A word to the wise.
Von Bruno
<<Obviously, if the memo never reached him, it'd be a non-issue, but there's a
real possibility that it just got leaked before it'd gotten through the full
process. If true, then the article served the best purpose it could.>>
Actually, a certain "rabid" Babylon-5 fan is actually, on the AOL boards,
trying to perpetuate the theory that this internal memo may truly be a "dirty
trick" by Paramount Studios.
I mention this only as an illustration of why we should not allow ourselves to
become upset or hysterical regarding this news item.
Most internal corporate memos are ignored and go no where so please let us not
get worked up over something that shows no sign of negatively impacting
Crusade.
Aloha,
Von Bruno
Jms at B5
The TNT memo was apparently real, from within the network to others in the
network. But the egregious points have gone away.
Not only that, but they've allocated a huge chunk of change for us to upgrade
sets and add a bunch of new sets to the series, stuff we'd been planning to do
later, but can do now instead.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
Mike Barnes
January?
Space_...@yahoo.com
> The TNT memo was apparently real, from within the network to others in the
> network. But the egregious points have gone away.
>
> Not only that, but they've allocated a huge chunk of change for us to upgrade
> sets and add a bunch of new sets to the series, stuff we'd been planning to do
> later, but can do now instead.
>
>
> jms
Okay boys and girls, it's time to break out the
party hats and noisemakers.
WEEE YOOHOO YEAHMAN PARTYTIME
Is this the best news you've heard in a long time or what?
--
Jon Armstrong
The Space Ranger
Graveyard gives one a unique outlook on life
A dark one
Corscuant
I think a few people owe AICN an apology.
Brian Watson
> I think a few people owe AICN an apology.
I think a LOT of people owe AICN a THANK YOU. If they hadn't brought
it to our attention, and TNT hadn't been aware of the kind of outrage
those changes might have brought about, they might have actually USED
some of the suggestions in the memo. God bless AICN.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian "Kerr" Watson <*> http://www.concentric.net/~kerr
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Because what is built, endures... what is loved, endures...
and Babylon 5... Babylon 5 endures." - Delenn, "Rising Star"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Nitflegal
>I think a few people owe AICN an apology.
I think a whole hell of a lot of people owe him an apology. Glenn was getting
death threats for God's sake. And he was right! And maybe even drew JMS's
attention to the memo before it got far enough to be a stumbling block.
And, you know what, based on what has happened to JMS in similar circumstances,
I would bet not 1 in 10 of the people who attacked him will have the decency to
apologize to him.
James A. Wolf
>
>I think a few people owe AICN an apology.
>
ACIN- the geek's Drudge Report!
<runs like heck!>
<*> James A. Wolf - jaw...@tiac.net - www.tiac.net/users/jawolf <*>
"The jawbone of an ass is | "We have entered an |"Few things are more
just as dangerous a weapon | era vibrating with the |dangerous than articulate
today as in Samson's time."| din of small voices." |superficiality."
Richard M. Nixon | Matt Drudge |Thomas Sowell
Nathan Shafer
>
> The TNT memo was apparently real, from within the network to others in the
> network. But the egregious points have gone away.
And has egregious originator of the ridiculous memo also gone away?
Or at least been beaten soundly about the ears for such silliness?
"Sexual explorer" indeed!
> Not only that, but they've allocated a huge chunk of change for us to upgrade
> sets and add a bunch of new sets to the series, stuff we'd been planning to do
> later, but can do now instead.
Was this done as an apology for their having hired such a ninny?
Why exactly did they give you this extra money?
cs...@ix.netcom.com
>
> The TNT memo was apparently real, from within the network to others in the
> network. But the egregious points have gone away.
>
> sets and add a bunch of new sets to the series, stuff we'd been planning to do
> later, but can do now instead.
>
See, folks? No evil Star Trek-cloning, no alien-trollop-of-the-week, no
technobabbling-on, nothing.
[Ivanova]
Now, while you worry-warts are waiting for _Crusade_ to start, those of
us who knew there was no cause for alarm would like for you to recite
The R.A.S.T.B5.M. Mantra:
"JMS is always on the fan's side.
"We will trust JMS to do what is best for the show.
"We will not jump to conclusions about what JMS will allow to happen to
his shows.
"JMS is God."
[/Ivanova]
CF [Disciple of Ivanova :) ]
Gary7Seven
Jms at B5 wrote:
> The TNT memo was apparently real, from within the network to others in the
> network. But the egregious points have gone away.
>
> Not only that, but they've allocated a huge chunk of change for us to upgrade
> sets and add a bunch of new sets to the series, stuff we'd been planning to do
> later, but can do now instead.
>
> jms
>
Jan Willekens
>
>
>The TNT memo was apparently real, from within the network to others in the
>network. But the egregious points have gone away.
>
In the past you have praised TNT for giving you a lot of independence
and not mingling storywise. Has this now changed, or did memo's like
these circulate before? If TNT now is trying to have a say storywise,
are you now, with Crusade, more inclined to give in to their
directions as with B5, or do you still demand compete indepence?
>Not only that, but they've allocated a huge chunk of change for us to upgrade
>sets and add a bunch of new sets to the series, stuff we'd been planning to do
>later, but can do now instead.
Could you give us some insight in to the process behind this decision?
It seems strange to me that they would do such a thing after such a
short time after Crusade went in to production. Did you ask for such a
change, were you or TNT dissatisfied with the current quality?
Best regards,
Jan Willekens
zoka...@xs4all.nl
The Babylon Project - The Dutch B5 fanclub
http://www.xs4all.nl/~halcyon/b5/index.html
Tammy Smith
PARTY!!!!!
tammy
c...@zipcon.net
: The TNT memo was apparently real, from within the network to others in the
: network. But the egregious points have gone away.
: sets and add a bunch of new sets to the series, stuff we'd been planning to do
: later, but can do now instead.
THANK YOU for finally putting an end to a worrisome month-long thread.
And congrats on being able to get some shiny new toys to play with. =)
Tammy Smith
something from this: that sometimes, rumors are true, and also that
sometimes, networks won't try to fix something that isn't broken.
(why does this sound like one of those kids' shows where everyone talks
about what they learned at the end?)
tammy
Patrick M. Berry
> Corscuant wrote:
>
> > I think a few people owe AICN an apology.
>
> it to our attention, and TNT hadn't been aware of the kind of outrage
> those changes might have brought about, they might have actually USED
> some of the suggestions in the memo. God bless AICN.
Well, that's one possible interpretation: there was a real problem, AICN
told us about it, and we solved it.
However, the following interpretations are equally valid:
- There was never any real problem, and we did a lot of ranting and
screaming for no good reason.
- There was a problem, but JMS and his people solved it without our help.
Patrick M. Berry
>
> >I think a few people owe AICN an apology.
>
> death threats for God's sake.
The moral of which is: Responding to a rumor with a barrage of threats --
against *anyone* -- is a bad idea.
Patrick M. Berry
>
> I think a few people owe AICN an apology.
Not from me. I consider rumors harmful and dangerous, and I don't want
to hear them. AICN did me no favors by spreading this one. I prefer to
wait for the facts.
Pat Luther
> jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:
:: The TNT memo was apparently real, from within the network to others in the
:: network. But the egregious points have gone away.
::
:: Not only that, but they've allocated a huge chunk of change for us to upgrade
:: sets and add a bunch of new sets to the series, stuff we'd been planning to do
:: later, but can do now instead.
::
::
:: jms
> Okay boys and girls, it's time to break out the
>party hats and noisemakers.
I dunno: The above really sounds like spin doctoring:
There was a memo advocating really stupid changes, but some of the points
are not going to be followed (which ones *are*?)
Followed by a sentence saying there are, indeed, going to be changes this
late in the game.... (which new sets, hmmmmm.....?)
??pat
Actual dialog from another newsgroup:
"I never believe anything I read on the net."
"But you wrote that article!"
"So I should know, huh?"
--
--
Pat Luther t_p...@qualcomm.com http://www.cs.pdx.edu/~pluther
"Reality? Illusion? One thing I've learned is to always present
a moving target." -Jack Flanders
hel...@my-dejanews.com
ber...@aur.alcatel.com wrote:
> Well, that's one possible interpretation: there was a real problem, AICN
> told us about it, and we solved it.
>
> However, the following interpretations are equally valid:
>
> - There was never any real problem, and we did a lot of ranting and
> screaming for no good reason.
>
> - There was a problem, but JMS and his people solved it without our help.
>
>
Or...
there was a real problem, AICN told us about it, and then JMS and his people
were able to solve it with, and because of, fan input.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Phantasm
I think the memos write should be strapped to a chair and forced to watch
several seasons worth of eps of Voyager.
If they survive, I doubt they would ever make such suggestions again.
Nathan Shafer wrote in message <36044E...@earthlink.net>...
>Jms at B5 wrote:
>>
>> The TNT memo was apparently real, from within the network to others in
the
>> network. But the egregious points have gone away.
>
Patrick M. Berry
In article <4606-360...@newsd-111.bryant.webtv.net>, gka...@webtv.net (Tammy Smith) writes:
> i did apologize to glenn at AICN. i think that ol' cynical me learned
> something from this: that sometimes, rumors are true, and also that
> sometimes, networks won't try to fix something that isn't broken.
Once in a great while, a rumor turns out to be true. In the overwhelming
majority of cases, though, rumors are false. It's far wiser to ignore
all rumors than to believe them all. This experience has done nothing
to change my belief about that.
David Moore
wrote:
>I think the memos write should be strapped to a chair and forced to watch
>several seasons worth of eps of Voyager.
>
>If they survive, I doubt they would ever make such suggestions again.
>
I'm afraid you don't understand exactly how ugly this could
have been: the memo's writer evidently thinks Voyager is a
/good/ thing. Your suggestion amounts to throwing B'rer Rabbit
into the briar patch.
No, the correct way to torture that twit would be to force him
to watch the entire Masterpiece Theater canon, strapped to a
chair with eyelids propped open, ala /Clockwork Orange/.
I thought about the equivalent in books, which would cause him
to bite his tongue off so he could choke to death on the blood,
but the poor doofus probably can't read well enough to make that
work.
Dave Moore == DJM...@UH.EDu == I Speak For Me.
"...what we have here is not merely a one-time
lapse but rather a chronic silliness...."
-- Edward R. Tufte
Jeff Vavasour
[Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set]
[Some characters may be displayed incorrectly]
Patrick M. Berry wrote in message <6u5olh$i65$6...@aurwww.aur.alcatel.com>...
>Once in a great while, a rumor turns out to be true. In the overwhelming
>majority of cases, though, rumors are false. It's far wiser to ignore
>all rumors than to believe them all. This experience has done nothing
>to change my belief about that.
It's far wiser to pay heed and investigate for yourself, IMHO. In general
terms, dismissing a rumour can be as bad as blindly accepting it.
The thing that disturbed me was that those who did know one way or the other on
Glen's integrity just went with the law of averages and said that the rumour
was false, *without* bothering to investigate his history. That seems to be a
lazy accusation to me, as in "I don't know who you are, but you're probably
lying." (Don't confuse AICN's movie news from Harry with AICN's TV news from
Glen, either.)
What's worse, when people who did know a bit of Glen's history suggested that
he had some integrity and so shouldn't be dismissed so quickly, *their*
objectivity was brought into question. (Honestly, I can't remember if I saw
that here or in the WWW message boards or both.)
So, we're talking about summary accusation without bothering to investigate,
followed by dismissal of independent sources verifying the history/integrity of
the first. Sounds like denial to me.
(One would think that if there were positive informed opinions only because the
"informed" were actually gullible, there'd be an equal number of negative
informed opinions to correct them. This was not the case. The "best" I saw
were two protests: the rumour about the blurry Star Wars footage which didn't
even come from Glen; and the rumour about Highlander: The Raven, which was at
worst taken out of context, but not false.)
How would you feel with the shoe on the other foot? You run into a rabid
Trekkie who said that "JMS was a #$@!$& liar" for claiming that he delivered a
space-station based show to Paramount prior to DS9. You say, "I've seen JMS
posts for months. He's shown himself to be a man of integrity and if claims
something, I trust that he believes he's telling the truth." The guy says,
"you're just a JMS worshipper, why should I believe you?" or the like.
Fine, I've exaggerated the two sides of the argument, but summary judgement
combined with ignorance are the common theme here.
- Jeff
Aubrey W. Adkins
few episodes differ from those that follow.
Aubrey
Nitflegal wrote:
> >I think a few people owe AICN an apology.
>
> I think a whole hell of a lot of people owe him an apology. Glenn was getting
Laura M. Appelbaum
>
> The TNT memo was apparently real, from within the network to others in the
> network. But the egregious points have gone away.
Just so that there's no further debate here, would you care to tell us
exactly what changes TNT asked for in that memo WILL be taking place and
just where YOU drew the line? ('cause you know if you DON'T do this,
discussion and innuendo on this point will NEVER end!)
> Not only that, but they've allocated a huge chunk of change for us to upgrade
Is this to "compensate" for the damage done to your rep by the memo, or
in EXCHANGE for some kind of concessions?
LMA
Diane K De
I'm just guessing here, but...
>From: "Laura M. Appelbaum"
>
>Jms at B5 wrote:
>>
>> The TNT memo was apparently real, from within the network to others in the
>> network. But the egregious points have gone away.
>
>Just so that there's no further debate here, would you care to tell us
>exactly what changes TNT asked for in that memo WILL be taking place and
>just where YOU drew the line? ('cause you know if you DON'T do this,
>discussion and innuendo on this point will NEVER end!)
Note that JMS said the memo "apparently" existed, so he didn't acknowledge
receiving it. Remember even AICN said it was "internal". I will be very
surprised if Joe answers this question. Stopping discusssion and innuendo
(which I have seen little of anyway) doesn't seem enough incentive given the
trouble that would raised if he answered this question.
>> Not only that, but they've allocated a huge chunk of change for us to
>upgrade
>
>Is this to "compensate" for the damage done to your rep by the memo, or
>in EXCHANGE for some kind of concessions?
>
>LMA
I doubt TNT would pay hard cash for this reason. Despite the ripple this caused
with B5 fandom, this story got no press anywhere other than AICN. I kept
looking in several TV news websites and Hollywood Reporter/ Variety daily. Not
a wordwas written about it. As "crises" go, it was extremely well-contained.
I know people who work at TNT who never heard about it. In the same period, I
saw several articles about other series going through "re-tooling" (example:
Fox's Brimstone), but not one on Crusade.
You'd have a hard time proving "damage to his reputation" with something that
very few people know about. In addition, TNT was doing nothing out of the
ordinary for writing such a memo. All networks make suggestions for the shows
they are putting on air. That's part of what programmers get paid to do. It's
not a crime, from their perspective. It's part of their jobs.
If TNT is paying for new sets, it's probably because they felt the show needed
to be spiffed up. It sounds like JMS agreed with them.
DD
Aubrey W. Adkins
being upgraded to facilitate them being used in a big screen movie.
StarTrek does this and in the long run it can be a money saver. Why
build two sets when you can build one that can do two jobs for the price
of the one. Sounds like maybe good economics to me, plus the tv show
gets a classier look. IMHO.
Aubrey
Patrick M. Berry
> Putting more money into Crusade's sets could also mean that they are
> being upgraded to facilitate them being used in a big screen movie.
> StarTrek does this and in the long run it can be a money saver.
Er, no. No set from any Star Trek series has ever been used in a
movie.
And it would make no sense for TNT to spend a bundle of money on
building sets for a Crusade *movie* when they don't even know if
the *series* will be a success yet. Sorry, but this is just wishful
thinking.
Corscuant
>Er, no. No set from any Star Trek series has ever been used in a
>movie.
>
making them the longest standing sets in hollywood.)
Joel M. Street
Patrick M. Berry wrote in message
>movie.
In general, true. But Generations was the exception. The only thing they had
to change in the sets was to remove all adequate lighting....
Aubrey W. Adkins
another and it would make no sense for TNT to put money into anything that could be used in a big screen
movie because they stand to gain nothing. Note the operative word in ny first sentence was 'could'.
aubrey
Patrick M. Berry wrote:
> In article <360CF65C...@norfolk.infi.net>, "Aubrey W. Adkins" <xazq...@norfolk.infi.net> writes:
> > Putting more money into Crusade's sets could also mean that they are
> > being upgraded to facilitate them being used in a big screen movie.
> > StarTrek does this and in the long run it can be a money saver.
>
> Er, no. No set from any Star Trek series has ever been used in a
> movie.
>
Patrick M. Berry
>
> >Er, no. No set from any Star Trek series has ever been used in a
> >movie.
> >
> making them the longest standing sets in hollywood.)
Right. I was talking about the other way around -- sets originally built for
one of the TV shows being used for the movies. That doesn't happen because
the TV sets aren't of sufficient quality for the big screen. They would
look shabby on film. Even in "Star Trek Generations", the familiar Enterprise-D
sets (such as the bridge and observation lounge) were torn down and rebuilt
from scratch for the movie.
A couple of ST:TNG sets *were* reused in "ST VI: The Undiscovered Country",
but they were heavily redressed and aren't immediately recognizable. The
Federation President's office in Paris is actually the Ten Forward set, and
the banquet scene takes place in the redressed observation lounge.
What I should have said is that no set from a Star Trek TV series has been
used *as-is* in a movie.
I'm curious: which specific sets on Voyager are originally from ST movies?
Patrick M. Berry
>
> Patrick M. Berry wrote in message
> >movie.
>
> to change in the sets was to remove all adequate lighting....
No, those were new sets. The quality of the ST:TNG sets was insufficient for
film even when they were new, and by the time "Generations" was filmed, the
sets had years of wear on them. They were dismantled and rebuilt from scratch.
I agree with you about the lighting, though. Very distracting.