JMS' Fairy Tale (and the great truth is discovered!)
Ford Thaxton
>
> I saw this post at AICN (http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com) in the
> talkbacks to one of the Crusade posts in Coaxial. It was posted by
> someone named Ranger1138. Check it out as it struck me as pretty
> interesting:
>
> -------------------------------
>
> The following is a transcribed acount of JMS's remarks at Mega Con. To
> see a major spoiler of one of the Crusade eps shown go to isnnews.net .
> Kat's report, shown below, is there too. Thanks again to my good friend
> kat for doing me a huge favor that I will have to pay back at Dragon
> Con. JMS' Fairy Tale Q: "I'd like to know how many episodes are sold and
> what plans you have..." JMS:
> "For?" Q: "Crusade." JMS: "Thank you. It's a very long story. There's
> stuff I can say, and there's stuff that I can't say. So, I'll tell you
> what I can say and lie about what I can't say. "We shot 13 episodes. And
> TNT will be airing those on June 9 at 10:00, starting then and going
> straight through, more or less. And we had... they had said they weren't
> going to do more beyond that, beyond the 13. We tried at that point to
> take it to the SciFi Channel, but it was so late in the game.... It
> takes a lot of money to be able support an entire season of a show. The
> SciFi Channel had already allocated their funds for the year, so they
> couldn't pick it up. If the show does well,
> the first 13, then it will be considered for a season, beginning with
> the second season, on the SciFi Channel. If the show does well, it will
> go on. "As for more what happened... let me tell you a fairy tale. And
> every fairy tale begins with Once Apon A Time... "...There was writer of
> songs in a kingdom. And he wasn't the best writer of songs on the entire
> planet. There were others who were as good or better. And he had written
> 110 really good songs... and four or five long odes. And they said, 'Do
> some more songs for us.' And he said, 'Sure.' And he began writing more
> songs. And those were for this little kingdom which was great. As were
> the ministers, who had always before worked with him. "Then the King
> heard about the new songs that were being commissioned. Not the Emperor.
> Not the Emperor Theodore and his wife Lady Jane. I ain't talking about
> them. I'm talking about the lower king of a particular land, all right.
> I don't want the Emperor getting pissed at me. And he (the King) said,
> 'Well, I should be involved creatively.' "And thus there came... runners
> would come with scrolls, which the singer/songwriter would look at and
> burn. "Now this is just a fairy tale. Okay? This is nothing but a fairy
> tale. This is not about Crusade. Okay? I'm just telling you a story
> here. "And the King became wroth. He waxed Wroth, and Wroth wasn't very
> happy about it. Old joke, I'm sorry. "So they called for a grand meeting
> at which, along one long table were ministers, and emissaries, and
> ambassadors, and functionaries and assistants, and programming - uh,...
> a whole lot of guys. Now on the other side of the table was the writer
> of songs. And they had plenty of these huge scrolls in front of them.
> And they began to open the first one. "And the writer of songs said,
> 'no.' "And they brought someone in with a book to explain to them what
> the word 'no'
> meant, because they had never heard it before. And they said, 'no to
> what?' "I said... The writer of songs said, in this imaginary story, 'no
> to all of it. No to all of it in all its parts and pieces, from page 1
> to page 20. No to all of it.' The writer of songs felt that what they
> wanted was, in modern terms, for a moment, sort of Baywatch meets
> wrestling in space. Which was not applicable, exactly, to our fairy tale
> scenario. (aside: If I every work again, it'll be a miracle) "It became
> clear that if the King's emissaries were not properly responded to, that
> they may say, 'you can only write 13 songs.' And the writer of songs
> said, 'better 13 songs that I can believe in than 22 that I do not. "So
> there were 13 songs, and the writer of songs has moved to a different
> kingdom knowing that the 13 songs were songs that he wanted to hear. And
> in the 13th song there was a sub-thread in the song about people who
> come in with suggestions, which is rather similar to the King's
> situation. Astonishingly, the King saw the 13th song and didn't realize
> what it was. "And the writer of songs moved to another kingdom and lived
> happily ever after. "And this has nothing to do with Crusade or your
> question, but I thought I'd tell you that story because it amuses me."
>
> -------------------------------
>
> --
> Sergey
I showed this to someone who was a big fan of B5 and this was there take
on the whole mess:
'If the fairy tale was true, he essentially accepts responsibility for
getting the show cancelled...and getting everyone else fired along with
him...and pretty much ruining Netter Digital.
Because he said 'no'.
And he's pretty damned proud of it.'
Nuff said
Regards
Ford A. Thaxton
Jeremy Hallum
: I showed this to someone who was a big fan of B5 and this was there take
: on the whole mess:
:
: 'If the fairy tale was true, he essentially accepts responsibility for
: getting the show cancelled...and getting everyone else fired along with
: him...and pretty much ruining Netter Digital.
:
: Because he said 'no'.
:
: And he's pretty damned proud of it.'
:
And I would be too. I'm damn proud of him for standing up for
what he believes in. Do you believe in something you created that
much, Ford? Or better yet, have you ever created anything in your
worthless life? Get back to me when you have.
-jeremy
Sergey Bukhman
Ford Thaxton wrote:
>
>
> 'If the fairy tale was true, he essentially accepts responsibility for
> getting the show cancelled...and getting everyone else fired along with
> him...and pretty much ruining Netter Digital.
>
> Because he said 'no'.
>
> And he's pretty damned proud of it.'
>
> Nuff said
>
> Regards
>
> Ford A. Thaxton
That's actually not true. JMS accepts the responsibility of saying "no"
to the execs. They were the ones doing the canceling.
If someone holds a gun to your head and tells you "give me your money!"
and you say "no" and he shoots, he's responsible for the shooting. He is
the murderer. You might have made a foolish decision, but the
responsibility for the shot lies in the hands of the man with the gun.
--
Sergey
--
The End is near... ...and I would fear
The following beginning.
Ford Thaxton
>
> Ford Thaxton (for...@earthlink.net) wrote:
>
> : I showed this to someone who was a big fan of B5 and this was there take
> : on the whole mess:
> :
> : getting the show cancelled...and getting everyone else fired along with
> : him...and pretty much ruining Netter Digital.
> :
> : Because he said 'no'.
> :
> : And he's pretty damned proud of it.'
> And I would be too. I'm damn proud of him for standing up for
> what he believes in.
Let me take a while guess here.
You're single and have no children, would I be correct?
>Do you believe in something you created that
> much, Ford? Or better yet, have you ever created anything in your
> worthless life? Get back to me when you have.
>
> -jeremy
And BTW, how do you know your life isn't worthless?
What do you do for a living?
Well, I've produced two successful radio series, over 80 soundtrack
albums, and done a few other things in my life that I'm rather pleased
with.
As a matter of fact if you happen to buy soundtracks to any degree, you
might discover my name on perhaps one or two them you have.
Now returning to JMS, he fails to address a rather important point.
TNT pulled the plug on his creation, it was their choice to stop the
show, not his.
I also wonder if he had the power himself to pull the plug, would have
taken into account how his chocie would impact the folks who were
counting on him for a job.
The ones who needs to pay the rent,put their kids through school,etc..
It's one thing to make a choice that impacts your life, it's another to
make a selfish choice that effects the lives of those who depend on you
for their paycheck.
Regards
Ford A. Thaxton
Berserker
> Ford Thaxton (for...@earthlink.net) wrote:
>
> : I showed this to someone who was a big fan of B5 and this was there
> take
> : on the whole mess:
> :
> : 'If the fairy tale was true, he essentially accepts responsibility
> for
> : getting the show cancelled...and getting everyone else fired along
> with
> : him...and pretty much ruining Netter Digital.
> :
> : Because he said 'no'.
> :
> : And he's pretty damned proud of it.'
> :
> And I would be too. I'm damn proud of him for standing up for
>
> what he believes in. Do you believe in something you created that
> much, Ford? Or better yet, have you ever created anything in your
> worthless life? Get back to me when you have.
>
> -jeremy
How arrogant. Dozens of people are out of work, and you're calling JMS
a great man. The fact is, Crusade was a TV show, not Shakespeare, and
all your intimate little chats with jms on the mod group don't change
that. B5 does not equal high culture, and if everything we have heard
about Crusade is true, it certainly doesnt equal high culture either.
Berserker
> Ford Thaxton wrote:
> >
> >
> > 'If the fairy tale was true, he essentially accepts responsibility
> for
> > getting the show cancelled...and getting everyone else fired along
> with
> > him...and pretty much ruining Netter Digital.
> >
> > Because he said 'no'.
> >
> > And he's pretty damned proud of it.'
> >
> > Nuff said
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Ford A. Thaxton
>
> That's actually not true. JMS accepts the responsibility of saying
> "no"
> to the execs. They were the ones doing the canceling.
JMS has $$$ and other opportunities. His actions did not hurt him, but
those of other people.
>
>
> If someone holds a gun to your head and tells you "give me your
> money!"
> and you say "no" and he shoots, he's responsible for the shooting. He
> is
> the murderer. You might have made a foolish decision, but the
> responsibility for the shot lies in the hands of the man with the gun.
This is an awful, awful analogy. The execs were exerting their rightful
role over the show. This is like saying if the taxman comes to collect
money, you can say no, and run away, leaving your family to pay off your
taxes.
Berserker
> Sergey Bukhman wrote:
> >
> "As for more what happened... let me tell you a fairy tale. And
> > every fairy tale begins with Once Apon A Time... "...There was
> writer of
> > songs in a kingdom. And he wasn't the best writer of songs on the
> entire
> > planet.
I love that humble touch.
> There were others who were as good or better. And he had written
> > 110 really good songs... and four or five long odes.
In his opinion
> And they said, 'Do
> > some more songs for us.' And he said, 'Sure.' And he began writing
> more
> > songs. And those were for this little kingdom which was great.
Great, for TNT? Has JMS not seen Fargo?
> As were
> > the ministers, who had always before worked with him. "Then the King
>
> > heard about the new songs that were being commissioned. Not the
> Emperor.
> > Not the Emperor Theodore and his wife Lady Jane. I ain't talking
> about
> > them. I'm talking about the lower king of a particular land, all
> right.
> > I don't want the Emperor getting pissed at me. And he (the King)
> said,
> > 'Well, I should be involved creatively.' "And thus there came...
> runners
> > would come with scrolls, which the singer/songwriter would look at
> and
> > burn.
Why? JMS, last time I checked, they're paying the bill. I think
they're entitled to a say.
And, to recall what you yourself said, the "egregious points" were
dropped.
> "Now this is just a fairy tale. Okay? This is nothing but a fairy
> > tale. This is not about Crusade. Okay? I'm just telling you a story
> > here. "And the King became wroth. He waxed Wroth, and Wroth wasn't
> very
> > happy about it. Old joke, I'm sorry.
And a bad one.
> "So they called for a grand meeting
> > at which, along one long table were ministers, and emissaries, and
> > ambassadors, and functionaries and assistants, and programming -
> uh,...
> > a whole lot of guys. Now on the other side of the table was the
> writer
> > of songs. And they had plenty of these huge scrolls in front of
> them.
> > And they began to open the first one. "And the writer of songs said,
>
> > 'no.' "And they brought someone in with a book to explain to them
> what
> > the word 'no'
No, as in "No, starting the series off five months after the pilot is a
stupid idea."
> > meant, because they had never heard it before. And they said, 'no to
>
> > what?' "I said... The writer of songs said, in this imaginary story,
> 'no
> > to all of it. No to all of it in all its parts and pieces, from page
> 1
> > to page 20. No to all of it.' The writer of songs felt that what
> they
> > wanted was, in modern terms, for a moment, sort of Baywatch meets
> > wrestling in space. Which was not applicable, exactly, to our fairy
> tale
> > scenario.
JMS, do you have any evidence of this? You can't get away with this
sort of half-libel and expect me to even remotely believe it unless you
have proof. Star Trek producers have often said that Paramount doesn't
tell them to put tits in a script. If the evil Trek Franchise doesnt do
that, why would TNT?
> (aside: If I every work again, it'll be a miracle) "It became
> > clear that if the King's emissaries were not properly responded to,
> that
> > they may say, 'you can only write 13 songs.' And the writer of songs
>
> > said, 'better 13 songs that I can believe in than 22 that I do not.
> "So
> > there were 13 songs, and the writer of songs has moved to a
> different
> > kingdom knowing that the 13 songs were songs that he wanted to hear.
> And
> > in the 13th song there was a sub-thread in the song about people who
>
> > come in with suggestions, which is rather similar to the King's
> > situation. Astonishingly, the King saw the 13th song and didn't
> realize
> > what it was. "And the writer of songs moved to another kingdom and
> lived
> > happily ever after. "And this has nothing to do with Crusade or your
>
> > question, but I thought I'd tell you that story because it amuses
> me."
Basically, the message is that JMS has a bad temper. He can't make a
reasoned case to TNT about his show. He can't produce a show with tits
and smarts, despite the fact that Babylon 5 in the past, without TNT's
initiative, had tits. JMS, I just don't see how TNT wanting tits
precludes a good show. NYPD Blue shows asses all the time, and it gets
Emmys.
Perhaps the real answer is that JMS is merely a control freak, a control
freak who doesnt care if people get fired because he has his vision.
> >
> > -------------------------------
> >
> > --
> > Sergey
Sergey Bukhman
Berserker wrote:
>
> JMS, do you have any evidence of this? You can't get away with this
> sort of half-libel and expect me to even remotely believe it unless you
> have proof. Star Trek producers have often said that Paramount doesn't
> tell them to put tits in a script. If the evil Trek Franchise doesnt do
> that, why would TNT?
Hey dude, wake up, JMS doesn't have to provide you any evidence. He's
giving you his story, take it or leave it.
And btw, in case you forgot, he doesn't read this NG, so talking in
first person to him comes off kind of crazy.
Sergey Bukhman
Berserker wrote:
>
> Sergey Bukhman wrote:
>
> > Ford Thaxton wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > 'If the fairy tale was true, he essentially accepts responsibility
> > for
> > > getting the show cancelled...and getting everyone else fired along
> > with
> > > him...and pretty much ruining Netter Digital.
> > >
> > > Because he said 'no'.
> > >
> > > And he's pretty damned proud of it.'
> > >
> > > Nuff said
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Ford A. Thaxton
> >
> > That's actually not true. JMS accepts the responsibility of saying
> > "no"
> > to the execs. They were the ones doing the canceling.
>
> JMS has $$$ and other opportunities. His actions did not hurt him, but
> those of other people.
>
Irrelevant!
The responsibility lies on TNT, and there are no two ways about it. JMS
has the right to say "no" to a proposal. If TNT decide to cancel the
show, well they cancel the show.
> >
> >
> > If someone holds a gun to your head and tells you "give me your
> > money!"
> > and you say "no" and he shoots, he's responsible for the shooting. He
> > is
> > the murderer. You might have made a foolish decision, but the
> > responsibility for the shot lies in the hands of the man with the gun.
>
> This is an awful, awful analogy. The execs were exerting their rightful
> role over the show.
I see you understand, then. The execs had the decision power and no one
else. Ask Ford, he's an industry insider, he'll tell you that only TNT
can make that decision and WB owns Crusade. So JMS can not and did not
cancel his own show.
YL.
> This is like saying if the taxman comes to collect
> money, you can say no, and run away, leaving your family to pay off your
> taxes.
No, it's not like that at all.
Berserker
JMS's pigheadedness and his refusal to acquiese to TNT led to its
cancelling. At best you can say that TNT saw what a stinker they had,
got JMS mad, and used his temper as an excuse to cancel it.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > If someone holds a gun to your head and tells you "give me your
> > > money!"
> > > and you say "no" and he shoots, he's responsible for the shooting.
> He
> > > is
> > > the murderer. You might have made a foolish decision, but the
> > > responsibility for the shot lies in the hands of the man with the
> gun.
> >
> > This is an awful, awful analogy. The execs were exerting their
> rightful
> > role over the show.
>
> I see you understand, then. The execs had the decision power and no
> one
> else. Ask Ford, he's an industry insider, he'll tell you that only TNT
>
> can make that decision and WB owns Crusade. So JMS can not and did not
>
> cancel his own show.
If JMS spends $1 million an episode and produces garbage, and TNT sees
this, yes, they will cancel it.
But the bottom line is that JMS in his story is the one saing "No." So
you have no point.
>
>
> YL.
>
> > This is like saying if the taxman comes to collect
> > money, you can say no, and run away, leaving your family to pay off
> your
> > taxes.
>
> No, it's not like that at all.
Thanks for the clarification
Berserker
> Berserker wrote:
> >
> > JMS, do you have any evidence of this? You can't get away with this
>
> > sort of half-libel and expect me to even remotely believe it unless
> you
> > have proof. Star Trek producers have often said that Paramount
> doesn't
> > tell them to put tits in a script. If the evil Trek Franchise
> doesnt do
> > that, why would TNT?
>
> Hey dude, wake up, JMS doesn't have to provide you any evidence. He's
> giving you his story, take it or leave it.
Oh, I'm taking it - I'm taking it to mean that he's an egomaniac. But
we knew that.
>
>
> And btw, in case you forgot, he doesn't read this NG, so talking in
> first person to him comes off kind of crazy.
And talking to you isn't?
Berserker
> On Sat, 20 Mar 1999 18:57:12 -0600, Berserker <defau...@domain.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Perhaps the real answer is that JMS is merely a control freak, a
> control
> >freak who doesnt care if people get fired because he has his vision.
>
> "Who is John Galt?"
>
Oh, if Ayn Rand said, it must be true. To hell with the world: me, me,
me!
Berserker
> On Sat, 20 Mar 1999 15:00:40 -0800, Ford Thaxton
> <for...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >I showed this to someone who was a big fan of B5 and this was there
> take
> >on the whole mess:
> >
> >'If the fairy tale was true, he essentially accepts responsibility
> for
> >getting the show cancelled...and getting everyone else fired along
> with
> >him...and pretty much ruining Netter Digital.
> >
> >Because he said 'no'.
> >
> >And he's pretty damned proud of it.'
>
> And if I were him, I would be too.
>
> The first duty of any creator is to his own creation, to its
> integrity. A musician does not have a duty to keep the record
> companies or the concert halls or the music stores or the radio
> stations in business. A writer does not exist for the sake of
> publishers and book distributors and bookstored. And a scriptwriter
> owes no moral obligation to actors and special effects technicians and
>
> stagehands.
When he has the power to make everyone happy, he does.
>
>
> Assuming this is a more-or-less accurate summation, JMS did the right
> thing. He could, after all, have sat back and collected the paychecks
> and let TNT do whatever they wanted -- he didn't. And if he had done
> this, you would be condemning him for 'selling out', and if he had
> said he had done it solely to protect the many people whose livlihoods
>
> were impacted by Crusade, you'd have mocked him and called him a liar.
No, JMS quit. JMS could have added a tit here or there. He could have
made the show and pleased everyone. It was the fact that, after 5 years
and so many episodes done by himself, TNT had the nerve to *care* about
the finished product that set him off.
Sergey Bukhman
Berserker wrote:
>
> Sergey Bukhman wrote:
>
> > Berserker wrote:
> > >
> > > Sergey Bukhman wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ford Thaxton wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 'If the fairy tale was true, he essentially accepts
> > responsibility
> > > > for
> > > > > getting the show cancelled...and getting everyone else fired
> > along
> > > > with
> > > > > him...and pretty much ruining Netter Digital.
> > > > >
> > > > > Because he said 'no'.
> > > > >
> > > > > And he's pretty damned proud of it.'
> > > > >
> > > > > Nuff said
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > >
> > > > > Ford A. Thaxton
> > > >
> > > > That's actually not true. JMS accepts the responsibility of saying
> >
> > > > "no"
> > > > to the execs. They were the ones doing the canceling.
> > >
> > > JMS has $$$ and other opportunities. His actions did not hurt him,
> > but
> > > those of other people.
> > >
> >
> > Irrelevant!
> >
> > The responsibility lies on TNT, and there are no two ways about it.
> > JMS
> > has the right to say "no" to a proposal. If TNT decide to cancel the
> > show, well they cancel the show.
>
> JMS's pigheadedness and his refusal to acquiese to TNT led to its
> cancelling. At best you can say that TNT saw what a stinker they had,
> got JMS mad, and used his temper as an excuse to cancel it.
>
TNT don't need an excuse. They can do as they wish.
It's simple, Berserker. JMS didn't want to do what they said. He said
"no" to the propositions. He wanted to do his show the way he wanted.
TNT disagreed and decided it is not in their best interests to continue
funding of a show they have no confidence in.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If someone holds a gun to your head and tells you "give me your
> > > > money!"
> > > > and you say "no" and he shoots, he's responsible for the shooting.
> > He
> > > > is
> > > > the murderer. You might have made a foolish decision, but the
> > > > responsibility for the shot lies in the hands of the man with the
> > gun.
> > >
> > > This is an awful, awful analogy. The execs were exerting their
> > rightful
> > > role over the show.
> >
> > I see you understand, then. The execs had the decision power and no
> > one
> > else. Ask Ford, he's an industry insider, he'll tell you that only TNT
> >
> > can make that decision and WB owns Crusade. So JMS can not and did not
> >
> > cancel his own show.
>
> If JMS spends $1 million an episode and produces garbage, and TNT sees
> this, yes, they will cancel it.
>
> But the bottom line is that JMS in his story is the one saing "No." So
> you have no point.
>
JMS said "no" to proposals to change the show. And my point is, that you
are wrong in your attempts to vilify JMS as the Big Bad Man that caused
all the poor little men to lose their jobs. All he said is that he
didn't want any changes to his show.
> >
> >
> > YL.
> >
> > > This is like saying if the taxman comes to collect
> > > money, you can say no, and run away, leaving your family to pay off
> > your
> > > taxes.
> >
> > No, it's not like that at all.
>
> Thanks for the clarification
It is not my duty to clarify to you your own mistakes, be they in
reading comprehension or writing. But this time I will make an exeption.
In my analogy the Man with the gun is TNT, the Gun is the cancellation,
the money represents the changes TNT wanted and JMS is the man being
"attacked". I did not wish to show TNT as the Bag Guy, just as the Guy
with the Power.
Your analogy, OTOH, was completely irrelevant.
Franklin Harris
Lizard wrote in message <36f54be6...@news3.dnai.com>...
>On Sat, 20 Mar 1999 16:18:38 -0800, Ford Thaxton
><for...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>It's one thing to make a choice that impacts your life, it's another to
>>make a selfish choice that effects the lives of those who depend on you
>>for their paycheck.
>
>remake of "The Fountainhead"?
That would require a step up for Thaxton.
--
Franklin Harris
Pulp Culture Online
tfha...@hiwaay.net
http://home.hiwaay.net/~tfharris
Berserker
> Berserker wrote:
> >
> > JMS's pigheadedness and his refusal to acquiese to TNT led to its
> > cancelling. At best you can say that TNT saw what a stinker they
> had,
> > got JMS mad, and used his temper as an excuse to cancel it.
> >
>
> TNT don't need an excuse. They can do as they wish.
>
> It's simple, Berserker. JMS didn't want to do what they said. He said
> "no" to the propositions. He wanted to do his show the way he wanted.
> TNT disagreed and decided it is not in their best interests to
> continue
> funding of a show they have no confidence in.
Thanks for conceding. JMS said no. He was more concerned about his
vision than he was concerned about the people around him.
>
>
> > If JMS spends $1 million an episode and produces garbage, and TNT
> sees
> > this, yes, they will cancel it.
> >
> > But the bottom line is that JMS in his story is the one saing "No."
> So
> > you have no point.
> >
>
> JMS said "no" to proposals to change the show. And my point is, that
> you
> are wrong in your attempts to vilify JMS as the Big Bad Man that
> caused
> all the poor little men to lose their jobs. All he said is that he
> didn't want any changes to his show.
Right, and he pitched a fit and is now trying to paint everything like
he's the victim. No, those without jobs are the victims.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > No, it's not like that at all.
> >
> > Thanks for the clarification
>
> It is not my duty to clarify to you your own mistakes, be they in
> reading comprehension or writing. But this time I will make an
> exeption.
You conceded the entire issue above, so don't laugh.
>
>
> In my analogy the Man with the gun is TNT, the Gun is the
> cancellation,
> the money represents the changes TNT wanted and JMS is the man being
> "attacked". I did not wish to show TNT as the Bag Guy, just as the Guy
>
> with the Power.
Your analogy is about as ridiculous as they come. It contains no
insight into the issue - it is purely Jms=victim, TNT=bad guy. How
insightful.
>
>
> Your analogy, OTOH, was completely irrelevant.
No, it was very relevent, because taxation is one's duty in exchange for
government services. JMS like every other writer should expect some
corporate say because by distributing the show they are doing the writer
a huge favor.
Sergey Bukhman
Berserker wrote:
>
> Sergey Bukhman wrote:
>
> > Berserker wrote:
> > >
> > > JMS's pigheadedness and his refusal to acquiese to TNT led to its
> > > cancelling. At best you can say that TNT saw what a stinker they
> > had,
> > > got JMS mad, and used his temper as an excuse to cancel it.
> > >
> >
> > TNT don't need an excuse. They can do as they wish.
> >
> > It's simple, Berserker. JMS didn't want to do what they said. He said
> > "no" to the propositions. He wanted to do his show the way he wanted.
> > TNT disagreed and decided it is not in their best interests to
> > continue
> > funding of a show they have no confidence in.
>
> Thanks for conceding. JMS said no. He was more concerned about his
> vision than he was concerned about the people around him.
>
Must I repeat myself once again?
JMS said "no" to proposed changes. He did not say "no" to Crusade. TNT
did.
> >
> > In my analogy the Man with the gun is TNT, the Gun is the
> > cancellation,
> > the money represents the changes TNT wanted and JMS is the man being
> > "attacked". I did not wish to show TNT as the Bag Guy, just as the Guy
> > with the Power.
>
> Your analogy is about as ridiculous as they come. It contains no
> insight into the issue - it is purely Jms=victim, TNT=bad guy. How
> insightful.
>
When I write my posts, I expect people with at least the minimum skills
of reading comprehension to read them. If you don't possess them, let me
know. If you do, be so kind as to *read what I write* before replying.
There are no good guys and no bad guys. There are people with power and
people with less/none. That's what the analogy is about, as I have
stated in the post you replied to. If you can not grasp such a simple
concept, I suggest going back to high school.
> >
> >
> > Your analogy, OTOH, was completely irrelevant.
>
> No, it was very relevent, because taxation is one's duty in exchange for
> government services. JMS like every other writer should expect some
> corporate say because by distributing the show they are doing the writer
> a huge favor.
No Berserker. No one does anyone else favors. That's very naive. They
don't call it the SHOW BUSINESS for nothing. In business, in the real
world, the distributor makes money off of the show he is distributing.
He ain't doing it of the goodness of his heart. He's doing it because
the commercials pay for it.
It's simple.
Ask Ford, he knows all about that. Don't you Ford?
--
Sergey
--
Claiming that Valentine's Day is too "patriarchal,'' radical feminists
such as Andrea Dworkin
are hoping to replace St. Valentine with St. Wilgefortis, a Portuguese
princess who, legend
has it, grew a beard to make herself repellent to men so that she didn't
have to marry
against her wishes, leading to her crucifixion.
Berserker
> Ford Thaxton (for...@earthlink.net) wrote:
> > I showed this to someone who was a big fan of B5 and this was
> > there take on the whole mess:
> > 'If the fairy tale was true, he essentially accepts responsibility
> > for getting the show cancelled...and getting everyone else fired
> > along with him...and pretty much ruining Netter Digital.
> > Because he said 'no'.
> > And he's pretty damned proud of it.'
> > Nuff said
>
> Ford, with all that you say you've accomplished in the vagaries
> of the music and broadcasting industries, you've *always* happily
> accepted *every* suggestion from those above you in the chain of
> command? You would turn out work that would likely *ruin* you for
> future jobs for the sake of saving the current job? You've given
> in to *every* note from those above you in the chain of command,
> regardless of what it would do to your work or your reputation?
>
> Are you *really* saying you have no artistic integrity...and you're
> damned proud of this spinelessness? Huh. So noted.
Is that the issue? No. JMS is hardly the model of the crafty writer.
He's no doubt told off TNT numerous times, and he is doing it in public
now. His reputation is TV science fiction. If he had any shot at
creating another scifi series now, it's dead. He can write movies of
the week and Murder She Wrotes from here on out, see if we care.
Berserker
> Berserker <defau...@domain.com> wrote:
>
> >Lizard wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 20 Mar 1999 15:00:40 -0800, Ford Thaxton
> >> <for...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >I showed this to someone who was a big fan of B5 and this was
> there
> >> take
> >> >on the whole mess:
> >> >
> >> >'If the fairy tale was true, he essentially accepts responsibility
>
> >> for
> >> >getting the show cancelled...and getting everyone else fired along
>
> >> with
> >> >him...and pretty much ruining Netter Digital.
> >> >
> >> >Because he said 'no'.
> >> >
> >> >And he's pretty damned proud of it.'
> >>
> >> And if I were him, I would be too.
> >>
> >> The first duty of any creator is to his own creation, to its
> >> integrity. A musician does not have a duty to keep the record
> >> companies or the concert halls or the music stores or the radio
> >> stations in business. A writer does not exist for the sake of
> >> publishers and book distributors and bookstored. And a scriptwriter
>
> >> owes no moral obligation to actors and special effects technicians
> and
> >>
> >> stagehands.
> >
> >When he has the power to make everyone happy, he does.
>
> You are so wrong about that. When you're succesful, you'll discover
> by how much :)
>
> There is no expectation in the film industry that you'll have regular
> employment beyond the number of episodes commited to. Even so,
> everyone knows a show can get cancelled at any time and hopefullt your
>
> agent or lawyer will have provided for safeguards if you weren't
> fluent enough in legalese to do it for yourself. I don't believe
> anyone working on Crusade thought there was an obligation on the part
> of anyone for their employment for the next five years. It just
> doesn't work that way.
>
But it should have. They all thought that the show had at least a one
year deal, with promises of more considering B5's run. The people
working at Trek, for example, pretty much knew they had a job for seven
years.
For all practical purposes, they had such a chance with Crusade. But
JMS had to inconvenience them.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Assuming this is a more-or-less accurate summation, JMS did the
> right
> >> thing. He could, after all, have sat back and collected the
> paychecks
> >> and let TNT do whatever they wanted -- he didn't. And if he had
> done
> >> this, you would be condemning him for 'selling out', and if he had
> >> said he had done it solely to protect the many people whose
> livlihoods
> >>
> >> were impacted by Crusade, you'd have mocked him and called him a
> liar.
> >
> >No, JMS quit. JMS could have added a tit here or there. He could
> have
> >made the show and pleased everyone. It was the fact that, after 5
> years
> >and so many episodes done by himself, TNT had the nerve to *care*
> about
> >the finished product that set him off.
> >
> In the end, the only person you have to please is yourself. And as
> you know, it's a most daunting task.
You make it sound like masturbation.
Berserker
> On Sat, 20 Mar 1999 16:18:38 -0800, Ford Thaxton
> <for...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >It's one thing to make a choice that impacts your life, it's another
> to
> >make a selfish choice that effects the lives of those who depend on
> you
> >for their paycheck.
>
> Tell me, are you auditioning for the role of Ellsworth Toohey in some
> remake of "The Fountainhead"?
>
The Fountainhead is a fantastic paperweight.
Berserker
> Berserker wrote:
> >
> > Sergey Bukhman wrote:
> >
> > > Berserker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > JMS's pigheadedness and his refusal to acquiese to TNT led to
> its
> > > > cancelling. At best you can say that TNT saw what a stinker
> they
> > > had,
> > > > got JMS mad, and used his temper as an excuse to cancel it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > TNT don't need an excuse. They can do as they wish.
> > >
> > > It's simple, Berserker. JMS didn't want to do what they said. He
> said
> > > "no" to the propositions. He wanted to do his show the way he
> wanted.
> > > TNT disagreed and decided it is not in their best interests to
> > > continue
> > > funding of a show they have no confidence in.
> >
> > Thanks for conceding. JMS said no. He was more concerned about his
>
> > vision than he was concerned about the people around him.
> >
>
> Must I repeat myself once again?
>
> JMS said "no" to proposed changes. He did not say "no" to Crusade. TNT
>
> did.
He said "no" knowing full well that meant TNT would withdraw its
investment.
>
>
> > >
> > > In my analogy the Man with the gun is TNT, the Gun is the
> > > cancellation,
> > > the money represents the changes TNT wanted and JMS is the man
> being
> > > "attacked". I did not wish to show TNT as the Bag Guy, just as the
> Guy
> > > with the Power.
> >
> > Your analogy is about as ridiculous as they come. It contains no
> > insight into the issue - it is purely Jms=victim, TNT=bad guy. How
> > insightful.
> >
>
> When I write my posts, I expect people with at least the minimum
> skills
> of reading comprehension to read them. If you don't possess them, let
> me
> know. If you do, be so kind as to *read what I write* before replying.
You were the one who came up with this bizarre analogy of TNT robbing
JMS. Funny, I thought they PAID him!
>
>
> There are no good guys and no bad guys. There are people with power
> and
> people with less/none. That's what the analogy is about, as I have
> stated in the post you replied to. If you can not grasp such a simple
> concept, I suggest going back to high school.
The problem is, this power analogy is, well, stupid. JMS obviously had
power too - his decision led to the cancellation of the show. JMS made
the first decision in this sequence, remember. I guess if we are to use
your analogy, JMS maid fun of tNT's mother and dared TNT to shoot him.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Your analogy, OTOH, was completely irrelevant.
> >
> > No, it was very relevent, because taxation is one's duty in exchange
> for
> > government services. JMS like every other writer should expect some
>
> > corporate say because by distributing the show they are doing the
> writer
> > a huge favor.
>
> No Berserker. No one does anyone else favors. That's very naive. They
> don't call it the SHOW BUSINESS for nothing. In business, in the real
> world, the distributor makes money off of the show he is distributing.
>
> He ain't doing it of the goodness of his heart. He's doing it because
> the commercials pay for it.
Dumbass, by distributing the show, you are definitely doing the writer a
favor. You're trying to skew things by making me act as if the TV
industry is fluffy and good. It's not. It is a business. The network
invests money. As a result, the network has a RIGHT to have a SAY over
its product. It's really that simple, and thanks for admitting it.
>
>
> It's simple.
>
> Ask Ford, he knows all about that. Don't you Ford?
He seems to know more about it than you.
Berserker
> On Sat, 20 Mar 1999 20:05:27 -0600, Berserker <defau...@domain.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> >Lizard wrote:
> >
>
> >> The first duty of any creator is to his own creation, to its
> >> integrity. A musician does not have a duty to keep the record
> >> companies or the concert halls or the music stores or the radio
> >> stations in business. A writer does not exist for the sake of
> >> publishers and book distributors and bookstored. And a scriptwriter
>
> >> owes no moral obligation to actors and special effects technicians
> and
> >>
> >> stagehands.
> >
> >When he has the power to make everyone happy, he does.
> >
> No, he doesn't. If JMS had decided, halfway through Season 2 of B5,
> that he would rather spend his life in a small cabin in Oregon and
> never write a word again, that would have been his right, too. No one
> is morally bound to work for the benefit of anyone else.
They are when they make a promise to these people. It's called a
contract. This is not some Michael Jordan situation where he can quit
and no one loses their job. Jordan quitting means the Bulls suck,
nothing more. JMS deciding to quit would endanger a good number of
jobs. Not only the people at the B5 sets, but perhaps even the FX
company.
>
>
> >>
> >>
> >> Assuming this is a more-or-less accurate summation, JMS did the
> right
> >> thing. He could, after all, have sat back and collected the
> paychecks
> >> and let TNT do whatever they wanted -- he didn't. And if he had
> done
> >> this, you would be condemning him for 'selling out', and if he had
> >> said he had done it solely to protect the many people whose
> livlihoods
> >>
> >> were impacted by Crusade, you'd have mocked him and called him a
> liar.
> >
> >No, JMS quit. JMS could have added a tit here or there. He could
> have
> >made the show and pleased everyone. It was the fact that, after 5
> years
> >and so many episodes done by himself, TNT had the nerve to *care*
> about
> >the finished product that set him off.
>
> You have an odd definition of 'care'. But it's still irrelevant. He
> was under no obligation to even make Crusade, and certainly under no
> obligation to produce it on any terms but his own.
Once he started it and once he hired people, he did.
It's all so odd. Bill Clinton didn't quit, did he? I'm no Clintonite,
but he felt a responsibility to himself, his family, those who work for
him, and the voters to stay in office. Basically you are saying that
JMS, because he ran off, has no principles.
>
>
> Remember that he doesn't own Crusade, or B5. Warner does. Warner could
>
> have gone on without him. Since they chose not to, doesn't that make
> them just as 'guilty'?
Warner tried to get the show to float, remember? They tried to sell it.
The issue is that fact that break happened in the first place, because
of JMS's ego. Had he not been so pigheaded, Warner wouldnt even be an
issue.
>
>
> For that matter, every time a pilot isn't bought, hundreds of people
> who might have had steady employment end up looking for work. So any
> executive who doesn't buy a pilot is 'guilty' of putting people out of
>
> work.
Except the B5 pilot was bought. The show already had a greenlight.
It's one thing for the investor to say, "No, I don't want my money
here." That is the nature of investing. Otherwise, we'd all be guilty
of getting shows cancelled because e didn't "invest" time in them.
But JMS, before viewers and ratings were even an issue, ran away. TNT
never even got a chance to cancel.
>
>
> And, of course, anyone who doesn't watch a show lowers its ratings --
> so they are guilty to.
See above.
>
>
> For are we not all brothers? Are not all men ultimately one? Is it not
>
> our sacred and moral duty to live by, for, and through others, rather
> than selfishly seeking our own paths and living according to our own
> desires? We must all join together in the hive-mind and shed our
> destructive individuality.
You are assuming that such things as kindness and consideration
consitute slavery. I pity you.
Berserker
> Ford Thaxton <for...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Jeremy Hallum wrote:
> >>
> >> Ford Thaxton (for...@earthlink.net) wrote:
> >>
> >> : I showed this to someone who was a big fan of B5 and this was
> there take
> >> : on the whole mess:
> >> :
> >> : 'If the fairy tale was true, he essentially accepts
> responsibility for
> >> : getting the show cancelled...and getting everyone else fired
> along with
> >> : him...and pretty much ruining Netter Digital.
>
> I was wondering how this impacted Netter Digital to this degree.
> >> :
> [snip]
I have no clue what other jobs Netter has... I can't imagine losing
this helped any, though.
Sergey Bukhman
Berserker wrote:
>
>
> But JMS, before viewers and ratings were even an issue, ran away. TNT
> never even got a chance to cancel.
>
Berserker, you idiot, TNT *did* cancel the show. Geez, you're completely
clueless aren't you?
Please, do us all a favor and go back to watching whatever Trek Crap
Paramount is dumping right now, and leave these discussions to people
with at least an informed opinion.
--
Sergey
--
Claiming that Valentine's Day is too "patriarchal", radical feminists
Sergey Bukhman
Prove that.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > In my analogy the Man with the gun is TNT, the Gun is the
> > > > cancellation,
> > > > the money represents the changes TNT wanted and JMS is the man
> > being
> > > > "attacked". I did not wish to show TNT as the Bag Guy, just as the
> > Guy
> > > > with the Power.
> > >
> > > Your analogy is about as ridiculous as they come. It contains no
> > > insight into the issue - it is purely Jms=victim, TNT=bad guy. How
> > > insightful.
> > >
> >
> > When I write my posts, I expect people with at least the minimum
> > skills
> > of reading comprehension to read them. If you don't possess them, let
> > me
> > know. If you do, be so kind as to *read what I write* before replying.
>
> You were the one who came up with this bizarre analogy of TNT robbing
> JMS. Funny, I thought they PAID him!
>
Yeah, it only works when you have a brain. Sorry about that
inconsideration.
> >
> >
> > There are no good guys and no bad guys. There are people with power
> > and
> > people with less/none. That's what the analogy is about, as I have
> > stated in the post you replied to. If you can not grasp such a simple
> > concept, I suggest going back to high school.
>
> The problem is, this power analogy is, well, stupid. JMS obviously had
> power too - his decision led to the cancellation of the show.
His decision led to him not accepting the changes. Just like the guy's
decision led to him not handing over the money.
> JMS made
> the first decision in this sequence, remember.
Just like the guy who decided not to give his money.
> I guess if we are to use
> your analogy, JMS maid fun of tNT's mother and dared TNT to shoot him.
>
That doesn't follow.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your analogy, OTOH, was completely irrelevant.
> > >
> > > No, it was very relevent, because taxation is one's duty in exchange
> > for
> > > government services. JMS like every other writer should expect some
> >
> > > corporate say because by distributing the show they are doing the
> > writer
> > > a huge favor.
> >
> > No Berserker. No one does anyone else favors. That's very naive. They
> > don't call it the SHOW BUSINESS for nothing. In business, in the real
> > world, the distributor makes money off of the show he is distributing.
> >
> > He ain't doing it of the goodness of his heart. He's doing it because
> > the commercials pay for it.
>
> Dumbass, by distributing the show, you are definitely doing the writer a
> favor.
How is that? You are paying him, and the commercials pay you. So where
is the favor?
Berserker
> >
> If TNT thinks he 'cheated' them, they can sic their lawyers on him
> whenever they wish. The fact they aren't indicates he fulfilled his
> LEGAL obligation,
Or, it could be that they thought the show was shit and was glad to get
it off their hands. It's not like at that point bringing in another
person was very much feasible
> which leaves the question of his moral obligation --
> and he fulfilled that, too, since his moral obligation was solely to
> himself and his own sense of integrity.
How noble.
>
>
> Just because YOU sell out, doesn't mean everyone does. Your "real
> world" clearly isn't the one REAL creators live in. History is filled
> with artists who chose their integrity over all other concerns. Some
> of them ultimately became rich and famous. A lot of them died poor and
>
> alone. That's their choice.
Right, but TV isn't art, and making a show isn't painting a picture. No
one is out of work if you decide not to paint something.
>
>
> Of course, none of this alters the fact that, if JMS had 'added tits',
>
> this ng would be filled with you complaining about THAT.
No, it would depend on how good the show and those tits were. Simple
fact.
>
>
> Or will you state, for the record that:"I, Ford Thaxton, would have
> praised JMS for selling out to TNT, because it would have meant work
> for the cast&crew of Crusade, and I would have watched it every week
> religiously, in order to boost the ratings and keep those folks
> employed. Further, I would have devoted my obviously copious free time
>
> to attacking all those who called the changes 'selling out'."
Blah blah blah. Who said it was "selling out"?
Tom Salyers
Thaxton) says...
> blah blah blah JMS blah blah little creation blah
> blah blah the TRUTH blah blah blah precious bodily
> fluids...
I *knew* there was a reason why I re-enabled
my killfiles.
*plonk*
(Oh, and Ford...*don't* email me. 'k?)
--
Tom Salyers "Now is the Windows of our disk contents
IRCnick: Aqualung Made glorious SimEarth by this Sun of Zork."
Denver, CO --from _Richard v3.0_
http://www.dimensional.com/~tsalyers/
Sergey Bukhman
Fordat1 wrote:
>
> >?Throughout all this, over the last five years, like many a flawed person
> >in both history and the present, JMS has been incredibly gifted with
> >astoundingly stupid adversaries.
>
> don't you mean foolish fans who are blind to the truth?
>
> like you?
>
> Ford A. Thaxton (for...@aol.com)
Game, set, match.
norv...@sirius.com
>Ford Thaxton (for...@earthlink.net) wrote:
>>I showed this to someone who was a big fan of B5 and this was there take
>>on the whole mess:
>>'If the fairy tale was true, he essentially accepts responsibility for
>>getting the show cancelled...and getting everyone else fired along with
>>him...and pretty much ruining Netter Digital.
Oh, really. Ruining them? Can't they do other projects? Pardon me, I must
be terribly naive for asking that.
>>Because he said 'no'.
>>And he's pretty damned proud of it.'
>
> And I would be too. I'm damn proud of him for standing up for
> what he believes in.
If "tits and 'splosions" was what TNT wanted -- y'know, the ultimate
wrestling/violence channel, after all -- then I think JMS was perfectly
justified in saying NO. I would have, not that I'd ever get *into* the
entertainment industry in the first place. <gag>
> Do you believe in something you created that much, Ford? Or better yet, have
> you ever created anything in your worthless life? Get back to me when
you have.
Hmm. Actually, didn't he help to create a daughter? Though procreating is
all too easy to do... ;-)
Lizard
>
>I showed this to someone who was a big fan of B5 and this was there take
>on the whole mess:
>
>'If the fairy tale was true, he essentially accepts responsibility for
>getting the show cancelled...and getting everyone else fired along with
>him...and pretty much ruining Netter Digital.
>
>Because he said 'no'.
>
>And he's pretty damned proud of it.'
And if I were him, I would be too.
The first duty of any creator is to his own creation, to its
integrity. A musician does not have a duty to keep the record
companies or the concert halls or the music stores or the radio
stations in business. A writer does not exist for the sake of
publishers and book distributors and bookstored. And a scriptwriter
owes no moral obligation to actors and special effects technicians and
stagehands.
Assuming this is a more-or-less accurate summation, JMS did the right
thing. He could, after all, have sat back and collected the paychecks
and let TNT do whatever they wanted -- he didn't. And if he had done
this, you would be condemning him for 'selling out', and if he had
said he had done it solely to protect the many people whose livlihoods
were impacted by Crusade, you'd have mocked him and called him a liar.
Face it -- you have no stance other than "Whatever JMS does is wrong".
That places you on an infinitely low moral plane.
*----------------------------------------------------*
Evolution doesn't take prisoners:Lizard
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice;
Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue:AuH20
http://www.mrlizard.com
Lizard
<for...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>It's one thing to make a choice that impacts your life, it's another to
>make a selfish choice that effects the lives of those who depend on you
>for their paycheck.
Tell me, are you auditioning for the role of Ellsworth Toohey in some
remake of "The Fountainhead"?
Lizard
wrote:
>
>Perhaps the real answer is that JMS is merely a control freak, a control
>freak who doesnt care if people get fired because he has his vision.
"Who is John Galt?"
'nuff said.
verseau
> >And he's pretty damned proud of it.'
> And if I were him, I would be too.
>
> The first duty of any creator is to his own creation, to its
> integrity.
> Assuming this is a more-or-less accurate summation, JMS did the right
> thing. He could, after all, have sat back and collected the paychecks
> and let TNT do whatever they wanted -- he didn't. And if he had done
> this, you would be condemning him for 'selling out', and if he had
> said he had done it solely to protect the many people whose livlihoods
> were impacted by Crusade, you'd have mocked him and called him a liar.
> Face it -- you have no stance other than "Whatever JMS does is wrong".
> That places you on an infinitely low moral plane.
Well said.
I have disagreed with things JMS has said/done/wrote and at times I've
spoken out pretty strongly against him, but it sounds to me like he did
the right thing. I make no assertions about the quality of Crusade, since
I haven't seen any episodes, but every person has the right to stand up
for themselves. JMS is not at fault for wanting to maintain his standards
and it would be unethical of anyone to ask him to compromise.
Ed Dravecky III
> I showed this to someone who was a big fan of B5 and this was
> there take on the whole mess:
> 'If the fairy tale was true, he essentially accepts responsibility
> for getting the show cancelled...and getting everyone else fired
> along with him...and pretty much ruining Netter Digital.
> Because he said 'no'.
Ford, with all that you say you've accomplished in the vagaries
of the music and broadcasting industries, you've *always* happily
accepted *every* suggestion from those above you in the chain of
command? You would turn out work that would likely *ruin* you for
future jobs for the sake of saving the current job? You've given
in to *every* note from those above you in the chain of command,
regardless of what it would do to your work or your reputation?
Are you *really* saying you have no artistic integrity...and you're
damned proud of this spinelessness? Huh. So noted.
--
Ed Dravecky III <*>
dshe...@netcom.com
Fordat1
Ford Thaxton (for...@earthlink.net) wrote:
> I showed this to someone who was a big fan of B5 and this was
> there take on the whole mess:
> 'If the fairy tale was true, he essentially accepts responsibility
> for getting the show cancelled...and getting everyone else fired
> along with him...and pretty much ruining Netter Digital.
> Because he said 'no'.
> And he's pretty damned proud of it.'
> Nuff said
>Ford, with all that you say you've accomplished in the vagaries
>of the music and broadcasting industries, you've *always* happily
>accepted *every* suggestion from those above you in the chain of
>command?
Can we start living in the world now?
Some battles you win, some you lose. That's the nature of any business.
The point is get the project done the best you can within limits you must work
within.
>You would turn out work that would likely *ruin* you for
>future jobs for the sake of saving the current job?
I've done things that didn't turn out that well, you just get the job done and
move on.
The odd thing is one of the projects I did that I thought was AWFUL, sold over
a 100,000 units.
>You've given in to *every* note from those above you in the chain of >command,
regardless of what it would do to your work or your >reputation?
When you take their money, you accept the fact that they have a say over how a
project turns out. That's how it works in the real world in any business.
>Are you *really* saying you have no artistic integrity...and you're
>amned proud of this spinelessness? Huh. So noted.
--
>Ed Dravecky III <*>
"artistic integrity" can be very costly, if you can afford it that fine.
But can the folks who depend on your for a job afford it as well
Ed, they don't call it SHOW BUSINESS for nothing.
Ford A. Thaxton (for...@aol.com)
Lizard
<tfha...@hiwaay.net> wrote:
>
>Lizard wrote in message <36f54be6...@news3.dnai.com>...
>>On Sat, 20 Mar 1999 16:18:38 -0800, Ford Thaxton
>><for...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>It's one thing to make a choice that impacts your life, it's another to
>>>make a selfish choice that effects the lives of those who depend on you
>>>for their paycheck.
>>
>>Tell me, are you auditioning for the role of Ellsworth Toohey in some
>>remake of "The Fountainhead"?
>
>
>That would require a step up for Thaxton.
True enough...toohey was supposed to be charming and witty, to cover
his inner corruption. Thaxton is so blatantly vile he'd fail in the
role.
Maybe James Taggart? He was a pretty blatant weasel. Some Randian
villain -- only in a Rand novel would anyone say that it's one persons
moral duty to violate their artistic integrity in order to keep
strangers employed! It's so utterly ridiculous that it shows Thaxton's
true character.
I mean, for most people, the mere fact that Crusade failed would be
'gloat points' enough. But Thaxton is such a twisted and loathesome
creature he can't even be content with dancing on his enemies grave -
he has to dig up the corpse to spit on it.
A wonderful specimen of humanity, and the main reason I'm a
misanthrope -- there's a lot of folks like him.
Lizard
wrote:
>Lizard wrote:
>
>> The first duty of any creator is to his own creation, to its
>> integrity. A musician does not have a duty to keep the record
>> companies or the concert halls or the music stores or the radio
>> stations in business. A writer does not exist for the sake of
>> publishers and book distributors and bookstored. And a scriptwriter
>> owes no moral obligation to actors and special effects technicians and
>>
>> stagehands.
>
>When he has the power to make everyone happy, he does.
>
No, he doesn't. If JMS had decided, halfway through Season 2 of B5,
that he would rather spend his life in a small cabin in Oregon and
never write a word again, that would have been his right, too. No one
is morally bound to work for the benefit of anyone else.
>>
>>
>> Assuming this is a more-or-less accurate summation, JMS did the right
>> thing. He could, after all, have sat back and collected the paychecks
>> and let TNT do whatever they wanted -- he didn't. And if he had done
>> this, you would be condemning him for 'selling out', and if he had
>> said he had done it solely to protect the many people whose livlihoods
>>
>> were impacted by Crusade, you'd have mocked him and called him a liar.
>
>No, JMS quit. JMS could have added a tit here or there. He could have
>made the show and pleased everyone. It was the fact that, after 5 years
>and so many episodes done by himself, TNT had the nerve to *care* about
>the finished product that set him off.
You have an odd definition of 'care'. But it's still irrelevant. He
was under no obligation to even make Crusade, and certainly under no
obligation to produce it on any terms but his own.
Remember that he doesn't own Crusade, or B5. Warner does. Warner could
have gone on without him. Since they chose not to, doesn't that make
them just as 'guilty'?
For that matter, every time a pilot isn't bought, hundreds of people
who might have had steady employment end up looking for work. So any
executive who doesn't buy a pilot is 'guilty' of putting people out of
work.
And, of course, anyone who doesn't watch a show lowers its ratings --
so they are guilty to.
For are we not all brothers? Are not all men ultimately one? Is it not
our sacred and moral duty to live by, for, and through others, rather
than selfishly seeking our own paths and living according to our own
desires? We must all join together in the hive-mind and shed our
destructive individuality.
*----------------------------------------------------*
Fordat1
On Sat, 20 Mar 1999 20:05:27 -0600, Berserker <defau...@domain.com>
wrote:
>Lizard wrote:
>
>> The first duty of any creator is to his own creation, to its
>> integrity. A musician does not have a duty to keep the record
>> companies or the concert halls or the music stores or the radio
>> stations in business. A writer does not exist for the sake of
>> publishers and book distributors and bookstored. And a scriptwriter
>> owes no moral obligation to actors and special effects technicians and
>>
>> stagehands.
>
>When he has the power to make everyone happy, he does.
>
>No, he doesn't. If JMS had decided, halfway through Season 2 of B5,
>that he would rather spend his life in a small cabin in Oregon and
>never write a word again, that would have been his right, too. No one
>is morally bound to work for the benefit of anyone else.
But legally you are.
JMS signed a five year deal like everyone else, if he had quit without WB
permission, they would have sued his ass into the next century.
That's how it works in the real world.
>>
>>
>> Assuming this is a more-or-less accurate summation, JMS did the right
>> thing. He could, after all, have sat back and collected the paychecks
>> and let TNT do whatever they wanted -- he didn't. And if he had done
>> this, you would be condemning him for 'selling out', and if he had
>> said he had done it solely to protect the many people whose livlihoods
>>
>> were impacted by Crusade, you'd have mocked him and called him a liar.
>
>No, JMS quit. JMS could have added a tit here or there. He could have
>made the show and pleased everyone. It was the fact that, after 5 years
>and so many episodes done by himself, TNT had the nerve to *care* about
>the finished product that set him off.
>You have an odd definition of 'care'. But it's still irrelevant. He
?>was under no obligation to even make Crusade, and certainly under no
?obligation to produce it on any terms but his own.
But he signed the contract and took their money.
He made his deal with the devil.
Something you don't like addressing.
Ford A. Thaxton (for...@aol.com)
La...@la.com
>Jeremy Hallum wrote:
>>
>> Ford Thaxton (for...@earthlink.net) wrote:
>>
>> : I showed this to someone who was a big fan of B5 and this was there take
>> : on the whole mess:
>> :
>> : 'If the fairy tale was true, he essentially accepts responsibility for
>> : getting the show cancelled...and getting everyone else fired along with
>> : him...and pretty much ruining Netter Digital.
I was wondering how this impacted Netter Digital to this degree.
>> :
[snip]
Lizard
>From: liz...@dnai.com (Lizard)
>
>
>>No, he doesn't. If JMS had decided, halfway through Season 2 of B5,
>>that he would rather spend his life in a small cabin in Oregon and
>>never write a word again, that would have been his right, too. No one
>>is morally bound to work for the benefit of anyone else.
>
>But legally you are.
>
Then TNT can sue JMS. The fact they haven't indicates he WASN'T
legally bound to continue.
>JMS signed a five year deal like everyone else, if he had quit without WB
>permission, they would have sued his ass into the next century.
>
>That's how it works in the real world.
>
Well, that explains Season 5.
IAE, it's obvious such a contract was NOT in force here -- witness the
non-suing being conducted by TNT.
>
>
>>You have an odd definition of 'care'. But it's still irrelevant. He
>?>was under no obligation to even make Crusade, and certainly under no
>?obligation to produce it on any terms but his own.
>
>But he signed the contract and took their money.
>
And he did the work he was contracted for.
>He made his deal with the devil.
>
And the deal was finished, and he didn't re-up.
>
>Something you don't like addressing.
>
If TNT thinks he 'cheated' them, they can sic their lawyers on him
whenever they wish. The fact they aren't indicates he fulfilled his
LEGAL obligation, which leaves the question of his moral obligation --
and he fulfilled that, too, since his moral obligation was solely to
himself and his own sense of integrity.
Just because YOU sell out, doesn't mean everyone does. Your "real
world" clearly isn't the one REAL creators live in. History is filled
with artists who chose their integrity over all other concerns. Some
of them ultimately became rich and famous. A lot of them died poor and
alone. That's their choice.
Of course, none of this alters the fact that, if JMS had 'added tits',
this ng would be filled with you complaining about THAT.
Or will you state, for the record that:"I, Ford Thaxton, would have
praised JMS for selling out to TNT, because it would have meant work
for the cast&crew of Crusade, and I would have watched it every week
religiously, in order to boost the ratings and keep those folks
employed. Further, I would have devoted my obviously copious free time
to attacking all those who called the changes 'selling out'."
Come on. Tell us that would REALLY have been what you would have done.
We'll believe you.
>
>
>Ford A. Thaxton (for...@aol.com)
La...@la.com
[snip]
>Why? JMS, last time I checked, they're paying the bill. I think
>they're entitled to a say.
This is true up to a point. One of the big problems in "Hollywood"
today is the willy-nilly interference of "money men" in things that
should be left alone. If they hired JMS, it's for him to do what he
does best, which is writing and producing TV shows. Those people are
not writers. They should let him do what he does best.
Now things are never that clear when you deal with millions of dollars
and a certain amount of involvement is to be expected, but this
involvement is almost always detrimental to the product and the bottom
line...
BTW, do not construe this as an endorsement of JMS's unfailing genius.
I lost all interest in B5 during season 5 and think he should have
gotten the help he needed writing all those stories.
>
>
>No, as in "No, starting the series off five months after the pilot is a
>stupid idea."
Right... It IS a stupid idea.
>
>
>JMS, do you have any evidence of this? You can't get away with this
>sort of half-libel and expect me to even remotely believe it unless you
>have proof. Star Trek producers have often said that Paramount doesn't
>tell them to put tits in a script. If the evil Trek Franchise doesnt do
>that, why would TNT?
Well, there is potentially a huge difference between what a producer
will admit to publicly and what actually occurs. Because the ST
people claim in public there is no interference of that kind doiesn't
make it so and in any case doesn't mean that TNT will not be different
than Paramount or upn.
>
>
>Basically, the message is that JMS has a bad temper. He can't make a
>reasoned case to TNT about his show. He can't produce a show with tits
>and smarts, despite the fact that Babylon 5 in the past, without TNT's
>initiative, had tits. JMS, I just don't see how TNT wanting tits
>precludes a good show. NYPD Blue shows asses all the time, and it gets
>Emmys.
I have to disagree with your assertion there again. Getting Emmys
does not a quality show make. As to resisting mindless exploitation,
if that is indeed what JMS did, then my hat's off to him.
>
>Perhaps the real answer is that JMS is merely a control freak, a control
>freak who doesnt care if people get fired because he has his vision.
>
It is a quandary. Would you want to work, potentially for years, on a
project you don't believe in when you don't need the money just so you
can provide work for others? I really don't believe his
responsibility extends that far. The man has a responsibility to his
family and his close business associates, he's not supposed to provide
work for the rest of the world.
La...@la.com
>Lizard wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 20 Mar 1999 15:00:40 -0800, Ford Thaxton
>> <for...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >I showed this to someone who was a big fan of B5 and this was there
>> take
>> >on the whole mess:
>> >
>> >'If the fairy tale was true, he essentially accepts responsibility
>> for
>> >getting the show cancelled...and getting everyone else fired along
>> with
>> >him...and pretty much ruining Netter Digital.
>> >
>> >Because he said 'no'.
>> >
>> >And he's pretty damned proud of it.'
>>
>> And if I were him, I would be too.
>>
>> The first duty of any creator is to his own creation, to its
>> integrity. A musician does not have a duty to keep the record
>> companies or the concert halls or the music stores or the radio
>> stations in business. A writer does not exist for the sake of
>> publishers and book distributors and bookstored. And a scriptwriter
>> owes no moral obligation to actors and special effects technicians and
>>
>> stagehands.
>
>When he has the power to make everyone happy, he does.
You are so wrong about that. When you're succesful, you'll discover
by how much :)
There is no expectation in the film industry that you'll have regular
employment beyond the number of episodes commited to. Even so,
everyone knows a show can get cancelled at any time and hopefullt your
agent or lawyer will have provided for safeguards if you weren't
fluent enough in legalese to do it for yourself. I don't believe
anyone working on Crusade thought there was an obligation on the part
of anyone for their employment for the next five years. It just
doesn't work that way.
>
>>
>>
>> Assuming this is a more-or-less accurate summation, JMS did the right
>> thing. He could, after all, have sat back and collected the paychecks
>> and let TNT do whatever they wanted -- he didn't. And if he had done
>> this, you would be condemning him for 'selling out', and if he had
>> said he had done it solely to protect the many people whose livlihoods
>>
>> were impacted by Crusade, you'd have mocked him and called him a liar.
>
>No, JMS quit. JMS could have added a tit here or there. He could have
>made the show and pleased everyone. It was the fact that, after 5 years
>and so many episodes done by himself, TNT had the nerve to *care* about
>the finished product that set him off.
>
La...@la.com
>From: liz...@dnai.com (Lizard)
>
>On Sat, 20 Mar 1999 20:05:27 -0600, Berserker <defau...@domain.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Lizard wrote:
>>
>
>>> The first duty of any creator is to his own creation, to its
>>> integrity. A musician does not have a duty to keep the record
>>> companies or the concert halls or the music stores or the radio
>>> stations in business. A writer does not exist for the sake of
>>> publishers and book distributors and bookstored. And a scriptwriter
>>> owes no moral obligation to actors and special effects technicians and
>>>
>>> stagehands.
>>
>>When he has the power to make everyone happy, he does.
>>
>
>>No, he doesn't. If JMS had decided, halfway through Season 2 of B5,
>>that he would rather spend his life in a small cabin in Oregon and
>>never write a word again, that would have been his right, too. No one
>>is morally bound to work for the benefit of anyone else.
>
>But legally you are.
>
>JMS signed a five year deal like everyone else, if he had quit without WB
>permission, they would have sued his ass into the next century.
>
>That's how it works in the real world.
Except that those deals have been held by the courts to be
uncounscionable and therefore not applicable. That is why people now
routinely get out of their contracts (usually by negotiating out) if
they're unhappy with their situation. Not that breaking even that
type of contract doesn't create tons of hassles.
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>No, JMS quit. JMS could have added a tit here or there. He could have
>>made the show and pleased everyone. It was the fact that, after 5 years
>>and so many episodes done by himself, TNT had the nerve to *care* about
>>the finished product that set him off.
>
>>You have an odd definition of 'care'. But it's still irrelevant. He
>?>was under no obligation to even make Crusade, and certainly under no
>?obligation to produce it on any terms but his own.
>
>But he signed the contract and took their money.
Unless we had the contract in front of us, it is difficult to discuss
it. Some contracts are little better than indentured servitude,
others give creators carte blanche on what they want to create. In
any case, you make a potentially valid point. :)
>
>He made his deal with the devil.
>
>
>Something you don't like addressing.
>
>
>
>Ford A. Thaxton (for...@aol.com)
Fordat1
On 21 Mar 1999 03:45:18 GMT, for...@aol.com (Fordat1) wrote:
>From: liz...@dnai.com (Lizard)
>
>
>>No, he doesn't. If JMS had decided, halfway through Season 2 of B5,
>>that he would rather spend his life in a small cabin in Oregon and
>>never write a word again, that would have been his right, too. No one
>>is morally bound to work for the benefit of anyone else.
>
>But legally you are.
>
:Then TNT can sue JMS. The fact they haven't indicates he WASN'T
:legally bound to continue.
Still not living in the real world I see.
TNT pulled the plug, no need to sue.
they cut their losses and moved on.
>JMS signed a five year deal like everyone else, if he had quit without WB
>permission, they would have sued his ass into the next century.
>
>That's how it works in the real world.
>
:Well, that explains Season 5.
:IAE, it's obvious such a contract was NOT in force here -- witness the
:non-suing being conducted by TNT.
TNT has the opition to cancell a show and stop paying everyone.
No need to sue now.
>
>
>>You have an odd definition of 'care'. But it's still irrelevant. He
>?>was under no obligation to even make Crusade, and certainly under no
>?obligation to produce it on any terms but his own.
>
>But he signed the contract and took their money.
>
:And he did the work he was contracted for.
That might not be the case, consideing that TNT was rathe unhappy it seems with
what he delivered based on the fact that they didn't pick up the back nine.
>He made his deal with the devil.
>
:And the deal was finished, and he didn't re-up.
Reality Check: TNT pulled the plug, not JMS.
>
>Something you don't like addressing.
>
:If TNT thinks he 'cheated' them, they can sic their lawyers on him
:whenever they wish. The fact they aren't indicates he fulfilled his
:LEGAL obligation, which leaves the question of his moral obligation --
:and he fulfilled that, too, since his moral obligation was solely to
:himself and his own sense of integrity.
That you know of at this time.
Anything is possible.
>Just because YOU sell out, doesn't mean everyone does.
How old are you? Are you still in school or something?
Here is a scoop, everyone sells out to one degree or another
You do it when you take their money.
>Your "real world" clearly isn't the one REAL creators live in. History is
>filled with artists who chose their integrity over all other concerns.
And many of them paid a high price.
However we're not talking art, we talking SHOW BUSINESS.
tha'ts a very different animal.
>Some of them ultimately became rich and famous. A lot of them died >poor and
alone. That's their choice.
But how many took others down with them?
?Of course, none of this alters the fact that, if JMS had 'added tits',
?this ng would be filled with you complaining about THAT.
yeah, but he would have had a show on the air and bought time to make TPTB see
things his way.
>Or will you state, for the record that:"I, Ford Thaxton, would have
>praised JMS for selling out to TNT, because it would have meant work
>for the cast&crew of Crusade, and I would have watched it every week
>religiously, in order to boost the ratings and keep those folks
>employed. Further, I would have devoted my obviously copious free >time to
attacking all those who called the changes 'selling out'."
I know it's show business, ratings will decide, not you or me.
Regards
Ford A. Thaxton (for...@aol.com)
TrombeGuy
>vision than he was concerned about the people around him.
I don't get it, Berserker. If the creator of a show you liked suddenly decided
to give in to network pressure to change things he didn't want to change, I bet
you would be mad at him for "compromising his vision." But JMS does it and you
freak.
Also, how do you know that the people in the cast and crew didn't agree with
JMS' decision to say no? Maybe they weren't interested in doing a show that
wasn't what they originally signed up for.
La...@la.com
[snip]
> JMS didn't want to do what they said. He said
>"no" to the propositions. He wanted to do his show the way he wanted.
>TNT disagreed and decided it is not in their best interests to continue
>funding of a show they have no confidence in.
This probably very close to what happened. Of course, there are no
bad guys in htat scenario, something which some people are not likely
to enjoy... :)
>
La...@la.com
[snip]
>
> JMS like every other writer should expect some
>corporate say because by distributing the show they are doing the writer
>a huge favor.
And in writing it, he's doing tham a huge favor. It's called a
mutually beneficial relationship. When it stops being a mutually
beneficial relationship, it ends. There is no need to villify anyone.
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sergey
>> --
>>
>> The End is near... ...and I would
>> fear
>> The following beginning.
>
>
>
La...@la.com
[selective snips]
>Lizard wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 20 Mar 1999 20:05:27 -0600, Berserker <defau...@domain.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Lizard wrote:
>> >
>>
>> >> The first duty of any creator is to his own creation, to its
>> >> integrity. A musician does not have a duty to keep the record
>> >> companies or the concert halls or the music stores or the radio
>> >> stations in business. A writer does not exist for the sake of
>> >> publishers and book distributors and bookstored. And a scriptwriter
>>
>> >> owes no moral obligation to actors and special effects technicians
>> and
>> >>
>> >> stagehands.
>> >
>> >When he has the power to make everyone happy, he does.
>> >
>> No, he doesn't. If JMS had decided, halfway through Season 2 of B5,
>> that he would rather spend his life in a small cabin in Oregon and
>> never write a word again, that would have been his right, too. No one
>> is morally bound to work for the benefit of anyone else.
>
>They are when they make a promise to these people. It's called a
>contract. This is not some Michael Jordan situation where he can quit
>and no one loses their job. Jordan quitting means the Bulls suck,
>nothing more.
Actually it's more than likely that, as the influx of money to that
organization slows, they will fire a number of people. That's just
the way it works. It's not Jordan's responsibility.
>JMS deciding to quit would endanger a good number of
>jobs. Not only the people at the B5 sets, but perhaps even the FX
>company.
>
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Assuming this is a more-or-less accurate summation, JMS did the
>> right
>> >> thing. He could, after all, have sat back and collected the
>> paychecks
>> >> and let TNT do whatever they wanted -- he didn't. And if he had
>> done
>> >> this, you would be condemning him for 'selling out', and if he had
>> >> said he had done it solely to protect the many people whose
>> livlihoods
>> >>
>> >> were impacted by Crusade, you'd have mocked him and called him a
>> liar.
>> >
>> >No, JMS quit. JMS could have added a tit here or there. He could
>> have
>> >made the show and pleased everyone. It was the fact that, after 5
>> years
>> >and so many episodes done by himself, TNT had the nerve to *care*
>> about
>> >the finished product that set him off.
>>
>> You have an odd definition of 'care'. But it's still irrelevant. He
>> was under no obligation to even make Crusade, and certainly under no
>> obligation to produce it on any terms but his own.
>
>Once he started it and once he hired people, he did.
Fortunately, people in the film industry know better than that. :)
>Except the B5 pilot was bought. The show already had a greenlight.
>It's one thing for the investor to say, "No, I don't want my money
>here." That is the nature of investing. Otherwise, we'd all be guilty
>of getting shows cancelled because e didn't "invest" time in them.
>
>But JMS, before viewers and ratings were even an issue, ran away. TNT
>never even got a chance to cancel.
>
I thought they did, even before the first episode aired... They
didn't like it, didn't believe in it and pulled the plug. That's
their prerogative.
>>
>>
La...@la.com
>La...@LA.com wrote:
>
>> Berserker <defau...@domain.com> wrote:
[snip]
>> >When he has the power to make everyone happy, he does.
>>
>> You are so wrong about that. When you're succesful, you'll discover
>> by how much :)
>>
>> There is no expectation in the film industry that you'll have regular
>> employment beyond the number of episodes commited to. Even so,
>> everyone knows a show can get cancelled at any time and hopefullt your
>>
>> agent or lawyer will have provided for safeguards if you weren't
>> fluent enough in legalese to do it for yourself. I don't believe
>> anyone working on Crusade thought there was an obligation on the part
>> of anyone for their employment for the next five years. It just
>> doesn't work that way.
>>
>
>But it should have. They all thought that the show had at least a one
>year deal, with promises of more considering B5's run. The people
>working at Trek, for example, pretty much knew they had a job for seven
>years.
I have to respectfully disagree with you there. I don't know what the
contractual situation was in Crusade's case. It sounds that they had
a 13 episode commitment with option for a back nine and four more
seasons. Everyone who signed on knew that. If they expected more,
they were very uninformed about the situation. Similarly, if the
rating for, say, Voyager had been horrible, the show would have been
cancelled. All the people who worked on it knew that. You always
expect a show to be a hit, but there is no such thing as guaranteed
employment in this day and age in the film industry.
>
>For all practical purposes, they had such a chance with Crusade. But
>JMS had to inconvenience them.
Once again, that's the nature of the beast. you're going to be
"unemployed" a lot more than you're going to be "employed".
>> In the end, the only person you have to please is yourself. And as
>> you know, it's a most daunting task.
>
>You make it sound like masturbation.
>
LOL :)
La...@la.com
[snip]
>
>Dumbass, by distributing the show, you are definitely doing the writer a
>favor. You're trying to skew things by making me act as if the TV
>industry is fluffy and good. It's not. It is a business. The network
>invests money. As a result, the network has a RIGHT to have a SAY over
>its product. It's really that simple, and thanks for admitting it.
Now, now... No reason to call people names... :)
But to clarify something. The amount of intrusion into a show by the
people who order it (studio and distribution outlet) is the subject of
preliminary contract negotiations. Some people (like Matt Groening on
The Simpsons) get a free rein, some (like Matt Groening on Futurama)
most really, don't.
We not privvy to JMS's contract so we really can't know unless he
tells us (and if we believe him).
Everything is negotiable. That's the first law of show business.
>
>>
>>
>> It's simple.
>>
>> Ask Ford, he knows all about that. Don't you Ford?
>
>He seems to know more about it than you.
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sergey
>> --
>>
>> Claiming that Valentine's Day is too "patriarchal,'' radical feminists
Aaron Bergman
in both history and the present, JMS has been incredibly gifted with
astoundingly stupid adversaries.
Aaron
--
Aaron Bergman
<http://www.princeton.edu/~abergman/>
Fordat1
>in both history and the present, JMS has been incredibly gifted with
>astoundingly stupid adversaries.
don't you mean foolish fans who are blind to the truth?
James D Thompson
> From: liz...@dnai.com (Lizard)
> On 21 Mar 1999 03:45:18 GMT, for...@aol.com (Fordat1) wrote:
> >From: liz...@dnai.com (Lizard)
"So Harvey, whatever happened to the giant penny?"
David Thompson, let's see who gets *that*...
--
"The humans founded America, mastered the nuclear forces, and destroyed
the original Mars about thirty thousand years ago."
"So George Washington was there when they split the atom?"
"Could have been."
-from "Triumph of the Terrans", copyright 24L1042
Klyfix
writes:
>
>It's one thing to make a choice that impacts your life, it's another to
>make a selfish choice that effects the lives of those who depend on you
>for their paycheck.
So essentially, if you're told to produce utter crap you should prostitute
your vision rather than say "no, I won't".
V.S. Greene : kly...@aol.com : Boston, near Arkham...
Eckzylon: http://members.aol.com/klyfix/eckzylon.html
RPG and SF, predictions, philosophy, and other things.
Revised in subtle ways, Feb. 12, 1999
Fordat1
Fordat1 wrote:
> From: liz...@dnai.com (Lizard)
> On 21 Mar 1999 03:45:18 GMT, for...@aol.com (Fordat1) wrote:
> >From: liz...@dnai.com (Lizard)
>> "So Harvey, whatever happened to the giant penny?"
>>David Thompson, let's see who gets *that*...
If you keep that up, Mr. Dent will have to file charges against you.
:-)
Ford A. Thaxton (for...@aol.com)
Fordat1
In article <36F43A...@earthlink.net>, Ford Thaxton <for...@earthlink.net>
writes:
>
>It's one thing to make a choice that impacts your life, it's another to
>make a selfish choice that effects the lives of those who depend on you
>for their paycheck.
:So essentially, if you're told to produce utter crap you should prostitute
:your vision rather than say "no, I won't".
If I had hundreds of folks who depended on me for their paychecks and I signed
the deal with my eyes open.
You do the best you can.
We all "prostitute" ourselves to one degree or another in this life.
Some of us are just more honest about.
Ford A. Thaxton (for...@aol.com)
Sergey Bukhman
Fordat1 wrote:
>
> From: kly...@aol.com (Klyfix)
>
> In article <36F43A...@earthlink.net>, Ford Thaxton <for...@earthlink.net>
> writes:
>
> >
> >It's one thing to make a choice that impacts your life, it's another to
> >make a selfish choice that effects the lives of those who depend on you
> >for their paycheck.
>
> :So essentially, if you're told to produce utter crap you should prostitute
> :your vision rather than say "no, I won't".
>
> If I had hundreds of folks who depended on me for their paychecks and I signed
> the deal with my eyes open.
>
Must I remind you that TNT broke off the "deal"? It's all in the golden
rule, Ford. Remember how it goes?
> You do the best you can.
>
> We all "prostitute" ourselves to one degree or another in this life.
>
No, "we all" don't. I see how you would like to think that way, since
you do. It's always comforting to think "well EVERYBODY does it". But,
no, that's not the case.
> Some of us are just more honest about.
>
> Ford A. Thaxton (for...@aol.com)
And some of us have nothing to lie about. But I bet you'll retort with
your patented "this is the real world" (TM) reply. Go ahead then, but
remember, you may know about making local Radio shows and a few CD's,
but thankfully that does not constitute "the real world" (TM).
--
Sergey
--
Claiming that Valentine's Day is too "patriarchal", radical feminists
Fordat1
Fordat1 wrote:
>
> From: kly...@aol.com (Klyfix)
>
> In article <36F43A...@earthlink.net>, Ford Thaxton <for...@earthlink.net>
> writes:
>
> >
> >It's one thing to make a choice that impacts your life, it's another to
> >make a selfish choice that effects the lives of those who depend on you
> >for their paycheck.
>
> :So essentially, if you're told to produce utter crap you should prostitute
> :your vision rather than say "no, I won't".
>
> If I had hundreds of folks who depended on me for their paychecks and I
signed
> the deal with my eyes open.
>
>>Must I remind you that TNT broke off the "deal"? It's all in the golden
>>rule, Ford. Remember how it goes?
TNT didn't break any deal, it was within the terms of the deal NOT to pick up
the back nine episodes fo the series.
They have the right to cancel the show.
> You do the best you can.
>
> We all "prostitute" ourselves to one degree or another in this life.
>
::No, "we all" don't.
What planet are you living, because it isn't earth.
:I see how you would like to think that way, since
:you do. It's always comforting to think "well EVERYBODY does it". But,
:no, that's not the case.
How old are you BTW?
Because anyone over the age 25 knows what I'm saying is true to one degree or
another.
> Some of us are just more honest about.
>
> Ford A. Thaxton (for...@aol.com)
::And some of us have nothing to lie about.
Only someone under the age of one.
After that, I don't think so.
>But I bet you'll retort with
>your patented "this is the real world" (TM) reply. Go ahead then, but
>remember, you may know about making local Radio shows and a few >CD's,
You mean producing a successful and highly rated radio program for the top
rated classical station in USA.
As for CD's I've got about eighty under my belt.
BTW, what do you do for a living?
Or are you still in school?
>but thankfully that does not constitute "the real world" (TM).
--
>Sergey
All it means is that I live in the real world.
Where you live is up to some debate.
Ford A. Thaxton (for...@aol.com)
Berserker
> Throughout all this, over the last five years, like many a flawed
> person
> in both history and the present, JMS has been incredibly gifted with
> astoundingly stupid adversaries.
>
>
But Aaron, you usually defend JMS...
Berserker
> Berserker wrote:
> >
> >
> > He said "no" knowing full well that meant TNT would withdraw its
> > investment.
> >
>
> Prove that.
Easy. TNT says, "We want these changes." There are heated arguments.
Production is halted. Then things are normal. TNT wants more changes.
JMS knows, after the production halt from last time, that TNT means
business.
>
>
> >
> > You were the one who came up with this bizarre analogy of TNT
> robbing
> > JMS. Funny, I thought they PAID him!
> >
>
> Yeah, it only works when you have a brain. Sorry about that
> inconsideration.
(Audience noise) Woooooooooooo!
>
>
>
> >
> > The problem is, this power analogy is, well, stupid. JMS obviously
> had
> > power too - his decision led to the cancellation of the show.
>
> His decision led to him not accepting the changes. Just like the guy's
>
> decision led to him not handing over the money.
I'm ignoring your analogy. JMS decided knowing full well what it
meant. Even if he didn't he had time to make amends.
>
>
> > JMS made
> > the first decision in this sequence, remember.
>
> Just like the guy who decided not to give his money.
Again, your analogy is dumb. Moving on...
>
>
> > I guess if we are to use
> > your analogy, JMS maid fun of tNT's mother and dared TNT to shoot
> him.
> >
>
> That doesn't follow.
JMS must have antagonized them some.
> >
> > Dumbass, by distributing the show, you are definitely doing the
> writer a
> > favor.
>
> How is that? You are paying him, and the commercials pay you. So where
>
> is the favor?
The commercials are based on a show's success. There's a reason why
Mercy Point was cancelled.
Berserker
> >Thanks for conceding. JMS said no. He was more concerned about his
> >vision than he was concerned about the people around him.
>
> I don't get it, Berserker. If the creator of a show you liked suddenly
> decided
> to give in to network pressure to change things he didn't want to
> change, I bet
> you would be mad at him for "compromising his vision." But JMS does it
> and you
> freak.
JMS is being hypocritical. First of all, B5 has had sex and violence
before.
Touting himself as a poor artist isn't the case. He is very wealthy.
Those who lost their jobs aren't, however.
He is making himself into th victim here, over a half-rate spinoff.
>
>
> Also, how do you know that the people in the cast and crew didn't
> agree with
> JMS' decision to say no? Maybe they weren't interested in doing a show
> that
> wasn't what they originally signed up for.
I really can't see how Netter Digital, whose main contract was B5, would
be happy at his principled stand. They may go broke now.
Berserker
> Berserker <defau...@domain.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >
> > JMS like every other writer should expect some
> >corporate say because by distributing the show they are doing the
> writer
> >a huge favor.
>
> And in writing it, he's doing tham a huge favor. It's called a
> mutually beneficial relationship. When it stops being a mutually
> beneficial relationship, it ends. There is no need to villify anyone.
I can agree to that. I am villifying JMS because he is trying to
ennoble himself over his actions. His actions weren't noble.
Berserker
> Berserker <defau...@domain.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >
> >Dumbass, by distributing the show, you are definitely doing the
> writer a
> >favor. You're trying to skew things by making me act as if the TV
> >industry is fluffy and good. It's not. It is a business. The
> network
> >invests money. As a result, the network has a RIGHT to have a SAY
> over
> >its product. It's really that simple, and thanks for admitting it.
>
> Now, now... No reason to call people names... :)
>
> But to clarify something. The amount of intrusion into a show by the
> people who order it (studio and distribution outlet) is the subject of
>
> preliminary contract negotiations. Some people (like Matt Groening on
>
> The Simpsons) get a free rein, some (like Matt Groening on Futurama)
> most really, don't.
>
> We not privvy to JMS's contract so we really can't know unless he
> tells us (and if we believe him).
>
> Everything is negotiable. That's the first law of show business.
Very true, but I can't see how JMS would have gotten free reign... and
he probably didn't, which is why he chafed.
Matthew Murray
> Thanks for conceding. JMS said no. He was more concerned about his
> vision than he was concerned about the people around him.
If you were in that position, would you care so little about what
you were trying to create, and so much about the other people, that you
would let anything at all happen to it? Would you let them change the
ending? Would you let them change the characters? Would you let them
decide where it was set? Would you let them change the title? Would you
let them take your name off it? Would you let them not pay you?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew A. Murray | Over 190 computer game reviews covering
mmu...@cc.wwu.edu | games from 1977 to the present!
http://www.wwu.edu/~mmurray | http://www.wwu.edu/~mmurray/Reviews.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Murray
> This is an awful, awful analogy. The execs were exerting their rightful
> role over the show. This is like saying if the taxman comes to collect
> money, you can say no, and run away, leaving your family to pay off your
> taxes.
The executives had every right to do what they did. Likewise, jms
had every right to do what he did.
Matthew Murray
> No, JMS quit. JMS could have added a tit here or there. He could have
> made the show and pleased everyone. It was the fact that, after 5 years
> and so many episodes done by himself, TNT had the nerve to *care* about
> the finished product that set him off.
You have no proof of that. Personally, to be honest, if someone
wanted to pervert something of mine that I was very protective and proud
of, I would likely do the same thing. No, it wouldn't have "hurt" to make
those changes, but the integrity of the show and everyone involved with it
would have been compromised. If such a decision was made, it would have
benefited the people but not the work. Thirty years from now, short of
reading the credits, no one will know who the gaffer on Crusade was.
Sergey Bukhman
Fordat1 wrote:
> >> If I had hundreds of folks who depended on me for their paychecks and I
> >> signed
> >> the deal with my eyes open.
> >>
>
> >Must I remind you that TNT broke off the "deal"? It's all in the golden
> >rule, Ford. Remember how it goes?
>
> TNT didn't break any deal, it was within the terms of the deal NOT to pick up
> the back nine episodes fo the series.
>
> They have the right to cancel the show.
>
Exactly. And they exercised that right. I'm glad you finally agree.
> > You do the best you can.
> >
> > We all "prostitute" ourselves to one degree or another in this life.
> >
>
> ::No, "we all" don't.
>
> What planet are you living, because it isn't earth.
>
Witty as always.
> :I see how you would like to think that way, since
> :you do. It's always comforting to think "well EVERYBODY does it". But,
> :no, that's not the case.
>
> How old are you BTW?
>
> Because anyone over the age 25 knows what I'm saying is true to one degree or
> another.
>
Eh... Sure... Anyone.
Ford, there are many many jobs that do not involve self prostitution to
any level.
When I write software, exactly what am I prostituting? I'm selling my
services for a price, but I do not betray any principle and have no
"artistic integrity" to defend. I enjoy my work and perfectly satisfied
with my conditions.
So yeah, if that's prostitution, you can call anything prostitution.
> > Some of us are just more honest about.
> >
> > Ford A. Thaxton (for...@aol.com)
>
> ::And some of us have nothing to lie about.
>
> Only someone under the age of one.
>
> After that, I don't think so.
>
Yeah, them damn lying prostituting three year olds you hear in the news
everyday about.
> >But I bet you'll retort with
> >your patented "this is the real world" (TM) reply. Go ahead then, but
> >remember, you may know about making local Radio shows and a few >CD's,
>
> You mean producing a successful and highly rated radio program for the top
> rated classical station in USA.
>
> As for CD's I've got about eighty under my belt.
>
Ford, no offense, but I couldn't care less. Really. Good luck to you
with your job and all, but it's irrelevant.
> BTW, what do you do for a living?
> Or are you still in school?
>
Or both?
> >but thankfully that does not constitute "the real world" (TM).
>
> --
> >Sergey
>
> All it means is that I live in the real world.
>
> Where you live is up to some debate.
>
> Ford A. Thaxton (for...@aol.com)
Say, Ford, what if you're the only one living in the Real world and all
the rest are living somewhere else?
Damn convenient, right?
Matthew Murray
> Why? JMS, last time I checked, they're paying the bill. I think
> they're entitled to a say.
Do you know they didn't have one?
> JMS, do you have any evidence of this? You can't get away with this
> sort of half-libel and expect me to even remotely believe it unless you
> have proof. Star Trek producers have often said that Paramount doesn't
> tell them to put tits in a script. If the evil Trek Franchise doesnt do
> that, why would TNT?
Because millions upon millions of people will watch anything
Paramount puts out, as long as it has the words Star Trek in the title?
> Perhaps the real answer is that JMS is merely a control freak, a control
> freak who doesnt care if people get fired because he has his vision.
Perhaps the real answer is that the TNT executives are merely
control freaks--control freaks who don't care if people get fired because
of their vision.
Matthew Murray
> How arrogant. Dozens of people are out of work, and you're calling JMS
> a great man. The fact is, Crusade was a TV show, not Shakespeare, and
> all your intimate little chats with jms on the mod group don't change
> that. B5 does not equal high culture, and if everything we have heard
> about Crusade is true, it certainly doesnt equal high culture either.
If he had agreed to make the changes TNT wanted, and the show
failed and was cancelled after the first season because of them, would you
then blame jms for also putting people out of work?
Those people are not out of work because of jms' choice not to
bend to the will of TNT. They are out of work because TNT pulled the plug
on the show. If the show, or those peoples' jobs, really mattered to the
people at TNT, the show would continue in the way jms wanted. Please
explain to us all why it is jms' fault those people are out of work, while
the people who actually PULLED the plug (TNT) are not at all responsible.
Berserker
> Berserker wrote:
> >
> >
> > But JMS, before viewers and ratings were even an issue, ran away.
> TNT
> > never even got a chance to cancel.
> >
>
> Berserker, you idiot, TNT *did* cancel the show. Geez, you're
> completely
> clueless aren't you?
They cancelled it? Is that why they are running thirteen episodes?
Basically, my understanding is that the break was mutual - both decided
that thirteen was enough, since the contract offered an out there.
>
>
> Please, do us all a favor and go back to watching whatever Trek Crap
> Paramount is dumping right now, and leave these discussions to people
> with at least an informed opinion.
(Note the cheap Trek insult)
Like you? You're, what? 15? I would ask if you have read Variety, but
I doubt you know what it is.
Berserker
> Berserker <defau...@domain.com> wrote:
>
> >La...@LA.com wrote:
> >
> >> Berserker <defau...@domain.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
Look at it this way - they actually filmed a half a year before they
usually do, because they wanted to get a head start and maybe get a
second season in. A lot of these people had been attached with B5
previously, though some were new because they had to let go of some,
since after five years salaries were adding up. Still, with five years
under the belt, they had to have some confidence.
I'm going to look into the contract to see what it was... there was talk
for some time that TNT would do five years upfront (crazy, I know).
>
>
> >
> >For all practical purposes, they had such a chance with Crusade. But
>
> >JMS had to inconvenience them.
>
> Once again, that's the nature of the beast. you're going to be
> "unemployed" a lot more than you're going to be "employed".
God I'm glad I don't work there.
Sergey Bukhman
Berserker wrote:
>
> Sergey Bukhman wrote:
>
> > Berserker wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > But JMS, before viewers and ratings were even an issue, ran away.
> > TNT
> > > never even got a chance to cancel.
> > >
> >
> > Berserker, you idiot, TNT *did* cancel the show. Geez, you're
> > completely
> > clueless aren't you?
>
> They cancelled it? Is that why they are running thirteen episodes?
>
They are running the thirteen because they already paid for them. They
don't want it to be a total loss, so they'll run those, at prime time
and hope for the best.
> Basically, my understanding is that the break was mutual - both decided
> that thirteen was enough, since the contract offered an out there.
No, that's not the case at all.
TNT has the final decision. The most JMS can do is resign as Producer
and Writer, but he has NO power over Crusade as a show.
The break wasn't mutual. If TNT would have said "ok JMS, you can forget
about those changes" then he would have stayed. Of course, they didn't
and JMS said "No" to the changes. So, TNT decided to drop the show. So,
JMs tried to sell it to Sci-Fi, but they said that they didn't have the
money (which is highly debatable).
>
> >
> >
> > Please, do us all a favor and go back to watching whatever Trek Crap
> > Paramount is dumping right now, and leave these discussions to people
> > with at least an informed opinion.
>
> (Note the cheap Trek insult)
They don't get any cheaper.
>
> Like you? You're, what? 15? I would ask if you have read Variety, but
> I doubt you know what it is.
I'm 12 and going for 11...
You?
Sergey Bukhman
And you call *my* insults bad?
Sheesh...
Sergey Bukhman
Berserker wrote:
>
> Sergey Bukhman wrote:
>
> > Berserker wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > He said "no" knowing full well that meant TNT would withdraw its
> > > investment.
> > >
> >
> > Prove that.
>
> Easy. TNT says, "We want these changes." There are heated arguments.
> Production is halted. Then things are normal. TNT wants more changes.
> JMS knows, after the production halt from last time, that TNT means
> business.
>
I asked you to prove it, not rephrase it.
Thing is, none of us knows exactly what went on in there and who knew
what. So it's fairly useless discussing that.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > You were the one who came up with this bizarre analogy of TNT
> > robbing
> > > JMS. Funny, I thought they PAID him!
> > >
> >
> > Yeah, it only works when you have a brain. Sorry about that
> > inconsideration.
>
> (Audience noise) Woooooooooooo!
I'll try harder next time, promise.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > The problem is, this power analogy is, well, stupid. JMS obviously
> > had
> > > power too - his decision led to the cancellation of the show.
> >
> > His decision led to him not accepting the changes. Just like the guy's
> >
> > decision led to him not handing over the money.
>
> I'm ignoring your analogy.
Why? It works perfectly.
> JMS decided knowing full well what it
> meant. Even if he didn't he had time to make amends.
I'm saying he is not the one to blame. Same thing can be said about TNT
with their suggestions. They knew that he'd say no, and even if they
didn't they had time to make amends.
>
> >
> >
> > > JMS made
> > > the first decision in this sequence, remember.
> >
> > Just like the guy who decided not to give his money.
>
> Again, your analogy is dumb. Moving on...
You've yet to show why it doesn't work.
>
> >
> >
> > > I guess if we are to use
> > > your analogy, JMS maid fun of tNT's mother and dared TNT to shoot
> > him.
> > >
> >
> > That doesn't follow.
>
> JMS must have antagonized them some.
Huh? Must have? Really? No two ways about it?
Where did you get *that*?
>
> > >
> > > Dumbass, by distributing the show, you are definitely doing the
> > writer a
> > > favor.
> >
> > How is that? You are paying him, and the commercials pay you. So where
> >
> > is the favor?
>
> The commercials are based on a show's success. There's a reason why
> Mercy Point was cancelled.
Right. It's a risk taken by the distributor. But he wouldn't take the
risk if he didn't think there is profit to be made. He can be wrong, of
course, but everything in business is done for completely selfish
reasons, as it should be.
Sergey Bukhman
Berserker wrote:
>
> La...@LA.com wrote:
>
> > Berserker <defau...@domain.com> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > JMS like every other writer should expect some
> > >corporate say because by distributing the show they are doing the
> > writer
> > >a huge favor.
> >
> > And in writing it, he's doing tham a huge favor. It's called a
> > mutually beneficial relationship. When it stops being a mutually
> > beneficial relationship, it ends. There is no need to villify anyone.
>
> I can agree to that. I am villifying JMS because he is trying to
> ennoble himself over his actions. His actions weren't noble.
h, who said anyone was noble? Even JMS, in his fairy tale doesn't paint
it far from a neutral picture. There is a conflict, but unlike badly
written TV, conflict does not mean bad guy vs good guy. It means
different opinions. And the conflict is won by the one with the power.
In this case, TNT (if you can call that a victory). That simple.
I wonder, why try to make more of this that there is?
Sergey Bukhman
Berserker wrote:
>
> TrombeGuy wrote:
>
> > >Thanks for conceding. JMS said no. He was more concerned about his
> > >vision than he was concerned about the people around him.
> >
> > I don't get it, Berserker. If the creator of a show you liked suddenly
> > decided
> > to give in to network pressure to change things he didn't want to
> > change, I bet
> > you would be mad at him for "compromising his vision." But JMS does it
> > and you
> > freak.
>
> JMS is being hypocritical. First of all, B5 has had sex and violence
> before.
>
Of course it did. No one said sex and violence are bad. They are bad
when they are inappropriate, or more precisely, they are bad when JMS
thinks they are inappropriate.
> Touting himself as a poor artist isn't the case. He is very wealthy.
>
When did he do that?
> Those who lost their jobs aren't, however.
And how about the people that will be hired to work on the show that
will fill Crusade's slot? Never thought of that, have you?[1]
>
> He is making himself into th victim here, over a half-rate spinoff.
No he's not. you're trying to make him into the Big bad Rich Man,
though. I don't know why.
>
> >
> >
> > Also, how do you know that the people in the cast and crew didn't
> > agree with
> > JMS' decision to say no? Maybe they weren't interested in doing a show
> > that
> > wasn't what they originally signed up for.
>
> I really can't see how Netter Digital, whose main contract was B5, would
> be happy at his principled stand. They may go broke now.
Read above.
--
Sergey
--
Claiming that Valentine's Day is too "patriarchal", radical feminists
such as Andrea Dworkin are hoping to replace St. Valentine with St.
Wilgefortis, a Portuguese princess who, legend has it, grew a beard to
make herself repellent to men so that she didn't have to marry against
her wishes, leading to her crucifixion.
[1]Neither have I, actually. That's WWS, badly paraphrased.
Matthew Murray
> I can agree to that. I am villifying JMS because he is trying to
> ennoble himself over his actions. His actions weren't noble.
It all depends on the way you define noble.
Matthew Murray
> I wonder, why try to make more of this that there is?
If they didn't do that, could they be dominating two newsgroups
with this pointless, anger-filled thread right now?
thew...@cybernothing.org
: On Sat, 20 Mar 1999 16:18:38 -0800, Ford Thaxton
: <for...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
: >It's one thing to make a choice that impacts your life, it's another to
: >make a selfish choice that effects the lives of those who depend on you
: >for their paycheck.
:
: remake of "The Fountainhead"?
I was thinking he seemed a whole like Oren Boyle.
--
TheW...@Endor.com
"Women and cats will do as they please and men and dogs should relax and
get used to the idea."
-- Robert A. Heinlein
thew...@cybernothing.org
: Sergey Bukhman wrote:
:
: > And btw, in case you forgot, he doesn't read this NG, so talking in
: > first person to him comes off kind of crazy.
:
: And talking to you isn't?
Acceptance is the first step in overcoming a problem. Bravo to you for
coming to terms with it so publicly.
Aaron Bergman
<defau...@domain.com> wrote:
>Aaron Bergman wrote:
>
>> Throughout all this, over the last five years, like many a flawed person
>> in both history and the present, JMS has been incredibly gifted with
>> astoundingly stupid adversaries.
>
>But Aaron, you usually defend JMS...
Haven't been around much, have you?
Aaron
--
Aaron Bergman
<http://www.princeton.edu/~abergman/>
Berserker
> On Sat, 20 Mar 1999, Berserker wrote:
>
> > How arrogant. Dozens of people are out of work, and you're calling
> JMS
> > a great man. The fact is, Crusade was a TV show, not Shakespeare,
> and
> > all your intimate little chats with jms on the mod group don't
> change
> > that. B5 does not equal high culture, and if everything we have
> heard
> > about Crusade is true, it certainly doesnt equal high culture
> either.
>
> If he had agreed to make the changes TNT wanted, and the show
> failed and was cancelled after the first season because of them, would
> you
> then blame jms for also putting people out of work?
That's a lot of ifs. All I know is that JMS didn't even try.
> Those people are not out of work because of jms' choice not to
>
> bend to the will of TNT. They are out of work because TNT pulled the
> plug
> on the show. If the show, or those peoples' jobs, really mattered to
> the
> people at TNT, the show would continue in the way jms wanted.
Nope. TNT is fine with itself, because it knows it will do another show
and hire another group to work on it. Networks don't have difficulty
cancelling shows because there are always shows to replace.
However, JMS, as executive producer, is suppose to look after those
under his employ and at least try to please everyone with his show. He
didn't do that. His decision led to the loss of jobs of these people.
> Please
> explain to us all why it is jms' fault those people are out of work,
> while
> the people who actually PULLED the plug (TNT) are not at all
> responsible.
Because the network will hire some other people. It's not their moral
responsibility to keep a specific group of people working. That job
falls onto the people in charge of the show.
Berserker
> Berserker wrote:
> >
> > La...@LA.com wrote:
> >
> > > Berserker <defau...@domain.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > JMS like every other writer should expect some
> > > >corporate say because by distributing the show they are doing the
>
> > > writer
> > > >a huge favor.
> > >
> > > And in writing it, he's doing tham a huge favor. It's called a
> > > mutually beneficial relationship. When it stops being a mutually
> > > beneficial relationship, it ends. There is no need to villify
> anyone.
> >
> > I can agree to that. I am villifying JMS because he is trying to
> > ennoble himself over his actions. His actions weren't noble.
>
> h, who said anyone was noble? Even JMS, in his fairy tale doesn't
> paint
> it far from a neutral picture. There is a conflict, but unlike badly
> written TV, conflict does not mean bad guy vs good guy. It means
> different opinions. And the conflict is won by the one with the power.
>
> In this case, TNT (if you can call that a victory). That simple.
>
> I wonder, why try to make more of this that there is?
No, JMs is clealry bragging about his decision. He's produ he stuck up
to the idiot king - that's why in episode 13, he snuck by an attack on
the idiot king. JMS is BRAGGING. I'd hardly call that a neutral
picture, except in your own deluded mind.
Berserker
> On Sun, 21 Mar 1999, Berserker wrote:
>
> > I can agree to that. I am villifying JMS because he is trying to
> > ennoble himself over his actions. His actions weren't noble.
>
> It all depends on the way you define noble.
JMS thought he was making himself look noble. It is his definition that
I am using.
David Serchay
: <for...@earthlink.net> wrote:
: >It's one thing to make a choice that impacts your life, it's another to
: >make a selfish choice that effects the lives of those who depend on you
: >for their paycheck.
So do you feel the same way about say Jerry Sienfeld who called it quits?
Or when Ted Danson said he didn't want to do Cheers anymore?
Dave
--
David Serchay
a013...@bc.seflin.org
Berserker
> Berserker wrote:
> >
> > Aaron Bergman wrote:
> >
> > > Throughout all this, over the last five years, like many a flawed
> > > person
> > > in both history and the present, JMS has been incredibly gifted
> with
> > > astoundingly stupid adversaries.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > But Aaron, you usually defend JMS...
>
> And you call *my* insults bad?
>
> Sheesh...
How am I suppose to respon to a "you're stupid" thread? Tell me, you're
the lamer insult king.
Berserker
> In article <36F4B518...@domain.com>, Berserker
> <defau...@domain.com> wrote:
>
> >Aaron Bergman wrote:
> >
> >> Throughout all this, over the last five years, like many a flawed
> person
> >> in both history and the present, JMS has been incredibly gifted
> with
> >> astoundingly stupid adversaries.
> >
> >But Aaron, you usually defend JMS...
>
> Haven't been around much, have you?
Psst... saracasm.
Berserker
> Berserker (defau...@domain.com) wrote:
> : Sergey Bukhman wrote:
> :
> : > And btw, in case you forgot, he doesn't read this NG, so talking
> in
> : > first person to him comes off kind of crazy.
> :
> : And talking to you isn't?
>
> Acceptance is the first step in overcoming a problem. Bravo to you
> for
> coming to terms with it so publicly.
>
I've never heard that bit of psychobabble before. Thanks for jerking it
around and twisting it badly out of shape for the sake of an insult.
Berserker
> Berserker wrote:
> >
> > TrombeGuy wrote:
> >
> > > >Thanks for conceding. JMS said no. He was more concerned about
> his
> > > >vision than he was concerned about the people around him.
> > >
> > > I don't get it, Berserker. If the creator of a show you liked
> suddenly
> > > decided
> > > to give in to network pressure to change things he didn't want to
> > > change, I bet
> > > you would be mad at him for "compromising his vision." But JMS
> does it
> > > and you
> > > freak.
> >
> > JMS is being hypocritical. First of all, B5 has had sex and
> violence
> > before.
> >
>
> Of course it did. No one said sex and violence are bad. They are bad
> when they are inappropriate, or more precisely, they are bad when JMS
> thinks they are inappropriate.
But remember Lyta's sex scene? Remember how stoopid that was? JMS has
done these things before. He can definitely work with TNT says. For
example, humans having lots of sex to propagate the race... silly, but
he could have worked with that.
>
>
> > Touting himself as a poor artist isn't the case. He is very
> wealthy.
> >
>
> When did he do that?
He acts that he is a simple bard, and all the kings are wealthy.
>
>
> > Those who lost their jobs aren't, however.
>
> And how about the people that will be hired to work on the show that
> will fill Crusade's slot? Never thought of that, have you?[1]
Um, yes, I did, in a post above. Those people aren't JMS
responsibility. JMS doesnt exist to keep the economy functioning. But
as head of a show, he damned well better try hard to help those
SPECIFICALLY under him.
>
>
> >
> > He is making himself into th victim here, over a half-rate spinoff.
>
> No he's not. you're trying to make him into the Big bad Rich Man,
> though. I don't know why.
Why? He took off and ran, because he could afford to.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Also, how do you know that the people in the cast and crew didn't
> > > agree with
> > > JMS' decision to say no? Maybe they weren't interested in doing a
> show
> > > that
> > > wasn't what they originally signed up for.
> >
> > I really can't see how Netter Digital, whose main contract was B5,
> would
> > be happy at his principled stand. They may go broke now.
>
> Read above.
Netter Digitial is a company. If it goes broke, those people are out of
a job, and there is no guarantee they get a job anywhere.
Berserker
> On Sat, 20 Mar 1999, Berserker wrote:
>
> > Thanks for conceding. JMS said no. He was more concerned about his
>
> > vision than he was concerned about the people around him.
>
> If you were in that position, would you care so little about
> what
> you were trying to create, and so much about the other people, that
> you
> would let anything at all happen to it? Would you let them change the
>
> ending? Would you let them change the characters? Would you let them
>
> decide where it was set? Would you let them change the title? Would
> you
> let them take your name off it? Would you let them not pay you?
>
>
They would have to pay you. They would have to keep your name on it.
My point is this: JMS didn't try. He didnt try to walk the line between
his vision and what the suits wanted. He said My way or the highway and
wound up on the highway. Let's face it: JMS with his temper probably
told them where to go and things only went downhill from there. The
fact he would parody them in episode 13 shows that he had no interest in
reaching an amenable compromise with them.
>
Fordat1
>Dave
--
>David Serchay
>a013...@bc.seflin.org
In those cases both shows had long and very successful runs.
The staff and crew in each case had over a YEAR to look for another gig because
they knew the job was coming to a year.
This was clearly not the case with CRUSADE.
Ford A. Thaxton (for...@aol.com)
Klyfix
(Fordat1) writes:
>
> :So essentially, if you're told to produce utter crap you should prostitute
>:your vision rather than say "no, I won't".
>
>If I had hundreds of folks who depended on me for their paychecks and I
>signed
>the deal with my eyes open.
>
>You do the best you can.
>
>We all "prostitute" ourselves to one degree or another in this life.
>
>
>Some of us are just more honest about.
>
>
As this thread has already turned into a giant flame war, this might be the
most reasonable reply you're gonna get to this.
We have here the conflict between Art as a Creative Endeavour and Art as a
Commercial Enterprise. On the one hand, the creators (writers, and to a lesser
extent actors) should be striving to produce something with a lasting value
that is consistant with and a tribute to their Inner Vision; otherwise they
should just be house painters or something similar. On the other hand, He who
pays the Piper calls the Tune; the folk who are providing the money for the
enterprise do have a right to get some return for their investment, and to have
some control over it. That's one of the problems I had with some of the art
types who seemed to feel that the NEA should give them money for whatever they
felt like with no accountability; while Helms and company might nitpicky twits,
there's no right to make a living as an artist on the government. In the same
way, TNT is within their rights to reject "Crusade" if they feel it doesn't fit
into their scheduling and would not be profitable.
Let's be honest here; had JMS turned "Crusade" into "Musclemen and Babes in
Space" at the behest of TNT you'd have been at the forefront, condemning and
mocking him. While I'm sure JMS commited a bit of hyperbole about TNT's
desires, it would seem that he might not have been able to be happy with
himself at the end of the say had he acquesced to their demands. One has to be
True to oneself.
As to the whole idea that he squandered other people's lives, well, I'd make
the observation that he produced as many episodes of "Crusade" as there are of
"Brimestone". The actors and production crew surely know that television is a
usually a Temp job.
V.S. Greene : kly...@aol.com : Boston, near Arkham...
Eckzylon: http://members.aol.com/klyfix/eckzylon.html
RPG and SF, predictions, philosophy, and other things.
Revised in subtle ways, Feb. 12, 1999
Berserker
> Berserker wrote:
> >
> > Sergey Bukhman wrote:
> >
> > > Berserker wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > But JMS, before viewers and ratings were even an issue, ran
> away.
> > > TNT
> > > > never even got a chance to cancel.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Berserker, you idiot, TNT *did* cancel the show. Geez, you're
> > > completely
> > > clueless aren't you?
> >
> > They cancelled it? Is that why they are running thirteen episodes?
> >
>
> They are running the thirteen because they already paid for them. They
>
> don't want it to be a total loss, so they'll run those, at prime time
> and hope for the best.
And they're surrounding it with a B5 movie marathon... they seem to be
hyping alot their Evil Decision.
>
>
> > Basically, my understanding is that the break was mutual - both
> decided
> > that thirteen was enough, since the contract offered an out there.
>
> No, that's not the case at all.
>
> TNT has the final decision. The most JMS can do is resign as Producer
> and Writer, but he has NO power over Crusade as a show.
>
> The break wasn't mutual. If TNT would have said "ok JMS, you can
> forget
> about those changes" then he would have stayed. Of course, they didn't
>
> and JMS said "No" to the changes. So, TNT decided to drop the show.
> So,
> JMs tried to sell it to Sci-Fi, but they said that they didn't have
> the
> money (which is highly debatable).
How is that not a mutual break? TNT knew what it wanted, and JMs knew
what he wanted. Both sides realized that they were getting nowhere.
Look at it this way: TNT didn't bother to try to get JMS canned. Why?
They thought the show sucked. They thought Why bother.
JMS thought, I can't work with these people.
I don't see any evidence of TNT sneaking in and pulling the plug on
it... I see evidence of heated negotiations that ending in exasperation.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Please, do us all a favor and go back to watching whatever Trek
> Crap
> > > Paramount is dumping right now, and leave these discussions to
> people
> > > with at least an informed opinion.
> >
> > (Note the cheap Trek insult)
>
> They don't get any cheaper.
Right, because a 10 year old can do them. Props.
Thomas Bagwell
<19990321012953...@ng-ch1.aol.com>...
>From: kly...@aol.com (Klyfix)
> :So essentially, if you're told to produce utter crap you should
prostitute
>:your vision rather than say "no, I won't".
>
>If I had hundreds of folks who depended on me for their paychecks and
I signed
>the deal with my eyes open.
I'd actually gathered from past posts that TNT initially agreed to let
JMS have creative control, much as he had with Warner and PTEN. If
they decided they wanted to exercise more control than that over
Crusade, then that introduces a new working environment. He's free to
take it or not. If he didn't like their input (and it seems
there -was- discussion, not just a flat 'NO'), he was free to stop.
There must not have been anything in the contract, since TNT isn't
taking it over themselves or suing him to stay. So, I see no
contracts being broken here. As to the people working on the project,
they were employed for 13 episodes (more than some shows), and are
free to pursue other goals. Nobody holds responsibility for their
welfare, and if they're expecting it they're working in the wrong
industry.
I really don't understand your virulence on this whole topic. It's
like you hold a personal grudge against the guy.
Tom B.
Thomas Bagwell
<19990321025230...@ng-fi1.aol.com>...
>:I see how you would like to think that way, since
>:you do. It's always comforting to think "well EVERYBODY does it".
But,
>:no, that's not the case.
>
>How old are you BTW?
>
>Because anyone over the age 25 knows what I'm saying is true to one
degree or
>another.
"To one degree or another" leaves an awful lot of leeway. I'm 35, and
I can't totally agree with you here. It's one thing to give in here
and there to get what you want in the long run, but another to give up
some of your most basic principles just to help some other people make
a few bucks while tying yourself into a project you no longer care
about for 5 years when you could be pursuing other goals you do care
about.
That's a lot bigger degree than I would find acceptable.
Tom B.
Thomas Bagwell
>JMs tried to sell it to Sci-Fi, but they said that they didn't have
the
>money (which is highly debatable).
Oh? My understanding is that the SciFi Channel crunched numbers for
weeks trying to make it work. Don't forget that they're now funding
three entirely new series beginning this year. If they'd had the
funds to do another, that probably would have already been in the
works, too. It will now remain to be seen whether or not they will
pick up Crusade for next year.
Tom B.
Thomas Bagwell
>They would have to pay you. They would have to keep your name on it.
>My point is this: JMS didn't try. He didnt try to walk the line
between
>his vision and what the suits wanted. He said My way or the highway
and
>wound up on the highway. Let's face it: JMS with his temper probably
>told them where to go and things only went downhill from there.
This isn't the impression I got. It sounded like when the first
disagreements arose they did discuss matters. It sounded like there
were concessions made on both sides. Remember the memo and the halt
in production? JMS said the 'most egregious' points were removed,
implying that others weren't and compromises were reached. TNT was
satisfied enough to increase their budget and give the go-ahead. JMS
didn't sound real pleased, but considered the matter closed. Then
further demands were apparently made where no mutually satisfactory
compromise was reached. Parting of the ways.
Neither you nor I know the details of the meetings, or JMS' attitude
during them.
Tom B.
Klyfix
<tnba...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>I really don't understand your virulence on this whole topic. It's
>like you hold a personal grudge against the guy.
>
>Tom B.
>
*BINGO*!!!
You must be new 'round these parts, ol' Ford's had a problem with JMS (and
Another Who Shall Not Be Named) for years.
Fordat1
In article <7d3e8k$5hp$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Thomas Bagwell"
<tnba...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>I really don't understand your virulence on this whole topic. It's
>like you hold a personal grudge against the guy.
>
>Tom B.
>
> *BINGO*!!!
As usual, you miss the point.
> You must be new 'round these parts, ol' Ford's had a problem with JMS
>(and Another Who Shall Not Be Named) for years.
It has alot to do with my dislike for cowards and liars.
Ford A. Thaxton (for...@aol.com)
Sergey Bukhman
Berserker wrote:
>
>
> However, JMS, as executive producer, is suppose to look after those
> under his employ and at least try to please everyone with his show.
No he isn't.
>
> Because the network will hire some other people. It's not their moral
> responsibility to keep a specific group of people working. That job
> falls onto the people in charge of the show.
Nope, no it's not.
--
Sergey