JMS: It's been a year
JBONETATI
Wow. I just realized that it's been a year since SiL aired for the first time.
Over two and a half years since it was filmed and you turned out the lights.
I was thinking the other day how strange it was that a writer/producer should
have such a major fan following but then I thought it through a little further.
In fact, it is the most natural thing in the world that we should want to talk
to you.
When I go to conventions and see actors, all I see is some people who have a
resemblance to characters I've become fond of. They can tell me what it was
like to pretend to be that character and stories about how the show was made
from a perspective of the set and direction and lighting etc. They can tell
how they were interested in finding out what happened to their character the
same was we were and about pranks played on the set. This is very interesting
and enjoyable.
*But* if I want to know how that character really got to where he was and what
events shaped her, you're the one to ask because you've been into their heads
(or vice-versa <g>). You already know a lot of the stories that remain to be
told (and that we want to see). You've been gracious enough to explain the
entire process to us and illustrate the good, bad, ugly and wondrous things
that are part of the process of television storytelling. And...even though
you've begun to move on, you share our fondness for the universe that you
created and brought to life better than any actor or other craftsperson could.
I hope you can forgive us and be patient when we seem to snap at your heels
wanting more and demanding, sometimes, things that you're simply unable or
unwilling to give. It's really meant as a compliment and/or tribute to your
skill since we are still trying to connect and relate to your universe even
though the main story has ended.
So, once again here's my annual and still heartfelt "Thanks, JMS, for
everything."
Jan
Jms at B5
it's the kind of stuff that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had to deal with after he
sent Sherlock Holmes over the falls of Reichenbach, after Dickens dispensed
with some of his characters...so I do understand it.
And thanks.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
Paul D. Shocklee
: No, I understand the motivation and whence it comes; on a much higher plane,
: it's the kind of stuff that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had to deal with after he
: sent Sherlock Holmes over the falls of Reichenbach, after Dickens dispensed
: with some of his characters...so I do understand it.
But of course Doyle eventually gave in to the fans and resurrected
Holmes after that fall...
:)
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
( Paul Shocklee - physics grad student - Princeton University )
( "Don't let it end like this. Tell them I said something!" )
( - Pancho Villa's last words )
M.E. Tonkin
Jms at B5 wrote:
> No, I understand the motivation and whence it comes; on a much higher plane,
> it's the kind of stuff that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had to deal with after he
> sent Sherlock Holmes over the falls of Reichenbach, after Dickens dispensed
> with some of his characters...so I do understand it.
>
> And thanks.
>
> jms
Then perhaps there is hope for continuation of the B5 universe after all.
Conan Doyle resurrected Holmes after the clamoring of his fans
persuaded him to.<gr>
MET
Brian Watson
And wasn't the quality of the work after the resurrection of Holmes lacking? I
don't want B5 resurrected if it's not going to have the quality JMS put into the
original series.
M.E. Tonkin
Brian Watson wrote:
I am a Sherlock Holmes fan - though not to the extent that I belong to a chapter
of the Baker Street Irregulars - and I can honestly say that I have enjoyed the
post-Reichenbach Holmes as much as the early works. In fact, I think
"The Hound of the Baskervilles", my favorite long form Holmes story and
perhaps the most famous of Conan Doyle's works, was written after the author
had killed off his great creation (it was a posthumous story, BTW, unlike
the short stories CD wrote after he brought Holmes back). So I
would not agree that the later SH canon was lacking in quality in any way.
But to be fair, there are others who are fond of quoting a probably apocryphal
old man who said "Mr. Holmes was never the same after he went over
the Falls".<gr>
MET
Tammy Smith
anything to replace it! I don't really need to see jms' 200 pages of
notes, though, because if I know everything, B5 really *is* over! I'd
rather wait for the remaining books & whatever else we mght get. So I
am one person who won't demand a bunch of stuff from jms all at once!
Tammy
Tom Holt
The message <14112-383...@storefull-133.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
from gka...@webtv.net (Tammy Smith) contains these words:
> I am certainly having trouble letting B5 go,
Hamlet is 'over' because it finished its original run back in the
1590s or whenever.
The question now is; how will it be regarded in, say, 10 years' time?
Will it have been completely forgotten, or will people be looking
back and saying it was one of the shows that shaped the future of the
genre, or will it still be shuffling along quietly in late-night
reruns, along with Columbo and Murder, She Wrote?
Keith Wood
Columbo DID shape the future of its genre. It went from a
once-every-four-weeks network fill (quick -- what were the other three
that shared the slot?) to a cultural icon in two years flat. It is the
highest-rated syndicated cop show on TV, despite the fact that the
series has been out of production for longer than most viewers have been
alive. This popularity has spawned numerous special TV movies, which
tend to be one of the top two shows in the time slot (often the top
draw), and even a spin-off series.
B5 wouldn't do too badly with the same kind of "shuffling along
quietly."
Note to Warner: I WANT THE ANAMORPHIC DVD SET!!! I will NOT buy it on
MYLAR!
Charles W.
M.E. Tonkin wrote:
> Jms at B5 wrote:
>
> > No, I understand the motivation and whence it comes; on a much higher plane,
> > it's the kind of stuff that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had to deal with after he
> > sent Sherlock Holmes over the falls of Reichenbach, after Dickens dispensed
> > with some of his characters...so I do understand it.
> >
> > And thanks.
> >
> > jms
>
> Then perhaps there is hope for continuation of the B5 universe after all.
> Conan Doyle resurrected Holmes after the clamoring of his fans
> persuaded him to.<gr>
>
> MET
One small detail if I may.......Doyle still had a market for the product. JMS does
not appear to have a market for the product. Therefore we saw more Holmes stories
and we will not see more TV B5 stories.
C. J. Walther
Rob Perkins
news:14112-383...@storefull-133.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> I am certainly having trouble letting B5 go, mostly because I can't find
> anything to replace it!
Ain't that the truth. Some freak of nature permitted me to receive the UPN
affiliate here in Cincinnati over my rooftop antenna, and I actually caught
an episode of Star Trek:TNG.
Thanks to the way JMS has raised the bar, I thought the writing was just
plain really really bad. The acting was rather stilted, too, as if the
actors kind of knew that thier characters wouldn't *really* say the things
in the script. Except for Patrick Stewart. I think he could project a
character into the copy on the back of a cereal box, and you'd believe it.
Walter Koenig, too, come to think of it.
So, JMS, you have at the same time given me the gift of a wonderful,
wonderful story, AND ruined television for the rest of time for me, unless
some *good* writers come along to rescue it.
> So I
> am one person who won't demand a bunch of stuff from jms all at once!
Oh good. :-)
Rob
Jacob Corbin
> I am certainly having trouble letting B5 go, mostly because I can't
> find
> anything to replace it!
It's beginning to sound like the new series "Gene Roddenberry's
'Andromeda'" might be a worthwhile candidate. The name notwithstanding,
it's being developed by a guy named Robert Wolfe (who also has been
known to post on usenet) and he seems to have his shit together. I'll
be curious to see how things turn out with this...it's supposedly set to
start in May.
Jacob Corbin
> No, I understand the motivation and whence it comes; on a much higher
> plane,
> it's the kind of stuff that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had to deal with
> after he
> sent Sherlock Holmes over the falls of Reichenbach, after Dickens
> dispensed
> with some of his characters...so I do understand it.
Very kind of you to say so, JMS...though, frankly, the impulse to Know
Everything About Everything has always struck me as a bit vampiric. I
mean, we've got 110+ hours of B5 -- why do people need to see the fabled
triple-encrypted file, the "200 pages of notes", et al? You'd think it
would take away some of the thrill of the trick if you knew what was up
the magician's sleeve....
Rick Pali
> Note to Warner: I WANT THE ANAMORPHIC DVD
> SET!!! I will NOT buy it on MYLAR!
A man after my own heart.
Tape is *not* an option and even a non-anamorphic transfer will give me
pause.
norv...@sirius.com
<lemmi...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>The message <14112-383...@storefull-133.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
>from gka...@webtv.net (Tammy Smith) contains these words:
>
> Hamlet is 'over' because it finished its original run back in the
> 1590s or whenever.
I know, but with something like TV, one thinks one should get over these
things (possibly because the more erudite section of fandom looks down on
media fans; sorry, but can't I enjoy B5 *and* read loads of books?). I'm a
little surprised that I'm as addicted to B5 as I ever was, a year after it
ended, and am even subscribed to the revived Zocalo, which I never got
around to doing while it was operating the first time.
I'm finding it difficult to let it go. Of course, I don't want to just let
go of friends I made in the fandom. I'm just thinking of my addiction to a
short-lived series years ago that stuck with me for years, and that was
excessive; I worry about it happening with B5 now... (Fortunately,
"Crusade" wasn't too great, so won't leave me longing for more because it
died fast -- just leaves me slightly sad that it couldn't have worked
properly, and gives me a sneaking suspicion that the B5 universe should've
ended with B5.)
> The question now is; how will it be regarded in, say, 10 years' time?
> Will it have been completely forgotten, or will people be looking back
> and saying it was one of the shows that shaped the future of the
> genre, or will it still be shuffling along quietly in late-night reruns,
> along with Columbo and Murder, She Wrote?
Will it even be rerun? I don't want it to end up gathering dust on a shelf
somewhere, which it might if TNT keeps it around after it allegedly ends
the reruns next year. It's worth seeing. Partly why I liked it so much is
that, for a while, it got fairly close to what it might be like to live
and work in space (and I hear that it gained some astronaut fanboys). It
wasn't perfect, but was a great ride most of the time, and at least an
*attempt* to get the genre right for TV. Yes, there was sound in space,
there were technical problems, but some of it was fairly lovely to behold.
:-)
It's a nice dream to think that, one of these days, something might
actually make it on TV that's perfect SF, technically perfect, acceptable
to a wide audience. But how likely is that? I have a friend who's working
with friends of hers on a series, and some of her ideas are things I just
know won't be acceptable to TV execs. They'd scare the audience! :-> She's
going to have to fight probably as hard as JMS to get this work to
survive, and I really hope she succeeds...
Rick Pali
> One small detail if I may.......Doyle still had a market for the
> product. JMS does not appear to have a market for the
> product. Therefore we saw more Holmes stories and we
> will not see more TV B5 stories.
I don't believe that for a second. You're suggesting that if another B5
movie were to be made it would garner no viewers.
I think it's more a matter of a difference of both law and the medium. If I
remember correctly, Warner owns the copyright on B5. JMS can't just go
anywhere and try to pitch a new B5 movie/series if he wants too. I don't
believe that The Strand or the other magazines that Holmes appeared in
claimed ownership over those works. The fact that Doyle's Holmes stories
appeared in at least three separate magazines seems to support my thought
that none of the magazines claimed intellectual property ownership.
Also, in addition to feeding himself while writing, there are production
costs that a film has to pay before it's ready to show. Comparing a
serialised story appearing in a magazine and a TV series is slightly apples
and oranges, in my opinion.
Mark Alexander
watch B5.
They were over for Thanksgiving, so I said, "Let's just watch the final
episode together."
We did.
Afterwards, they complained about not warning them of the inevitable
flood of tears.
Mark A..
WWS
Keith Wood wrote:
>
> Tom Holt wrote:
> >
> > The message <14112-383...@storefull-133.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
> > from gka...@webtv.net (Tammy Smith) contains these words:
> >
> > > I am certainly having trouble letting B5 go,
> >
> > No need to do that just because it's completed; that's like saying
> > Hamlet is 'over' because it finished its original run back in the
> > 1590s or whenever.
> >
> > The question now is; how will it be regarded in, say, 10 years' time?
> > Will it have been completely forgotten, or will people be looking
> > back and saying it was one of the shows that shaped the future of the
> > genre, or will it still be shuffling along quietly in late-night
> > reruns, along with Columbo and Murder, She Wrote?
>
> Columbo DID shape the future of its genre. It went from a
> once-every-four-weeks network fill (quick -- what were the other three
> that shared the slot?) to a cultural icon in two years flat.
One was McCloud, another was McMillan and wife; can't remember the fourth.
Sure there weren't just three?
Columbo took a genre that's always been popular, the detective story,
and then invented a unique formula that is remarkably successful. That
is, you let the audience know the crime and who did it right from the
start, the only question is how is the culprit going to be tripped up.
(and he always is caught by some mistake he overlooked, that the rumpled
Mr. Colombo who he takes for granted saw) It plays on classic stereotypes -
the oh-so-clever sophisticate being tripped up by the uncultured but wise
"rube".
And that's not to diss it in anyway, I've watched just about every one.
> It is the
> highest-rated syndicated cop show on TV, despite the fact that the
> series has been out of production for longer than most viewers have been
> alive. This popularity has spawned numerous special TV movies, which
> tend to be one of the top two shows in the time slot (often the top
> draw), and even a spin-off series.
--
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
It's a little known fact that the Dark Ages were caused by the
Y1K problem.
Mark D. McKean
<mark...@earthlink.net> wrote:
And they'd not seen any other episodes? Wow. I had wondered how
effective SiL would be on someone who hadn't seen any other B5...
--
Mark D. McKean - The Quantum Panda - qpa...@iwaynet.net
Robert Martin
--
Maybe it is your purpose in life to set a bad example
"WWS" <wsch...@tyler.net> wrote in message
news:38408C51...@tyler.net...
Keith Wood
WWS wrote:
>
> Keith Wood wrote:
> >
> > Tom Holt wrote:
> > >
> > > The message <14112-383...@storefull-133.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
> > > from gka...@webtv.net (Tammy Smith) contains these words:
> > >
> > > > I am certainly having trouble letting B5 go,
> > >
> > > No need to do that just because it's completed; that's like saying
> > > Hamlet is 'over' because it finished its original run back in the
> > > 1590s or whenever.
> > >
> > > The question now is; how will it be regarded in, say, 10 years' time?
> > > Will it have been completely forgotten, or will people be looking
> > > back and saying it was one of the shows that shaped the future of the
> > > genre, or will it still be shuffling along quietly in late-night
> > > reruns, along with Columbo and Murder, She Wrote?
> >
> > Columbo DID shape the future of its genre. It went from a
> > once-every-four-weeks network fill (quick -- what were the other three
> > that shared the slot?) to a cultural icon in two years flat.
>
> One was McCloud, another was McMillan and wife; can't remember the fourth.
> Sure there weren't just three?
I'm sure. "NBC Mystery Movie" had four rotating series. It opened with
"Columbo" (Martin Milner, then the star of "Adam-12" was the first
murderer in the series). The other series were "McCloud," "MacMillan
and Wife," and "Banacek."
> Columbo took a genre that's always been popular, the detective story,
> and then invented a unique formula that is remarkably successful.
Yep. Even my dad emjoys watching it. My dad, I might mention, was
himself a Homicide detective at the time that "Columbo" was in series
production.
> That
> is, you let the audience know the crime and who did it right from the
> start, the only question is how is the culprit going to be tripped up.
> (and he always is caught by some mistake he overlooked, that the rumpled
> Mr. Colombo who he takes for granted saw) It plays on classic stereotypes -
> the oh-so-clever sophisticate being tripped up by the uncultured but wise
> "rube".
Yep.
> And that's not to diss it in anyway, I've watched just about every one.
B5, likewise, invented a unique formula -- a science fiction show which
would not work in any other genre, with a definite and inviolable
progression (the arc), and top FX which are overshadowed (no pun
intended) by the characterization and storyline. There are no cardboard
characters -- even the bit players have visible motivation.
Contrast this to STAR TREK, which itself invented a unique formula.
TREK's formula was an interracial, interspecies crew, which went around
blundering into situations that they struggled to understand and
overcome. No progression -- a first-season and third-season episode may
be run sequentially and only a true fan would know which was which. And
this goes for either the original series OR TNG OR Voyager. The only
way to tell the difference on Motel 9 is that the kids get bigger.
Keith Wood
Robert Martin wrote:
>
> I believe the fourth was Banachek
Yep! "Banacek," actually.
Now, can you name the FIFTH series, which was inserted a couple of times
in the second or third season, then spun off as an unsuccessful
standalone?
Hint -- it was another insurance investigator, but this one was a
company employee, who had a running battle going over his name on his
parking space (it was misspelled).
Jim Royal
Pali <rp...@alienshore.com> wrote:
> Tape is *not* an option and even a non-anamorphic transfer will give me
> pause.
An anamoprhic transfer would give *me* pause. It's been fairly well
established that the vast majority of visual effects were rendered for
4x3, not 16x9. I most certianly do not want to see cropped visuals.
I'd much prefer a full-frame transfer.
Jim Royal
jimr...@total.net
Shaz
"Mark D. McKean" <qpa...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:qpanda-D38500....@news.supernews.com...
> In article <38412C5E...@earthlink.net>, Mark Alexander
> <mark...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Now, a year later, I have been unable to persuade a couple of friends to
> > watch B5.
> >
> > They were over for Thanksgiving, so I said, "Let's just watch the final
> > episode together."
> >
> > We did.
> >
> > Afterwards, they complained about not warning them of the inevitable
> > flood of tears.
>
> And they'd not seen any other episodes? Wow. I had wondered how
> effective SiL would be on someone who hadn't seen any other B5...
My mother cannot stand SF and, if I like it, she seems to hate it even more.
But last Christmas she allowed a small miracle and was prepared (in a two
hour gap between soaps...yuck!) to watch Objects at Rest and Sleeping in
Light. Halfway through the latter, as Delenn and Sheridan said their
goodbyes, she turned to me, tears streaming down her face, and said 'I don't
BELIEVE this!'.
Another friend, who's rather more tolerant but also had not seen the rest of
the series (but had heard about it ad infinitum from me) also watched it. He
was full of praise for the performances and the emotions evoked. He's not
the type to cry in public, but it did get to him anyway.
So yep, it works, doesn't matter if you've seen the rest of it or not.
Shaz
Tom Holt
The message <38408C51...@tyler.net>
from WWS <wsch...@tyler.net> contains these words:
> Columbo took a genre that's always been popular, the detective story,
> and then invented a unique formula that is remarkably successful. That
> is, you let the audience know the crime and who did it right from the
> start, the only question is how is the culprit going to be tripped up.
> (and he always is caught by some mistake he overlooked, that the rumpled
> Mr. Colombo who he takes for granted saw) It plays on classic stereotypes -
> the oh-so-clever sophisticate being tripped up by the uncultured but wise
> "rube".
> And that's not to diss it in anyway, I've watched just about every one.
Me too; it's the only cop show I've ever liked
Tammy Smith
night it first aired. She cried, too. It's that powerful.
Tammy
Gharlane of Eddore
On the rotating "Mystery" series.....
In <38408C51...@tyler.net> WWS <wsch...@tyler.net> writes:
>
> One was McCloud, another was McMillan and wife; can't remember the fourth.
> Sure there weren't just three?
>
"BANACEK," "COOL MILLION," "McCLOUD," and "McMILLAN & WIFE" were the
originals. ( Note that "McCloud" was a format reframe derived from
an Eastwood movie called "COOGAN'S BLUFF," a Levinson & Link recycle
of a Herman Miller character. )
>
> Columbo took a genre that's always been popular, the detective story,
> and then invented a unique formula that is remarkably successful.
> That is, you let the audience know the crime and who did it right
> from the start, the only question is how is the culprit going to
> be tripped up.
> (and he always is caught by some mistake he overlooked, that the
> rumpled Mr. Colombo who he takes for granted saw) It plays on
> classic stereotypes - the oh-so-clever sophisticate being tripped
> up by the uncultured but wise "rube".
>
WWS, please don't be ridiculous. The "creators" of "COLUMBO"
dug a wonderful character out of a French suspense movie called
"DIABOLIQUE," which I highly recommend, since you've obviously
not seen it.... and plugged him into a well-established standard
"mystery" format, the "Open Mystery."
In the "open mystery," you know who did it from the outset, the
question is, how-is-he-gonna-get-caught. "Open Mystery" yarns
have been around for several thousand years at the very least,
and were thoroughly explored by major French and Russian novelists
long prior to the invention of TV.
The principal *problem* with "COLUMBO" has always been the
anti-intellectual/anti-upper-class bias; the villains are
never working joes, they're always rich, talented, or powerful
movers and shakers in high-profile positions.
This allows a fulfilling sublimatory projection on the part of
the ineffectual losers who constitute a major portion of the
habituated "COLUMBO" audience.
Approximately a third of the "COLUMBO" efforts have been top-flight
TV, with very classy direction and production and interesting
scripting. The *formulaic* efforts, however, the majority of
the work, have not been such as to earn great respect.
The incredible shoddiness of the majority of the post-series TV-movie
scripts has not exactly earned adulation and support for the series.
Loveable as the character and series format are, they're not enough
to carry production efforts in the absence of scripts.
.....<deletia>
J. Potts
>originals. ( Note that "McCloud" was a format reframe derived from
>an Eastwood movie called "COOGAN'S BLUFF," a Levinson & Link recycle
>of a Herman Miller character. )
Where did "The Snoop Sisters" fit into the mix? I seem to recall the
show was part of the rotating mystery series at some point. Of all those
shows, it was my favorite. I particularly liked the two women in the
lead roles (Helen Hayes and Mildred Natwick).
--
JRP
"How many slime-trailing, sleepless, slimy, slobbering things do you know
that will *run and hide* from your Eveready?"
--Maureen Birnbaum, Barbarian Swordsperson
WWS
Gharlane of Eddore wrote:
>
>
> The principal *problem* with "COLUMBO" has always been the
> anti-intellectual/anti-upper-class bias; the villains are
> never working joes, they're always rich, talented, or powerful
> movers and shakers in high-profile positions.
That's not the principal problem, that's the principal appeal!
C'mon, who doesn't really love seeing William Shatner get what's
coming to him!?!?
>
> This allows a fulfilling sublimatory projection on the part of
> the ineffectual losers who constitute a major portion of the
> habituated "COLUMBO" audience.
>
> Approximately a third of the "COLUMBO" efforts have been top-flight
> TV, with very classy direction and production and interesting
> scripting. The *formulaic* efforts, however, the majority of
> the work, have not been such as to earn great respect.
Man, somebody's gonna tell Patrick M. you're talkin' trash about his
baby!!!
>
> The incredible shoddiness of the majority of the post-series TV-movie
> scripts has not exactly earned adulation and support for the series.
>
> Loveable as the character and series format are, they're not enough
> to carry production efforts in the absence of scripts.
Oh yeah, he'd love that! Since that's the era where he's been involved...
Kim A. Sommer
>
>
>
>Keith Wood wrote:
>>
>> Tom Holt wrote:
>> >
>> > The message <14112-383...@storefull-133.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
>> > from gka...@webtv.net (Tammy Smith) contains these words:
>> >
>> > > I am certainly having trouble letting B5 go,
>> >
>> > No need to do that just because it's completed; that's like saying
>> > Hamlet is 'over' because it finished its original run back in the
>> > 1590s or whenever.
>> >
>> > The question now is; how will it be regarded in, say, 10 years' time?
>> > Will it have been completely forgotten, or will people be looking
>> > back and saying it was one of the shows that shaped the future of the
>> > genre, or will it still be shuffling along quietly in late-night
>> > reruns, along with Columbo and Murder, She Wrote?
>>
>> Columbo DID shape the future of its genre. It went from a
>> once-every-four-weeks network fill (quick -- what were the other three
>> that shared the slot?) to a cultural icon in two years flat.
>
>Sure there weren't just three?
>
Ohhhh drat......!!!!!
I remeber it. It was Richard Boone as a grizzly old fart in the late
1809's or so west. He was an old gunfighter who became a forensic
detective. Taking body measurements, fingerprints, etc. ANd the town had
a police department (newfangled thing instead of a town sheriff) so
Richard B. and the police chief (city fellow) were always in conflict.
Then a couple years later Quincy with Jack Klugman became part of the
mix and later became its own series.
Kim (who spent too much time watching TV while growing up).
--
-------
Kim A. Sommer
Humans do it Better! The Open Directory Project - http://dmoz.org
Gharlane of Eddore
Gharlane of Eddore <ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu> wrote:
>
> On the rotating "Mystery" series.....
>
> "BANACEK," "COOL MILLION," "McCLOUD," and "McMILLAN & WIFE" were the
> originals. ( Note that "McCloud" was a format reframe derived from
>
I probably should have said "..originals. I *think*."
I am getting older...
>
> an Eastwood movie called "COOGAN'S BLUFF," a Levinson & Link recycle
> of a Herman Miller character. )
>
In <81u2hf$1...@ssbunews.ih.lucent.com> nav...@lucent.com (J. Potts) writes:
>
> Where did "The Snoop Sisters" fit into the mix? I seem to recall
> the show was part of the rotating mystery series at some point.
> Of all those shows, it was my favorite. I particularly liked
> the two women in the lead roles (Helen Hayes and Mildred Natwick).
>
well here are the dates I have on tap:
Title: Pilot Movie air date Series 1st air date
------ ---------------- ---------------
McCloud 17 Feb '70 16 Feb '71
( I've forgotten the pilot title; it
was something like "WHO KILLED
MISS U.S.A.?" -- shamelessly
similar to the "BURKE'S LAW"
titles )
( Note that "McCLOUD" was one of the
*few* new series to get approval
in Ellison's column. )
McMillan & Wife ( WAS there a pilot? ) Fall '71 season
( I never paid much attention to
this one; didn't like Hudson,
had no idea St. James could act
until "LOVE AT FIRST BITE,"
although she'd done a good job
with the accent in her first
appearance as "Chuck" in "IT
TAKES A THIEF." (Silliphant script.)
Note that St. James' character later
died in an off-screen between-seasons
plane crash attributed to actor error,
i.e. failed contract negotiations. )
Banacek 20 Mar '72 13 Sep '72
( "DETOUR TO NOWHERE" )
( "MISSING IN TRANSIT" )
Cool Million 16 Oct '72 25 Oct '72
( "MASK OF MARCELLA" )
Snoop Sisters 18 Dec '72 19 Dec '73
( "FEMININE INSTINCT" )
( "FEMALE INSTINCT" )
( "SISTERS IN CRIME" )
( For some reason they tried
this movie under multiple
titles... )
The above were, of course, Universal-TV productions, carried
under the "NBC MYSTERY MOVIE" umbrella to allow airing on an
alternating or consecutive "miniseries" basis, whatever the
honchos thought would bring the best ratings. Prior-existing
series were occasionally stuffed in to fill the schedule, and
"BANACEK" and "McCLOUD" ended up solo series, if I remember right.
Intriguingly, in a number of areas certain shows were broken
out of the rotating-series slots and run as stand-alones
due to local stations' belief that audiences couldn't cope
with finding a different show in the time slot each week,
or would prefer specific series in different slots.
NBC and Universal didn't like this, and there was a lot of
infighting over scheduling, production length, and production
budgets. ( Most of these were 90-minute shows at the outset,
since that sort of thing was popular with the networks and
studio honchos at the time; budget compromise, and scheduling
flexibility. )
As you can see from the above dates, "SNOOP SISTERS" came on
board in mid-flight, since the Universal Suits didn't want to
fund the show at a full-production level, fearing a show
starring gals who weren't bikini bimbos wouldn't pull any
ratings. ( ref: "MURDER SHE WROTE," complete disproof of concept! )
I don't remember them showing up in the "MYSTERY MOVIE" slot at
all, but as noted above, which shows showed up where and when
seemed to be somewhat locale-dependent, and I was out of the
country when the pilot aired.
If the dates I have up above don't match your memory, all I can
say is, they're from one of my old notebooks, derived from
from L.A. Basin broadcasts, and could vary in other cities.
( I worked at the Black Tower at the time, as a thirteenth-assistant
menial scut, and was paying a *lot* of attention to the products,
since I was trying to peddle a few scripts here and there.
"IT TAKES A THIEF" and "NIGHT GALLERY" were my main targets,
but I never got near a sale on *any* of the above. )
Henry Mancini did the main title theme for the "NBC MYSTERY MOVIE"
package, and the main title sequence and his music were often the
only part of the material worth staying awake for.
Sam Rolfe did the format for "QUEST" about that time, and I've always
wished it had been picked up as one of the rotating series; that
was a potentially wonderful series format. ( The pilot still shows
up on UHF at weird hours of the morning; look for a movie called
"THE MASK OF SHEBA." Worth seeing if you haven't run into it before.
Original air date 9 March '70; since it came out of the MGM lot, of
course the Universal-dominated "MYSTERY MOVIE" umbrella wouldn't have
wanted it... but it was made with NBC funding, and NBC carried it,
so they *could* have worked out something creative in regard to
getting it on the air as part of the package, if they'd only had
the sense to go for it, and not waste so much production money on
testosterone-poisoned cutesie-bad-boy leading men. OH well.
At least we got "McCLOUD" out of the deal. It was pretty good for
a while. )
Wesley Struebing
Sommer) wrote:
Don't remember that it was part of the "Sunday Night Mysteries" (or
whatever...), The name was "Hec Ramsey". Some eps were half-way
decent...
>
>
>Then a couple years later Quincy with Jack Klugman became part of the
>mix and later became its own series.
I seem to remember it that way, too. But, then I forget things and
always used to - or is that never used to...? <G>
'Bout the only time I watched TeeVee was Sunday evening. I was
depraved, err, deprived.
Sandra Bursey
it on the orginal air but now it airs 3 times each weekday on the Space
channel and so is obviously a popular show. I suppose not to many got it
originally but it has started on it's 4th run a week ago (though they didn't
have season 5 during the first 2 but once they did they repeated it again.
What it works out to is each episode has been air 6 times now since first
they aired each twice during it's run and 3 times a day for 5. Today's
episode was Mind War one where I sorta prefered the B story you know the
Sakai and G'Kar part instead of the Ironheart situation. I suppose it helps
that only a small numbers of people got the show during it's original run
being not aired on our channels like most other popular US shows. Still
though I think that shows it will live on at least here.
--
Take Care,
Sandra
"Nothing happens in contradiction of nature only in contradiction to what we
know of it." - Scully, Herrenvolk
"But the heart does not recognize boundaries on a map, or wars, or political
policies. The heart does as the heart does." - Delenn, The Illusion of
Truth, Babylon 5
<norv...@sirius.com> wrote in message
news:1999112802...@mail1.sirius.com...
> In article <199911272...@zetnet.co.uk>, Tom Holt
> <lemmi...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >The message <14112-383...@storefull-133.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
> >from gka...@webtv.net (Tammy Smith) contains these words:
> >>I am certainly having trouble letting B5 go,
> >
> > No need to do that just because it's completed; that's like saying
> > Hamlet is 'over' because it finished its original run back in the
> > 1590s or whenever.
>
> I know, but with something like TV, one thinks one should get over these
> things (possibly because the more erudite section of fandom looks down on
> media fans; sorry, but can't I enjoy B5 *and* read loads of books?). I'm a
> little surprised that I'm as addicted to B5 as I ever was, a year after it
> ended, and am even subscribed to the revived Zocalo, which I never got
> around to doing while it was operating the first time.
> I'm finding it difficult to let it go. Of course, I don't want to just let
> go of friends I made in the fandom. I'm just thinking of my addiction to a
> short-lived series years ago that stuck with me for years, and that was
> excessive; I worry about it happening with B5 now... (Fortunately,
> "Crusade" wasn't too great, so won't leave me longing for more because it
> died fast -- just leaves me slightly sad that it couldn't have worked
> properly, and gives me a sneaking suspicion that the B5 universe should've
> ended with B5.)
>
> > The question now is; how will it be regarded in, say, 10 years' time?
> > Will it have been completely forgotten, or will people be looking back
> > and saying it was one of the shows that shaped the future of the
> > genre, or will it still be shuffling along quietly in late-night reruns,
> > along with Columbo and Murder, She Wrote?
>
The Incarnate
>Thanks to the way JMS has raised the bar, I thought the writing was just
>plain really really bad. The acting was rather stilted, too, as if the
>actors kind of knew that thier characters wouldn't *really* say the things
>in the script. Except for Patrick Stewart. I think he could project a
>character into the copy on the back of a cereal box, and you'd believe it.
>Walter Koenig, too, come to think of it.
If you want to see incredible acting, try finding a copy of the BBC production
of 'Hamlet' with Patrick Stewart as Claudius. He manages to outshine everyone
in the play, including Hamlet, played by Derek Jacobi. Amazing stuff.
Keith Wood
"Kim A. Sommer" wrote:
>
> In article <38408C51...@tyler.net>, WWS <wsch...@tyler.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >Keith Wood wrote:
> >>
> >> Tom Holt wrote:
> >> >
> >> > The message <14112-383...@storefull-133.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
> >> > from gka...@webtv.net (Tammy Smith) contains these words:
> >> >
> >> > > I am certainly having trouble letting B5 go,
> >> >
> >> > No need to do that just because it's completed; that's like saying
> >> > Hamlet is 'over' because it finished its original run back in the
> >> > 1590s or whenever.
> >> >
> >> > The question now is; how will it be regarded in, say, 10 years' time?
> >> > Will it have been completely forgotten, or will people be looking
> >> > back and saying it was one of the shows that shaped the future of the
> >> > genre, or will it still be shuffling along quietly in late-night
> >> > reruns, along with Columbo and Murder, She Wrote?
> >>
> >> Columbo DID shape the future of its genre. It went from a
> >> once-every-four-weeks network fill (quick -- what were the other three
> >> that shared the slot?) to a cultural icon in two years flat.
> >
> >One was McCloud, another was McMillan and wife; can't remember the fourth.
> >Sure there weren't just three?
> >
>
> Ohhhh drat......!!!!!
>
> I remeber it. It was Richard Boone as a grizzly old fart in the late
> 1809's or so west.
"Hec Ramsey" -- this one was actually added to the rotation at the last
minute, and I had completely forgotten about it.
This was an interesting series, and actually a better DETECTIVE show
than M&W or McCloud. Shame on me for forgetting it.
Gharlane of Eddore
On 30 Nov 1999 10:22:38 -0700, kaso...@sherrill.kiva.net (Kim A.
Sommer) wrote:
>
> Ohhhh drat......!!!!!
>
> I remeber it. It was Richard Boone as a grizzly old fart in the late
> 1809's or so west. He was an old gunfighter who became a forensic
> detective. Taking body measurements, fingerprints, etc. ANd the town
> had a police department (newfangled thing instead of a town sheriff)
> so Richard B. and the police chief (city fellow) were always in conflict.
>
End of December, 1899, actually. "Turn of the century."
And actually, no; the Young Dude was played as a learner, and wasn't
stupid, so they argued, but they worked well together.
Pilot movie was "TURN OF THE CENTURY," ( had the working title "A NEW
CENTURY," and temporarily "THE NEW WAY" during development. )
Interesting. I just looked it up; "IMDB" lists the title as "THE
CENTURY TURNS," so I'm probably confused on this one....
Premiere date is given there as 8 Oct '72, which I have to accept,
since I don't have any notes on the subject; that seems right,
anyway.
That would put it right in the time frame for inclusion in "NBC
MYSTERY MOVIE," but for some reason I didn't remember it as being
one of the rotating series. I'll try to look it up tonight.
In <uss84s4phus0mkcd0...@4ax.com>
Wesley Struebing <str...@americanisp.com> writes:
>
> Don't remember that it was part of the "Sunday Night Mysteries" (or
> whatever...), The name was "Hec Ramsey". Some eps were half-way
> decent...
>
Several of them were good, yes indeedy.
The best parts were the constant references to new technology,
and the idea that the Old Guy had been studying his tail off
and was on the leading edge of the scientific curve for the
new forensic sciences.
--- But those of us who were unregenerate "Paladin" fans were also
delighted to see that Boone could still handle a six-gun well, and
sneak in references that implied he'd once worked as a soldier of
fortune with a nom de guerre.
Mark Alexander Bertenshaw
> actually make it on TV that's perfect SF, technically perfect, acceptable
> to a wide audience. But how likely is that? I have a friend who's working
> with friends of hers on a series, and some of her ideas are things I just
> know won't be acceptable to TV execs. They'd scare the audience! :-> She's
> going to have to fight probably as hard as JMS to get this work to
> survive, and I really hope she succeeds...
How can we have scientifically realistic TV science fiction when the popular
science TV programs have fiery comets in space making a sound like a rocket
ship, when it is actually something found in a vacuum. Also, have you
noticed how a lot of the CGI in such programs is done deliberately to look
like science fiction? More disturbingly, a lot of science programs now give
credence to pseudo-scientifical claptrap.
--
Mark Bertenshaw
Steve Brinich
> I don't believe that for a second. You're suggesting that if another
> B5 movie were to be made it would garner no viewers.
Obviously, the statement refers to a market among people who have the
wherewithal to turn scripts into television broadcasts, not among
viewers.
--
Steve Brinich <ste...@Radix.Net> If the government wants us
http://www.Radix.Net/~steveb to respect the law
89B992BBE67F7B2F64FDF2EA14374C3E it should set a better example
JK
Sure, people who have come to love it will always treasure it. But being that videotape (especially VHS) is essentially obsolete already, to release good quality DVDs in sets will preserve the story for some time to come. As people collect the entire 5 year run, it will remain for others to watch and see... and to see it per your own schedule would be even more representative of the power of the 5 year arc. Personally, I anxiously await for DVD collector's sets so that I may do just that.