[B5JMS] ATTN JMS: Crusade - how do you think you did?

[b5jms-admin at cs.columbia.edu]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: "Carl N. Hoff" <cnh at ti.com>
Date: 19 Apr 2001 18:17:56 -0700
Lines: 129

Hello JMS,

   Thanks for the longer then usual note.  A couple quick questions:

(1)  You mention  "The best scripts of mine per se would probably be
       the two that didn't get produced but which were made available
      via bookface.com, To the Ends of the Earth and End of the Line."

      Is there any chance at all of these being made available again in
      some format in the future?

(2)  I take the tone of your email to imply that there is ZERO chance
      of Crusade ever making a come back.  Is Crusades truly dead?
      Or is there still a glimmer of hope someplace?

Later,
Carl


Jms at B5 wrote:

> >Now that you've had some time to put the battles you fought during the
> >production behind you, how do you feel what was produced of Crusade
> >turned out?
> >
> >What was your strongest episode?
> >
> >What was your weakest (ignoring War Zone)?
>
> I still think the first five produced were our best of the ones we shot, in
> terms of the ones I wrote.  The best scripts of mine per se would probably be
> the two that didn't get produced but which were made available via
> bookface.com, To the Ends of the Earth and End of the Line.  I think they
> would've kicked over the table and shown where the production, and the story,
> was going.  They're also the ones I wrote after "Apperances," which is where I
> decided, "Fuck it, fuck TNT, fuck the notes, I'm just gonna go back to what I
> was doing for the first 5 and write what I want."  I got pissed, and sometimes
> I write best when I'm angry about something.
>
> Weakest of my scripts...probably The Long Road, which started out as a good
> idea, and is still about 70% a good idea, but it's over-written and it
> feels...I dunno... stagey, somehow.
>
> You actually happened to hit me with this question on a reflective night, so
> I'm taking a bit more time than I normally would with this.
>
> I was talking to a friend recently, and I mentioned that in looking at the
> Crusade episodes on SFC, something about them bothers me...not the performers,
> who are all great, or the direction, which was generally quite good (with some
> lapses), but the writing.  They didn't seem to me to have the same level of
> energy as B5.
>
> To which I was told, "You want to know the truth of it?  I was glad when they
> shut down Crusade."  Now, as you might expect, I was kind of taken aback by
> this, and asked for clarification and what this had to do with my original
> statement.
>
> The reply: "You were *exhausted*.  You did five years of backbreaking work, you
> were averaging 3-4 hours sleep a night if you were lucky, you lost your hair,
> your health, and a good-sized chunk of your sanity...you were *tired*.  The
> best thing would've been if there had been a year break between B5 and Crusade,
> to give you a chance to catch your breath.  Would it have made a difference to
> TNT's decision?  No.  They changed their mind about the show based on their new
> ratings surveys before you ever shot a frame of film.  But you wouldn't be
> sensing that lack of energy in the episodes now.
>
> "Look at the stuff now: the Rising Stars screenplay is getting fast-tracked,
> the studio and the network love (title deleted until press release is issued),
> it's some of your best work ever, and Rangers has the energy that B5 always
> had, that Crusade didn't.  It's still better than 95% of what's out there, but
> it's not you writing at the top of your top form."
>
> "So how come you didn't say this at the time?" I asked.
>
> "Because then you couldn't have heard it, wouldn't have listened.  Now you
> can."
>
> Hearing something like that is very difficult, because we all like to think
> we're invulnerable.  In retrospect, I think there's a measure of truth to it.
> Maybe more than a measure.
>
> Crusade is a good show.  It got beaten down after the first five, stayed kind
> of beaten down through network notes and my own fatigue fighting fights that I
> shouldn't have had to fight, then picked up with the two post-fuck'em scripts
> because my energy was gearing up again at that decision.  But overall it was a
> good show.
>
> Not that it made any difference to Crusade's eventual fate; that had zero to do
> with the writing, acting, or directing, and everything to do with an internal
> corporate TNT decision about SF in general.  Even written at 100% of my energy
> level, even if it had been a GREAT show instead of a very good show, it STILL
> would've met the fate it met.  Of that there is no question.
>
> It was starting to pick up speed again with those last two scripts.  I think we
> would've eventually progressed in quality to where it needed to be.
>
> But I had just enough energy to get it started, to write and produce it, but
> not enough to go through all that AND the day-to-day battles with the network.
> Having gone through five years of hell on B5, I could handle any two of those
> three, not all three.
>
> And I'm wondering now if, in the long run, maybe it was the best thing that
> could have happened.  If it had not gone the way it did, I almost certainly
> would never have been in a position to do the things I'm doing now...a (still
> classified) high-profile and high-budget TV series for one network, a B5 TV
> movie that will almost certainly go to a series on SFC, and the Rising Stars
> feature film in addition to a bunch of other stuff.  And it's all fresh, with
> energy, there's fun there, and I think Rangers will have the fun and energy and
> cool stuff that is emblematic of B5.
>
> I've always tried to be very forthright in my appraisal of my own work...I know
> where my strengths are, but I also know where my failings are, and I think one
> needs to be blunt about both.  So I tend to be pretty merciless when looking
> back at this kind of thing, but I think it's necessary.
>
> It's weird to think that I'm actually in a *better* position now, in terms of
> my career and the quality of my work, with Crusade having gone the way it did,
> than I would be if it had continued...but there it is.
>
> It's a funny old world, you know...?
>
>  jms
>
> (jmsatb5 at aol.com)
> (all message content (c) 2001 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
> permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
> and don't send me story ideas)



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: 19 Apr 2001 20:29:37 -0700
Lines: 18

>I take the tone of your email to imply that there is ZERO chance
>      of Crusade ever making a come back.  Is Crusades truly dead?
>      Or is there still a glimmer of hope someplace?
>

It doesn't have anything to do with that one way or t'other.


 jms

(jmsatb5 at aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2001 by synthetic worlds, ltd., 
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine 
and don't send me story ideas)