ATTN JMS: *sigh* a quick Question
DelennJohn
But, here we go. [They = TNT]
The only MAJOR changes were in "War Zone" and the other episodes, discluding
the last five, were only minor changes. Correct? They weren't something like
what they did in "War Zone"; they didn't change the plot/whichever that was in
WAR ZONE. Right?
Meaning, you'd be pretty damn proud of those episodes [The Path of Sorrows,
Patterns of the Soul, Rules of the Game, ect.] that were only slightly changed?
Thank You --
drago
Jms at B5
>the last five, were only minor changes. Correct? They weren't something like
>what they did in "War Zone"; they didn't change the plot/whichever that was
>in WAR ZONE. Right?
This is a greyer question than appears at first blush.
You need to understand that the notes-giving process was ongoing, that every
day was a fight, and every day there were pressures from WB and others to
accede to those requests and notes. We were told repeatedly, "Look, give 'em
the show they want for the first year, then you can make it your way in the
second season."
I've always had a policy that if a note makes sense, whoEVER it comes from -- a
network, a grip, a carpenter, whoever -- then I'll listen to it. So I tried,
where possible, to listen for any notes that made sense in the whirlwind of
ka-ka that came our way. Some who were not there said that I was acting
unreasonably, and that only the one script WarZone was really affected, that
the other scripts were already written and thus not affected. But nothing
could be further from the truth. They were all whittled at in big or small
ways.
If a note didn't make sense...then the answer had to be No.
The "big no" meeting was specifically about a small percentage of the
scripts...and only one meeting out of many. They kept at us *constantly*.
As Michelangelo said, "Trifles make perfection, and perfection is no trifle."
Sometimes the notes nibbled at big issues, sometimes at small ones, but there
are profound effects either way. Sometimes doing something as small as
changing the rhythm of a scene can destroy it. Take a particularly memorable
piece of classical music (I won't even name it to illustrate the point further)
that begins "dah-dah-dah-DAAAH."
Now change it to "dah-dah-dah-BLAAAT." It's only one note difference. You can
say it' s just a teensy change. But your gut says it ain't right, something
there doesn't work.
Just for the hell of it...I'm going to reprint now one of my memos to TNT,
omitting the name of the person involved. This is emblematic of some of the
exchanges. (This memo was widely distributed to TNT, WB and Babylonian folks
involved in the creative stuff, so it's by no means private.)
Message follows.
**********************************
To:
From: Joe Straczynski
Date: December 8, 1998
Re: Latest Notes on Cuts and Scripts
Dear
We've had a chance to review the latest batch of comments, and have some
thoughts on how some of them can be done. Others, as will be examined below,
are more problematic.
Prior to that, though, a general thought: when the notes process began in
earnest subsequent to 105, we voiced the concern that we seemed to be getting
conflicting reactions…on the one hand we received requests for action, on the
other hand we got requests for more dialogue about what the stories mean to the
characters, scenes that allow them to express their feelings to one another.
Prior to then, with the possible exception of a few scenes in 101, we had been
primarily an action-based series.
We said at this time that we needed clarification: did TNT want more action, or
more dialogue scenes/exposition? Since then, the script notes have been
primarily oriented toward creating more dialogue scenes, more background on the
characters, their feelings toward one another and the situations they're in,
and the emotional consequences. Essentially, expository scenes of one sort or
another. We have complied with those notes as much as we possibly could.
So you can understand my concern when, having done as TNT asked, we get notes
on the cuts that essentially pillory us for having a slower pace. The pace is
in large measure the result of adding in those expository scenes. If TNT asks
for new scenes or to expand scenes in which characters talk about their
feelings, it's going to perforce slow down the action aspect.
I feel it's unfair to take us to task for doing what we were told to do.
The Senator scene in 108 is particularly emblematic of this. That scene was
originally much shorter. TNT asked for more information about how this was
affecting people back home, how they felt about it. We did that, and now are
being told that the scene is too long. It wasn't too long when we started with
it. It only became too long after we added in all the things that TNT asked us
for.
It is both confusing and demoralizing for all of us involved in the production
of Crusade to receive contradictory notes. As I mentioned in our previous
meetings, there has to be consistency; if the goal post keeps getting moved
around the field, we have no idea what to move toward.
To be honest, the pacing that the current notes seem to be asking for is most
embodied by episodes 101-105, the kind of show we were making prior to the
hiatus and notes process.
Anyway, that's a general reaction that I think we need to address at some point
in the future. Meanwhile, on to the specific notes.
NOTES ON PRODUCER'S CUTS
(jms note to reader: a producer's cut is made after the episode has been filmed
and we edit the thing.)
THE WELL OF FOREVER
"The opening seems slow. Is there a way to open with the scene in which Galen
convinces the crew to go to the Well of Forever? This scene will catch the
attention of the audience."
There are only two scenes in the opening: a walk-and-talk scene with Matheson
and Gideon, in which we learn that Matheson is going to get tested to ensure
that he has not been improperly scanning people telepathically, and the
convince-the-crew scene. The most we could do structurally would be to flop
the two scenes in sequence.
Both are dialogue scenes. The first one keeps us in motion, and sets up that
Gideon is en route to a meeting; the second scene is that meeting. We cannot
edit out that part because it comes at a point where the camera is moving and
we're well into the scene. It seems to us best to start in on movement, to
pull the audience in, and end on the conference scene, because that sets up the
mystery: no one has ever come back. To have that moment, and then the
walk-and-talk, would eliminate the dramatic end of the teaser, which we're
hoping to use to make the audience want to come back after the commercial
break.
So on careful reflection, this one can't really be done without actually
working against the overall pacing and structure of the episode.
WAR ZONE
'The pacing of this episode, as well as 106 and 107, is consistently slow."
While there may be some validity to this as far as 106 is concerned, about
which more later, I find "slow pacing" a very difficult concept to apply to
this episode.
WAR ZONE contains 25 interior shots, 52 exterior shots, and a total of 115
scenes over 43 pages, averaging 3 scenes or major shots per page, which is
something of a record for a script on this or just about any other show. It
has stunts, fights, hand-to-hand combat, air-to-air combat, air-to-ground
combat, sneaking, shooting, and buckets of other action. It is, frankly, the
most ambitious and fastest-paced episode we've ever produced, rivaled only by
103, which is in your hands now, and which is anything but slow.
I believe that, as with 103, the pacing will become more evident once the CGI
and other effects are in.
"The fight scene in the opening…is choppy and unrealistic." We did the best we
could there with what we had in the dailies, which were also sent to TNT. It
was a small set, and we really only have the two scenes with which to play.
However:
Ø I agree that there are some places where a couple of transitional shots (such
as the downshot, and the crew running out the door coming into the stairwell
scene) are a bit awkward, given the coverage we had. We jumped into the scene
a bit faster because we wanted to speed up the pacing, get into the
confrontation with Gideon quickly, rather than wait for them to start at the
top of the stairs and come all the way down.
Ø We can try to further expand the fight by lengthening the first piece, but
only by double-cutting some of the footage we have from B-camera and grabbing
bits of side-action, but this will add more cuts and that may also make it more
"choppy."
Ø If you want additional fight stuff for that scene, it would have to be shot
as new material, and there will be costs involved in doing that.
"…the scenes which include the senator's speeches need to be cut back." As
noted previously, this scene was expanded to meet TNT's earlier notes.
Virtually all of the information presented here is necessary for the audience
to understand what the show is about: the plague, the blockade, why Gideon was
chosen, and what the mission is.
Ø However: there is a small piece or two that can be lifted, about 5-15 seconds
worth, which may help to pick up the pacing. It would, however, mean
eliminating some of the material asked for in earlier notes. So if TNT is okay
with that, we can trim up the scene and add those seconds to the fight scene in
the teaser.
If "unrealistic" could be better defined for us, that would be very helpful,
because that one has us kind of stumped.
Ø One other thing we can do in future episodes that will help the pacing is to
work more closely with the directors, who tend to loved their long panning
shots to open up a scene, rather than just jumping into it. (We sometimes get
stuck with those long pans because coverage tends to start later into the
scene, leaving us unable to cut into the scene any later.)
"Gideon doesn't seem to have an understanding or a rapport with his ship."
So that I can better understand the note, at what point does Gideon indicate
that he doesn't understand his ship?
As for "a rapport with his ship," in this episode he is assigned to the
Excalibur for the first time. He's only been there for a few hours; it seems
unrealistic to expect to build a rapport with a place in just a few hours.
"There are also logic problems. How does he know where the conference room is
on the Excalibur without some investigating?"
In the first Excalibur scene, Matheson escorts Gideon to the bridge. Gideon
can see the conference room from his chair. Since it is in his clear line of
sight, I'm not sure how much further investigation is required in order to find
it.
"Introduce Trace by name earlier."
Ø We don't have any footage of this, but we can add an ADR line using his name.
Regarding the Chambers scene…here we must agree to disagree. Her letter to her
sister seems very emotional to everyone here and at WB. Further, it's not a
crying scene because that scene is about encouraging her sister about their
intention to find a cure. She has to be strong for her sister, not fall apart.
This had to be done as a recorded letter to her sister because we couldn't
afford another actor at that point.
Also, that scene was sent through in script, and everyone was fine with it at
the time.
Regarding 106 and 107…as we noted in our conversation prior to their
publication in script form, having done massive action shows in 101-105, we
needed to have a couple of smaller, quieter shows in order to balance out the
costs involved. So yes, they are slower episodes, as I noted at the time they
would be. You can't produce every episode at a screaming pace and expect to
stay on budget. Some are loud, some are quiet; the key is just to do more
louds than quiets.
SCRIPT NOTES
(jms note to readers: this refers to scripts that were then in the
preproduction stage)
APPEARANCES AND OTHER DECEITS
"Can we have one of our primary characters become inhabited by the being
instead of either Rice or Janey?"
This is not possible; in order to provide the solution to the problem, we need
Chambers, Eilerson and Matheson outside, and free. I chose those individuals
specifically because they're the ones who together work out the solution. If
you take any of them out of the equation, you don't have the people necessary
to resolve this. So they can't become inhabited.
If we choose another character from our roster of regulars, that means a
substantial rewrite and increased cast costs…and we have further problems
because we only have access to a limited number of episodes per cast member,
and we're trying to spread them out for maximum effect. So this one we can't
really do.
"It might be fun to play up the comedy with (the fashion consultant)…have him
get the crew into more trouble, not out of it."
That would be kind of the cliché way to go, in my view; to have him even
inadvertently help the process is a nice surprise. Also, to create a thread
where we have to set up a third problem in the script (the changes being asked
for by Earth being one, the infestation being the second) and pay it off
requires more room than we have in 43 pages, and is an unnecessary beat.
"Can we heighten the crew's annoyance with the changes being made on the ship?"
The changes are not actually made until the end of the episode, which makes
this rather problematic. We can add material in which they voice their
concerns about what might be done, but this will again add expository dialogue
that will slow down the pacing of the episode, and that seems to contradict
what we are being asked for elsewhere.
Ø Re: "decoding of 'the air is human,'"…I'll look at that and see if we can
extend the discovery of what he's trying to communicate to make it clearer
about how they get there. Be advised, again, that this will add time and
exposition and slow the pace.
RULING FROM THE TOMB
Regarding the recap of the request to edit down the Jehanne dialogue on page
13, expressed at the time because it seemed too "far out"…as noted later in the
script, we are using the actual dialogue of Joan of Arc in the script. So if
we are to retain our historical accuracy, we can't really change that material.
"Henderson's murder at the end of the teaser needs to have more physical
action…have it become more of a hand-to-hand struggle."
We have already had to pull back on some of the stunt work in that episode due
to budget limitations, and adding one more here is not within the limits of
what we can do. Also, the suddenness of the attack is what we're looking for,
dramatically, rather than a prolonged struggle with someone we've never met.
Ø However, I've spoken with John Copeland about this (he's directing this
episode), and he will do what he can to maximize the action of that scene
without having to add stunts or other costly elements.
I hope that this will be of assistance in clarifying the situation. We will
certainly try and do what we can in the areas where we indicated we have some
room to work, but as always, the degree to which we can make modifications is
dictated to us by the budget, and we have an obligation to both WB and TNT to
stay within those limits.
Sincerely,
Joe Straczynski
********************************
Back again.
Hardly the picture of someone who is being hostile, I'd say. But it does show
that the notes process was ongoing. Every script meant defending against the
addition of exposition and dumb scenes (such as a scene in which Matheson shows
Gideon where the conference room is, which is 10 feet from his chair, because
somebody at TNT thought it would be confusing to the audience otherwise to
figure out how he could know it's there.)
>Meaning, you'd be pretty damn proud of those episodes [The Path of Sorrows,
>Patterns of the Soul, Rules of the Game, ect.] that were only slightly
>changed?
>
I'm proud of pretty much all of them, because of what they required. If
someone hands you a palm frond, a blender, and a car battery, and says, "Make
me a radio out of this," and you actually DO it, you're proud of the result.
It ain't as pretty as it could be, but given the conditions under which you
were laboring, it ain't bad.
Some succeed more than others; but all would have been better *without* the
kind of interference we received, the day to day battles, the war of attrition,
the confusing and contradictory notes, and so on.
That's why 101-105 are overall the best episodes, because they were troubled
the least by outside forces.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
JBONETATI
is; by my way of thinking he's calling these people idiots several times in
this memo but I doubt they ever caught it.
Joe, it sounds like these notes were coming from several people and directions.
Would it have been a reasonable request that TNT filter them all through one
person? Theoretically, this might have put that person in the position of
ensuring some consistance?
Thanks,
Jan
Shane D. Killian
Jms at B5 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Re: "decoding of 'the air is human,'"…I'll look at that and see if we
> can extend the discovery of what he's trying to communicate to make it
> clearer about how they get there. Be advised, again, that this will add
> time and exposition and slow the pace.
>
I *KNEW* that had to be TNT-requested exposition! Something that takes
the viewer about two seconds to figure out, and these guys have to
babble on about it...it really makes Eilerson, Matheson, and Chambers
look like idiots.
--
Shane D. Killian -- sha...@vnet.net -- http://users.vnet.net/shanek
"uuunnn k mmmmmmk hhhhhhhh khbbbbbbbbbbbh
gnhjjjjjjjjjjj rrrrrrrrrddddfc gvb uyyyyyyyhubbbbbbb"
--Sinclair Mitchell Killian, born 1/29/98
Jms at B5
>directions.
>Would it have been a reasonable request that TNT filter them all through one
>person? Theoretically, this might have put that person in the position of
>ensuring some consistance?
That was *precisely* the problem. The LA office wanted the exposition stuff,
and the Atlanta office wanted the action/sex stuff, and we were constantly
caught in the switches. We tried constantly to get them to speak with one
voice; it never worked.
Tammy Smith
someone spray the house for bugs. So what happens? Someone comes by
*today* from the same place & says "I'm here to spray for bugs!" I told
them that someone had all ready come the previous day & had done it. I
found myself muttering, "Where are you from--TNT?" :)
Tammy
Barry Chalmers
I'm amazed that the B5 creative team put up with this redirection for as long
as they did. Any reasonable person can see the notes were unreasonable.
I would have loved to continue enjoying Crusade, but I agree, the cost was
too high.
Barry Chalmers
AndroidCat
news:19991028060330...@ng-cb1.aol.com...
> And here, folks I think we can see a good example of just how good a
writer Joe
> is; by my way of thinking he's calling these people idiots several times
in
> this memo but I doubt they ever caught it.
>
directions.
> Would it have been a reasonable request that TNT filter them all through
one
> person? Theoretically, this might have put that person in the position of
> ensuring some consistance?
Nah. In large organizations, in any business deal, there is only one person
in charge of saying yes. (Usually the person in control of the money.)
There are, however, a bunch in charge of saying no. And there are dozens
more who like to say no just to prove that they matter.
(In this case it was "suggestions" rather than no. Same thing.)
Filtering it all through one person would take away power from the
nay-sayers, and Could Not Be Allowed!
Ron of that ilk.
Michael J. Hennebry
Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Joe, it sounds like these notes were coming from several people and
>>directions.
>>Would it have been a reasonable request that TNT filter them all through one
>>person? Theoretically, this might have put that person in the position of
>>ensuring some consistance?
>
>and the Atlanta office wanted the action/sex stuff, and we were constantly
>caught in the switches. We tried constantly to get them to speak with one
>voice; it never worked.
There was your answer then:
Send the LA notes to Atlanta for approval.
Inform LA that you have done so.
Send the Atlanta notes to LA for approval.
Inform Atlanta that you have done so.
Read whatever gets through both filters.
If anyone asks, smile and tell them how cooperative you are.
You're trying to please bosses on both sides of the country.
If "approval" is too strong, try "comment".
--
Mike henn...@plains.NoDak.edu
"I'm just an old country doctor." -- Bones
Wesley Struebing
>>Joe, it sounds like these notes were coming from several people and
>>directions.
>>Would it have been a reasonable request that TNT filter them all through one
>>person? Theoretically, this might have put that person in the position of
>>ensuring some consistance?
>
>That was *precisely* the problem. The LA office wanted the exposition stuff,
>and the Atlanta office wanted the action/sex stuff, and we were constantly
>caught in the switches. We tried constantly to get them to speak with one
>voice; it never worked.
>
But, but...
That would mean they'd have (by the laws of chance) do something
intelligent once in a while...
<g, d, &r>
D. Farrer
going on or was jms left alone to finish the story?
Alyson L. Abramowitz
more than the many countless messages indirectly describing what process
what was happening. I also enjoyed seeing how the comments varied the
production and how the lack of production understanding of some folks
effected the process. Thank you, jms.
JBONETATI wrote:
>
> And here, folks I think we can see a good example of just how good a writer Joe
> is; by my way of thinking he's calling these people idiots several times in
> this memo but I doubt they ever caught it.
>
Actually, while I appreciate jms' writing and not to put it down in the
slightest, it doesn't take a superstar to write a clear representation
of the confusion. Also, jms isn't actually saying that these folks are
"idiots". They just have blinders on (as we all do) about their side of
the organization.
jms does seems to be regularly calling their attention to how the left
and right halves of the organization are contradicting each other and
implying that he can't do both their bidding. Additionally, jms is
noting the fiscal impact of following their requests. In the later case,
he just cuts it off as impossible due to these constraints most of the
time. None of the actions being specified are idiotic although they do
not work well as part of a single corporate structure of guidance. They
might not work well to tell a story either. The dynamic is actually
irrelevant to a successful product.
[Insert consulting hat here; I fix this kind of stuff for clients for a
living. Maybe I should get TNT to hire me to help them?
Rather than calling names or looking for blame, I thought it might be
interesting to explain below the general dynamic I saw in the memo. It
is actually an all too common one so it can have some personal value
beyond the fascination that, at least I found, with seeing the process
in action.
Personally, once I caught on to these kind of dynamics it helped me feel
more in control of the forces that sometimes control my work
environment.]
If you've ever been in a situation where you, effectively, have two
managers or other guiding entities (let's call them "sponsors" because
they may not directly be your "manager") who are conflicting with each
other, this is a very familiar situation. It is often a no-win for the
direct players. Unless you can get someone above the two organizations
to recognize and correct the dysfunction, the best you can probably hope
for is to get some way to uneasily move forward by noting the conflicts
and consequences of actions.
In the end this doesn't really doesn't satisfy anyone because the real
issue isn't the one you are analytically handling. It is the emotional
control which needs to be resolved. Worse, in a dysfunctional situation
such as this, blame is often heaped on the poor folks in the middle who
didn't really satisfy either party. Those folks may not be innocent but
they probably didn't deserve the grief they got, either.
Compounded on this dynamic seems to be an additional one of lack of
knowledge on some (both?) of the TNT parties about when and where they
can affect the product. If you provide a criticism after a product is
almost complete (which is my, admittedly weak understanding of the
producer's cut... I think this is the final cut minus FX?), then it is
rather difficult to add a scene or modify one. I'm guess that the film
industry works like most other product development: the later you get
in the process the more expensive and difficult it gets to fix
something. The producer's cut seems way late in the process for anything
to be done.
My suspicion, only from this memo, is that the network folks didn't
really understand the fiscal impact of their comments. This is one place
where one can move forward creatively when in this situation. The best
"patch" I've seen to this is to provide a concrete costing to the change
and ask whether this overrun is acceptable.
On the other hand, here the no-win comes in again. If you fix the
concern, you overrun your budget and are blamed for that (it doesn't
matter if your sponsor agreed to the overrun). If you don't modify
things you aren't listening to your "sponsor". If you change things one
way, the other "sponsor" complains that it is not meeting their needs.
When you find your fourth hand you also are held responsible by everyone
for not reading their minds and preventing this problem earlier in the
process.
Although you can be proactive and solicit comments early in the process
(which seems to have been happening here as well from the later part of
the memo), unless you get an agreement with everyone early (impossible
if they fundamentally don't agree) then it will never truly work.
Ultimately this issue either gets repeated or resolved. The bad news is
that Dilbert reins supreme in most organizations and it often repeats
itself again and again. So I would expect that the next production to
come along would get caught is a similar challenge. They might stay on
the air but they'll get caught, none the less.
The problem is solvable but not on this level. Alternatively, over time
the folks change, the management changes, and the knowledge of
production goes up.
Gosh, this seems so familiar. This kind of thing could easily and
frequently does happen in any high technology/banking/airline/etc
company (just to name a few industries I've had direct experience in).
In a no-win, if you can't change the situation, bailing is the right
approach because it does provide back-pressure on the situation although
it is incredibly hard on a personal basis.
[Remove consulting hat.]
I hope someone corrects any misunderstands I may have made of the film
industry above. I really enjoyed seeing that memo and would appreciate
similar kinds of insight in the future.
I'm curious what the production memos which occurred [maybe during
Season 1 for similar comparison] B5 looked like. JMS, is there one of
those you might share so we can see the difference under a different
environment? Just seeing the causes and effects I found fascinating.
JBONETATI
>I'm curious what the production memos which occurred [maybe during
>Season 1 for similar comparison] B5 looked like. JMS, is there one of
>those you might share so we can see the difference under a different
>environment? Just seeing the causes and effects I found fascinating.
I second the motion.
That was a very interesting post, Alyson. I, too have seen these dynamics at
work but I've never seen them so clearly explained.
The issues seem to be a) emotional control and b) lack of knowledge of the
process over which they have criticism powers.
Being a direct kind of person, my response is that they are *supposed* to have
knowledge of the process and that they should be held accountable for the
consequences of those suggestions/directives.
JMS never once was sarcastic or emotional in his memo, although his frustration
was somewhat apparent. My point about his calling them idiots is that he had
to point by point show them where their suggestions were unworkable in their
own business. Before writing whatever notes they did wasn't it up to them to
find out if what they wanted was feasible? It should be pretty obvious to
anyone that suggestions as late as the producers (directors?) cut are just a
leetle bit too late.
As you said, sometimes the only situation is to bail and I'm both glad and
sorry that that's what JMS did.
Jan
Jms at B5
>Compounded on this dynamic seems to be an additional one of lack of
>knowledge on some (both?) of the TNT parties about when and where they
>can affect the product.
This is also very much true. In one scene we shot, there's a slight reflection
on the monitor wherein we can see Gideon's face reflected. (Intentional on the
director's part.) They asked if we could give them the scene without the
reflection. No, we can't...unless we reshoot it.
One other area where we ran up against a problem with understanding was on the
EFX and delivery. They simply couldn't visualize what was going into a CGI
shot before we actually *did* it. They'd look at a scene where we'd slugged
time for action, and think it was slow, because no, there isn't anything there
NOW, but there will be when the CGI is done.
They also kept saying (after the first 5) that the show was too dark, that they
couldn't see anything, that the colors were muted. That's one reason they
wanted the sets repainted, to make them more colorful. We kept saying, no,
it's NOT too dark, we don't know where you're getting that.
I finally found out when I went to visit someone at TNT and looked at what THEY
were looking at...not the digibeta footage, or a good clean copy of the
edit...they were looking at a fourth- or fifth-generation dub of the *avid
output*, which is a digitized version of the film, somewhat low-res.
So finally, we brought in their tech guy, and showed him the digital beta
version, the actual footage. He looked at it, and said, "Oh, okay, you're
right, it's not dark at all." But by then the mandate had come down from on
high, LIGHTEN THE SCENES. Which is why the first five have a moodier, more
stylistic look to them than the rest.
Mark D. McKean
<jbon...@aol.com> wrote:
> My point about his calling them idiots is that he had
> to point by point show them where their suggestions were unworkable in their
> own business. Before writing whatever notes they did wasn't it up to them to
> find out if what they wanted was feasible? It should be pretty obvious to
> anyone that suggestions as late as the producers (directors?) cut are just a
> leetle bit too late.
Ah, but just as in any other business, knowledge of how to do the job
is not necessary to manage it. I seriously doubt that any of the execs
writing these memos had ever had *any* hands-on experience in making a
TV show. They've probably only ever even set foot on a set during a
tour. So why would they know that which is obvious to us who have and
use brains?
OTRant re know-nothing managers: Where I work my department has a team
of supervisors (supervising about 150 people): three regular
supervisors and a "lead" supervisor. Guess which one had never worked
in this particular industry before taking supervisory job with our
company (about 8 months ago).
--
Mark D. McKean - The Quantum Panda - qpa...@iwaynet.net
Mac Breck
news:301019991900124761%qpa...@iwaynet.net...
> Ah, but just as in any other business, knowledge of how to do the job
> is not necessary to manage it.
Not *if* they have good people below them managing it. However, if they
*try* to manage it, they frequently cause a disaster that they will blame on
some subordinate.
However, with the whittling away of layers on management, this causes the
know-nothings to be closer to and have a greater (usually detrimental)
effect on the process. I know. I was a worker bee engineer who was a
direct report to a "Director". Usually, there is a "Supervisor" in between.
I was *never* supervised. The Director had no understanding (Zero
knowledge/capability for knowledge/desire to know) or appreciation for what
I did.
Mac
Tammy Smith
nuts! I have a thing about people not doing their jobs, or not doing
them right, at work (this is why I tell my bosses not to ever make me a
lead or a supervisor--I would be a holy terror!). I would keep
wondering why those "idiots" at TNT didn't know their jobs. I just
think that if you work for a network, you should try to know how
TV-series operate. Obviously, the "suits" are only good at counting
their money.
Tammy
Mark Maher
<4407-381...@storefull-135.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
I think what TNT did was make the mistake of presuming that "Crusade" was going
to be, for lack of a better term, a futuristic western-shoot'em'up in space.
Once they realized that JMS was writing a serious science fiction show (which
was just as action filled as any western - you just had to have an IQ higher
than the number of digits on your extremities to get it sometimes) they were
horrified and tried to intervene to make it more suited to their target
audience. Too bad their target audience is made up of far too many members of
the shallow end of the gene pool.
__!_!__
Gizmo
AndroidCat
news:301019991900124761%qpa...@iwaynet.net...
>
> Ah, but just as in any other business, knowledge of how to do the job
> writing these memos had ever had *any* hands-on experience in making a
> TV show. They've probably only ever even set foot on a set during a
> tour. So why would they know that which is obvious to us who have and
> use brains?
>
> OTRant re know-nothing managers: Where I work my department has a team
> of supervisors (supervising about 150 people): three regular
> supervisors and a "lead" supervisor. Guess which one had never worked
> in this particular industry before taking supervisory job with our
> company (about 8 months ago).
*sigh* It's too late -- Dogbert and Catbert have taken over the B5
universe, inside *and* out. If only Mr. Garibaldi had listened... (Maybe
that's why the Technomages really fled?)
Ron of that ilk.
Rob Perkins
his books. What a hoot! It reminded me of my past employer (and the one
before that, for that matter). Different industry, precisely the same
attitudes.
Rob
"Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
Emmanuel Goldstein
expressed regret for this unfortunate series of events. In other words,
are there still people there who get it? There certainly used to be.
emmanuel
Gary Farber
Emmanuel Goldstein <emma...@panix.com> wrote:
: This is both fascinating and revealing. I wonder if anyone at TNT ever
: expressed regret for this unfortunate series of events. In other words,
: are there still people there who get it? There certainly used to be.
It's amazing that you use Tin, and yet somehow seem unable to actually
give a clue as to WTF you are talking about. Do you really prefer to
speak in incomprehensible? Have you a clue as to the asychronous nature
of Usenet?
Gosh, yes, it's both fascinating and revealing. We all see that. Those
darn folks at TNT must express regret for, you know, "that."
I mean, gee, I too find "it" fascinating and revealing, and I also express
desire for "it," as well as saluting its long and tall nature, while
noticing the degree of hydrogen it takes, and also seeing that it likes
copper. By the way, it's useful to not speak in gibberish. Oh, and what
do you think of what TNT said about that, and what JMS noted in regard to
you know, beyond what Heinlein said about that other stuff, which was
different from Kornbluth's stance?
Have you heard of hitting your "f" key to, you know, say what WTF you are
responding to? People might actually read and understand you that way,
weird an idea as that might be.
Or we might carry on discussions of "that" and "is," and the very popular
"this." I like "that" myself, even if it wasn't as good as "this" last
night, was it?
--
Copyright 1999 by Gary Farber; For Hire as: Web Researcher; Nonfiction
Writer, Fiction and Nonfiction Editor; gfa...@panix.com; Northeast US
Michael J. Hennebry
Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
>I finally found out when I went to visit someone at TNT and looked at what THEY
>were looking at...not the digibeta footage, or a good clean copy of the
>edit...they were looking at a fourth- or fifth-generation dub of the *avid
>output*, which is a digitized version of the film, somewhat low-res.
>
>So finally, we brought in their tech guy, and showed him the digital beta
>version, the actual footage. He looked at it, and said, "Oh, okay, you're
>right, it's not dark at all." But by then the mandate had come down from on
>high, LIGHTEN THE SCENES. Which is why the first five have a moodier, more
>stylistic look to them than the rest.
Weren't you at least tempted to lie a little and then make sure that
the execs got digital beta?
If you don't like lying, you could have repainted something trivial,
sent them a memo saying "we repainted for you", and then made sure
that they got digital beta.
BTW what is digital beta?
Mac Breck
news:7vkevh$f...@plains.NoDak.edu...
> BTW what is digital beta?
One would think it's a digital deck using the beta tape cartridge. Beta is
still around, but just at the high/Pro end.
Mac - Still have 2 Super-Beta HiFi's have make my VHS HQ HiFi's look like
crap. You can't tell the difference between a Super-Beta1 speed copy and
the original.
Jeffrey MacHott
Mark Maher wrote in message <7vhrp6$jol$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
I've found that most people wading about in the Gene Puddle find most TNT
shows to be rather stupid. I myself only watch TNT now for their re-runs of
ER and Due South (And the movies, which TNT can do supurbly, IMNSHO)
--Ragu Leader
"NARF!!!!! POIT!!! ZONK!!!!" --From the collected sayings of the Prophet
Muad'Pinky
>__!_!__
>Gizmo
>
>
Chibi-Light
>In <7vjf1k$8j0$1...@news.panix.com>
>Emmanuel Goldstein <emma...@panix.com> wrote:
>: This is both fascinating and revealing. I wonder if anyone at TNT ever
>: expressed regret for this unfortunate series of events. In other words,
>: are there still people there who get it? There certainly used to be.
>
*flame snipped*
Was that really called for?
Here, let me explain this man's post since you seem unable to discern
anything from context. First "This is both fascinating and
revealing." is refering to the memo that JMS posted which is what this
thread is about. The "it" that he is most likely refering to is the
show Crusade which above mentioned memo was about. If you don't
understand what "getting it" means, it means making sense of,
comprehending, or just plain old understanding, in this case, of the
television show Crusade, which was a spin off of another television
show, Babylon 5. A spin off is a product that is related to a
perviously created product. A television show is an alloted amount of
film that is broadcasted on to that magical viewing box that sits on
tables, desks, counters, etc.
Clear enough for you?
CL
Matthew B. Vincent
>[Insert consulting hat here; I fix this kind of stuff for clients for a
>living. Maybe I should get TNT to hire me to help them?
<snip>
I found these comments very interesting - especially the bits about conflict
and emotional control. Reminds me of a discussion from the Celestine
Prophecies about the psychology of conflict, actually.
What do you do? Some kind of industrial psychology? I've just completed my
psych degree, and am finishing off another in philosophy and sociology. I
realise this is a bit off-topic for a B5 newsgroup, but I'd be really
interested to hear more about what you do and your ideas.
Matthew
Alyson L. Abramowitz
AndroidCat wrote:
>
>
> *sigh* It's too late -- Dogbert and Catbert have taken over the B5
> universe, inside *and* out. If only Mr. Garibaldi had listened... (Maybe
> that's why the Technomages really fled?)
>
While I'm hard-pressed to choose between a number of contenders for
second favorite scene in B5, without a doubt my favorite is the one
where Garabaldi promotes all the mid-level trouble-makers to run the
company. Dilbert would have been proud.
Alyson L. Abramowitz
"Matthew B. Vincent" wrote:
>
> Alyson wrote:
>
> >[Insert consulting hat here; I fix this kind of stuff for clients for a
> >living. Maybe I should get TNT to hire me to help them?
>
> <snip>
>
> What do you do? Some kind of industrial psychology? I've just completed my
> psych degree, and am finishing off another in philosophy and sociology. I
> realise this is a bit off-topic for a B5 newsgroup, but I'd be really
> interested to hear more about what you do and your ideas.
What I do is extract my clients from Dilbert cartoons. I will typically
work with senior management, who ask me to determine the dynamics of a
situation. This would be the equivalent of the analysis I did on JMS'
memo on a larger scale. The process would involve talking to the key
players, watching the processes in action, and looking at outputs. Then
I recommend and help my client's fix the issues we have identified
either directly (e.g., reorganizing a group, fixing a broken process,
creating a new process) or indirectly (e.g., incenting someone to
change).
Most of the client's I work with have a collection of challenges which
are compounding each other.
Psychology (dysfunctional family theory helps a lot), business analysis,
management theory/practice, and technical debugging, are all components
of the work. It doesn't hurt to like to be a detective either (I've
always wondered by I don't like to read most mystery novels, though).
Most people who do this kind of work seem to come at it from a HR or
psychology background. I actually came from a technical and management
background. I've found this really helps me to be more effective in
finding the dynamics and solving it.
As for my ideas, can you help me understand your question?
Best,
Alyson
Alyson L. Abramowitz
JBONETATI wrote:
>
> The issues seem to be a) emotional control and b) lack of knowledge of the
> process over which they have criticism powers.
Well, that is actually a bit greyer than it might first appear.
Here are the issues I saw or suspect are likely:
1) Emotional control of the two executive groupings
2) Lack of production lifecycle knowledge
3) Inconsistent business strategy
4) Lack of upward management
Plus from Joe's subsequent response:
5) Lack of clean copies to be reviewed by some (all?) the Atlanta staff
Just to clarify the dynamics a bit and differentiate assumptions from
reality, let me go through the list item by item.
#1 is the no-win dynamic. In any situation in which there is a perceived
control or desire for empire building by more than one sponsor the
significant emotional vesting on their part makes it unlikely to be
resolved from below.
#2 Joe gave some good examples of the production knowledge issue. I
sympathize with the Execs on some of this one. For example, the first
time I saw production footage without EFX, I had a hard time visualizing
it, too. It didn't matter that I was told that there would be EFX. On
the other hand, I've learned to visualize a lot better over time.
#3 This one is actually a suspicion on my part since I haven't spoken to
all the players. Usually, even when there is an emotional dynamic, there
is also a business, technical, or strategic component as well. It looks
like one group honestly wanted an action-adventure show while the other
wanted more of a dramatic component.
There is probably a business or strategy logic behind this. There are
all sorts of potential scenarios here: action-adventure provides more
viewers and thus more advertising dollars; we need more dramatic
productions to round off the more action packed wrestling programing
component and attract an additional audience; I, personally, liked that
in-depth dramatic /characterization component of B5 and I want something
else like that.
#3 could actually have both a factual and an emotional dynamic. It could
even be both at the same time. If this were the case, there are probably
two issues that need to be split.
#4 Most experts at any area don't suffer fools well. That's the crux of
this dynamic. The challenge is to work within your "sponsor's" needs
while providing a quality product. If the "sponsor" is saying something
inappropriate, the subordinate is responsible for helping the "sponsor"
see alternatives that will meet their needs, work to redefine the
needs, and help them see the impact of their recommendations.
#5 This is the additional dynamic we learned from JMS' email
clarification on #2. My suspicion is that the lack of clean prints
probably caused a variety of issues beyond lighting. We don't have
enough information to figure out where this cascades or the details that
are causing this process failure.
Although we can pull these out as separate issues for the sake of
analysis and solution proposal, they tend to feed each other in the
whirlwind of the Real World.
> Being a direct kind of person, my response is that they are *supposed* to have
> knowledge of the process and that they should be held accountable for the
> consequences of those suggestions/directives.
I prefer a direct approach myself. You are correct that people are
responsible for the consequences of those suggestions/directives.
Sometimes we inadvertently set up situations where the accountability
gets a wee bit off.
Look at the dynamics in action in the memo. The inconsistent business
strategy and emotional control issues cause multiple directions which
contradict each other. The executives are never held accountable for
their actions because they are prevented from executing their
recommendations. The reason that these recommendations are being
discarded is that they show lack of production knowledge. This lack of
production knowledge is exacerbated by bad copies of the show from which
to make recommendations due to a process or equipment problem. The
result is that the execs probably feel unheard or ignored. Under this,
uncomfortable, situation any emotional issues of control tend to be
exaggerated.
I see an evil cycle happening here.
> Before writing whatever notes they did wasn't it up to them to
> find out if what they wanted was feasible? It should be pretty obvious to
> anyone that suggestions as late as the producers (directors?) cut are just a
> leetle bit too late.
A Director's cut comes before a Producer's cut. So by the time of the
Producer's cut we are pretty late in the process. Pre-production seems
like the time to make any substantive changes, if I understand this
process correctly.
I agree that it is the responsibility of anyone "sponsoring" a project
to know something about what they are "sponsoring". It is unlikely that
they will be as good as the folks they hire to actually do the project.
This is, after all, why they were hired. It is appropriate to think that
the "sponsor" will want to gain some knowledge of the situation. The
challenge (for the best of managers) is how to do so while also doing
the rest of their job (which probably didn't go away when they were
handed this new responsibility).
Of all the issues above, this is probably the most directly solvable.
Many "sponsors" are delighted if you offer some patient guidance to help
them understand the process while not minimizing their knowledge. There
was something they understood which got them to their place in the
organization. If nothing else they knew how to play the system. Even if
one doesn't personally value the office politics you can appreciate the
expertise to do it. In reality, the "sponsor" is probably quite
knowledgeable in something.... even if it isn't your area of expertise.
The good managers will also actively look for ways to proactively learn
at least some of this knowledge. When I've been in this kind of
situation I have done everything from taking a class to reading specs.
to asking my people short questions about what something meant (while
hoping I wasn't bothering them too much).
Alyson L. Abramowitz
Rob Perkins wrote:
>
> You really ought to give this note to Scott Adams for publication in one of
> his books. What a hoot! It reminded me of my past employer (and the one
> before that, for that matter). Different industry, precisely the same
> attitudes.
>
It is a common problem. I actually got the opportunity a couple of days
ago to use the general concept to a VP of Engineering for a .com
company. He was assuring me that computer companies have all these
unique problems and that his biggest problem was in dealing with a set
of executives that didn't know anything about the high tech business
processes.
I gave him the short form (minus the names and show) of this scenario.
He had to admit that it sounded very familiar to him too. Different
industry, similar attitudes and practices.
Alyson L. Abramowitz
JBONETATI wrote:
>
> a...@best.com wrote:
> >I'm curious what the production memos which occurred [maybe during
> >Season 1 for similar comparison] B5 looked like. JMS, is there one of
> >those you might share so we can see the difference under a different
> >environment? Just seeing the causes and effects I found fascinating.
>
> I second the motion.
Unfortunately, Joe doesn't seem to be listening to us. As I understand
it, some form of production memos are pretty normal on most shows. I had
thought Season 1 of B5 just for reasonable comparison.
JBONETATI
<<Although we can pull these out as separate issues for the sake of
analysis and solution proposal, they tend to feed each other in the
whirlwind of the Real World. >>
So true. Your analysis has gotten me thinking about an area I've never had any
patience for whatever. Thanks. I think. <g>
May I ask two more questions? (put it on my tab)
1) Do you think that the situation would have gotten to the point of cancelling
Crusade if emotional control hadn't been a huge factor? (from an expert albeit
outsider view)
2) Two other 'suggestions' that Joe has illuminated for us involve wanting
Dureena to be a sexual adventurer and that aliens looking like aliens was a
cliche'. Although the former might fall under the heading of wanting an
'action' show <g>, the latter doesn't seem to be able to contribute to drama or
action. In fact it would confuse new viewers, I'd think, who wouldn't realize
that Dureena was an alien. And considering they wanted Gideon to be led by the
hand to his conference room...
Alyson, it's nice to know that there are companies out there who at least
recognize how dysfunctional they are. And thanks again for sharing your
knowledge with us.
Jan
Matthew B. Vincent
<snip>
>As for my ideas, can you help me understand your question?
I was referring to your ideas about human behavior and why conflict typically
arises - that kind of thing. What you wrote was helpful information. Thanks :)
I just saw your ideas and thought it would be worth hearing more about what
you do. At the moment, I'm currently weighing up all the possible things to do
for a living. I have planned on being a counselling psychologist and a writer,
but want to think about all the possible options. My overall goal is to do as
much as I can to make the world a better place, so I am starting with finding
out more about what exactly is happening in the world and where humans seem to
be going.
Regards,
Matthew
Jms at B5
>it, some form of production memos are pretty normal on most shows. I had
>thought Season 1 of B5 just for reasonable comparison.
>
No...it's just that there really aren't any, in terms of story. The very few
comments that came from our WB liaison were always sensible; if I disagreed, he
deferred to my judgment; and they were always handled within a 2 or 5 minute
phone call. There's practically zero paper trail for that period.
Alyson L. Abramowitz
appeared to be one and possibly two
other problems which Joe had illuminated which may have formed dynamics
in the situation. Did they? Quite
probably. Joe had mentioned a lack of understanding of sf as an issue in
previous postings.
When I provided the general analysis of the dynamics in the memo Joe
forwarded to us, there was absolutely NO intent to say that these were
the only problems. I merely analyzed the dynamics I saw within the
memo. Any document provides only one data point in figuring out the full
dynamics of a situation. It seemed helpful to me to illustrate these
dynamics because: 1) they are so common in the working work... far
beyond Crusade (as the number of posts and messages on the topic have
confirmed) 2) the memo illustrated the dynamics better than any of the
descriptive postings I've seen on the topic and 3) many folks seem to
have challenges in deriving dynamics from example... their gut tells
them something is wrong but they can't quite figure out why. Like
everyone else, I've had trouble grasping what really went on.
When I am paid to sort out organizational challenges, I never, never
look at only one memo or talk to only one person. Often there are number
of folks who can each describe the part of the challenges that affect
them. The memo was a fairly good illustration of part of Joe's
perception of the situation. As we saw, just in responding back about
queries, additional problems were identified. That is normal. What I'm
looking for is the full dynamics. It is usually quite an interactive
process to get anyone's perception of the situation. It is the rare
person who has the opportunity to see them all in action.
So I'm not only not surprised that there are additional dynamics.
Frankly, I'd be amazed if there weren't. We also haven't heard much of
the dynamics from the other sides, except in brief snippets from the
network folks. It is not unusual for the overall dynamics I consult on
to have 100 or more unique problems that can be described.
Would Crusade have been canceled if emotional control hadn't been an
issue? Well, first I need to understand why networks cancel shows.
Perhaps JMS or some of the other folks who work in the industry can
enlighten us about this. From a viewer perspective it has always seemed
like the networks are canceling the shows I want to watch. And Crusade
illustrates that Neilson ratings aren't the only factor.
My suspicion is that shows act like products. I understand why products
are canceled by companies. Actually, I even wrote a message about the
topic for this very newsgroup when the B5 game got canceled. See
http://x30.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=528464132&CONTEXT=941781237.688783382&hitnum=12
The bottom line is that a product is usually killed for a combination of
political (aka emotional) and fiscal reasons. Even without the empire
building component, Crusade had a variety of challenges to overcome.
Could it have succeeded in spite of those, assuming no change in
anyone's behavior or organizational structure? Quite possibly. There are
lots of products out there which have similar dynamics and continue with
varying degrees of success. The reason they succeed is that there is a
perceived meeting of needs in spite of the, sometimes overwhelming,
difficulties. It doesn't make it fun to work in such an environment
though.
Companies rarely really figure out how dysfunctional they are. What they
know is that their people are threatening to quit, their customers are
unhappy, or various other grief levels go beyond what they are willing
to tolerate. At that point they are willing to modify their operations
to solve the problem(s). That is why leaving in a no-win situation can
often be the right (though certainly not the first) thing to do. It adds
to the grief factor which may make the organization change ....
eventually. Unfortunately, it also adds to one's own personnel grief
factor (and doesn't really look good as a regular event on a resume).
What one can always do is look at ways to work on the portion of the
dynamics over which you have control. The more mutual needs are met, the
better the success factor.
Best,
Alyson