OT - Not voting...

[B5JMS Poster]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Rick <rick at redx.demon.co.uk>
Date: 18 Sep 2000 18:18:21 -0700
Lines: 35

>>For example, imagine at some point in the past you'd been working on
>>some show and been presented with an outline for an episode much like
>>"By Any Means Necessary", but in which the protagonist came down firmly
>>*against* the docking unions. Would you do it and try to sneak in a plot
>>thread or two to try and make it a little more acceptable? Or would you
>>walk?
>
>If it was a freelancer's story...no, of course not, it all comes down to how
>well that particular story is told.  Had the unions lost in that story, it
>would've been equally fine with me if the story had been told with logic and a
>point of view and integrity, if it ahd made a point.

This is a fairly lateral jump in theme, but may I ask another question?
As you say, the story could have been presented with a different
outcome, but my impression throughout B5 was that - whether they
triumphed or not - you always preferred to put morally defensible
viewpoints in the principle characters. OTOH, a lot of the opposing
forces (Refa, Morden, Catargia, the EarthGov guy whose name currently
escapes me in "By Any Means...") get to articulate their aims but are
rarely sympathetic when doing so.

So I'm wondering: in the above scenario, would *you* have considered
writing Sinclair as anti-Union? Or would you worry that by putting
vaguely illiberal attitudes in the mouth of the lead character - the
person the audience are most likely to identify with - the story risked
being misinterpreted; a milder form of the sort of problem Paul Schrader
encountered with audience reaction to Travis Bickle, for example?

> jms
>

-- 
Regards,
Rick


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: 18 Sep 2000 18:47:17 -0700
Lines: 24

>So I'm wondering: in the above scenario, would *you* have considered
>writing Sinclair as anti-Union? Or would you worry that by putting
>vaguely illiberal attitudes in the mouth of the lead character - the
>person the audience are most likely to identify with - the story risked
>being misinterpreted; a milder form of the sort of problem Paul Schrader
>encountered with audience reaction to Travis Bickle, for example?
>

Why must the protagonist be anti-union for the union to lose?  There are other
ways of doing the story.  

 jms

(jmsatb5 at aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
(all message content (c) 2000 by
synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
to reprint specifically denied to
SFX Magazine)




-***
-*** 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.