An Open Plea to Mr Straczynski
Matthew Sprange
I would like to start by saying that I am very, very sorry to have to
conduct any sort of discussion in this manner. I feel I have been forced to
do so because Mr Straczynski has not answered any of our direct emails for
some time. If it turns out they have merely been lost in the ether, then I
sincerely apologise. From our perspective, there is nothing we would like
better than to be on speaking terms with Mr Straczynski, whose work we have
the deepest admiration for and, indeed, we have been immersed within for the
past four years.
However, given his replies to this Newsgroup, there are some items I would
like to address publically.
>>>Not having heard the podcast, I really can't say. All that I can say
is that there has been zero coordination or approvals between Mongoose
and anyone else that I know of. To date, again as far as I know, WB
hasn't been shown what they're doing, certainly I haven't seen it,
I fully understand that Mr Straczynski may be unaware of the processes
involved in the approval process at Warner Brothers for publishers such as
ourselves, particularly after the recent changes in their procedures.
However, everything (and I mean _everything_) we publish or manufacture for
Babylon 5 is approved by Warner Brothers, via their Burbank offices.
>>>decided, in essence, "screw you, we don't need you," which has been my
perception of their approach from early on, when they first approached
me to try and (in my view) reluctantly get me involved...an initial
approach that was absurd, and insulting. When they came back, the
I am not 100% sure as to what you are referring to here. Our first contact
was for the first RPG book, during which we asked you to pen a foreword. We
offered to send you copies of the manuscript and were informed that Fiona
Avery would be the first point of contact, which we accepted. For the life
of me, I cannot think what was absurd or insulting - our contact was
intended to be neither.
>>>situation did not measurably improve and the attitude was one of, and
I'm admittedly characterizing it here, sod off, we don't need you, we
can go directly to the fans, who don't need you, we can do it better.
This was most certainly not our intent and, if you consider it just possible
that we are not the most miserable human beings on the Earth, this has to be
an unlikely position for anyone to seriously take. From our perspective, we
have been a voice in the wilderness for the past three years, trying to
carry the Babylon 5 torch - and aside from the core fanbase that has arisen
from our work, there have not been too many people who have seemed to give
much of a damn. Even the original creator seemed to ignore us - now, if
that was because of some slight you feel you received from us at the
beginning, then I cannot apologise enough. Let;s bury the hatchet and begin
to work together, as I have a feeling our goals are much the same. The
Babylon 5 fans are still out there. Let us do something great together for
them.
>>>Let me be clear: I have provided no outlines for novels to Mongoose.
Nor are there any outlines of episodes beyond what was shot plus the
two scripted but not shot episodes. There ARE no outlines to which
they could have had access. So this is false.
We have access to three scripts, which we were planning to use as the basis
of the first Crusade novel, and a collection of notes collated mostly from
things you have said yourself. There has, to date, been _no_ direct
planning for Crusade beyond this. It is something we would very much like
to do, but the first step was to round off the open end of the televised
Crusade episodes. There are larger implications for the B5 timeline with
regards to Crusade, and it is something we would like to see rounded off as
a whole because of the effect on continuity. However, this is a longer term
plan and is something we would very much like to involve yourself with.
>>>You cannot have less input than zero input. I have had zero input into
these novels. So to say there is less now means that there was some
before. Soi this is also false.
I believe I am right in saying that the quote was made with regards to
Babylon 5 projects as a whole, rather than the novels specifically.
So, I would like to make an open plea. We would very much like to re-open
lines of communication with you, Mr Straczynski. We stand by everything we
have done for Babylon 5 thus far, and would be more than happy to explain it
to you, as we see it ourselves. We would like to bring you on board for the
novels and the other projects that are being planned and, if possible, would
like to commission you for original work on them.
I believe we could have resolved all of this a long time ago if there had
simply been better communication and understanding on both sides. I can
understand how the situation must seem to you, and I ask you to try to
understand how things are for us. I believe there is a common ground and,
as I said, that our goals are likely similar. At the end of the day, we are
a company of nice people who are passionate about Babylon 5 and wish to
provide fans of the series with a service we can all be proud of.
I am willing to email you this evening, or give you a call. We would be
happy to fly you to England, at our expense of course, to bring you to our
offices and show you, face-to-face, just what it is we are doing, how we are
doing it and where we hope to go. If, after that, you believe we are on the
wrong track, we would be happy to sit down and bring your ideas front and
centre.
There are some great things still to be done with Babylon 5. If we can sit
down and begin communicating again, I think we can do it together.
Matthew Sprange
Mongoose Publishing
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com
krueg...@hotmail.com
advance if it is inappropriate for me to do so.
But why would a Babylon 5 fan even _want_ to write and publish books
that are so obviously offending the creator of Babylon 5? And without
JMS's input and oversight, how could you, as a fan yourself, take this
project seriously?
Chris Adams
Usenet? That seems much more appropriate content for direct contact
(and not email either but through normal professional channels).
--
Chris Adams <cma...@hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
Mac Breck
news:lMWdnTqvNuQ...@bt.com...
I think he's talking about:
http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-17407
If you and JMS can come up with canon Crusade novels to continue and
finish that storyline, I'm there for it and will buy them. That's a
100% certainty.
> >>>Let me be clear: I have provided no outlines for novels to
Mongoose.
> Nor are there any outlines of episodes beyond what was shot plus the
> two scripted but not shot episodes. There ARE no outlines to which
> they could have had access. So this is false.
>
> We have access to three scripts, which we were planning to use as the
basis
> of the first Crusade novel,
The three unfilmed scripts:
To the Ends of the Earth (by JMS)
End of the Line (by JMS)
and
Value Judgements (by Fiona Avery) ???
The thing is you need more than that. You need access to JMS's notes on
where Crusade was going, in detail. I'm not sure how finely he had
Seasons 1 thru 5 of Crusade mapped out, but you need access to all of
that info. plus JMS himself, if you're going to tie up Crusade in canon
fashion. And that's what I ,and a lot of other fans want. We've been
left hanging for almost SEVEN YEARS on this. Sure we got some of it in
the Del Rey novels ("The Passing of the Technomages" and "Legions of
Fire"), but that was only a smattering and doesn't really tell the story
in the Crusade timeframe (2267-2271).
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Babylon 5: Crusade" (1999)
Galen: "There is always hope, only because it's the one thing that no
one has figured out how to kill yet."
(Galen's obviously never met Warner Brothers, TNT-Atlanta or Sci-Fi.)
"Brimstone" (1998)
[Stone lights a candle for the dead in a Catholic church]
Gina: Who's that for?
Ezekiel Stone: Me.
Methuselah Jones
<krueg...@hotmail.com> of rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated make plain:
> But why would a Babylon 5 fan even _want_ to write and publish books
> that are so obviously offending the creator of Babylon 5? And without
> JMS's input and oversight, how could you, as a fan yourself, take this
> project seriously?
That's exactly the situation he's trying to handle.
--
Methuselah
"Civilization is not something inborn or imperishable; it must be acquired
anew by every generation. Man differs from the beast only by education,
which may be defined as the technique of transmitting civilization."
-- Will Durant
Amy Guskin
(in article <126q0mn...@corp.supernews.com>):
> Is it just me, or should that kind of communication not be done in
> Usenet? That seems much more appropriate content for direct contact
> (and not email either but through normal professional channels).<<
It's not just you.
Amy
Mark Alexander Bertenshaw
news:1147991372.4...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Actually, in these circumstances, I would. The only thing that Mr. Sprange
seems to have been guilty of, from what I have seen, is to have made an
monetary offer which was considered derisory. Is there a standard fee for
such a seemingly nebulous role? And isn't there such a thing as
negotiation? You know: where you give someone the chance to pay you a hell
of a lot more?
I just hope that Mr. Sprange has exhausted all possible alternatives of
contacting JMS before using Usenet as a forum. Having said that, it is not
as if JMS has not taken advantage of this forum in the past to put his side
of a story.
--
Mark Bertenshaw
Kingston upon Thames
UK
Wesley Struebing
Indeed, it's not. IMHO, of course...
--
Wes Struebing
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
mi...@corestore.org
> Hello to all.
>
> I would like to start by saying that I am very, very sorry to have to
> conduct any sort of discussion in this manner. I feel I have been forced to
> do so because Mr Straczynski has not answered any of our direct emails for
> some time.
<snip>
Perhaps you should have tried more appropriate professional channels of
communication then, rather than stepping down to the level of usenet.
I'm sorry, but this smacks of a fanboy trying to do business with a
pro, and not having the faintest clue.
Jan
Alexander Bertenshaw says...
>
><krueg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1147991372.4...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Perhaps I shouldn't be commenting in this thread, and I apologize in
>> advance if it is inappropriate for me to do so.
>>
>> But why would a Babylon 5 fan even _want_ to write and publish books
>> that are so obviously offending the creator of Babylon 5? And without
>> JMS's input and oversight, how could you, as a fan yourself, take this
>> project seriously?
>
>Actually, in these circumstances, I would. The only thing that Mr. Sprange
>seems to have been guilty of, from what I have seen, is to have made an
>monetary offer which was considered derisory.
You mean besides the prevarications that he inserted into the podcasts? Surely
I'm not the only one who's noticed that his Open Plea doesn't reply to the post
where JMS addressed him by name and asked him direct questions.
> Is there a standard fee for
>such a seemingly nebulous role? And isn't there such a thing as
>negotiation? You know: where you give someone the chance to pay you a hell
>of a lot more?
One of the posts I read from Mr. Sprange claimed ignorance of what amount would
be proper to offer. In that case, contacting JMS's agent would have been far
more appropriate. Or even maybe asking JMS what his standard consulting fee for
the services under discussion usually was.
>I just hope that Mr. Sprange has exhausted all possible alternatives of
>contacting JMS before using Usenet as a forum. Having said that, it is not
>as if JMS has not taken advantage of this forum in the past to put his side
>of a story.
>
That's true and one could even claim that JMS 'started it' in his reply to my
post last October. Mr. Sprange still apparently never approached JMS's agent,
instead making public posts here and on one of the UK newsgroups. And emailing
JMS directly, a far too casual approach, imo.
This is a situation where we fans know both too much and too little about a
situation that shouldn't be played out in public.
Jan
--
We are the voice of the universe, the soul of creation,
The fire that will light the way to a better future.
We are One.
IA Declaration of Principles
(J. Michael Straczynski)
Jon Schild
Now, how about apologizing for lying about having outlines that do not
in fact exist, and claiming that you are basing your publications on
those outlines? And once you have lied about that, how are we ever to
trust you about anything ever again?
Laura Appelbaum
"Methuselah Jones" <methu...@altgeek.org> wrote in message
news:Xns97C7CE18AE3CEme...@216.196.97.131...
> Carved in mystic runes upon the very living rock, the last words of
> <krueg...@hotmail.com> of rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated make plain:
>
>> But why would a Babylon 5 fan even _want_ to write and publish books
>> that are so obviously offending the creator of Babylon 5? And without
>> JMS's input and oversight, how could you, as a fan yourself, take this
>> project seriously?
>
> That's exactly the situation he's trying to handle.
>
all read here, assuming we actually have the bulk of the facts on the table,
*I* can certainly understand why someone would want to write and publish B5
stories, and that if they had WB's permission, which you would think would
be the more difficult thing to accomplish, they'd hope to patch up any
unintended slights jms might feel and get his cooperation. Look, I hated
Crusade and have no interest in it, but I certainly had a lot I wanted to
share about my thoughts on Sinclair/Valen and can certainly understand that
someone else might have equally passionate feelings about a niche that
doesn't interest me. I don't think that part is at all difficult to relate
to.
Of course, none of us actually know what the reality is about why WB would
give consent and thus hope to someone about a series of books if jms wasn't
cool with it. But I'd hate to be the guy caught between that dream and jms
right now.
LMA
matthe...@gmail.com
BAD. People are fighting like Democrats and Republicans. It might also
be pointed out that Mr. Strange isn't a PR person he just head of his
company. From my reading he's just trying his best to handle all this
craziness. JMS has nothing to gain by hurting mongoose other than to
show them he's a bigger man then they are. I don't understand why
someone has basically given up on a show would want to hurt the fans
who just want to continue his work
Thunder 06
matthew sprange wrote
>>We have access to three scripts, which we were planning to use as the
> basis
>>of the first Crusade novel,
>
> The three unfilmed scripts:
>
> To the Ends of the Earth (by JMS)
> End of the Line (by JMS)
>> and
>> Value Judgements (by Fiona Avery) ???
One thing I was I wondering when reading the original post here... how
exact a basis will these novels be able to use those scripts? They were
not officially filmed and are therefore Joe's and Fiona's personal
property, are they not? Wouldn't Mongoose have to pay something to start
using details from them? (Or do they just own the words and not the
stories? But WB didn't pay for them, did they?) Even if not in a
strictly legal sense, shouldn't they (Mongoose) pay them (the writers)
something anyway, just to not seem like they're stealing stuff and
appear to be more legit... (I admit I'm no lawyer, but that's my two cents).
t.k.
Arlen Roy Kundert
> JMS has nothing to gain by hurting mongoose other than to
> show them he's a bigger man then they are. I don't understand why
> someone has basically given up on a show would want to hurt the fans
> who just want to continue his work
IMHO you are making the wrong argument about what's going on. As far as
I'm concerned, it's a matter of artistic rights.
What I mean is this:
Lets say someone wanted to change/add to The Mona Lisa. You need to
ask yourself, does ANYONE, no matter how much of a fan of Leonardo da
Vinci and The Mona Lisa they are have the right to add to or take away
from it without da Vinci's say so?
In that same vain, JMS (again IMHO) does have something to gain or
lose, his artistic right to control what is rightfully his. He could
say tomorrow "I don't want anyone ever touching my work ever again" or
"Doors open boys, have it" or anything in between. And frankly at a
personal level it wouldn't bother me one way or the other, mostly
because I find most fan fiction some pretty painful stuff, and the five
year arc for B5 has been finished.
But back to my point, why should JMS feel he has to give up his
artistic rights involving Babylon 5 just for the sake of public
opinion? He thought the darn thing up in the first place. Doesn't that
give him at the very least a little bit (if not a whole lot) of leeway
in who can or can't expand on *HIS* worlds?
But if someone has what they feel great story or idea for Babylon 5,
why not instead ditch on adding to B5's story arc, and tell a totally
new story with the same overall plot? After all, Babylon 5 is only one
venue out an almost infinite sea of possible ideas for story telling.
Matthew Sprange
> that are so obviously offending the creator of Babylon 5? And without
> JMS's input and oversight, how could you, as a fan yourself, take this
> project seriously?
Well, firstly, because it is my job. This is what I do for a living.
Second, I believe we do good work. We have a solid fan base for what we do,
they are enjoying it and asking us for more. As I indicated in my previous
post, if we could show Mr Straczynski what we have done and, more
importantly, our attitude towards Babylon 5, I believe we could heal this
rift.
Ron Peterson
a phone? Or have we forgotten how to use them?
Anyways, jms said long ago and here on the group that he had given no
input on the books. Soon, after they were annouced, I think. Why wait and
plead to him now?
Tippi
>why not instead ditch on adding to B5's story arc, and tell a totally
>new story with the same overall plot?
Rather than "I have a great story to tell", the purpose for these
novels is probably either "I want to contribute to the B5 universe" or
"I can ride the coattails of B5" (I don't know which, or how much of
each, is in Mr. Sprange's mind).
Matthew Sprange
> fact exist, and claiming that you are basing your publications on those
> outlines? And once you have lied about that, how are we ever to trust you
> about anything ever again?
I direct you to the statement made in the post you quoted;
> We have access to three scripts, which we were planning to use as the
> basis of the first Crusade novel, and a collection of notes collated
> mostly from things you have said yourself. There has, to date, been _no_
> direct planning for Crusade beyond this. It is something we would very
> much like to do, but the first step was to round off the open end of the
> televised Crusade episodes. There are larger implications for the B5
> timeline with regards to Crusade, and it is something we would like to see
> rounded off as a whole because of the effect on continuity. However, this
> is a longer term plan and is something we would very much like to involve
> yourself with.
Matthew Sprange
Mongoose Publishing
Joseph DeMartino
not officially filmed and are therefore Joe's and Fiona's personal
property, are they not? Wouldn't Mongoose have to pay something to
start
using details from them? (Or do they just own the words and not the
stories? But WB didn't pay for them, did they?) <
It doesn't matter whether they were filmed or not. They still belong
to Warner Bros., which did indeed pay for them. A script written to
assignment from a studio is *always* paid for - in fact, the WGA
agreement requires that parts of the agreed-to-fee be paid on delivery
of the outline (if one is required) and then each draft of the script.
They are not the personal property of the writers.
Under the WGA separation of rights agreement the writers do own the
actual text of the scripts *in script form* and they have the right to
publish them as individual scripts, in book form, excerpt them in
articles about scriptwriting, etc. But they could not write a
novelization of the script, or adapt it as a Broadway musical or a
radio play, or turn it into a comic book. All of those subsidiary
rights are retained by Warner Bros. So, no, Mongoose would not have to
pay the writers for doing books based on their work. And Mongoose is
already compensating the owner of those scripts (Warner Bros.) for
their use in the form of license fees and royalties on the books they
sell or whatever exact arrangement they've negotiated. And the writers
have already been compensated by Warner Bros. for the use of the
scripts including the right to novelize them.* The scripts are
strictly "work for hire" and Mongoose would not have any legal (or
moral) obligation to pay the Warner Bros. employees who happened to
make them, anymore than you need to write a check to the guy at GM or
Honda who put the driver's side wheels on your car. He's already been
paid for his work by the automaker.
Regards,
Joe
* I know that if footage from an earlier episode is used in later shows
that the actors and the writer get paid a fee. I *believe* that if a
character created by one writer in a script is used in a later episode,
the original writer gets a fee and some kind of acknowledgment. But
these things may only apply to produced episodes. So I suppose it is
*possible* that there may also be some kind of WGA rule that requires a
fee for novelizations. But if there is, it would still be Warner
Bros., not Mongoose, that would be liable to pay it.
Jan
The question asked was, "Are you guys going to be working from Straczynski's
outlines for these Crusade novels?"
Scripts are not outlines.
Notes are not outlines.
JMS addressed you by name in the "Anything new going on?" thread. How about
reopening communication by answering the questions he asked?
Vorlonagent
"Chris Adams" <cma...@hiwaay.net> wrote in message
news:126q0mn...@corp.supernews.com...
> Is it just me, or should that kind of communication not be done in
> Usenet? That seems much more appropriate content for direct contact
> (and not email either but through normal professional channels).
You're right. This shouldn't have been aired here. A brief message saying
"please contact me" would be in order, however, IF this was the only contact
option the author felt was available. (and that appears to be ther case).
You don't attempt to conduct business over a newsgroup. (that also appears
to be what this guy was doing)
If this was the only way to contact JMS, the guy certainly shouldn't have
aired a short ton of detail that should really between him and JMS. It
looks like he's getting picked apart and rightfully should be for being this
unprofessional. I haven't been tracking the particulars of this saga, but
on the basis of his post and its content alone, I'd tend to want to boot his
butt off the project.
--
John Trauger,
Vorlonagent
"Methane martini.
Shaken, not stirred."
"Spirituality without science has no mind.
Science without spirituality has no heart."
-Methuselah Jones
Craigbob
not outlines, but more importantly do you have the rights to use them
from Joe? Unless I've forgotten or missed something, Joe retains the
rights to the scripts, not WB. So using them as a basis would be nothing
more than FanFic at this point.
In article <zcCdncoolJX...@bt.com>, sp...@mongoosepublishing.com
says...
--
Remove MySkin to e-mail me
Rob Perkins
> The question asked was, "Are you guys going to be working from Straczynski's
> outlines for these Crusade novels?"
>
> Scripts are not outlines.
> Notes are not outlines.
BUT, both can serve the *function* of an outline, though the possible
directions to take a story from a script or notes are meaningfully
different than from a plot outline.
It's entirely possible that Mr. Strange was being casual, which is the
usual setting for podcasts, and that JMS was not, having a firm writers'
idea (and possible a very firm WGA-er's idea) in his head what an
outline is.
Rob
Carl
I certainly understand why people want more B5. I do too.
I can understand why you might want to address such an audience both as a
fan and as a business opportunity if given the opportunity.
It doesn't matter if it's because he wants to leave his work stand as he
wrote it, if he was insulted, if he wants to benefit financially from his
efforts, or if the image of Valen appeared to him on a bagel one morning and
told him to refuse. It simply doesn't matter why...
Mr. Straczynski said "No."
I hope you respect his wishes.
Carl
Rob Perkins
> It's entirely possible that Mr. Strange was being casual,
My sincerest apologies: The name I was going for was Sprange, not
Strange, and I regret the error.
Rob
Jan
Oops...ignore that blank post please.
I might find your reasoning plausible *if* this wasn't somebody actually in
publishing, described as the director of Mongoose Publishing.
AC
Well, Mathew is replying to JMS's statements. If Joe can publically make the
comments he made, the surely its only reasonable that the reply be made in
the same forum?
Or I have I misunderstood the target of your critism?
AC
AC
<matthe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148015697.1...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Exactly. But what would you honestly expect on this forum? A lot of the
regulars here are reluctant to fault JMS in any substantial way. Which is
fine, cos this is where uber JMS fans hang out. But is does alter the
balance of any debate, and predicitably, the regulars have fallen in line
behind JMS, and Mathew is getting a JMS party, justified, whipping. JMS
unhappy = NG uhappy. But as I said, that is exactly how it should be here.
If you want my opinion about this, I think that simply JMS is frustrated the
WB control the rights and are happy to let some one else continue the story,
with JMS being cut out of any cash. There was a link to an old post where
JMS dealt with issues with Mongoose. His main beef was money and claims of
an atitude problem. Thats fair enough. As Joe is fond of reminding every
one, this writing lark is his profession and he does have bills like the
rest of us. But surely thats between JMS and WB, and I dont see why he, and
his supporters have to be so vicious to Mathew who is sitting in the middle?
So Joe didnt like what mongoose offered, negociate? As for the atitude, I
guess thats personal judgement, but I have found Mathew to be polite and
professional, and cant recognise JMS's conclusion. But hey, Im not in Joe's
position.
Franky I wish they would just sort out a working relationship and get JMS
aproved Crusade resolution written so we can all be put out of our misery.
AC
Bill
As the head of Mongoose Publishing, be that CEO or some other title,
Matthew Sprange's job description actually *does* include PR person,
since he must often be the one to present offers from his company to
authors. It's also been correctly stated several times that there are
more professional avenues to settle this dispute than Usenet.
Please understand that I am not denigrating you in any way, but I do
not think that you are a writer, musician, or visual artist in any
fashion. When an artist in any medium creates a piece, they do put
themselves into the piece. I write as a hobby and, when I write well,
it is a physically tiring process. But the results are worth it because
I have expressed myself on the page and have touched others, too. If
you're not a creator, it's impossible to understand.
JMS is also a perfectionist and, when interfered with, quite stubborn.
He knows how to tell a story. B5 proved that beyond any shadow of a
doubt. He knows the story of the B5 universe from, IIRC, a million
years in either direction from the events in the series. He knows what
his fans expect of him and attempts to meet those expectations every
time he puts pen to paper. I don't think he's trying to hurt us fans at
all. He's trying to ensure that B5 does not become a watered down
version of itself, like Star Trek and Star Wars have become.
Most of all, JMS still believes in the power of the truth. Matthew
Sprange has told verifiable lies. Why would anyone want to work with a
liar?
Bill
Wesley Struebing
Matthew, please take this in the manner in which it is intended.
>From what I've seen in these posts, no one is saying, sight-unseen,
that what you're publishing is bad. In fact, most posts (including
mine previously) are all for giving the quality the benefit of the
doubt. (some are saying they will not read your stuff, but not because
they believe the writing is schlock)
Whether Joe endorses or washes his hands of your project in no way
reflects on the *quality* of the writing.
The ONLY point I see is one with which, I think you cannot argue.
Without JMS' imprimatur, you cannot state that they are canon.
To me, that is the whole of any arguments concerning what you've
published, quality notwithstanding.
Amy Guskin
(in article <1148015697.1...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>):
Oh, please.
First of all, this is the moderated Babylon 5 newsgroup; do you think you're
going to find many JMS detractors here? But just because people have chosen
to side with him on a particular issue doesn't mean we all think his shit
doesn't stink the same as all the rest of ours does. He's a person, who
happens to be extremely gifted and who created an incredible work of art that
all of us here cherish quite a bit. But a person nonetheless, and with
similar imperfections as any other person. I just get so tired of the
perception of this newsgroup as being some sort of Church of Joe. (No
offense, JMS - but I'm guessing you're probably relieved that most of us
think you're a regular old human being. :-) )
Having said that, I'll also say this. As a person who has worked
professionally in the business side of the entertainment industry, I don't
care whether the target of the correspondence was JMS (whose work I generally
respect) or Paris Hilton (who probably couldn't write a grocery list in which
I'd be interested): the manner in which contact was attempted via Usenet was
completely, thoroughly, and embarrassingly bush league. It was such bad
business etiquette, I don't know where to begin.
This is not someone saying JMS GOOD, Mongoose BAD. This is someone saying
that the public posting of a business overture by ANY business, in seeking
cooperation with ANY artist, is just the wrong way to go about things.
Incredibly wrong.
This assessment of Mongoose's business practices in no way reflects upon
their ability to create decent fiction. I have no idea what sort of writing
talent they have on hand. My concern in that arena is that they are
predominantly functioning as a manufacturer of roleplaying games (unless I
misunderstand the situation greatly), and I'm not sure that talent in writing
roleplaying games necessarily translates to talent in writing prose novels.
But I'm not making any judgement whatsoever on the quality of their materials
based on my opinions about their business practices. Nor, I think, is anyone
else here.
Finally, as Bill has noted before me, you're probably not a creator of any
kind yourself, or you'd never have been able to make that last statement in
your post. It betrays a woeful lack of understanding of what it is to create
art, and a similar lack of understanding of the business of creating art.
Amy
Thunder 06
> It doesn't matter whether they were filmed or not. They still belong
> to Warner Bros., which did indeed pay for them. A script written to
> assignment from a studio is *always* paid for -
Oh, okay. I had thought from JMS' post ages ago that he'd just written
them for the heck of it, rather then being paid for it but I guess
that's not the case.
Anyhoo...
t.k.
Rob Perkins
> I might find your reasoning plausible *if* this wasn't somebody actually in
> publishing, described as the director of Mongoose Publishing.
You can be in publishing, and not be in the business of publishing
fiction. Mongoose, from all I can tell, is a publisher of RPG games.
That's a narrow and specific niche. In branching out to publish fiction
novel books, perhaps they're not doing it as correctly as one might want.
In other words, one can do it legally, eagerly, and with the best of
intentions, and still manage to offend people, because he's not doing it
in the same way as a scenario where JMS has more control and defines all
the words used, or because he's unfamiliar with the new business he's
attempting to start.
But none of that is my point. My point was that JMS heard "outline" and
equated it with the work he did for the Del Rey trilogies. That's a very
specific thing.
Matthew, speaking casually and optimistically about his company's
offerings, in a podcast, apparantly used the word "outline" to mean he
had general guidelines based on some unproduced scripts and show notes,
ostensibly provided to him by WB.
If you go to a dictionary, there is wiggle room there for them both to
be right. ("a general plan giving the essential features but not the
detail ... a draft of a diagram, plan, proposal, etc., summarizing the
main points")
Now, I'm willing to call the whole thing a bit crass and perhaps
disrespectful to JMS' artistic vision of the B5 storylines. But I'm not
willing to call the man (Sprague) a liar because *it could be a
misunderstanding*, rather than a callous and arrogant railroading of our
common favorite TV writer/exec producer guy.
Rob
Jan
It's Sprange, not Sprague.
The longer he goes without answering JMS's direct questions the more
disingenuous he appears.
Matthew Sprange
> and I regret the error.
I have been called far, far worse things :)
Matthew
Amy Guskin
(in article <4d7qbmF...@individual.net>):
> Jan wrote:
>
>> I might find your reasoning plausible *if* this wasn't somebody actually in
>> publishing, described as the director of Mongoose Publishing.
>
> You can be in publishing, and not be in the business of publishing
> fiction. Mongoose, from all I can tell, is a publisher of RPG games.
> That's a narrow and specific niche. In branching out to publish fiction
> novel books, perhaps they're not doing it as correctly as one might want.
>
> In other words, one can do it legally, eagerly, and with the best of
> intentions, and still manage to offend people, because he's not doing it
> in the same way as a scenario where JMS has more control and defines all
> the words used, or because he's unfamiliar with the new business he's
> attempting to start.
>
> But none of that is my point. My point was that JMS heard "outline" and
> equated it with the work he did for the Del Rey trilogies. That's a very
> specific thing.
>
> Matthew, speaking casually and optimistically about his company's
> offerings, in a podcast, apparantly used the word "outline" to mean he
> had general guidelines based on some unproduced scripts and show notes,
> ostensibly provided to him by WB.<<
I'm with you on this, Rob. I think Sprange was probably just casually
speaking of the materials he had as bits that outline where he intends to go
with his novels. I still don't like the way he does business, but nor do I
think he was sitting around London, twirling his moustache, and saying
"mwa-hahahaaa, we'll get piles of B5 fan money if we just tell them we're
working from actual outlines provided by JMS...!"
Amy
ravend03x
Rob Perkins wrote:
> Now, I'm willing to call the whole thing a bit crass and perhaps
> disrespectful to JMS' artistic vision of the B5 storylines. But I'm not
> willing to call the man (Sprague) a liar because *it could be a
> misunderstanding*, rather than a callous and arrogant railroading of our
> common favorite TV writer/exec producer guy.
I like your style, Rob. You sound like a Vorlon... what was that about
truth being a 3-edged sword?
You also probably also see beauty... in the dark.
:o)
krueg...@hotmail.com
Jan wrote:
> The longer he goes without answering JMS's direct questions the more
> disingenuous he appears.
>
> Jan
That is certainly very true. Especially since you've pointed him to
the questions a couple of times, now. And he's obviously still reading
and posting here.
But when it comes to the key questions from the man himself Sprange
wants to deal with, utter silence.
It doesn't make your case look stronger. Now, if you've managed to
reach JMS through other, more appropriate channels, that's fine. But
by answering so many other questions, and leaving JMS's unanswered...
that just can't look good, you know?
jms...@aol.com
Matthew Sprange wrote:
> Hello to all.
>
> I would like to start by saying that I am very, very sorry to have to
> conduct any sort of discussion in this manner. I feel I have been forced to
> do so because Mr Straczynski has not answered any of our direct emails for
> some time.
No, that is not the case. This is public because you have been making
public claims about my involvement, which led fans of B5 to ask me
about it in a public manner, to which I responded.
> From our perspective, there is nothing we would like
> better than to be on speaking terms with Mr Straczynski, whose work we have
> the deepest admiration for and, indeed, we have been immersed within for the
> past four years.
Funny way of showing it.
> I fully understand that Mr Straczynski may be unaware of the processes
> involved in the approval process at Warner Brothers for publishers such as
> ourselves, particularly after the recent changes in their procedures.
I have been dealing with B5 licensees for ten years. I think I
understand the system, which has not changed overmuch.
> However, everything (and I mean _everything_) we publish or manufacture for
> Babylon 5 is approved by Warner Brothers, via their Burbank offices.
Curious, since on contacting some of the folks at WB licensing they
don't seem to be aware of any recent submissions for approval.
> Let;s bury the hatchet and begin
> to work together, as I have a feeling our goals are much the same. The
> Babylon 5 fans are still out there. Let us do something great together for
> them.
More on this in a minute.
> >>>Let me be clear: I have provided no outlines for novels to Mongoose.
> Nor are there any outlines of episodes beyond what was shot plus the
> two scripted but not shot episodes. There ARE no outlines to which
> they could have had access. So this is false.
In your reply below, you do not address your statement that you had
outlines by me. To say that you had scripts, about also which more in
a moment, and say "well, these are the outlines I was referring" is
disingenuous at best. An outline is an outline and a script is a
script. Unless one wishes to deliberately confuse the two to create
the impression of involvement.
> We have access to three scripts, which we were planning to use as the basis
> of the first Crusade novel, and a collection of notes collated mostly from
> things you have said yourself.
So you were planning to use my scripts, without so much as informing
me, and pillage my notes online, which are incidentally my property, as
the basis for your novels.
Lovely.
> There has, to date, been _no_ direct
> planning for Crusade beyond this.
Which is not what you said on your website, or in the interview.
> It is something we would very much like
> to do, but the first step was to round off the open end of the televised
> Crusade episodes.
Meaning by adapting my scripts, without telling me. Are you aware that
when someone adapts someone else's scripts there generally has to be
some kind of arrangement made, plus something as cordial as, oh, I
don't know...telling the person who wrote those scripts that you're
DOING it?
> There are larger implications for the B5 timeline with
> regards to Crusade, and it is something we would like to see rounded off as
> a whole because of the effect on continuity. However, this is a longer term
> plan and is something we would very much like to involve yourself with.
More later.
> >>>You cannot have less input than zero input. I have had zero input into
> these novels. So to say there is less now means that there was some
> before. Soi this is also false.
>
> I believe I am right in saying that the quote was made with regards to
> Babylon 5 projects as a whole, rather than the novels specifically.
>
No, actually, you are wrong, because the question was asked of you
concerning the novels, not the B5 projects as a whole. You again
dissembled, just as you are attempting to do here.
> So, I would like to make an open plea. We would very much like to re-open
> lines of communication with you, Mr Straczynski. We stand by everything we
> have done for Babylon 5 thus far, and would be more than happy to explain it
> to you, as we see it ourselves. We would like to bring you on board for the
> novels and the other projects that are being planned and, if possible, would
> like to commission you for original work on them.
>
> I believe we could have resolved all of this a long time ago if there had
> simply been better communication and understanding on both sides.
Such as, for instance, informing me that you were rummaging through my
scripts and online posts for your material without telling me...?
> I can understand how the situation must seem to you
I rather doubt that.
> and I ask you to try to
> understand how things are for us. I believe there is a common ground and,
> as I said, that our goals are likely similar. At the end of the day, we are
> a company of nice people who are passionate about Babylon 5 and wish to
> provide fans of the series with a service we can all be proud of.
>
> I am willing to email you this evening, or give you a call. We would be
> happy to fly you to England, at our expense of course, to bring you to our
> offices and show you, face-to-face, just what it is we are doing, how we are
> doing it and where we hope to go. If, after that, you believe we are on the
> wrong track, we would be happy to sit down and bring your ideas front and
> centre.
>
Let me make something as clear as I possibly can.
This is not about money, not about The Deal, not about a free trip to
England.
First, this is about being honest with the fans. I have worked very
hard, since the very inception of Babylon 5, to always be as straight
as humanly possible with them, because the one thing about the truth is
that it always comes out, one way or another. Everything I say is
archived...if I prevaricate, if I lie, if I misrepresent, those words
are sitting there, waiting to be used as a bludgeon...a blunt
instrument that I willingly created for that very reason.
To date they have not been used in that way. Because I have always
been as straight with the fans as anyone mortal can be. Even when the
darkest hours came, and very few would believe me about how and why
Claudia left, time passed and sure enough the words I posted online
were shown to be true by her own comments made in the aftermath,
sometimes years later.
My involvement with the so-called B5 novels from Mongoose has been
mis-stated and misrepresented, and the conduct of pillaging my scripts
and posts without my knowledge or permission is dubious at best,
dishonorable at worst.
Second, and most important of all...this is about what drove the
creation of Babylon 5 in the first place: an attempt to ensure a
certain quality of storytelling within the framework of a consistent
universe. The first Dell books were not what they should have been
because they tended to operate outside canon; so steps were taken to
bring the Del Rey books into canon, working closely with the publisher,
and the fans across the board agree that those novels were better than
those which preceded them.
That is how we have dealt with every single licensee to date...with the
exception of this situation, and these books, which brings to mind the
following point:
You have also stated that these books are "100% canon." No, they are
not. Because for something to be canon means not that they have been
researched, but that the events described therein will be referenced
elsewhere, that they will be viewed as "having happened" in the B5
universe...as the Del Rey novels, and my own short B5 stories, are
canon. Things referenced in those stories can show up in any future B5
films or TV projects because they *happened* in our story, in this
universe.
The events in the Mongoose books do not fit this criteria. They are
licensed B5 fan fiction, nothing more, nothing less. And lots of folks
like that stuff, and that's all to the good.
But do not say that they are "100% canon."
And I have no desire to become involved with these novels, and will not
endorse them. It ain't the money, it ain't the Deal...I am for rent,
but I am not for sale, because I have an obligation to the viewers of
this show to be consistent and to always work for the utmost quality in
our storytelling within the framework of a consistent universe.
If you want to create a pocket universe, feel free. But it's got
nothing to do with the B5 universe insofar as I am concerned.
And leave my scripts and my notes out of it. I do not approve their
use.
This conversation is at an end.
jms
message content (c) 2006
Synthetic Worlds, ltd.
permission to reprint denied
Captain Infinity
>I think Sprange was probably just casually
>speaking of the materials he had as bits that outline where he intends to go
>with his novels. I still don't like the way he does business, but nor do I
>think he was sitting around London, twirling his moustache, and saying
>"mwa-hahahaaa, we'll get piles of B5 fan money if we just tell them we're
>working from actual outlines provided by JMS...!"
I'll tell ya, after reading all this give-and-take, I'm very interested
in seeing the books they've come up with. Does anyone know where I can
order them?
**
Captain Infinity
Rob Perkins
> I like your style, Rob. You sound like a Vorlon... what was that about
> truth being a 3-edged sword?
>
> You also probably also see beauty... in the dark.
You know it! :)
Rob, who posesses exactly zero spacecraft
Rob Perkins
> It's Sprange, not Sprague.
Yes.
>
> The longer he goes without answering JMS's direct questions the more
> disingenuous he appears.
"Appears" is the operative word. He doesn't appear that way to me. To me
it appears to simply be a misunderstanding, which has unfortunately
found its way into a public place.
I prefer to give the both of them the benefit of the doubt.
Rob
Methuselah Jones
Perkins of rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated make plain:
Awwr, not even one teeny, little planet buster?
--
Methuselah
"It can hardly be a coincidence that no language on earth has ever
produced the expression 'As pretty as an airport.'"
-- Douglas Adams
Vorlonagent
<jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1148191288....@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Second, and most important of all...this is about what drove the
> creation of Babylon 5 in the first place: an attempt to ensure a
> certain quality of storytelling within the framework of a consistent
> universe. The first Dell books were not what they should have been
> because they tended to operate outside canon; so steps were taken to
> bring the Del Rey books into canon, working closely with the publisher,
> and the fans across the board agree that those novels were better than
> those which preceded them.
>
> That is how we have dealt with every single licensee to date...with the
> exception of this situation, and these books, which brings to mind the
> following point:
I can confirm this, having worked for Sierra On-Line's aborted "Into the
Fire" computer game project. I wrote the database of information the player
was to preuse at times for context and clues about the game's storylines.
Every article I wrote, every point of canon and every elaboration onto canon
I wrote into that database was footnoted six ways to sunday with an
explanation, and sent to Fiona Avery for approval.
> You have also stated that these books are "100% canon." No, they are
> not. Because for something to be canon means not that they have been
> researched, but that the events described therein will be referenced
> elsewhere, that they will be viewed as "having happened" in the B5
> universe...as the Del Rey novels, and my own short B5 stories, are
> canon. Things referenced in those stories can show up in any future B5
> films or TV projects because they *happened* in our story, in this
> universe.
I don't think the events of ITF were considered "100% canon" in the sense
that we expected later B5 projects to reference them.
We did do out best to work off a foundation that was 100% canon, which isn't
the same thing.
Mac Breck
news:4dbi4hF...@individual.net...
But would a Vorlon consider its transport a possession?
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Babylon 5: Crusade" (1999)
Galen: "There is always hope, only because it's the one thing that no
one has figured out how to kill yet."
(Galen's obviously never met Warner Brothers, TNT-Atlanta or Sci-Fi.)
"Brimstone" (1998)
[Stone lights a candle for the dead in a Catholic church]
Gina: Who's that for?
Ezekiel Stone: Me.
Mac Breck
Are you now more open to continuing the canon Crusade storyline in novel
form, than you were when Crusade last shutdown? I don't mean doing them
with Mongoose, but say with Del Rey or another similar publisher, if one
or more of your Del Rey novel authors (Jeanne Cavelos, Peter David,
and/or J. Gregory Keyes) were writing them from your 20-30 page
outlines.
Matthew Sprange
I was a little non-plussed to see this post here. My original post was
intended to answer the issues raised on this forum and attempt to
demonstrate to fans that our motives were a little better than had been
portrayed (perhaps the post could have had a better title, but I digress).
However, the post was also emailed directly to Mr Straczynski, along with
other notes for his eyes. I find it unfortunate that he chose to reply here
rather than privately.
The following responses are made because I have a feeling this is the only
way Mr Straczynski will see them. I would much prefer to do this on the
phone or in person. I hope you all realise that.
>> do so because Mr Straczynski has not answered any of our direct emails
>> for
>> some time.
>
> No, that is not the case. This is public because you have been making
> public claims about my involvement, which led fans of B5 to ask me
> about it in a public manner, to which I responded.
You have not answered any of our communications for quite some time - this
could have been resolved, one way or another, quite some time ago if you
had.
>> I fully understand that Mr Straczynski may be unaware of the processes
>> involved in the approval process at Warner Brothers for publishers such
>> as
>> ourselves, particularly after the recent changes in their procedures.
>
> I have been dealing with B5 licensees for ten years. I think I
> understand the system, which has not changed overmuch.
There have certainly been some changes on the publishing side, with the new
system that came into operation a year or so ago. It is also worth pointing
out that, to my knowledge, there have not been a huge amount of Babylon 5
licencees over the past few years. I would have to check, but I have a
feeling that we are the only new ones.
>> However, everything (and I mean _everything_) we publish or manufacture
>> for
>> Babylon 5 is approved by Warner Brothers, via their Burbank offices.
>
> Curious, since on contacting some of the folks at WB licensing they
> don't seem to be aware of any recent submissions for approval.
We can go round and round on this, but until you and I can open direct
communication and I can demonstrate just what has been happening, we are
going to get nowhere.
However, looking at our correspondence with Warner Brothers, the last thing
to be approved was less than a month ago - it was the cover for the Ship
Builder's Manual. Ten days before that, the Drakh Fact Book. Before that,
the GM's Screen, before that the Call to Arms Starter Set, and so on.
I am quite happy to send you a screen capture of all of this. I am quite
happy to take great measures to prove to you that I have not been operating
in a dishonest manner, nor have I been lying.
> In your reply below, you do not address your statement that you had
> outlines by me. To say that you had scripts, about also which more in
> a moment, and say "well, these are the outlines I was referring" is
> disingenuous at best. An outline is an outline and a script is a
> script. Unless one wishes to deliberately confuse the two to create
> the impression of involvement.
That was certainly not my intent - and your insinuation that I deliberately
muddied the waters during a podcast interview is unneccessary, insulting and
unfair. However, I believe this is a prime example of mis-communication
between us. We are now arguing about how to use the term outline - can we
just accept that we are using different language?
>> We have access to three scripts, which we were planning to use as the
>> basis
>> of the first Crusade novel, and a collection of notes collated mostly
>> from
>> things you have said yourself.
>
> So you were planning to use my scripts, without so much as informing
> me, and pillage my notes online, which are incidentally my property, as
> the basis for your novels.
I would love to have informed you - however, because we have had no
communication between us, on account of you simply ignoring us, this was
exceedingly difficult.
That said, we were given permission to use the scripts as the basis for a
novel by Warner Brothers. If this is an error, please let us know
immediatly.
>> There has, to date, been _no_ direct
>> planning for Crusade beyond this.
>
> Which is not what you said on your website, or in the interview.
Now hang on - I was outlining the problem Crusade poses for someone trying
to approach the B5 timeline. What I said was what we _wanted_ to do, and
what our intentions were. At the moment, there are _no_ solid plans on our
part for Crusade beyond the first novel, and at no point have I said there
were.
> Meaning by adapting my scripts, without telling me. Are you aware that
> when someone adapts someone else's scripts there generally has to be
> some kind of arrangement made, plus something as cordial as, oh, I
> don't know...telling the person who wrote those scripts that you're
> DOING it?
Now we really are going round in circles - if you take the time to reply
when we try to talk to you, I will keep you as informed as you like. If you
put a wall up, we cannot get through.
>> I believe I am right in saying that the quote was made with regards to
>> Babylon 5 projects as a whole, rather than the novels specifically.
>
> No, actually, you are wrong, because the question was asked of you
> concerning the novels, not the B5 projects as a whole. You again
> dissembled, just as you are attempting to do here.
Then I'll put it another way - the greater part of B5 projects was the
question I answered. If I mis-heard the presenter or mis-spoke thereafter,
I apologise.
>> I believe we could have resolved all of this a long time ago if there had
>> simply been better communication and understanding on both sides.
>
> Such as, for instance, informing me that you were rummaging through my
> scripts and online posts for your material without telling me...?
Funnily enough, yes. If we were able to talk to you without getting
ignored, no doubt this would have come up. As it was, we had to default to
Warner Brothers - there was no other choice.
>> I can understand how the situation must seem to you
>
> I rather doubt that.
Actually, I can very easily see it. The problem, Mr Straczynski, is that,
in terms of our motives and some of the things we have done, you are wrong.
Flat wrong. I acknowledge that there have been some issues arising from
things we have said, but you have taken this too far. Let us _talk_ to you,
and we can still resolve this to everyone's benefit.
Looking back, I dearly wish that, once we first told you about novels, you
had simply said 'talk to my agent'. It may have saved a great deal of this.
> My involvement with the so-called B5 novels from Mongoose has been
> mis-stated and misrepresented, and the conduct of pillaging my scripts
> and posts without my knowledge or permission is dubious at best,
> dishonorable at worst.
For the former, I apologise for making you feel that way but it was never
our intention, and if you look at what I have actually said in a light that
does not presume we are scum of the earth, I hope you will see that.
As for the scripts, we need to talk about that now because Warner Brothers
has currently given us permission.
> Second, and most important of all...this is about what drove the
> creation of Babylon 5 in the first place: an attempt to ensure a
> certain quality of storytelling within the framework of a consistent
> universe. The first Dell books were not what they should have been
This is what we do, as a company - we create consistent frameworks of
different universes. How we do as a company rests on this above all else,
and we have proved the point to several licensors since we started. We are
good at what we do.
> You have also stated that these books are "100% canon." No, they are
> not. Because for something to be canon means not that they have been
Now, here I can shed some light. We started talking to Warner Brothers
about the use of the word canon earlier this year. Their first answer was
that everything we were producing could be called canon and we were free to
say so - this came straight from their legal team. Hence my comments.
Last week, I received another call from Warner Brothers. This time they
said that they were hesitant about the legal language of the word canon, and
that we were now instead to use the word official.
So, that is what is happening - however, I do not believe this is something
we can actually be blamed for. . .
Certainly, I could have jumped on this forum the moment I got the phone
call. But I was hoping to talk to you first, Mr Straczynski.
> researched, but that the events described therein will be referenced
> elsewhere, that they will be viewed as "having happened" in the B5
> universe...as the Del Rey novels, and my own short B5 stories, are
> canon. Things referenced in those stories can show up in any future B5
> films or TV projects because they *happened* in our story, in this
> universe.
It is worth pointing out here that we strive to make all our works
internally consistent with one another, and take great pride in doing so.
> The events in the Mongoose books do not fit this criteria. They are
> licensed B5 fan fiction, nothing more, nothing less. And lots of folks
> like that stuff, and that's all to the good.
Fan fiction is written by amateurs. We use professional writers.
> And I have no desire to become involved with these novels, and will not
> endorse them. It ain't the money, it ain't the Deal...I am for rent,
> but I am not for sale, because I have an obligation to the viewers of
> this show to be consistent and to always work for the utmost quality in
> our storytelling within the framework of a consistent universe.
If you allow us, we can demonstrate that we can meet all those requirements
and, indeed, that we are nice guys to work with. There is no ego at
Mongoose, nor are there any hidden agendas. We are as upfront as we can be.
Finally;
>> From our perspective, there is nothing we would like
>> better than to be on speaking terms with Mr Straczynski, whose work we
>> have
>> the deepest admiration for and, indeed, we have been immersed within for
>> the
>> past four years.
>
>Funny way of showing it.
Then don't listen to what I say. Look at what we have done with Babylon 5
over the past three years.
Matthew Sprange
Mongoose Publishing
Matthew Sprange
> disingenuous he appears.
I believe I have answered them in my previous posts. If there is anything
that remains unclear to you, please let me know, and I will do my best to
explain.
profengs
here that JMS does not own B5. He may have created it, he may have wrote
most of it, but he does not own it. That is done by the WB. Therefore if the
WB for some reason says it is ok to print these books, then they can get
printed. Since JMS is saying, as I see it, that they don't know about this
project, is this entire production what we would call copywrite inflingment?
Therefore I fail to see the problem. If they guys print the books without
permission, the WB calls in the lawyers and stops it.
That is my official question, the rest are things running around in my own
mind that I like to share with the rest of you.
First, is there anyone here as cynical as me to think this whole long
running excercise in retoric is a cheap ad campaign for these books?
Second, after reading this stuff, is there anyone here who would actually
want to go out and buy these books?
Third, even if JMS does not own B5, does he not own his own notes,
unpublished scripts, or other work hereto not produced in some format under
the WB copywrite? If so how can they take his work as a basis for
publication without his permission?
Fourth, I got this great idea for a B5 story about how the giant space slug
Urgo swallows the Minbari homeworld, anyone interested?
CJW
<jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1148191288....@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
Christian Hennecke
[ Your display is set for the "ISO-8859-1" character set. ]
[ Some special characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
I wouldn't call living Vorlon ships "spacecraft," you know. Ha, you're
just trying to fool us! ;-)
--
"I smell blood and an era of prominent madmen." - W.H. Auden
Iain Odlin
<sp...@mongoosepublishing.com> wrote:
>I find it unfortunate that he chose to reply here
>rather than privately. [Irrelevant further blithering deleted]
You made questionable statements publicly in a podcast.
JMS was asked here about these comments publicly.
You then posted statements and questions here publicly.
After this progression, you "find it unfortunate" he answered publicly?
Would you have similarly found it "unfortunate" if he answered _in your
favour_ publicly? I rather doubt it.
I now know all I need to on this subject. You and your publishing
company never see one dime of my money.
Have a nice day.
Matthew Sprange
> posted here that JMS does not own B5. He may have created it, he may have
> wrote most of it, but he does not own it. That is done by the WB.
> Therefore if the WB for some reason says it is ok to print these books,
> then they can get printed. Since JMS is saying, as I see it, that they
> don't know about this project, is this entire production what we would
> call copywrite inflingment? Therefore I fail to see the problem. If they
> guys print the books without permission, the WB calls in the lawyers and
> stops it.
This is a reasonable question. Babylon 5 is owned by Warner Brothers and
they have the ability to pass on publishing rights as they see fit. Despite
what has been said, they do run an approval process on all our work and so
no, there is no infringement. It is also worth pointing out that Warner
Brothers have just renewed our licence so someone, somewhere, with Warner
Brothers is at least content with our work.
> First, is there anyone here as cynical as me to think this whole long
> running excercise in retoric is a cheap ad campaign for these books?
I wish :)
> Third, even if JMS does not own B5, does he not own his own notes,
> unpublished scripts, or other work hereto not produced in some format
> under the WB copywrite? If so how can they take his work as a basis for
> publication without his permission?
It is our understanding that the scripts are owned by Warner Brothers. I
will be calling them this morning to (again) confirm this, but if Mr
Straczynski has another point of view on this, he needs to start talking to
us now.
> Fourth, I got this great idea for a B5 story about how the giant space
> slug Urgo swallows the Minbari homeworld, anyone interested?
Already been done :)
Matthew
Thunder 06
> Excuse my ignorance here but as I recall from previous conversations posted
> here that JMS does not own B5. He may have created it, he may have wrote
> most of it, but he does not own it. That is done by the WB. Therefore if the
> WB for some reason says it is ok to print these books, then they can get
> printed.
True.
>Since JMS is saying, as I see it, that they don't know about this
> project, is this entire production what we would call copywrite inflingment?
To clarify, these books are licensed by WB, but not approved of by JMS
personally.
> First, is there anyone here as cynical as me to think this whole long
> running excercise in retoric is a cheap ad campaign for these books?
In the long run, it might call attention to them so yes, in a certain
way. *Some* people will undoubtably have to check them out now and see
what all the fuss is about.
> Second, after reading this stuff, is there anyone here who would actually
> want to go out and buy these books?
Personally, no. Some people certainly will and the books will likely
make money.
> Third, even if JMS does not own B5, does he not own his own notes,
> unpublished scripts, or other work hereto not produced in some format under
> the WB copywrite? If so how can they take his work as a basis for
> publication without his permission?
Good question.
t.k.
Trish Crowther
<sp...@mongoosepublishing.com> wrote:
>Hi guys,
>
>I was a little non-plussed to see this post here. My original post was
>intended to answer the issues raised on this forum and attempt to
>demonstrate to fans that our motives were a little better than had been
>portrayed (perhaps the post could have had a better title, but I digress).
>However, the post was also emailed directly to Mr Straczynski, along with
>other notes for his eyes. I find it unfortunate that he chose to reply here
>rather than privately.
>
>The following responses are made because I have a feeling this is the only
>way Mr Straczynski will see them. I would much prefer to do this on the
>phone or in person. I hope you all realise that.
>
>>> do so because Mr Straczynski has not answered any of our direct emails
>>> for
>>> some time.
>>
>> No, that is not the case. This is public because you have been making
>> public claims about my involvement, which led fans of B5 to ask me
>> about it in a public manner, to which I responded.
>
>You have not answered any of our communications for quite some time - this
>could have been resolved, one way or another, quite some time ago if you
>had.
>
[snip]
I'm surprised no-one else has pointed this out, so here goes (and this
is not meant to offend anyone or imply that either party is
mis-representing themselves.)
I'm left wondering what method of communication you used to attempt to
contact JMS. If it was just email, he may never have received it. The
only way to be sure someone has received and read an email you've sent
is if they reply to it. Email can easily be "lost in the ether". If
you're not using a current address, for example; or if the recipient
doesn't check that account very often, or if the account used is
overloaded by spam, things may be deleted or ignored accidentally.
Some domains can be kill filed. Etc. In other words, don't rely on
email alone, especially if the message is important. Follow it up with
snail mail, especially if there is no reply.
If snail mail is used, are you sure the correct address was used? (Or
in the case of an author or anyone else represented by an agent, that
the right channels were used to make contact.) Even if previous
correspondence has been received or replied to (and I have no idea if
that's the case) people's addresses can change. Things can be 'lost in
the mail'. Or misfiled.
And there is always the telephone. Providing you have the relevant
number and the person on the other end is willing to take your call. I
don't always accept calls. "I'm sorry I don't accept telemarketing
calls." is one of my more used lines. (Australia doesn't have a scheme
to block your number to telemarketing calls. Yet.)
Just my 2 cents worth.
Trish
Dennis (Icarus)
"Matthew Sprange" <sp...@mongoosepublishing.com> wrote in message
news:XeOdnVsYNuT...@bt.com...
> Hi guys,
>
> I was a little non-plussed to see this post here. My original post was
> intended to answer the issues raised on this forum and attempt to
> demonstrate to fans that our motives were a little better than had been
> portrayed (perhaps the post could have had a better title, but I digress).
> However, the post was also emailed directly to Mr Straczynski, along with
> other notes for his eyes. I find it unfortunate that he chose to reply
here
> rather than privately.
Uhmm....why? I mean, if you raise points here, shouldn' he be able to
respond?
If you post here, claiming that JMS seems to be ignoring you and tell your
side of a story here, why on earth
(or Minbar, Narn, or even Z'ha'Dum) would you "find it unfortunate that he
chose to reply here rather than privately"?
>
> The following responses are made because I have a feeling this is the only
> way Mr Straczynski will see them. I would much prefer to do this on the
> phone or in person. I hope you all realise that.
Ok. But here's a hint - JMS may reply to these as well.
<snip>
>
> > In your reply below, you do not address your statement that you had
> > outlines by me. To say that you had scripts, about also which more in
> > a moment, and say "well, these are the outlines I was referring" is
> > disingenuous at best. An outline is an outline and a script is a
> > script. Unless one wishes to deliberately confuse the two to create
> > the impression of involvement.
>
> That was certainly not my intent - and your insinuation that I
deliberately
> muddied the waters during a podcast interview is unneccessary, insulting
and
> unfair. However, I believe this is a prime example of mis-communication
> between us. We are now arguing about how to use the term outline - can we
> just accept that we are using different language?
Perhaps it would help if you provided a dictionary for yours?
<snip>
>
> > You have also stated that these books are "100% canon." No, they are
> > not. Because for something to be canon means not that they have been
>
> Now, here I can shed some light. We started talking to Warner Brothers
> about the use of the word canon earlier this year. Their first answer was
> that everything we were producing could be called canon and we were free
to
> say so - this came straight from their legal team. Hence my comments.
Think of it this way, say your stories take place in 2278.
JMS then gets involved with a project that has the characters doing smething
else in 2278.
Which is 100% canon?
Which would be referred to by others?
<snip>
>
> Matthew Sprange
> Mongoose Publishing
>
Jon Schild
When a publisher claims to be working from materials given to him by a
famous author, but no such materials exist and said famous author says
he has given the publisher nothing, I say the benefit of the doubt is
over. He is a fraud trying to make money ripping off B5 fans. Until I
see a good explanation here ("I don't know what an outline is" won't cut
it) that is my opinion.
Jon Schild
Let's start with your claim that you were working from outlines which
JMS says do not exist. Straight answer only. How can you expect anyone
to trust you after that?
Jon Schild
According to material he has posted concerning the script books from
Cafe Press, the author of a script owns that script, even though he does
not own any rights to any movie or television production made from the
script. And he certainly owns the posts he has made on this newsgroup
and previous ones.
Mr Sprange, assume that someone else created a game in the B5 universe
that they claimed had your input, and obviously had a great deal of
material from your game. Would you just causally sit back and say, "Oh
well, they are only trying to help out the fans" or would you sue the
bastard?
That said, the way WB treated Crusade, it is entirely possible that they
would license people to use the name, characters, etc without bothering
to tell JMS. But that still doesn't cover lies about involvement. And I
don't believe for one second that anyone in publishing doesn't know what
an outline is.
krueg...@hotmail.com
Iain Odlin wrote:
> I now know all I need to on this subject. You and your publishing
> company never see one dime of my money.
>
> Have a nice day.
I've been thinking much the same thing throughout this ... whatever
this is. :S
Matthew Sprange
After we have made repeated attempts to take this into a more private realm,
yes.
Matthew
Rob Perkins
>>
>>Rob, who posesses exactly zero spacecraft
>
>
> Awwr, not even one teeny, little planet buster?
No! And the thought haunts me! Why can't I have just on teeny planet
buster, I ask? Please?
Rob
AC
Mathew, you are wasting your time here. Virtually every one will fall in
line behind Joe, and you wont get any form of a resonable hearing. Im sorry
you are getting a rough time here. I wish people here could see beyond thier
own worship of JMS.
The good news is that there are millions of B5 fans who dont read this NG
and dont see JMS as some sort of infaliable perfection. The people here only
represent a minirity of JMS fans.
JMS clearly has issues, but clearly he is not in the driving seat. WB is.
JMS knew what he was signing up for, and its a bit late, 10years later, to
get upperty now. Yes, I know he is upset about your comments of his
involvement, but I am detecting more than just that in his replies. And
being that he is a writer, I assume he is being quite precise with his use
of language. As it comes across as angry, I assume he is angry. But I dont
really see why he is so angry with you over what appears to be a
misunderstanding. Im guessing that you have become the whipping boy for his
frustration with WB and the industry in general.
At the end of the day, WB own the rights and can, and clearly have, given
you what ever permission you need. JMS has no right to be putting your work
down. Yes he created the B5 universe, but he also sold it. So, it is not his
any more to control. Its like trying to control you kids after they have
grown up and left home. And I dont think you really need his endorsement,
only WB's; although, I agree it would be best if that were the case.
Also, since he no longer owns the work, he is in NO position to dictate
canon. WB are. They own it. B5 is theirs. If WB want to continue the
universe they own and call it canon, they can. If they want you to write it,
they can. If they wanted Joe to do it, they would ask. But they clearly
havent or Joe has turned them down. Who's problem is that? I dunno, but it
is definately not yours. Perhaps, if JMS is so concerned with the puirity of
the future of B5, he might put us out of our Crusade misery and knock out
the odd book him self. Or at least comission / allow some one else to.
A few people will only accept JMS endorsed work as canon, but remember,
there are millions of B5 fans who may not agree with them. Folk here might
well slag you and your work off, but many wont and will appreciate your
work. Since I reckon official Crusade books will sell like hot cakes, I can
help think that it would be in JMS's best interests to swallow some pride
and be involved. Lets face it, if your books do sell, what is JMS gonna do?
Try to subvert your efforts with a "fairy tail"? Suddenly release his own
version? Will could then have 2 versions of Crusade and a fan split. How
will it go down if the masses prefer your version?
Ultimately, I feel that untill JMS himself offers something in the B5
Universe, I think he should back off and let others do it with good grace,
with his involvement or not. And refrain form sniping at those who have been
authorised to do so.
Now for the inevitable ...........
All the Best,
AC
Matthew Sprange
> says do not exist. Straight answer only.
We constructed an outline for a single novel from the existing scripts and
other notes. A novel uses an outline, not a script. Hence the terminology.
You are trying to argue semantics here.
Matthew
Matthew Sprange
> that they claimed had your input, and obviously had a great deal of
> material from your game. Would you just causally sit back and say, "Oh
> well, they are only trying to help out the fans" or would you sue the
> bastard?
My first reaction would not be to sue, and this has actually come up several
times during our licence agreement for Babylon 5. As it happens, we
positively encourage the likes of fan sites for all our games. However, if
it appeared some infringement had been caused (as has happened in the past
with two of our licences), our first cause of action would be to contact the
offenders to see what was going on.
Suing is never our first course of action.
> That said, the way WB treated Crusade, it is entirely possible that they
> would license people to use the name, characters, etc without bothering to
> tell JMS. But that still doesn't cover lies about involvement. And I don't
> believe for one second that anyone in publishing doesn't know what an
> outline is.
Novels are written from outlines. That is what we created from the scripts.
Matthew
Captain Infinity
I think JMS was quite clear when he said:
>This conversation is at an end.
I got the distinct impression that he wished the conversation had never
started. There seems to be little mystery as to why Sprange never got a
response to his queries, and it has nothing to do with the ether,
blocked domains or wrong addresses. JMS just doesn't want to talk to
him.
**
Captain Infinity
Captain Infinity
>First, is there anyone here as cynical as me to think this whole long
>running excercise in retoric is a cheap ad campaign for these books?
Nah. JMS is above that. I don't know about Sprange.
>Second, after reading this stuff, is there anyone here who would actually
>want to go out and buy these books?
I would, just to see what the fuss is about.
>Fourth, I got this great idea for a B5 story about how the giant space slug
>Urgo swallows the Minbari homeworld, anyone interested?
Only if you have the entire Minbari population shouting at the sky "Be
somewhere else! Be somewhere else!!"
**
Captain Infinity
Rob Perkins
>>
>> I prefer to give the both of them the benefit of the doubt.
>
> When a publisher claims to be working from materials given to him by a
> famous author, but no such materials exist and said famous author says
> he has given the publisher nothing, I say the benefit of the doubt is
> over.
I think you're right.
> He is a fraud trying to make money ripping off B5 fans.
Or... he's an amateur in the business of derivative works publishing.
Or... he made good faith efforts to bring JMS in, which JMS doesn't
agree have been made in good faith.
I'm not a natural customer of Mr. Sprange's products, and probably won't
pick any up. (I only plan to buy two Cafe Press script books, forex) But
I'm not willing to paint him sinister, when it could very well be WB
which is the sinister party, with Mongoose simply in the middle. They at
WB have a rep for it, after all.
Rob
Michael Malloy
words:
"If you want to create a pocket universe, feel free. But it's got
nothing to do with the B5 universe insofar as I am concerned.
And leave my scripts and my notes out of it. I do not approve their
use.
This conversation is at an end.
jms"
YES! The last six words above are worth more than everything Mr.
Sprange wrote. There is nothing quite like being direct and absolutely
clear on an issue.
I never let an opportunity to thank JMS for sharing his genius with the
world through the creation of Babylon 5 and Crusade - Thanks, JMS!
And, as usual, I never miss an opportunity to express my hope that one
day the original Crusade story can be continued...in any possible
format JMS chooses.
AC
>
> That said, the way WB treated Crusade, it is entirely possible that they
> would license people to use the name, characters, etc without bothering to
> tell JMS. But that still doesn't cover lies about involvement. And I don't
> believe for one second that anyone in publishing doesn't know what an
> outline is.
>
>
Sorry, but why would they? WB own the work, not JMS. He has nothing to do
with it any more. That ended the day JMS signed on the dotted line.
I am getting seriously confused by this. JMS doesn own the work. WB do. Why
is evey one throwing thier toys out of the pram here?
Oh, I see, some fool dared to contradict the "Great Maker".
AC
Laura Appelbaum
> had simply said 'talk to my agent'. It may have saved a great deal of
> this.
>
this up until this point. I figured it was just a miscommunication, with WB
maybe playing both sides against the other fast and loose, until I hit this
claim.
I *know* for a fact, from personal experience, that if you had ever written
to/spoken to jms about writing a B5 novel, what he would have told you was
to get a literary agent and have them contact his agent. I know this
because years upon years ago, when I began writing a novel about Valen that
I'd hoped would be part of the authorized book series like "To Dream in the
City of Sorrows," I wrote privately to jms asking him what to do, and that
was the specific advice he gave me. Mind you, anyone who made the same
inquiry here online was either ignored or told to go blow off, because
obviously, by posting to him in a public forum, they weren't in the least
bit serious as a writer, and didn't even deserve the consideration of
legitimate advice.
Clearly, he now considers you to fall into the latter category for the same
reason. I can't say I blame him.
LMA
Joseph DeMartino
other notes. <
Creating an outline for your novel YOURSELF based on pre-existing
materials that you had access to is not the same as having *JMS* create
an outline on which to base your work. JMS created an outline for the
each of the most recent "B5" trilogies, and was duly compensated for
the considerable work that went into them. He has created *nothing*
specifically for you, as you now finally admit, although you have
strongly implied all along that you were working from materials he had
created for this purpose and supplied to you.
BTW, not all novels are created from outlines. Some writers just start
with a blank page and dive right in. The same is true of scripts,
although many writers do work from outlines and even fairly detailed
treatments. Pretending that the two processes are inherently different
and that "outline" means different things in the two contexts is just
silly. You're the one playing semantics games here, or rather throwing
up a cloud of words to cover an obviously false claim. I can cobble
together an "outline" on which to base a new "Tarzan" or "Mars" novel
tomorrow - what I can't do, in good faith, is try to fool people into
thinking the outline was actually written by Edgar Rice Burroughs and
that my book should therefore be considered part of the "canon" of his
fictional universes. This is what you have clearly done in several of
your statements.
Finally none of the specific items you list under your Warner Bros.
licenses have anything to do with *ficiton*. They are all still the
same game materials we already know Mongoose produces.
Regards,
Joe
Bill
>in seeing the books they've come up with. Does anyone know where I can
>order them?
After the last post by JMS, I would almost be afraid to see a Vorlon
planet killer show up if I even had one in my hands.
Bill (who feels sorry for Mongoose Publishing now ... almost)
Methuselah Jones
rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated make plain:
> I am getting seriously confused by this. JMS doesn own the work. WB
> do. Why is evey one throwing thier toys out of the pram here?
Considering the potential, I've thought the discussion has been remarkably
restrained. If you don't like what you read here, I encourage you to spare
yourself the stress.
--
Methuselah
I feel like I'm diagonally parked in a parallel universe.
Scooter
wrote:
>According to material he has posted concerning the script books from
>Cafe Press, the author of a script owns that script, even though he does
>not own any rights to any movie or television production made from the
>script. And he certainly owns the posts he has made on this newsgroup
>and previous ones.
>
>Mr Sprange, assume that someone else created a game in the B5 universe
>that they claimed had your input, and obviously had a great deal of
>material from your game. Would you just causally sit back and say, "Oh
>well, they are only trying to help out the fans" or would you sue the
>bastard?
>
>That said, the way WB treated Crusade, it is entirely possible that they
>would license people to use the name, characters, etc without bothering
>to tell JMS. But that still doesn't cover lies about involvement. And I
>don't believe for one second that anyone in publishing doesn't know what
>an outline is.
Well actually there was a game system based on B5 before mongoose. 2
actually.
The first was an RPG that died after 2 books.
The second, which I am more familiar with is the excellent Agents of
Gaming Babylon 5 Wars. Think of it like Starfleet Battles, but a bit
simpler.
These guys sold well for 3-4 years before losing their licence to
Mongoose.
As it was written, WB owns all the rights to anything B5'ish produced
by these companies. Babylon 5 Wars ships actually make up 90% of the
ships produced by Mongoose.
I guess from JMS's viewpoint, is similar to Roddenberry and Paramount.
He had some control over the licence, but in the end they controlled
it. Least he passed on before the B&B duo destroyed any credibility
that franchise ever had. (but that is another story).
I do hope Mr. Sprange and JMS can mend fences, but I am sure this will
get more ugly.
Matthew Sprange
> strongly implied all along that you were working from materials he had
> created for this purpose and supplied to you.
You are reading the implication into it. That was never the intent.
> BTW, not all novels are created from outlines. Some writers just start
> with a blank page and dive right in. The same is true of scripts,
Yes, I am aware of that.
> although many writers do work from outlines and even fairly detailed
> treatments. Pretending that the two processes are inherently different
> and that "outline" means different things in the two contexts is just
> silly. You're the one playing semantics games here, or rather throwing
An outline is a specific term in writing fiction. Word games do not alter
anything.
> tomorrow - what I can't do, in good faith, is try to fool people into
That is not what happened. That is what someone said happened.
> Finally none of the specific items you list under your Warner Bros.
> licenses have anything to do with *ficiton*. They are all still the
> same game materials we already know Mongoose produces.
Forgive me, I am not sure what you are getting at here.
Matthew
Matthew Sprange
> written to/spoken to jms about writing a B5 novel, what he would have told
> you was to get a literary agent and have them contact his agent. I know
> this
Dear Lord. We did contact him about the novel line. At no point was an
agent mentioned. I am willing to believe this is what happened in your
case, but it did not happen here.
> Clearly, he now considers you to fall into the latter category for the
> same reason. I can't say I blame him.
I am afraid you are not familiar with everything that has gone on.
Matthew
Trish Crowther
I alluded to that in the paragraph about telephone calls. I've had a
song running in my head while reading this thread and the others where
this issue has arisen - not sure who the artist is or what the title
is, but it has a line - "Communication breakdown"
Trish
Matthew Vincent
>It is our understanding that the scripts are owned
>by Warner Brothers. I will be calling them this
>morning to (again) confirm this,
The scripts are owned by the writer -- in this case, JMS -- under the
Writer's Guild of America's Separation of Rights Provision. This is
why, for example, JMS can only publish his own scripts (91, was it?)
out of the original 110 B5 episodes, without getting permission from
the other writers. Any newsgroup poster's internet posts are also the
sole intellectual property of that person.
If WB tell you or have told you anything to the contrary, then I
suggest you inform them that they're in error. Whilst I don't approve
of much of the public discussion of this issue that has taken place,
I'm sure that many people in this newsgroup would want to know if WB
have been encouraging their licensees to break the law without their
knowledge, so please do let us know anything you can document along
those lines.
Matthew V
Joseph DeMartino
with it any more. That ended the day JMS signed on the dotted line. <
Well, JMS does own the feature film rights to "Babylon 5", so already
we know things aren't as simple as you would have them.
JMS has always said that his deal with WB required that they consult
him on "B5" projects - not that they do what he says, but that they at
least ask for his input. And if nothing else simple courtesy and the
understanding that JMS carries much of the "B5" universe around in his
head makes that a sensible thing to do. The whole time the show was in
production WB gave him virtual veto power over licensing and a lot of
potentially lucrative deals for products JMS felt would cheapen the
show were rejected more or less on his say-so.
When WB sent the master tape for the original cut of "The Gathering" to
Columbia House for their VHS "Babylon 5 Collection", JMS complained and
they replaced it with his preferred re-edit. It would not have been
fair to CH to demand that they recall the first run tapes - even if
they hadn't already sold out - but WB made sure that CH produced
nothing but the Producer's cut thereafter.
When Warner Home Video made essentially the same mistake and started
mastering the original cut for the first DVD release, they again bent
over backwards to accomodate his wishes - eating tens of thousands of
dollars already spent on digitizing and mastering the film and starting
from scratch with the revised version.
So it seems odd to those of us who actually know something of this
history that the studio has suddenly changed the way it does business
with JMS vis a vis "B5". Especially when the only one claiming they
have is someone who has also falsely implied that JMS had some
involvement in the Mongoose project and that he had even provided
written outlines for it.
This isn't a matter of fanboys blindly attacking someone who "dared to
contradict the 'Great Maker'" It is a matter of people commenting on a
argument in which all the independently verifiable facts and all the
logical inferences are on one side, and constantly shifting stories,
semantic games and contradictions are on the other. And, as JMS has
pointed out, this isn't the first such situation we've run into in this
group. Since JMS has turned out to be right in the past instances, I'd
be more inclined to believe him in the present one even if the evidence
weren't overwhelmingly on his side. But that's because he has a track
record of being honest and having the facts on his side when
challenged. He isn't *always* right by any means, but that is, as they
say, the way to bet. <g>
Regards,
Joe
Amy Guskin
(in article <5opcg.10125$S.2...@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>):
>
>>
>> That said, the way WB treated Crusade, it is entirely possible that they
>> would license people to use the name, characters, etc without bothering to
>> tell JMS. But that still doesn't cover lies about involvement. And I don't
>> believe for one second that anyone in publishing doesn't know what an
>> outline is.
>>
>>
>
> Sorry, but why would they? WB own the work, not JMS. He has nothing to do
> with it any more. That ended the day JMS signed on the dotted line. <<
So, you've actually seen JMS's contract with WB and know the specifics of it.
In a note in 1996 (which I found on jmsnews.com), JMS wrote:
>>Give it about a year or two for WB to notice this (see
pre-Cambrian comment above), then suddenly they're going to start
running around seeing what they can do to capitalize on this.
At that point, I'm not sure which way the runes point.
Certainly they'll start cranking out more merchandise stuff, which by
contract I have to approve, to make sure it's quality stuff.<<
Of course, I have no idea what the situation is now, ten years later, but I'm
sure this isn't the first time the subject of approval re licensing has come
up, and I'm sure that JMS has said before that he has to be involved when WB
makes any licensing decisions re B5.
Amy
Joseph DeMartino
> That is not what happened. That is what someone said happened.
I've read your posts. I've listen to the podcast. That is what you
SAID. You may now claim that you didn't mean it and your words were
misunderstood, but that is what any reasonable person would conclude
from your public statements. That is the conclusion that I and a
number of others have reached *independently*, not based on what others
have written. If you still maintain that you *meant* to say something
else, then I would respectfully suggest that you stick to games and let
someone else oversee any novels your company produces, because your
communication skills are simply not up to the task.
Regards,
Joe
Thunder 06
Sprange made his post and JMS responded. It seems like it will go on and
on and on with people debating the same points over and over.
I say, if there's anything else to be said, let them do it in
private. Nothing further can be resolved here... (imho, of course).
t.k.
Chris Patterson
"Joseph DeMartino" <jdem...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> When WB sent the master tape for the original cut of "The Gathering" to
> Columbia House for their VHS "Babylon 5 Collection", JMS complained and
> they replaced it with his preferred re-edit. It would not have been
> fair to CH to demand that they recall the first run tapes - even if
> they hadn't already sold out - but WB made sure that CH produced
> nothing but the Producer's cut thereafter.
>
> When Warner Home Video made essentially the same mistake and started
> mastering the original cut for the first DVD release, they again bent
> over backwards to accomodate his wishes - eating tens of thousands of
> dollars already spent on digitizing and mastering the film and starting
> from scratch with the revised version.
>
> So it seems odd to those of us who actually know something of this
> history that the studio has suddenly changed the way it does business
> with JMS vis a vis "B5".
Now that you mention it -- I wonder why, then, it is suddenly OK for WB
to use the original cut of "The Gathering" on their In2TV website?
That, at least, would seem to signal some kind of change in the
relationship... at least in regards to the pilot.
--
=====================================================================
Chris Patterson chrispatterson.at.comcast.dot.net
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are
always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
-- Bertrand Russell
=====================================================================
Wendy of NJ
<trix...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
<snip>
>>
>I alluded to that in the paragraph about telephone calls. I've had a
>song running in my head while reading this thread and the others where
>this issue has arisen - not sure who the artist is or what the title
>is, but it has a line - "Communication breakdown"
>
>Trish
>
-Wendy
LK
<sp...@mongoosepublishing.com> wrote:
>> That said, the way WB treated Crusade, it is entirely possible that they
>> would license people to use the name, characters, etc without bothering to
>> tell JMS. But that still doesn't cover lies about involvement. And I don't
>> believe for one second that anyone in publishing doesn't know what an
>> outline is.
>
>Novels are written from outlines. That is what we created from the scripts.
>
>Matthew
>
So your company took a number scripts* written by someone else,
rendered an outline from their script and are using _your_ outline of
their script to create a novel.
That sounds like writing a book report on a movie and then creating a
novel based on the book report and calling it "canonical" of the
universe of the movie.
A whole new series of "Perry Mason" and "Mr. Ed" novels could be
coming our way and they would be called "cannon".
Heck, why bother with writing up your own outline when you could use
the outline/summations on "The Lurkers Guide to Babylon 5" and create
novels and call those "cannon" and say that JMS wouldn't co-operate.
* It's hard to believe that a publishing company doesn't have its own
lawyer(s) with knowledge of intellectual property rights that could
answer the question of who owns a script. And could advise on the
wisdom of going public with particular claims and statements without
the particulars of dates and names and documentation, etc.
I see more documentation from my township regarding an unpaid water
and sewage bill.
I'm getting nasty. Time to quit.
LK
Methuselah Jones
> Matthew Sprange wrote:
>
>>It is our understanding that the scripts are owned
>>by Warner Brothers. I will be calling them this
>>morning to (again) confirm this,
>
> The scripts are owned by the writer -- in this case, JMS -- under the
> Writer's Guild of America's Separation of Rights Provision.
Publication rights. The writer owns the publication rights. Nothing else.
The studio holds all the other rights. They can do whatever they want to
with the scripts, apart from publish them in script form. If the studio
wanted to produce novelizations of each individual episode, they could.
If they wanted to have Shari Lewis and Lambchop act them out, they could.
If they wanted to give them to someone as background material for further
development, no problem.
The writer retains publication rights to his/her scripts. Only.
Is there anyone else still unclear on this, after it's been said a dozen
times in this thread alone?
> Any newsgroup poster's internet posts are also the sole intellectual
> property of that person.
AFAIK, that has not been thoroughly tested legally. In JMS' case, where
he puts a copyright notice on his posts, that might hold, but in general,
I don't know.
But either way, reading someone's words and then using them as
inspiration or guidelines is not a violation of copyright. Any author,
artist, inventor, composer, etc. has been to some degree influenced and
inspired by the previous works of others.
--
Methuselah
I've seen things you newbies wouldn't believe. Attack-lusers aflame off
the shoulder of rec.arts.sf.written. I watched Cancel posts glitter in
the ether near the waikato.ac.nz gateway. All those moments will be lost
in time - like beers in the rain. Time to unsubscribe.
Vorlonagent
"Amy Guskin" <ais...@fjordstone.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C097F97A...@news.verizon.net...
> At that point, I'm not sure which way the runes point.
> Certainly they'll start cranking out more merchandise stuff, which by
> contract I have to approve, to make sure it's quality stuff.<<
>
> Of course, I have no idea what the situation is now, ten years later, but
> I'm
> sure this isn't the first time the subject of approval re licensing has
> come
> up, and I'm sure that JMS has said before that he has to be involved when
> WB
> makes any licensing decisions re B5.
Given that B5 is mostly in the past I wouldn't expect JMS' influnce to
recede over time.
One of the big problems Sierra had in dealing with WB getting a license to
do a computer game was lawyers who were too used to ballcaps and T-shirts.
They expected prototypes of what we wated to do in a month and other such
which were wildly at odds with the game industry. What made matters worse
was WB tendency to rotate lawyers into and out of the process meaning we had
to break them in all over again. I think of the Dilbert "bungee boss". In
the year or so it took for us to secure a license we had no less than three
sets of lawyers.
I find is highly palusible to think that WB rotated in a lawyer-set that
dropped the ball in giving JMS notification. Clearly there's at least one
breakdown in communications here, possibly more.
--
John Trauger,
Vorlonagent
"Methane martini.
Shaken, not stirred."
"Spirituality without science has no mind.
Science without spirituality has no heart."
-Methuselah Jones
Amy Guskin
(in article <2r067293ldbvskfus...@4ax.com>):
And, time to pay that water and sewage bill, I'd say. ;-)
Amy
Rob Perkins
> If the studio
> wanted to produce novelizations of each individual episode, they could.
> If they wanted to have Shari Lewis and Lambchop act them out, they could.
If they did, I wonder if I would creep out or dance along...
Rob, aware of the obituary page
Mox Fulder
[...]
> > Any newsgroup poster's internet posts are also the sole intellectual
> > property of that person.
> AFAIK, that has not been thoroughly tested legally. In JMS' case, where
> he puts a copyright notice on his posts, that might hold, but in general,
> I don't know.
By law, no copyright notice is needed. Enforcement, however, is a very
different issue. The specific words also matter--e.g., "I agree" is too
short and common to be copyrighted.
> But either way, reading someone's words and then using them as
> inspiration or guidelines is not a violation of copyright. Any author,
> artist, inventor, composer, etc. has been to some degree influenced and
> inspired by the previous works of others.
Building on others' work is not only allowed, but necessary. Stealing is
not. There is so much ignorance and confusion regarding copyright and
plagiarism, not to mention the shifting attitudes regarding both, it makes
me want to cry.
--
20060523 11:30
This .sig is not available at the moment. Leave your message after the beep.
Wendy of NJ
<methu...@altgeek.org> wrote:
>If they wanted to have Shari Lewis and Lambchop act them out, they could.
You are an evil, evil man. Now there must be the sock-puppet version
of Babylon 5....
-Wendy
Tippi
>history that the studio has suddenly changed the way it does business
>with JMS vis a vis "B5".
WB is not a small company with just a few employees. The examples you
cited are for B5 home video production. The current issue is with the
Licensing office for new products, which is in all likelyhood a totally
separate department. It is entirely possible for "the left hand to not
know what the right hand is doing".
Wendy of NJ
<j...@otfresno.com> wrote:
>
>"Amy Guskin" <ais...@fjordstone.com> wrote in message
>news:0001HW.C097F97A...@news.verizon.net...
>
>> At that point, I'm not sure which way the runes point.
>> Certainly they'll start cranking out more merchandise stuff, which by
>> contract I have to approve, to make sure it's quality stuff.<<
>>
>> Of course, I have no idea what the situation is now, ten years later, but
>> I'm
>> sure this isn't the first time the subject of approval re licensing has
>> come
>> up, and I'm sure that JMS has said before that he has to be involved when
>> WB
>> makes any licensing decisions re B5.
>
>Given that B5 is mostly in the past I wouldn't expect JMS' influnce to
>recede over time.
>
>One of the big problems Sierra had in dealing with WB getting a license to
>do a computer game was lawyers who were too used to ballcaps and T-shirts.
>They expected prototypes of what we wated to do in a month and other such
>which were wildly at odds with the game industry. What made matters worse
>was WB tendency to rotate lawyers into and out of the process meaning we had
>to break them in all over again. I think of the Dilbert "bungee boss". In
>the year or so it took for us to secure a license we had no less than three
>sets of lawyers.
>
I wonder if that's because there is that much turnover in the
entertainment law field or if they only hire temps?
-Wendy
AC
Paul Harper
The Egos have Landed.
And as usual, it's not a pretty sight.
It seems once again that maturity is not a prerequisite for working in
media.
Paul.
Trish Crowther
No, I think this song is much older than that. 1960's. Just checked on
google - the artist is Roy Orbison.
Trish
Michael Benedetti
Paul Harper <pa...@harper.net> wrote:
I think you will find that JMS no longer participates in that
discussion. My fear is that if Mr. Sprange continues posting, JMS will
no longer participate in this group.
AC
"Michael Benedetti" <mic...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:micben-5ADA5C....@news.west.earthlink.net...
your own conclusion.
AC
Wendy of NJ
<trix...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>On Tue, 23 May 2006 14:47:05 +0000 (UTC), Wendy of NJ
><voxw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 23 May 2006 03:27:49 +0000 (UTC), Trish Crowther
>><trix...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>><snip>
>>>>
>>>I alluded to that in the paragraph about telephone calls. I've had a
>>>song running in my head while reading this thread and the others where
>>>this issue has arisen - not sure who the artist is or what the title
>>>is, but it has a line - "Communication breakdown"
>>>
>>>Trish
>>>
>>That would be the terribly obscure band, Led Zepplin
>>
>>-Wendy
>>
>
>No, I think this song is much older than that. 1960's. Just checked on
>google - the artist is Roy Orbison.
>
Oh...Kay... I will take your word for it. Is it the same song, I
wonder?
-Wendy