopher Lee....
No expectations, no knowledge. Tabula rasa.
Two or three other people in the theater as it went dark.
That first shot pinned my ears to the back of the room and never
left.
jms
------------
SFRT II RoundTable
Category 18, Topic 1
Message 467 Wed Jul 17, 1996
STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 00:20 EDT
I'd say Sinclair and Garibaldi both caught traces of that future.
jms
------------
SFRT II RoundTable
Category 18, Topic 26
Message 448 Sat Jul 13, 1996
STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 02:14 EDT
The videos were the same, in the case of "Requiem," but the
projection
system wasn't really up to snuff.
Now, I toss out a philosophical question for general
consideration.
When they first showed "Requiem," I was watching from the back,
as is my
wont. I always try to make sure *everybody* can see and hear stuff as
well as
conceivable. The lights were on low in the middle of the room, which
washed
out about 60% of the video; there were whole sections where you
couldn't see
squat.
I was very bugged about this, and when I went to the stage, and
set up
things to show, I said bring the lights down *all the way*. One
person with
the con said "We can't do that." This seemed remarkable to me, as I
understood that most electrical devices had on and off switches. So I
cupped
the mike and indicated that if the lights didn't go down I'd shoot
them out.
They went down.
The second time we went dark, I found out what was going on sub
rosa.
There were, I think, 3 or 5 deaf people in the front of the room, and
had
someone signing for them to tell them what was being said on the
clips. The
person doing the signing was very upset with me, to say the least.
So here's the dilemma: you keep the lights up, and 2,400 people
can't SEE
the screens. If you lower the lights, they can, but the 3-5 people
with
hearing problems can't hear what's being said.
The logical solution, I believe, was what I did: the lights go
down, on
the theory that the 2,400 outnumber the 3-5. But at the same time,
I'm
sensitive to the problem. I know that the signer was upset...but at
the same
time, I figure, if you knew you were going to be signing in a room
where a
SCREENING was going on, which therefore would get dark, you'd bring a
low-
level light or flashlight for those periods.
Comments? Discussions?
I think I made the right decision...but it's a tough call,
y'know?
jms
------------
SFRT II RoundTable
Category 18, Topic 26
Message 463 Sun Jul 14, 1996
STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 03:26 EDT
Unfortunately, my master copies aren't closed-captioned, only
the
broadcast copies, because that takes 'em down a generation.
jms
------------
SFRT II RoundTable
Category 18, Topic 33
Message 297 Mon Jul 15, 1996
STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 00:16 EDT
Actually, I'd mitigate *against* the 5-year story being
considered as a
whole dramatic unit because it has multiple writers. I think that
would tend
to violate the spirit of the Hugos.
jms
------------
SFRT II RoundTable
Category 18, Topic 1
Message 501 Fri Jul 19, 1996
STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 20:14 EDT
For those with questions about the fan club, or who haven't yet
received
some of the material, B5FC head Jim Lockett now has an email address:
JPLB5 at AOL.COM.
jms
------------
SFRT II RoundTable
Category 18, Topic 1
Message 532 Mon Jul 22, 1996
STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 04:44 EDT
Peter: well, as you note, if the response hadn't been as strong
as it is,
we'd likely be off the air and it'd be a moot point. (Or, if the show
were
swallowed into silence, maybe that'd be a mute point.) But for the
sake of
argument, let's take a middle ground...sufficient ratings to stay on
the air,
but zip in the way of direct response: no B5 forums, topics, web
pages...a
silence vast as space.
I'd do exactly what I'm doing. I can't work any other way. I
believe in
this show, in the story I'm telling, right down to my socks. Not to
be
grandious, because I'm not even within 50 light years of this class,
but...in
his lifetime, Van Gogh sold exactly 1 painting, for (I believe) 40
francs.
Everyone considered him a failure. He lived with his brother, who
paid his
bills, kept him in food and clothing, which he felt VERY guilty
about...nobody
knew him, or his work. But what he painted, he painted. He painted
what
moved him, what *meant* something to him. And if the world noticed,
or if it
did not, that didn't change what he saw, or the way he presented it on
canvas.
He suffered greatly, endured greatly, but the work was the work.
It was
in-between that his life was most disasterous, when he wasn't working,
when he
wasn't *seeing*. And it was in that dry stretch that, on a warm
Spring
afternoon, he went out into a field five miles from his brother Theo's
home,
put a gun to his chest, and fired...out of guilt for taking up so much
of his
brother's money, out of fear, out of failure, the vessel not the equal
of the
talent it contained. (And even at that, he failed; the bullet did not
kill
him at once. He lay there for almost an hour, then crawled back to
Theo's
home, where several hours later, he died in his brother's arms.)
And now, today, industrialists and collectors pay millions of
dollars to
hold one of his paintings to their eyes and peer through the bars to
greatness...for the chance to see what Van Gogh saw through those
tragic eyes.
The work is the work. To fall prey to despair when it isn't seen
for
what (you hope) it is...or to puff proud like a pouter pigeon when the
crowds
cry out your name...both are equally anathema to the creative drive.
You
have to listen to the calm, clear voice in the back of your head and
paint
what you must paint, write what you must write, dance what you must
dance and
sing what you must sing, because to *not* do so is suicide, and to do
so for
the wrong reasons, to appeal to the momentary trends of the crowd, is
a much
slower but just as sure a death.
The story is the story, and the work is the work. There is no
other
answer that would mean a damn.
jms
------------
SFRT II RoundTable
Category 18, Topic 1
Message 547 Tue Jul 23, 1996
STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 16:58 EDT
Vampyr: Zelazny collected 500 rejection slips before he sold
anything, so
you've got at least 499 more to go before you're entitled to get
depressed.
And yes, the piece can be reprinted, as can anything I write
here.
I'd hoped not to generally have this known...but no, I don't
drive. I
have a bit of a proble with depth perception that only comes into play
really
in any significant way when I'm behind the wheel of a car.
Translation: I
hit things, and they frown on that. So for the good of the
Commonweal, I stay
off the roads.
So I don't know who drove off at LosCon, but it weren't me.
jms
------------
SFRT II RoundTable
Category 18, Topic 1
Message 553 Wed Jul 24, 1996
STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 01:26 EDT
I get around...it just requires a certain degree of creativity
some days.
(And yes, I have the stamp, thanks, it's very cool.)
jms
------------
SFRT II RoundTable
Category 18, Topic 1
Message 557 Wed Jul 24, 1996
STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 04:45 EDT
Hmmm...I don't know this for a fact, I'm only speculating, but
the
station could be burning off its committment to clear the decks and
the
ledgers. Could be interesting if it backfires and starts doing well
for them,
which has the potential to happen when someone starts stripping the
show
nightly....
jms
------------
SFRT II RoundTable
Category 18, Topic 1
Message 586 Thu Jul 25, 1996
STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 14:51 EDT
The driving *can* be done...but from my perspective, knowing me,
not as
safely as I feel should be the case. Unless I'm 100% confident of my
ability,
I won't get behind the wheel of a car and risk hurting someone. It's
just
not something I can do with a clear conscience.
jms
------------
SFRT II RoundTable
Category 18, Topic 12
Message 354 Tue Jul 23, 1996
STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 17:02 EDT
It's "arc," as story arc, he kinda misunderstood.
I'm rather conflicted about the article...on one hand, it's a
positive
article, and one should be properly thankful for that. On the other,
I'd
thought it'd be about the show, and the cast (I wasn't even in the
photo
shoot, which is standard, so again I figured it was about the show per
se),
and instead it's mainly jms stuff, which I'm kinda so-so about. And
on the
third hand (I have a third hand now), it feels like he was looking for
some
kind of angle on the story, found this one -- that we are ABOUT
something --
and kinda ran it into the ground.
It seems these days that if you care about something, if you want
to make
a statement, or believe in your work, somehow that's passe, and it's
trendy to
poke fun at passion. The trouble with cynicism is that it tends to
devolve
into contempt, and these are cynical times.
So I dunno...good article, in most ways, others...just kinda sets
my
teeth on edge. But again, this is the first time they've really
acknowledged
us, so I have no complaints. I'm happy they did it.
jms
------------
SFRT II RoundTable
Category 18, Topic 1
Message 608 Fri Jul 26, 1996
STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 15:19 EDT
Re: a gold-plated limo...dream on. Syndication pays roughly half
what
network shows pay. My agent still shakes her head that I left Murder,
She
Wrote and took a 50% pay cut to do B5.
The Pegasus Publishing bumper stickers are definitely unlicensed.
Script #3 title: "The Summoning."
jms
------------
SFRT II RoundTable
Category 18, Topic 1
Message 624 Fri Jul 26, 1996
STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 23:58 EDT
BMW? Please, it's a Mercedes 300E, my only concession to working
in TV,
also because it's a very safe car. (1990 model, still going strong.)
jms
------------
SFRT II RoundTable
Category 18, Topic 2
Message 320 Sat Jul 27, 1996
STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 05:46 EDT
There are no current plans for Talia's return.
jms
------------
SFRT II RoundTable
Category 18, Topic 1
Message 648 Sun Jul 28, 1996
STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 23:48 EDT
Mike: the problem is we're telling different stories. What makes
it
interesting for me is that Sheridan *isn't* prepared, Kosh *didn't*
finish his
training. It isn't nice and tidy. And to stop and explain the dream
in
"Interludes" would've meant taking, oh, about 3-5 minutes OUT of that
episode,
and it's very tight as it is. And it would've just been a case of,
"Here,
here's this bit of exposition relating to something you've seen
before."
No, the dream *does* get explained...and it gets explained *this
season*,
in the course of the final five. In detail. But at the right time,
and in
the right place. To have explained it sooner wouldn't work, it has to
come at
the right moment, with the last bits of information our characters
need to
*use* that interpretation.
jms
------------
SFRT II RoundTable
Category 18, Topic 1
Message 372 Tue Jul 30, 1996
STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 16:37 EDT
Van Dyke had considerable problems with alcohol for many years
before
finally coming out the other side, which were widely known and
reported, and
he's been very open in talking about them.
And yes, definitely know that Rod's no longer with us, I was just
playing
into the TZ sensibility for a moment. (While on TZ3 I did a
posthumous
collaboration with Serling, taking his outline for "Our Selena Is
Dying" and
turning it into a full episode of the show.)
jms
------------
--
David Strauss <*> O- Administrator, New York Islanders Mailing List
http://www.aiscom.com/~dstrauss/
Intel. Putting the 'backwards' into 'backwards compatible.'
--
rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.info <*> archive: http://ivory.ora.com/rastb5i/
another fine service submissions to: b5-info at callisto.pas.rochester.edu
of ISN mars bureau comments to: b5-info-request at callisto.pas.rochester.edu
-***
-*** 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