JMS on CompuServe (Mar 10, 1998) *POSSIBLE SPOILERS* (1/2)
bbarrett at johndelenn.com
bbarrett at johndelenn.com
Tue Mar 10 15:16:45 EST 1998
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 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:
http://www.johndelenn.com/
**********************************************
[ Summary of subjects in this section: ]
Sb: #23310-#The Progress of Year 5
Sb: #23382-Dramatic Structure
Sb: #23383-#Robin Atkin Downes
Sb: #23354-Strange relations
Sb: #23068-<SotS> Soul of Secrets
Sb: #23029-<Secrets of the Soul>
Sb: #23362-<tVftG> Prismatic View
Sb: #23483-B5 Ratings
Sb: #23526-#B5 Ratings
Sb: #23510-#B5 Ratings
#: 23310 S2/Bab 5: General
08-Mar-98 11:03:04
Sb: #The Progress of Year 5
Fm: DAN T. DAVIS
Hi Joe.
Given that you've received some criticism of year 5, I thought I'd provide my
own (for what it's worth) perspective.
I've enjoyed Babylon 5 from the time when you were simply announcing it on
Compuserve (your messages are always enjoyable).
I've watched it from the beginning, and the only true disappointment I felt
was after I watched the pilot (the first time).
The thing that I most enjoy about the series, and the reason I think you may
be getting more "flak" over season 5 is that you are not afraid to turn
everything around, look at it differently, and treat it in a totally new
light.
You don't always succeed, but, in my opinion, you always are intriguing. You
move lightning fast at times (end of season 4), you take your time when you
believe it to be necessary (season 1), and you build dramatic tension when
you feel the issues are complicated (season 5).
For those of us ready to totally shift gears, rethink what you're doing, and
be willing to accept a new and different show every season, you continually
delight. I'm not going to say that season 5 is my "favrit'" yet, but there
are still about 15 more episodes to go; I'm happy to wait and watch.
I applaud the fact that you are willing to change the show, to turn it, shape
it and mold it. I think some of the "disappointment" of this season to others
is that it IS different - many had become comfortable at what they had seen
before, and just wanted more of the same.
Others, who are willing to take the changes, have found you moving into an
area they simply don't like as much, and their "criticisms" are valid as long
as everyone realizes that they aren't criticizing you or your writing style,
but simply saying "hey, this new stuff isn't my cup of tea".
I find the only problems to be when people see you moving into areas they
don't enjoy, and then assuming that "the story sucks" rather than the fact
you've simply moved into another direction.
If you started telling Babylon 5 as a horror story (which might even be what
Thirdspace is about), then I probably wouldn't enjoy it as much, since that
isn't an area I like. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't do it; it just
means that I wouldn't enjoy it as much.
I guess I'm just saying - THANK YOU for being willing to be different, even
though some will not thank you, because they want it to be exactly what they
like, no more, and no less.
Take care,
Dan
#: 23384 S2/Bab 5: General
08-Mar-98 22:05:12
Sb: #23310-#The Progress of Year 5
Fm: J. MICHAEL STRACZYNSKI
Thanks...I agree with pretty much everything in your note. The thing
about this show, one of many, is that I do tend to look at each season as a
separate volume in the story, and I try to give each season a unique and
distinct flavor...from the main titles (the book's "cover) to the stories, and
the *way* those stories are told. The first few episodes are always the
transition point, the plateau, where the changes are worked out.
The other thing is that in the past, I've generally said "this is part
of the arc" by doing a lot of finger-pointing, flag-waving and jumping up and
down. I figured that after 4 years of seeing that the first third of the
season is generally setup for the consequences that will follow, that I
wouldn't have to do so much "fireworks-pay-attention" to this stuff...but I
may have been wrong in that respect. No, I haven't *said* "this is
meaningful" even though it is, and will be more obviously so in hindsight,
because I figured by this time in the game everybody knew the routine and I
wouldn't have to red-flag it in advance.
I was talking about this to some of the folks on the show, and they had
the same reaction, offering: this is a history, and sometimes when a major
event takes place, nobody knows it's happened yet. On the day the stocks
began to fall, could someone have stood up and said, "And from this came the
great depression?" When Archduke Ferdinand was killed, could someone have
said, that day, "And from this comes World War One and World War Two and the
Cold War." You only see the pattern in hindsight.
What's being laid out in the first part of this season are the threads
that will become increasingly important, and fundamentally change the lives of
everybody in the show...but because it's not being flagged as such, some
people tend to dismiss it as filler.
As one person noted to me today in email, it's as if someone wrote to
Tolkein and said, "Listen, the book is okay, but on page 248 why the hell did
you spend so much time on hobbits when the story is about Aragorn? What the
hell is it with you and hobbits? I'm not saying that I'm going to stop
reading the book, but unless you get back to Strider fast the story is going
to suck and wander."
Bottom line...I'm doing now exactly what I have done with the show from
day one: I'm writing this to please myself, to tell the story that *I* want to
see. If others want to see that, great; if others don't, that's fine too,
because the exercise is getting the story told the way I want it told. And
that I have done. And in the long run, that's what's pulled people to this
show: it's a singular vision, a one-man story, told the way one person wants
it to be told, as in any novel off the shelf.
I just hope, when all the shouting and hand-wringing is done, and the
season is over, and all the threads of the story lead right back through to
the beginning of this season, showing the filler to be nothing of the sort,
that these same folks will come out and say they were wrong, as those who said
at the time that there was no arc in season 1 have done since the show has
gone into reruns and the arc has become totally evident.
I can hope that because I specialize in writing fantasy, you know....
jms
[ Editorial Note: I normally do not comment on the contents of this
archive, but I feel compelled to clarify something implied in JMS'
reply above. The majority of posts on CompuServe after this last
episode, "Secrets of the Soul," have been of the neutral to negative
variety. It seems that the majority of posters simply weren't
impressed with it (which is unprecedented on CompuServe, at least in
my memory). The reply above would seem to indicate that the
primary complaint was that the episode seemed to serve no purpose.
That is not the case. The majority of comments, my own included,
acknowledged the advancement of the plot, but indicated a failure
to be moved emotionally by the episode. To most, it seemed to be
lacking life, not lacking importance. -- Brent ]
#: 23382 S2/Bab 5: General
08-Mar-98 21:17:14
Sb: #Dramatic Structure
Fm: ROBERT R. WIGGINS
So I've been re-watching the first two seasons, as well as season 5, and also
watching some other series which some people compare to B5, when I realized
one of the major differences between B5 and many other shows on television: a
sense of dramatic structure. I'll be watching another show and looking at the
clock (a bad sign right there) and wondering "how the heck are they going to
resolve this in 5 minutes" when along comes some deus ex machina or
techno-babble solution. But on B5, not only does this not happen, but we even
actually get a denouement (something most TV writers apparently don't even
know about). Not to mention the use of foreshadowing and flashbacks.
Maybe something I read once is true, that there are now so many hours of TV
being written that writers aren't getting any training and don't know anything
about dramatic structure. All I know is that Babylon 5 is a real anomaly, and
while I love it, it's kind of sad that it stands out so much.
Of course, this is from someone who went out of his way to watch Murder, She
Wrote when someone became story editor. It was good, too. (OK, and Captain
Power and TRGB, too, but those were guilty pleasures.)
Anyway, keep up the good work. I'll watch anything you work on.
-- Wiggo
#: 23393 S2/Bab 5: General
09-Mar-98 00:14:05
Sb: #23382-Dramatic Structure
Fm: J. MICHAEL STRACZYNSKI
Thanks...the denouement or falling action is where you get to show the
consequences, that's often where a lot of the more interesting things happen.
Otherwise, it's just "okay, it's over" and that's it. I'm a big subscriber to
the notion of proper dramatic structure, and I try to hew to it on a large
scale with the overall arc, and each individual episode. You can track every
episode, and every season, from the progression of introduction, rising
action, complication, climax and denouement. I figure it's a solid literary
framework that has worked for several thousand years, it's *got* to be good
enough for TeeVee....
jms
[ Summary: Asks how the actor playing Byron was chosen for the role. ]
#: 23394 S2/Bab 5: General
09-Mar-98 00:14:05
Sb: #23383-#Robin Atkin Downes
Fm: J. MICHAEL STRACZYNSKI
We were impressed by his portrayal of Minbari, and that led to him
coming in for Byron.
jms
[ Summary: "Will the NBA playoff delay affect the broadcast schedule
of the independant stations showing B5 here in Canada?" ]
#: 23386 S5/Seas. 5 SPOILERS
08-Mar-98 22:05:13
Sb: #23354-Strange relations
Fm: J. MICHAEL STRACZYNSKI
Good question...I don't know. I will have to inquire.
jms
[ Summary: Comments negatively on the episode "Secrets of the Soul." ]
#: 23248 S5/Seas. 5 SPOILERS
08-Mar-98 00:03:12
Sb: #23068-<SotS> Soul of Secrets
Fm: J. MICHAEL STRACZYNSKI
1) It wasn't filler, it's setting up one of the major arcs of the story.
"It sucked, IMHO, and I expect you to do better from now on! <grin>"
2) "grin" at the end of a note does not excuse bad manners.
jms
#: 23029 S5/Seas. 5 SPOILERS
06-Mar-98 17:07:10
Sb: #23001-<Secrets of the Soul>
Fm: GARDNER L. HARRIS
Joe, the love scene was at the least interesting and at most quite
"stimulating". Certainly it was inevitable between the characters but I was
surprised that there seemed to be so little foreplay, so to speak. I was also
surprised by the gathering crowd in Byron's private chamber. In that society
is love making not considered a private/personal matter?
A more mundane question: was the scene difficult to shoot; was Pat concerned
about doing a nude scene or was it shot so that a body double was used for all
nude/semi-nude shots? I notice that no such conjugal activities have been
required of Mira and Bruce (yet).
Personally, I always eschewed anything beyond a topless shot and I am fairly
certain that my puritanical attitude impeded my ascent to anything beyond
extra and bit parts until I had to retire for medical reasons.
Any comments?
Gardner
-Gardner L. Harris
#: 23247 S5/Seas. 5 SPOILERS
08-Mar-98 00:03:12
Sb: #23029-<Secrets of the Soul>
Fm: J. MICHAEL STRACZYNSKI
I had the group there to further reinforce their tightness, and that
it's a different way of living...as for Pat, no, no body double was used.
jms
#: 23362 S5/Seas. 5 SPOILERS
08-Mar-98 19:54:03
Sb: #<tVftG> Prismatic View
Fm: MERYL YOURISH
Joe, "View" was a phenomenal episode. Ignore any and all brickbats.
I'm passing my tapes along to a friend who doesn't have cable. He watched it
last night with his family, including his three- and four-year-old daughters.
After it was done, the three-year-old started screaming, "I want more Babylon
5! I want more Babylon 5!" When she was informed that they wouldn't get any
more until I brought it over, she said, "I want Meryl to come over!"
I'm going over tonight, and I'll bring "In the Beginning" to keep peace in the
family. <g>
Meryl
#: 23385 S5/Seas. 5 SPOILERS
08-Mar-98 22:05:12
Sb: #23362-<tVftG> Prismatic View
Fm: J. MICHAEL STRACZYNSKI
Cool....
jms
#: 23483 S2/Bab 5: General
09-Mar-98 14:57:10
Sb: #B5 Ratings
Fm: CARL CANTARELLA
Joe,
I see that the pinheads over in the AOL B5 Forum are at it again, this
time ravaging each other over the matter of B5's ratings. (The militant
Trekker agitators over there are out to milk this one for whatever mileage
they can get out of it.) While I've had the good sense not to get involved in
their ongoing scuffle concerning this, I find myself wondering about one thing
with respect to B5's ratings now that it's being shown on cable: are the two
separate airings of the season 5 episodes tabulated cumulatively, or
separately? If the B5 audience is split down the middle when it comes to
watching the show in its two respective time slots, and if those ratings for
the week aren't cumulative, but rather split two ways, it seems to me that
this would be one very good reason in itself as to why B5 hasn't been
appearing on the List of the Top 15 Cable Shows. I know that when B5 was being
shown in the syndicated market that the two airings were combined to come up
with the ratings figure for any given week, and I'm just curious as to whether
it's done the same way in the cable market, or differently.
Thanks for any insight you can provide me with concerning
this.
#: 23485 S2/Bab 5: General
09-Mar-98 15:51:07
Sb: #23483-B5 Ratings
Fm: J. MICHAEL STRACZYNSKI
No, the ratings are added for the two showings in a week.
As for the ratings...we are TNT's second-highest rated show. Where does
it say we have to be in the top 15 of everything on cable or it's not a
success? Voyager's and DS9's ratings would put it at the bottom of the
network pile, but it's closer to the high-middles in syndication. The only
ratings figure that matters is this: have the ratings been high enough for the
show to stay on the air, and let me tell the story that I wanted to tell? And
the answer to that is yes. And now the show is out there; nobody cares 10
years from now if it was in the top 15, or 5, or 50...the show is the show is
the show.
And those who come in from the Trek camp to badmouth B5 because of the
ratings should be reminded that the original Star Trek was canceled in its
third year because of poor ratings...and was considered a failure by the
networks and the studio. But the show was the show was the show, and now it
has grown.
As will B5.
jms
#: 23526 S2/Bab 5: General
09-Mar-98 21:25:12
Sb: #23485-#B5 Ratings
Fm: MARTIN ROTH
>> As for the ratings...we are TNT's second-highest rated show. Where does
it say we have to be in the top 15 of everything on cable or it's not a
success? <<
To expand on this point, B5 has traditionally had *fantastic* demographics. I
don't have access to any national numbers, but it wouldn't surprise me if B5
was among the top very few shows in the 18-34 and/or 25-54 brackets, which are
generally considered more important than the overall ratings.
-- Marty PPG
#: 23533 S2/Bab 5: General
09-Mar-98 23:59:07
Sb: #23526-#B5 Ratings
Fm: J. MICHAEL STRACZYNSKI
B5 has *killer* demographics, substantially better than Lois and Clark,
which did very good demos.
But see, this is the trap...you let the other guy define the argument
for you, and the second they do that, they win the argument. "Unless B5 does
as good as ST, then it ain't worth squat." Well, you're comparing a 5 year
show against a 30 year franchise...apples and oranges. Now, if you want to
compare B5 in its 5 years against the original ST...then B5 wins, because
we're on two years after they were CANCELED.
The fight is a dopey one on the face of it...caused by people who want a
fight between the shows, and want to define the argument such that it makes
everybody feel they have to defend something that does not require *any*
defense.
jms
[ Summary: "You know, somehow I've been under the impression that B5
has finally come into respect so that the Trek fanatics have fallen
away..." ]
#: 23532 S2/Bab 5: General
09-Mar-98 23:59:07
Sb: #23510-#B5 Ratings
Fm: J. MICHAEL STRACZYNSKI
Much the opposite; for a fanatical portion of them, this is a religious
war, and the more B5 succeeds, the more they become unhinged.
jms
[ Continued in next section -- BB ]
-***
-*** B5JMS SUBSCRIBERS: Replies to messages go to the list maintainer,
-*** <b5jms-owner at cs.columbia.edu>. If you want to reply elsewhere, adjust
-*** the "To" field. See http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~ezk/b5jms/ for all
-*** other information about this list.
More information about the B5JMS
mailing list