The Babylon File Volume 2
Arkadin
Apparently every continuity error gets an airing. I'd use great caution
before buying. Perhaps someone here could give us a mini review?
--
Mr. A
=========================================
"He was the most talented man I ever worked with...
indeed ever seen."
Charlton Heston
Mark W. Mecca <mec...@microserve.net> wrote in message
news:372a41a6...@news.microserve.net...
> I just noticed in the local Waldenbooks store that they have volume 2
> of the babylon file by Andy Lane. I was somewhat surprised by that
> since I have it backordered on Amazon.
>
>
>
BenVarkent
become disillusioned with the show and/or JMS in the last two seasons. This
shows in the final part of the first book, and was jarring to me because I
don't think he builds up to it or adequately explains it. My understanding is
that he didn't even like "Sleeping In Light".
I'll still consider buying it (Haven't seen it yet), since even though I can't
agree with everything in the first it is a great resource, and I found the last
"Season by Season" book to be an inferior product. But I think "Arkadin" is
right to suggest caution. Definitely a pick-up and flip-through before you buy
Ben Varkentine
"An American Oscar Wilde, only heterosexual."--Dan Ben-Zvi
Mark W. Mecca
However, I tend to agree with most of his criticisms since I thought
the fist half of season five wasn't all that good. Mr. Lane does
lighten up once the telepath storyline is over and the overall quality
of the season does improve (especially one the Centauri storyline gets
going).
He also has essays regarding Claudia Christian's departure and how the
various other departures have hurt the overall B5 storyline.
The book is introduced by Jeffrey Willerth who played Kosh and was
also the producers associate. He is also married to Pat Tallman.
His one comment that I find somewhat cryptic is he mentioning that he
wishes he left Babylonian Producions on better terms. I'm not sure
what he referring to.
Pat Tallman has an afterward and she also seems to have some hard
feelings about leaving the show.
Mark
Adnan Virk
Vol 1. (well maybe not now that Vol 2 is out...does 2 cover whole series
or just stuff NOT covered in Vol 1?)
Arkadin wrote:
>
> I've heard it's a nit-picking disparaging account of the final season.
> Apparently every continuity error gets an airing. I'd use great caution
> before buying. Perhaps someone here could give us a mini review?
>
> --
> Mr. A
> =========================================
> "He was the most talented man I ever worked with...
> indeed ever seen."
> Charlton Heston
> Mark W. Mecca <mec...@microserve.net> wrote in message
> news:372a41a6...@news.microserve.net...
> > I just noticed in the local Waldenbooks store that they have volume 2
> > of the babylon file by Andy Lane. I was somewhat surprised by that
> > since I have it backordered on Amazon.
> >
> >
> >
.
Tammy Smith
also thought the fifth-season could've been better, I'm not as negative
about it. The fifth-season was still better than a lot of things I've
seen on TV.
Tammy
Arkadin
news:372E10B9...@home.com...
> Well if it's ANYTHING like Volume 1 I'm getting it. I highly reccoment
> Vol 1. (well maybe not now that Vol 2 is out...does 2 cover whole series
> or just stuff NOT covered in Vol 1?)
A friend of mine and big B5 fan hated it so much he binned it. It seems to
have jumped on the hate B5 bandwagon that's been rolling since season 5.
And from what I've seen from flicking through it in a bookshop it appears to
be totally devoted to S5 and the movies.
Tam Pollard
> Vol 1. (well maybe not now that Vol 2 is out...does 2 cover whole series
> or just stuff NOT covered in Vol 1?)
It covers from the start of season 4 but has corretions for the first 3
seasons in vol 1. It isn't as good as the first because Lane really didn't
like the fith season as he felt jms left too many loose ends. That said it's
still the best episode guide around.
Tam
Diane K De
>Date: Sun, May 2, 1999 23:10 EDT
>Message-id: <372c83dd...@news.microserve.net>
>
>I've read it thru and he does pick apart season five pretty much.
>However, I tend to agree with most of his criticisms since I thought
>the fist half of season five wasn't all that good. Mr. Lane does
>lighten up once the telepath storyline is over and the overall quality
>of the season does improve (especially one the Centauri storyline gets
>going).
>
I've read through the book as well. I liked it.
Mr. Lane's criticisms are hardly as harsh as they could have been and they
won't come as a surprise to anyone who participated in newsgroups or mailing
lists where the same issues were discussed at length.
He does manage to point out a few things that I hadn't noticed. In very few
places do I think his critiques are off base.
The book is a great antidote to other published sources of Babylon 5 discussion
that rarely point to anything negative.
>He also has essays regarding Claudia Christian's departure and how the
>various other departures have hurt the overall B5 storyline.
>
Those essays are very valuable. I also found the frank discussion on the
production budget cuts to Season 5 and how they may have hurt the show to be a
good review of what went on.
DD
Andy Ydna
me because I was working the day it came out and he went into town. I
was SO disappointed that I took the book back to "Forbidden Planet" and
even told them the reason.
Negative comments are fine, but I was under the impression that as it
was called the "Babylon File" it would feature interesting,
thought-provoking aspects about the series. His book merely placed
simple facts down about the episode and then continued with the
abomination that "Babylon 5 failed more than it succeeded and in his
opinion will be remembered for what was rather than what is".
This disgusted me personally, especially since his opinion of the
episodes (singley) of Season Five were not that bad at all. He may have
hated "Sleeping in Light", but it comes over as the only reason he hates
the episode is because it isn't what HE would have done.
Other negative points;
* Very little information on any episodes, when there definetly ARE
things he has missed out.
* Very dear price £6.99.
* Very small book, it's almost half the size of the other book, if they
were only concentrating on S4-5 and the movies they should have included
something else or lowered the price.
* No Pictures
* Completely biased opinion with no mention that other people may have
found them good.
* Too much reflection on "Sleeping in Light" justifying his opinion of
the entire fifth season.
Sorry for ranting. But I was so disgusted with this book, that if I can
help people not buy it, I hope I do.
Of course, as Mr.Lane failed to point out, this is MY opinion. Maybe
some of you like buying a book that picks apart a show that you
obviously like. Personally I don't...
Andy
Diane K De
>help people not buy it, I hope I do.
>
>Of course, as Mr.Lane failed to point out, this is MY opinion. Maybe
>some of you like buying a book that picks apart a show that you
>obviously like. Personally I don't...
>
>Andy
You apparently failed to the read the introduction in which he did acknowledge
that it was his opinion and he expected debate about it.
I bought it BECAUSE it was opinionated. It's a contrast to Jane Killick's
books which are good for what they are--providing synopses of the episodes,
pictures and interviews with the actors and production people.
I'd rather read an opinionated review, even if I don't agree with it, than one
that speaks only in the voice of the producers saying everything is great.
We have the Babylon 5 Magazine for providing that kind of stuff.
DD
James Bell
Lurker's Guide? Somehow, I doubt it. Best of all, Lurker's is free!
Jim
Adnan Virk
(decided not to buy it...late S4 and S5 only just isn't worth it for me)
but I quickly read through the "comments" part of each episode and a
little at the end of hte book.
Frankly, I think he makes valid points, and as Diane said already, it's
his opinion. That's the whole point. Well anyways he's not some B5 hater
(at least htats the impression I got from the first book which is so
worn out from repeated readings and use that the cover is starting to
fall off) just ripping on it for fun.
.
Andy Ydna
But his opinion is on paper for generations to come, I think it is
disappointing that years from now people will pick up his book and read
his introduction in thinking whether or not to try and watch the show
and will find such negative comments about show that should be one for
generations to come.
I just wish he had some other fans comments in their, after all
"Sleeping in Light" in particular was a very popular episode and has
even been nominated for the Hugo award.
Maybe it's just the fact that I prefer a non-biased account that doesn't
spend it's time trying to prove a point. Personally, I didn't feel like
he was doing that in the first volume, negatively or positively. But
personally I felt the general quality of the entire writing was very
poor and shallow because he was trying to make a point in the book.
I still stick by most of my original comments, I do NOT recommend this
book and hope Andy Lane makes a lot less money out of this one than his
far superior first one.
Thanks, Andy-Ydna
Adnan Virk
negative about your favorite (or wherever B5 figures into your TV
preferences) show?
Well anyways, I do agree that the first is far superior. I just love Vol
1. It's so torn up I may have to go find a brand new copy.
.
Diane K De
>Date: Wed, May 5, 1999 14:50 EDT
>
>My problem is that, it is HIS opinion, fine (obviously missed that bit).
>But his opinion is on paper for generations to come, I think it is
>disappointing that years from now people will pick up his book and read
>his introduction in thinking whether or not to try and watch the show
>and will find such negative comments about show that should be one for
>generations to come.
>
I don't think there is any problem of that happening. Criticism exists in many
forms. Movies are reviewed. Books are reviewed. TV Shows are reviewed. Take
the critiques of a famous film critic like Pauline Kael. Her reviews have been
compiled into books that you can find in almost any library. Is this wrong?
Is it wrong that someone can access a book review from the NY Times to decide
whether to buy a book or a record review in the Rolling Stone Record Guide.
All of these are no less opiniated than what Mr. Lane has done.
You seem to think the Babylon 5 should be put on some pedestal where no one is
allowed to critique it.
Jane Killick's books present a complimentary, neutral picture of B5, if that's
what people prefer. And they do a good job.
And if anyone out there can get a book contract to do what Mr. Lane has done,
but provide a different POV, they should go at it.
DD
Jms at B5
untruth, because one is so adamant to advance one's own viewpoint that all the
other facts get skewed to support that.
All through Lane's book, he skews the facts to bolster his point of view, much
as a creationist skews the facts of science to bolster his point of view.
For instance, he makes much of the fact that we shot 6 days instead of 7 for
S5, and that this therefore led to a 1/7th decrease in quality. Well, it
didn't affect the writing, the stories were still the stories. I wrote just
what I would have written for a 7 day shoot.
Further, a fact he omits because it would get in the way of his argument is
that we *did* have the liberty to shoot 7 days when we thought it was
appropriate *and did so*. (I think it was either A Tragey of Telepaths or
Phoenix Rising.)
He omits the fact, documented through shooting schedules, that on virtually
ever episode from S1-S4, we wrapped early almost every day, sometimes by an
hour, sometimes by a couple of hours. In 110 episodes, we had only about 20
days of serious overtime, over 5 years of shooting, and in each case the
overtime amounted to only a couple of hours here and there. Never once had a
forced call on an actor.
Why is this important? Because if you take an average of wrapping early 1 and
a half hours per day, over six days, you *have* a seventh day right there.
When we went to a 6 day schedule, we added about a page to each day's shoot,
and we generally didn't go home early, we wrapped on time. (Though in fact we
were able to go home early on some days, depending on the scenes.) That's it.
The main burden was on the art department to turn around sets quickly enough.
But there was no other qualitative impact otherwise. Not one. Zilch.
To be sure that it could be done effectively, I was the first one to do a 6 day
shoot, on Sleeping in Light, figuring that if I as a first time director could
do it, anybody could. And we did just fine.
Anyway, that kind of bias infects the whole book, because it wasn't done the
way he would have done it, and therefore it has to be bad. And he looks for
anything to bolster that point of view, no matter how insupportable. It's not
just that this is his POV, it has to be the truth, and he insists that no one
can have any other point of view, or that person is an uncritical fanboy.
But it's possible to be an uncritical fanboy in a positive *and* a negative
direction. And that is the case with the Lane book. He does not take the
facts in a critical way, examining them on their own terms, he lines them up to
try and reflect his thesis going in.
A person can have a bias that leads them to be blindly praising toward
something; and a person can have a bias that leads them to be blindly negative
toward something. This is a case of the latter.
I've never had a problem with critical reviews. Diane mentioned the B5
magazine, but if you actually look at the reviews in that magazine, many of
them do say negative things about various episodes. Mind you this is in a
publication that's licensed, and which I could have deleted that material if
I'd chosen to. But I let it go through, because I think we can all learn from
criticism, and if our own publication was exempt from that, then it was no
longer a proper magazine. I gritted my teeth a lot, but it went through.
There seems to be this perception that if something says positive things, then
it isn't being critical; if it's negative, then somehow it's more objective or
critical. This is fallacious reasoning. Criticism should be fair and
evenhanded and constructive and, where possible, based in factual reporting.
This book is none of those things.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
BRETNTRACI
>that's
>what people prefer. And they do a good job.
Actually I prefer the neutral stance but I do NOT like the Killick books
because of the glaring errors that were allowed to slip through (and this is in
the US editions mind you, when they had time for revising errors that made it
to print in the UK).
brett
Tammy Smith
Yes, that book did seem to be too negative. I was shocked, because the
first book was more complimentary in tone. Sure, I had some problems
with Season 5, but not enough to say that all of B5 was some experiment
that failed! No series is perfect; you can't expect everything to be
the way you wanted it to be.
Tammy
Diane K De
>then
>it isn't being critical; if it's negative, then somehow it's more objective
>or
>critical. This is fallacious reasoning. Criticism should be fair and
>evenhanded and constructive and, where possible, based in factual reporting.
>
>This book is none of those things.
>
> jms
>
>(jms...@aol.com)
>B5 Official Fan Club at:
>http://www.thestation.com
>
book was totally lacking in praise. However, Mr. Lane says some extremely
positive things about many episodes--"Darkness Ascending", "Deconstruction of
Falling Stars", "And All My Dreams Torn Asunder", and "The Fall of Centauri
Prime" are several examples. There are more.
I was actually taken by surprise by this because the introduction led me to
believe it would be worse.
As to the factuality of the production section, I will keep your remarks in
mind while reading them. Thanks for the warning and edification.
DD
Adnan Virk
>
> There is a point, however, where bias and being opinionated leads to error and
> untruth, because one is so adamant to advance one's own viewpoint that all the
> other facts get skewed to support that.
>
> All through Lane's book, he skews the facts to bolster his point of view, much
> as a creationist skews the facts of science to bolster his point of view.
>
> For instance, he makes much of the fact that we shot 6 days instead of 7 for
> S5, and that this therefore led to a 1/7th decrease in quality. Well, it
> didn't affect the writing, the stories were still the stories. I wrote just
> what I would have written for a 7 day shoot.
>
> Further, a fact he omits because it would get in the way of his argument is
> that we *did* have the liberty to shoot 7 days when we thought it was
> appropriate *and did so*. (I think it was either A Tragey of Telepaths or
> Phoenix Rising.)
>
> He omits the fact, documented through shooting schedules, that on virtually
> ever episode from S1-S4, we wrapped early almost every day, sometimes by an
> hour, sometimes by a couple of hours. In 110 episodes, we had only about 20
> days of serious overtime, over 5 years of shooting, and in each case the
> overtime amounted to only a couple of hours here and there. Never once had a
> forced call on an actor.
SNIP DETAILS
>
> Anyway, that kind of bias infects the whole book, because it wasn't done the
> way he would have done it, and therefore it has to be bad. And he looks for
> anything to bolster that point of view, no matter how insupportable. It's not
> just that this is his POV, it has to be the truth, and he insists that no one
> can have any other point of view, or that person is an uncritical fanboy.
If all the above is true, then shame on him...
>
> But it's possible to be an uncritical fanboy in a positive *and* a negative
> direction. And that is the case with the Lane book. He does not take the
> facts in a critical way, examining them on their own terms, he lines them up to
> try and reflect his thesis going in.
>
> A person can have a bias that leads them to be blindly praising toward
> something; and a person can have a bias that leads them to be blindly negative
> toward something. This is a case of the latter.
Blindly negative? There were instances where praise was given to
episodes.
> I've never had a problem with critical reviews. Diane mentioned the B5
> magazine, but if you actually look at the reviews in that magazine, many of
> them do say negative things about various episodes. Mind you this is in a
> publication that's licensed, and which I could have deleted that material if
> I'd chosen to. But I let it go through, because I think we can all learn from
> criticism, and if our own publication was exempt from that, then it was no
> longer a proper magazine. I gritted my teeth a lot, but it went through.
>
> There seems to be this perception that if something says positive things, then
> it isn't being critical; if it's negative, then somehow it's more objective or
> critical. This is fallacious reasoning. Criticism should be fair and
> evenhanded and constructive and, where possible, based in factual reporting.
I apologize if I'm adding to this perception, because I really don't
agree with it....
>
> This book is none of those things.
I enjoyed the book. I admit I have a bias going into it since I liked
Vol 1 a lot. Also I'm more inclined to agree based on the sole fact that
I felt the same way about many things and specifc episode. Maybe that
does not qualify me to look at it objectively, but well...if above of
what you said is true then shame on him....
well I dont know what else I can add to this conversation...
.
Jms at B5
>Vol 1 a lot. Also I'm more inclined to agree based on the sole fact that
>I felt the same way about many things and specifc episode. Maybe that
>does not qualify me to look at it objectively,
But that's okay, and that's the point...your feelings about the episodes are
subjective, there's no such thing as an objective *opinion*. Facts can be
objective, opinions are a different creature. The language means what it
means. And you're as qualified as anyone else to give your opinion on anything
you so choose, and should not hesitate to do so.
It's when others try to disguise opinion as fact that I think a line gets
crossed.
sgwm
rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated jms...@aol.com (Jms at
B5)wrote:
>For instance, he makes much of the fact that we shot 6 days instead of 7 for
>S5, and that this therefore led to a 1/7th decrease in quality. Well, it
>didn't affect the writing, the stories were still the stories. I wrote just
>what I would have written for a 7 day shoot.
That may well be but it still doesn't bely the fact that the
opinion of a good number of people, many of them long term
fans onboard since season 1, voiced the opinion that season
5 simply sucked Grandmas's eggs i.e. it was missing far more
than the 1/7th of its quality spin you're attempting to put
on it. Apart from SiL I thought it was simply *terrible*.
I'm sorry if you don't like it, negative criticism of your
baby\creation is never easy to take, it never is, but what
you brought to the early seasons of B5 in terms of craft,
characterisation, rivetting dialogue and intrigue was, IMO,
sadly missing from season 5 in every single way. It was
vacuous, obvious and even a 5 year old child could see where
the story was going. IMO for the true believers out there
who like to see that after every sentence challenging their
own little world.
Why? I can't really say except to express an *opinion*, much
like that other guy, y'know, the one who wrote that book,
that 6 days shooting means less rehearsal time, that writing
*every* episode from late season 2 to season 5 (bar one) was
a mistake given you yourself said just doing season 3 was
insanity, that you compressed your story into season 4 and
left what were most likely the least interesting bits out
and picked them up in season 5, that you started writing
late on, complaining so on here....
Its an opinion, speculation, maybe even somewhat uninformed,
but an opinion none-the-less. That you dislike it is
understandable. But you're going to disagree anyway since
you saw nothing wrong with season 5. Personally I groaned
and cringed my way through much of it due to terrible
dialogue and poor characterisation. Again, for you folks out
there that want to shout down negative heartfelt honest
opinion, remember, that's all it is.
I would say this. As well as a number of my friends, I
bought all of seasons 1-4 on official video when released
here in the UK. The fact that a very pro-B5 fan such as
myself, one with a particular dislike of the thieves at
Paramount, should specifically *not* buy those from season 5
(or even rewatch it), even for the sake of completion,
should tell you all you need to know about the sincerity of
opinion that all of us thought "season 5 sucked".
--
Scott G. MacIntyre
86 Tryst Park Home : 0131-445-3049
Edinburgh Office : 0131-549-3297
EH10 7HE e-mail : Scott.M...@maitreya.demon.co.uk
John W Kennedy
>
> >I admit I have a bias going into it since I liked
> >Vol 1 a lot. Also I'm more inclined to agree based on the sole fact that
> >I felt the same way about many things and specifc episode. Maybe that
> >does not qualify me to look at it objectively,
>
> But that's okay, and that's the point...your feelings about the episodes are
> subjective, there's no such thing as an objective *opinion*. Facts can be
> objective, opinions are a different creature. The language means what it
> means. And you're as qualified as anyone else to give your opinion on anything
> you so choose, and should not hesitate to do so.
I wonder if this is altogether true. Surely some opinions are worth
more than others? The opinions of those, for example, who are widely
enough read to know and recognize the three-way distinction of common
stock, cliché, and plagiarism? The opinions of those who know enough of
a work's backing reality (in the case of B5, that would be mostly human
history) to know what is realistic, what is foolish, and what is
outright lie? The opinions of those who know enough about storytelling
to distinguish between a deus ex machina and a donnée? The opinions of
those who have crossed the pons asinorum to the extent that they
understand that an artist includes in his work what he chooses to
include? And most of all (and here, as I mentioned in e-mail, I cannot
recommend too highly C. S. Lewis's "An Experiment in Criticism"), the
opinions of those who "receive" art, rather than "use" it? (Pornography
and "slash" fanfic are, after all, only the lowest band in a great
spectrum of [ab]uses.)
Alas! Joe. You went searching for an Audience, but rarely found more
than Fans.
--
-John W. Kennedy
-rri...@ibm.net
The Grand Art mastered the thudding hammer of Thor
And the heart of our lord Taliessin determined the war.
-- Charles Williams, "Mount Badon"
Arkadin
news:3731bac...@post.demon.co.uk...
> On 5 May 1999 16:47:52 -0600, in
> rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated jms...@aol.com (Jms at
> B5)wrote:
> I would say this. As well as a number of my friends, I
> bought all of seasons 1-4 on official video when released
> here in the UK. The fact that a very pro-B5 fan such as
> myself, one with a particular dislike of the thieves at
> Paramount, should specifically *not* buy those from season 5
> (or even rewatch it), even for the sake of completion,
> should tell you all you need to know about the sincerity of
> opinion that all of us thought "season 5 sucked".
C'mon Scott stop sitting on the fence. How do you really feel??
I've heard that the fault with the book was not merely Lane's dislike of the
season but a certain nit-pickyness vis-a-vis continuity errors and the like.
You can discuss poor characterisation, scripts lacking oomph and loss of key
players all you like but continuity errors? Find me something that doesn't
have any. It's par for the course.
norv...@sirius.com
>Diane K De wrote:
>>Andy Ydna wrote:
>>>Sorry for ranting. But I was so disgusted with this book, that if I can
>>>help people not buy it, I hope I do.
Hmm. I'm reading everyone's opinions, not just one. I'm tilting toward not
buying it (if I can find it).
>>>Of course, as Mr.Lane failed to point out, this is MY opinion. Maybe
>>>some of you like buying a book that picks apart a show that you
>>>obviously like. Personally I don't...
I've heard Lane's opinion, too. It's not the criticism (of B5) that I
dislike in itself; I like his first book. In fact, I rewatched a lot of
eps with the first volume beside me, so I could write copious notes in it.
:-)
>>I bought it BECAUSE it was opinionated. It's a contrast to Jane Killick's
>>books which are good for what they are--providing synopses of the episodes,
>>pictures and interviews with the actors and production people.
I like Killick's books well enough, but all the while I was reading them
(and writing copious notes in *them*), I was thinking "I want *one* book
that reviews all the eps. ONE book, not five. I want *all* the
background." Don't know if that'll ever happen, but I found it a pain to
find a few B5 books that were done while the series was still in progress;
I rather wished someone had waited for it all to be shown first, so they
could write a nice, big book...
>>I'd rather read an opinionated review, even if I don't agree with it, than one
>>that speaks only in the voice of the producers saying everything is great.
>>We have the Babylon 5 Magazine for providing that kind of stuff.
I don't entirely agree, Diane, but that's my opinion. I noticed JMS quoted
in the last issue about how he'd like the various sides to be expressed,
however much they make him grind his teeth. I see that the latest issue
has an interview with Claudia Christian; I wonder how fierce that's going
to be. :-)
>Frankly, I think he makes valid points, and as Diane said already, it's
>his opinion. That's the whole point. Well anyways he's not some B5 hater
>(at least htats the impression I got from the first book which is so
>worn out from repeated readings and use that the cover is starting to
>fall off) just ripping on it for fun.
Ripping on it for *fun*? Um. Pardon me, I'm terribly burned out from
exposure to "Doctor Who" fandom, in which the only fun the fanboys
appeared to have anymore was to scream "It's no good anymore!" and "DW
died after [name favorite actor]!" Andy Lane is a DW fanboy; I've read
some of his books, which were fine for what they were. I don't think it's
ripping on it for *fun* when someone apparently says that, on the strength
(or lack thereof) of 5th season alone, B5 failed much more than it
succeeded. I e-mailed him about having enjoyed the first book, and he said
that he was extremely negative about B5 now after "Sleeping in Light" and
someone else would just have to review "Crusade". Sigh.
Criticism is no bad thing in itself. But I don't think it's constructive
at *all* to decide that B5 was a total failure because one season was
rather off-putting. For me, at least, that leaves 4 other strong seasons!
(Yes, I'm strange; I like 1st season very much.)
Am I making any sense here? I hope?...
ear...@hotmail.com
>bought all of seasons 1-4 on official video when released
>here in the UK. The fact that a very pro-B5 fan such as
>myself, one with a particular dislike of the thieves at
>Paramount, should specifically *not* buy those from season 5
>(or even rewatch it), even for the sake of completion,
>should tell you all you need to know about the sincerity of
>opinion that all of us thought "season 5 sucked".
I can't agree with you that "it sucked". I actually quite liked it.
Yes, it lacked the mystery and wonder of the previous seasons, but
remember, this was the _end_ of the story. You don't expect a novel
to continue to introduce new themes and stories during the closing
chapter or epilogue, and I didn't expect that from season 5. From
that point of view, I was happy with what was presented, which was a
glimpse at the events which occured after all the doodoo had hit the
various fans and was appropriately scattered during the first four
seasons. The main story was finished at S4's close. S5 was
"afterstory", and I thought it was nicely done. The only bit I didn't
care for was the ultimate treatment of Lita. Sheridan and the gang
owed her bigtime (and Zack was in love with her), yet they all trashed
her in the end. That one person (like Garibaldi for example) could
still hate her would be understandable, but for Sheridan and Zack and
Londo and Delenn and others? That just didn't make sense. I'm glad
at least G'Kar remained her freind.
---
"Cannot run out of time. There is infinite time. You are finite.
Zathras is finite. This.. is wrong tool." -Zathras
Diane K De
>Date: Thu, May 6, 1999 22:11 EDT
>>>We have the Babylon 5 Magazine for providing that kind of stuff.
>
>I don't entirely agree, Diane, but that's my opinion. I noticed JMS quoted
>in the last issue about how he'd like the various sides to be expressed,
>however much they make him grind his teeth. I see that the latest issue
>has an interview with Claudia Christian; I wonder how fierce that's going
>to be. :-)
>
I sounded too harsh about the magazine and I look forward to reading the
Claudia article. However, it only human nature to assume that something
labeled "official" will have a certain POV; a certain "spin".
At the same time, I buy every magazine, when I can find it, and enjoy reading
it. Though the reviews do occasionally say slight criticisms about some
episodes, they always have something positive to say. After JMS's comments I
re-read some of their reviews and acknowledge that they are unrelentingly
positive.
I get the magazine a few months behind and have been reading their comments
about Crusade while it was in production. It's interesting to see how they
wrote about it given what we know now to be a troubled production.
I'll leave it to others to read it themselves vs. giving my own observations.
>Criticism is no bad thing in itself. But I don't think it's constructive
>at *all* to decide that B5 was a total failure because one season was
>rather off-putting. For me, at least, that leaves 4 other strong seasons!
>(Yes, I'm strange; I like 1st season very much.)
>Am I making any sense here? I hope?...
>
Here is where I can read criticism and not necessarily agree with it, but
still appreciate the discussion. Lane follows the premise that B5 was a
"novel". If it was, then the last 20% of it, particularly its ending, IS
significant.
Most people would say if they are reading a novel and it falls apart for them
in the last 20% of the pages, they wouldn't consider the novel a success.
That, I think, was Lane's POV.
On the other hand, if you consider B5 merely a television series, you can say
it is a success if certain seasons meet with you approval. I'm more in that
boat. The pleasure of watching Seasons 3 and 4 prevent me from calling the
show as whole a failure. I also liked Sleeping in Light a whole lot more than
Lane did.
But, disagreement on such points doesn't prevent me from hearing or reading
other thoughts on the matter. Debate is good.
DD
Tammy Smith
science to bolster their point of view. I used to work by this place
that was some kind of "institute" devoted to that very thing. Since you
once lived in the San Diego area, this place is in Santee, which is just
east of San Diego. I never went inside the place (wasn't really
interested). I saw it every day on the way to work, though.
Tammy
sgwm
rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated "Arkadin"
<mrar...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>C'mon Scott stop sitting on the fence. How do you really feel??
:o) Thanks for approaching with a sense of humour, 'tis greatly
appreciated to find one here.
>I've heard that the fault with the book was not merely Lane's dislike of the
>season but a certain nit-pickyness vis-a-vis continuity errors and the like.
>
>You can discuss poor characterisation, scripts lacking oomph and loss of key
>players all you like but continuity errors? Find me something that doesn't
>have any. It's par for the course.
I have to say I've not read it but have seen enough season 5
criticism shouted down regardless to wonder if it was not
the same. I agree that continuity errors are very minor on
the larger scale of things and are nitpicking. But I have to
admit I did find some particularly distracting.
For example, one I disliked, was the introduction of
Centauri holographic projection right out of left field in
The Fall of Centauri Prime. IMO, and only IMO, it was
because JMS wrote himself into a hole. The Fleet destroyed
Centauri Prime and IIRC the script stated power was down all
around the city - i.e. no Centauri TV sets. So despite no
power we get a huge holograph, never introduced previously,
and only previously seen used by Drall\Sheridan via the
great Machine. It just smacked of a lack of invention and
digging out of a plothole introducing a lesser one in its
place. I'm prepared to say I can't really say and am quite
possibly wrong but those were my feelings on it. And much of
Season 5 and some of season 4 left me feeling that way. It
sensed rushed.
--
"From the moment I picked your book up until I laid it down I was
convulsed with laughter. Some day I intend reading it."
Groucho Marx (1895-1977)
sgwm
rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated ear...@hotmail.comwrote:
>>I would say this. As well as a number of my friends, I
>>bought all of seasons 1-4 on official video when released
>>here in the UK. The fact that a very pro-B5 fan such as
>>myself, one with a particular dislike of the thieves at
>>Paramount, should specifically *not* buy those from season 5
>>(or even rewatch it), even for the sake of completion,
>>should tell you all you need to know about the sincerity of
>>opinion that all of us thought "season 5 sucked".
>
>I can't agree with you that "it sucked". I actually quite liked it.
>Yes, it lacked the mystery and wonder of the previous seasons, but
>remember, this was the _end_ of the story.
Not really, IMO it was a self contained one season arc and
JMS did state at the outset he was trying something very
ambitious. For me, it simply didn't work due to the
execution and that ruined it for me despite a storyline that
could have been gripping. For example, if you search
dejanews you'll see that I confidently predicted that
Lennier would attempt to kill Sheridan because of his
jealousy of him and love for Delenn. It was played out with
all the subtlety of Punch and Judy and you could see it
coming from season 4. It was just too "mallet over the head"
and deus ex machina for me in the way it was treated. Again,
I'm criticising the execution not the storyline. The ideas
were good, the execution was lamentable, notably Byron who I
was sitting willing to be captured, tortured and then space
by that little creep Bester.
Adnan Virk
I think you're definetly right, because the stories themselves really
weren't that bad.....even the story of a telepathic cult seems really
interesting.....but in the end it was just execution of the storyline.
It just didn't seem as thought out as some of the stuff in....say late
S2/S3.
.
Prolix68
(sgwm) writes:
>For example, one I disliked, was the introduction of
>Centauri holographic projection right out of left field in
>The Fall of Centauri Prime. IMO, and only IMO, it was
>because JMS wrote himself into a hole. The Fleet destroyed
>Centauri Prime and IIRC the script stated power was down all
>around the city - i.e. no Centauri TV sets. So despite no
>power we get a huge holograph, never introduced previously,
>and only previously seen used by Drall\Sheridan via the
>great Machine. It just smacked of a lack of invention and
>digging out of a plothole introducing a lesser one in its
>place. I'm prepared to say I can't really say and am quite
>possibly wrong but those were my feelings on it.
There was precedent set for it in the 3rd season, when
Londo used a holographic message for Refa in
"And the Rock Cried Out, No Hiding Place." So it
wasn't quite out of left field. I had a slight problem
with it in "TFoCP" until I had seen it used in "AtRCO,NHP."
----------------------------------------
"Do you *really* want to know what's on my mind?"
Satanic Hamster
> For example, one I disliked, was the introduction of
> Centauri holographic projection right out of left field in
> The Fall of Centauri Prime. IMO, and only IMO, it was
> because JMS wrote himself into a hole. The Fleet destroyed
> Centauri Prime and IIRC the script stated power was down all
> around the city - i.e. no Centauri TV sets. So despite no
> power we get a huge holograph, never introduced previously,
> and only previously seen used by Drall\Sheridan via the
> great Machine. It just smacked of a lack of invention and
> digging out of a plothole introducing a lesser one in its
> place. I'm prepared to say I can't really say and am quite
> possibly wrong but those were my feelings on it. And much of
> Season 5 and some of season 4 left me feeling that way. It
> sensed rushed.
Power down the city, yes. Down the pallace or the planet? No bloody
likely. There would be SOME surviving back-up and portable generators,
as well as underground power centers.
Also the possibility of orbital power stations using microwaves to beam
power down to the surface, which MIGHT have survived. The Drazi and
Narn fleet seemed to have gone straight to whacking the surface and
didn't really seem to go after blasting orbital assets.
IMHO, the weak points:
- Fleet didn't offer/demand surrender when they saw the defensiveness of
Centauri
Prime.
- Didn't whack orbital assets first.
- Now, from background books, the series, and JMS's usenet posts, the
vast majority
of the Centauri race lives off planet at various colonies. Why would
the blasting
of only part of the home planet bankrupt the govnernment? EVEN w/ the
reparations.
- Speaking of reparations for their attacks on civie shipping, what
about Narn and
Drazi reps for the planetary bombardment?
- And on the bombardment, WHY didn't they concentrate firepower on the
Palace?
----------------------------------------------- Danny Frost
New Blue Oyster Cult album! Heaven Forbid, buy it. NOW!
Lord of the Urbanmechs - Owner of the first and only full Urbie Batt.
- Currently Reading - "Star Wars - Planet of Twilight," by Barbara
Hambly
-----------------------------------------------
BenVarkent
wrote, on May 7, 1999 16:09:
>I have to
>admit I did find some particularly distracting.
>
>For example, one I disliked, was the introduction of
>Centauri holographic projection right out of left field in
>The Fall of Centauri Prime.
Introduction?
"And the Rock Cried Out, No Hiding Place". Season 3.
To paraphrase JMS, if you're gonna criticize, get yer shit correct.
Ben Varkentine
"An American Oscar Wilde, only heterosexual."--Dan Ben-Zvi
sgwm
rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated benva...@aol.com
(BenVarkent)wrote:
>sg...@maitreya.demon.co.uk (sgwm)
>wrote, on May 7, 1999 16:09:
>
>>I have to
>>admit I did find some particularly distracting.
>>
>>For example, one I disliked, was the introduction of
>>Centauri holographic projection right out of left field in
>>The Fall of Centauri Prime.
>
>Introduction?
>"And the Rock Cried Out, No Hiding Place". Season 3.
>
>To paraphrase JMS, if you're gonna criticize, get yer shit correct.
There is a distinct difference between showing a 6 inch high
figure and a 6 story high figure. The technology would
require to be be far more advanced, much in the same way
that none of us have 6 metre wide monitors on our PCs. Scale
in this case was everything as Dralls projections required
the power of the Great Machine. Palace power or not, it was
just yanked out and placed in there and in my opinion it
felt completely out of place as this level of Tech had never
been introduced in the story - otherwise why wouldn't the
Centauri use such an ability to create decoy holographic
battlefleets in orbit etc.
Brian Watson
> There is a distinct difference between showing a 6 inch high
> figure and a 6 story high figure. The technology would
> require to be be far more advanced, much in the same way
> that none of us have 6 metre wide monitors on our PCs. Scale
> in this case was everything as Dralls projections required
> the power of the Great Machine. Palace power or not, it was
> just yanked out and placed in there and in my opinion it
> felt completely out of place as this level of Tech had never
> been introduced in the story - otherwise why wouldn't the
> Centauri use such an ability to create decoy holographic
> battlefleets in orbit etc.
Pretty weak arguement. Londo was able to give G'kar a small pen sized
object that was capable of projecting a 6 foot tall hologram of
himself. The Centauri have weapons capable of firing lasers capable of
sheering through armored hulls, magnetic fields capable of hurling iron
containing asteroids at speed sufficient to decimate entire cities and
engines capable of ripping holes in the fabric of space. You don't
think they can whip up the power for a 6 story tall holograph? Pshaw.
Not even even strong enough argument to call it weak.
And the reason that decoy holographic battlefleets wouldn't work is
because there is no WAY that you can accurately target ships in battle
by visual sighting. They most certainly use computer targetting systems
to target ships, and you can be sure that whatever radar/sensor clusters
they use will show to them that holographs are just that, holographs.
norv...@sirius.com
(Diane K De) wrote:
>I sounded too harsh about the magazine and I look forward to reading the
>Claudia article. However, it only human nature to assume that something
>labeled "official" will have a certain POV; a certain "spin".
<nod> Unavoidable, probably. I remember what the "Doctor Who" Magazine used
to be like (having not subscribed to it for some years, because it was too
expensive and I'd gone off the fandom), and the B5 mag does appear to be...
more sedate. (There were some truly lunatic-fringe views aired in DWM,
which was probably good as far as free speech went, but DW fandom's really
good at spontaneous combustion...)
>At the same time, I buy every magazine, when I can find it, and enjoy
>reading it.
My biggest problem with the B5 mag is that I have to go to Barnes & Noble
to get it. I'm an independent bookstore fan, and B&N has peeved me for
years (since they took over the local college bookstore and overpriced the
textbooks right into outer space), but I don't feel like subscribing... I'm
going to have to work out my guilt, obviously. :-> (Lately at B&N, there's
been a brat-kid with no concept of polite or competent customer service,
with multiple lip piercings, who's managed to make me want to walk right
back out the door the second I see him. My style of library public service
may be a bit user-cranky, but B&N staff can be downright *idiotic*, IMHO.)
>Though the reviews do occasionally say slight criticisms about some
>episodes, they always have something positive to say.
Um, is this a bad thing? In my years of "Doctor Who" fandom, I usually was
able to get some satisfaction out of even bad episodes; if nothing else, I
could laugh at them. ;-) There were very few DW eps I couldn't find
*something* good in.
In my time as a B5 fan, I usually have been able to find *something* to
enjoy. I admit that I told a friend that my favorite part of 5th season,
apart from "Sleeping in Light", happened to be the opening credits and
music. :-) Even though 5th season felt really off to me (and I simply can't
ever warm to Lochley), there were still moments I enjoyed -- G'Kar's
Declaration of Principles really shone, for example. A good point made
elsewhere in the thread is that the underlying ideas of 5th season weren't
bad, but the execution felt as if it had gone wrong.
However, I can find something good, even if I feel overall "ehh" about it.
Since I'm usually skeptical and cranky above and beyond the call of duty,
it's rather unlike me to bother looking for the good side. Am I being
blindly positive? I don't think so, but am sure others will judge this as
they please.
>After JMS's comments I re-read some of their reviews and acknowledge
>that they are unrelentingly positive.
Whatever. I haven't been able to read my B5 Mag issues in-depth, all the
way through. I got a big chunk of them all in one mailing, because I only
learned the mag existed sometime last year. I have such a long reading
list, reading books all the time, that I find it difficult to concentrate
on magazines. Mostly, I've looked through them and read reviews.
One description I wouldn't make of Gary Russell is "unrelentingly
positive". Maybe this is simply because of my experience of him in DW
fandom, where "bitchy above and beyond the call of duty" would be much
closer to the mark. <evil grin> Maybe he's toned himself down for B5... :-)
>I get the magazine a few months behind and have been reading their
>comments about Crusade while it was in production. It's interesting to
>see how they wrote about it given what we know now to be a troubled
>production.
This is really odd, but I haven't actually been reading their "Crusade"
coverage much, because I'd just like to see it for myself. But that's a
good point. The excrement may have hit the fan in the latest issue (which
I've bought, but have only been able to glance through).
>Here is where I can read criticism and not necessarily agree with it, but
>still appreciate the discussion. Lane follows the premise that B5 was a
>"novel". If it was, then the last 20% of it, particularly its ending, IS
>significant. Most people would say if they are reading a novel and it falls
>apart for them in the last 20% of the pages, they wouldn't consider the
>novel a success. That, I think, was Lane's POV.
<nod> Could be. I like the description "A novel for TV", but don't
necessarily agree. I much prefer reading to watching TV, for the most part,
and it might be fun to have B5 as one giant novel... but while it's TV,
it's not a book. Though there is something satisfying with saying one has
closed the cover and placed it back on the shelf. Still...
>On the other hand, if you consider B5 merely a television series, you can
>say it is a success if certain seasons meet with you approval. I'm more in
>that boat.
Same here. I consider it actually surprising that I like it (and DW) to the
extent I've mentioned above, because I don't regularly watch TV anymore.
I'm not going to be watching anything that I can think of until "Crusade"
(and the B5 reruns, so I can finish getting them retaped to my
satisfaction).
Okay, so I'm totally biased. I have more fandoms than I need, as it is,
without latching onto what some others consider much better TV, those lists
of shows people recite as being so much better than B5. :-) I don't want TV
in my life *that* much...
>The pleasure of watching Seasons 3 and 4 prevent me from calling the show
>as whole a failure. I also liked Sleeping in Light a whole lot more than
>Lane did.
I loved it dearly. Okay, so I noticed it had some problems, but then I
figured out it was meant to be a send-off, not a wrap-up of every single
plot point that had been raised. (The arguments that have broken out over
this have reminded me frighteningly of the virulent battles over continuity
and canon in DW fandom...)
>But, disagreement on such points doesn't prevent me from hearing or
>reading other thoughts on the matter. Debate is good.
Not that I said otherwise; debate can be an interesting challenge. :-)
Michael J. Hennebry
sgwm <sg...@maitreya.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 5 May 1999 16:47:52 -0600, in
>rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated jms...@aol.com (Jms at
>B5)wrote:
>
>>S5, and that this therefore led to a 1/7th decrease in quality. Well, it
>>didn't affect the writing, the stories were still the stories. I wrote just
>>what I would have written for a 7 day shoot.
>
>That may well be but it still doesn't bely the fact that the
>opinion of a good number of people, many of them long term
>fans onboard since season 1, voiced the opinion that season
>5 simply sucked Grandmas's eggs i.e. it was missing far more
>than the 1/7th of its quality spin you're attempting to put
>on it. Apart from SiL I thought it was simply *terrible*.
Read a bit more carefully. JMS's article did not claim that B5.5
was any good, just that the quality was unaffected but the change
in shooting schedule, something he backed up with numbers.
--
Mike henn...@plains.NoDak.edu
"I'll find her, wherever she is, tie her up,
torture her 'til she likes me again." -- Spike
Steve Brinich
> There is a distinct difference between showing a 6 inch high
> figure and a 6 story high figure. The technology would
> require to be be far more advanced, much in the same way
> that none of us have 6 metre wide monitors on our PCs.
If a gadget the size of a fountain pen can project a lifesize hologram
(atRCO,NHP), I don't see the problem with a bigger device projecting a
bigger hologram.
> Scale
> in this case was everything as Dralls projections required
> the power of the Great Machine.
Er, might it be that Draal was projecting to locations far away from the
projector, whereas the projections in atRCO,NHP and (one may reasonably
presume) tFoCP were right next to the projectors?
> why wouldn't the
> Centauri use such an ability to create decoy holographic
> battlefleets in orbit etc.
Because if the enemy sensor officers are imbeciles, you don't need fancy
tricks to win.
--
Steve Brinich <ste...@Radix.Net> If the government wants us
http://www.Radix.Net/~steveb to respect the law
89B992BBE67F7B2F64FDF2EA14374C3E it should set a better example
l sian gramates
: going to have to work out my guilt, obviously. :-> (Lately at B&N, there's
: been a brat-kid with no concept of polite or competent customer service,
: with multiple lip piercings, who's managed to make me want to walk right
: back out the door the second I see him. My style of library public service
: may be a bit user-cranky, but B&N staff can be downright *idiotic*, IMHO.)
keep in mind whilst yr being vexed at that brat kid that his (or her)
employer pays him minimum wage, likely with no benefits, possibly makes
him pee in a jar so his body fluids can be analyzed, and may submit
him to other unreasonable indignities (i have a housemate who worked
at another big chain which had a policy of patting down employees when
they left the store, lest they took a book with them), then expects him
to smile&nod no matter how rude the customer is.
i'd be inclined towards crankiness myself.
-sian
Michael J. Hennebry
>Read a bit more carefully. JMS's article did not claim that B5.5
>was any good, just that the quality was unaffected but the change
>in shooting schedule, something he backed up with numbers.
The "but" should have been "by". What I should have written:
Read a bit more carefully. JMS's article did not claim that B5.5
was any good, just that the quality was unaffected by the change
sgwm
rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated Steve Brinich
<ste...@Radix.Net>wrote:
>sgwm wrote:
>
>> There is a distinct difference between showing a 6 inch high
>> figure and a 6 story high figure. The technology would
>> require to be be far more advanced, much in the same way
>> that none of us have 6 metre wide monitors on our PCs.
>
> If a gadget the size of a fountain pen can project a lifesize hologram
>(atRCO,NHP), I don't see the problem with a bigger device projecting a
>bigger hologram.
There is a problem for the exact same reason as the example
I gave. Making things bigger and more powerful is not a
simple linear process. Technology is not that simple.
>> why wouldn't the
>> Centauri use such an ability to create decoy holographic
>> battlefleets in orbit etc.
>
> Because if the enemy sensor officers are imbeciles, you don't need fancy
>tricks to win.
This is an oversimplification. Competence is not a suitable
counterpoint for this.
As Acts of Sacrifice in season 2 established, while
fighting outside B5 both the Narn and Centauri had
ECM to prevent targetting of weapons, detection etc.
Sensors may well be useless.
As JMS has said online, as a quick check on dejanews
or archives will show, as well as the plot of Shadow
Dancing in series 3, visual sightings play an
important part in detection: it was the reason the
Shadow ship detected the White Star. As the
narrative of that story clearly established, the
White Star was hidden unless it was sighted
visually.
It doesn't take a great deal of imagination to use these
facts, established as canon in the narrative of the series,
and think that the use of decoy holographic ghost fleets is
not only possible but would be desirable as a military
tactic.
Tammy Smith
I worked in one of those minimum-wage jobs from Hell once, & it
definitely doesn't help your attitude! So I sympathize with the people
who work those kinds of jobs. You don't feel appreciated at all, & you
feel no security.
Tammy
UnltdLife
>employer pays him minimum wage, likely with no benefits, possibly makes
>him pee in a jar so his body fluids can be analyzed, and may submit
>him to other unreasonable indignities (i have a housemate who worked
>at another big chain which had a policy of patting down employees when
>they left the store, lest they took a book with them), then expects him
>to smile&nod no matter how rude the customer is.
>
>i'd be inclined towards crankiness myself.
For pity's sake, if one hates the job so much, get another. Otherwise, he
should do what he was hired to do: sell books and maintain a pleasant
atmosphere for the customers. Do that and he might eventually get a raise and
benefits, as well as establish trust so he won't have to "pee in a jar" or get
patted down.
Jason
Andrew Wendel
UnltdLife <unlt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990511143248...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
> >i'd be inclined towards crankiness myself.
>
> For pity's sake, if one hates the job so much, get another. Otherwise,
he
> should do what he was hired to do: sell books and maintain a pleasant
> atmosphere for the customers. Do that and he might eventually get a raise
and
> benefits, as well as establish trust so he won't have to "pee in a jar" or
get
> patted down.
>
> Jason
Alcohol alone costs the US $2 billion a year. Random drug tests are here to
stay. It should also be noted that I have seen a single person come into
the store I worked at and leave nearly the entire staff pissed. Are you
sure that this kid really has an attitude problem?
--
Andy
------
Andrew Wendel
Engineering God
Kansas State University
mailto:blind...@iname.com
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~h38
-------------------------------------------
If everything is going well,
you don't know what the hell is going on.
Lars Haugseth
sg...@maitreya.demon.co.uk (sgwm) writes:
> There is a distinct difference between showing a 6 inch high
> figure and a 6 story high figure. The technology would
6 inch high? How "petty" of you.
> require to be be far more advanced, much in the same way
> that none of us have 6 metre wide monitors on our PCs. Scale
Not on our PCs, no. Doesn't mean we don't have the technology to
produce 6 meter wide or even bigger screens. There are several
of them downtown, showing commercials all day long.
> in this case was everything as Dralls projections required
> the power of the Great Machine. Palace power or not, it was
You said it yourself, Draals *projections*. Sheridan's speech
was projected to several areas of the station at the same time.
> just yanked out and placed in there and in my opinion it
> felt completely out of place as this level of Tech had never
> been introduced in the story - otherwise why wouldn't the
> Centauri use such an ability to create decoy holographic
> battlefleets in orbit etc.
They probably have nothing to fear from enemy fleets using tech-
nology at the level of early 20th century Earth, using visual
based targetting mechanisms.
How would you project a holographic image in a vacuum, anyway?
--
Lars Haugseth
norv...@sirius.com
<blind...@iname.com> wrote:
> UnltdLife <unlt...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>i'd be inclined towards crankiness myself.
>>
>> For pity's sake, if one hates the job so much, get another. Otherwise, he
>> should do what he was hired to do: sell books and maintain a pleasant
>> atmosphere for the customers.
And *do not laugh* at the customers for their choice of books. On one
occasion at this Barnes & Noble, I was with my mother, who was searching
for a book on the history of some sort of flower. Someone helped her.
Fine. But at the counter, when she thanked the guy, he and the kid to whom
I'm objecting laughed at the silly old woman they thought she was, that
"huh huh" sort of thing, ridiculing what she wanted...
>> Do that and he might eventually get a raise and benefits, as well as
establish trust
>> so he won't have to "pee in a jar" or get patted down.
Well, I'm lucky. Working in my county's library system, I've never had to
pee in a jar for anyone... :-) (Nah, I just had to swear loyalty to the
US. Okay with me, but what was I going to do otherwise, sell library books
to foreign spies? Heh.)
> Alcohol alone costs the US $2 billion a year. Random drug tests are here to
> stay.
Not everywhere. Guess the kid with attitude should come to work for the
library, though I doubt he'd last long.
> It should also be noted that I have seen a single person come into the
store I worked at
> and leave nearly the entire staff pissed. Are you sure that this kid
really has an attitude
> problem?
Okay... I know what it's like. As library staff, my mood can certainly be
derailed by patrons (and I got vengeance on a chronic drunk who came in to
harrass staff by helping get a restraining order put on him...). I've had
*interesting* experiences -- with fellow staff, as well, such as learning
that one must always watch one's back or be eaten by sharks. I call my own
type of public service slightly "user-cranky" (vs. "user-friendly"), but
try to be Zen most of the time, just go with the flow (and I'm not talking
about peeing in jars :-)). Library staff here is *commanded* to uphold
public service, *whether or not* we feel we're paid enough to put up with
the people we deal with. :-) (Like those wonderful people who feel you're
not doing enough for them and ask "Aren't you in public service?" I've
wanted to snarl back "Yes, and I'm still here serving you, so what's the
problem?!")
I know what it's like. I also know one has to get on with it. I *also*
know that I'd best quit this discussion while I'm ahead (or behind),
because, despite my saying "IMHO", I knew someone would have to comment...
:-) I therefore apologize to anyone who's been annoyed by my *opinion*...
Steve Brinich
> There is a problem for the exact same reason as the example
> I gave. Making things bigger and more powerful is not a
> simple linear process. Technology is not that simple.
Sorry, but sometimes it just *is* that simple over a very wide range.
The only significant differences between the light bulb in the flashlight
on my key chain and the light bulb in the fixture on the ceiling is that
the latter is about 25x the linear dimensions of the former, is designed
to draw about thousand times as much power, and emits a correspondingly
greater amount of light.
> It doesn't take a great deal of imagination to use these
> facts, established as canon in the narrative of the series,
> and think that the use of decoy holographic ghost fleets is
> not only possible but would be desirable as a military
> tactic.
Assume for the sake of argument that a hologram can be projected upon
the vacuum at a militarily significant range (kilometers, at least) away
from the projecting ship. Assume further that this hologram can pass
itself off as an actual ship not only in visible light, but throughout the
electromagnetic spectrum. (A ship under power cannot avoid generating a
hefty IR and RF signature -- countermeasures can distort and reduce this
signature to the point where it doesn't provide a clean target, but that
still leaves the problem of duplicating a credible distorted and reduced
signal in the IR and RF bands for your decoy holograms.)
It remains perfectly possible that, all things considered, it's simply
more effective to put the tonnage and power consumption into other
things. A warship always *could* have bigger guns, or tougher armor, or
higher acceleration, or superior electronic countermeasures, or any of a
number of other things, but there is always a tradeoff.
It may be useful to read Arthur C. Clarke's story "Superiority", and
then reread the preceding paragraph.
Tom Maddox
>news:19990511143248...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
>> >i'd be inclined towards crankiness myself.
>>
>> For pity's sake, if one hates the job so much, get another. Otherwise,
>he
>> should do what he was hired to do: sell books and maintain a pleasant
>and
>> benefits, as well as establish trust so he won't have to "pee in a jar" or
>get
>> patted down.
>>
>
>Alcohol alone costs the US $2 billion a year. Random drug tests are here to
>the store I worked at and leave nearly the entire staff pissed. Are you
>sure that this kid really has an attitude problem?
Of course, those urine tests aren't testing for alcohol. They're testing for
illegal drugs, which are, of course, so much more harmful than alcohol or
tobacco.
(That's sarcasm, btw. I'm not a big fan of the War on [some] Drugs.)
"Those you cannot teach to fly, teach to fall faster." -- Nietzsche
<mailto:tma...@dnai.com> | I'd use a spam trap, but I have enough.
Cassius81
>Of course, those urine tests aren't testing for alcohol. They're testing for
>
>illegal drugs, which are, of course, so much more harmful than alcohol or
>tobacco.
>
>(That's sarcasm, btw. I'm not a big fan of the War on [some] Drugs.)
Well, I used to be. Then, I took a long, hard look at the free anti-drug
bookmarks that the library handed out, decided that they were government
propaganda, and became pro-drug. Not the result they wanted, I suppose... ;)
Michael J. Hennebry
UnltdLife <unlt...@aol.com> wrote:
>>keep in mind whilst yr being vexed at that brat kid that his (or her)
>>employer pays him minimum wage, likely with no benefits, possibly makes
>>him pee in a jar so his body fluids can be analyzed, and may submit
>>him to other unreasonable indignities (i have a housemate who worked
>>at another big chain which had a policy of patting down employees when
>>they left the store, lest they took a book with them), then expects him
>>to smile&nod no matter how rude the customer is.
>>
>
>For pity's sake, if one hates the job so much, get another. Otherwise, he
>should do what he was hired to do: sell books and maintain a pleasant
>atmosphere for the customers. Do that and he might eventually get a raise and
>benefits, as well as establish trust so he won't have to "pee in a jar" or get
>patted down.
Getting another job might not help.
Body fluid analysis is rather ubiquitous.
Employers do not have to use accurate tests.
Employers do not have to restrict analysis to drugs.
I hadn't heard that establishing trust meant not having to pee in a jar.
Jeanne Marie Rice
<norv...@sirius.com> wrote in message
news:1999051122...@mail5.sirius.com...
> snip, snip, snip>
> Okay... I know what it's like. As library staff, my mood can certainly be
> derailed by patrons (and I got vengeance on a chronic drunk who came in to
> harrass staff by helping get a restraining order put on him...). I've had
> *interesting* experiences -- with fellow staff, as well, such as learning
> that one must always watch one's back or be eaten by sharks. I call my own
> type of public service slightly "user-cranky" (vs. "user-friendly"), but
> try to be Zen most of the time, just go with the flow (and I'm not talking
> about peeing in jars :-)). Library staff here is *commanded* to uphold
> public service, *whether or not* we feel we're paid enough to put up with
> the people we deal with. :-) (Like those wonderful people who feel you're
> not doing enough for them and ask "Aren't you in public service?" I've
> wanted to snarl back "Yes, and I'm still here serving you, so what's the
> problem?!")
> I know what it's like. I also know one has to get on with it. I *also*
> know that I'd best quit this discussion while I'm ahead (or behind),
> because, despite my saying "IMHO", I knew someone would have to comment...
> :-) I therefore apologize to anyone who's been annoyed by my *opinion*...
>
better as you age :-)
but that hasn't been my experience. There's a recent survey that claims
public library jobs are low stress. Yesss..., I feel no stress when I have
to show a very scary dude twice as big as I where the car repair manuals are
wayyyy in the back of the stacks when I'm all alone in the Adult Dept. That
is the moment I try *not* to think about the librarians murdered while alone
in their libraries. And I've been stabbed in the back (metaphorically
speaking) more than a few times in my career. But....some rather smelly old
man thanks me in such sweet words that I have been very helpful to him, or a
kindergartner beams like the sun at her new card...and then I know why I
became a librarian. When I find the book or the fact or the very article
someone needs I know I made the right career choice. The sour makes the
sweet moment all the sweeter.
David Moore
>sgwm wrote:
>
>> There is a problem for the exact same reason as the example
>> I gave. Making things bigger and more powerful is not a
>> simple linear process. Technology is not that simple.
>
> Sorry, but sometimes it just *is* that simple over a very wide range.
>The only significant differences between the light bulb in the flashlight
>on my key chain and the light bulb in the fixture on the ceiling is that
>the latter is about 25x the linear dimensions of the former, is designed
>to draw about thousand times as much power, and emits a correspondingly
>greater amount of light.
Sure, that's true for the bulb itself, but the bulb is only the end-
point of a much larger and more complex system. The flashlight bulb
can run off a small battery that any, err, bright sixth grader could
easily build (did it myself at about that age, and I'm not all that
bright). Making a battery or generator powerful enough to light a
120V/60W lamp is a much more difficult undertaking; putting up the
generating and distribution system that makes such lamps widely (and
safely) practical is a major industrial/political enterprise which
utterly transforms any society that attempts it.
Technology scales in non-linear and totally unpredicatable ways.
--
Dave Moore == djm...@uh.edu == I speak for me.
Moglen's Metaphorical Corollary to Faraday's Law. Wrap the
Internet around every brain on the planet and spin the planet.
Software flows in the wires. -- Eben Moglen
Steve Brinich
> Technology scales in non-linear and totally unpredicatable ways.
In the sense that some technologies scale easily, some with
complications, and still others barely at all, yes. My point is that
since *some* technologies scale easily across several orders of magnitude,
the range of holograms seen on B5 from small ("And the Sky Full of Stars")
to large ("The Fall of Centauri Prime") is not ipso facto unreasonable.
We do have some evidence that it's hard to project a hologram at a
significant distance from the projector -- it took the Great Machine to do
so in "Severed Dreams", and the weeping-woman image with no sign of a
nearby projector in "River of Souls" was considered puzzling by the
characters.
Michael J. Hennebry
oppposing officers.
Steve Brinich
> I've heard that the fault with the book was not merely Lane's dislike
> of the season but a certain nit-pickyness vis-a-vis continuity errors
> and the like.
Nit-pickiness can be done in a variety of ways -- as an element of a
general critique, as a mean-spirited hatchet job, or even as entertainment
in a spirit of affection (a la Phil Farrand's Nitpickers' Guide books or
some convention panels I've attended). Sometimes, the lines between these
blur and become a matter of opinion.
Michael J. Hennebry
One way to use a hologram as a weapon is to effectively blind
opposing officers.
Draal's could talk through his system, so one could effectively deafen
them also.