jms- Other producers feel your pain
Jms at B5
support if; if you don't want it on the network, then cancel it before it hits
the airwaves or fire the person running it. But this kind of in-between
netherworld kind of approach just mystifies me.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
(all message content (c) 2000 by
synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
to reprint specifically denied to
SFX Magazine)
Dwight Williams
Indeed. It kinda mystified the _Due South_ people too, the treatment
they got...then they remembered that Les Moonves had replaced their
particular "friends in high places" at CBS, thus explaining the
situation they later found themselves in re: that network.
--
Dwight Williams(ad...@freenet.carleton.ca) -- Orleans, Ontario, Canada
Maintainer/Founder - DEOList for _Chase_ Fandom
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Diane K De
>Date: 2/28/00 5:36 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <38BA4F97...@freenet.carleton.ca>
>
>Jms at B5 wrote:
>>
>> It's something I've never understood: if you want a show on your network,
>then
>> support if; if you don't want it on the network, then cancel it before it
>hits
>> the airwaves or fire the person running it. But this kind of in-between
>> netherworld kind of approach just mystifies me.
>>
>> jms
>>
>> (jms...@aol.com)
>> B5 Official Fan Club at:
>> http://www.thestation.com
>> (all message content (c) 2000 by
>> synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
>> to reprint specifically denied to
>> SFX Magazine)
>
>Indeed. It kinda mystified the _Due South_ people too, the treatment
>they got...then they remembered that Les Moonves had replaced their
>particular "friends in high places" at CBS, thus explaining the
>situation they later found themselves in re: that network.
>--
>Dwight Williams
And now Paul Haggis has a hit series, "Family Law", with the same network and
same Les Moonves.
I guess he didn't burn his bridges.
(Claudia Christian appeared on the show last week)
DD
Mac Breck
news:20000228061401...@ng-fc1.aol.com...
> And now Paul Haggis has a hit series, "Family Law", with the same network
and
> same Les Moonves.
>
> I guess he didn't burn his bridges.
Ever pass up a chance for a little dig? Ever??? Didn't think so.
Mac
Mac Breck
news:20000227185219...@ng-fk1.aol.com...
> It's something I've never understood: if you want a show on your network,
then
> if you don't want it on the network, then cancel it before it hits
> the airwaves
Isn't this what TNT did to Crusade? Perhaps you meant "if you don't want it
on the network, then cancel it before it hits the airwaves, and then never
show it at all, ever."
> or fire the person running it.
That kind of decision making takes balls; big brass ones.
Mac
Mac Breck
there, done that. It'll get you thrown out of management. Logic is
abhorred there, and they *really* hate it when you make them follow their
own policies and procedures (Heh. Heh.). They still don't follow them; they
just hate it.
Whoever coined the phrase about "Survival of the Fittest" was wrong. The
most unfit people rise to the top of management, and once there, screw
EVERYTHING up. The frustrated ones under them, doing the work, are the only
reason the whole thing doesn't go straight to hell.
Mac
"Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000227185219...@ng-fk1.aol.com...
> It's something I've never understood: if you want a show on your network,
then
> support if; if you don't want it on the network, then cancel it before it
hits
Tammy Smith
high school during the time the series takes place, & it brings ack
memories). It's a shame that NBC is interferring with it. F&G seemed
to be appealing to teens *and* their parents, from the posts I've seen
at the F&G site. If NBC would ever advertise it right & leave it in a
decent slot, it could make it, but as usual the "suits" haven't got a
clue.
Tammy
PS--By "advertising it right", I mean that they should show that F&G can
appeal to more than just teens in the ads.
Wesley Struebing
wrote:
<snip>
>
>Whoever coined the phrase about "Survival of the Fittest" was wrong. The
>most unfit people rise to the top of management, and once there, screw
>EVERYTHING up. The frustrated ones under them, doing the work, are the only
>reason the whole thing doesn't go straight to hell.
>
>Mac
>
>
(maybe the author was looking at the television industry)
My sympathies, Joe, for having to work under those conditions.
M.E. Tonkin
Diane tells the truth as she sees it...and sometimes, the
truth hurts.
MET
M.E. Tonkin
Mac Breck
news:38BB1577...@erols.com...
Yet, there is such a thing as tact.
Mac
Mac Breck
news:053mbscer3d45ktkn...@4ax.com...
> On 28 Feb 2000 11:15:42 -0700, "Mac Breck" <macb...@timesnet.net>
> wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> >Whoever coined the phrase about "Survival of the Fittest" was wrong. The
> >most unfit people rise to the top of management, and once there, screw
> >EVERYTHING up. The frustrated ones under them, doing the work, are the
only
> >reason the whole thing doesn't go straight to hell.
> >
> >Mac
> >
> >
> Gee, sounds like a good description of the Peter Principle to me...<G>
>
> (maybe the author was looking at the television industry)
Peter Principle: People tend to be promoted until they reach a level beyond
their competence.
Mac
John W. Kennedy
>
> Mac Breck wrote:
> >
> > "Diane K De" <dian...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20000228061401...@ng-fc1.aol.com...
> > > And now Paul Haggis has a hit series, "Family Law", with the same network
> > and
> > > same Les Moonves.
> > >
> > > I guess he didn't burn his bridges.
> >
> > Ever pass up a chance for a little dig? Ever??? Didn't think so.
> >
>
> Diane tells the truth as she sees it...and sometimes, the
> truth hurts.
Unfortunately, the "truth" she tells is the "truth" of the system that
she's invested in.
--
-John W. Kennedy
-rri...@ibm.net
Compact is becoming contract
Man only earns and pays. -- Charles Williams
Wesley Struebing
wrote:
>
>Peter Principle: People tend to be promoted until they reach a level beyond
>their competence.
>
Thanks, Mac. I had assued that most everyone knew what the Peter
Principle was. Appreciate the clarifiaction for the masses...
Susan Phillips
>
>Unfortunately, the "truth" she tells is the "truth" of the system that
>she's invested in.
This is bad because...?
As I understand Hollyweird, unless a producer is prepared not to have a show
again, it is good not to burn any bridges, no matter how bitter you may feel.
Sue
"How can you be anal-retentive if you don't have an anus?"
Bartleby, "Dogma"
M.E. Tonkin
Susan Phillips wrote:
>
> On 29 Feb 2000 10:55:54 -0700, John W. Kennedy wrote:
>
> >
> >Unfortunately, the "truth" she tells is the "truth" of the system that
> >she's invested in.
>
> This is bad because...?
>
> As I understand Hollyweird, unless a producer is prepared not to have a show
> again, it is good not to burn any bridges, no matter how bitter you may feel.
>
> Sue
>
>
It's the truth of the system that JMS is invested in as well.
MET
Mac Breck
I've heard a few variations of it. That was the one carried in the
dictionary.
Unfortunately, doesn't this mean that everybody who is not on the rise, is
in an area beyond their competence (unless they *decided* to stay at their
current level because they *like* doing the work where they are)?
Mac
Tammy Smith
rebel against the networks themselves. We need to tell the networks
that we're tired of how they don't seem to understand good writing & try
to interfere in the process (like TNT did to JMS). The executives need
to stop messing with things they know nothing about.
As for Diane De, I don't hate her, but it puzzles me why anyone would
want to defend network-executives. To me, they are just purveyors of
mindless junk.
Tammy
John W. Kennedy
> As for Diane De, I don't hate her, but it puzzles me why anyone would
> want to defend network-executives. To me, they are just purveyors of
> mindless junk.
Because if the entire system of funding and producing American TV sucks,
then Diane has spent her life being Part of the Problem.
Susan Phillips
>"Diane K De" <dian...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20000228061401...@ng-fc1.aol.com...
>> And now Paul Haggis has a hit series, "Family Law", with the same network
>and
>> same Les Moonves.
>>
>> I guess he didn't burn his bridges.
>
>Ever pass up a chance for a little dig? Ever??? Didn't think so.
You think that's a dig?
<staring at the screen in amazement>
Wesley Struebing
wrote:
>
>I've heard a few variations of it. That was the one carried in the
>dictionary.
>
>Unfortunately, doesn't this mean that everybody who is not on the rise, is
>in an area beyond their competence (unless they *decided* to stay at their
>current level because they *like* doing the work where they are)?
>
Hey! You're not supposed to think of things like that! <G>
Acutally, that's why, even if there is a grain of truth in a label
like "the Peter Principle", it breaks very quickly when one tries to
stretch it too far. Or paint it with too broad a brush.
But it's a handy label..sometimes.
Susan Phillips
>Since producers can't "burn bridges", maybe it's time for viewers to
>rebel against the networks themselves. We need to tell the networks
>that we're tired of how they don't seem to understand good writing & try
>to interfere in the process (like TNT did to JMS). The executives need
>to stop messing with things they know nothing about.
>
>As for Diane De, I don't hate her, but it puzzles me why anyone would
>want to defend network-executives. To me, they are just purveyors of
>mindless junk.
I don't see her defending them, just telling it like it is. Whether we like
it or not, network executives are in business. They must do what they feel
is best for that business.
I don't like it any more than you do, but it's a fact I've come to accept.
Oh, I rail and rant against it too, but it's a sad fact that Peter Principle
is alive and well, especially perhaps in Hollywood.
Susan Phillips
>Tammy Smith wrote:
>> As for Diane De, I don't hate her, but it puzzles me why anyone would
>> want to defend network-executives. To me, they are just purveyors of
>> mindless junk.
>
>Because if the entire system of funding and producing American TV sucks,
>then Diane has spent her life being Part of the Problem.
Hello?
I guess I don't know what Diane does for a living, but this sounds downright
mean.
Mark Maher
Clearly there are a thousand folks waiting in line to do the job
if some one falls down and fails. The only problem is that the
entertainment industry is filled with VERY DEMANDING jobs. Form
one end of the spectrum to the other, making something that's
entertaining, topical and commercially successful is a very iffy
thing. There aren't that many people out there who can
consistently do that kind of job well, which is why the top
executives are usually paid top dollar. They do a version of
musical chairs, moving from one studio to another or a network
post, recruited away from their old jobs because they just
happened to be around when a couple of things went right.
Sometimes they actually know what they are doing and sometimes
they don't. The trick is to make it look like you know what
you're doing so the other guy will believe it enough to hire you
for the next job. Some people become so adept at it that they
can go into a place, totally foul everything up and move on
before it becomes apparent so that their successor takes the
rap.
That's when it time to go work for the Government.
(sorry...couldn't resist)
__!_!__
Gizmo
Tammy Smith
I agree with the comment--she *is* part of the problem, unfortunately.
Tammy
Rob Perkins
news:4230-38B...@storefull-135.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Since producers can't "burn bridges", maybe it's time for viewers to
> rebel against the networks themselves. We need to tell the networks
> that we're tired of how they don't seem to understand good writing & try
> to interfere in the process (like TNT did to JMS). The executives need
> to stop messing with things they know nothing about.
The only thing they'll listen to is the flow of cash. I thought I had done
all I can by cancelling cable altogether. If JMS puts another series on the
air, I might consider resubscribing.
Truth of it is, we've been better off without the cable these last months!
It's been nice...
Rob
f-erenc szabo
>
> Joe,
> I'm not sure how familiar you are with the show Freeks and Geaks on NBC, but
> their producers are relating many of the same stories you've been telling
> for a while now. They're having a hard time getting a critically acclaimed
> show on the air and keeping it there. NBC is tossing it on and off the air
> so much that most viewers probably can't keep track.
The middle period of B5 (around NightWatch etc) was a complete
mystery to me when it would air. I finally found it
after midnight on Sunday (!) for several months. It was
only in syndicated daily reruns that I was finally able to
actually see all the episodes (I think).
For another few months it was always pre-empted by
Football, so I'd miss several minutes of the beginning.
I sort of gave up after a while.
I'm somebody who LOVES the show and if there was a Nielson
box in my house it certainly wouldn't have recorded me
watching B5 that often when it was in first run. Just
think about bigger majority of folks who wouldn't have
scoured the TV guide like I did, or attempt in vain to
get airing information from broadcasters.
B5 actually made it to completion, but if it didn't
then the blame definitely couldn't be viewer disinterest
totally -- it would have also been a battle of hide
and seek, and B5 would have hidden really well!
f-erenc
zero...@goodmedia.com
Dennis Francis Heffernan
wrote:
|On 28 Feb 2000 11:15:42 -0700, "Mac Breck" <macb...@timesnet.net>
|wrote:
|<snip>
|>
|>Whoever coined the phrase about "Survival of the Fittest" was wrong. The
|>most unfit people rise to the top of management, and once there, screw
|>EVERYTHING up. The frustrated ones under them, doing the work, are the only
|>reason the whole thing doesn't go straight to hell.
|>
|>Mac
|>
|>
|Gee, sounds like a good description of the Peter Principle to me...<G>
No, worse: it's the Dilbert Principle.
Under the Peter Principle, people would get promoted until they reached
their level of incompetence; IE, they would be rewarded for their good work
until they stopped doing good work because they'd been promoted into a job
they couldn't do. Thus, the managers end up being mostly incompetent
managers...but at least they could do their underlings' jobs. That's
important: it means at least they understood the work and could be reasoned
with.
The new and improved [kaff] Dilbert Principle came about when managers
(who, remember, are incompetent as per the Peter Principle) realised that the
best way to get rid of 'problem' employees was to give them glowing
performance reviews, while giving the actual worthwhile employees horrid
reviews. The result is managers who CAN'T do their underlings' jobs --
meaning you CAN'T reason with them, because they're utterly clueless.
Dennis F. Heffernan EQ: Venture Fletcher(E'ci) dfra...@email.com
Montclair State U #include <disclaim.h> ICQ:9154048 CompSci/Philosophy
"You bitch about the present and blame it on the past/I'd like to find your
Inner Child and kick its little ass!" -- D. Henley & G. Fry, "Get Over It"
Rob Perkins
news:89edt5$9...@library1.airnews.net...
> There you go again, using logic and clear-headed decision making. Been
> there, done that. It'll get you thrown out of management. Logic is
> abhorred there, and they *really* hate it when you make them follow their
> own policies and procedures (Heh. Heh.). They still don't follow them;
they
> just hate it.
OH I could tell the war stories. I'm glad I'm headed towards freelancing in
my career. Only 10 more years or so and I should have a good solid
reputation, and be able to forever kiss the management types off.
> Whoever coined the phrase about "Survival of the Fittest" was wrong. The
> most unfit people rise to the top of management, and once there, screw
> EVERYTHING up. The frustrated ones under them, doing the work, are the
only
> reason the whole thing doesn't go straight to hell.
Sounds like you're quoting Ayn Rand, there. I'm no Objectivist, but with
regard to relating to unfit people managing things I think I agree with what
she said: "Deny them the gift of your mind." It would be nice if everyone
competent could...
Rob
Mac Breck
news:inzcelzvaqfcevatp...@news.mindspring.com...
> On 28 Feb 2000 11:23:47 -0700, Mac Breck wrote:
>
> >"Diane K De" <dian...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20000228061401...@ng-fc1.aol.com...
> >> And now Paul Haggis has a hit series, "Family Law", with the same
network
> >and
> >> same Les Moonves.
> >>
> >> I guess he didn't burn his bridges.
> >
> >Ever pass up a chance for a little dig? Ever??? Didn't think so.
>
> You think that's a dig?
Yes. It's a fairly obvious one.
Mac
>
> <staring at the screen in amazement>
>
Susan Phillips
>I didn't make the comment about Diane De being part of the problem, but
>I agree with the comment--she *is* part of the problem, unfortunately.
I realize you didn't make the comment; sorry if I attributed things badly.
I don't know why she is part of the problem. If she works in the business,
she has to adhere to the rules - written or unwritten - of that business.
You may not like it, but at least try to understand it.
Susan Phillips
And, if you think that was a dig, you haven't been hanging around in places
where the "dig" is an art form.
John W. Kennedy
>
> On 1 Mar 2000 07:28:38 -0700, Tammy Smith wrote:
>
> >rebel against the networks themselves. We need to tell the networks
> >that we're tired of how they don't seem to understand good writing & try
> >to interfere in the process (like TNT did to JMS). The executives need
> >to stop messing with things they know nothing about.
> >
> >want to defend network-executives. To me, they are just purveyors of
> >mindless junk.
>
I'm afraid I see her attitude more along the lines of:
Don't look up and don't look down,
You don't dast make the white boss frown.
Bend your knees and bow your head
And pull that rope until you're dead.
Mac Breck
have other people defend them when the person is called on it. Other digs
are delivered in a ham-handed, grade school, blatant fashion. Her's was the
former, and it worked. She has that down to an art form. However, the
intent was clear.
Yes, I have hung around "in places where the 'dig' is an art form." I no
longer frequent those places because being around angry, petty, little
people who complain about absolutely everything, attack everything and
everybody, and offer nothing constructive, is utterly depressing, and a
complete waste of time.
Mac
"Susan Phillips" <vam...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:inzcelzvaqfcevatp...@news.mindspring.com...
Diane K De
>Date: Tue, Feb 29, 2000 20:23 EST
>
>On 29 Feb 2000 10:55:54 -0700, John W. Kennedy wrote:
>
>>
>>Unfortunately, the "truth" she tells is the "truth" of the system that
>>she's invested in.
>
>This is bad because...?
>
>As I understand Hollyweird, unless a producer is prepared not to have a show
>again, it is good not to burn any bridges, no matter how bitter you may feel.
>
>Sue
Stepping back in.
Sue actually gets part of my original meaning for my statement.
Someone made a statement about CBS do something bad to "Due South" and
mentioned an executive by name.
I had just watched "Family Law" because Claudia Christian was in it. Having
never seen it before, I looked to see who the showrunner was and had noticed it
was Paul Haggis. Before becoming a B5 fan, this was something I usually didn't
do. Hanging around here and becoming familiar with JMS and how important he
was to B5 made me interested in the subject of "showrunners".
The post about "Due South" sparked the CBS connection.
As it turns out, Mr. Haggis has worked for CBS and Les Moonves several times
and been canceled by CBS and Les Moonves several times. He did "EZ Streets",
"Michael Hayes" before "Family Law".
He even did two shows with CBS before Les Moonves was the head guy.
The nature of TV is that the odds are that a show a writer/producer is not
going to be a major hit that lasts for several years. The odds are that if the
show doesn't immediately get good Nielsen ratings, your timeslot will be moved
to see if you do better against different competition and you will be
pre-empted often. That's how the business works.
I don't know Paul Haggis and I wasn't a viewer of "Due South", so I don't know
if there were any public complaints from him about CBS's treatment. But, it
appears that his relationship with them is a workable one. I'm sure he could
get work from other networks if his relationship with CBS and Moonves was not
tolerable to him.
I think that regardless of what business you are in, that business has its ups
and downs, good days/bad days, arguments that crop up and arguments that go
away the next day. Many people who work in a service business have days when
their clients scream at them and treat them like shit and then days where they
praise you. It's business.
I think that when we get involved with TV series, we tend to see the actions of
TV executives as constant slights because, most of the time, we are not privy
to their reasons or strategies. It's easy to start calling schedule changes
"debacles", pre-emptions "crises" and imagine that the executives involved must
be at each others throats.
I imagine the reality is just like the rules of behavior for our own jobs and
careers. If you get into law, or medicine, or corporate finance, you accept
the rules of behavior and economics of those business.
If you get into TV writing, you do the same. If every TV writer didn't say
"bygones" after a series was canceled or a pilot of theirs wasn't picked up,
none of the showrunners with hit shows today would have even gotten that far.
I think Mac Breck interpreted my statement bout Haggis not burning bridges as a
dig against JMS. I'm going to step out on the limb here and speculate that
nothing I've said about how the TV business seems to work is anything he
wouldn't say himself. He's in the fray again trying to get another series
developed.
Though the situation with TNT was particularly bad and the working relationship
between them was unsalvagable, I'm sure he approaches most situations in much
the same way as Haggis. Back in the days when his relationship with TNT was
better, he even explained to us--calming many fans down-- some of the reasons
for schedule moves and pre-emptions.
When the unfortunate thing happened with Chris Carter, Fox TV, and CBS
recently, I didn't sense any rancor in his statements that would prevent him
from working with any of those parties again.
Sometimes, I think us fans take these things more personally and never forget
the "crimes" committed. Once a TV writer gets involved in his or her current
projects, I doubt there is time to dwell on the old ones. It would also be
pretty distracting.
One last thing about Les Moonves...I've read in his bio that he ran WB before
getting the CBS gig. The years seem to overlap with B5 a bit. I've always
wondered if he was involved at the corporate level. Anybody know?
DD
Susan Phillips
>Yes, I have hung around "in places where the 'dig' is an art form." I no
>longer frequent those places because being around angry, petty, little
>people who complain about absolutely everything, attack everything and
>everybody, and offer nothing constructive, is utterly depressing, and a
>complete waste of time.
No, no. Where the dig is an art form is also where it is only used
sparingly. Not by people who complaing about "absolutely everything...."
etc., etc. No matter how well phrased, if it is done wholesale, it loses its
effectiveness.
Susan Phillips
>
>I'm afraid I see her attitude more along the lines of:
>
> Don't look up and don't look down,
> You don't dast make the white boss frown.
> Bend your knees and bow your head
> And pull that rope until you're dead.
Bitter, much?
Susan Phillips
>Stepping back in.
>
>Sue actually gets part of my original meaning for my statement.
Thanks, Diane. Glad to see that I read a bit better than I was beginning to
believe.
I come to this both from knowing who Paul Haggis is and from having friends
in the business. And I mean in the writing end of the business. I too
watched Family Law because Claudia was in it and wasn't surprised to see
Haggis' name on it. I didn't watch Due South but I did watch "Michael Hayes"
and "EZ Streets" and both were quality shows. So is Family Law...which I
shall be watching again.
>
>I had just watched "Family Law" because Claudia Christian was in it. Having
>never seen it before, I looked to see who the showrunner was and had noticed it
>was Paul Haggis. Before becoming a B5 fan, this was something I usually didn't
>do. Hanging around here and becoming familiar with JMS and how important he
>was to B5 made me interested in the subject of "showrunners".
Due to my interest in tv and above named friends, I have always been
interested. But until recently, I wasn't particularly clear about exactly
what a "showrunner" did.
Sue
Pål Are Nordal
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
Susan Phillips wrote:
> >Unfortunately, the "truth" she tells is the "truth" of the system that
> >she's invested in.
>
> This is bad because...?
Because she only tells the part of the truth that suits her.
Delenn had a nice line in A Voice in the Wilderness: "... a half-truth is the
worst kind of lie".
> As I understand Hollyweird, unless a producer is prepared not to have a show
> again, it is good not to burn any bridges, no matter how bitter you may feel.
Given the personality he's shown online, do you honestly think this is the first
time jms has yelled at his superiors?
Let's take a quick recap of some of jms' previous jobs:
Jms develops and runs the creative side of The Real Ghostbusters as story
editor. Show becomes number one rated animated show in the US. ABC decides to
"fix" it (dumb it down, lobotomize Jannine, add cute kids, etc). Jms protests
loudly. Jms quits. Jms publishes article telling the animation industry to go to
hell. TRGB ratings plummet. After a few failed attempts at revitalizing the
show, ABC comes crawling back to ask him to come back. He declines, because he
is busy elsewhere, but offers to write a few freelance scripts on the condition
that nobody changes even a single word. They accept.
Captain Power. At the end of the season, toy maker Mattel wants creative
control. Jms protests loudly. Jms quits.
The New Twilight Zone. Jms protests loudly over suits attempting to soften up
stories.
Jake and the Fatman. Protests loudly when his executive producers get screwed by
the production company. Jms quits.
See a pattern forming here?
BTW - Jms commented on this recently. It can be found at
http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/find/Usenet/latest/126.html
--
Donate free food with a simple click: http://www.thehungersite.com/
Pål Are Nordal
a_b...@bigfoot.com
Pål Are Nordal
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
Susan Phillips wrote:
> Personally, I think it was just an observation.
Go to deja. Look up her recent posts. Why do "observations" like that make up
most of them?
Mac Breck
Mac
"Pål Are Nordal" <a_b...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:38BFF735...@bigfoot.com...
Mac Breck
snip
> I think Mac Breck interpreted my statement bout Haggis not burning bridges
as a
> dig against JMS. I'm going to step out on the limb here and speculate
that
> nothing I've said about how the TV business seems to work is anything he
> wouldn't say himself.
awaiting JMS' response....
> He's in the fray again trying to get another series
> developed.
>
> Though the situation with TNT was particularly bad and the working
relationship
> between them was unsalvagable, I'm sure he approaches most situations in
much
> the same way as Haggis. Back in the days when his relationship with TNT
was
> better, he even explained to us--calming many fans down-- some of the
reasons
> for schedule moves and pre-emptions.
>
> When the unfortunate thing happened with Chris Carter, Fox TV, and CBS
> recently, I didn't sense any rancor in his statements that would prevent
him
> from working with any of those parties again.
True.
> Sometimes, I think us fans take these things more personally and never
forget
> the "crimes" committed.
...because we get invested in a show, and want to see it continue. I wanted
to see Crusade continue because I've seen what can be done (Babylon 5).
Given the good work that had been done on Babylon 5, I don't see why
TNT-Atlanta felt the need to be the backseat driver/tinkerer from the very
beginning. To me, that's treating the writers and producer like they're
three year olds. You just don't do this to the people who've just produced
five years of Babylon 5.
Mac
Tammy Smith
came in & tried to mess with a good thing. I think the problem is that
TV-executives seem to come right out of business-school. They have no
understanding of the creative-process. I doubt that any of them could
write a story to save them. It would be better if executives were not
only good businesspeople but were also good on the creative side. We'd
probably get better series, & less meddling.
Tammy
Susan Phillips
> [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
> [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
> [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
>
>Susan Phillips wrote:
>
>> Personally, I think it was just an observation.
>
>Go to deja. Look up her recent posts. Why do "observations" like that make up
>most of them?
And that means something? Just because someone's posts are mostly of one
type or another means something like that?
Susan Phillips
>
>> As I understand Hollyweird, unless a producer is prepared not to have a show
>> again, it is good not to burn any bridges, no matter how bitter you may feel.
>
>Given the personality he's shown online, do you honestly think this is the first
>time jms has yelled at his superiors?
I think we're talking two different things here. I am not referring to JMS;
I'm referring to the post that prompted this, about Paul Haggis having a show
on CBS again when one of his previous shows was cancelled by CBS and Les
Moonves, the head of that network. Not JMS.
I'm not speaking about yelling at superiors; I'm talking about being so
intransigent and/or nasty that those superiors decide never to deal with them
again. Producers, as I understand Hollyweird, don't do that, unless they're
prepared to have lots and lots of problems getting their work on the air
again, if ever. Or unless it's a mistake.
Again, I was not speaking of JMS.
Pål Are Nordal
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
Susan Phillips wrote:
> On 3 Mar 2000 23:03:03 -0700, Pål Are Nordal wrote:
>
> >
> >Susan Phillips wrote:
> >
> >> Personally, I think it was just an observation.
> >
> >Go to deja. Look up her recent posts. Why do "observations" like that make up
> >most of them?
>
> And that means something? Just because someone's posts are mostly of one
> type or another means something like that?
When one post made by someone can be seen as a hidden snipe, you give them the
beneift of the doubt.
When most of someone's posts can be seen as hidden snipes, you start wondering
what said poster's problem is.
Anthony Nance
John W. Kennedy <jwke...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>Susan Phillips wrote:
>>
>> On 1 Mar 2000 07:28:38 -0700, Tammy Smith wrote:
>>
>> >Since producers can't "burn bridges", maybe it's time for viewers to
>> >rebel against the networks themselves. We need to tell the networks
>> >that we're tired of how they don't seem to understand good writing & try
>> >to interfere in the process (like TNT did to JMS). The executives need
>> >to stop messing with things they know nothing about.
>> >
>> >As for Diane De, I don't hate her, but it puzzles me why anyone would
>> >want to defend network-executives. To me, they are just purveyors of
>> >mindless junk.
>>
>> I don't see her defending them, just telling it like it is.
>
>
> Don't look up and don't look down,
> You don't dast make the white boss frown.
> Bend your knees and bow your head
> And pull that rope until you're dead.
>
>-John W. Kennedy
<grumble>
This whole Diane-poking-and-bashing is just crap. I've
lurked here forever, and these silly posts have actually
induced me to come out of my hole.
Diane's posts have been educational and informative about
the industry in ways only JMS has topped. Given that B5
and Crusade are TV shows, her posts and perspectives have
been exceedingly valuable. Whether you like what she tells
us or not is totally irrelevant...unless you think she's
lying, what she gives us are facts and an insider's view
that almost none of us are privy to.
Now grow the hell up and quit attacking the messenger.
</grumble>
Tony
Susan Phillips
>>>
>>> I don't see her defending them, just telling it like it is.
>>
>>I'm afraid I see her attitude more along the lines of:
>>
>> Don't look up and don't look down,
>> You don't dast make the white boss frown.
>> Bend your knees and bow your head
>> And pull that rope until you're dead.
You know, I had a post that wouldn't go through for some reason in answer to
this. It was:
Bitter, much?
I'm with you, Tony.
Susan Phillips
>
>When most of someone's posts can be seen as hidden snipes, you start wondering
>what said poster's problem is.
You do.
John W. Kennedy
>
> In article <38BEA1C1...@bellatlantic.net>,
> John W. Kennedy <jwke...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> >Susan Phillips wrote:
> >>
> >> On 1 Mar 2000 07:28:38 -0700, Tammy Smith wrote:
> >>
> >> >Since producers can't "burn bridges", maybe it's time for viewers to
> >> >rebel against the networks themselves. We need to tell the networks
> >> >that we're tired of how they don't seem to understand good writing & try
> >> >to interfere in the process (like TNT did to JMS). The executives need
> >> >to stop messing with things they know nothing about.
> >> >
> >> >As for Diane De, I don't hate her, but it puzzles me why anyone would
> >> >want to defend network-executives. To me, they are just purveyors of
> >> >mindless junk.
> >>
> >
> >I'm afraid I see her attitude more along the lines of:
> >
> > Don't look up and don't look down,
> > You don't dast make the white boss frown.
> > Bend your knees and bow your head
> > And pull that rope until you're dead.
> >
> >-John W. Kennedy
>
> <grumble>
>
> This whole Diane-poking-and-bashing is just crap. I've
> lurked here forever, and these silly posts have actually
> induced me to come out of my hole.
>
> Diane's posts have been educational and informative about
> the industry in ways only JMS has topped. Given that B5
> and Crusade are TV shows, her posts and perspectives have
> been exceedingly valuable. Whether you like what she tells
> us or not is totally irrelevant...unless you think she's
> lying, what she gives us are facts and an insider's view
> that almost none of us are privy to.
>
> Now grow the hell up and quit attacking the messenger.
When she stops attacking JMS for his integrity, I'll stop complaining
about her dog-like fealty to her masters.
Louise Taylor
> Some digs have the outward appearance of an observation, and are designed to
> have other people defend them when the person is called on it. Other digs
> are delivered in a ham-handed, grade school, blatant fashion. Her's was the
> former, and it worked. She has that down to an art form. However, the
> intent was clear.
Can I ask how in Usenet without the benefit of tone of voice or body
language one is supposed to be able to know what someone else is thinking
when they are speaking? I have found that life would be much more
pleasant if you would ask someone their intentions instead of ascribing
intentions to their words. Unless you live in the person's head, you have
no idea about their intentions and motivations for posting.
Sheesh!
Louise
Mac Breck
news:nBaz4.409$h81....@typhoon.aracnet.com...
> Can I ask how in Usenet without the benefit of tone of voice or body
> language one is supposed to be able to know what someone else is thinking
> when they are speaking? I have found that life would be much more
> pleasant if you would ask someone their intentions instead of ascribing
> intentions to their words. Unless you live in the person's head, you have
> no idea about their intentions and motivations for posting.
The dig I was referring to was Diane's:
> >> I guess he didn't burn his bridges.
referring to:
> >> And now Paul Haggis has a hit series, "Family Law", with the same
> >> network and same Les Moonves.
This was said on this B5 newsgroup, in a thread where we're discussing
Crusade, JMS, and TNT.
If you don't get from that, that she's saying in a left-handed way, that JMS
burned his bridges, I can't help you.
Open those peepers. It's right in front of you.
Mac
Tammy Smith
it for the right reason. He didn't want to do a stupid show full of
mindless sex & violence.
I wish the situation could've been different, though--if the
TNT-executives hadn't suddenly decided that they were writers, too (in
trying to tell JMS what to write), we wouldn't be in this mess.
Tammy
M.E. Tonkin
Tammy Smith wrote:
>
> Well, if JMS "burned bridges" with TNT in the Crusade situation, he did
> it for the right reason. He didn't want to do a stupid show full of
> mindless sex & violence.
>
>
Y'all might want to have a look at an article in the March 12
Washington Post Arts section. It's entitled "Sleazy Come, Sleazy Stay",
by Paul Farhi, concerning the state of TV in the US:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/2000-03/12/066l-031200-idx.html
MET
Cassius81
>Y'all might want to have a look at an article in the March 12
>Washington Post Arts section. It's entitled "Sleazy Come, Sleazy Stay",
>by Paul Farhi, concerning the state of TV in the US:
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/2000-03/12/066l-031200-idx.html
I've never heard a better argument for art in a capitalist society than those
last few paragraphs.
And that reminds me... I haven't yet picked up any music from the Sufis or,
hell, *anything* related to Islam. That's going on my Big List of Things to
Buy, right under the Gyuto Monks and whatever Geinoh Yamashirogumi records I
haven't bought yet.
Could it be that I'm taking this "multicultural" thing too far?
Oh, well. In any case, all of you fundamentalists and elitists can have my
collection of Balinese gamelan music when you pull it from my cold, dead
fingers.
Cassius' Quote of the Day:
David Ives: "If you try to kill yourself in a Philadelphia, you'll only get
hurt."
George Missonis
> MET wrote:
> >Y'all might want to have a look at an article in the March 12
> >Washington Post Arts section. It's entitled "Sleazy Come, Sleazy Stay",
> >by Paul Farhi, concerning the state of TV in the US:
> >
> >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/2000-03/12/066l-031200-idx.html
>
> I've never heard a better argument for art in a capitalist society than those
> last few paragraphs.
>
> And that reminds me... I haven't yet picked up any music from the Sufis or,
> hell, *anything* related to Islam. That's going on my Big List of Things to
> Buy, right under the Gyuto Monks and whatever Geinoh Yamashirogumi records I
> haven't bought yet.
WXPN in Philly (available on the web) does some Indian music occasionally that's
pretty good.
And I would put Indian dance (Asian India) up as a reason to keep humanity around
(although I have yet to see a male dancer performing and wonder if the whole
thing is just a sexist plot).
Long ago, Brave New Waves (before it was on the web) had things like Zimbabwean
musicians
who lived and performed in Scotland--and of course, Dred Zepplin.
George
Staffan Sevelin
Smileys!
(:O)) Happy
;( Cranky
:| Non-committed
;^) Ironic/humor
And so on ad infinitum.
And other short signs:
LOL Laghin' Out Loud
<I> Ironic
IM[H]O In My {Humble} Opinion
And so on
And, of course, common sense (ain't so common).
(;o)}<>===>||
SS
The harder they are - the harder I fall...
>
> Can I ask how in Usenet without the benefit of tone of voice or body
> language one is supposed to be able to know what someone else is thinking
> when they are speaking?
> //delix//
>
> Sheesh!
>
> Louise
>