ATTN JMS: You Seem Disillusioned
Tammy Smith
how they reward mediocrity & try to destroy anything that actually means
something. I spent a long time trying to bring back ABC's Max Headroom
series because I didn't want to give in & go back to those silly
sitcoms. I finally became disillusioned & gave up that fight. But when
B5 came along, it made me believe a good series could make it. You did
a pretty incredible thing there. It doesn't mean that I'm not really
upset with TNT right now. They are no different than ABC. They want
viewers to accept mediocrity. Well, I won't ever accept it! What TNT
did was wrong!
Tammy
Jms at B5
Actually, I'm not disillusioned. Disappointed, sure, in how TNT chose to treat
the show...but understand that a 5 year run is the anomaly in TV, even more so
in SF. B5 was the first non-Trek space-based SF series to go more than 3
seasons in 30 years. So the record ain't great.
But if anything, I've been just as busy on other projects since Crusade ended,
and all of it is what Crusade was not during the last half-year of its
production: they're fun again. I'm enjoying myself, and that's what I got into
this thing for in the first place.
There's plenty of room to do good work; you just have to find proper vessels
into which to place your work.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
M.E.Tonkin
>
> Logging on from Australia....
>
> Actually, I'm not disillusioned. Disappointed, sure, in how TNT chose to treat
> the show...but understand that a 5 year run is the anomaly in TV, even more so
> in SF. B5 was the first non-Trek space-based SF series to go more than 3
>
You appear to have developed a healthy attitude about this whole issue,
and are moving on with your life and your work. What would you say
to those fans who seem to have difficulty letting go of Crusade
and B5? Any words of wisdom to help them deal with their loss?
MET
PS - Good luck at Worldcon.
Tammy Smith
sad--I don't deny it. I took the end of B5 well last year because I was
happy that a good series had made it to five years. Then, TNT ruined
everything, reminding me once again that I really don't matter to the
networks because I actually appreciate good, intelligent writing. It
has left me feeling alternately sad, demoralized, and angry. I'm tired
of always having to give in to the mainstream & their wrestling-shows,
silly sitcoms, and tacky talk-shows. I feel that if you want things to
change, you need to fight back. This is why I am writing those letters
to save Crusade. I don't know if we'll get it back, but I am certainly
going to try! I lost another series I loved 12 years ago because it was
too intelligent for the networks, and I never got it back. To this day,
I still miss it because there is so little on TV worth watching. I am
going to keep fighting the networks until they get the picture that
people like me are consumers, too, and that we do matter! I am so tired
of living in a junk-culture!
Sorry to be so emotional--it's a bad habit! :)
Tammy
Tammy Smith
that! I still care about good TV, but maybe a different approach would
be better. Sorry for my ramblings, everyone!
Tammy
Matthew Zenkar
>Logging on from Australia....
>
>Actually, I'm not disillusioned. Disappointed, sure, in how TNT chose to treat
>the show...but understand that a 5 year run is the anomaly in TV, even more so
>in SF. B5 was the first non-Trek space-based SF series to go more than 3
>seasons in 30 years. So the record ain't great.
I hate to butt in here, however, as you put it, "B5 was the first
non-Trek space-based SF series to go more than 3 seasons in 30 years"
- in the Americas.
The only other SF show to do so was the BBC series "Doctor Who" which
ran for something like 25 years beginning in 1963 - though I suppose
'63 falls out of the 30 year time frame. Until B5, it was my favorite
series. My statement may be somewhat inaccurate because DW was based
litterally "anywhere in space and time."
To me, it had some of the same elements as B5. The changing Doctor
gave it continuity and IMHO, some depth; it had at least a few
realistic characters, the Doctor sometimes got hurt; and it covered
some pertinent social issues. I remember one episode which looked
into "alternative time" by showing the future if they did not take
action to stop what was happening. DW, like WWE, never used the "time
travel aspect" as a convenient out even though they could go anywhere
in time. This was well demonstrated in an episode where one of the DW
companions was killed and the others wanted the Doctor to go back to
save him. He refused.
Sure, DW had cheezy SFX, however, what it lacked in SFX, it often made
up for in story and, to me, it was just plain fun. Perhaps it is a
show that is not up to your standards, however, I enjoyed it.
In an interesting parallel to TNT and Crusade, a few years after the
BBC cancelled the show, Fox tried to breathe new life into it. They
made a movie and injected the typical "sex sells" elements into the
show. Unfortunately, for the die-hard DW fan, this seemed to have the
effect of dilluting the movie's storyline. In the 25 years of BBC DW,
the Doctor never had any outward relationships, and relied instead on
creativity, scientifically accurate science, and good, fun, and
sometimes truly scary stories for its success. Even the 2 DW movies
the BBC made over 30 years ago with Peter Cushing were better, DW
wise, than this movie - IMHO.
The Fox Who movie failed to earn good ratings, and the
proposed/rumored "if the movie does well, we'll revive the series"
also flopped. Somewhat unfortunate, however, if they had intended to
rely on "Doctor Who love stories" for the new series, the SF world is
likely better off without Fox Who.
Wishing you the highest and the best,
Matthew
PS - Thank you for being one of the people in this world who stands up
for their principles. It is an inspiration to me to continue to do so
in my life.
>
>But if anything, I've been just as busy on other projects since Crusade ended,
>and all of it is what Crusade was not during the last half-year of its
>production: they're fun again. I'm enjoying myself, and that's what I got into
>this thing for in the first place.
>
Wesley Struebing
<wiyo...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>On 4 Sep 1999 08:00:36 -0600, jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:
>
>>Logging on from Australia....
>>
>>Actually, I'm not disillusioned. Disappointed, sure, in how TNT chose to treat
>>the show...but understand that a 5 year run is the anomaly in TV, even more so
>>in SF. B5 was the first non-Trek space-based SF series to go more than 3
>>seasons in 30 years. So the record ain't great.
>
>I hate to butt in here, however, as you put it, "B5 was the first
>non-Trek space-based SF series to go more than 3 seasons in 30 years"
>- in the Americas.
>
>The only other SF show to do so was the BBC series "Doctor Who" which
>ran for something like 25 years beginning in 1963 - though I suppose
>'63 falls out of the 30 year time frame. Until B5, it was my favorite
>series. My statement may be somewhat inaccurate because DW was based
>litterally "anywhere in space and time."
>
Also another Brit series that comes to mind - one that when I saw the
frist ep, said to myself "this is SO bad, I gotta watch some more to
see if it still is that bad" - and by that time I was hooked. Ran
between January, 1978 to December 1981. Four seasons ...
"Blakes 7"
Now, in the US, seems that JMS is right...
Iain Rae
> On 4 Sep 1999 08:00:36 -0600, jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:
>>Logging on from Australia....
>>
>>Actually, I'm not disillusioned. Disappointed, sure, in how TNT chose to treat
> ran for something like 25 years beginning in 1963 - though I suppose
> '63 falls out of the 30 year time frame. Until B5, it was my favorite
> series. My statement may be somewhat inaccurate because DW was based
> litterally "anywhere in space and time."
> Sure, DW had cheezy SFX,
What you mean you wern't impressed by the BBC's use of the highest quality
papier-mache and inventive use of washing up bottles not rivalled outside
of Blue Peter (hmmm try to explain Blue Peter to non-UK people........
no sorry if you've not seen it it's not explainable)
>however, what it lacked in SFX, it often made
> up for in story and, to me, it was just plain fun.i
Yup, it was a unique TV series, made on a showstring using a team of people
who'd possibly have paid to work together, exported to god knows how many
countries. At times it had the continuity of a london underground map
painted by a group of deaf and blind corninsh tin miners on acid, some of the
only sets in existance which were worse than the Prisoner Cell block H ones
but it's one of only 2 series I'd happily watch a randowm assortment of
episodes.
> Perhaps it is a
> show that is not up to your standards, however, I enjoyed it.
So did you guy's hide behind safoas at the scarey bits as well?
> In an interesting parallel to TNT and Crusade, a few years after the
> BBC cancelled the show, Fox tried to breathe new life into it. They
> made a movie and injected the typical "sex sells" elements into the
> show. Unfortunately, for the die-hard DW fan, this seemed to have the
> effect of dilluting the movie's storyline. In the 25 years of BBC DW,
> the Doctor never had any outward relationships, and relied instead on
> creativity, scientifically accurate science, and good, fun, and
> sometimes truly scary stories for its success. Even the 2 DW movies
> the BBC made over 30 years ago with Peter Cushing were better, DW
> wise, than this movie - IMHO.
The problem is that the people with the pursestrings at the BBC are the
same as the folks at TNT, they're not smart enought to realise they have
something that works, is cost effective and with a bit of nurturing
could be very big. They're the sort of people who could organise a piss-up
in a brewery, but it's involve flying in reporters from all over the world,
thousands of lackeys, four months choosing what kind of carpet and bringing
in specially imported bavarian beer. Rather than just popping in for a quick
pint and a read at the sports column.
I remember reading somewhere that the DW video sales when they were at
their peak pulled in enough money to fund the BBC Critically Acclaimed
costume dramas produced over the same period, even now whenever an odd bit
of film or video turns up in a junk sale BBC video will produce a video.
Why do they have to do that I hear you cry
because in order to save space/money literally millions of hours of video
was wiped, millions of feet of film was destroyed and there was no logic
to it, DW wasn't the only series to be lost god only knows how much
material was thrown away from the drama dept. Still we've got a copy of
every FA League and Cup match ever filmed, want to see the third round
replay between huddersfield and Grimsby Town that was a 0-0 draw, if they
filmed it they've still got it....somewhere.
> The Fox Who movie failed to earn good ratings, and the
> proposed/rumored "if the movie does well, we'll revive the series"
> also flopped. Somewhat unfortunate, however, if they had intended to
> rely on "Doctor Who love stories" for the new series, the SF world is
> likely better off without Fox Who.
Fox Who? Who the Fox that?
Matthew Zenkar
wrote:
>Matthew Zenkar <wiyo...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>> On 4 Sep 1999 08:00:36 -0600, jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:
>
>>>Logging on from Australia....
>>>
>>>Actually, I'm not disillusioned. Disappointed, sure, in how TNT chose to treat
>> ran for something like 25 years beginning in 1963 - though I suppose
>> '63 falls out of the 30 year time frame. Until B5, it was my favorite
>> series. My statement may be somewhat inaccurate because DW was based
>> litterally "anywhere in space and time."
>
>
>> Sure, DW had cheezy SFX,
>What you mean you wern't impressed by the BBC's use of the highest quality
>papier-mache and inventive use of washing up bottles not rivalled outside
>of Blue Peter (hmmm try to explain Blue Peter to non-UK people........
>no sorry if you've not seen it it's not explainable)
I have to admit I liked the Confetti Dalek guns in the Peter Cushing
DW movies. :-)
>
>
>>however, what it lacked in SFX, it often made
>> up for in story and, to me, it was just plain fun.i
>Yup, it was a unique TV series, made on a showstring using a team of people
>who'd possibly have paid to work together, exported to god knows how many
>countries. At times it had the continuity of a london underground map
>painted by a group of deaf and blind corninsh tin miners on acid, some of the
>only sets in existance which were worse than the Prisoner Cell block H ones
>but it's one of only 2 series I'd happily watch a randowm assortment of
>episodes.
Same here. I'd sit down and watch a DW episode anyday.
>
>> Perhaps it is a
>> show that is not up to your standards, however, I enjoyed it.
>So did you guy's hide behind safoas at the scarey bits as well?
"At last a new body! A new body at last!"
That was one of the scarier bits to me. As I think about it, there
were plenty of scary bits. I've seen the Tom Baker episodes about 3
or 4 times, so they stand out the most; however, I've seen virtually
all of the known and "not lost" DW episodes. I believe I have all
them on tape, actually.
I thought "The Seeds of Doom" scary - infecting that poor guy with the
man assimilating plant. There were others, too.
Unlike some of the people I know, I had little trouble adjusting to
new Doctors. To me, the Doctor was the Doctor no matter who played
him.
It might have been interesting to see a JMS DW episode, don't you
think?
>
>> In an interesting parallel to TNT and Crusade, a few years after the
>> BBC cancelled the show, Fox tried to breathe new life into it. They
>> made a movie and injected the typical "sex sells" elements into the
>> show. Unfortunately, for the die-hard DW fan, this seemed to have the
>> effect of dilluting the movie's storyline. In the 25 years of BBC DW,
>> the Doctor never had any outward relationships, and relied instead on
>> creativity, scientifically accurate science, and good, fun, and
>> sometimes truly scary stories for its success. Even the 2 DW movies
>> the BBC made over 30 years ago with Peter Cushing were better, DW
>> wise, than this movie - IMHO.
>The problem is that the people with the pursestrings at the BBC are the
>same as the folks at TNT, they're not smart enought to realise they have
>something that works, is cost effective and with a bit of nurturing
>could be very big. They're the sort of people who could organise a piss-up
>in a brewery, but it's involve flying in reporters from all over the world,
>thousands of lackeys, four months choosing what kind of carpet and bringing
>in specially imported bavarian beer. Rather than just popping in for a quick
>pint and a read at the sports column.
Hey, what do you want? This is America land where TV/Movie execs know
what you want without asking. Land of far outlived their time harped
on constitutional rights. Land of really in Microsoft literature
statements such as "At Microsoft, we always like to think we can
improve on a standard." This is the Land of Hollywood, what the hey.
Take one successful formula, add some sex and violence, and what do
you have? An even more successful formula until it falls flat on it's
face.
This discussion rekindled my DW interest and I note from
http://www.gallifreyone.com/ that Hollywood is considering producing a
DW big-screen movie. I can see it now, Wil Smith as the Doctor ala
Wild Wild West and a send up of Doctor Who which is nowhere near the
original series. Worse yet, this big-screen DW movie is delaying BBC
plans to start a new DW TV series. Geez, with pro-wrestling's
involvement in ST: Voyager, perhaps we can count on Hulk Hogan as the
Doctor in the Hollywood Big Screen Version. I'll rush right out now
and buy my tickets.
And oh yeah, they intend on putting that piss-up scene in the movie.
I can see it now - Big movie exec - "This piss-up scene needs
something, a little style, some color, a light colored rug so that
when the piss-up really happens, it will maximize the shock value
contrasting the color against the light rug. Yeah, that's it. The
audience will love it. Where's that barvarian beer; I need some more
inspiration."
Man, if they screw up this DW movie, BBC ought to have it's head
examined for even considering licensing DW to someone in Hollywood.
It seems that they have not yet learned the lesson taught by the Fox
Who movie. I just hope they do not get it taught to them twice.
Come to think of it, I wonder why BBC has not complained about Borg.
If you've seen as much Who as I have, you know exactly what I mean. I
don't think I've ever seen as much tell-tale creative inspiriation as
that.
Cheers!
Matthew
Attention SPAMMERS: I have a 100 percent success rate in getting
accounts used for SPAM terminated. Go ahead! Make my day!
Matthew Zenkar
<str...@americanisp.com> wrote:
>On 6 Sep 1999 01:39:16 -0600, Matthew Zenkar
><wiyo...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>On 4 Sep 1999 08:00:36 -0600, jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:
>>
>>>Logging on from Australia....
>>>
>>>Actually, I'm not disillusioned. Disappointed, sure, in how TNT chose to treat
>>>the show...but understand that a 5 year run is the anomaly in TV, even more so
>>>in SF. B5 was the first non-Trek space-based SF series to go more than 3
>>>seasons in 30 years. So the record ain't great.
>>
>>I hate to butt in here, however, as you put it, "B5 was the first
>>non-Trek space-based SF series to go more than 3 seasons in 30 years"
>>- in the Americas.
>>
>>The only other SF show to do so was the BBC series "Doctor Who" which
>>ran for something like 25 years beginning in 1963 - though I suppose
>>'63 falls out of the 30 year time frame. Until B5, it was my favorite
>>series. My statement may be somewhat inaccurate because DW was based
>>litterally "anywhere in space and time."
>>
>Also another Brit series that comes to mind - one that when I saw the
>frist ep, said to myself "this is SO bad, I gotta watch some more to
>see if it still is that bad" - and by that time I was hooked. Ran
>between January, 1978 to December 1981. Four seasons ...
>
>"Blakes 7"
>
>Now, in the US, seems that JMS is right...
>
>
I have heard of Blakes 7, but I have never seen it. I know someone
who thought it quite good, and this person also thought "Tripods" was
good, too.
Wesley Struebing
<wiyo...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
Actually, there are still some PBS stations (maybe others, too) that
rerun B7 every once in a while.
And, yes, the FX were VERY cheesy...
Mark Cashman (TeamB BCB)
If you've seen as much Who as I have, you know exactly what I mean. I
don't think I've ever seen as much tell-tale creative inspiriation as
that"
Yes, and there was a very creepy Colin Baker episode where they dealt
most explicitly with the transformation into a Cyberman. Better, IMO
than anything in FirstContact.
------
Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at
http://www.temporaldoorway.com
- Original digital art, writing, music and more -
Author of on-line science-fiction at...
http://www.temporaldoorway.com/library/index.htm
------
Iain Rae
>>>
>>Also another Brit series that comes to mind - one that when I saw the
>>frist ep, said to myself "this is SO bad, I gotta watch some more to
>>see if it still is that bad" - and by that time I was hooked. Ran
>>between January, 1978 to December 1981. Four seasons ...
>>
>>
>>Now, in the US, seems that JMS is right...
>>
>>
> I have heard of Blakes 7, but I have never seen it. I know someone
> who thought it quite good, and this person also thought "Tripods" was
> good, too.
Blakes 7, poorly funded, crap sets, crap costumes, spacecraft models made
out of hairdriers, vampire models ( the Liberator kept hospitalising prop
men cos they walked into the probes), a lead character who was missing
for most of the run, a computer with it's own built in BOFH and a
baddie who rivalled the Emperor in his schemes and ruthlessness but who was
on the side of good (I always wondered if this is what killed off all the
"bin-bong Avon calling" ads).
Despite all it's problems it did show that you could do an awful lot
with a decent storyline, a group of reasonably good actors ( I still get
shivers when I hear Paul Darrow on the radio) and let them get on with it.
N.B. there have been rumours of some of the cast getting back together to
do something B7ish.
Oh and I think I heard that an american writer with an unpronouncable name
has seen a few episodes :)
The Liberator might look fairly familiar as well
http://www.blakes7.com/articles/liberator.html
Arwel Parry
<ia...@rm322a.civ.hw.ac.uk> writes
>I remember reading somewhere that the DW video sales when they were at
>their peak pulled in enough money to fund the BBC Critically Acclaimed
>costume dramas produced over the same period, even now whenever an odd bit
>of film or video turns up in a junk sale BBC video will produce a video.
>
>Why do they have to do that I hear you cry
>
>because in order to save space/money literally millions of hours of video
>was wiped, millions of feet of film was destroyed and there was no logic
>to it, DW wasn't the only series to be lost god only knows how much
>material was thrown away from the drama dept.
Not only DW - they also wiped all their coverage of the Apollo 11 moon
landing (obviously not historic enough to be worth keeping), so they had
nothing of their own to show for the recent 30th anniversary.
Unbelievable!
--
Arwel Parry
http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/
Fight Spam! Join EuroCAUCE: http://www.euro.cauce.org/
Brian Watson
> Matthew Zenkar <wiyo...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> > I have heard of Blakes 7, but I have never seen it. I know someone
> > who thought it quite good, and this person also thought "Tripods" was
> > good, too.
>
> Blakes 7, poorly funded, crap sets, crap costumes, spacecraft models made
> out of hairdriers, vampire models ( the Liberator kept hospitalising prop
> men cos they walked into the probes), a lead character who was missing
> for most of the run, a computer with it's own built in BOFH and a
> baddie who rivalled the Emperor in his schemes and ruthlessness but who was
> on the side of good (I always wondered if this is what killed off all the
> "bin-bong Avon calling" ads).
>
> Despite all it's problems it did show that you could do an awful lot
> with a decent storyline, a group of reasonably good actors ( I still get
> shivers when I hear Paul Darrow on the radio) and let them get on with it.
>
> N.B. there have been rumours of some of the cast getting back together to
> do something B7ish.
>
> Oh and I think I heard that an american writer with an unpronouncable name
> has seen a few episodes :)
>
> The Liberator might look fairly familiar as well
The Drazi Warhawk is supposed to be a small nod to the Liberator. I'm glad
they didn't do anything for the Scorpio, that was an ugly ass ship. But B7 was
one of the greats.. I still have most of the episodes on tape, and occasionally
start at one end of the series and watch it to the end. Blake being missing
didn't hurt the show, I think that it strengthened it, because Blake wasn't
around to smooth out the arguments and problems that arose, and the rest of the
crew had to find another way to get along and complete their individual goals.
John W. Kennedy
> Not only DW - they also wiped all their coverage of the Apollo 11 moon
> landing (obviously not historic enough to be worth keeping), so they had
> nothing of their own to show for the recent 30th anniversary.
> Unbelievable!
Hmmmmmmm.... I was there at the time. They might have preferred that
their coverage not be seen, 30 years on.
--
-John W. Kennedy
-rri...@ibm.net
Compact is becoming contract
Man only earns and pays. -- Charles Williams
Gharlane of Eddore
>
> "Come to think of it, I wonder why BBC has not complained about Borg.
> If you've seen as much Who as I have, you know exactly what I mean.
> I don't think I've ever seen as much tell-tale creative inspiriation
>
> Yes, and there was a very creepy Colin Baker episode where they dealt
> most explicitly with the transformation into a Cyberman. Better, IMO
> than anything in FirstContact.
>
Actually, the more likely source was a series of French "graphic novels"
( i.e. expensive comic books with plots for putative grown-ups ) from
the early seventies, that involved a race of highly assimilative
space-going cyborgs who -- get this -- travelled in BIG CUBICAL SHIPS.
Matthew Zenkar
<mcas...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>"Come to think of it, I wonder why BBC has not complained about Borg.
>If you've seen as much Who as I have, you know exactly what I mean. I
>don't think I've ever seen as much tell-tale creative inspiriation as
>that"
>
>Yes, and there was a very creepy Colin Baker episode where they dealt
>most explicitly with the transformation into a Cyberman. Better, IMO
>than anything in FirstContact.
Yes, I saw that episode, too. (I thought it was a different doctor.)
That episode _is_ the reason I wonder why BBC didn't go after Borg.
All the best,
Matthew
Attention SPAMMERS: I have a 100 percent success rate in getting
accounts associated with SPAM terminated! Go ahead! Make my day!
Iain Rae
> In article <7r0e1j$8lk$1...@glencoe.hw.ac.uk>, Iain Rae
> <ia...@rm322a.civ.hw.ac.uk> writes
> landing (obviously not historic enough to be worth keeping), so they had
> nothing of their own to show for the recent 30th anniversary.
> Unbelievable!
Acually I think I've answered my question about the Colditz Story in
umtsb5, i think they burned that as well.
Think how much money they've probably missed out in video sales.
Arwel Parry
<ia...@rm322a.civ.hw.ac.uk> writes
>Arwel Parry <ar...@cartref.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <7r0e1j$8lk$1...@glencoe.hw.ac.uk>, Iain Rae
>> <ia...@rm322a.civ.hw.ac.uk> writes
>> Not only DW - they also wiped all their coverage of the Apollo 11 moon
>> landing (obviously not historic enough to be worth keeping), so they had
>> nothing of their own to show for the recent 30th anniversary.
>> Unbelievable!
>
>Acually I think I've answered my question about the Colditz Story in
>umtsb5, i think they burned that as well.
>
>
>Think how much money they've probably missed out in video sales.
Quite so, though in fairness they did do most of their wiping before
domestic video recorders became common, so I suppose it was a failure of
imagination. I can appreciate why they'd want to reuse their videotape
to save money in the early 1970's - I don't know how much the 1" and 2"
tapes the broadcasters used at the time cost, but I was active in
student TV a few years later (1976-79) and the longest tapes we could
buy -- Sony U-matic format and Philips N-1500 format (anybody remember
them?!) were 60 minutes long and cost 20 pounds or sometimes a little
more, for each cassette -- and this was a time when I could live quite
comfortably for a week on less than 20 quid! (A former Treasurer of the
National Student TV Association writes from experience...).
Matthew Zenkar
of Eddore) wrote:
>
>Actually, the more likely source was a series of French "graphic novels"
>( i.e. expensive comic books with plots for putative grown-ups ) from
>the early seventies, that involved a race of highly assimilative
>space-going cyborgs who -- get this -- travelled in BIG CUBICAL SHIPS.
I suppose that means the BBC would have a partner....