The Path of Sorrows - Comment
Mac Breck
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
Regarding your comment in The Lurker's Guide about The Path of Sorrows:
"This one is a favorite of mine as well. It was one of the scripts written
while we were still shooting the first 5, before TNT got into the process.
When that happened, they made it clear that they *hated* this story, felt
that nobody would be interested in all this backstory...and asked for it all
to be taken out, let them run into this alien and make him an evil
character, an emotional vampire who drives them insane.
This was one of the first scripts where I dug in my heels bigtime and
refused to do what they asked. I knew it would be powerful; they thought it
would be utterly uninteresting. They were wrong."
TNT hated this story? It just goes to prove that people who can't even
think one move ahead, shouldn't have any creative influence over TV that
contains any sort of arc. How would they know what you were planning? Were
you supposed to explain your every move in the context of where it fit in
the whole series, for the duration of the whole show?? That's just
ridiculous! They'd have been better off with the continuing, meandering
extrapolation of episodic TV that is Voyager. It's surprising that they
didn't try to get you to do this episode with nothing but exposition, rather
than visual storytelling.
I'm glad you dug in your heels.
Mac
Jms at B5
>didn't try to get you to do this episode with nothing but exposition, rather
>than visual storytelling.
That was actually their other suggestion when I vetoed the rest, that we NOT
see the flashbacks, but rather have them "talk about their feelings about what
happened." They stated that nobody wants to see flashback stories, they only
want to see what's happening in the present tense.
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)
UnltdLife
>want to see what's happening in the present tense.
>
> jms
I must be a complete nobody then... That was one of the things that drew me
into B5... and Crusade for that matter. Maybe even moreso into Crusade.
Flashbacks. Little hints with regard to what has gone before and why it's
important. Not the whole "lifestory" flashback, mind you... just enough to
whet one's appetite, causing one to sit up and say, "Huh? What? When did...
But..."
"Guess I gotta watch it next week to find out."
Farsight. Something I'm not aware ANY network suits have.
I won't even watch "The Fugitive" on CBS this fall. Why? Because I'm more
afraid that it might be good than bad... and then CBS will cancel it. Either
that, or they'll make sure to produce only stand alone episodes...
Great! That'll work real well in a show that obviously is meant to have a
story arc.
Thanks, Majel.
Rant, rant, rant...
Long live Boone. And Earth 2 (even). And Gary Hobson... :)
Oh, yeah -- Crusade, too.
Jason
J. Potts
>It's surprising that they
>didn't try to get you to do this episode with nothing but exposition, rather
>than visual storytelling.
In article <20000707200038...@ng-fg1.aol.com>,
Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
>That was actually their other suggestion when I vetoed the rest, that we NOT
>see the flashbacks, but rather have them "talk about their feelings about what
>happened." They stated that nobody wants to see flashback stories, they only
>want to see what's happening in the present tense.
Then they're idiots (like we didn't already know this). The only time I
dislike flashback episodes are when it's obvious they ran out of real
episodes and string together a bunch of flashbacks to episodes we've
already seen. The flashbacks in Path of Sorrows don't fall into that
category. That was all new stuff to us.
--
JRP
"How many slime-trailing, sleepless, slimy, slobbering things do you know
that will *run and hide* from your Eveready?"
--Maureen Birnbaum, Barbarian Swordsperson
j...@gte.net
Jms at B5 wrote:
>
> >It's surprising that they
> >didn't try to get you to do this episode with nothing but exposition, rather
> >than visual storytelling.
>
> see the flashbacks, but rather have them "talk about their feelings about what
> happened." They stated that nobody wants to see flashback stories, they only
> want to see what's happening in the present tense.
>
>
> (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)
Well, what can you expect from a gang of idiots who consider
professional wrestling a sport?
Jon
Pelzo63
>Well, what can you expect from a gang of idiots who >consider
>professional wrestling a sport?
in fairness, they do not consider it a sport. they consider it "Sports
Entertainment"(a term they[ted turner's WCW] refused to use for a while because
it was coined by their rivals, the WWF). the "insult" often sent out phrased
something like "wrestling is fake!" is not a revelation to anyone over the
mental age of 7. afterall, B5 was fake too. ;-)
--Chris, fan of Fake Explosions and Fake Emotions of B5, Trek, and WWF, former
fan of WCW, until the storylines started to fade, and the explosions got
repetitive.
Andrew Swallow
writes:
>
>Mac Breck wrote:
>>It's surprising that they
>>didn't try to get you to do this episode with nothing but exposition, rather
>>than visual storytelling.
>
>In article <20000707200038...@ng-fg1.aol.com>,
>Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
>>That was actually their other suggestion when I vetoed the rest, that we NOT
>>see the flashbacks, but rather have them "talk about their feelings about
>what
>>happened." They stated that nobody wants to see flashback stories, they
>only
>>want to see what's happening in the present tense.
>
>
>Then they're idiots (like we didn't already know this). The only time I
>dislike flashback episodes are when it's obvious they ran out of real
>episodes and string together a bunch of flashbacks to episodes we've
>already seen. The flashbacks in Path of Sorrows don't fall into that
>category. That was all new stuff to us.
>
1. TNT appear to be assuming that their viewers have an IQ of less
than 100.
2. They would prefer talking heads to a nuclear explosion??!!!
Andrew Swallow
Mac Breck
"J. Potts" <nav...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:8kcpkm$9...@ssbunews.ih.lucent.com...
> Mac Breck wrote:
> >It's surprising that they
> >didn't try to get you to do this episode with nothing but exposition,
rather
> >than visual storytelling.
>
> In article <20000707200038...@ng-fg1.aol.com>,
> Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
> >That was actually their other suggestion when I vetoed the rest, that we
NOT
> >see the flashbacks, but rather have them "talk about their feelings about
what
> >happened." They stated that nobody wants to see flashback stories, they
only
> >want to see what's happening in the present tense.
>
>
> Then they're idiots (like we didn't already know this). The only time I
> dislike flashback episodes are when it's obvious they ran out of real
> episodes and string together a bunch of flashbacks to episodes we've
> already seen.
Like the infamous Riker-on-the-deathbed episode from TNG.
> The flashbacks in Path of Sorrows don't fall into that
> category. That was all new stuff to us.
Definitely not. JMS just gives a little bit at a time. A little bit of
Gideon's Cerberus incident in one episode, then a little more in a later
episode, and more further down the line. Each time, more facts are
revealed, clues are given, sometimes misdirection takes place, and you're
never really sure which way it's going to go. The only thing you can count
on is that it'll be interesting. All this is counter to the TNT direct and
crude approach.
Mac
David C.
>
> 1. TNT appear to be assuming that their viewers have an IQ of less
> than 100.
Self fulfilling prophecy.
-- David