Why are people attacking Robert H. Wolfe?
Warbird
I just want to say that it is incredibly unfair to attack Mr. Wolfe and
his writing ability. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine is the best science
fiction on television. I challenge anyone to find a show that is better
than ST:DS9. I can't think of one that is better, though I enjoy watching
Babylon 5 and others.
Also, Mr. Wolfe has proven his writing ability and professionalism time
and time again. His work is some of the best in Trek (any Trek). True,
some of his episodes don't go anywhere, but that's true of any writer on
any show. And every science fiction fan knows Mr. Wolfe by name. Not
every science fiction fan knows my name or the names of the rest of you.
Does that tell you how much better Mr. Wolfe is than the rest of us? And
personally, the rest of the world doesn't know that you people exist, like
it or not.
If you think that any of you can do a job better than Mr. Wolfe, than send
in a speculative script to either DS9 or Voyager. See if they do anything
with it. They'll be fair about it. If it's good, they will do something.
If not, well then that will tell you that you're not as good as you think
you are. Oh, but I forgot--if you knew that you weren't any good, that
would burst your holier-than-everyone-else bubble, and you don't want that
to happen. But, until you do send in a script to a Trek show and it gets
accepted, any criticism of the works of others just prove your stupidity.
Warbird
Michael Johnson
Warbird <war...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I just want to say that it is incredibly unfair to attack Mr. Wolfe and
>his writing ability.
Why?
>Star Trek: Deep Space Nine is the best science fiction on television.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Them are fighting words.
>I challenge anyone to find a show that is better than ST:DS9.
Babylon 5. After all, DS9 at its outset was just B5 with the serial
numbers filed off for legal purposes. Robert H. Wolfe should be
thanking the stars that such a story dropped into his lap as a result
of thievary. It is a "real" man that can create not only 1 series out
of a concept, but 2.
>Also, Mr. Wolfe has proven his writing ability and professionalism time
>and time again.
So? What do you think this is? The real world? This is Usenet where
you are scum until you prove yourself otherwise.
>His work is some of the best in Trek (any Trek).
Debatable.Your opinion does not make it fact.
>True, some of his episodes don't go anywhere, but that's true of any writer on
>any show. And every science fiction fan knows Mr. Wolfe by name.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Now, this is a crock of bull. Until he started posting here i had no
clue who the heck he was.
>Not every science fiction fan knows my name or the names of the rest of you.
>Does that tell you how much better Mr. Wolfe is than the rest of us?
Why don't you start calling him Great Maker and make a
rec.arts.startrek.ds9.moderated... or IS that really you Robert doing
a little PR? Robert H. Wolfe is no better than the scum of the earth
and no worse than god. And frankly boy, on Usenet all people are equal
until they prove themselves otherwise.
>And personally, the rest of the world doesn't know that you people exist, like
>it or not.
So? Do you think anyone here cares? He has entered our world so he
will go by our rules. If he doesn't like it then he can leave.
-MJ
Mike Barklage
Warbird <war...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>I just want to say that it is incredibly unfair to attack Mr. Wolfe and
>his writing ability.
It's unfair to attack Wolfe, himself. But his writing is fair game for
criticism. That tends to happen when you have a creative work in the
public eye.
>Star Trek: Deep Space Nine is the best science
>fiction on television.
Your opinion, not mine. I think DS9 is too uninteresting to give it an
hour of my week. (And this is from a person who was a DS9 fan back in
seasons 1 and 2. I never missed an episode of it.)
>I challenge anyone to find a show that is better
>than ST:DS9.
I can think of about a dozen off the top of my head. Do you really want
me to list them?
>Also, Mr. Wolfe has proven his writing ability and professionalism time
>and time again. His work is some of the best in Trek (any Trek).
Again, your opinion. I prefer scripts from TOS and seasons 2-5 of TNG.
>True,
>some of his episodes don't go anywhere, but that's true of any writer on
>any show.
True of every Trek writer, perhaps, but not true of every writer on
*every* show. I'm a Darin Morgan fan for a reason, you know.
>And every science fiction fan knows Mr. Wolfe by name.
Not true. I didn't know who he was until this whole Zack Stentz thing
blew up.
>Not
>every science fiction fan knows my name or the names of the rest of you.
Yet. (Muahahahaha...)
>Does that tell you how much better Mr. Wolfe is than the rest of us? And
>personally, the rest of the world doesn't know that you people exist, like
>it or not.
Wait a sec... Robert Wolfe is a better person than us because he writes
for Trek? Man, I feel sorry for you and your low self-esteem if you
really think that way.
>If you think that any of you can do a job better than Mr. Wolfe, than send
>in a speculative script to either DS9 or Voyager. See if they do anything
>with it. They'll be fair about it. If it's good, they will do something.
Yeah, they'll rip it off. <grin> (See also: "Ex Post Facto")
> If not, well then that will tell you that you're not as good as you think
>you are.
Ah, so the true measure of a screenwriter is whether he's done a script
for Star Trek? There are hundreds of successful SF writers out there who
would laugh uproarously at that last statement...
>Oh, but I forgot--if you knew that you weren't any good, that
>would burst your holier-than-everyone-else bubble, and you don't want that
>to happen. But, until you do send in a script to a Trek show and it gets
>accepted, any criticism of the works of others just prove your stupidity.
You mean we can't criticize Trek unless we've written a script for it?
Okay, then you can't criticize Clinton unless you've run for president.
Sound fair?
Do you realize how silly you sound?
Mike Barklage
World's Worst Computer Programmer -- MSTie #19634 -- bark...@ucsu.colorado.edu
For MiSTings and Ed Wood items, link to http://rtt.colorado.edu/~barklage
Robert H. Wolfe
In <5dalql$3...@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net> Warbird
<war...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>I just want to say that it is incredibly unfair to attack Mr. Wolfe
>and his writing ability.
Actually, it's totally fair to attack my writing ability. Everyone's
entitled to their opinion. If all I wanted was praise, I'd have people
created a ds9.moderated group and hide out there. ;-)
>Star Trek: Deep Space Nine is the best science
>fiction on television. I challenge anyone to find a show that is
>better than ST:DS9.
While I happen to agree, you probably shouldn't be so strident about
it. Just because people like another show better than DS9 doesn't make
them stupid... Okay, maybe it does. But it doesn't mean you should
call them stupid.
>Also, Mr. Wolfe has proven his writing ability and professionalism
>time and time again.
And I've fucked up a few times too. THE PASSENGER, man. Don't forget
THE PASSENGER.
>His work is some of the best in Trek (any Trek).
Thanks. I think I've had my moments. So have a lot of people. My
current peers aside, I have a special fondness of Gene Coon.
>And every science fiction fan knows Mr. Wolfe by name.
I doubt that very much. But I'm working on it. Wait until my feature
comes out (if it gets made). (Then again, how many science fiction
fans know Dean Devlin by name?)
>Does that tell you how much better Mr. Wolfe is than the rest of us?
I'm not better than anyone. I'm not worse. I'm just a guy with a job
that's (marginally) in the public spotlight.
>If you think that any of you can do a job better than Mr. Wolfe, than
>send in a speculative script to either DS9 or Voyager.
A valid suggestion. We're still the only show on TV that will accept
speculative material from writers without agents.
>until you do send in a script to a Trek show and it gets
>accepted, any criticism of the works of others just prove your
>stupidity.
A little harsh, Warbird. People have a right to their opinions, even
if they don't give writing a shot themselves. But I think you're
reacting to the stridency of some of the posts. Basically common
courtesy dictates that when you're talking about to someone about their
work, especially in a field you may not have practical experience in,
you should at least make an effort to be polite. Unfortunately,
manners seem to be out of fashion on the internet. And when someone is
nasty, there's a temptation to be nasty in return. I admit, I succumb
to that temptation myself. But I try not to call people stupid.
Uniformed, ill-mannered, opinionated assholes, maybe. But not stupid.
Plainly they're smart enough to operate a computer or we wouldn't be
reading their opinions.
Still, thanks for caring enough to come to my defense.
Robert Wolfe
Cronan Thompson(back to normal....errrrrr)
Warbird <war...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
> I just want to say that it is incredibly unfair to attack Mr. Wolfe and
> his writing ability.
Why?
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine is the best science
> fiction on television.
An erroneus opinion
I challenge anyone to find a show that is better
> than ST:DS9.
Shall just name the animated series or will the sit coms do?
I can't think of one that is better, though I enjoy watching
> Babylon 5 and others.
You haven't thought very hard
> Also, Mr. Wolfe has proven his writing ability and professionalism time
> and time again.
Gharlane has proven his knowledge of SF time and time again.
His work is some of the best in Trek (any Trek).
DC Fontana and David Gerrold by a mile.
True,
> some of his episodes don't go anywhere, but that's true of any writer on
> any show.
Are you attempting to defend or damn Mr. Wolfe
And every science fiction fan knows Mr. Wolfe by name. Not
> every science fiction fan knows my name or the names of the rest of you.
Do you have anything resembling a point
> Does that tell you how much better Mr. Wolfe is than the rest of us?
This one jumped at me like a frieght train. If you believe this then you
are sycophant or a fanatic.
And
> personally, the rest of the world doesn't know that you people exist,
like
> it or not.
ummmmmmmmm
> If you think that any of you can do a job better than Mr. Wolfe, than
send
> in a speculative script to either DS9 or Voyager.
No. They don't accept works of art
See if they do anything
> with it. They'll be fair about it. If it's good, they will do
something.
> If not, well then that will tell you that you're not as good as you
think
> you are.
Or they are afraid that if the produce real talent they might have to make
a habit of it
Oh, but I forgot--if you knew that you weren't any good, that
> would burst your holier-than-everyone-else bubble, and you don't want
that
> to happen.
My holier than thou bubble is made of sufficent ego to explain away any
attempts on its structural integrity
But, until you do send in a script to a Trek show and it gets
> accepted, any criticism of the works of others just prove your stupidity.
Hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue.
La Rochefoucauld , Maxims
-- Cronan Thompson, guy among men
Guaranteed offensive material in
10th message. Bring your kids.
Cronan Thompson(back to normal....errrrrr)
<<snipped>>
> Still, thanks for caring enough to come to my defense.
>
> Robert Wolfe
Mr. Wolfe, you might reconsider this. I don't know about you but this guy
seemed a little too kiss ass. If he did kiss your ass he would leave it
glazed with sugar.
Robert H. Wolfe
In <barklage....@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> bark...@ucsu.Colorado.EDU
(Mike Barklage) writes:
>Warbird <war...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>>I just want to say that it is incredibly unfair to attack Mr. Wolfe
>>and his writing ability.
>
>for criticism. That tends to happen when you have a creative work in
>the public eye.
Yep.
>>Not
>>every science fiction fan knows my name or the names of the rest of
>>you.
>
>Yet. (Muahahahaha...)
Bring it on, baby!
>>Does that tell you how much better Mr. Wolfe is than the rest of us?
>>And personally, the rest of the world doesn't know that you people
>>exist, like it or not.
>
>Wait a sec... Robert Wolfe is a better person than us because he
>writes for Trek?
Nope. Better looking, but not better.
>>If you think that any of you can do a job better than Mr. Wolfe, than
>>send in a speculative script to either DS9 or Voyager. See if they
>>do anything with it. They'll be fair about it. If it's good, they
>>will do something.
>
>Yeah, they'll rip it off. <grin> (See also: "Ex Post Facto")
Not true. We buy 'em. It's less trouble (and cheeper). For every "Ex
Post Facto"/"Hard Time" controversy (and I've given my point of view on
that one before) there're dozens of people who came into us via spec
scripts who we've purchased material from (and hundreds who've gotten
rejection slips, but that's the way it goes).
>> If not, well then that will tell you that you're not as good as you
>> think you are.
>
>Ah, so the true measure of a screenwriter is whether he's done a
>script for Star Trek?
I think what Warbird is saying is that all the people who say they can
do better than us should give it a try. I only wish other science
fiction tv shows with large fan bases (not to name names) would give
people the same kind of opportunities we do.
Robert Wolfe
ST: DS9
Robert H. Wolfe
In <01bc13ce$ba1d3bc0$300392cf@default> "Cronan Thompson(back to
normal....errrrrr)" <mal...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
><<snipped>>
>> Still, thanks for caring enough to come to my defense.
>>
>> Robert Wolfe
>
>Mr. Wolfe, you might reconsider this. I don't know about you but this
>guy seemed a little too kiss ass.
Come on, Cronan. I spent the whole post talking about where I thought
he went overboard. But I do appreciate that he likes my work, even if
some of his statements where a little hyperbolic. There's nothing wrong
with being polite.
R
Michael Johnson
rhw...@ix.netcom.com(Robert H. Wolfe) wrote:
>>And every science fiction fan knows Mr. Wolfe by name.
>I doubt that very much. But I'm working on it. Wait until my feature
>comes out (if it gets made). (Then again, how many science fiction
>fans know Dean Devlin by name?)
Whelp. I never knew your name until the Stenz(sp?) thingy. It is about
time DS9 at least got someone in the arena here though that we can
pummel for a while :).
>A little harsh, Warbird. People have a right to their opinions, even
>if they don't give writing a shot themselves. But I think you're
>reacting to the stridency of some of the posts. Basically common
>courtesy dictates that when you're talking about to someone about their
>work, especially in a field you may not have practical experience in,
>you should at least make an effort to be polite. Unfortunately,
>manners seem to be out of fashion on the internet.
So? No need to whine about it. Skate or die :). Usenet is NOT for the
timid.
>And when someone is nasty, there's a temptation to be nasty in return.
Yeah, people fall for that one all the time instead of combatting the
argument :). Just spice up the message a bit and people start getting
off topic REAL fast :). Hell, it works for Cronan most of the time.
>I admit, I succumb to that temptation myself.
Hey, half the reason most of us are here is for comic relief. Those
who aren't need to go somewhere... and get help.
>But I try not to call people stupid. Uniformed, ill-mannered, opinionated
>assholes, maybe. But not stupid.
Ahh, a boy with a sense of humor. This could get interesting.
>Plainly they're smart enough to operate a computer or we wouldn't be
>reading their opinions.
Um... what is a computer and how do I get one?
-MJ
Cronan Thompson(back to normal....errrrrr)
> Come on, Cronan.
YOU ALL SAW IT HE MADE A HOMOSEXUAL OVERTURE TOWARDS ME!!!!! I have proof
now *Mr* Wolfe of your perverse ways
I spent the whole post talking about where I thought
> he went overboard.
Hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue.
La Rochefoucauld , Maxims
But I do appreciate that he likes my work, even if
> some of his statements where a little hyperbolic.
I like your work too. Can I have money now ?
There's nothing wrong
> with being polite.
Yes there is when it is meant to kiss...... no, slurp....no, throughly
clean ass
Thats all I have to say about that there
Jeff Vavasour
In <5db7nr$9...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> rhw...@ix.netcom.com(Robert H. Wolfe) writes:
>In <5dalql$3...@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net> Warbird
><war...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>send in a speculative script to either DS9 or Voyager.
>speculative material from writers without agents.
A minor correction here: Star Trek is not the only show that will accept
unagented speculative material, but it is the only show I know of that has
an official policy for accepting such material. With care and diplomacy it
is possible to get unagented scripts (even from unproven writers) read by
shows that do not have such a policy.
- Jeff
Basil Fawlty
Mr. Wolfe:
I appreciate your candor in your first reply to this thread, as well as
your mere presence in this newsgroup. However, I have to take issue with
one of your statements.
You wrote:
> Actually, it's totally fair to attack my writing ability. Everyone's
> entitled to their opinion. If all I wanted was praise, I'd have people
> created a ds9.moderated group and hide out there. ;-)
If this statement was designed as a subtle criticism of J. Michael
Straczinski, it is not only ill-informed, but an unnecessary cheap shot,
especially coming from you. If you knew anything about the history of the
rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated newsgroup or the reason for moderated
newsgroups in general, you would not have made such an idiotic statement
(despite punctuating your comments with a smiley-face).
Despite Ford Thaxton's and B5 detractors' comments to the contrary, the
rastb5m group was not created as a place for fan worship of JMS. In fact,
JMS had nothing to do with the creation of that newsgroup. A group of B5
fans who were fed up with the constant flame wars that would erupt whenever
B5 was discussed created a place where people could discuss the show in a
reasonable fashion--and yes, where the character (not the *writing*, but
the character) of JMS wouldn't be attacked ad infinitum, ad nauseum. I'm
sure *you* would get tired of that after a few years.
Does fan worship of JMS go on in that newsgroup? Sure. Does fan worship
go on in Trek newsgroups? Of course. However, that doesn't invalidate a
moderated newgroup's reason for existence. Actually, I tire of all the
flame wars present on Trek and SF newsgroups and would actually like to see
a moderated Trek newsgroup, where issues can be discussed without flaming
or cults of Usenet personalities being built (I'm referring to certain fans
who dominate newsgroups with the sheer volume of posts and the screeching
pitch of their opinions).
Lastly, if you think that only praise goes on in the rastb5m group, think
again. Many posts criticize JMS' writing, either in style or content. One
long-running thread questions just how original JMS' ideas really are.
Just because a newsgroup is moderated *does not* mean that differences of
opinion are disallowed. So, Mr. Wolfe, I suggest you do your homework
before you make such an ignorant statement, even in jest. You, of all
people, should set an example for everyone on Usenet by openly supporting
fellow writer/producers in the same genre, because if enough of us fans
decide your work isn't entertaining anymore, *you're* out of a job.
--
*****************************************************************
Basil Fawlty
Owner and Reluctant Manager
Fawlty Towers (nee Flowery Tarts, Watery Fowls, etc.)
Sybil--"People ask, 'How on *earth* did the two of you
ever get together?' 'Black magic,' my mother says."
Basil--"Well... she'd know, wouldn't she?"
*****************************************************************
Gharlane of Eddore
> his writing ability.
Bad choice of words. *NO ONE* that I've seen on this topic has
"attacked" him, although a few of us have taken exception to his
posting style and peculiar belief that he writes Science Fiction.
> Star Trek: Deep Space Nine is the best science fiction on television.
Presuming this isn't a "troll," then just do us a favor and think back
to the episode about the solar sailing ship with HUMAN-POWERED sail
controls, and a total acreage of sail that would provide insufficient
reflective surface to get out of the gravity well of a NOVA in less
than geologic time. Then reflect on the fact that you obviously
aren't familiar with anything resembling real Science Fiction.
> I challenge anyone to find a show that is better than ST:DS9.
Well, I kind of liked "BRIGADOON" better on the stage than the way
DS9 did it, and "THE MAN IN THE GLASS BOOTH" was a really good stage
play, better than the way they did it on DS9, so that's two "shows"
right there....
> I can't think of one that is better, though I enjoy watching
> Babylon 5 and others.
Good. Excellent not to be close-minded, although your critical
faculties need a bit of improvement.
> Also, Mr. Wolfe has proven his writing ability and professionalism time
> and time again. His work is some of the best in Trek (any Trek). True,
I concur with both these statements. His work on getting "HARD TIME"
into decent script form, and produced, went a long way toward defusing
the jaundiced attitude that many writers have toward the Paramount shows.
> some of his episodes don't go anywhere, but that's true of any writer on
> any show. And every science fiction fan knows Mr. Wolfe by name. Not
Hardly. Mr. Wolfe is a TV writer, not an SF writer. He's done some
pretty good stuff that was worth watching on TV. He hasn't written
any SF, although he's written some "Trek."
> every science fiction fan knows my name or the names of the rest of you.
Non sequitur.
> Does that tell you how much better Mr. Wolfe is than the rest of us?
I can't believe I just read that. Wolfe is a guy who works for a living.
He does a better job than most people in his profession, and goes out
of his way to try. This doesn't make him any more special than any other
craftsman, or any "better" in any conceivable way. (Although the I.R.S.
probably likes him better than any of the rest of us, for obvious reasons.)
> And personally, the rest of the world doesn't know that you people exist,
> like it or not.
*shrug* I find it easy to cope with being unknown, as long as I'm
ignored as well.
> If you think that any of you can do a job better than Mr. Wolfe, than send
> in a speculative script to either DS9 or Voyager. See if they do anything
You're kidding, right? Do you know how many bazillions of scripts they
get over-the-transom every year? VERY danged few writers are willing to
do "spec" submissions; for one thing, it's against Guild regulations.
For another thing, Paramount has a track record for treatment of "spec"
scripts that I'd rather not get into.
> with it. They'll be fair about it.
To "VOYAGER???????" To Jeri Taylor and Brannon Braga, the People
Who Make A Living Recycling Garbage?
Yeah, right. If it weren't for Bob Wolfe's professionalism and the
ethics of a small number of the staffers, I strongly suspect Doug Moran
never *would* have gotten paid, or contracted for any future work.
As for "fair," as soon as Robert Shaw's estate gets a "story rights"
check for "THE MAN IN THE GLASS BOOTH," I'll take "fair" seriously.
> If it's good, they will do something.
You betcha they will. Of course, the submitter may not be involved.
> If not, well then that will tell you that you're not as good as you think
> you are. Oh, but I forgot--if you knew that you weren't any good, that
I don't need to be good at scripts. *I* don't write TV for a living.
I have an *honest* job.
> would burst your holier-than-everyone-else bubble, and you don't want that
> to happen. But, until you do send in a script to a Trek show and it gets
> accepted, any criticism of the works of others just prove your stupidity.
Well, by your logic, you have no earthly right to criticise *ME*, since
you've never been me, or done what I do for a living.
Let's put it this way.... I'm an engineer. If I'm involved in the
design of a bridge, and the bridge costs twice as much as it should,
turns out to be built in such a way that a road can't pass through it,
and then falls down in the first light breeze, I'd have to be pretty
loopy to tell people they have no right to criticise it because they're
not engineers.
Equivalently, when I look at a DS9 episode and see 1.5 million bucks
frittered away on a show that falls down under its own weight and is
an insult to anyone who can parse a sentence or divide by ten, then
it's *NOT* a good episode, and I don't have to be a "Producer" to
know that.
Your assertion that we are incompetent to criticise the works of others
is rooted in ignorance and illogic.
People *PAY* me to write newspaper columns reviewing and criticising
TV and movies.
Since no one has ever paid YOU to be a critic, by your logic you can't
possibly understand the process of criticism, and you should not be
criticising me.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
\|/ _\/_ \|/ \|/ \/__ \|/ \|/ _\/_ \|/ \|/ \/__ \|/ \|/ _\/_ \|/
@~/ Oo \~@ @~/Oo \~@ @~/ Oo \~@ @~/Oo \~@ @~/ Oo \~@
/_( \__/ )_\ /_(\__/ )_\ /_( \__/ )_\ /_(\__/ )_\ /_( \__/ )_\
\__U_/ \_U__/ \__U_/ \_U__/ \__U_/
_ _
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gharlane of Eddore
In <5dbdl9$l...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
rhw...@ix.netcom.com(Robert H. Wolfe) writes:
>
....<deletia>
>
> I think what Warbird is saying is that all the people who say they can
> do better than us should give it a try. I only wish other science
> fiction tv shows with large fan bases (not to name names) would give
> people the same kind of opportunities we do.
>
Name names, by all means. The only major non-Franchise Sci-Fi show
in current production had all 22 episodes written by one guy last
year, since he had an actual story in mind when the series went into
production. It has to be told sequentially. It's his series, he
put it together, he knows where it's going, and with the amount of
air time he has to work with, he can't really leave things very
loose and still get the sucker finished. He's had to keep a firm
hand on the narrative tiller this fall because renewal for a fifth
season is not assured, and if it doesn't go for a fifth season,
he has to have everything set up, in place, and be ready to prune
the heck out of the main plotlines so he can get it all in the can
before their operation gets flushed.
(Remember how "KUNG FU" got put out of production..... a mid-morning
call that said "You're out of production, sell the office furniture
this afternoon.")
You have the great good fortune to be involved in a thundering
juggernaut, The Franchise. Nothing else could have kept a
misbegotten travesty like "VOYAGER" in production for more than
a couple of episodes. Pointing to other shows, shows whose futures
are not so set-in-concrete solid, and suggesting that it would be
good for them to display the same conceptual desperation that has
the Franchise out begging on street corners for stories and scripts,
is a kind of close-minded denial of the fact that those other shows,
(and like you, I do not name names, but think of the initials "B5")
are trying to do something a bit different, and have already created
a market environment which has forced DS9 to take a couple of small
chances that resulted in some decent TV.
Security breeds cowardice and incompetence. The Franchise staffers
are the equivalent of "civil servants," their employments and futures
assured by a monolithic business organization that will not allow
them to fail, or even consider the possibility that they're stuck in
a rut so deep they can't see the stars any longer.
Let me put it this way... DS9 is so far behind the eight-ball that
the Franchise had to spend several million on a single episode,
milking the Old Trek "Tribbles" show (which frankly, wasn't that
good, just fun, at a time when fun was rare on TV) ....and *NOT*
doing a good job with the storyline development. That one show
spent enough to make FOUR HOURS of SF-TV, and didn't have a script
that justified the budget. It wasn't terribly funny, it wasn't
terribly dramatic, and aside from the introduction of the
temporal-paradox cops, didn't give us anything new or interesting
about the "TREK" universe.
Just *ONE* line, having Worf admit that Klingons don't like to
talk about the change in their appearance... because it was caused
by a backfiring effect of the cultured virus they invented to destroy
all tribbles.... could have, handled right, given you the nucleus
of a scene that would have had everyone in the U.S. in stitches.
I think of the DS9 "Tribbles" show as a clear demonstration of
how the Franchise has lost its way, and its courage and joy.
The real writing on the wall was paying Dorn to come back and
be surly, when what you really needed to do was kill Sisko
gloriously and put Kira in command of the station. Personal
preference only, you understand; but the handling and writing
of the Sisko character has become incredibly grating.
Franklin Hummel
In article <5dalql$3...@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>,
Warbird <war...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I just want to say that it is incredibly unfair to attack Mr. Wolfe and
I don't know about people attacking him for his -writing- ability.
I have seen them critize him for his, ah, "understanding" of Science Fiction.
>fiction on television. I challenge anyone to find a show that is better
You don't follow rec.art.sf.tv much, do you? DEEP SPACE NINE is
-not- Science Fiction. Of the series currently on TV, BABYLON 5 is
generally thought to be the closest thing to Science Fiction (though it
still isn't SF).
>than ST:DS9. I can't think of one that is better, though I enjoy watching
>Babylon 5 and others.
You answered your own question with that comment.
-- Franklin Hummel [ hum...@world.std.com ]
--
====================================================================
* NecronomiCon, 3rd Edition: The Cthulhu Mythos Convention *
15-17 August 1997, Providence, Rhode Island
Visit our NEW web site at: http://www.necropress.com/necronomicon
Mossel TAK
"Basil Fawlty" <imo...@earthlink.net> writes:
>Mr. Wolfe:
>I appreciate your candor in your first reply to this thread, as well as
>your mere presence in this newsgroup.
I agree completely. It's never easy for a writer to receive criticism on
his or her work, and the criticism on Usenet, the most public and anonymous
medium, is often more acidic and unfair than all newspapers together.
For a writer to come out and participate publicly (and under his own name
for I'm sure there are more "public figures" lurking on Usenet than one
would expect on first sight) in the discussion of his work, thus making
himself even more vulnerable, takes actual courage.
>However, I have to take issue with one of your statements.
>You wrote:
>
>> Actually, it's totally fair to attack my writing ability. Everyone's
>> entitled to their opinion. If all I wanted was praise, I'd have people
>> created a ds9.moderated group and hide out there. ;-)
>
>If this statement was designed as a subtle criticism of J. Michael
>Straczinski, it is not only ill-informed, but an unnecessary cheap shot,
>especially coming from you. If you knew anything about the history of the
>rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated newsgroup or the reason for moderated
>newsgroups in general, you would not have made such an idiotic statement
>(despite punctuating your comments with a smiley-face).
Oh, please. I *do* know something about the history of the r.a.s.t.babylon5
newsgroup, and I don't agree with JMS' reasons for moving there at all.
>Despite Ford Thaxton's and B5 detractors' comments to the contrary, the
>rastb5m group was not created as a place for fan worship of JMS. In fact,
>JMS had nothing to do with the creation of that newsgroup. A group of B5
>fans who were fed up with the constant flame wars that would erupt whenever
>B5 was discussed created a place where people could discuss the show in a
>reasonable fashion--and yes, where the character (not the *writing*, but
>the character) of JMS wouldn't be attacked ad infinitum, ad nauseum. I'm
>sure *you* would get tired of that after a few years.
I maintain that JMS could just have killfiled the ppl who made those
comments, or even put a filter on his e-mail, should that have proved
necessary. For me, one of the great added values of Usenet are the
completely tangential and often irrelevant topics that are discussed
in a witty and intelligent manner (see alt.fan.pratchett). A moderated
group, in contrast, is oftentimes boring. Usenet is an anarchistic
medium, and personal attacks are one of the hazards that are implied.
And remember that it takes two sides to start a flamewar. If idiots
are ignored, they usually go away. If you get angry at them, or, worse,
go away because of them, you give them what they want.
>Does fan worship of JMS go on in that newsgroup? Sure. Does fan worship
>go on in Trek newsgroups? Of course. However, that doesn't invalidate a
>moderated newgroup's reason for existence. Actually, I tire of all the
>flame wars present on Trek and SF newsgroups and would actually like to see
>a moderated Trek newsgroup, where issues can be discussed without flaming
>or cults of Usenet personalities being built (I'm referring to certain fans
>who dominate newsgroups with the sheer volume of posts and the screeching
>pitch of their opinions).
Well, you certainly wouldn't find me on a moderated Trek group. And if
you don't like flamewars (I don't either), don't read them. If you
regularly read a group, you should know which threads contain flamewars.
And similarly, you could ignore the posts of such dominating personali-
ties like Cronan.
>Lastly, if you think that only praise goes on in the rastb5m group, think
>again. Many posts criticize JMS' writing, either in style or content. One
>long-running thread questions just how original JMS' ideas really are.
>Just because a newsgroup is moderated *does not* mean that differences of
>opinion are disallowed. So, Mr. Wolfe, I suggest you do your homework
>before you make such an ignorant statement, even in jest. You, of all
>people, should set an example for everyone on Usenet by openly supporting
>fellow writer/producers in the same genre, because if enough of us fans
>decide your work isn't entertaining anymore, *you're* out of a job.
Well, it seems you're disallowing the opinion that JMS' moving to
a moderated newsgroup was a wrongheaded decision.
BTW, I would expect that one who calls himself after Basil Fawlty would
not be completely averse to screechingly-pitched opinions, and perhaps
even would possess a sense of humour.
Krijn
--
/------------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Krijn Mossel <tamo...@cs.vu.nl>| "My brother went up the mountain, and |
| Fabricati diem, pvnc |all I got was this lousy tablet" -Aaron |
\------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Words from the Monastery
In article <5dbgeg$o...@news.csus.edu>, Gharlane of Eddore says...
>Your assertion that we are incompetent to criticise the works of others
>is rooted in ignorance and illogic.
Well ... let's take a look at your illogic ... I mean logic ...
>People *PAY* me to write newspaper columns reviewing and criticising
>TV and movies.
Mr. Wolfe is *PAID* to write Science Fiction (which by the way does not
*require* that the science be fact, there isn't a Science Fiction anything
that does not depend on the suspension of disbelief in the science department
to some degree) ... thus, by your own arguement, Mr. Wolfe is a science
fiction author (and from your inference that pay = good, a damn fine science
fiction author to boot ... another point to which I agree) ... a fact that I
do not disagree with by the way.
>Since no one has ever paid YOU to be a critic, by your logic you can't
>possibly understand the process of criticism, and you should not be
>criticising me.
Being paid to do something is in no way proof in the ability to do so ... your
own arguement against Mr. Wolfe depends on that concept ... hypocrisy is an
ugly thing to watch ... all you have proven is the old adage, those who can
create ... do ... those who cannot become critiques ...
--
sincerely,
Anthony Dauer
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/4640/
"The opinion expressed is solely that of the expresser, if you'd
like supporting documentation ... please, forward your VISA,
MasterCard, or American Express account number with expiration date.
If you choose to flame my opinion, be advised that I will make goofy
faces at the monitor..." -- le Grande Cheez Whiz
Words from the Monastery
In article <5dbdl9$l...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>, Robert H. Wolfe says...
>I think what Warbird is saying is that all the people who say they can
>do better than us should give it a try. I only wish other science
>fiction tv shows with large fan bases (not to name names) would give
>people the same kind of opportunities we do.
Seeing as I'm not affiliated with anyone as you are, I can say it ... THE
X-FILES ... yeah, they could have had a far better season using some fan-fic
this year (quality wise ... the numbers are doing well), than some of the
episodes they've aired ... who knows though ... if CC does leave and FOX
decides to just have at it with a new producer, maybe they'll get someone who
isn't such a prima-donna ...
David Stinson
In article <5dbht0$1...@news1-alterdial.uu.net>, d...@connectnet.com (Michael
Johnson) wrote:
: rhw...@ix.netcom.com(Robert H. Wolfe) wrote:
:
: >>And every science fiction fan knows Mr. Wolfe by name.
:
: >I doubt that very much. But I'm working on it. Wait until my feature
: >comes out (if it gets made). (Then again, how many science fiction
: >fans know Dean Devlin by name?)
Actually I do, but then again I remember when he made his living as an
actor. With such winning productions as MOON 44 (with Roland Emmerich on
the production staff) and his infamous TV series with Dean Cameron
(actually, I like Dean C.'s work better - but then again I liked ROCKULA
with Cameron & Tawny Fere, for the music).
--
David A. Stinson Web Page: http://www.procom.com/~daves/index.html
Product Integration Work E-Mail : da...@procom.com
Engineer Personal E-Mail : dsti...@ix.netcom.com or
Procom Technology dast...@aol.com
**** OPINIONS ABOVE ARE THOSE OF D.STINSON, AND NOT NECESSARILY THOSE OF
PROCOM TECHNOLOGY ****
David Stinson
In article <5dckl1$4...@star.cs.vu.nl>, tamo...@cs.vu.nl (Mossel TAK) wrote:
: "Basil Fawlty" <imo...@earthlink.net> writes:
:
: >However, I have to take issue with one of your statements.
: >You wrote:
: >
: >> Actually, it's totally fair to attack my writing ability. Everyone's
: >> entitled to their opinion. If all I wanted was praise, I'd have people
: >> created a ds9.moderated group and hide out there. ;-)
: >
: >If this statement was designed as a subtle criticism of J. Michael
: >Straczinski, it is not only ill-informed, but an unnecessary cheap shot,
: >especially coming from you. If you knew anything about the history of the
: >rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated newsgroup or the reason for moderated
: >newsgroups in general, you would not have made such an idiotic statement
: >(despite punctuating your comments with a smiley-face).
:
: Oh, please. I *do* know something about the history of the r.a.s.t.babylon5
: newsgroup, and I don't agree with JMS' reasons for moving there at all.
Oh, and the Thaxton thread of JMS IS FULL OF SHIT and DOZENS of posts
PERSONALLY attacking JMS and others (myself included) had nothing to do
with it?
The fact is: I was one of the creators of rastb5mod. We created it because
we got tired of people who had nothing better to do than play HIT AND RUN
with other peoples lives.
Criticism is an established tradition in rastb5mod. But it is based on
criticism being INTELLIGENT not belligerent. Hell, the running Gharlane/JMS
arguments are very entertaining.
JMS moved there for his own reasons. Those of us who worked on it did so
WITHOUT any promise of JMS being there (he didn't even tell us he was going
to until he posted it on Compuserve two months into the RFD process).
: >Despite Ford Thaxton's and B5 detractors' comments to the contrary, the
: >rastb5m group was not created as a place for fan worship of JMS. In fact,
: >JMS had nothing to do with the creation of that newsgroup. A group of B5
: >fans who were fed up with the constant flame wars that would erupt whenever
: >B5 was discussed created a place where people could discuss the show in a
: >reasonable fashion--and yes, where the character (not the *writing*, but
: >the character) of JMS wouldn't be attacked ad infinitum, ad nauseum. I'm
: >sure *you* would get tired of that after a few years.
:
: I maintain that JMS could just have killfiled the ppl who made those
: comments, or even put a filter on his e-mail, should that have proved
: necessary. For me, one of the great added values of Usenet are the
: completely tangential and often irrelevant topics that are discussed
: in a witty and intelligent manner (see alt.fan.pratchett). A moderated
: group, in contrast, is oftentimes boring. Usenet is an anarchistic
: medium, and personal attacks are one of the hazards that are implied.
: And remember that it takes two sides to start a flamewar. If idiots
: are ignored, they usually go away. If you get angry at them, or, worse,
: go away because of them, you give them what they want.
You work from a false premise - that the really belligerent will go away if
you ignore them.
1) Some do it for the kicks - that they can stand on a soapbox and
assassinate someone without any real repercussions.
2) rastb5mod lets virtually anything marginally relating to SF through,
including a quite a few arguments - but it says that if you have an
argument, you should argue either intellgently or entertainingly - NOT with
malice.
Take a look at the charter - its specific on the issue in its description
of flames as repeated attacks made without supporting evidence for the
apparent specific purpose of hurting someone in a manner resembling
slander/libel.
That specifically drives at the hit-and-run specialists while supporting
argument based on intelligent discourse.
As to the killfile issue, that only helps those at the end of the spectrum,
not all the ancillary people who get hurt along the way. And doesn't stop
e-mail.
Choice was also an issue. The concept of providing a more reasonable forum
for discussion as an alternative, without eliminating the original group
was always in the plans. Try reading the RFD discussion (good luck - about
1300 posts long and I read EVERY SINGLE ONE - since I was the lead
proponent).
: >Does fan worship of JMS go on in that newsgroup? Sure. Does fan worship
: >go on in Trek newsgroups? Of course. However, that doesn't invalidate a
: >moderated newgroup's reason for existence. Actually, I tire of all the
: >flame wars present on Trek and SF newsgroups and would actually like to see
: >a moderated Trek newsgroup, where issues can be discussed without flaming
: >or cults of Usenet personalities being built (I'm referring to certain fans
: >who dominate newsgroups with the sheer volume of posts and the screeching
: >pitch of their opinions).
:
: Well, you certainly wouldn't find me on a moderated Trek group. And if
: you don't like flamewars (I don't either), don't read them. If you
: regularly read a group, you should know which threads contain flamewars.
: And similarly, you could ignore the posts of such dominating personali-
: ties like Cronan.
Which disregards the fact that Cronan occasionally does have smart things
to say. As do Ford Thaxton, Theron Fuller, Robert Holland, Matthew Melmon
and others.
Choice is the issue.
: >Lastly, if you think that only praise goes on in the rastb5m group, think
: >again. Many posts criticize JMS' writing, either in style or content. One
: >long-running thread questions just how original JMS' ideas really are.
: >Just because a newsgroup is moderated *does not* mean that differences of
: >opinion are disallowed. So, Mr. Wolfe, I suggest you do your homework
: >before you make such an ignorant statement, even in jest. You, of all
: >people, should set an example for everyone on Usenet by openly supporting
: >fellow writer/producers in the same genre, because if enough of us fans
: >decide your work isn't entertaining anymore, *you're* out of a job.
:
: Well, it seems you're disallowing the opinion that JMS' moving to
: a moderated newsgroup was a wrongheaded decision.
: BTW, I would expect that one who calls himself after Basil Fawlty would
: not be completely averse to screechingly-pitched opinions, and perhaps
: even would possess a sense of humour.
And your own choice to attack rather than refute his points seems to
indicatwew yours.
Not once did you actually provide a train of logic for why his points were
wrong in your opinion. All you did was say that they were wrong and proceed
without supporting your statements.
THAT is why intelligent argument is a good alternative. Learning how to
argue intelligently lets you learn how to respect the other person's point
of view as well.
David Hines
In article <5dbdl9$l...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
Robert H. Wolfe <rhw...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[snip]
>I think what Warbird is saying is that all the people who say they can
>do better than us should give it a try. I only wish other science
>fiction tv shows with large fan bases (not to name names) would give
>people the same kind of opportunities we do.
David Gerrold's _Starwolf_ series will start doing this its second
season. He apparently intends to pay novice screenwriters the going
rate if he buys their scripts, rather than a mere pittance.
*fiendish grin*
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| David Hines d-h...@uchicago.edu |
| http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/dzhines |
====================================================================
| "Television today remains a study in imperfection. Some of its |
| basic weaknesses and mediocrity are still with us. There is still |
| wrestling, soap opera, overlong commercials, and some incredibly |
| bad writing." -- Rod Serling, 1957. |
====================================================================
Doug Mertaugh
ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu (Gharlane of Eddore) wrote:
>In <5dbdl9$l...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
>rhw...@ix.netcom.com(Robert H. Wolfe) writes:
>>
>....<deletia>
>>
>You have the great good fortune to be involved in a thundering
>juggernaut, The Franchise. Nothing else could have kept a
>misbegotten travesty like "VOYAGER" in production for more than
>a couple of episodes.
You are *wrong* sir. Nothing else could have gotten
"Voyager" past the pilot episode.
Pointing to other shows, shows whose futures
>are not so set-in-concrete solid, and suggesting that it would be
>good for them to display the same conceptual desperation that has
>the Franchise out begging on street corners for stories and scripts,
>is a kind of close-minded denial of the fact that those other shows,
>(and like you, I do not name names, but think of the initials "B5")
>are trying to do something a bit different, and have already created
>a market environment which has forced DS9 to take a couple of small
>chances that resulted in some decent TV.
The very fact that both shows ("DS9" and "Voyager"), are
so desperate for scripts and, according to one TV Guide
article, bought a script from one of the producer's children,
says a lot. Maybe the kid wrote a good story, but it says
that the powers that be have no idea where these shows
are going, what they are trying to say, etc. DS9 had a
vague concept at the beginning that was a watered down
ripoff of... er, never mind, but it's the second letter
of the English alphabet followed by the fifth number in
our numerical system. It doesn't matter. They've so
totally wasted that concept that it can't even be called
flattery. As for "Voyager," the stated reason for bringing
the Borg in this season is because they boosted the popularity
of "First Contact" so maybe they'll help Voyager's
ratings. Now there's a writer's reason, rather than a
suit's, if I ever heard one.
Incidentally, I don't consider any of this to be Robert
H. Wolfe's fault. He's turned in some of the very
best Trek stories. It's not his fault that he doesn't
have enough creative control so that events that occur in
his stories continue to be relevant rather than being
ignored as if they never happened.
Robert H. Wolfe
In <01bc13e2$e2f3dae0$d40392cf@default> "Cronan Thompson(back to
normal....errrrrr)" <mal...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>> Come on, Cronan.
>
>YOU ALL SAW IT HE MADE A HOMOSEXUAL OVERTURE TOWARDS ME!!!!! I have
>proof now *Mr* Wolfe of your perverse ways
Wanna see my nipple piercing? :)
R
Robert H. Wolfe
In <E56tB...@midway.uchicago.edu> dzh...@midway.uchicago.edu (David
Hines) writes:
>
>In article <5dbdl9$l...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
>Robert H. Wolfe <rhw...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>[snip]
>>I think what Warbird is saying is that all the people who say they
can
>>do better than us should give it a try. I only wish other science
>>fiction tv shows with large fan bases (not to name names) would give
>>people the same kind of opportunities we do.
>
>David Gerrold's _Starwolf_ series will start doing this its second
>season. He apparently intends to pay novice screenwriters the going
>rate if he buys their scripts, rather than a mere pittance.
>*fiendish grin*
We do pay people the going rate. In fact, I think we pay more, since
we pay network rates and by our agreement with the WGA, we're only
required to pay syndication rates, which are about 60% lower. The only
time we don't pay at least the full story rate is when we by a
"premise" which is a fragment of a snippet of an idea. We bought two
words, "space mines," for the show SONS OF MOGH from a real life rocket
scientist (okay, rocket engineer) and paid him something like $1000.00.
Less than a full story rate, but definitely not a pittance.
Robert
Mossel TAK
da...@procom.com (David Stinson) writes:
>In article <5dckl1$4...@star.cs.vu.nl>, tamo...@cs.vu.nl (Mossel TAK) wrote:
>: "Basil Fawlty" <imo...@earthlink.net> writes:
>:
>: >However, I have to take issue with one of your statements.
>: >You wrote:
>: >
>: >> Actually, it's totally fair to attack my writing ability. Everyone's
>: >> entitled to their opinion. If all I wanted was praise, I'd have people
>: >> created a ds9.moderated group and hide out there. ;-)
>: >
>: >If this statement was designed as a subtle criticism of J. Michael
>: >Straczinski, it is not only ill-informed, but an unnecessary cheap shot,
>: >especially coming from you. If you knew anything about the history of the
>: >rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated newsgroup or the reason for moderated
>: >newsgroups in general, you would not have made such an idiotic statement
>: >(despite punctuating your comments with a smiley-face).
>:
>: Oh, please. I *do* know something about the history of the r.a.s.t.babylon5
>: newsgroup, and I don't agree with JMS' reasons for moving there at all.
>Oh, and the Thaxton thread of JMS IS FULL OF SHIT and DOZENS of posts
>PERSONALLY attacking JMS and others (myself included) had nothing to do
>with it?
No, that had everything to do with it. But that's exactly why I don't agree
with JMS' decision. Or rather, I wouldn't have done it, in his shoes. His
decisions are his own, of course.
Even if the "really belligerent" won't go away, you can decide not to let them
get to you. If you ignore them, they will get nothing out of it. While if you
get angry, you only give them what they want.
>2) rastb5mod lets virtually anything marginally relating to SF through,
>including a quite a few arguments - but it says that if you have an
>argument, you should argue either intellgently or entertainingly - NOT with
>malice.
>Take a look at the charter - its specific on the issue in its description
>of flames as repeated attacks made without supporting evidence for the
>apparent specific purpose of hurting someone in a manner resembling
>slander/libel.
I'm sure that rastb5mod is very liberal in its guidelines, but that does not
erase the fact that it *is* a moderated group, something which comes
altogether too close to censure in my mind.
>That specifically drives at the hit-and-run specialists while supporting
>argument based on intelligent discourse.
>As to the killfile issue, that only helps those at the end of the spectrum,
>not all the ancillary people who get hurt along the way. And doesn't stop
>e-mail.
True, but you can send e-mail from certain people to /dev/null. And it's also
possible to only put the people who behave offensibely in your killfile,
instead of everybody who gets involved.
>Choice was also an issue. The concept of providing a more reasonable forum
>for discussion as an alternative, without eliminating the original group
>was always in the plans. Try reading the RFD discussion (good luck - about
>1300 posts long and I read EVERY SINGLE ONE - since I was the lead
>proponent).
I don't question your creating the newsgroup. I'm sure you went through all
the correct procedures. But the fact that JMS "moved" there, made it the
primary group for B5 discussions in the minds of many people.
>: >Does fan worship of JMS go on in that newsgroup? Sure. Does fan worship
>: >go on in Trek newsgroups? Of course. However, that doesn't invalidate a
>: >moderated newgroup's reason for existence. Actually, I tire of all the
>: >flame wars present on Trek and SF newsgroups and would actually like to see
>: >a moderated Trek newsgroup, where issues can be discussed without flaming
>: >or cults of Usenet personalities being built (I'm referring to certain fans
>: >who dominate newsgroups with the sheer volume of posts and the screeching
>: >pitch of their opinions).
>:
>: Well, you certainly wouldn't find me on a moderated Trek group. And if
>: you don't like flamewars (I don't either), don't read them. If you
>: regularly read a group, you should know which threads contain flamewars.
>: And similarly, you could ignore the posts of such dominating personali-
>: ties like Cronan.
>Which disregards the fact that Cronan occasionally does have smart things
>to say. As do Ford Thaxton, Theron Fuller, Robert Holland, Matthew Melmon
>and others.
>Choice is the issue.
That's why I don't killfile any of those people, especially not Cronan.
I'm not offended by "fans who dominate newsgroups with the sheer volume of
posts and the screeching pitch of their opinions".
"Basil Fawlty" apparently is, and I was merely pointing out the possibilities
of the killfile to him.
>: >Lastly, if you think that only praise goes on in the rastb5m group, think
>: >again. Many posts criticize JMS' writing, either in style or content. One
>: >long-running thread questions just how original JMS' ideas really are.
>: >Just because a newsgroup is moderated *does not* mean that differences of
>: >opinion are disallowed. So, Mr. Wolfe, I suggest you do your homework
>: >before you make such an ignorant statement, even in jest. You, of all
>: >people, should set an example for everyone on Usenet by openly supporting
>: >fellow writer/producers in the same genre, because if enough of us fans
>: >decide your work isn't entertaining anymore, *you're* out of a job.
>:
>: Well, it seems you're disallowing the opinion that JMS' moving to
>: a moderated newsgroup was a wrongheaded decision.
>: BTW, I would expect that one who calls himself after Basil Fawlty would
>: not be completely averse to screechingly-pitched opinions, and perhaps
>: even would possess a sense of humour.
>And your own choice to attack rather than refute his points seems to
>indicatwew yours.
>Not once did you actually provide a train of logic for why his points were
>wrong in your opinion. All you did was say that they were wrong and proceed
>without supporting your statements.
Okay, maybe I was not explicit enough. My apologies. Let me try again. My
"train of logic" would run somewhat like this:
1. Robert H. Wolfe made a crack about how he'd have people create a
ds9.moderated group and hide out there, if all he wanted was praise.
1a. This could be construed as a "subtle criticism" of JMS.
2. "Basil Fawlty" took offense to this, saying:
"(...) it is not only ill-informed, but an unnecessary cheap shot,
especially coming from you. If you knew anything about the history of the
rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated newsgroup or the reason for moderated
newsgroups in general, you would not have made such an idiotic statement
(...)"
3. I did not agree to this, for the following reasons:
3a. "Basil Fawlty" makes it seem as though JMS' move to rastb5mod was an
inevitable action, and that this would be clear to anyone who knows
anything about the history of the rastb5mod newsgroup or the reason for
moderated newsgroups in general, and that no such person would therefore
make such a statement.
3b. This is not true. I know something about both issues and I still don't
agree with the fact that JMS moved to rastb5mod. The reasons for my
disagreement I have already mentioned. JMS did what he did, and he has
every right to do so, but I would not have done the same thing.
3c. Because of this, I find Robert H. Wolfe's statement neither "idiotic",
nor "an unnecessary cheap shot". I could have made such a statement
myself, and I am obviously neither an idiot, nor a person who makes
unnecessary cheap shots.
>THAT is why intelligent argument is a good alternative. Learning how to
>argue intelligently lets you learn how to respect the other person's point
>of view as well.
I respect most persons' points of view. I just don't always agree with them.
I sincerely hope this makes my previous post clearer to you. If it doesn't,
I will be happy to further elaborate on any points that remain unclear to you.
Best regards,
Robert H. Wolfe
> The very fact that both shows ("DS9" and "Voyager"), are
> so desperate for scripts and, according to one TV Guide
> article, bought a script from one of the producer's children,
A twenty two year old film student at USC and hardly a child.
> says a lot. Maybe the kid wrote a good story, but it says
> that the powers that be have no idea where these shows
> are going, what they are trying to say, etc. DS9 had a
> vague concept at the beginning that was a watered down
> ripoff of... er, never mind, but it's the second letter
> of the English alphabet followed by the fifth number in
> our numerical system.
Man, am I sick of this totally unfounded accusation. I've talked about
it before, but let me summerize... to put it simply, it's a load of
shit.
> Incidentally, I don't consider any of this to be Robert
> H. Wolfe's fault. He's turned in some of the very
> best Trek stories. It's not his fault that he doesn't
> have enough creative control so that events that occur in
> his stories continue to be relevant rather than being
> ignored as if they never happened.
We carry lots of threads over from episode to episode. But we're not a
seriallized drama, and never intended to be. We've always been aiming
for more continuity than TNG and less than say AS THE WORLD TURNS.
Something closer to HILL STREET BLUES or SAINT ELSEWHERE.
Robert
Jonathan Blum
In article <5dbht0$1...@news1-alterdial.uu.net>,
Michael Johnson <d...@connectnet.com> wrote:
>So? No need to whine about it. Skate or die :). Usenet is NOT for the
>timid.
Oh *gawd*, geek machismo...
Regards,
Jon Blum
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"All this time you two thought you were playing some twisted game of
chess... when it was just me playing solitaire!"
D O C T O R W H O : T I M E R I F T
Matt McIrvin
> And every science fiction fan knows Mr. Wolfe by name.
Who?
> If you think that any of you can do a job better than Mr. Wolfe, than send
> in a speculative script to either DS9 or Voyager. See if they do anything
> with it. They'll be fair about it. If it's good, they will do something.
> If not, well then that will tell you that you're not as good as you think
> you are. Oh, but I forgot--if you knew that you weren't any good, that
> would burst your holier-than-everyone-else bubble, and you don't want that
> to happen. But, until you do send in a script to a Trek show and it gets
> accepted, any criticism of the works of others just prove your stupidity.
You think that acceptance of scripts by the people who make Star Trek
shows constitutes the only true measure of quality?
I *know* that I can't write anything as good as some of the better
episodes of "Deep Space Nine." I'm simply not that good a writer. But
given the stuff that gets shown on "Voyager" on a regular basis, I think
I'd worry if they *shot* my script.
--
My home page: http://world.std.com/~mmcirvin/
Sci.physics FAQ: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/faq.html
Doug Mertaugh
rhw...@ix.netcom.com(Robert H. Wolfe) wrote:
>In <5dcvmp$4...@news.indy.net> Doug Mertaugh <mert...@indy.net> writes:
>
>> The very fact that both shows ("DS9" and "Voyager"), are
>> so desperate for scripts and, according to one TV Guide
>> article, bought a script from one of the producer's children,
>
>A twenty two year old film student at USC and hardly a child.
>
>> says a lot. Maybe the kid wrote a good story, but it says
>> that the powers that be have no idea where these shows
>> are going, what they are trying to say, etc. DS9 had a
>> vague concept at the beginning that was a watered down
>> ripoff of... er, never mind, but it's the second letter
>> of the English alphabet followed by the fifth number in
>> our numerical system.
>
>Man, am I sick of this totally unfounded accusation. I've talked about
>it before, but let me summerize... to put it simply, it's a load of
>shit.
It is not unfounded. Not according to Straczynski, though
he has long stopped mentioning the subject. Nor is it
unfounded based on the evidence. The step by step
similarities between the premises are incredible. Two space
stations next to wormhole/ jumpgate with highly religious
race as the main aliens and said aliens hold commanding
officer of station to be figure of great religious
significance (referring to Sinclair, the original B5
commander). Add to this that in the original outline,
the Minbari were going to be shapeshifters, which JMS says
he changed after DS9 started to avoid even more
similarities. Add also that Straczynski has stated in print
that he pitched his idea to Paramount and they specifically
asked if he could make it fit into the Star Trek setting.
He said no. Then, as he put it, out comes DS9. No! He
didn't outright say they borrowed from his ideas. That
would be walking on legal eggshells. But oh boy did he
imply.
Mind you, no one has ever implied that you or any
of the creative staff had anything to do with this. It
has always been said that this happened way back. You
can't own ideas anyway. But as for the similarities between
the shows, I'm sure others can point out far more similarities
than these.
And please, people, spare me the old, "Bonanza must have ripped off
Gunsmoke. I mean, they both have horses and guns and took
place in the old west," sort of argument. If you can't
discern the general from the specific, there's no point in
arguing.
>> Incidentally, I don't consider any of this to be Robert
>> H. Wolfe's fault. He's turned in some of the very
>> best Trek stories. It's not his fault that he doesn't
>> have enough creative control so that events that occur in
>> his stories continue to be relevant rather than being
>> ignored as if they never happened.
>
>We carry lots of threads over from episode to episode. But we're not a
>seriallized drama, and never intended to be. We've always been aiming
>for more continuity than TNG and less than say AS THE WORLD TURNS.
>Something closer to HILL STREET BLUES or SAINT ELSEWHERE.
I would suggest that something like B5 is the sort of
show that gives the viewer that "Hill Street Blues" feeling.
I can see you are trying for better continuity and I'm
not saying you have to have a continuuing story rather
than being episodic. But the characters don't come across
as being effected by anything that has happened before. One
example that comes to mind is "Blood Oath," where Dax went
with the klingons on a mission to kill someone. There's
a major tension in the air at the end. Next episode and
thereafter, it's like it never happened. Even a brief hint
that she's still dealing with it and a hint that anyone's
attitude toward her is the least bit different would be
an example of some real continuity. Maybe there will be an
episode where it becomes relevant again for one episode and
then vanishes again. But the episode doesn't have to revolve
around something. The way the characters behave could
remind us.
Another example
would be the D.K. Moran episode about the memories
implanted into O'Brien. One gets the distinct feeling that
episode was written before the cardassian government fell
and there were no changes made to the script to take that
fact into consideration. Shouldn't the cardassians
hesitate a bit to railroad a starfleet officer when they
really need the Federation's support now? In several
episodes, one gets the impression that the fall of the
cardassian goverment is ignored. One gets the impression that
the klingon situation is standing still for long periods
of time. Sure, there is the occasional episode where it
becomes important because it's the main plot. But in the
meantime, other episodes ignore the implications of it as if
it didn't exist.
Jamie Plummer
In article <barklage....@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>,
bark...@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Mike Barklage) wrote:
>Warbird <war...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>>I challenge anyone to find a show that is better
>>than ST:DS9.
>
>I can think of about a dozen off the top of my head. Do you really want
>me to list them?
>
Geez, I could list at least dozen that are still in production.
>>Also, Mr. Wolfe has proven his writing ability and professionalism time
>>and time again. His work is some of the best in Trek (any Trek).
>
>>And every science fiction fan knows Mr. Wolfe by name.
>
>Not true. I didn't know who he was until this whole Zack Stentz thing
>blew up.
>
Ditto.
>>Not
>>every science fiction fan knows my name or the names of the rest of you.
>
True, but I, and I assume some others, are much more familiar with Mike
Barklage, Gharlane of Eddore, and David Hines than Robert Wolfe. Nothing
against the man, it's just that I don't find DS9 interesting enough to follow
around the schedule and watch every week. If I find it, I'll leave it on
while I'm translating the Bible or something, but I don't really look for the
writing credits.
I could say more, but I'd just be repeating Mike.
Jamie Plummer jc...@virginia.edu http://faraday.clas.virginia.edu/~jcp9j
"It's merely symptomatic of our postmodern ennui. There are no
absolutes unless you perceive our world as meaningless when it's
really your own freedom you detest. I like pork." -- Brak
Basil Fawlty
Krijn:
Since David Stinson basically rebutted your argument for me quite
effectively, I won't repeat what he said; however, I will comment on one
thing:
> Well, it seems you're disallowing the opinion that JMS' moving to
> a moderated newsgroup was a wrongheaded decision.
> BTW, I would expect that one who calls himself after Basil Fawlty would
> not be completely averse to screechingly-pitched opinions, and perhaps
> even would possess a sense of humour.
I *do* have a sense of humor (despite what Sybil thinks), but my entire
point was to take Robert Wolfe to task for subtly attacking JMS simply
because he chooses to frequent a moderated newsgroup. Say what you want
about JMS, but *he* was the precedent-setter in terms of a TV producer's
participation on the internet. Wolfe is just surfing the wave that JMS
created.
As a result, I find it bad taste for a newcomer like Wolfe to subtly knock
another member of his industry, especially since JMS has been here a hell
of a lot longer than Wolfe has. If JMS made the same subtle jibes about
Robert Wolfe, then JMS would hear it from me, too. I just think Wolfe
ought to be glad that there is a large enough viewer base to keep him
employed, or he might be stuck writing Baywatch or something. Attacking
JMS' current method of participation on the internet--even in jest--is
unproductive at best and just makes Wolfe look stupid.
--
*****************************************************************
Basil Fawlty
Owner and Reluctant Manager
Fawlty Towers (nee Flowery Tarts, Watery Fowls, etc.)
Sybil--"People ask, 'How on earth did the two of you
Max C. Strini
Words from the Monastery wrote:
> Being paid to do something is in no way proof in the ability to do so ... your
> own arguement against Mr. Wolfe depends on that concept ... hypocrisy is an
> ugly thing to watch ... all you have proven is the old adage, those who can
> create ... do ... those who cannot become critiques ...
A fate worse than death...or something.
-dar5.
Cronan Thompson(back to normal....errrrrr)
> >YOU ALL SAW IT HE MADE A HOMOSEXUAL OVERTURE TOWARDS ME!!!!! I have
> >proof now *Mr* Wolfe of your perverse ways
>
> Wanna see my nipple piercing? :)
You should give me a job to keep me quiet.
Enigma
Human nature?
--
(E)
Michael Johnson
>> >YOU ALL SAW IT HE MADE A HOMOSEXUAL OVERTURE TOWARDS ME!!!!! I have
>> >proof now *Mr* Wolfe of your perverse ways
>>
>> Wanna see my nipple piercing? :)
>You should give me a job to keep me quiet.
Ya, ALTAR BOY :)
-MJ
Gary J. Weiner
David Stinson wrote:
>
> In article <5dckl1$4...@star.cs.vu.nl>, tamo...@cs.vu.nl (Mossel TAK) wrote:
<SNIP>
> :
> : Oh, please. I *do* know something about the history of the r.a.s.t.babylon5
> : newsgroup, and I don't agree with JMS' reasons for moving there at all.
>
> Oh, and the Thaxton thread of JMS IS FULL OF SHIT and DOZENS of posts
> PERSONALLY attacking JMS and others (myself included) had nothing to do
> with it?
And JMS spreading unfounded rumors about DS9 being cancelled had nothing
to do with that thread being started.
> The fact is: I was one of the creators of rastb5mod. We created it because
> we got tired of people who had nothing better to do than play HIT AND RUN
> with other peoples lives.
JMS dug his own grave on the unmoderated group. People who disagreed
with him or questioned him got the royal flamethrower treatment
followed by a huge squadron of his loyal ass-kissers adding gasoline
to the fire.
Even some mild critcizms recieved this treatment.
Most sane people just left or shut up after this happened to them, so
the only ones left in opposition were nutcases like Theron and Ford.
> Criticism is an established tradition in rastb5mod. But it is based on
> criticism being INTELLIGENT not belligerent. Hell, the running Gharlane/JMS
> arguments are very entertaining.
Gharlane is a special case.
The amount of blatant ass-kissing that goes on in that group is
sickening. I can Joe's need for a little ego stroking, but with
all the "JMS we wuv' you" posts, I'm suprised he doesn't yak up
on the keyboard.
> JMS moved there for his own reasons. Those of us who worked on it did so
> WITHOUT any promise of JMS being there (he didn't even tell us he was going
> to until he posted it on Compuserve two months into the RFD process).
Bullshit and double bullshit. Everyone "knew" that a mod group meant
JMS coming back to Usenet. It wasn't in the RFD or CFV and the creators
on the group consistently denied that it was the case. But everyone
"Knew" it just the same. And a Usenet group was created for the benefit
of one very insecure man.
Hey, is JMS still worried about "story ideas", off that he reads
other newsgroups besides the B5 mod group, isn't it.
--
Gary J. Weiner | webm...@adirect.com | http://www.adirect.com
--- ADirect - Advertising * Direct Mail * Interactive Media ---
"And so he says I don't like the cut of your jib. And I go I says, IT'S
THE ONLY JIB I GOT, BABY!" - The Evil Midnite Bomber what bombs at
Midnite
Richard Nelson
In article <5db7nr$9...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> rhw...@ix.netcom.com(Robert H. Wolfe) writes:
>In <5dalql$3...@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net> Warbird
><war...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>Actually, it's totally fair to attack my writing ability. Everyone's
>entitled to their opinion. If all I wanted was praise, I'd have people
>created a ds9.moderated group and hide out there. ;-)
Well, I personally think it's great to have someone who works for
DS9 (the good Trek) on the net. It's great to get some insight as
to what goes on behind the scenes.
>And I've fucked up a few times too. THE PASSENGER, man. Don't forget
>THE PASSENGER.
Too late, even after reading the synopsis, I can't remember a thing
about this one.
>>until you do send in a script to a Trek show and it gets
>>accepted, any criticism of the works of others just prove your
>>stupidity.
>
>A little harsh, Warbird. People have a right to their opinions, even
>if they don't give writing a shot themselves. But I think you're
>reacting to the stridency of some of the posts. Basically common
>courtesy dictates that when you're talking about to someone about their
>work, especially in a field you may not have practical experience in,
>you should at least make an effort to be polite. Unfortunately,
>manners seem to be out of fashion on the internet. And when someone is
It's not just manners. There seems to be a tendancy on the net to
attack almost anyone who has some celebrity. It's as if the
attackers think that if they manage to drive away the 'celebrity'
then they will become king of the hill. It's sad. On the other
hand, you could write for V'ger, in which case you would really be
hearing it. Voyager is often so badly written that it's hard to
keep the personal attacks out of the attacks on the writing. (Any
chance you could suggest to Brannon Braga that he go and take a high
school biology class to learn the meaning of the words he randomly
uses?) Hopefully people will become used to you being here, and the
negative posts will turn into more constructive criticism.
Rick
--
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________.sig____________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
The generic .sig Richard Nelson rble...@ucsd.edu
Franklin Hummel
In article <5dcvmp$4...@news.indy.net>,
Doug Mertaugh <mert...@indy.net> wrote:
>
> are going, what they are trying to say, etc. DS9 had a
> vague concept at the beginning that was a watered down
> ripoff of... er, never mind, but it's the second letter
> of the English alphabet followed by the fifth number in
> totally wasted that concept that it can't even be called
> flattery. As for "Voyager," the stated reason for bringing
number? (Help me with the math here, people.)
Franklin Hummel
> H. Wolfe's fault. He's turned in some of the very
> best Trek stories. It's not his fault that he doesn't
> have enough creative control so that events that occur in
> his stories continue to be relevant rather than being
> ignored as if they never happened.
plan from the beginning to return Odo to being a shapeshifter after a
short time. Of course, we still have to see what they might do with
this, but they didn't do much with Odo being human.
Franklin Hummel
In article <5dbgeg$o...@news.csus.edu>,
Gharlane of Eddore <ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu> wrote:
>
>As for "fair," as soon as Robert Shaw's estate gets a "story rights"
>check for "THE MAN IN THE GLASS BOOTH," I'll take "fair" seriously.
Didn't the writers of this episode finally admit in print the DS9
episode "Duet" was based on Shaw's play THE MAN IN THE GLASS BOOTH? Seems
to me this is more that enough proof for Shaw's Estate to get paid what
they are owed by Paramount.
I cannot help but wonder if somehow the Shaw Estate just doesn't
know about "Duet" being a TREK version of TMITGB. Certainly the Conan
Doyle Estate got its fair dues from Paramount for TREK's unauthorized use of
Sherlock Holmes and all (something I find difficult to believe the writers
and lawyers didn't know when that 1st episode was made). It seems to me the
Shaw Estate, with the published admission of "Duet"'s writers, wouldn't
have much trouble getting what they are owed as well.
And, more important that that, I would want to see a on-screen
credit added to every copy of "Duet" around giving the late Robert Shaw
-his- proper credit. With "Duet" being consider one of the best
episodes of DEEP SPACE NINE, I think every Trek fan and everyone else
who watchs it ought to know they have -Robert Shaw- to thank for its story.
Franklin Hummel
Words from the Monastery
In article <E56MI...@world.std.com>, Franklin Hummel says...
> You don't follow rec.art.sf.tv much, do you? DEEP SPACE NINE is
>-not- Science Fiction. Of the series currently on TV, BABYLON 5 is
>generally thought to be the closest thing to Science Fiction (though it
>still isn't SF).
So what's Science Fiction then?
Chris Spencer
I've seen Hill Street Blues. I watched it in first run. I
loved Hill Street Blues. Please do not compare it to DS9. Compare it
to B5 if you wish, but NEVER DS9.
I stayed out of this argument (not enough heat to be a flame
war) for this long because I could not add anything to what David
Hines and GoE had said. However, JMS has said many times that his
threading of stories is a lot like HSB.
DS9 has already ripped off like major sections of B5's
original concept. Are you going to rip off the HSB comparison as
well? Feh.
If you have seen the last 4 episodes of B5 this season, you
might understand how threading story lines can work in episodic TV.
JMS has given you a perfect chance to learn the *correct* way of
structuring a SF television series.
Instead of learning from him, you (as in the producers, not
you personally) have given Odo a weak story arc that ended badly in
"The Begotten". Your reset button is your own worst enemy. Now I
realize that it isn't your fault *personally* that the Suits That Be
require the reset button to be hit constantly, but I am beginning to
wonder if you truly care about your craft or if this is just a steady
paycheck to you.
I think you are a decent writer and would probably be
outstanding in the role of story editor/producer on some drama show
set in modern times. Maybe with a little more exposure to the works
of William Gibson (earlier stuff, not the latest drivel), Walter Jon
Williams, Neal Stephenson, and Allan Steele (the best Hard SF writer
in the genre today) you could actually make a decent stab at writing
something that comes somewhere within the ballpark of SF.
Right now though the Star Trek Franchise is simply writing
drama shows about people with bumpy heads and zap guns. And the sad
thing is that "The Begotten" has shown that The Franchise couldn't do
dramatic story arcs to save their mother's ass.
What The Franchise has shown us is that nothing has
consequences. No matter how earth-shattering or agonizing an event
may be, each and every character will arrive the next week in pristine
condition. Nothing is *learned*, nothing is carried over, and the
human condition is made into a travesty of repetativeness.
Why are people attacking Robert Wolfe? Because he's the only
one brave enough to announce himself on line. If Berman were to show
his face in here, it would promptly get ripped off. I think RHW
actually has it EASY here because a lot of us respect the work he HAS
done on Star Trek: The Big Franchise. Jeri Taylor, Brannon Bragga, or
Berman would get the shit stomped out of them (in a metaphysical sense
of course) if they showed up here. Not only are they guilty of
sacrificing their art to Franchise Bigwigs, but they also seem to have
NO idea how to put a script together and not make it laughable.
Berman, of course, is the Great Betrayer of drama and the Keeper of
the Reset Button. He is the one most responsible for the creative
impotence of The Franchise.
Of course Berman cares little what we netizens think of him or
his putrid status quo thinking. He's making a ton of money off The
Franchise. He doesn't care if he bleeds it white and leaves it to
die. All he cares about is making as much money off of this as he
can. He is a Suit. Fie on him.
Chris Spencer
On 6 Feb 1997 19:44:06 GMT, rhw...@ix.netcom.com(Robert H. Wolfe)
wrote:
>In <5dcvmp$4...@news.indy.net> Doug Mertaugh <mert...@indy.net> writes:
>> Incidentally, I don't consider any of this to be Robert
>> H. Wolfe's fault. He's turned in some of the very
>> best Trek stories. It's not his fault that he doesn't
>> have enough creative control so that events that occur in
>> his stories continue to be relevant rather than being
>> ignored as if they never happened.
>
>We carry lots of threads over from episode to episode. But we're not a
>seriallized drama, and never intended to be. We've always been aiming
>for more continuity than TNG and less than say AS THE WORLD TURNS.
>Something closer to HILL STREET BLUES or SAINT ELSEWHERE.
>
>Robert
>
Martin Hardgrave
In article <E58Hp...@world.std.com>, Franklin Hummel
<hum...@world.std.com> writes
> Certainly the Conan
>Doyle Estate got its fair dues from Paramount for TREK's unauthorized use of
>Sherlock Holmes and all (something I find difficult to believe the writers
>and lawyers didn't know when that 1st episode was made).
Perhaps they though Sherlock Holmes was a real person ;)
--
Martin
York, UK
"From hell, Hull, and Halifax, good Lord deliver us!"
Robert H. Wolfe
Top ten reasons to attack Robert H. Wolfe
10. He took Latin in high school. Geek.
9. He can't spell for shit.
8. Two words: THE PASSENGER
7. Six words: LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN
6. He has a goatee and a NIPPLE PIERCING! Weirdo.
5. When he saw STAR WARS the first time and they used parsec as a
unit of time instead of a unit of distance... He didn't notice!
Moron.
4. He's part Lithuanian. Loser.
3. He thinks BEWITCHED qualifies as Science Fiction. Heretic.
2. He thinks Metallica is a better band than R.E.M. Dangerous
psychopath.
And the number on reason to attack Robert H. Wolfe while posting on
usenet...
1. Because it's fun.
This list brought to you as a public service by...
Robert H. Wolfe
Writer/Producer
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
Robert H. Wolfe
In <01bc1479$406fd340$3b71face@imonset> "Basil Fawlty"
<imo...@earthlink.net> writes:
>If JMS made the same subtle jibes about
>Robert Wolfe, then JMS would hear it from me, too.
"If you hire non-science fiction writers to write a science fiction
show you get episodes about Data in a western in the holosuite." - JMS
Sick 'em, Basil.
Robert H. Wolfe
Ian J. Ball
In article <5de2ci$i...@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, rble...@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Richard
Nelson) wrote:
> It's not just manners. There seems to be a tendancy on the net to
> attack almost anyone who has some celebrity. It's as if the
> attackers think that if they manage to drive away the 'celebrity'
> then they will become king of the hill. It's sad.
Exactly. Hence, you can make a good justification for moderated groups.
There's just no getting around the fact that there are some pretty scary
and kooky people floating around usenet and the web. Heck, I'm look at one
in the mirror, and boy is he ugly! ;p
--
Ian J. Ball | Want to get the rec.arts.tv FAQ, or my other TV
Grad Student | episode guides? Try:
IJB...@aol.com | http://members.aol.com/IJBall/WWW/IJBall.html
i...@ucla.edu | ftp://members.aol.com/IJBall3/FTP/
David E. Sluss
Doug Mertaugh <mert...@indy.net> wrote:
DM>DS9 had a vague concept at the beginning that was a watered down
DM>ripoff of... er, never mind, but it's the second letter of the
DM>English alphabet followed by the fifth number in our numerical
DM>system.
hum...@world.std.com (Franklin Hummel) writes:
FH>Wouldn't that be the sixth number, or is "0" not considered a
FH>number? (Help me with the math here, people.)
It depends on which 'numerical system' we're talking about. In terms
of counting (or natural) numbers, 5 would indeed be the 5th number.
If you tack on zero, creating the set of whole numbers, 5 becomes
the sixth number. Once you move into integers, rational numbers, etc.,
however, any claim that 5 is the Nth number has no meaning. By the
way, since we're being pedantic here, that should be the 'Roman
alphabet' rather than the 'English alphabet.'
--
| David E. Sluss | "Men stumble over the truth from time to |
| A.K.A. Slugenstein | time, but most pick themselves up and |
| email: slu...@pitt.edu | up and hurry off as if nothing happened" |
| NTN: SLUGS (Hemingway's) | Sir Winston Churchill |
Londo Mollari
Martin Hardgrave <Mar...@deira.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <E58Hp...@world.std.com>, Franklin Hummel
> <hum...@world.std.com> writes
> > Certainly the Conan
> >Doyle Estate got its fair dues from Paramount for TREK's unauthorized use of
> >Sherlock Holmes and all (something I find difficult to believe the writers
> >and lawyers didn't know when that 1st episode was made).
>
> Perhaps they though Sherlock Holmes was a real person ;)
Or mistakenly thought that a 19th century piece of literature
would be public domain by now. They probably assumed it was
the case and did not even bother a copyright lawyer.
--
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will
sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us."
- Roger Zelazny
David Hines
In article <5ddca6$1...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,[snip]
>We carry lots of threads over from episode to episode. But we're not a
>seriallized drama, and never intended to be. We've always been aiming
>for more continuity than TNG and less than say AS THE WORLD TURNS.
>Something closer to HILL STREET BLUES or SAINT ELSEWHERE.
That may be what you aim for, but it doesn't come out that way on
the screen. There have been little snippets of fairly tight
continuity and development, but they're followed by resets and
stagnation, resulting in little real progress.
Your answer to my query about "The Begotten" cleared things up for
me; I think that weird feeling DS9 has been giving me is due to the
fact that what you're doing, by and large, is stretching the TNG
method of storytelling over several episodes... which doesn't bear
any sort of resemblance to the innovation Stephen Bochco brought
to drama with HSB. It's progress, of a sort, but you're not
there yet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| David Hines d-h...@uchicago.edu |
| http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/dzhines |
====================================================================
MDBlo...@spam.me.not.com
>Or mistakenly thought that a 19th century piece of literature
>would be public domain by now. They probably assumed it was
>the case and did not even bother a copyright lawyer.
What became public domain was the first Sherlock Holmes story, "A Study In
Scarlet". (Others will follow as their copyrights--determined from
time of first publication, I believe, according to the copyright laws in effect
at the time--expire, one by one as the years pass.) For those who didn't pay
enough attention, this was interpreted (wrongly) to mean that the character
itself had dropped into public domain. There are still lots and lots of Sherlock
Holmes stories still firmly under copyright protection, including (at the time
of the TNG episode, anyway) the one that marked the first mention/appearance
of Prof. Moriarty.
-----------
Mary Bloemker
Reply to: mdblo...@worldnet.att.net
David Hines
Weird thing about this... "Duet" aired here last night (DS9 is
stripped in my neck of the woods), and a couple of people
whose names I didn't recognize got story credit. I recall,
too, that "Sub Rosa" had story credit by someone other than
the writer (but not Anne Rice). I've heard the same horror
stories as everyone else, but now I'm wondering who these
other people are...
Ian J. Ball
In article <daves-ya02358000...@news.ni.net>,
da...@procom.com (David Stinson) wrote:
> In article <5dckl1$4...@star.cs.vu.nl>, tamo...@cs.vu.nl (Mossel TAK) wrote:
>
> : Oh, please. I *do* know something about the history of the r.a.s.t.babylon5
> : newsgroup, and I don't agree with JMS' reasons for moving there at all.
>
> The fact is: I was one of the creators of rastb5mod. We created it because
> we got tired of people who had nothing better to do than play HIT AND RUN
> with other peoples lives.
Indeed. If we of usenet want Producers and writers, and especially actors,
to participate in discussions with fans in newsgroups, I think the
creation of a "moderated" group should be a matter of course.
There are just too many mean-spirited types and troublemakers on the net
who are unable to make the distinction between thoughtful criticism and
heinous personal attacks.
Personally, interacting with production people in a meaningful way is
*far* more important to me than "freedom of speech", which on usenet more
often translates as the "freedom to attack, lie and destroy".
The tricky part comes in getting moderators who don't go too far from
screening out personal attacks to screening out all criticism. There's the
rub. Luckily, I think r.a.sf.tv.b5.moderator has gotten the balance down
pretty well.
David DeRubeis
Phoenix wrote:
>
> I have a tough time believing they didn't know about that either. Though
> all of this reminds me; has any credit ever been given for TOS'
> adaptation of "The Enemy Below" into "Balance of Terror"? Or was that
> show similar enough to the movie to warrant giving such credit? Actually,
> if Paramount did that movie I suppose the entire issue could be moot....
>
They avoided that problem by hiring the guy that wrote the movie (whose
correct last name escapes me at this moment) to write that episode.
David
Basil Fawlty
To respond to Mr. Wolfe:
> >If JMS made the same subtle jibes about
> >Robert Wolfe, then JMS would hear it from me, too.
>
> "If you hire non-science fiction writers to write a science fiction
> show you get episodes about Data in a western in the holosuite." - JMS
>
> Sick 'em, Basil.
>
> Robert H. Wolfe
Assuming the statement is a correct quote, I guess that somehow validates
your comments about JMS. If he jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge, I guess
that means you would, too, right?
Nice sidestepping of the issue. I guess all producers are petty little men
who have nothing nice to say about each other except when they can use each
other to get something they want.
<sigh...> Oh, well... human nature. I guess I'm just too damn idealistic.
--
*****************************************************************
Basil Fawlty
Owner and Reluctant Manager
Fawlty Towers (nee Flowery Tarts, Watery Fowls, etc.)
Basil--"Didn't you see any rats while you were in Spain,
or did Franco have them all shot?"
--to Manuel
*****************************************************************
Tom Thatcher
In article <5dfs2t$p...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
>
>10. He took Latin in high school. Geek.
>9. He can't spell for shit.
>8. Two words: THE PASSENGER
>7. Six words: LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN
>6. He has a goatee and a NIPPLE PIERCING! Weirdo.
>5. When he saw STAR WARS the first time and they used parsec as a
> unit of time instead of a unit of distance... He didn't notice!
> Moron.
>4. He's part Lithuanian. Loser.
I agree with everything except this one. Anybody got an alternative
to offer??
>3. He thinks BEWITCHED qualifies as Science Fiction. Heretic.
>2. He thinks Metallica is a better band than R.E.M. Dangerous
> psychopath.
>And the number on reason to attack Robert H. Wolfe while posting on
>usenet...
>1. Because it's fun.
>
>This list brought to you as a public service by...
>
>Robert H. Wolfe
>Writer/Producer
>Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
--
Tom Thatcher | You can give a PC to a Homo habilis,
University of Rochester Cancer Center | and he'll use it, but he'll use it
tt...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu | to crack nuts.
Franklin Hummel
>rhw...@ix.netcom.com(Robert H. Wolfe) wrote:
[ on DEEP SPACE NINE being a rip-off of BABYLON 5 ]
>
>>Man, am I sick of this totally unfounded accusation. I've talked about
>>it before, but let me summerize... to put it simply, it's a load of
>>shit.
HA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HA HA HAHAHAHAHA HA HAHA HA HA HA
HA HA HAHA HA HAHAHA HA HA HA HAHAHAHA HA HA HA HA HAHA HA HA HA
HA HA HAHAHAHAHA HA HA HA HA HA HAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA HAHAHA
HA HA HA HA HA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA HAHA Ha Ha ha haha ha hee!
Matthew Melmon
In article <1997Feb7....@nosc.mil>,
REMOVEja...@OBVIOUSerols.com (Words from the Monastery) wrote:
> In article <E56MI...@world.std.com>, Franklin Hummel says...
>
> > You don't follow rec.art.sf.tv much, do you? DEEP SPACE NINE is
> >-not- Science Fiction. Of the series currently on TV, BABYLON 5 is
> >generally thought to be the closest thing to Science Fiction (though it
> >still isn't SF).
>
> So what's Science Fiction then?
The false god of didactic sycophants.
Enigma
Aaaaak! Run away!
--
(E)
Ron Murillo
David DeRubeis wrote:
>
> Phoenix wrote:
> > all of this reminds me; has any credit ever been given for TOS'
> > adaptation of "The Enemy Below" into "Balance of Terror"? Or was that
> > show similar enough to the movie to warrant giving such credit? Actually,
> > if Paramount did that movie I suppose the entire issue could be moot....
> >
>
> They avoided that problem by hiring the guy that wrote the movie (whose
> correct last name escapes me at this moment) to write that episode.
>
> David
I don't know if hiring the same writer would avoid the problem.
THE ENEMY BELOW belongs to 20th Century Fox, not Paramount, and I
am sure, if they wanted to push it, they would probably have had
a leg to stand on, because it's the studio that has the copyright
on the final production, don't they?
And how come nobody sued QUANTUM LEAP for stealing ideas for it's
format from HEAVEN CAN WAIT and THE TIME TUNNEL?
Michael Johnson
"recook77" <reco...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> DS9 has already ripped off like major sections of B5's
>> original concept.
>*yawn*...They're both shows set on a space station. There the resemblance
>ends. I personally don't believe this rumor.
You really have to be kidding right? Obviously you have seen neither
show from the beginning and are therefore not relevant to this
discussion. When you go back and actually VIEW both shows, keeping in
mind to examine where they came from and where they are today, only
then will you be able to make such a statement. In fact, while you are
watching said beginnings of each series fill out the following
questions:
What is the setting for each station?
What is the background of each commander of said station? Are they
similar?
Are there any gimmicks used on each show to move people FTL that is
centered near each station that brings all different types of aliens
to the station? If so name them. Keep in mind that a typical Star Trek
series need not introduce a new FTL capability since the Warp Drive
has already been established.
Were there any bad guys that were introduced during each series that
were never eluded to in the pilot? If so, were they big enough that
they had control of other races?
During each series was there a profound attempt at causing an eventual
breakoff between Earth and each station by the bad guys trying to take
control of Earth leadership from behind the scenes? Even to the point
of setting up an assassination attempt on the president's life?
Has there been a general story of a culling of powers in each series
by the bad guys who seek to cause conflict between races while trying
to stay out of the fray themselves?
What is the background of the two main races featured in each program
with the Earth commander being caught in the middle between the two?
The Narn/Centauri are the two on the B5 side and the
Bajoran/Cardassian are the two on the DS9 side. Are they the same? If
so, are they similar?
Was there a ship that was a prototype that was introduced during each
series but NOT in the pilot of each program? If so, was said ship
planned to fight an enemy that had superior firepower which appeared
invincible?
The moral of this post: There is certainly MORE than just "They're
both shows set on a space station. There the resemblance ends.".
Whether or not you believe that JMS was ripped off by Paramount you
CANNOT deny the fact that big chunks of the premise of EACH show are
the same. You need go no farther than to fill out each question stated
above. IF you have the guts to do so.
-MJ
p.s. To all you Lurker's out there... if you wish to add more
questions or alter any of the above then feel free.
Enigma
In article <1997Feb7.2...@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>,
tt...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tom Thatcher) wrote:
> In article <5dfs2t$p...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
> Robert H. Wolfe <rhw...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >Top ten reasons to attack Robert H. Wolfe
> >
> >10. He took Latin in high school. Geek.
> >9. He can't spell for shit.
> >8. Two words: THE PASSENGER
> >7. Six words: LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN
> >6. He has a goatee and a NIPPLE PIERCING! Weirdo.
> >5. When he saw STAR WARS the first time and they used parsec as a
> > unit of time instead of a unit of distance... He didn't notice!
> > Moron.
> >4. He's part Lithuanian. Loser.
>
> I agree with everything except this one. Anybody got an alternative
> to offer??
He's part Lithuanian. Looser?
--
(E)
Travers Naran
Warbird (war...@worldnet.att.net) pontificated:
> I just want to say that it is incredibly unfair to attack Mr. Wolfe and
> his writing ability. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine is the best science
> fiction on television. I challenge anyone to find a show that is better
> than ST:DS9. I can't think of one that is better, though I enjoy watching
> Babylon 5 and others.
HEY! I've left Wolfe alone! The last time I ticked him off was becaus he
is still a little thin-skinned over our initial confrontation and the
embarrasing dialog that ensued. Other than that, I said in one of my
posts that I do fundamentally respect him and his work. For an SFTV
Producer/Writer, he has several thousand times more clues than the
Producers of SA&B and Earth-2 combined! True, that isn't saying much,
but as Holly said: "An IQ of 6000 is only the IQ of 12 000 car park
attendents".
> If you think that any of you can do a job better than Mr. Wolfe, than send
> in a speculative script to either DS9 or Voyager. See if they do anything
> with it. They'll be fair about it. If it's good, they will do something.
> If not, well then that will tell you that you're not as good as you think
> you are. Oh, but I forgot--if you knew that you weren't any good, that
> would burst your holier-than-everyone-else bubble, and you don't want that
> to happen. But, until you do send in a script to a Trek show and it gets
> accepted, any criticism of the works of others just prove your stupidity.
Um, one of the persons having 'discussions' with Wolfe *did* send in a
spec script to Voyager actuallly.
But beyond that, I can best sum it up as -- "Just Because They Produce
It Doesn't Mean It's Good".
Other than that, I leave him alone. I generally enjoy reading his
posts. His continued defense of DS9 as Science Fiction makes me
giggle, but other than that, he's one of the more interesting posters
to rec.arts.sf.tv.
Gharlane of Eddore
In <E58Hp...@world.std.com>, Franklin Hummel
<hum...@world.std.com> writes
>
> Certainly the Conan Doyle Estate got its fair dues from Paramount
> for TREK's unauthorized use of Sherlock Holmes and all (something I
> find difficult to believe the writers and lawyers didn't know when
> that 1st episode was made).
>
One source has claimed that Paramount was under the impression that
no copyrights were extant, and hadn't thought of the characters
possibly having been trademarked.....
In <t$jteEAmh...@deira.demon.co.uk>
Martin Hardgrave <Mar...@deira.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> Perhaps they though Sherlock Holmes was a real person ;)
>
Unacceptable defense. They had no problem hiring another
world-famous Brit to play himself!
Incidentally, I've also heard some wonderful stories about the
"missing Holmes episode." There seems to be a huge plot gap
between "ELEMENTARY, DEAR DATA" and "SHIP IN A BOTTLE," and the
un-named source cited above has claimed that the second episode
in the sequence got held out of production while legal wrangling
went on, and for some reason couldn't be shot after the rights
were cleared.
Since we have an occasional Trekwriter showing up on the topics,
if you happen to read this, Robert K. Wolfe, care to shed any light?
Incidentally, this sort of thing is a marvelous demonstration of
reset-button-itis; a character as good as "Moriarty" should never
have been placed in cold storage, since he was an intelligent
life form who was not responsible for his own existence, but had
every right to continue existing. "Moriarty" *should* have
become a regular cast member, with occasional comedic disputes....
Moriarty on a screen, head-to-head with Majel Barrett's voice.
"That action is contrary to Star Fleet regulations and cannot be allowed."
"Madame, you are merely a machine. You are not alive. Please be silent."
"Your actions are being reported to Ship Security."
....and so on.
Gharlane of Eddore
In <macabrus-ya0240800...@news.concentric.net>
maca...@aol.REMOVE.TO.REPLY.com (Phoenix) writes:
>>
>> Perhaps they though Sherlock Holmes was a real person ;)
>
> adaptation of "The Enemy Below" into "Balance of Terror"? Or was that
> show similar enough to the movie to warrant giving such credit? Actually,
> if Paramount did that movie I suppose the entire issue could be moot....
>
It's even more moot than you think.... Roddenberry liked the movie,
so he hired the writer to do a "TREK" adaption. Some time compare
the writing credit on "BALANCE OF TERROR" with that on "THE ENEMY BELOW,"
and you will be enlightened. (Same name on the book version of "THE
ENEMY BELOW," too. Schneider got a lot of mileage out of that yarn.)
It's not precisely a "rip-off" when you buy the product from the
original creator......
Robert H. Wolfe
In <E599C...@world.std.com> hum...@world.std.com (Franklin Hummel)
writes:
>>rhw...@ix.netcom.com(Robert H. Wolfe) wrote:
> [ on DEEP SPACE NINE being a rip-off of BABYLON 5 ]
>>
>>>Man, am I sick of this totally unfounded accusation. I've talked
about
>>>it before, but let me summerize... to put it simply, it's a load of
>>>shit.
>
>
> HA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HA HA HAHAHAHAHA HA HAHA HA HA HA
> HA HA HAHA HA HAHAHA HA HA HA HAHAHAHA HA HA HA HA HAHA HA HA HA
> HA HA HAHAHAHAHA HA HA HA HA HA HAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA HAHAHA
> HA HA HA HA HA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA HAHA Ha Ha ha haha ha hee!
See. Even Frank thinks the whole things a joke.
Robert
recook77
Top ten reasons why people flame Wolfe:
10. Still pissed at not being allowed into the moderated groups.
9. Had to give up Babylon 5 for Lent and think it's Wolfe's fault.
8. Realized TV producers don't hang out in alt.whiners or
alt.malcontents very often.
7. Wolfe doesn't have cool initials like JMS.
6. Wolfe is wasting JMS's precious bandwidth.
5. Roddenberry's not alive anymore, so they can't flame him.
4. Angry with the franchise ever since Nimoy cut "The Ballad of Bilbo
Baggins"
3. Blame Trek for "In Search Of" and "The 37s"
2. Computer solitaire not a good stress reliever.
And...the number one reason...
1. Can't flame JMS, or else they'd be mistaken for--*shudder*--Ford
Thaxton.
recook77
Robert H. Wolfe <rhw...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<5ddca6$1...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>...
> In <5dcvmp$4...@news.indy.net> Doug Mertaugh <mert...@indy.net> writes:
>
> > The very fact that both shows ("DS9" and "Voyager"), are
> > so desperate for scripts and, according to one TV Guide
> > article, bought a script from one of the producer's children,
>
> A twenty two year old film student at USC and hardly a child.
>
> > says a lot. Maybe the kid wrote a good story, but it says
> > that the powers that be have no idea where these shows
> > are going, what they are trying to say, etc. DS9 had a
> > vague concept at the beginning that was a watered down
> > ripoff of... er, never mind, but it's the second letter
> > of the English alphabet followed by the fifth number in
> > our numerical system.
Doug, I'm sorry to say this, but the self-righteous pronouncements,
accusations, and name-calling on the part of the B5 fans are what could
alienate the show's potential supporters. How do you know that the
producers have no idea where the show's going if you don't follow the show
regularly?
recook77
Doug Mertaugh <mert...@indy.net> wrote in article
<5ddjkm$8...@news.indy.net>...
> rhw...@ix.netcom.com(Robert H. Wolfe) wrote:
> >In <5dcvmp$4...@news.indy.net> Doug Mertaugh <mert...@indy.net> writes:
> >
> >Man, am I sick of this totally unfounded accusation. I've talked about
> >it before, but let me summerize... to put it simply, it's a load of
> >shit.
>
> It is not unfounded. Not according to Straczynski, though
> he has long stopped mentioning the subject. Nor is it
> unfounded based on the evidence. The step by step
> similarities between the premises are incredible. Two space
> stations next to wormhole/ jumpgate with highly religious
> race as the main aliens and said aliens hold commanding
> officer of station to be figure of great religious
> significance (referring to Sinclair, the original B5
> commander).
Yikes! Where's the genuine evidence of this, says the die-hard DS9 fan?
Seems to me that DS9 and B5 are apples and oranges.
David Hines
In article <32fb4ba7....@nntp.one.net>,
Chris Spencer <clsp...@one.net> wrote:
[snip]
> If you have seen the last 4 episodes of B5 this season, you
>might understand how threading story lines can work in episodic TV.
>JMS has given you a perfect chance to learn the *correct* way of
>structuring a SF television series.
Not *the* correct way. Merely *a* correct way. One of the reasons
I like B5 so much is that it represents a genuine effort to *play*
with the field and format, and to show the degree to which long-term
storytelling can be taken, if you've a mind and a lot of luck and
skill.
I don't think every SFTV show could take the B5 approach:
foreshadowing, metaphor, and recurring themes simply can't be
taken to that degree unless you plan out the show to an astounding
degree, which isn't an option for most series. I agree that DS9
could be doing a much better job on their long-term plotting,
but I don't think the B5 path is the only alternative for
them. They've got to find their own path.
>Maybe with a little more exposure to the works
>of William Gibson (earlier stuff, not the latest drivel), Walter Jon
>Williams, Neal Stephenson, and Allan Steele (the best Hard SF writer
>in the genre today)
To quote Tim Pierce: "No."
(As far as I can tell, neither Steele nor anyone else even *bothered*
to proofread _Orbital Decay_.)
>I think RHW
>actually has it EASY here because a lot of us respect the work he HAS
>done on Star Trek: The Big Franchise. Jeri Taylor, Brannon Bragga, or
>Berman would get the shit stomped out of them (in a metaphysical sense
>of course) if they showed up here.
I think Berman would recieve a mixed reception. Some fans hate him;
others think he's doing a great job. Jeri Taylor would be mocked.
Brannon Braga... jeez, I think his mailbox would be crashed with
core dumps emailed to him by irate mobs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| David Hines d-h...@uchicago.edu |
| http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/dzhines |
====================================================================
| "You needn't worry about MacDougall," declared the surgeon. "One |
| good look at that picture will tell you that. She classifies - |
| with that skeleton she *has* to. She couldn't leave the beam a |
| millimeter, even if she wanted to. Good, bad, or indifferent; |
| male or female; physical, mental, moral, and psychological; the |
| skeleton tells the whole story." |
| -- E.E. "Doc" Smith, _Galactic Patrol_. |
====================================================================
recook77
Chris Spencer <clsp...@one.net> wrote in article
<32fb4ba7....@nntp.one.net>...
> I've seen Hill Street Blues. I watched it in first run. I
> loved Hill Street Blues. Please do not compare it to DS9. Compare it
> to B5 if you wish, but NEVER DS9.
(snip)
> DS9 has already ripped off like major sections of B5's
> original concept.
*yawn*...They're both shows set on a space station. There the resemblance
ends. I personally don't believe this rumor.
>Are you going to rip off the HSB comparison as
> well? Feh.
Yeah, they're going to have Odo zipping around the promenade in a police
car.
> If you have seen the last 4 episodes of B5 this season, you
> might understand how threading story lines can work in episodic TV.
> JMS has given you a perfect chance to learn the *correct* way of
> structuring a SF television series.
There's a *correct* way of structuring a series? Really? There's a right
and a wrong way? If so, who came up with it?
> Instead of learning from him, you (as in the producers, not
> you personally) have given Odo a weak story arc that ended badly in
> "The Begotten". Your reset button is your own worst enemy. Now I
> realize that it isn't your fault *personally* that the Suits That Be
> require the reset button to be hit constantly, but I am beginning to
> wonder if you truly care about your craft or if this is just a steady
> paycheck to you.
That's *your* opinion. I thought "The Begotten" was a wonderful
character-defining episode for Odo.
(snip)
> Right now though the Star Trek Franchise is simply writing
> drama shows about people with bumpy heads and zap guns. And the sad
> thing is that "The Begotten" has shown that The Franchise couldn't do
> dramatic story arcs to save their mother's ass.
Why does a show need a dramatic story act to be a good show?
> What The Franchise has shown us is that nothing has
> consequences. No matter how earth-shattering or agonizing an event
> may be, each and every character will arrive the next week in pristine
> condition. Nothing is *learned*, nothing is carried over, and the
> human condition is made into a travesty of repetativeness.
Whuh? We see Odo turned into a solid for half of season 5. We see Kira
having the O'Briens' baby. We see the Worf/Dax relationship. We see the
continuing tension between Odo and Quark. There are recurring *themes* on
DS9. Maybe not story arcs, but DS9, unlike B5, does *not* have a story
arc. (Admittedly, DS9's lack of a story arc made it easier for me to
become a fan last year. And I confess that B5 didn't impress me.)
Trek's changing, and people don't always like change. But DS9 is the best
Trek series out of the whole bunch, IMHO. And Trek must grow.
If you're concerned about Trek, insulting the producers and writers will
*not* make it better. If anything, you will alienate these people, and
your opinions will not be respected. Drawing up shit lists is
counterproductive.
Travers Naran
David Hines (dzh...@midway.uchicago.edu) pontificated:
>
> I think Berman would recieve a mixed reception. Some fans hate him;
> others think he's doing a great job. Jeri Taylor would be mocked.
> Brannon Braga... jeez, I think his mailbox would be crashed with
> core dumps emailed to him by irate mobs.
Oh, Braga would have bigger problems than that... I'd track down where
he live...
Franklin Hummel
In article <E594J...@midway.uchicago.edu>,
David Hines <dzh...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>In article <5ddca6$1...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
>Robert H. Wolfe <rhw...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>[snip]
>>We carry lots of threads over from episode to episode. But we're not a
>>seriallized drama, and never intended to be. We've always been aiming
>>for more continuity than TNG and less than say AS THE WORLD TURNS.
>>Something closer to HILL STREET BLUES or SAINT ELSEWHERE.
>
>That may be what you aim for, but it doesn't come out that way on
>the screen. There have been little snippets of fairly tight
>continuity and development, but they're followed by resets and
>stagnation, resulting in little real progress.
>Your answer to my query about "The Begotten" cleared things up for
>me; I think that weird feeling DS9 has been giving me is due to the
>fact that what you're doing, by and large, is stretching the TNG
>method of storytelling over several episodes... which doesn't bear
>any sort of resemblance to the innovation Stephen Bochco brought
>to drama with HSB. It's progress, of a sort, but you're not
>there yet.
to Mr. Wolfe:
While you often post messages about what you -think- you are doing
with STAR TREK, I often don't think you are truly listening or understanding
the comments from many folks here in rec.arts.sf.tv (which is not the
"lovefest" of the Trek newsgroups) as to what the other writers and
producers and yourself are -actually- doing.
See the above comments as but one example of this. You think
you are doing HILL STREET BLUES-type stories. The viewers here, who
watch the results, say you are not.
Being a writer is about communication, getting across what you
want to say. Sometimes that does not happen: the communication does not
happen. That can be the fault of the writer; it can be the fault of the
audience. Here, with DS9, I would suggest to you the problem does not
seem to be the audience.
Do you want to tell us what type of writer you are -- or to you
want to be that type of writer?
Franklin Hummel
In article <E5951...@midway.uchicago.edu>,
David Hines <dzh...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>Weird thing about this... "Duet" aired here last night (DS9 is
>stripped in my neck of the woods), and a couple of people
>whose names I didn't recognize got story credit. I recall,
>too, that "Sub Rosa" had story credit by someone other than
>the writer (but not Anne Rice). I've heard the same horror
>stories as everyone else, but now I'm wondering who these
>other people are...
why a legal case has not happened . It was, what?, Anne Rice's THE
WITCHING HOUR, I think. But as you point out, there was no mention of
her name in "Sub Rosa"'s credits.
If anyone in the SF genre would have the power and the fame to go
after Paramount and get them to admit the error of their ways, it would
be Anne Rice. Again, I wonder why this has not happened.
Vampire Writer goes after Story-Sucking Studio; Lestat vs. STAR TREK.
It's a story that would write itself publicity-wise.
I find it amusing that given things like "Sub Rosa" and "Duet"
and the "Yentl"-remake and the BRIGADOON remake, etc. etc. etc., that Mr.
Wolfs continues to claim that DS9 was not a B5 rip-off, especially given
the history of B5's pre-production and the many, many obvious similarities
between the series at the start. In my opinion, it does not help his
credibility nor add to any respect I might have for him. Better he
remained silent and said nothing on this.
Franklin Hummel
In article <E5951...@midway.uchicago.edu>,
David Hines <dzh...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>Weird thing about this... "Duet" aired here last night (DS9 is
>stripped in my neck of the woods), and a couple of people
>whose names I didn't recognize got story credit. I recall,
>too, that "Sub Rosa" had story credit by someone other than
>the writer (but not Anne Rice). I've heard the same horror
>stories as everyone else, but now I'm wondering who these
>other people are...
THE NEXT GENERATION's "Sub Rosa" thing is another episode I wonder
why a legal case has not happened . It was, what?, Anne Rice's THE
WITCHING HOUR, I think. But as you point out, there was no mention of
her name in "Sub Rosa"'s credits.
If anyone in the SF genre would have the power and the fame to go
after Paramount and get them to admit the error of their ways, it would
be Anne Rice. Again, I wonder why this has not happened.
Vampire Writer goes after Story-Sucking Studio; Lestat vs. STAR TREK.
It's a story that would write itself publicity-wise.
and the "Yentl"-remake and the BRIGADOON-remake, etc. etc. etc., that Mr.
Wolfe continues to claim that DS9 was not a B5 rip-off, especially given
between the series at the start. In my opinion, it does not help his
Unknown
rhw...@ix.netcom.com(Robert H. Wolfe) wrote:
>We do pay people the going rate. In fact, I think we pay more, since
>we pay network rates and by our agreement with the WGA, we're only
>required to pay syndication rates, which are about 60% lower. The only
>time we don't pay at least the full story rate is when we by a
>"premise" which is a fragment of a snippet of an idea. We bought two
>words, "space mines," for the show SONS OF MOGH from a real life rocket
>scientist (okay, rocket engineer) and paid him something like $1000.00.
>Less than a full story rate, but definitely not a pittance.
>Robert
Well let me put you on the spot and check the moral fibre of Trek, by
asking you these sphinx-like questions
I am just curious...
Who came up with the idea of the black Vulcan on Voyageur?
Who came up with the suggestion for the "Swarm" episode on Voyageur?
Why/who decided to lose Voyageur in space and disable some of its
overblown technology?
---------------
Ioloh
"Goodwill... I want to be sure of the strength of your character..."
Gharlane of Eddore
> it before, but let me summerize... to put it simply, it's a load of
>
(A) "Summerize" is the process of taking down the storm shutters and
re-installing the windowscreens for hot weather.
(B) Mature human beings use Net expletives which are appropriate to
the venue; among these are "EXON," "GORTON," "FEINSTEIN," "BRADY,"
"KLINTON," "HILLARY," and "RENO," the Seven Words That Carry
Sufficient Negative Association To Communicate in Full Degree the
Absolute Peaks of Negativity. ("AlGore" became an acceptable verb
of opprobrium following the shipment of a lot of old-growth forest
to Japan, and his wife's support of the "Communications Decency Act,"
but again I digress.)
Unimaginative employment of traditionally phatic terminology does
nothing but demonstrate your limited conceptual range, and contribute
to our civilization's repressed preoccupation with associating
Bad Things with natural physiological functions, thus perpetuating
the subliminal concept-gestalt that there's something bad about normal
sexual and alimentary functions.
There are CHILDREN reading this topic, Mr. Wolfe. Help them grow
up less twisted than you did, by watching your language. As a
"TREK" staffer, there's a limit to how good an example you can be,
but you can at least try to be imaginative and civil in your use of
language.
I was going to make a response to the primary point of Mr. Wolfe's entry,
but Frank has just said it vastly better than I could.
Steve Patterson
In article <mjholmes-ya0240800...@news.deltanet.com>, mjho...@NOSPAM.deltanet.com (Enigma) says:
>
>In article <1997Feb7.2...@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>,
>tt...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tom Thatcher) wrote:
>
>> >
>> >10. He took Latin in high school. Geek.
>> >9. He can't spell for shit.
>> >8. Two words: THE PASSENGER
>> >7. Six words: LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN
>> >6. He has a goatee and a NIPPLE PIERCING! Weirdo.
>> >5. When he saw STAR WARS the first time and they used parsec as a
>> > unit of time instead of a unit of distance... He didn't notice!
>> > Moron.
>> >4. He's part Lithuanian. Loser.
>>
>> I agree with everything except this one. Anybody got an alternative
>> to offer??
>
>He's part Lithuanian. Looser?
Nah.
4. Bashing Wolfe is a low fat, low sodium, low impact aerobic workout.
(Can't you feel your pulse and respiration go up after just reading
the thread?)
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Note: My "from:" address has been altered to foil mailbots.
Please use the corrected address appearing below.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Steven J. Patterson spatt...@wwdc.com
W.O.R.L.D.'S....S..L..O..W..E..S..T....W...R...I...T...E...R
"Men may move mountains, but ideas move men."
-- M.N. Vorkosigan, per L.M. Bujold
Franklin Hummel
In article <mattm-07029...@melmma1.apple.com>,
Robert H. Wolfe
In <01bc153d$bfd7a3a0$ce05d9cf@imonset> "Basil Fawlty"
<imo...@earthlink.net> writes:
>I guess all producers are petty little men
>who have nothing nice to say about each other except when they can use
>each other to get something they want.
What producers are are people. Which means sometimes they say nice
things to because they think they're true, sometimes they say nice
things not to offend, and sometimes they say nice things to get
something they want. Just like anyone.
And I have plenty of nice things to say about JMS. Nice of the first
type, because they're true. He has a vivid imagination. He had the
guts to try to create a science fiction space opera that wasn't
dependent on any established franchise. He had the moxie to pull it
off. He helped pioneer the use of computer effects on weekly
television.
About my only real gripe with him is that he sometimes tries to make
his bones by attacking other people's work ("No cute kids, no cute
robots, not now, not ever" and the slam at "FISTFUL OF DATAS" being
examples) instead of propping his own.
But I wish him no ill will. And I don't feel any need to attack B5.
If you like it better than DS9, hey, that's fine with me. It's a big
market. There're plenty of rating points to go around.
Robert Wolfe
ST: DS9
Franklin Hummel
In article <01bc163a$8c03ba20$5788d6ce@default>,
recook77 <reco...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Doug Mertaugh <mert...@indy.net> wrote in article
><5ddjkm$8...@news.indy.net>...
>> rhw...@ix.netcom.com(Robert H. Wolfe) wrote:
>> >it before, but let me summerize... to put it simply, it's a load of
>>
>> It is not unfounded. Not according to Straczynski, though
>> he has long stopped mentioning the subject. Nor is it
>> unfounded based on the evidence. The step by step
>> similarities between the premises are incredible. Two space
>> stations next to wormhole/ jumpgate with highly religious
>> race as the main aliens and said aliens hold commanding
>> officer of station to be figure of great religious
>> significance (referring to Sinclair, the original B5
>> commander).
>
>Yikes! Where's the genuine evidence of this, says the die-hard DS9 fan?
evidence listing the many, many, many similarities between the two series,
especially when they began. Are you that clueless that you did not
understand this? Do you actually think any reasonable person would believe
this was "just coincidence"? What do you expect, a signed confession by
Rick Berman admitting to the fact Paramount stole the concept of BABYLON 5
to make DEEP SPACE NINE?
>Seems to me that DS9 and B5 are apples and oranges.
But it seems you've forgotten a time a number of years ago when
all those Trekkies were screaming and ranting about how BABYLON 5 was a
rip-off of DEEP SPACE NINE -- until they learned that B5 had been
offered to Paramount, and was rejected by them, several years *before*
DS9 was announced. Then the Trekkies shut up real quick.
Gharlane of Eddore
In <E56MI...@world.std.com>, Franklin Hummel says...
>
> You don't follow rec.art.sf.tv much, do you? DEEP SPACE NINE is
> -not- Science Fiction. Of the series currently on TV, BABYLON 5 is
>
In <1997Feb7....@nosc.mil>,
REMOVEja...@OBVIOUSerols.com (Words from the Monastery) wrote:
>
> So what's Science Fiction then?
>
In <mjholmes-ya0240800...@news.deltanet.com>
mjho...@NOSPAM.deltanet.com (Enigma) writes:
>
> Aaaaak! Run away!
>
> (E)
AHHHH!!!! Someone who knows the Work Of Grell well enough to be
able to cite the Battle Cry Of The Woods-Dwelling Dwarves.
(And yes, I know you've heard it elsewhere, but the Dwarves thought of
it *aeons* ago.)
Robert H. Wolfe
In article <1997Feb7.2...@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>,
tt...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tom Thatcher) wrote:
> In article <5dfs2t$p...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
> Robert H. Wolfe <rhw...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >Top ten reasons to attack Robert H. Wolfe
> >
> >10. He took Latin in high school. Geek.
> >9. He can't spell for shit.
> >8. Two words: THE PASSENGER
> >7. Six words: LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN
> >6. He has a goatee and a NIPPLE PIERCING! Weirdo.
> >5. When he saw STAR WARS the first time and they used parsec as
> > a unit of time instead of a unit of distance... He didn't
> > notice. Moron.
> >4. He's part Lithuanian. Loser.
>
> I agree with everything except this one. Anybody got an alternative
> to offer??
Okay, how about...
He's related to General James Wolfe, who conquered French Canada for
the English. This whole Quebec thing is his family's fault.
Robert Wolfe
Doug Mertaugh
hum...@world.std.com (Franklin Hummel) wrote:
> Well, I don't know about that. He did say it was the DS9 writers'
>plan from the beginning to return Odo to being a shapeshifter after a
>short time. Of course, we still have to see what they might do with
>this, but they didn't do much with Odo being human.
I can't answer that one. I'm one of those who stopped
watching DS9 this season. I think I've seen one episode.
I've missed the whole "Odo can't shapeshift" deal because
I'd already lost all interest. My opinion of DS9 is based
on what I saw before I gave up on it. Maybe it wouldn't
seem so bad if I had never seen B5, but after watching B5,
Trek just seems so shallow.
I saw the first two
"Voyagers" of the season. I watched the season premiere
(where they were stranded on "the planet") while flipping
channels and watching an episode of "Hercules" *that I had
already seen* at the same time. The next week, I saw
Sulu's non-appearance, which ended in a technobabble
solution when a non-technobabble solution was right in
front of them. I haven't watched "Voyager" since. I doubt
I'll ever watch "Voyager" again. Well, maybe occasionally,
like the first two of each season if Herc or Xena isn't on.
I will probably watch DS9 in reruns and catch this "Odo"
thing. Oh, wait, I did see one. The one where Odo and
Quark went camping or whatever and Odo broke his leg.
Anything new in their relationship develop from that after
the episode was over? Didn't think so!
Robert H. Wolfe
In <5dh5qn$f...@news1-alterdial.uu.net> d...@connectnet.com (Michael
Johnson) writes:
[regarding accusations DS9 was ripped off from B5]
>You really have to be kidding right? Obviously you have seen neither
>show from the beginning and are therefore not relevant to this
>discussion. When you go back and actually VIEW both shows, keeping in
>mind to examine where they came from and where they are today, only
>then will you be able to make such a statement. In fact, while you are
>watching said beginnings of each series fill out the following
>questions:
[Big lump of questions snipped]
Here's the deal Michael. There are coincidental similarities between
the two shows, and I'd be the first to admit it. But that's what they
are, coincidences. JMS may have pitched B5 to Paramount and been
rejectted, but he certainly didn't discuss the concept with either
Michael Piller or Rick Berman. Therefore, they had no access to his
material when they created DS9. Without access there can be no
plagarism.
To address a few points in particular.
>Were there any bad guys that were introduced during each series that
>were never eluded to in the pilot? If so, were they big enough that
>they had control of other races?
I helped created the Dominion. I wasn't watching B5 at the time. I've
only seen the pilot and one or two first season episodes (plus a little
of a time travel episode I found utterly confusing). The only time
I've ever been influenced by B5 in any way when working on DS9 was when
I found out the sea-shell headed race was ruled by something called the
Gray Council. At the time, I was creating the Cardassian Intelligence
Agency, which I was going to call the Grey Order. I changed it to
Obsidian Order (which I think is a better name anyway.)
>
>During each series was there a profound attempt at causing an eventual
>breakoff between Earth and each station by the bad guys trying to take
>control of Earth leadership from behind the scenes? Even to the point
>of setting up an assassination attempt on the president's life?
No one tried to assassinate the President of the Federation. And the
Dominion wasn't trying to take over Earth. One Starfleet Admiral was.
>Has there been a general story of a culling of powers in each series
>by the bad guys who seek to cause conflict between races while trying
>to stay out of the fray themselves?
A classic technique called divide and conquer. JMS didn't event it.
Neither did we.
>What is the background of the two main races featured in each program
>with the Earth commander being caught in the middle between the two?
>The Narn/Centauri are the two on the B5 side and the
>Bajoran/Cardassian are the two on the DS9 side. Are they the same? If
>so, are they similar?
Don't know. Don't watch B5. The Bajoran/Cardassian conflict was set
up on TNG in the episode "ENSIGN RO" years before the premiere of
either B5 or DS9.
>Was there a ship that was a prototype that was introduced during each
>series but NOT in the pilot of each program? If so, was said ship
>planned to fight an enemy that had superior firepower which appeared
>invincible?
I also helped create the Defiant. I'd never heard of the White Star at
the time (almost six months before the Defiant's first on screen
appearance). But the idea of a prototype ship flown by the intreped
hero is as old as Jason and the Argonauts, and I don't mean the movie
version.
>
>The moral of this post: There is certainly MORE than just "They're
>both shows set on a space station. There the resemblance ends.".
Yep. They're both an hour long. They both have lots of special
effects. They both have music. They both have aliens with five
fingers and two eyes and a mouth.
>Whether or not you believe that JMS was ripped off by Paramount you
>CANNOT deny the fact that big chunks of the premise of EACH show are
>the same.
And big chunks are different.
Basically, Michael, what you're doing is accusing Michael Piller and
Rick Berman (and myself) of being thieves. It's totally unfounded. If
JMS had really thought this is what happened, he'd have pursued it in a
a court of law (as was done with NORTHERN EXPOSURE). He didn't. He
doesn't even talk about this anymore as far as I know. Perhaps that's
because he knows that such accusations are untrue.
Pax,
Robert Wolfe
Gharlane of Eddore
>
> In fact, while you are watching said beginnings of each series fill
> out the following questions:
>
>
>
> p.s. To all you Lurker's out there... if you wish to add more
> questions or alter any of the above then feel free.
>
Here's a question: Is it true that Minbari, or a similar race, were
supposed to be shape-shifters until the folks at B-5 got a look at
Paramount's version of B-5's first year's storyline, necessitating
the clumsy use of the "changeling net" to allow "shapeshifting" without
actually using shapeshifters?
Sources vary on their assertions concerning this subject.
Doug Mertaugh
hum...@world.std.com (Franklin Hummel) wrote:
> Wouldn't that be the sixth number, or is "0" not considered a
>number? (Help me with the math here, people.)
OOPS! I think your right here. By the way, this is as good
a time as any to say it. I've been doing a lot of looking
into "hard" sf lately. I just bought a book a few days
ago entitled "The Ascent of Wonder: The Evolution of Hard
SF." It's edited by David G. Hartwell and Kathryn Cramer and
includes an introduction by Gregory Benford. It is a
collection of about sixty short stories considered pivotal
to hard sf.
Benford's introduction gives a very detailed
explanation of what hard sf is, of what sf is and of
what is really just "science fantasy" (his term). I found
it very interesting and he explained it very well. As I
read it, I "got it." I have to admit that I think you
are right in your opinions about sf in regards to certain
things not being sf and in your defining points about what
makes something sf as opposed to fantasy. I don't entirely
understand this need to ridicule people for liking Trek
although I can understand attacking the opinion itself.
I've always considered myself to be an sf fan, but I
think this little argument has caused me to become interested
in exploring an aspect of sf I've always neglected, and that's
the works that really are the core of sf, the ones really
grounded in science and scientific speculation, rather than
the "fantasy science" that characterizes so much "science
fiction."
Doug Mertaugh
rhw...@ix.netcom.com(Robert H. Wolfe) wrote:
>In <E599C...@world.std.com> hum...@world.std.com (Franklin Hummel)
>writes:
>>
>> [ on DEEP SPACE NINE being a rip-off of BABYLON 5 ]
>>>
>about
>>>>it before, but let me summerize... to put it simply, it's a load of
>>>>shit.
>>
>>
>> HA HA HAHA HA HAHAHA HA HA HA HAHAHAHA HA HA HA HA HAHA HA HA HA
>> HA HA HAHAHAHAHA HA HA HA HA HA HAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA HAHAHA
>> HA HA HA HA HA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA HAHA Ha Ha ha haha ha hee!
>
>
>Robert
He's not laughing with you; he's laughing at you!
Vinay Pandey
: 2. He thinks Metallica is a better band than R.E.M. Dangerous
: psychopath.
David Hines <dzh...@midway.uchicago.edu> writes:
: *blank stare* But Metallica *is* a better band than R.E.M.
Yep, and so are MEGADETH, IRON MAIDEN, RUSH and FLOYD...and that's
just in english.
You know, for someone complaining about getting attacked a lot, this
top ten list seems to be a pot shot at trying to insult a whole mess
of people, thus expecting more attacks.
Michael Johnson
rhw...@ix.netcom.com(Robert H. Wolfe) wrote:
>In <5dh5qn$f...@news1-alterdial.uu.net> d...@connectnet.com (Michael
>Johnson) writes:
>[regarding accusations DS9 was ripped off from B5]
>>You really have to be kidding right? Obviously you have seen neither
>>show from the beginning and are therefore not relevant to this
>>discussion. When you go back and actually VIEW both shows, keeping in
>>mind to examine where they came from and where they are today, only
>>then will you be able to make such a statement. In fact, while you are
>>watching said beginnings of each series fill out the following
>>questions:
>[Big lump of questions snipped]
>Here's the deal Michael. There are coincidental similarities between
>the two shows, and I'd be the first to admit it. But that's what they
>are, coincidences. JMS may have pitched B5 to Paramount and been
>rejectted, but he certainly didn't discuss the concept with either
>Michael Piller or Rick Berman.
I *NEVER* said they were to blame.
>Therefore, they had no access to his material when they created DS9.
This you have no evidence to support.
>Without access there can be no plagarism.
Paramount had it pitched to them. Are you saying that Paramount trashs
all copies of any story ideas pitched to them if they do not use them
or keep them on file in case they want to access them and buy them at
a later time? Are you also saying that it is not possible that while
Michael Piller or Rick Berman might not have known where it came from
that they might have come into contact with said story ideas and used
them to then start to develop a show from that?
>To address a few points in particular.
>>Were there any bad guys that were introduced during each series that
>>were never eluded to in the pilot? If so, were they big enough that
>>they had control of other races?
>I helped created the Dominion.
Oh, so YOU'RE the guy Matthew Murray keeps bitching about that ruined
the show by creating the Dominion and turning it into TNG after the
first two seasons! :).
>I wasn't watching B5 at the time. I've only seen the pilot and one or two
>first season episodes (plus a little of a time travel episode I found utterly
>confusing).
Tell me, when the word came down did you on your own create the idea
of adding a whole new superpower in the Delta Quadrant or get told "We
need a new major power in the story that wasn't in the pilot. Create
one for us." There is a *BIG* difference.
>The only time I've ever been influenced by B5 in any way when working
>on DS9 was when I found out the sea-shell headed race was ruled by
>something called the Gray Council.
You mean any direct knowledge of being influenced by B5 in any way.
Which is probably the case.
>>During each series was there a profound attempt at causing an eventual
>>breakoff between Earth and each station by the bad guys trying to take
>>control of Earth leadership from behind the scenes? Even to the point
>>of setting up an assassination attempt on the president's life?
>No one tried to assassinate the President of the Federation.
Setting up. As I remember they were planning to off the dude before he
made the speech in "Paradise Lost".
>And the Dominion wasn't trying to take over Earth. One Starfleet Admiral
>was.
Of course the Dominion was trying to take over control of the
direction of Earth. Sometimes control does NOT mean you have a
Changeling as head of the Federation or any direct involvement.
Sometimes it JUST means that you deal with the Federation in such a
way that they act the way you want them to act. If your assertion is
the case then there would not be a need for *ANY* Changelings on
Earth.. yet in the episode it is specifically stated to Sisko that all
these problems and disruption were caused by just *4* Changelings on
Earth.
>>The Narn/Centauri are the two on the B5 side and the
>>Bajoran/Cardassian are the two on the DS9 side. Are they the same? If
>>so, are they similar?
>Don't know. Don't watch B5. The Bajoran/Cardassian conflict was set
>up on TNG in the episode "ENSIGN RO" years before the premiere of
>either B5 or DS9.
You forget... the story material for B5 was pitched to Paramount 4
YEARS before it was ever put into production. The information was
there... whether they used it to build their stories off of is what is
in dispute.
>>Was there a ship that was a prototype that was introduced during each
>>series but NOT in the pilot of each program? If so, was said ship
>>planned to fight an enemy that had superior firepower which appeared
>>invincible?
>I also helped create the Defiant. I'd never heard of the White Star at
>the time (almost six months before the Defiant's first on screen
>appearance).
Once again.. i'm not saying the implementation was the same. They are
two totally different ships. But the concept of a show where the
station in question sticks around for a while and we learn about the
surrounding races for a year or two and then have a new major power
introduced which is a direct threat to the station which causes us to
bring in a brand new ship in order to fight said threat. And then
while it protects us for now the rest of the powers in the area start
getting usurped by said threat is NOT something you think up EVERY
day. Combine this with the fact of the EXTREME similarities between
the two commanders and how they fit into the story and you have a
basic premise that IS the same. Now... how people fill in the details
of the premise will differ, but the general outline of what comes down
is the same. THIS is what is in question.
>But the idea of a prototype ship flown by the intreped hero is as old as
>Jason and the Argonauts, and I don't mean the movie version.
Of course... and if the adding of a prototype ship was the only thing
in question then you would be exactly right. But it is the taking of
the ship ALONG with how it fits in context with the general outline of
the program that makes the two programs similar. The details and
implementation will differ but the ingrediants to make the two
programs are the same.
>Basically, Michael, what you're doing is accusing Michael Piller and
>Rick Berman (and myself) of being thieves. It's totally unfounded.
I'm not accusing you people in the least. As far as I know you are
upstanding men and may have no clue how this fit together. Now the
suits at Paramount... that is a different story. I certainly have
nothing personal against you.
>If JMS had really thought this is what happened, he'd have pursued it in a
>a court of law (as was done with NORTHERN EXPOSURE).
And in the process would have had an almost impossible task of trying
to get HIS concept on the air and to fruition while trying to prove
the allegations. He had to choose either one or the other and chose to
tell his story. That does not make it any less a crime. And if you do
not believe the two are cut from the same cloth then why is it the
Trekkies that were originally complaining that B5 was a ripoff of DS9?
I suppose they were total fools too?
>He didn't. He doesn't even talk about this anymore as far as I know.
Of course not. He's got a show to produce along with writing all the
episodes for the past two seasons.
>Perhaps that's because he knows that such accusations are untrue.
Or doesn't have the time to go after it.
-MJ
Michael Johnson
"Gardner D. Underhill 3rd" <gdu...@infoave.net> wrote:
>I have watched both DS9 and B5 from the very beginning. Apart from superficial
>similiarities they have nothing in common.
Sure. Fill out the list and see how many similarites there are. If you
are already done and claim to not have found similarities then please
post the list and we will point out the many similarities you left
out.
-MJ
David Hines
In article <5dfs2t$p...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,[snip]
>2. He thinks Metallica is a better band than R.E.M. Dangerous
> psychopath.
*blank stare* But Metallica *is* a better band than R.E.M.
Of course, if you cop to liking Alanis whatsherface, we'll have
to arrange a nasty transporter accident.
recook77
Doug Mertaugh <mert...@indy.net> wrote in article
<5dj17d$4...@news.indy.net>...
I think that Wolfe is trying to turn Hummel's own joke against him.
>
Gardner D. Underhill 3rd
Michael Johnson <d...@connectnet.com> wrote in article <5dh5qn$fje@news1-
<Snipped out everything but what I am going to respond to at this time.>
> >*yawn*...They're both shows set on a space station. There the resemblance
> >ends. I personally don't believe this rumor.
>
> show from the beginning and are therefore not relevant to this
> discussion. When you go back and actually VIEW both shows, keeping in
> mind to examine where they came from and where they are today, only
> then will you be able to make such a statement. In fact, while you are
> watching said beginnings of each series fill out the following
> questions:
I have watched both DS9 and B5 from the very beginning. Apart from superficial
similiarities they have nothing in common.
--
"MOM! DAD! DON'T TOUCH IT'S EVIL!!!"
Kevin, "Time Bandits"
GDU3rd
Steve Patterson
In article <5dj0d3$e...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>, rhw...@ix.netcom.com(Robert H. Wolfe) says:
>
>He's related to General James Wolfe, who conquered French Canada for
>the English. This whole Quebec thing is his family's fault.
Awright. Dat's it. It's clobberin' time.
[signed] An economic refugee from the despotic Parti Quebecois regime of
Rene Levesque.
recook77
Vinay Pandey <vi...@linknet.net> wrote in article
<MPG.d66e3077...@news.linknet.net>...
>
>
> You know, for someone complaining about getting attacked a lot, this
> top ten list seems to be a pot shot at trying to insult a whole mess
> of people, thus expecting more attacks.
Or maybe he's just being facetious.
P.S. I like Metallica, but frankly, R.E.M.'s gotten boring. Besides,
Mudhoney's a better band than *both* of 'em.
"You'd better stay out of my way/I've had a bad day"--"Hate the Police"
>
>
>
Terry L. Smith
Robert H. Wolfe (rhw...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <1997Feb7.2...@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>,
: tt...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tom Thatcher) wrote:
: > In article <5dfs2t$p...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
: > Robert H. Wolfe <rhw...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: > >Top ten reasons to attack Robert H. Wolfe
: > >
: > >10. He took Latin in high school. Geek.
Your point being? (Watch it, Bub... _Cogito, ergo *es*._ Humph.)
: > >9. He can't spell for shit.
Neither can I. But then *I'm* just a "Bimbo."
: > >8. Two words: THE PASSENGER
Ack. I'll pretend I didn't hear that.
: > >7. Six words: LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN
...stone the cast first?
: > >6. He has a goatee and a NIPPLE PIERCING! Weirdo.
Goatee... okay. Piercing? Yuck. Let me introduce you to
Tom Digby. *He* has a *NOSE SPIKE*! (Double yuck)
: > >5. When he saw STAR WARS the first time and they used parsec as
: > > a unit of time instead of a unit of distance... He didn't
: > > notice. Moron.
Or that "Centon" stuff. He didn't notice *that*, either, did he?
Well, DID he?
: > >4. He's part Lithuanian. Loser.
: >
: > I agree with everything except this one. Anybody got an alternative
: > to offer??
: Okay, how about...
: He's related to General James Wolfe, who conquered French Canada for
: the English. This whole Quebec thing is his family's fault.
Oh DRAT! I was going to suggest "He's part *French*. (Who knew
he was *French*???)" as a viable alternative, but I guess this lets
*that* out. Almost as bad, though...
Just on General Principles, you have to admit, it was a Major
Disaster. He deserved Corporal Punishment. (Which I do believe he
*got*, did he not, paying with his life for the "triumph?' ...at
least I think there's a "Colonel" of truth in there... )
Actually.... probably all the reason that anyone *ever* needs is
"The Everest Rationale" ...
"Because it's [he's] there."
- Sir Edmund Hillary (sp?)
- M.Q.S., "Official Bimbo" for Baltimore; (SCOoF)
AKA C'mell; AKA The Lady in Green
--
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
| M.Q.S. c/o T.L.S | "Don't play with that! You have no idea where |
| tls...@netcom.com | it's been..." -- Speaker to Elevators |
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
David Hines
In article <5dj0d3$e...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>,
Robert H. Wolfe <rhw...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>He's related to General James Wolfe, who conquered French Canada for
>the English. This whole Quebec thing is his family's fault.
Actually, this might be a point in your favor. If Quebec does secede
from the rest of Canada, there will be a place for filming TV series
that offers experienced non-union crew... and which no longer has
to deal with those pesky Canadian content laws.
Ian J. Ball
In article <E5B7L...@midway.uchicago.edu>, dzh...@midway.uchicago.edu
(David Hines) wrote:
> In article <5dfs2t$p...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
> Robert H. Wolfe <rhw...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >Top ten reasons to attack Robert H. Wolfe
> [snip]
> >2. He thinks Metallica is a better band than R.E.M. Dangerous
> > psychopath.
>
> *blank stare* But Metallica *is* a better band than R.E.M.
>
> Of course, if you cop to liking Alanis whatsherface, we'll have
> to arrange a nasty transporter accident.
What it, Hines! Metallica is *1 google plex* times better than R.E.M. But
that doesn't mean that Alanis Morisette is bad too. >:/
--
Ian J. Ball | Want my TV episode guides or rec.arts.tv FAQ?
Grad Student, UCLA | http://members.aol.com/IJBall/WWW/IJBall.html
IJB...@aol.com | ftp://members.aol.com/IJBall3/FTP/
i...@ucla.edu | "What to do, with time so short?..."
Gharlane of Eddore
rhw...@ix.netcom.com(Robert H. Wolfe) wrote:
> Man, am I sick of this totally unfounded accusation. I've talked
> about it before, but let me summerize... to put it simply, it's a
Doug Mertaugh <mert...@indy.net> wrote in article
5ddjkm$8...@news.indy.net>...
>
> It is not unfounded. Not according to Straczynski, though
> he has long stopped mentioning the subject. Nor is it
> unfounded based on the evidence. The step by step
> similarities between the premises are incredible. Two space
> stations next to wormhole/ jumpgate with highly religious
> race as the main aliens and said aliens hold commanding
> officer of station to be figure of great religious
> significance (referring to Sinclair, the original B5
> commander).
In <01bc163a$8c03ba20$5788d6ce@default>,
recook77 <reco...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Yikes! Where's the genuine evidence of this, says the die-hard DS9 fan?
> Seems to me that DS9 and B5 are apples and oranges.
In <E5B2...@world.std.com> hum...@world.std.com (Franklin Hummel) writes:
>
> Doug Mertaug just gave you a long, long list of circumstantial
> evidence listing the many, many, many similarities between the two
> series, especially when they began. Are you that clueless that you
> did not understand this? Do you actually think any reasonable person
> would believe this was "just coincidence"? What do you expect, a
> signed confession by Rick Berman admitting to the fact Paramount stole
> the concept of BABYLON 5 to make DEEP SPACE NINE?
>
......(( ref "Seems to me that DS9 and B5 are apples and oranges." ))
>
> Now. Maybe.
>
> But it seems you've forgotten a time a number of years ago when
> all those Trekkies were screaming and ranting about how BABYLON 5
> was a rip-off of DEEP SPACE NINE -- until they learned that B5 had
> been offered to Paramount, and was rejected by them, several years
> *before* DS9 was announced. Then the Trekkies shut up real quick.
>
"BABYLON 5" was pitched to Paramount in 1989. I believe Straczynski
left a copy of the pilot script, and it's been stated many times that
he left them a rough surface outline of the major plotlines and
show-by-show dramatic development for the first year of B-5's
projected production.
"BABYLON 5" was turned down on two points, that a TV series set on
a space station would be "too static, not going anywhere," and that
Straczynski didn't want his product to be part of the "Trek" universe,
since he was going to bluidie welle be ringing in some major changes,
not resetting to zero every week, and the result wouldn't fit into
the "TREK" universe. ...Paramount only wanted "TREK" shows.
WB put "BABYLON 5" into production first, eliciting what, from this
remove, can only be interpreted as a panic attack on the part of the
Paramount "Management;" "DEEP SPACE 9" was slammed into production
on a big-money, who-cares-about-quality basis, and shot without a
script worth shooting. The total expenditure on the DS9 pilot
movie (excluding amortizable standing sets and recurring props
that could be spread out over the series) was, depending on which
reports you believed, somewhere around three to four times as much
as was spent on the "BABYLON 5" pilot movie, "THE GATHERING."
Thus, DS9 aired first, leading those who were unaware of the
situation to think that B5 was some sort of "rip-off." Naturally,
we would *never* assume that such a despicable situation was
Paramount's actual intention, but it's amazing how it worked out
that way, and the TrekkieFen were charging around telling everyone
that B-5 was a "rip-off," and that JMS would be sued....and how
the Paramount People *actively cultivated* this attitude.
Lastly, we kept getting reports of instances where Paramount reps
specifically informed local TV station representatives that they
would *NOT* be allowed to contract for, and air, "Trek" shows, if
they chose to air "BABYLON 5," and that "BABYLON 5" was a blatant
theft of "DEEP SPACE 9" and that legal action against the "rip-off
artists" was pending.
I was told both of those things, i.e. "No 'TREK' if you contract to
air 'B5,'" and "B5 is a rip-off and will be sued off the air by
the end of the season" by local TV station types in two cities.
I do not have recordings of those telephone calls, and was never
able to get confirmation in writing from either of the stations
whose staff members gave me those tidbits of info. I have been
told that documentation of other such instances exist, but have
not seen it, so take my reports on the matter with a grain of salt.
I won't re-hash all the postings of that period, but the detail
comparisons of the characters and plotlines of the two series
made for some pretty good Net Humor for a time. Piller & Berman
have tried to steer their series away from any sort of congruity
.....with the result that there is currently minimal similarity
between the two shows. But at the outset, a lot of us out here
felt like we were looking at a cheesy carbon copy every time we
tuned in "DEEP SPACE 9," and the fact that it was a much more poorly
written series, being shot on a very wasteful budget, didn't help
our attitudes at all.
I stopped watching "DEEP SPACE 9" regularly when they aired the
episode about the solar-sail ship. --Solar sails? Sure, love 'em;
great technology to deal with, in a show written by someone who
actually knows something about how they'd really work. I'd even
buy some sort of magical etheric current that would anomalously
boost them up to FTL speeds, if it were written well. (See
Barrington J. Bayley's "CATCH THE STAR WINDS" for a wonderful
example of sail-powered starships.... and L. Neil Smith did a
pretty good job of FTL sailing in "HENRY MARTYN," too.) But what
we got was 1.5 million bucks' worth of B.S. and twaddle, not
mitigated by the stupid father-son-reconciliation <GORTON>.
In short, as far as I'm concerned, a considerable state of dubiety
exists concerning the Wonderful Creative Degree Of Originality
extant on Paramount's "TREK" staff, and this dubiety has only been
amplified over the years by watching the consciously recycled crud
that keeps being passed off as "original Sci-Fi writing" by the
folks involved with TNG, DS9, and V'Ger. (At least Braga and
Taylor appear to have been detached from DS9, so there's a chance
of some better work there.)
When you appear to be using the framework, the skeleton, of someone
else's work, it behooves you to do it BETTER than the original
creator, to prove that you *did* have what it took to think of it
yourself; when the work that appears is as tawdry and derivative
as we normally see from the Franchise, clearly displaying a degree
of genre incompetence which is inappropriate for the salary and
budget levels involved, the tales of creative bankruptcy just become
that more easy to believe in.
If "DS9" really was staffed and written by people who could do
reasonable SF, or even TV Sci-Fi, the material being aired would
put the lie to the rumors and occasional charges that have been
levied; as it is, the product we're getting at this end just
convinces us that where there's smoke, there's fire.