ATTN JMS: Wrestlers on Voyager
Tammy Smith
is your opinion on this? I think the "Wrestlers on SF-Programs" thing
is really getting out of hand!
Tammy
PS--I heard that the Voyager producers are going along with this
wrestling idea. At least you had the integrity not to.
Von Bruno
Actually the story is that TPTB of Voyager contacted the WWF about using ONE
wrestler in a role for which they feel he would be ideal. What on earth is
wrong with that?
If a person is *right* for a part then they are *right* for a part.
<<I heard that the Voyager producers are going along with this wrestling idea.
At least you [JMS] had the integrity not to.>>
It is absurd to say it is a question of *integrity* when you are applying, and
advocating, a standard of bigotry and prejudice.
-Von Bruno-
Jms at B5
>is your opinion on this? I think the "Wrestlers on SF-Programs" thing
>is really getting out of hand!
>wrestling idea. At least you had the integrity not to.
I once heard someone say, in response to the idea of sendihng Geraldo Rivera
into space on the Shuttle, "at least we'll finally be able to see the effect of
a vacuum *on* a vacuum."
I'm sorry, what was your question again...?
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
Von Bruno
into space on the Shuttle, "at least we'll finally be able to see the effect of
So, knowing how tough it is to make a living in *Hollywood,* your saying simply
because someone makes their primary living as a professional wrestler YOU would
preclude an individual from consideration for a role? I really do not believe
you're that shallow and superficial.
-Von Bruno-
P.S. Please, Joe, tell us again how it's "us AND them" with respect to the
fandom of sci-fi television.
Brian Watson
If their intention on bringing the actor (read wrestler) onto the show was anything
but to drive up ratings, you may have a point. But that's the only reason they are
doing it, probably for some sweeps week episode or some such crap. It's the same
reason they added tits and ass to the show, via 7 of 9, ratings. They simply don't
intend to add the character to the show for storytelling, and it shows.
Jamie Miller
Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990911203309...@ng-bk1.aol.com...
> >I recently heard that UPN wants to put wrestlers on Voyager now. What
> >is your opinion on this? I think the "Wrestlers on SF-Programs" thing
> >is really getting out of hand!
> >PS--I heard that the Voyager producers are going along with this
> >wrestling idea. At least you had the integrity not to.
>
> I once heard someone say, in response to the idea of sendihng Geraldo
Rivera
> into space on the Shuttle, "at least we'll finally be able to see the
effect of
> a vacuum *on* a vacuum."
>
Geoduck
>I recently heard that UPN wants to put wrestlers on Voyager now. What
>is your opinion on this? I think the "Wrestlers on SF-Programs" thing
>is really getting out of hand!
(snip)
I thought Jesse Ventura did a good job with his X-Files appearence.
--
Geoduck
geo...@usa.net
http://www.olywa.net/cook
carl Dershem
> I once heard someone say, in response to the idea of sendihng Geraldo Rivera into
> space on the Shuttle, "at least we'll finally be able to see the effect of a
> vacuum *on* a vacuum."
Are you implying that someone would actually watch? Scary what people will look at
when there's nothing god on!
cd
Tammy Smith
wrestlers. There are people in my house who watch that stuff, & I just
can't get into it. I really don't love the idea of wrestlers on
SF-series. It just seems like a cheap ratings-ploy to me.
Tammy
Jms at B5
>simply
>because someone makes their primary living as a professional wrestler YOU
>would
>preclude an individual from consideration for a role? I really do not believe
>you're that shallow and superficial.
Yes, I would, if it were done as a mandate from a studio as a ratings gimmick
rather than for a legitimate story reason.
As usual, your reasoning is specious.
Nicholas C. Weaver
Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
>Yes, I would, if it were done as a mandate from a studio as a ratings gimmick
>rather than for a legitimate story reason.
>
>As usual, your reasoning is specious.
So, if you say had a role which called for a trash talking,
heavily muscled, gruff voiced, leader of an alien species, you
wouldn't hesistate to call on "Governor" Jessie "The Body" Ventura?
--
Nicholas C. Weaver nwe...@cs.berkeley.edu
Nicholas C. Weaver
>"Nicholas C. Weaver" wrote:
>> So, if you say had a role which called for a trash talking,
>> heavily muscled, gruff voiced, leader of an alien species, you
>> wouldn't hesistate to call on "Governor" Jessie "The Body" Ventura?
>
>Governor in quotation marks. Do you have a problem with that?
Nope. It's called a joke. I'm not sure how good a governor
he will prove to be, but his honesty is refreshing in this current
political climate.
Brian Watson
> In article <19990913021415...@ng-fk1.aol.com>,
> Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Yes, I would, if it were done as a mandate from a studio as a ratings gimmick
> >rather than for a legitimate story reason.
> >
> >As usual, your reasoning is specious.
>
Sean Ferguson
someone who wants everyone to believe he's well educated make such a simple
error in grammar. Should you not have used "you're" instead of "your"?
What you type is all we know of you. If what you type is grammatically
wrong, people may think what you have to say is also wrong.
Sean
Von Bruno <vonb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990912140346...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
> <<I once heard someone say, in response to the idea of sendihng Geraldo
Rivera
> into space on the Shuttle, "at least we'll finally be able to see the
effect of
> a vacuum *on* a vacuum.">> jms...@aol.com
>
> So, knowing how tough it is to make a living in *Hollywood,* your saying
simply
> because someone makes their primary living as a professional wrestler YOU
would
> preclude an individual from consideration for a role? I really do not
believe
> you're that shallow and superficial.
>
John W. Kennedy
>
> On 10 Sep 1999 21:20:58 -0600, gka...@webtv.net (Tammy Smith) wrote:
>
> >I recently heard that UPN wants to put wrestlers on Voyager now. What
> >is your opinion on this? I think the "Wrestlers on SF-Programs" thing
> >is really getting out of hand!
>
> (snip)
>
> I thought Jesse Ventura did a good job with his X-Files appearence.
Yes, we should be fair, here. Anyone with enough brains to remember
lines, enough coordination to walk across a set without tripping, and
who doesn't suffer terribly from shyness, can usually give a decent
performance in a role that isn't too subtle or too far out of his
imagination. There's no reason to think a wrestler (especially if the
producer is given a choice of several wrestlers) can't turn in an
adequate performance in a role written for him. A director who knows
the right psychological tricks can even sometimes elicit a downright
stunning performance.
No, the real problem here is that UPN seriously thinks that a
substantial number of wrestling fans will become interested in
"Voyager", or that a substantial number of "Voyager" fans will become
interested in wrestling. What must they think of fans, that they are
able to reach such conclusions in the first place?
To look at it from the other side, putting Scott Adams in B5 was
infinitely more sensible. A great many people who enjoy "Dilbert" were
(and are) potential new B5 fans, and the sort of fans a show like B5
wants, to boot.
--
-John W. Kennedy
-rri...@ibm.net
Compact is becoming contract
Man only earns and pays. -- Charles Williams
Philip R. Columbus
John W. Kennedy wrote in message <37DD4E6D...@ibm.net>...
>Geoduck wrote:
>>
>> On 10 Sep 1999 21:20:58 -0600, gka...@webtv.net (Tammy Smith)
wrote:
>>
>> >I recently heard that UPN wants to put wrestlers on Voyager now.
What
>> >is your opinion on this? I think the "Wrestlers on SF-Programs"
thing
>> >is really getting out of hand!
>>
<Much snippage>
>
>To look at it from the other side, putting Scott Adams in B5 was
>infinitely more sensible. A great many people who enjoy "Dilbert"
were
>(and are) potential new B5 fans, and the sort of fans a show like B5
>wants, to boot.
>
This is really an interesting idea. It really forces you to look
closely at the motivations of our favorites. After all, wasn't
getting Scott Adams to appear and advertising it, in a sense,
"pandering" to Adams' established audience?
I suppose it's all a matter of degree, isn't it; and who's ox is being
gored.
Phil Columbus
philipc...@home.com
Brian Watson
The difference is that Scott Adams had references to B5 in his comic
strips long before being asked to guest star. He had been an established
fan for some time, and his strips probably helped turn some people to B5
and added to the fan base. Asking him to star was a kind of thanks I
suppose, so it isn't as if it was done out or right field like asking a
wrestling star to guest star on a show that has nothing to do with
wrestling. Except if you consider the T&A equivalency between ST:V and
the various wrestling shows.
Frederic L. Riebs
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> From: vonb...@aol.com (Von Bruno)
> Date: 12 Sep 1999 12:09:12 -0600
> Lines: 14
>
> <<I once heard someone say, in response to the idea of sendihng Geraldo Rivera
> into space on the Shuttle, "at least we'll finally be able to see the effect of
> a vacuum *on* a vacuum.">> jms...@aol.com
>
> So, knowing how tough it is to make a living in *Hollywood,* your saying simply
> because someone makes their primary living as a professional wrestler YOU would
> preclude an individual from consideration for a role? I really do not believe
> you're that shallow and superficial.
>
> -Von Bruno-
>
> P.S. Please, Joe, tell us again how it's "us AND them" with respect to the
> fandom of sci-fi television.
>
>
> From: jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5)
> Date: 13 Sep 1999 00:15:46 -0600
> Lines: 22
>
> >So, knowing how tough it is to make a living in *Hollywood,* your saying
> >simply
> >because someone makes their primary living as a professional wrestler YOU
> >would
> >preclude an individual from consideration for a role? I really do not believe
> >you're that shallow and superficial.
>
> rather than for a legitimate story reason.
>
> As usual, your reasoning is specious.
I might also add that a "pro wrestler" of sorts actually *was* hired for a
brief roll on B5, though not only was his identity NOT promoted, you had
to have been paying attention to pick him out at all. In the first season
ep, "Signs and Portents," the first person Morden talks to on B5 is a
security guard when he checks in at customs. The actor playing that
Customs Guard was one LYNN RED WILLIAMS, and thankfully he also spoke in
the scene so he was credited and I could be sure of his other job.
Anyone remember the old "American Gladiators" show? Where reasonably fit
folks tested their mettle against body-building behemoths in "athletic"
events that ranged from unusual ("The Joust") to the downright weird
("Atlas-spheres")? If you remember it, then you'll also remember that it
was a fairly big deal in the early '90s. I used to watch that a bit (a
late-night guilty pleasure) and if one of the prominent "gladiators" (the
regular monsters against whom the normal folk were pitted) wasn't the
aforementioned Mr. Williams, he was his twin! He sported a catchy
nickname for the show ("Dynamite" and "Turbo" was the general theme of
such names) and was otherwise uncredited, but the instant I saw "Psycho"
(or whatever his Gladiator name was) on B5, I knew it was the same guy.
The difference is, of course, that the "American Gladiators," though
obviously body-builders and not untalented as athletes, were also working
actors. I had previously seen another of Mr. Williams cohorts on a
"Married With Children" episode, similarly credited with his real name and
receiving no promotion due to his then-popular "Gladiator" status. So
while Joe likely didn't himself cast that particular part, Lynn Williams
was cast for a specific role as an actor and for no other reason. And if
memory serves, some of the Gladiators *were* featured as such on a few
other TV shows (sitcoms, most likely), so there was some cache' and
ratings draw potential in having an American Gladiator on a TV show at
that time.
While of course Joe doesn't need anyone to defend him, I thought I might
bring up this point to demonstrate yet again that Joe remains *very*
consistent in walking his talk in an analagous situation to this
"wrestlers on Voyager" debate.
norv...@sirius.com
I don't think you have anything to apologize to him for, Tammy...
>but I just don't think much of "professional" wrestlers.
I think as little about "professional" wrestlers, and that whole sickening
game, as possible.
>There are people in my house who watch that stuff, & I just
>can't get into it.
Fortunately, mine is a wrestling-free household. If I want to laugh, I'd
rather go for old "Monty Python" eps. ;-)
>I really don't love the idea of wrestlers on SF-series. It just
>seems like a cheap ratings-ploy to me.
Precisely what it is, and it's silly to attack JMS for being shallow (as
Von Bruno does) because he doesn't want to use wrestlers simply because
they're wrestlers. I think *wrestlers* are incredibly shallow, though
Jessie Ventura allegedly has a functional brain. (Not as Garrison Keillor
seems to see it, but he's got his own bias... :-) )
My mother lamented the news that wrestling is the most popular TV among
males these days. Of course, you could say she's just showing her age or
gender or "elitism"... and I'm sure some will say just that. I don't care;
I'm glad that some people can't stand wrestling and can back me up on that
opinion.
BRETNTRACI
>I don't respond to many posts, but I must say that it saddens me to see
>someone who wants everyone to believe he's well educated make such a simple
>error in grammar. Should you not have used "you're" instead of "your"?
>What you type is all we know of you. If what you type is grammatically
>wrong, people may think what you have to say is also wrong.
Maybe he is just a horrid typer -- I am, also click before proofing many times
(usually out of fatique or in a rush) only to be shocked when I see what ends
up posted. I also suffer from arthritis and dyslexia. So what ends up typed in
is not always represenative of the thought behind it. I hope you don't always
judge others by gramer and typographical errors when you should be looking at
the idea behind the mis-written words.
Heck I've even seen JMS slips a typ-o in once in a blue moon and he is a man
that writes for a living.
Please try to tolerate others who might not be very good with a keyboard.
Von Bruno
However, you slammed TPTB of ST: Voyager for invoking a *ratings gimmick*
without any knowledge or proof as to this being their primary motivation for
seeking a pro-wrestler to play a part in an episode. Now, how *fair* is that
Joe?
>From what I have read the only *official* statement on this was from the WWF
which simply said that the producers of ST: Voyager approched them about the
possibility of using a specific wrestler for a character in an episode for
which they felt he would be perfect for. That sounds like a *legitimate* story
reason to me ... how about you?
Now, I will say that even if this move was done for ratings consideration I
would not have a problem with it as these types of *gimmicks* can be fun. I
remember reading a few years back that TPTB of "Picket Fences" and the
"X-Files" sought to do a one night-one shot crossover and part of the idea's
alluring selling points was the positive effect it would have on their ratings.
Sadly, CBS eventually nixed the idea though FOX didn't seem to mind.
Who's to say where *art* will come from or what will inspire its creation.
-Von Bruno-
Von Bruno
Talk about your *specious reasoning!* The character of Seven of Nine, as
portrayed, is one the best, fully realized, in the sci-fi genre and on
television in general, and Jeri Ryan, the actress who portrays her, should not
be penalized and attacked because of her looks. That would be like someone
dismissing the character of Susan Ivannova as being their soley to massage the
kinky fantasies of those who find domineering bi-sexual women appealing.
-Von Bruno-
Tyler J. Wagner
On the other hand, Ivanova doesn't sport a catsuit and heels in every scene.
As much as that thought might appeal to me, 7 of 9 was clearly intended to
be much more T/A than well-developed character (no pun intended). The fact
that the character turned out so well is a testament to Jeri's acting and
the show's writing.
Tyler
.--------------.
__/ Tyler Wagner \____________________________________________________
| tjwa...@polymail.calpoly.edu | http://www.csc.calpoly.edu/~tjwagner |
| Remember folks: Stop lights timed for 35mph are also timed for 70mph. |
Brian Watson
> <<It's the same reason they added tits and ass to the show, via 7 of 9,
> ratings.>> Brian Watson ke...@cris.com
>
> Talk about your *specious reasoning!* The character of Seven of Nine, as
> portrayed, is one the best, fully realized, in the sci-fi genre and on
> television in general, and Jeri Ryan, the actress who portrays her, should not
> be penalized and attacked because of her looks. That would be like someone
> dismissing the character of Susan Ivannova as being their soley to massage the
> kinky fantasies of those who find domineering bi-sexual women appealing.
I guess the legions of fanboys drooling over posters of the woman in tight spandex
means nothing. They didn't even give her a decent costume, they just added a
three pieces of plastic to her face and hand and gave her a costume so tight that
in the early days she would nearly pass out from it's tight fit. I'd think they
/might/ have had a reason other than T&A for the character if they made her LOOK
like a Borg, instead of just calling her a Borg. In WHAT episode have we seen ANY
Borg look like she does? The closest is the Borg Queen, who's very concept in a
collective consciousness doesn't make sense. No, she's T&A, and the next step up
from the Spock/Data/Odo/The Doctor cliche of someone 'discovering humanity' that
every ST has had. If she's a Borg, then by god GIVE her Borg anatomy and
cybernetics! Give her one of those holographic imaging eye pieces, give her the
white pasty skin, take away the hair, have bits of electronics poking out of her
head, give her the long bionic arm with injectors/probes/paralyzers on it.
The Reverend Jacob Corbin
Von Bruno wrote:
> <<It's the same reason they added tits and ass to the show, via 7 of 9,
> ratings.>> Brian Watson ke...@cris.com
>
> Talk about your *specious reasoning!* The character of Seven of Nine, as
> portrayed, is one the best, fully realized, in the sci-fi genre
You haven't read much of the SF genre, have you?
Besides, whether or not the character turned out well is incidental to the
fact that they added her to drum up ratings among Trek fans, whom they judged to
be a pack of ultra-horny sonsabitches who'd watch anything with a pair of gigantic
teats.
Are you flattered by that judgment, Von Bruno? I'm not. That's why I stopped
paying attention to ST--I was sick of being insulted as a viewer and a onetime fan
(and just imagine how insulted I'd have to feel, considering I fucking *grew up*
with Trek.)
Jacob
Randolph H. Murdock III
>>is your opinion on this? I think the "Wrestlers on SF-Programs" thing
>>is really getting out of hand!
>>wrestling idea. At least you had the integrity not to.
>I once heard someone say, in response to the idea of sendihng Geraldo Rivera
>into space on the Shuttle, "at least we'll finally be able to see the effect
>of a vacuum *on* a vacuum."
>I'm sorry, what was your question again...?
> jms
>(jms...@aol.com)
>B5 Official Fan Club at:
>http://www.thestation.com
Now that is humor. My local station just dropped Voyager in favor of WWF
Jakked, whatever the hell that is. Yet another scifi program I lose to the
T&A factor.
*** The fly Bi with the TEAMIGA plates ***"Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.
Boldness has genius, power and magic in it" - Goethe
Justin Bacon
(Nicholas C. Weaver) writes:
> Nope. It's called a joke. I'm not sure how good a governor
>he will prove to be, but his honesty is refreshing in this current
>political climate.
Agreed. I have some severe political differences with Jesse, but in his short
time in office he's proven himself extremely competent at the job of governing
(and stopped the State legislature from causing financial chaos).
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Tammy Smith
what Voyager has been doing. I get tired of being treated like an idiot
by these networks myself. I found the TNT memo about Crusade to be
extremely insulting (and initially, I thought it was a hoax--I couldn't
believe a network would actually want things like that. It seemed like
something out of the past). If Crusade doesn't return, I won't be
watching much TV this season, that's for sure! I won't watch things
that are meant to insult my intelligence. If that means I'm elitist to
you, then so be it.
Tammy
Cassius81
>Von Bruno wrote:
>
>> <<It's the same reason they added tits and ass to the show, via 7 of 9,
>> ratings.>> Brian Watson ke...@cris.com
>>
>> Talk about your *specious reasoning!* The character of Seven of Nine, as
Ugh. I grew sick of tight, skimpy outfits in my sci-fi shows long ago, but
apparently others haven't ("First Wave", anyone?). I think my first feeling of
true hatred for it was in a Voyager episode where Harry went down to an
all-woman planet that wanted to steal his DNA or somesuch. Double ugh. Seven of
Nine is a surprisingly okay character, though I've seen far too many episodes
with her doing something-or-other with sexual connotations, such as her
attempting to move in that outfit. Triple Ugh. The cute little juxtaposition of
porn and true art in "Crusade" sums up this argument quite nicely (I'm still
chuckling over the titles; "Who's your little Pak'ma'ra," "Snow White and the
Seven Narns." Heh. And that head-tilt everyone did was really cool).
As for wrestlers acting... well, I don't really care as long as they can act.
Cassius' Quote of the Day:
Nietzsche: "People are actually saying that the external world is created by
our sense organs? But then our body, as part of this external world, would be
the creation of our sense organs! But then our very sense organs would be- the
creation of our sense organs! It seems to me that this is a complete reductio
ad absurdum: assuming that the concept causa sui is something completely
absurd."
(For those who don't know, causa sui means that something creates itself, and
is usually attached only to God)
Iain Rae
> <<Yes, I would, if it were done as a mandate from a studio as a ratings gimmick
> rather than for a legitimate story reason.>> jms...@aol.com
> However, you slammed TPTB of ST: Voyager for invoking a *ratings gimmick*
> without any knowledge or proof as to this being their primary motivation for
> seeking a pro-wrestler to play a part in an episode. Now, how *fair* is that
> Joe?
>>From what I have read the only *official* statement on this was from the WWF
> which simply said that the producers of ST: Voyager approched them about the
> possibility of using a specific wrestler for a character in an episode for
> which they felt he would be perfect for. That sounds like a *legitimate* story
> reason to me ... how about you?
Not knowing anything about the WWF this is probably a dumb question but are
the wrestlers so tied into WWF that they they require their permission to
do a straight acting role?
Von Bruno
Tammy, all I've been saying is that, for those of us inclined to watch ST:
Voyager, we should wait and see the episode in question before forming our
opinions about it (and certainly before condemning it).
JMS, himself, has called for the exact same patience and openmindedness with
respect to Babylon-5 in the past only now, however, since it is Trek we are
talking about Joe has found it oh-so easy to abandon his proclaimed ideals.
<<If Crusade doesn't return, I won't be
watching much TV this season, that's for sure! I won't watch things that are
meant to insult my intelligence.>>
Tammy, I would never suggest you watch anything you felt was *insulting* to
your intelligence, and if that is how you look at ST: Voyager than so be it.
-Von Bruno-
Joseph Otten
1999 20:45:44 -0600, cass...@aol.com (Cassius81) wrote:
>Ugh. I grew sick of tight, skimpy outfits in my sci-fi shows long ago, but
>apparently others haven't ("First Wave", anyone?). I think my first feeling of
>true hatred for it was in a Voyager episode where Harry went down to an
>all-woman planet that wanted to steal his DNA or somesuch. Double ugh. Seven of
An abysmal episode. Wasn't Pat Tallman in it though?
--
Joseph Otten
My other personality is a P12
Nicholas C. Weaver
Yeah, she got to whack Harry Kim in the back with a big
stick. Freudian slip on the part of Voyager's producers?
Pelzo63
>Not knowing anything about the WWF this is probably a dumb question >but are
>the wrestlers so tied into WWF that they they require their permission >to
>do a straight acting role?
i do believe the only obligations are to fulfill their wrestling contract
first, and wwf has a VERY full schedule. i believe i once read the statement
that most of the "stars" work/travel 340 days a year, and a lot of times the
only way to see home is to stop by whenever the tour nears their hometown(or
get injured, which is very frequent).
for example, Steve Williams(stone cold steve austin) did 2(i think) episodes of
Nash Bridges last season while he was away from wrestling with an injury. he
didn't require any special permission, as he was playing a "bully cop"
character, not "stone cold steve austin"(similar to Bill Goldberg's[WCW]
situation with universal Soldier 2). however, i do believe they would need
special permission to play AS their wrestling character, as has been done by
Terry Hogan(Hulk/Hollywood Hogan) on Baywatch.
HTH. :-)
btw, i like both wrestling and voyager, but don't know if i want them mixed.
--chris AOL/AIM--Pelzo63
http://members.aol.com/pelzo63/welcome.html
"Ladies and gentlemen, elvis has just left the building"--Mike Lange
Roanna
Von Bruno wrote:
> <<I once heard someone say, in response to the idea of sendihng Geraldo Rivera
> into space on the Shuttle, "at least we'll finally be able to see the effect of
> a vacuum *on* a vacuum.">> jms...@aol.com
>
> So, knowing how tough it is to make a living in *Hollywood,* your saying simply
> because someone makes their primary living as a professional wrestler YOU would
> preclude an individual from consideration for a role?
So, do I understand your contention to be that well oiled bodies colliding (more or
less) with each other and inanimate objects, screaming insults and air pounding
fists are excellent training for dramatic television? Or comedic television?
Or were you thinking of the ring girls?
> I really do not believe
> you're that shallow and superficial.
>
> -Von Bruno-
>
> P.S. Please, Joe, tell us again how it's "us AND them" with respect to the
> fandom of sci-fi television.
You know, I think it's time you got a new hobby. Counted cross stitch is very
soothing, I hear. And they start you out with a kit.
R
Pelzo63
email address by hand ;-)
ia...@rm322a.civ.hw.ac.uk wrote
>OK thanks, I had thought the WWF would only need to get involved if a
>character
>was to appear on voyager (which would likely be stretching the "this is >not
>a blatant publicty stunt" line)
yeah, but knowing the way trek likes to use the holodeck.......
> but with those sort of comittments it >makes
>sense to go through the WWF even if you only want the bloke to play
>thug #2.
well, i think the biggest indication that they went through the WWF is the fact
that now WWF is shown on the United Paramount Network here in the U.S.A.,
which, as you may or may not know, is the network for which voyager is the
flagship of.(FYI, the wrestling that turner is involved in is WCW, World
Championship Wrestling)
>I guess we'll have to watch the episode and make our minds up then.
that's what i intend to do, and i would have been planning to watch the same
episode without a WWF person as well.
--Chris AOL/AIM--pelzo63
http://members.aol.com/pelzo63/welcome.html
"it's a hockey night, in pittsburgh"--mike lange
DANIEL MORRIS
>
>Tammy, all I've been saying is that, for those of us inclined to watch ST:
>Voyager, we should wait and see the episode in question before forming our
>opinions about it (and certainly before condemning it).
>
>JMS, himself, has called for the exact same patience and openmindedness
with
>respect to Babylon-5 in the past only now, however, since it is Trek we are
>talking about Joe has found it oh-so easy to abandon his proclaimed ideals.
>
Well, Mr. Von Bruno... I've been reading your semi-trolling/ranting in the
NG for a while now, and I feel compelled to point out something.
When JMS asked for us to maintain an open mind with respect to B5. Mightn't
he have been using some fore-knowledge of the story line perhaps? Rather
than proclaming some lofty ideals. I personally have not watched much of
Voyager, so I will not make any attempt to question it's merits as a show.
Feel free to respond.
Danny
Michael J Wise
Alpe97 wrote:
> Joe, would you settle an off-line debate about ep 422?
> We are divided about it being some form of dream by Sheridan.
Huh?
The computer having the problems with playback didn't make it obvious
what was going on? The bit at the end was John and Delenn wondering how
history would remember them, and we were expected to compare and contrast
their humble opinions of themselves with the excerpts we had just watched
as seen from a future standpoint looking back on their near-deification,
in this case rightly deserved.
Aloha mai Nai`a!
--
"Please have your Internet License http://kapu.net/~mjwise/
and Usenet Registration handy..."
Alpe97
together and they don't fit well. Avoiding spoilers, let me say that the
overview summarized in 522, SIL, makes sense in the overall context of B5. 422
still doesn't fit the B5 reality. The ''Vorlon' in this ep suggests an OUTER
time loop that give me a royal headache but is ohhh so intriguing.
So, JOE, can you set us straight?
Trev
Alpe97 <alp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990928163220...@ngol07.aol.com...
I interpreted the "vorlon" as being the ultimate evolution of humankind, our
transformation into the "new" first ones of the galaxy. I didn't think it a
dream episode.
Trev.
JamesS1889
(Alpe97) writes:
>That's one opinion, but the debate continues. I just watched 422 and 522
>together and they don't fit well. Avoiding spoilers, let me say that the
>overview summarized in 522, SIL, makes sense in the overall context of B5.
>422
>still doesn't fit the B5 reality. The ''Vorlon' in this ep suggests an OUTER
>time loop that give me a royal headache but is ohhh so intriguing.
> So, JOE, can you set us straight?
I think you need to "expand your frame of reference" as DeLenn once said to
G'Kar. There is no Vorlon in DoFS. It is an episode that, except for the very
end, functions as an episode outside the story arc, looking back into it. It
refers to that eventuality that JMS says all scientists agree on: one day our
sun will explode and take all of us with it, unless we "go to the stars". Your
"Vorlon" is a human being 1 million years from now, saving some choice pieces
of earth history to take to the "new" Earth, whatever it is called, just before
the end.
No, I suppose you could say DoFS doesn't fit the B5 story, but it certainly
takes a look back into the midst of the story, and in that sense it certainly
does fit.
DoFS certainly fits just fine with SiL, because there isn't that much that
needs to go together in order for it to fit. SiL takes place in 2281. DoFS
takes place in 2261, 2361, 2761, and 3261. The only thing actual interlocking
that takes place is the scene of Garibaldi being held hostage during the
"Telepath Crisis", which was done consistently in conjunction with season 5.
The rest of DoFS takes place after SiL so there's no issue. And it is not a
dream episode.
--
Jim Squire: members.aol.com/jamess1889/friends.html
"Chandler & Monica": www.acusd.edu/~dannys/chanmon.html
"atf Off-Beat Posting Guide": members.aol.com/jamess1889/net_guide.html
"Discuss the Gospel": www.crossings.org
Alpe97
>I interpreted the "vorlon" as being the ultimate evolution of humankind, our
>transformation into the "new" first ones of the galaxy. I didn't think it a
>dream episode.
So did I, BUT that could still be Sheridan's imagining our future. It's one
answer to "Was it all worth it?" or "What's it all for?" Reasonable questions
for someone who just risked his life and more for so long.
Still waiting for JMS's comments. ;-)
Andy
Cassius81
>>I interpreted the "vorlon" as being the ultimate evolution of humankind, our
>>transformation into the "new" first ones of the galaxy. I didn't think it a
>>dream episode.
>
>So did I, BUT that could still be Sheridan's imagining our future. It's one
>answer to "Was it all worth it?" or "What's it all for?" Reasonable
>questions
>for someone who just risked his life and more for so long.
Or even better, Lorien's question #4: "Where are you going?" That one always
was my favorite...
Cassius' Quote of the Day:
Sun Tzu: "What is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's
strategy." (It works with criticism too)
Sham Gardner
: In article <19990928163220...@ngol07.aol.com>, alp...@aol.com
: (Alpe97) writes:
: No, I suppose you could say DoFS doesn't fit the B5 story, but it certainly
: takes a look back into the midst of the story, and in that sense it certainly
: does fit.
: DoFS certainly fits just fine with SiL, because there isn't that much that
: needs to go together in order for it to fit. SiL takes place in 2281. DoFS
: takes place in 2261, 2361, 2761, and 3261.
One thing that doesn't seem to fit is that at the end of SiL it is revealed
that the series is an ISN documentary. The series includes DoFS, part of
which takes place a million year in the future. This either means a
broadcasting entity called ISN still exists in a million years, or that they
had somehow received information from the future.
Brian Watson
Or maybe JUST SiL was a documentary, because how do you expain the documentary
knowing what happened in people's dreams, in Sheridan and Delenn's honeymoon suite
with G'kar's eyeball, etc. They knew too much as a documentary, but SiL would at
least seem to have been the only part known. As for Lorien taking John away, half
of the Minbari could guess that by the events that happened with Valen.
Sham Gardner
: Sham Gardner wrote:
:> One thing that doesn't seem to fit is that at the end of SiL it is revealed
:> that the series is an ISN documentary. The series includes DoFS, part of
:> which takes place a million year in the future. This either means a
:> broadcasting entity called ISN still exists in a million years, or that they
:> had somehow received information from the future.
: Or maybe JUST SiL was a documentary,
Yes that's what I first thought, but one of JMS' afterwords in the B5
magazine says it was the whole series.
: because how do you expain the documentary
: knowing what happened in people's dreams, in Sheridan and Delenn's honeymoon
: suite with G'kar's eyeball, etc. They knew too much as a documentary, but
: SiL would at least seem to have been the only part known.
The novelisation of In the Beginning mentions Londo first coming to Delenn
in her cell and asking her about a number of events he didn't know about in
detail and then asking Vir to write down the history of Babylon 5. Between
them they would probably have enough information to reconstruct the series
as shown, except for DoFS.
Pelzo63
address right now, and AOL won't auto quote it for me)
>The novelisation of In the Beginning mentions Londo first coming to >Delenn
>in her cell and asking her about a number of events he didn't know about >in
>detail and then asking Vir to write down the history of Babylon 5. >Between
>them they would probably have enough information to reconstruct the >series
>as shown, except for DoFS.
i don't have SiL handy(it's on a tape somewhere), but didn't it say it was an
"Anla'Shok" documentary? not necessarily ISN? we know from DoFS that the
Anla'Shok(rangers) are still in existance 1 millions yrs after the show. just
my 3 cents.
----Chris AOL/AIM--pelzo63
http://members.aol.com/pelzo63/welcome.html
Oh No Eddie Spaghetti!--Mike Lange
try...@hotmail.com
> i don't have SiL handy(it's on a tape somewhere), but didn't it say it
was an
> "Anla'Shok" documentary? not necessarily ISN? we know from DoFS that
It said: "This is an ISN special Documentary funded by the Anla'Shok
memorial fund"
trysil
the
> Anla'Shok(rangers) are still in existance 1 millions yrs after the
show. just
> my 3 cents.
>
> ----Chris AOL/AIM--pelzo63
> http://members.aol.com/pelzo63/welcome.html
> Oh No Eddie Spaghetti!--Mike Lange
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.