What do you make of this then...?
Fran
Rangers and TLT.....!
(I've also seen no UK release date for Changeling, but that's another
matter.)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: "jms...@aol.com" <jms...@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 18:42:18 -0700 (PDT)
Lines: 78
Putting this on a recent thread here where it's more likely to be seen
in a quick fashion....
Several things just to update folks.
First, many thanks to all those who sent along research suggestions
and offerings to be of assistance on the project I can't talk about.
I've been swamped with deadlines and unable to reply to any of the
public notes and private emails, but as soon as I can get my head
above water, be assured that I'll be in touch with many of you.
Second, as noted in the original thread before I hijacked it, yes, the
plan at the moment is that I will be at Comic Con San Diego this year,
primarily doing my thing on Thursday and Saturday afternoons.
There is a *chance* -- mind you, it's just a slim chance but to be
honorable I must mention it -- that a work situation *may* preclude my
appearance there. Or it may not. I'll know more by the end of next
week, and for now as far as I know, everything's on target for me to
be at SDCC. If that changes, I'll be sure to let everyone know as far
in advance as possible.
One final note re: recent discussions on TMoS and more Lost Tales.
B5:TLT was commissioned at a $2 million budget to, yet one more time,
"test the waters" for B5. We did what we could with that, and that
was that. As we did with Rangers, which also suffered from not having
a lot of money because of concerns about "is there really a B5
audience?" Which is, of course, a foolish question from a studio that
has never really understood what it has in B5.
Of late, there have been more discussions from WB about doing more
DVDs, again at a low cost, or a cable thing, again with minimal
investment.
So for the last few months, I've been giving this whole subject a lot
of quiet thought. And I've come to a conclusion.
B5 as a five year story stands beautifully on its own. If anything
else is to be continued from that story, it should be something that
adds to the legacy of B5, rather than subtracts from it.
As well intentioned as Rangers and TLT were, as enticing as it was to
return to those familiar waters, in the end I think they did more to
subtract from the legacy than add to it. I don't regret having made
them, because I needed to go through that to get to the point where I
am now psychologically, but from where I sit now, I wouldn't make them
again.
So I've let everyone up here know that I'm not interested in doing any
more low-budget DVDs. I'm not interested in doing any low-budget
cable things or small computer games. The only thing I would be
interested in doing regarding Babylon 5 from this point on is a full-
featured, big-budget feature film.
It's that or nothing.
And if it's nothing, I'm totally cool with that because the original
story stands on its own just fine. I'm not lobbying for it, I'm not
asking fans to write in about it (nor should you) because such
campaigns never really have much impact...that's simply the position
I've taken up here. Lord knows I don't lack for other things to do
these days. I'm busier on more prestige projects with terrific people
and great film-makers than at any other time in my career.
At the end of the day, for me, it's not just a matter of getting more
B5. It's a matter of getting more *good* B5 that respects what came
before it and doesn't have to compromise visually or in terms of
action. The original show deserves better than that, the surviving
cast members deserve better than that, and the fans who have supported
it over the years definitely deserve better than that. A lot better.
So I've drawn that line in the sand, and I'm happy living on whichever
side of that line the universe puts me. Just thought you should know,
'cause it's your show too.
jms
Richard Tibbetts
> From the moderated group. Unkind minds might think what they will about
> Rangers and TLT.....!
Don't forget Crusade - that was excellent in parts, and could have been
a *worthy* successor...
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> From: "jms...@aol.com" <jms...@aol.com>
> Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 18:42:18 -0700 (PDT)
[...]
>
> So I've let everyone up here know that I'm not interested in doing any
> more low-budget DVDs. I'm not interested in doing any low-budget
> cable things or small computer games. The only thing I would be
> interested in doing regarding Babylon 5 from this point on is a full-
> featured, big-budget feature film.
>
> It's that or nothing.
Good. Unless this is some kind of negotiation by Usenet, and we end up
with more cheesy low-budget DVDs but with a better percentage going to
JMS or something :-/
Fran
"Richard Tibbetts" <ric...@primepeace.ltd.uk> wrote in message
news:487b9c21$0$634$bed6...@news.gradwell.net...
> Fran wrote:
>> From the moderated group. Unkind minds might think what they will about
>> Rangers and TLT.....!
>
> Don't forget Crusade - that was excellent in parts, and could have been a
> *worthy* successor...
>
Good point.
>> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>> From: "jms...@aol.com" <jms...@aol.com>
>> Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 18:42:18 -0700 (PDT)
> [...]
>>
>> So I've let everyone up here know that I'm not interested in doing any
>> more low-budget DVDs. I'm not interested in doing any low-budget
>> cable things or small computer games. The only thing I would be
>> interested in doing regarding Babylon 5 from this point on is a full-
>> featured, big-budget feature film.
>>
>> It's that or nothing.
>
> Good. Unless this is some kind of negotiation by Usenet, and we end up
> with more cheesy low-budget DVDs but with a better percentage going to JMS
> or something :-/
You might think that, I could not possibly comment. ;)
Paul Harper
wrote:
> Good. Unless this is some kind of negotiation by Usenet, and we end up
> with more cheesy low-budget DVDs but with a better percentage going to
> JMS or something :-/
Bloody right it's good. Ranger was undiluted crap, and The Lost Tales
(which should have stayed lost) were even worse. Everything since the
end of the main show (and no small part of season 5 itself) has
diluted Babylon 5 every time.
I may (and do) think the show runner is on an A-list egowank trip to
end all egowank trips, but the show he and others produced was one of
my favourites, and I hate it to my core when something special to me
is bastardised in the name of a franchise and a quick buck and hate it
even more when the lie is used that it's "for the fans". That is utter
bollocks.
B5 is dead, and has been for a long time. FerChristsakes let it rest
in peace.
Paul (waving hello to any old-timers still on here!)
RedKev
> From the moderated group. Unkind minds might think what they will about
> Rangers and TLT.....!
>
> (I've also seen no UK release date for Changeling, but that's another
> matter.)
>
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> From: "jms...@aol.com" <jms...@aol.com>
> Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 18:42:18 -0700 (PDT)
> Lines: 78
>
> Putting this on a recent thread here where it's more likely to be seen
> in a quick fashion....
>
> So I've drawn that line in the sand, and I'm happy living on whichever
> side of that line the universe puts me. Just thought you should know,
> 'cause it's your show too.
>
> jms
>
>
>
I think it's good of Joe to let us know what his thinking is on the
show, but it isn't up to us to decide whether he is right or wrong. We
might be excused for thinking so because he put at the end that it's our
show too. All I can say is that Joe is a better man than I am. I write
scripts, not on a par with Joe's but I don't think there is any disgrace
in that. The way I feel about it is that before I write there is a piece
of paper with nothing on it, and from my mind and through my hands a
world is created. The same is true of Joe: before he put it down in
print there was no Londo, no G'Kar or any of the other wonders of the B5
universe. The fact that it raises such vehement arguments is a testimony
his ability as a writer. My work is mine, I created it and I can do
what I like with it. Likewise I believe Joe can do what he likes with
his and I'm happy that he is having the success he deserves.
I'm sure Joe does want a bit of an ego massage, when you write something
you do want people to like it. Every artist wants their work to be
admired, even Harlan. I'm aware of that even as I write this post: if
people agree I'll probably get a warm felling inside, if I get flamed,
I'll either be hurt or respond aggressively by calling the poster's
legitimacy into question etc, I'm sure you all know the drill. It's
human nature, everyone wants their work to be appreciated, even if it is
just to elicit a negative response. That seeking for appreciation,
doesn't mean that everyone is going to like every story you write but a
hope that they will appreciate the craft that has gone into it. The
thing that I am always struck with when looking at Joe's work is the
sheer amount of content in it. An episode of Babylon 5 will often
contain the same amount of content as a two hour film, there just isn't
the padding, meaningful glances and 20 minute explosive car chase
sequences that now pervade many films.
The trouble with life, and probably more so with scriptwriters, is that
you have to compromise. A writer has to let go and allow others to use
their craft. In the case of Londo and G'Kar the actors had their
creative part in portraying those characters and there are all the
production crew who likewise use their talents. Joe has a love of the
universe he created and has more stories to tell so he used the
opportunities given to him. The lost tales were undeniably low budget ,
nevertheless they can still be a vehicle for good writing. I'm sure that
we can all think of examples of big budget films that could have done
with a better script. The first story on the Lost Tales DVD contains, to
my mind, a brilliant story idea that I would love to have come up with
so I'm glad they got made.
Others I'm sure will have their views on aspects of The Lost Tales and
other shows. I'm not here to be a television critic, I have enjoyed
watching the Babylon 5 shows and I've made a lot of friends because of
it. That's what I read the newsgroup for. Of course these days it
doesn't take too long but I'm glad it is still here none the less.
Paviours may have been cleared because it was a hazard to navigation (or
something like that) but the Babblings go on as strong as they ever
have. I'm sure we'll all be around to see the first B5 big screen movie.
Cheers,
RedKev
Paul Harper
As a project is being developed and written by an individual, then the
creative ownership mostly remains with them (even if they are working
on a commissioned basis, like most TV is - B5 included). Then the
project goes into production, and however tight the control is, people
will add their own elements to it - sometimes good (in B5's case:
Peter Jurasik, Andreas Katsulas, Chris Franke, Ron Thornton, Mojo, and
a few others) sometimes bad (just about everyone else) and by degrees
the exclusivity of the ownership is lost.
Then, of course, there's the huge loss of ownership - when the
finished product/franchise is offered to the public. A huge part of
the selling of the product, and therefore a fundamental part of what
will become (hopefully) its success, is getting people to sign onto
it. For an emotional sale to take place, a hook is needed - where
enough of us start to care about characters and situations. The
voluntary emotional exploitation of an audience comes at the cost of
allowing the audience to take partial ownership of the product - once
we have signed on, and start to get involved on an emotional level, we
(quite rightly) get annoyed when people start pissing about with "our"
programme.
So in the world of mass media, the concept of ownership is flawed
because it generally doesn't exist. Even in the world of books, there
are editors and publishers between the auteur and his audience, and
even in that slightly rarefied world the audience is "signed on" and
has a valid expectation is a book is part of a series - see assorted
fusses over the Harry Potter series as examples. Possibly the only
exception to this is the vanity press companies like CafePress and the
like, where the author pays the printer without any intervening
publisher, agent or editor.
So when someone says "it's your show too", they are rather stating the
obvious. We've been sold the show, we've been expected to turn up week
after week to support it, to buy the merchandise, the t-shirts, the
CDs, the books and all the other tat that goes with the sign-on, to
turn up at the self-congratulatory love-in conventions, and so on. To
a great extent, it's more our show than anyone else's because without
us it wouldn't have got beyond the third or fourth episode.
To an extent, you could put forward a parallel between making
something for teevee and painting a wall. All these decorators are
paid to paint a wall, room, whatever, and are provided with the
resources to purchase the materials used to achieve the expected
result and a working wage (a bloody good working wage in the case of
teevee people!) - it is not as if they are doing this for the love of
their craft, even if they did go door-to-door touting their wares. The
number of Michelangelos working in mass media can be counted on the
fingers of one foot.
So in media, ownership is illusory, and the domain of the egotistical
and deluded.
Bloody right its our show. Now stop fucking around with it.
Paul.
RedKev
A stirring response, but whereas some logic is stirring, not all
stirring is logical.
Paul Harper wrote:
> The whole question of "ownership" is an interesting one.
>
> As a project is being developed and written by an individual, then the
> creative ownership mostly remains with them (even if they are working
> on a commissioned basis, like most TV is - B5 included). Then the
> project goes into production, and however tight the control is, people
> will add their own elements to it - sometimes good (in B5's case:
> Peter Jurasik, Andreas Katsulas, Chris Franke, Ron Thornton, Mojo, and
> a few others) sometimes bad (just about everyone else) and by degrees
> the exclusivity of the ownership is lost.
I think I covered the issue of loss of exclusivity of ownership when
others become involved, it's part of the acceptance of seeing your work
produced. You could even argue that a novelist has even less control
because they cannot have any say in how a reader imagines their
character to be. In TV production I think it probably takes more than
five or six good people to make a good series. I'm no expert but it
seems to me that also important are make up, set design, production,
costume and direction to name but a few areas of expertise. I'm a bit
inexperienced in areas of gaffers and dollies so you'll have to excuse
my ignorance there.
>
> Then, of course, there's the huge loss of ownership - when the
> finished product/franchise is offered to the public. A huge part of
> the selling of the product, and therefore a fundamental part of what
> will become (hopefully) its success, is getting people to sign onto
> it. For an emotional sale to take place, a hook is needed - where
> enough of us start to care about characters and situations. The
> voluntary emotional exploitation of an audience comes at the cost of
> allowing the audience to take partial ownership of the product - once
> we have signed on, and start to get involved on an emotional level, we
> (quite rightly) get annoyed when people start pissing about with "our"
> programme.
>
I think we have a fundamentally different view of ourselves in the
universe when we talk about ownership of the show. I don't own it at
all, nor do I want to. I have my own creations which I jealously guard,
I have no need to vicariously claim the work of someone else. I liked
the show very much, I might even have taken some action to pressurize
Channel 4 or Warner Brothers to make the fourth and fifth season, but
only so that I could watch the show. Sometimes it's hard when the
universe is extrapolated from a piece of fairy cake and you see yourself
as you truly are, in my case just a guy who watched an enjoyed a TV
show, I'm content with that.
> So in the world of mass media, the concept of ownership is flawed
> because it generally doesn't exist. Even in the world of books, there
> are editors and publishers between the auteur and his audience, and
> even in that slightly rarefied world the audience is "signed on" and
> has a valid expectation is a book is part of a series - see assorted
> fusses over the Harry Potter series as examples. Possibly the only
> exception to this is the vanity press companies like CafePress and the
> like, where the author pays the printer without any intervening
> publisher, agent or editor.
>
Ownership is protected by copyright, an idea cannot be copyrighted but
the intellectual property of an original work automatically belongs to
its creator (with certain exceptions). The editor and publisher comes
between the author and the his or her audience (auteur refers to a film
director) but that is just part of the production process. If you
photocopy a book you will have defrauded the publisher of the sale of
the book and the author of the copyright.
> So when someone says "it's your show too", they are rather stating the
> obvious. We've been sold the show, we've been expected to turn up week
> after week to support it, to buy the merchandise, the t-shirts, the
> CDs, the books and all the other tat that goes with the sign-on, to
> turn up at the self-congratulatory love-in conventions, and so on. To
> a great extent, it's more our show than anyone else's because without
> us it wouldn't have got beyond the third or fourth episode.
>
When someone says it's your show too, they are just being polite and
recognizing that fans provide a market for the shows and the
merchandise. The self congratulatory love-in conventions are great, if I
get to be famous I'll be hoping for plenty of that.
> To an extent, you could put forward a parallel between making
> something for teevee and painting a wall. All these decorators are
> paid to paint a wall, room, whatever, and are provided with the
> resources to purchase the materials used to achieve the expected
> result and a working wage (a bloody good working wage in the case of
> teevee people!) - it is not as if they are doing this for the love of
> their craft, even if they did go door-to-door touting their wares. The
> number of Michelangelos working in mass media can be counted on the
> fingers of one foot.
>
I think that's a good parallel, Warner Brothers could be seen as patrons
of the arts and we as the audience. As well as the Michelangelos there
were artists that have disappeared from memory: we remember the good
ones, or at least those that created something memorable (since what is
perceived as good is subjective). What I don't see is why I am an owner
of Babylon 5 anymore than I am an owner of the Statue of David.
> So in media, ownership is illusory, and the domain of the egotistical
> and deluded.
Ownership is clearly laid out in international law; writers need to be
egotists otherwise they would not believe their work to be worth making
public; to think otherwise would be deluded.
>
> Bloody right its our show. Now stop fucking around with it.
>
That's the point you see: it isn't our show. When Joe got out of the
shower nude and wet, there it was. It's his to fuck around with as much
as he wants and as much as he gets the opportunity to. All we can do is
watch if we want to.
RedKev
Paul Harper
Not heard the fairy cake extrapolation theory before - hope you're not
giving away the plot of your script here... :-)
> > So in the world of mass media, the concept of ownership is flawed
> > because it generally doesn't exist. Even in the world of books, there
> > are editors and publishers between the auteur and his audience, and
> > even in that slightly rarefied world the audience is "signed on" and
> > has a valid expectation is a book is part of a series - see assorted
> > fusses over the Harry Potter series as examples. Possibly the only
> > exception to this is the vanity press companies like CafePress and the
> > like, where the author pays the printer without any intervening
> > publisher, agent or editor.
>
> Ownership is protected by copyright, an idea cannot be copyrighted but
> the intellectual property of an original work automatically belongs to
> its creator (with certain exceptions). The editor and publisher comes
> between the author and the his or her audience (auteur refers to a film
> director) but that is just part of the production process. If you
> photocopy a book you will have defrauded the publisher of the sale of
> the book and the author of the copyright.
In the context of my paragraph, auteur refers to anyone in mass media
who takes themselves *way* too seriously... :-) Hitchcock, Wells,
Kubrick et all qualify under this, of course, as do several others
like Tarantino and several people in teevee and written works too (if
I hear another mindless, self-important Ellison rant I think I will
explode).
At the end of every B5 episode the copyright message refered to
Warners, not anyone else.
> > So when someone says "it's your show too", they are rather stating the
> > obvious. We've been sold the show, we've been expected to turn up week
> > after week to support it, to buy the merchandise, the t-shirts, the
> > CDs, the books and all the other tat that goes with the sign-on, to
> > turn up at the self-congratulatory love-in conventions, and so on. To
> > a great extent, it's more our show than anyone else's because without
> > us it wouldn't have got beyond the third or fourth episode.
>
> When someone says it's your show too, they are just being polite and
> recognizing that fans provide a market for the shows and the
> merchandise. The self congratulatory love-in conventions are great, if I
> get to be famous I'll be hoping for plenty of that.
Fame isn't something I understand, I have to admit. But good luck if
it's what you want - genuinely (non-sarcastic), good luck.
> > To an extent, you could put forward a parallel between making
> > something for teevee and painting a wall. All these decorators are
> > paid to paint a wall, room, whatever, and are provided with the
> > resources to purchase the materials used to achieve the expected
> > result and a working wage (a bloody good working wage in the case of
> > teevee people!) - it is not as if they are doing this for the love of
> > their craft, even if they did go door-to-door touting their wares. The
> > number of Michelangelos working in mass media can be counted on the
> > fingers of one foot.
>
> I think that's a good parallel, Warner Brothers could be seen as patrons
> of the arts and we as the audience. As well as the Michelangelos there
> were artists that have disappeared from memory: we remember the good
> ones, or at least those that created something memorable (since what is
> perceived as good is subjective). What I don't see is why I am an owner
> of Babylon 5 anymore than I am an owner of the Statue of David.
A valid point up to a point. David was not commissioned as a piece of
mass-market merchandise. The sign-on from the Great Unwashed was not a
factor in its creation. Without exception, all of teevee and mass
media in general is utterly dependent upon buy-in from us out here.
(I am still giggling at the concept of Warner's being a patron of the
arts, by the way - you have a wicked sense of humour sometimes!
<grin>)
> > So in media, ownership is illusory, and the domain of the egotistical
> > and deluded.
>
> Ownership is clearly laid out in international law; writers need to be
> egotists otherwise they would not believe their work to be worth making
> public; to think otherwise would be deluded.
You're right. And under international law, I think we'll find Warner's
is recognised as the owner in this instance. Which is fair enough -
they paid for it.
> > Bloody right its our show. Now stop fucking around with it.
>
> That's the point you see: it isn't our show. When Joe got out of the
> shower nude and wet, there it was. It's his to fuck around with as much
> as he wants and as much as he gets the opportunity to. All we can do is
> watch if we want to.
Or not. Which is what's been happening, and why it is extremely
unlikely that there will ever be a "major motion picture" of the show.
A couple of thousand hard-core fans is never going to make anyone any
money outside of the CafePress scenario.
Of course, if Straczynski (I don't consider us to be on first-name
terms) has so much faith in his product, he's perfectly capable of
putting together financing at his own risk for the project. That might
be one way forward, since he's an A-Lister these days...
Paul.
Tony Blakeway
<pa...@harper.net> wrote :
>Paul (waving hello to any old-timers still on here!)
waves back
tony
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Never argue with an idiot.
They'll only bring you down to their level
and then beat you with their experience.
Fran
"Paul Harper" <pa...@harper.net> wrote in message
news:1a4aa0e6-8635-4561...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
>Of course, if Straczynski (I don't consider us to be on first-name
>terms)
Didn't he propose to you?
>has so much faith in his product, he's perfectly capable of
>putting together financing at his own risk for the project. That might
>be one way forward, since he's an A-Lister these days...
<snort> Somehow, I doubt both of those things.... ;)
news.virginmedia.com
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 03:38:02 -0700 (PDT), whenPaul Harper
> <pa...@harper.net> wrote :
>
>
>> Paul (waving hello to any old-timers still on here!)
>
> waves back
Yawns...
/me waves
Robbie
you can tell all I do is read with this thing
RedKev
> Not heard the fairy cake extrapolation theory before - hope you're not
> giving away the plot of your script here... :-)
I wish it was from one of my scripts - it's from the late Douglas Adams.
> At the end of every B5 episode the copyright message refered to
> Warners, not anyone else.
Well they certainly own the finished production.
> Fame isn't something I understand, I have to admit. But good luck if
> it's what you want - genuinely (non-sarcastic), good luck.
Thanks, but I won't be giving up the day job just yet :-)
RedKev