ATTN JMS:IGN (Filmforce) Interview
Tammy Smith
http://filmforce.ign.com/interviews/65.html for anyone who wants to read
it).
So, TNT Atlanta wanted to get rid of Crusade because we B5 fans weren't
watching their other shows, huh? Instead of sabotaging Crusade, they
could've said "It's not working out, so we'll give up the rights & let
you take B5 & Crusade somewhere else". Instead, they drive you & the
fans nuts with their behavior! I can see why you don't think much of
them!
You went to Chula Vista HS? I went to Santana out in Santee, Class of
'81.
You said that stess made you look older. I can definitely relate--when
I was really stressed-out a few years ago, my makeup actually made me
look worse! I did look older, so I knew I had a problem! Since my
stress-levels have gone down, I look better & feel better. Glad to hear
that you're also doing better.
You said that whenever you can't write what you want to write, you get
out. You were the only one who had to suffer when you quit
newspaper-jobs, but now that you have people working under you, is it
harder to make the decision to get out? I would think it would be.
It was an interesting interview!
Tammy
Mac Breck
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
Thanks for the heads-up about the interview.
Mac
Jms at B5
>So, TNT Atlanta wanted to get rid of Crusade because we B5 fans weren't
>watching their other shows, huh? Instead of sabotaging Crusade, they
>could've said "It's not working out, so we'll give up the rights & let
>you take B5 & Crusade somewhere else". Instead, they drive you & the
>fans nuts with their behavior!
The problem was that apparently, as reported to them by a year-long survey
they'd commissioned, TNT viewers didn't much care for SF. When B5 came along,
the hardcore TNT viewers would tune out, and the B5 viewers would come in. But
the average B5 viewer wasn't much interested in what TNT had to offer
otherwise, so they tuned out at the end and the TNT viewers came back. So no,
it wasn't adding to their viewers by making folks stick around after B5 was
over. I don't see that as being our real responsibility, we're too busy making
our own show to look at what comes after we're gone.
>You said that whenever you can't write what you want to write, you get
>out. You were the only one who had to suffer when you quit
>newspaper-jobs, but now that you have people working under you, is it
>harder to make the decision to get out? I would think it would be.
It does become progressively harder. What's not generally known is that at one
point, I walked off Crusade. It was when the worst of the notes came in, and I
told Doug, and I told WB...I'm gone. I can't do what they're asking me to do,
it's wrong, find somebody who will.
They prevailed on me to come back, and the main tool for this was "What about
the crew and the cast? If you walk, what happens to them?" Reluctantly, after
several days, I came back...and this led to the big notes meeting with TNT
where I told them I couldn't/wouldn't do what they were asking on moral,
ethical and creative grounds.
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)
Paul Harper
>But
>the average B5 viewer wasn't much interested in what TNT had to offer
>otherwise, so they tuned out at the end and the TNT viewers came back.
Which does rather point to TNT making a mistake taking on B5.
They are excellent at catering for the lowest common denominator
audience, but viewers who actually like to *think* about what they're
watching won't be there for the other crap.
And their usual audience would get very confused with B5 very quickly.
Is that a fair summary? <g>
Paul.
--
A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
" . . . SFX is a fairly useless publication on just
about every imaginable front. Never have so many jumped-up fanboys done so
little, with so much, for so long." JMS.
Chris Schumacher
>The problem was that apparently, as reported to them by a year-long survey
>they'd commissioned, TNT viewers didn't much care for SF. When B5 came along,
>the hardcore TNT viewers would tune out, and the B5 viewers would come in. But
>the average B5 viewer wasn't much interested in what TNT had to offer
>otherwise, so they tuned out at the end and the TNT viewers came back
That's something I've always wondered about; why didn't you try to
pitch Crusade to one of the networks? One would think you'd had enough
clout by them to have them at least consider it.
-==Kensu==-
Mac Breck
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
You mean BEFORE he pitched it to TNT, right?
Mac
Chris Schumacher
wrote:
>You mean BEFORE he pitched it to TNT, right?
>
>Mac
Yeah. He said he didn't want it syndicated, because the market had
vanished by then, but I really don't see why they ruled out the
networks. Something that popular, for so little money, no interference
would seem like a small price to pay...
Of course, I think most Network Execs are incapable of thinking like
that, so...
-==Kensu==-
Tammy Smith
that TNT was picking up B5. I then decided to watch B5 for the first
time after seeing the article. I remember thinking at the time that TNT
was an odd choice for B5, though. I watch more of the Sci-Fi Channel
than TNT. I think that Sci-Fi would've been a better fit--I'm sure B5
fans would have stuck around to watch their other shows.
Tammy
Chris Schumacher
TNT outbid Sci-Fi for the rights. Yes, folks, all of this could have
been avoided if TNT had actually spent time thinking about what they
were doing. :(
-==Kensu==-
Jms at B5
>pitch Crusade to one of the networks? One would think you'd had enough
>clout by them to have them at least consider it.
>
Wouldn't work. It's a status thing. Shows tumble down from network to
syndication or cable, they don't swim upstream from syndie/cable to network.
Just not done.
Christian McNeill
news:20000911182601...@ng-fe1.aol.com...
> >That's something I've always wondered about; why didn't you try to
> >pitch Crusade to one of the networks? One would think you'd had enough
> >clout by them to have them at least consider it.
> >
>
> Wouldn't work. It's a status thing. Shows tumble down from network to
> syndication or cable, they don't swim upstream from syndie/cable to
network.
> Just not done.
But if it was done, you'd be the man who could do it. :)
--
==========================================
Christian McNeill
One of the Medwar First Ones
Keeper of the "Grrr Arrgh"
Guardian of Mutant Enemy
E-mail: chri...@quicknet.com.au
Web: red.underground.com.au
ICQ: 818458
or 48580607
Mac Breck
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Schumacher" <ke...@madison.tdsnet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: ATTN JMS:IGN (Filmforce) Interview
if TNT had actually spent time thinking ....
TNT ...
Thinking ...
Aren't these two mutually exclusive?
Mac
Scott Rae
Jms at B5 wrote:
> >That's something I've always wondered about; why didn't you try to
> >pitch Crusade to one of the networks? One would think you'd had enough
> >clout by them to have them at least consider it.
> >
>
> Wouldn't work. It's a status thing. Shows tumble down from network to
> syndication or cable, they don't swim upstream from syndie/cable to network.
> Just not done.
>
> jms
>
It never hurts to try. If anyone could make it happen you could Joe.
Scott
Aubrey W. Adkins
Aubrey
Michael J Wise
> They prevailed on me to come back, and the main tool for this was
> "What about the crew and the cast? If you walk, what happens to
> them?" Reluctantly, after several days, I came back...and this led to
> the big notes meeting with TNT where I told them I couldn't/wouldn't
> do what they were asking on moral, ethical and creative grounds.
The one where they had to look up a word in the dictionary, yes?
So, when does WB get the relevant rights to Crusade back from TNT?
Aloha mai Nai`a!
--
"Please have your Internet License http://kapu.net/~mjwise/
and Usenet Registration handy..."
Kjotvi
> syndication or cable, they don't swim upstream from syndie/cable to
network.
> Just not done.
>
> jms
>
You mean like the Star Trek franchise, going from syndicated TNG to
network DS9 and Voyager? OK, granted that they had a 30 year running
start, but it shows that it can - and has - happened. Nonetheless, I
can see where the resistance would be considerable.
"Form follows function - and frequently obliterates it."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jim Ramsden
way when people start saying 'Why didn't you just.../Why didn't they
just...' they can be directed there.
The folks in TNT L.A. lobbied for and got the show and agreed to JMS making
season 5 his way. Sounds like they would have also done the same with
Crusade. Then the folks over at TNT Atlanta decided to get involved and
mucked it all up.
TNT L.A. good. saved B5 and allowed season 5.
TNT Atlanta - bad. wanted crazy things not good for Crusade. Killed Crusade.
grrrrrrr.....
--
-jim
http://www.jimramsden.com/
ICQ # 249832
"Chris Schumacher" <ke...@madison.tdsnet.com> wrote in message
news:39bd30d...@news.tdsnet.com...
ArsenicMan
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kjotvi" <kjo...@my-deja.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: ATTN JMS:IGN (Filmforce) Interview
> In article <20000911182601...@ng-fe1.aol.com>,
> jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:
> > It's a status thing. Shows tumble down from network to
> > syndication or cable, they don't swim upstream from syndie/cable to
> network.
> > Just not done.
> >
> > jms
> >
>
> You mean like the Star Trek franchise, going from syndicated TNG to
> network DS9 and Voyager?
DS9 was syndicated. Only Voyager and TOS were network shows.
>OK, granted that they had a 30 year running
> start, but it shows that it can - and has - happened. Nonetheless, I
> can see where the resistance would be considerable.
>
> --
> Kjo...@my-deja.com
>
> "Form follows function - and frequently obliterates it."
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
ArsenicMan
=========================
There is a hole in your mind.
Flameholder
> network DS9 and Voyager? OK, granted that they had a 30 year running
> start, but it shows that it can - and has - happened. Nonetheless, I
> can see where the resistance would be considerable.
>
It went from a network TOS, to a syndicated TNG and DS9, to a network
Voyager.
Mac Breck
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kjotvi" <kjo...@my-deja.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: ATTN JMS:IGN (Filmforce) Interview
> In article <20000911182601...@ng-fe1.aol.com>,
> jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:
> > It's a status thing. Shows tumble down from network to
> > syndication or cable, they don't swim upstream from syndie/cable to
> network.
> > Just not done.
> >
> > jms
> >
>
> You mean like the Star Trek franchise, going from syndicated TNG to
> network DS9 and Voyager? OK, granted that they had a 30 year running
> start, but it shows that it can - and has - happened. Nonetheless, I
> can see where the resistance would be considerable.
Star Trek (TOS): NBC, one of the BIG Three networks
Star Trek - The Next Generation: Syndication
Star Trek - Deep Space Nine: Syndication
Star Trek - Voyager: UPN, one of the little "networks"
Looks like Trek is petering out. Babylon 5 (as in stories in the Babylon 5
universe, like Crusade) *could* go the other way (swim upstream) IF given a
chance. The trouble is that it will never be given the chance, and if they
were, there would be Notes. Best to keep it on Sci-Fi.
Mac
David Barnett
....and this led to the big notes meeting with TNT
: where I told them I couldn't/wouldn't do what they were asking on moral,
: ethical and creative grounds.
And I greatly admire you for your courage & guts in doing this, as much as I
hated Crusade being axed.
--
David Barnett
"Are you a doctor? I am today!" (The Pretender)
ArsenicMan
IMO, the only reason that UPN still exists is because of Voyager. They
started the network, and I'm guessing that they'll end the network. And, at
least in my area, the UPN station is the only one that picks up huge amounts
of syndicated shows, so it doesn't matter either way.
>Babylon 5 (as in stories in the Babylon 5
> universe, like Crusade) *could* go the other way (swim upstream) IF given
a
> chance. The trouble is that it will never be given the chance, and if
they
> were, there would be Notes. Best to keep it on Sci-Fi.
>
> Mac
>
>
>
>
ArsenicMan
Jms at B5
>network DS9 and Voyager? OK, granted that they had a 30 year running
>start, but it shows that it can - and has - happened. Nonetheless, I
>can see where the resistance would be considerable.
You're comparing apples and oranges. It isn't a case of selling ST to an
existing network, they piggybacked the *creation* of a new network on a program
which was solid in syndication. Different creatures.
Jms at B5
>So, when does WB get the relevant rights to Crusade back from TNT?
>
>
WB has always *owned* Crusade; the rights to broadcast went back to WB after
TNT finished airing the eps in first run, I believe.
Mac Breck
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
Do you know when the survey results came in as related to when the "Gideon
allows Dureena to be raped" note, your walking off, and the big notes
meeting?
I'm just wondering if the "Gideon allows Dureena to be raped" note came
after the survey results came in. If so, this could have been the first "on
purpose" torpedo launched by TNT. They *had* to know that this was
tinkering with the core of the show (which is the characters and what makes
them tick). So, they had to know that you wouldn't go along with this, and
then could blame the failure on you (lack of ratings due to not following
their "guidance").
What was their "official" reason for cancellation?
Mac
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
BRETNTRACI
>syndication or cable, they don't swim upstream from syndie/cable to network.
>Just not done.
Instead of going up stream why not make a lateral move and go back into first
run syndication. WB seemed supportive of the show so why not go back to where
B5 started out?
j...@gte.net
ArsenicMan wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kjotvi" <kjo...@my-deja.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 9:39 AM
> Subject: Re: ATTN JMS:IGN (Filmforce) Interview
>
> > In article <20000911182601...@ng-fe1.aol.com>,
> > jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:
> > > It's a status thing. Shows tumble down from network to
> > > syndication or cable, they don't swim upstream from syndie/cable to
> > network.
> > > Just not done.
> > >
> > > jms
> > >
> >
> > You mean like the Star Trek franchise, going from syndicated TNG to
> > network DS9 and Voyager?
>
> DS9 was syndicated. Only Voyager and TOS were network shows.
>
> >OK, granted that they had a 30 year running
> > start, but it shows that it can - and has - happened. Nonetheless, I
> > can see where the resistance would be considerable.
> >
> > --
> > Kjo...@my-deja.com
>
What about TAS? It was a network show wasn't it?
--
If you give someone a program, you can frustrate
them for a day. If you teach someone to program,
you can frustrate them for a lifetime.
Chris Schumacher
>>The one where they had to look up a word in the dictionary, yes?
>>So, when does WB get the relevant rights to Crusade back from TNT?
>>
>>
>
>WB has always *owned* Crusade; the rights to broadcast went back to WB after
>TNT finished airing the eps in first run, I believe.
>
> jms
If its not too much trouble, could you make sure that TNT no longer
has the rights? I'd hate to see Sci-Fi having to deal with them six
months or so down the road to get the rights to the reruns...
-==Kensu==-
Jms at B5
>run syndication. WB seemed supportive of the show so why not go back to where
>B5 started out?
Because the syndication market today is not the syndication market that existed
6+ years ago...UPN and Fox and Tribune have snapped up nearly all of the
available stations, and it's extremely hard to get a berth in what's left
without giving up financial aspects that WB won't give up on any of its shows.
Mac Breck
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
----- Original Message -----
From: "ArsenicMan" <Arseni...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 5:44 PM
Subject: Re: ATTN JMS:IGN (Filmforce) Interview
snip
> > Looks like Trek is petering out.
>
> IMO, the only reason that UPN still exists is because of Voyager.
You mean there *is* a reason? Every time I come across Voyager, I can only
stand to watch it a few minutes before flipping channels. It's just the
same, old tired stuff, over and over again.
Mac
David C.
>
> You mean like the Star Trek franchise, going from syndicated TNG to
> network DS9 and Voyager? OK, granted that they had a 30 year running
> start, but it shows that it can - and has - happened. Nonetheless, I
> can see where the resistance would be considerable.
But UPN, the network, is owned by Paramount - who owns the Star Trek
franchise.
It's a lot easier to go to a network when the show's owner also owns the
network.
The only possibility for this to work with B5 would be the Warner
Bros. network - and they've already said no.
-- David
ABS
"Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000912203323...@ng-fq1.aol.com...
I don't understand something. If WB owns the rights to Crusade, why don't
they sale them to SCI FI channel and earn money with the episodes instead
of them just letting them set around?
snevel...@sonic.net
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
Hey Joe!
I really enjoyed the interview, especially this bit:
"I began spending a lot of time in the school library. By the time I was
about 11 years-old, I^Òd already worked my way through the kids section
and had moved into the adult section ^Ö which is where I really began to
discover science-fiction for the first time."
This is very much how I related to the local library.
I had read everything interesting in the kids room upstairs. Every time I
wanted to get deeper into a subject, the kid's librarian had to escort me
downstairs, look things up in the card catalog, walk me to the stacks to
retrieve the books and then give the ok to the checkout lady in order for
me to take my books home.
After doing this twice a week for 4 months, I finally got "papal"
dispensation from the chief librarian of the central branch to get an
"adult" library card at the age of 12.
Thanks for the memories!
Simeon
P.S. Have you followed the discussion of your comics over in
rec.arts.comisc.misc?
S
--
The address in the header *is* actually replyable. If you choose to
respond to this posting, feel free to use e-mail or this newsgroup but
please not both, it only confuses me <g>
Jon Niehof
> "Gideon allows Dureena to be raped" note, your walking off, and the big
> notes meeting?
story for three shows, the B story for another five, and have repercussions
echoing down through the entire series--assuming, of course, that you
wanted to handle it with any sort of *integrity* (like JMS could do it any
other way...)
--Jon, N9RUJ jnie...@calvin.edu www.calvin.edu/~jnieho38
"Lightfingered Garrett knew that greed was a sin
but twasn't his own that at last did him in."
RIP looking Glass Studios
Up yours, John Romero.
Iain Clark
"ABS" <craig...@home.com> wrote in message
news:5kYv5.24745$AW2.3...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...
> > >So, when does WB get the relevant rights to Crusade back from TNT?
> >
> > WB has always *owned* Crusade; the rights to broadcast went back to WB
> after
> > TNT finished airing the eps in first run, I believe.
> >
>
> they sale them to SCI FI channel and earn money with the episodes instead
> of them just letting them set around?
>
until they see how well B5 performs.
Iain
--
"Signs, portents, dreams...next thing
we'll be reading tea leaves and chicken entrails."
Jms at B5
>they sale them to SCI FI channel and earn money with the episodes instead
>of them just letting them set around?
>
>
WB can't just say, Hey, you, buy these. A company has to come to them. Now, I
have reason to believe that if B5 does well, SFC might very well come back and
buy the rerun rights to Crusade after the first of the year. Beyond that,
we'll see.
Mac Breck
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
----- Original Message -----
From: "ABS" <craig...@home.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: ATTN JMS:IGN (Filmforce) Interview
>
> "Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000912203323...@ng-fq1.aol.com...
> I don't understand something. If WB owns the rights to Crusade, why don't
> they sale them to SCI FI channel and earn money with the episodes instead
> of them just letting them set around?
Sci-Fi isn't buying YET. They want to see how the B5 Widescreen reruns do
in the ratings. Spread the word. If enough people watch, Crusade (and I
hope to God or whatever deity you may believe in, if any, that it gets
properly fixed!) could get picked up.
Mac
Kjotvi
sham...@usa.net (David C.) wrote:
> Kjotvi wrote:
> >
> > You mean like the Star Trek franchise, going from syndicated TNG to
> > network DS9 and Voyager? OK, granted that they had a 30 year running
> > start, but it shows that it can - and has - happened. Nonetheless, I
> > can see where the resistance would be considerable.
>
> franchise.
>
> It's a lot easier to go to a network when the show's owner also owns
the
> network.
>
> The only possibility for this to work with B5 would be the Warner
> Bros. network - and they've already said no.
>
> -- David
>
> You're comparing apples and oranges. It isn't a case of selling ST
> to an existing network, they piggybacked the *creation* of a new
> network on a program which was solid in syndication. Different >
creatures.
>
> jms
Valid points in both cases. I have also found out that my basic
information ws wrong: apparently DS9 was also sydicated to other
networks as well as UPN. I appologise for a flippant comment made in
ignorance.
Pål Are Nordal
>
> But UPN, the network, is owned by Paramount - who owns the Star Trek
> franchise.
[...]
> The only possibility for this to work with B5 would be the Warner
> Bros. network - and they've already said no.
Paramount and WB work in substantially different ways. As explained by
jms several times, all WB sections are just loosely related and compete
with each other. Getting them to cooperate with each other would mean
someone pulling some serious rank, and the only one at that level who
would possibly care one way or another, would be Ted Turner.
--
Donate free food with a simple click: http://www.thehungersite.com/
Pål Are Nordal
a_b...@bigfoot.com
Dan Wallach
>> [why not pitch Crusade to a network]
> Wouldn't work. It's a status thing. Shows tumble down from network
> to syndication or cable, they don't swim upstream from syndie/cable
> to network. Just not done.
Politically Incorrect moved up. Craig Kilborn vaguely moved up to his new
show. I suspect any sufficiently popular syndicated/cable show could move up
if it was a strong show. You could also imagine something like Southpark
airing on a network (if they could get over the profanity aspect...).
Dan
David C.
> "David C." wrote:
>>
>> But UPN, the network, is owned by Paramount - who owns the Star Trek
>> franchise.
>
> [...]
>
>> The only possibility for this to work with B5 would be the Warner
>> Bros. network - and they've already said no.
>
I didn't say it was likely to happen. I said that it would be the only
possibility. Meaning that it would be impossible on any other network.
-- David
Jms at B5
Givemetalk.com:
http://www.givemetalk.com/asp/actuallisten.asp?UserID=4268&ShowID=3780&Ser
iesID=1931&CategoryID=30&TA=1
Pål Are Nordal
The difference is in degrees if impossibilit, IOW - me gaining
superpowers and flying to the moon, vs. me gaining superpowers and
flying to to another galaxy.
Mac Breck
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
Just listened to the interview. So Sciography is going to do five shows on
B5, one show per B5 Season? Is this firm?
Mac
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: ATTN JMS:IGN (Filmforce) Interview
Pelzo63
>The difference is in degrees if impossibilit, IOW - me >gaining
>superpowers and flying to the moon, vs. me gaining >superpowers and
>flying to to another galaxy.
if you said it, i'd say you're crazy, if JMS said it, it's tell him to stop off
at andromeda's local 7-11 and get me some bagels.
...Chris
http://pelzo63.terrashare.com
Itaï Perez
You have someone going for the first time to Andromeda and all you want is
bagels ?
Itai Perez.
"Pelzo63" <pel...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message news:
20000923181544...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
Simn...@aol.com
>Bagels ???
>You have someone going for the first time to Andromeda and all you want is
>bagels ?
Do you have any idea how GOOD the Bagels are in the Andromeda Galaxy? I think
it's something about the different isotope ratios in their carbon cycle, or
perhaps it's the way heavy-G worlds affect how dense the dough can get as it
rises.
But the best Cream Cheese is from the third moon of a large gas giant planet
on
the outer rim of M-33. Just don't ask what kind of animal they get the milk
from, trust me, you're much better off not knowing. Just enjoy the taste.
Martin "Ex-Researcher for the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy" Hohner
Martin "The Mess" Hohner <*> Simn...@aol.com
United States of Earth? Schoonmaker for President!
Expansionist Party of the United States Website:
**** http://hometown.aol.com/XPUS/index.html ****
Pelzo63
>You have someone going for the first time to >Andromeda and all you want
>is
>bagels ?
and cream cheese
ReverendVader
I was going to say, "I'm having Hitchhiker's Guide" deja vu!
Cool.
Jason
Jms at B5
I heard recently from a fellow who's in the process of archiving my postings
about B5 during its 5 year run.
He's still tracking stuff down, but so far he's tracked down SEVENTEEN THOUSAND
posts I wrote during that period in answer to questions from viewers and fans
and general stuff.
The breakdown so far, he said, comes out to:
usenet 5084
genie 3525
compuserve 8029
aol 547
If we figure an average of 100 words per message, less than half a page --
sometimes it was less, usually it was more -- that works out to 1,700,000
words.
Now, divide THAT by 100,000 words (whihch is a goodly length for a novel or
nonfiction book; you can get away with as little as 80,000 words but 100,000 is
a good, hefty novel), that works out to...
SEVENTEEN FULL LENGTH BOOKS.
That's writing a little over 3 full length books per year for five years on the
net, this in addition to the show itself, which in wordage meant writing the
equivilant of one novel every five months or so.
So the writing, all in, for those five years, scripts and postings combined,
equaled about 5 books per year.
I'm gonna go lay down....
Christian McNeill
> So the writing, all in, for those five years, scripts and postings
combined,
> equaled about 5 books per year.
>
> I'm gonna go lay down....
WOW! But aren't you glad that most of that wasn't hand written?
--
==========================================
Christian McNeill
One of the Medwar First Ones
Keeper of the "Grrr Arrgh"
Guardian of Mutant Enemy
E-mail: chri...@quicknet.com.au
Web: red.underground.com.au
ICQ: 818458
or 48580607
Gharlane of Eddore
In <20000928190703...@ng-fd1.aol.com>
jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) writes:
>
> BTW, and appropos of absolutely nothing...
>
> I heard recently from a fellow who's in the process of archiving
> my postings about B5 during its 5 year run.
>
> He's still tracking stuff down, but so far he's tracked down
> SEVENTEEN THOUSAND posts I wrote during that period in answer
> to questions from viewers and fans and general stuff.
>
> The breakdown so far, he said, comes out to:
>
> usenet 5084
> genie 3525
> compuserve 8029
> aol 547
>
> If we figure an average of 100 words per message, less than half
> a page -- sometimes it was less, usually it was more -- that works
> out to 1,700,000 words.
>
That may be the total AMOUNT, but in terms of actual writing, due
to error, repetition, misinformation, bull-headed insistence on
Things That Were Not So, and general volcanic BeardMutterings,
I don't see how you can legitimately claim that more than a million
or so were directly contributory to ongoing discussion; and after
all, it's not like you weren't enjoying the stress high of spending
night after night wrangling with We The Loons, when any SANE person
would have been sacked out, resting up for the battles of the day.
You got more out of it than you put into it, so don't put on airs...
unless you want to brag about the unutterable insanity of your
peculiar prioritizations of lifespan, energy, and time.....
vvvvvv <sic>
>
> Now, divide THAT by 100,000 words (whihch is a goodly length for a
> novel or nonfiction book; you can get away with as little as 80,000
> words but 100,000 is a good, hefty novel), that works out to...
>
Gee, seems to me that one of the first half-dozen "BABYLON 5" books
that you insisted was a "novel" was less than half that length...
sure you don't want to use 40,000 or 45,000, so it'll look even
better? *evil grin*
>
> SEVENTEEN FULL LENGTH BOOKS.
>
Even cutting you back to a million words, I make it closer to TWENTY,
given the hugely variable lengths we see in the "BABYLON 5" universe...
>
> That's writing a little over 3 full length books per year for five
> years on the net, this in addition to the show itself, which in
> wordage meant writing the equivilant of one novel every five months
> or so.
>
Apples and oranges. You can't confuse what you do for fun with what
you do for the sake of keeping your show on the air!
Nota bene: It's spelled "equivalent."
>
> So the writing, all in, for those five years, scripts and postings
> combined, equaled about 5 books per year.
>
And John Creasey hacked out an average of one book every couple of weeks
for his whole writing career, not that they were all that magnificent;
and Frederick Schiller Faust cranked out a COUPLE of books PER WEEK over
his writing career, and since he spent his afternoons trying to write
poetry, it's even more respectable. ( And Faust wrote much better books
than Creasey, too. )
You're proud of typing 150 words/minute, and even cutting that to 100,
to give you time to think, a million words would be TEN THOUSAND MINUTES,
or 166 & 2/3 hours..... since you're claiming 1,700,000, we'll round
that up to an even 200 hours of typing, and spread that over five years.
Looks like you spent about FORTY HOURS PER YEAR on the typing....
i.e. *one* man-week, per year of show production? Less than ONE HOUR
per week of typing? This is impressive?
EVEN IF WE ASSUME THE ENTIRE 1,700,000 WORDS at 100 words/minute, we
come out with a total of 283 & 1/3 hours spread over five years.
Call it 300 to make it easier, and that still only raises it to
SIXTY HOURS PER YEAR...... the equivalent, roughly, of:
TYPING FOR A BIT OVER AN HOUR A WEEK.
Even if we drop your much-vaunted typing speed to 75 wpm, to take
carpal tunnel syndrome, fetching coffee to stay awake and argue, and
a *lot* of thinking time ( although oftimes there's not much evidence
of that in your posts! ) for 1,700,000 words, at 75 wpm, we *STILL*
get less than AN HOUR AND A HALF PER WEEK of typing time.
So, here's my question: .... .."And your point is?"
>
> I'm gonna go lay down....
>
"Lay" is a TRANSITIVE VERB. You can NOT "lay down;" unless, perchance,
the long-term stress you gifted yourself with has degraded your once
butter-knife-sharp wit to the point where you find it comforting to
perform obscene acts with a feather pillow.
Happily, the literary demands of "SPIDERMAN" scripts will allow you
to concentrate on story development, character angst, and black magic
in the guise of technology, so your professional skills as a prose
writer will not be an issue.
Regards from someone who *SERIOUSLY* appreciates your contribution
to both TV-SkiFfy, *AND* to the Net fora to which you've been gracious
enough to contribute so assiduously; but please remember Ellison's
definition of a Writer: A guy who can't help himself.
You are a WRITER. A writer who occasionally goes off half-cocked
when he's trying to deal with facts and concrete concepts.
While I have considerable respect for you, there is NO way I'm going
to float here and watch you put on airs without pointing out how
silly you're being simply because you can't analyze a problem.
*grin*
If the situation really bothers you, just spend FOUR HOURS A WEEK,
on Saturday afternoons, doing nothing but typing novels; and in
five years, you'll be caught up, and have forty novels in print.
Or else something *ELSE* we can watch on TV and enjoy. *eviller grin*
=======================================================================
|| ||
|| " A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device ||
|| to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie." ||
|| ||
|| -- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin ||
|| ||
=======================================================================
Gharlane of Eddore
Berit Lempe
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
>
> The breakdown so far, he said, comes out to:
>
> usenet 5084
> genie 3525
> compuserve 8029
> aol 547
>
> If we figure an average of 100 words per message, less than half a page --
> sometimes it was less, usually it was more -- that works out to 1,700,000
> words.
>
> Now, divide THAT by 100,000 words (whihch is a goodly length for a novel
or
> nonfiction book; you can get away with as little as 80,000 words but
100,000 is
> a good, hefty novel), that works out to...
>
> SEVENTEEN FULL LENGTH BOOKS.
>
> That's writing a little over 3 full length books per year for five years
on the
> net, this in addition to the show itself, which in wordage meant writing
the
> equivilant of one novel every five months or so.
>
> So the writing, all in, for those five years, scripts and postings
combined,
> equaled about 5 books per year.
>
> I'm gonna go lay down....
>
If POSTING would be an Olympic sport you would have made the Gold medal in
no time.
Wow.
I just think about what I have missed over the B5 years I had no idea what
the "usenet" was.
I'm gonna lay down, too.
berry
--
----
"The question of who stole Babylon 4 is the biggest mystery
of the last decade. -- Now you're telling me it was me?
Is me... is going to be me? You can't be serious!"
Sheridan, 316
----
Visit us at JumpNow.
http://www.jumpnow.de/
Babylon 5 - the place where teddybears get spaced... =)
Berit Lempe
Erno Simila
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
Berit Lempe <be...@berry.de> wrote:
> I just think about what I have missed over the B5 years I had no idea what
> the "usenet" was.
Well, you can always try http://www.midwinter.com/b5/Usenet/
There's an archive of JMS' Usenet articles... Enjoy. :-)
- Erno Similä
--
"Come, let us hasten to a higher plane,
Where dyads tread the fairy fields of Venn,
Their indices bedecked from one to n,
Commingled in an endless Markov chain!" -- Stanislaw Lem, "Cyberiad"
Berit Lempe
> Berit Lempe <be...@berry.de> wrote:
> > I just think about what I have missed over the B5 years I had no
idea what
> > the "usenet" was.
>
> Well, you can always try http://www.midwinter.com/b5/Usenet/
>
> There's an archive of JMS' Usenet articles... Enjoy. :-)
Hey, thanx. This is cool. So now I can even read what he posted back
in '93... wow.
Didn't know the thing existed. YIHAA!
>
> --
> "Come, let us hasten to a higher plane,
> Where dyads tread the fairy fields of Venn,
> Their indices bedecked from one to n,
> Commingled in an endless Markov chain!" -- Stanislaw Lem, "Cyberiad"
>
And this is one cool signature you have there! Lem rules!
Bye berry
--
----
"Mostly though -- I think it gave us hope that there can
always be new beginnings -- even for people like us." - Ivanova, SiL
----
Visit us at JumpNow.
http://www.jumpnow.de/
Babylon 5 - The place where teddybears get spaced! =)
Pål Are Nordal
>
> > There's an archive of JMS' Usenet articles... Enjoy. :-)
>
> Hey, thanx. This is cool. So now I can even read what he posted back
> in '93... wow.
If you look around in the files section, you can find posts to GEnie
going back to late 1991.
PPascal
option for the 5th season if it is filmed. I guess that the channel's
commitment for quality is non-existant and that their interest in B5 was
not what I thought it was...
I loved EFC's first season and lost interest during the 2nd. Watching
this series continue while Crusade was cancelled was very frustrating, so
Sci-FI's option kind of "disappoint" me, to quote Gary Oldman in 5th
Element...
Pierre
Diane K De
<ppa...@cybercable.tm.fr> writes:
>Sci-Fi has just bought 4 seasons of Earth FInal Conflict and has the
>option for the 5th season if it is filmed. I guess that the channel's
>commitment for quality is non-existant and that their interest in B5 was
>not what I thought it was...>>
You're just figuring this out now? Sci-Fi has a few week to fill with
programming. They'll pick up anything vaguely within the genre, particularly
if there are a large number of episodes.
That's why they picked up B5. It had nothing to do with "quality". It had to
do with "supply". They have the "demand" for programming. B5, EFC, and any
other show with more than 13 episodes are the "supply".
DD
PPascal
option for the 5th season if it is filmed. I guess that the channel's
commitment for quality is non-existant and that their interest in B5 was
not what I thought it was...
I loved EFC's first season and lost interest during the 2nd. Watching
Mark Maher
sprocket holes out of Babylon 5. They knew that anybody who
wanted it on video would have recorded it by now. They had to
use some hook to get folks to sit through their commercials.
Applying "Widescreen" was was it.
__!_!__
Gizmo
ear...@hotmail.com wrote in message ...
>If that's all it was, they wouldn't have bothered obtaining and
then
>showing a widescreen series in *prime time*. They'd just pick
up the
>regular version and run the sprocket holes out of it.
>
>dian...@aol.com (Diane K De) spewed:
>
>>In article <39DCDF1F...@cybercable.tm.fr>, PPascal
>><ppa...@cybercable.tm.fr> writes:
>>
>>>Sci-Fi has just bought 4 seasons of Earth FInal Conflict and
has the
>>>option for the 5th season if it is filmed. I guess that the
channel's
>>>commitment for quality is non-existant and that their
interest in B5 was
>>>not what I thought it was...>>
>>
>>You're just figuring this out now? Sci-Fi has a few week to
fill with
>>programming. They'll pick up anything vaguely within the
genre, particularly
>>if there are a large number of episodes.
>>
>>That's why they picked up B5. It had nothing to do with
"quality". It had to
>>do with "supply". They have the "demand" for programming.
B5, EFC, and any
>>other show with more than 13 episodes are the "supply".
>>
>>DD
>
>---
>
>Fighting a holy war is like killing each other over who has the
better invisible friend.
>
Leo W.
That's a pretty impressive amount of words you've written during the B5 run.
Something which is probably even more impressive is the amount of word you
probably read during that time. If you wrote that many posts, chances are
many were responses to posts. You appear to have read many/most of the
posts on all those boards you mentioned. Now THAT'S a lot of words!
I'll end here so maybe you can rest your eyes a bit. :-)
Leo