JMS: Recent stuff, new ep info
Jonathan Roy
Category 18, Topic 2
Message 607 Tue Jun 01, 1993
STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 01:51 EDT
Katherine: I believe that the excerpt posted here WAS the press release,
almost verbatim. As for the time per episode, we haven't been given a formal
breakdown yet, so I don't have that information quite yet. Thing to remember
is that there's LOTS of time between now and January. One good thing about
this is that we can take our time in gearing up. I noticed someone uptopic
mentioning July to start, but frankly we may take longer than that just to
allow the correct amount of time to redesign and restructure some of our sets,
to redesign some costume elements...we're in no rush. We had to make some
compromises due to time restraints for the pilot, and don't wish to do so
again. Basically, at this time, we haven't yet set an exact time to start
filming. We'll do that when we're satisfied our ducks are all in their proper
rows.
jms
----------
Second SF&F RT
Category 18, Topic 2
Message 626 Wed Jun 02, 1993
STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 04:21 EDT
It's more of a generalized concern...if you put a specific story idea out
there, it belongs to anyone who can make use of it. Besides, I think we need
to keep some surprises in place....
Re: casting...whenever a pilot goes to series, as ours has, there is a
fair amount of renegotiation, options are exercised, deals that were set go
through some backing and forthing...it's all perfectly standard. And we're
evaluating our own interests. No matter what happens, though, you will see a
majority of familiar faces.
jms
----------
Second SF&F RT
Category 18, Topic 2
Message 644 Thu Jun 03, 1993
STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 03:07 EDT
Gerry: yes, you'll see much of what you describe.
Re: the guns...we're redesigning them. The first design was actually
more potentially realistic in terms of how such a thing would work (a very
large tube-like section that would produce the required energy), but the sense
from viewers was that it wasn't gun-ish enough. (I share some of those
feelings.) So we're redesigning them.
(An aside, btw, on the sound issue...it does seem something of a
contradiction that many of those who say that sound "isn't realistic" in space
and should be dropped are often the same ones who say that they don't like the
fact that the CGI is so clear, even though it's realistic that in space they'd
BE very sharp...and we should blur it up a little even though it isn't
realistic but because that's what they've come to expect. Like sound in
space.)
jms
----------
Second SF&F RT
Category 18, Topic 2
Message 681 Fri Jun 04, 1993
STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 23:23 EDT
A general progress report on stuff.
It's funny when things become real to you. If we all remember the Night
of the Long Eeps, that was when unofficially I knew what had been decided.
But it's like...see, I'd been gone all day, running around like a mad thing,
just meetings and errands and crap, and I come home, and I'm sitting on the
edge of the bed, and I'm taking off my shoes, and you KNOW how it is when you
take off your shoes after a long day...and the phone rings at my elbow, and I
take the call...and it's THE call...and when you hang up, you've still got
your headache, your feet still smell, the trash still needs to be taken down
to the curb...there's no blare of trumpets, no banners, no cherubim descending
from heaven...it's real but not-real at the same time.
But when you start having meetings, and looking at designs, and the
scripts start coming in, and they're being broken down for production,
suddenly it IS real...and that's when it's cool.
I've seen now the revised designs that incorporate certain changes in the
EA uniforms, as well as modifications to other costumes as well. And it
looks terrific. Many of the concerns reflected here about how they kinda pale
against the alien designs, a certain frumpiness to the lines, all of that has
been dealt with. They look really very nice.
New starships, props, weapons and other hardware are being designed by
Steve Berg, who was one of the primary conceptual designers on The Abyss,
Terminator 2, Total Recall and other biggies. And his stuff is strictly
killer.
Here are some more titles for you: Firing Line" and "And the Sky Full of
Stars," we've got "The War Prayer" by D.C. Fontana, another script entitled
"Carnival!" and "Babylon Squared" is in the works (which details what happened
to B4).
So far, so good.
jms
----------
Second SF&F RT
Category 18, Topic 2
Message 687 Sat Jun 05, 1993
STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 02:00 EDT
The doors are indeed being redesigned.
As for Babylon 4...you'll get *part* of the answer in that episode. And
here's a prediction: the end of that episode will cause more speculation and
consternation and astonishment than anything you've seen on TV in a long,
long, very long time.
jms
----------
Second SF&F RT
Category 18, Topic 2
Message 701 Sat Jun 05, 1993
STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 22:21 EDT
One of our characters does refer to modifications to the observation
dome, and another character also comments on some changes.
I'm trying to treat B5 as a real world, and people COMMENT on things when
they get changed.
Re: the breather units...changed. Re: the uniforms...we're keeping the
insignia and the *general* shape, but toughening them up, adding some nifty
stuff to make them look cool. Re: the alien sector...definite and
comprehensive redesign. (We blew up the last one to make sure it would never,
ever come back again.)
Re: the industry...the news was only made official a week ago Friday, so
word is still getting out. We have had some feelers from certain actors and
directors, and we're evaluating that now. You may see some faces you've seen
in certain well-known SF movies...and some weeks ago, I came up with a Black
Project for Harlan. Got hit by this wonderful idea for a story, and called
him, and he went for it bigtime. (I just spent five minutes trying to come up
with a clue that wouldn't tip the whole thing, but couldn't find one.)
Anyway, it's something that'll get a LOT of press when w
We really want this first season in particular to be fun, to be exciting,
to be *different*.
jms
----------
Second SF&F RT
Category 18, Topic 2
Message 711 Sun Jun 06, 1993
STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 01:41 EDT
Klaatu: the rumor is untrue.
Jose: my feeling is, nothing will ever please everyone. When one hears
about a show, one builds an image in one's head. If the image and the reality
match, it's great. If they don't, it's a disappointment. I try to avoid
hype, just say what we're doing. You may not like it. You may like it.
That's beyond my control. But no one's trying to hype you or trick you.
People have different tastes. That's life. And that's the only conceivable
explanation that I can come up with for Garth Brooks...
jms
----------
Second SF&F RT
Category 18, Topic 6
Message 271 Sat Jun 05, 1993
STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 22:24 EDT
It's possible that some stations will be offered the chance to take or
not take some of the various PTEN shows, same as was the case last season, so
that may be what the person was referring to. (Just as 6 passed on B5 but 51
took it.) But that has nothing to do with us, or the production.
jms
----------
Second SF&F RT
Category 18, Topic 8
Message 483 Sat Jun 05, 1993
B.JAFFEE [Brett] at 16:32 EDT
Joe- Will the aliens get their own full size, ring-shapped corridor in the
series? I always thought that the aliens deserved their corridor to be a
large area, like a redressing of the main corridor set, rather then a
relatively short hallway.
----------
Second SF&F RT
Category 18, Topic 8
Message 484 Sat Jun 05, 1993
STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 22:24 EDT
Very possible.
jms
----------
Second SF&F RT
Category 18, Topic 24
Message 7 Sat Jun 05, 1993
STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 04:08 EDT
They can function as both beam-weapons, and as cutters. They were
forming into a configuration in which they would all fire at once, in the same
pre-arranged pattern, turning corkscrew-like and basically slicing the station
apart the way you'd core an apple. They didn't get to do it this time...but
who knows what the future holds....
jms
----------
Second SF&F RT
Category 18, Topic 24
Message 12 Sat Jun 05, 1993
G.PLANA [Gary] at 11:54 EDT
And what manner of cool weaponry does B5 have on it? Were I designing the
fifth station, the previous four having gone <poof>, I'd be somewhat paranoid
and stuff it full of nasty surprises.
Including countermeasures for known alien technology.
----------
Second SF&F RT
Category 18, Topic 24
Message 13 Sat Jun 05, 1993
STRACZYNSKI [Joe] at 22:27 EDT
Gary: yup, and you'll see them in Episodes 1 and 2.
jms
----------
--
F F Jonathan Roy, of the Free Access Foundation Email: ni...@faf.org
A Mail f...@halcyon.com for information, or FTP to halcyon.com: /pub/faf/
F F Vorlons, of the Galactic Bloodshed Development Team GEnie: J.ROY18
"Everything that has transpired has done so according to my design." - _RotJ_
Gary Hoo (SFSU student)
[well, actually JMS wrote the following:]
> Re: the breather units...changed. Re: the uniforms...we're keeping the
>insignia and the *general* shape, but toughening them up, adding some nifty
>stuff to make them look cool. Re: the alien sector...definite and
>comprehensive redesign. (We blew up the last one to make sure it would never,
>ever come back again.)
Oh, am I glad to hear that. When I saw the alien sector in the movie, my initial
thought was, "At last--a SF TV show that recognizes that other life forms might
live in a different, incompatible environment from Earth-derived life!" Then,
as the scene wore on, it occurred to me that if you're going to have such
incompatible environments, how is it that you can get away with just breathing
masks that don't even cover such sensitive areas as the eyes?
By the end of the scene, I was really irritated: this area looked like a damned
aquarium. "See the sentient freaks from across the galaxy, just behind the
glass!" I wondered why breathing masks were necessary at all, since the aliens
all seemed to be in goldfish bowls on display.
If this was beaten to death before, I apologize--I only discovered the group
recently.
Looking forward to January '94, /gh
ga...@futon.sfsu.edu
DISCLAIMER: I do not speak for San | In the short term ... I'd suggest
Francisco State University, and I | some _really_ good scotch, preferably
trust SFSU is suitably grateful. | consumed in Aruba...--Vince Gibboni
(I don't speak for LBL, either!)
D. Satin Zeine-Johnson
>In article m...@nwfocus.wa.com, ni...@halcyon.com (Jonathan Roy) writes:
>[well, actually JMS wrote the following:]
>> Re: the breather units...changed. Re: the uniforms...we're keeping the
>>insignia and the *general* shape, but toughening them up, adding some nifty
>>stuff to make them look cool. Re: the alien sector...definite and
>>comprehensive redesign. (We blew up the last one to make sure it would never,
>>ever come back again.)
>Oh, am I glad to hear that. When I saw the alien sector in the movie, my initial
>thought was, "At last--a SF TV show that recognizes that other life forms might
>live in a different, incompatible environment from Earth-derived life!" Then,
>as the scene wore on, it occurred to me that if you're going to have such
>incompatible environments, how is it that you can get away with just breathing
>masks that don't even cover such sensitive areas as the eyes?
>By the end of the scene, I was really irritated: this area looked like a damned
>aquarium. "See the sentient freaks from across the galaxy, just behind the
>glass!" I wondered why breathing masks were necessary at all, since the aliens
>all seemed to be in goldfish bowls on display.
>If this was beaten to death before, I apologize--I only discovered the group
>recently.
Here is the way my hubby and I figured it was - see if this helps. (FYI - He
is an engineer and I am a programmer/analyst - we a used to picking things
apart <grin>) - the 'alien sector' was just that! A sector with different
atmospheric and in some cases, temperature differences, to accomodate
different (alien) species. As for the windows with the aliens looking out -
why not? I'm sure the human sectors had windows that could be clear or
opaque at the touch of the button. If they aliens couldn't utilize a great
deal of B5 due to environmental considerations, why wouldn't they want to
look out at others? The windows were for the inhabitants to look out, not
for passersby to look in. Looking at it from that aspect, it doesn't seem
strange at all. Whatcha think?
Satin
*****************************************************************************
When you discard arrogance, complexity, and a few other things that get in the
way, sooner or later you will discover that simple, childlike, and mysterious
secret known to those of the Uncarved Block: Life is Fun.
_The Tao of Pooh_
******************************************************************************
Mike Van Pelt
>If they aliens couldn't utilize a great deal of B5 due to
>environmental considerations, why wouldn't they want to look out at
>others? The windows were for the inhabitants to look out, not for
>passersby to look in. Looking at it from that aspect, it doesn't seem
>strange at all. Whatcha think?
The more I think about it, the more I think maybe JMS shouldn't
completely ditch the concept of the glass fronts. Maybe. Are the
people in the "Alien Sector" there short-term, as in hotel guests? Or
are they there long-term, as part of a community? If the latter, then
something like the neighborly "townspeople sitting on the front porch"
scenario that someone else mentioned might make a great deal of sense,
at least for certain personality types. You'd need some kind of
barrier if different methane-breathers had different temperature or
gas mixture rquirements. The clear fronts should absolutely have the
capability to be opaqued, though.
--
Mike Van Pelt | What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth?
m...@netcom.com | Judging from realistic simulations involving a
| sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we
| can assume it will be pretty bad. -- Dave Barry
Gharlane of Eddore
>is an engineer and I am a programmer/analyst - we a used to picking things
>apart <grin>) - the 'alien sector' was just that! A sector with different
>atmospheric and in some cases, temperature differences, to accomodate
>different (alien) species. As for the windows with the aliens looking out -
>why not? I'm sure the human sectors had windows that could be clear or
>opaque at the touch of the button. If they aliens couldn't utilize a great
>deal of B5 due to environmental considerations, why wouldn't they want to
>look out at others? The windows were for the inhabitants to look out, not
>for passersby to look in. Looking at it from that aspect, it doesn't seem
>strange at all. Whatcha think?
>Satin
Eh. Close. JMS has pointed out that each and every one of those
glassed-in environments provided a doorway into private rooms behind;
my own rejoinder is that you simply don't *KNOW* that alien races have
anything like a privacy fetish or taboo, or even that they *have*
privacy as a concept. (Remember in Niven & Pournelle's "MOTE,"
where they're explaining why human toilet facilities should have
walls and a door?)
I refer you to an award-winning short story by John Brunner,
"COINCIDENCE DAY." It deals with a huge E.T. "zoo" which turns
out to be a high-tech rooming facility for E.T. scholars and visitors;
they get to see humans, and the humans get to see them, and they have
real-time communications access to their opposite numbers in the
human civilization while visiting. Most of the human staff members
of the "zoo" do a stint or two as inmates in alien zoos at some point
in their careers, and think of it more as a vacation than anything
else.
Gary Hoo
>In <ZEINEJOHNSONDS%DFYC...@pcmail.usafa.af.mil>
> ZEINEJOHNSONDS%DF...@pcmail.usafa.af.mil (D. Satin Zeine-Johnson) writes:
>>
>>Here is the way my hubby and I figured it was - see if this helps. (FYI - He
>>is an engineer and I am a programmer/analyst - we a used to picking things
>>apart <grin>) - the 'alien sector' was just that! A sector with different
>>atmospheric and in some cases, temperature differences, to accomodate
>>different (alien) species. As for the windows with the aliens looking out -
>>why not? I'm sure the human sectors had windows that could be clear or
>>opaque at the touch of the button. If they aliens couldn't utilize a great
>>deal of B5 due to environmental considerations, why wouldn't they want to
>>look out at others? The windows were for the inhabitants to look out, not
>>for passersby to look in. Looking at it from that aspect, it doesn't seem
>>strange at all. Whatcha think?
I like the notion, Gharlane's subsequent objection notwithstanding. I
merely ask if the presence of some substance transparent to what we
perceive as visible light implies that all the aliens also use the visible
light wavelengths. There's nothing in the show that requires this; even
though nothing along these lines was said, it's perfectly possible that
some species that use other parts of the spectrum have windows we can't
perceive as windows, and the windows we saw were for species that DO use
the same or part of the same wavelengths.
> Eh. Close. JMS has pointed out that each and every one of those
> glassed-in environments provided a doorway into private rooms behind;
> my own rejoinder is that you simply don't *KNOW* that alien races have
> anything like a privacy fetish or taboo, or even that they *have*
> privacy as a concept. (Remember in Niven & Pournelle's "MOTE,"
> where they're explaining why human toilet facilities should have
> walls and a door?)
I wasn't thinking so much of privacy as dignity; it struck me as unfair
that the way the scene was constructed, it appeared that humans had the run
of the station, while aliens from incompatible environments were thrown
into some sort of ghetto.
I seem to recall that the Earth Alliance built the station, though, so I
shouldn't have been surprised that it caters to the needs of humans and
humanoids, I suppose.
> I refer you to an award-winning short story by John Brunner,
> "COINCIDENCE DAY." It deals with a huge E.T. "zoo" which turns
> out to be a high-tech rooming facility for E.T. scholars and visitors;
> they get to see humans, and the humans get to see them, and they have
> real-time communications access to their opposite numbers in the
> human civilization while visiting. Most of the human staff members
> of the "zoo" do a stint or two as inmates in alien zoos at some point
> in their careers, and think of it more as a vacation than anything
> else.
These are all interesting ideas that never occurred to me. I guess I'm
more of a kneejerk liberal than I thought. :-)
I especially like the idea in the Brunner story, of which I assume JMS is
aware. I think it would be a great idea to expound this idea to some naive
visitor during the series, said visitor being a surrogate for hapless
viewers like me whose minds are still constrained by human perceptions.
I am still distressed by the portrayal of "aliens" in one respect, though.
So many of them are humanoid! They all have armlike and leglike
appendages, a roughly human-sized midsection and head, etc. None of the
main characters looks like anything you couldn't see at San Francisco's
Exotic Erotic Ball. :-)
I know that the exigencies of television force some compromises, but I
have a problem believing that the major starfaring races seen on the show
look so similar to one another, and apparently can even interbreed with
some technological assistance. STAR TREK's incarnations have always been
sloppy with this sort of detail. TNG and DS9 are especially blameworthy
since they should have learned something from twenty-five years of
commentary on the original, yet they regularly showcase humanoid aliens
that speak standard English from the beginning of each episode even though
these aliens supposedly have never encountered human beings. (The original
DID show nonhumanoid aliens, although with a few exceptions like the Horta,
these aliens were destroyed as menaces to the galaxy, I believe.)
All I can say is, I hope for better from Babylon 5. Not immediately, but
over the long haul.
/gh
--
David Strauss
Yes, all the ambassadors speak English, but they do so because
they've been assigned to an Earth Alliance station. We will
see often in the series paid translators, who make money doing
private translation between Centauri and Narn language. There
will also be times where you have the space equivalent of the
"ugly American," who refuses to learn the language of the land
he's visiting. These will be real problems, and not just
solved with a Trekian "universal translator."
As for the humanoid shape, Joe once said that anthropological
evidence suggests that the humanoid shape we all know and love
has a distinct advantage in evolution. If I can find the old
message on my HD, I'll post it.
Dennis Handly
>I seem to recall that the Earth Alliance built the station, though, so I
>shouldn't have been surprised that it caters to the needs of humans and
>humanoids, I suppose.
And they had to build it 5 times!
James Davis Nicoll
>
>As for the humanoid shape, Joe once said that anthropological
>evidence suggests that the humanoid shape we all know and love
>has a distinct advantage in evolution. If I can find the old
>message on my HD, I'll post it.
>
bipeds form one not-particularly successful group of animals on Earth
(Humans being the hominid success story) out of thousands. Compare
hominds (with one surviving species) with the variety of a successful
group like the rodents or beetles.
Tailed bipeds (carnosaurs, birds) have a longer and more diverse
history.
James Nicoll
David Strauss
David Strauss
out what went wrong. :)
Steven Grimm
> Tailed bipeds (carnosaurs, birds) have a longer and more diverse
>history.
Yeah, but none of them are producing TV shows.
To become a spacefaring race, you need to be able to make and use complex
tools, so you need hands or something equivalent. If you're down on all
fours, you're IMHO not as likely to use your limbs to hold things in any
but the crudest of ways. Which doesn't mean your species won't be very
successful, but it will probably never leave the forest/jungle/ocean.
Again IMHO (and I'm certainly not an evolutionary biologist) the primary
reason humans developed intelligence is because we're not well-equipped to
survive in the wild without it. If you have sharp claws and you can outrun
your prey, being smart won't have nearly as much effect on your chances of
surviving to reproduce. Which isn't to say there won't be millions of you,
but without intelligence as selection criterion, there's no reason to
expect you'll be smart.
Biologists may feel free to tell me I'm full of it. :)
-Steve
James Davis Nicoll
>In <1993Jun26.1...@julian.uwo.ca> jdni...@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>> Tailed bipeds (carnosaurs, birds) have a longer and more diverse
>>history.
>
>Yeah, but none of them are producing TV shows.
>
>To become a spacefaring race, you need to be able to make and use complex
>tools, so you need hands or something equivalent. If you're down on all
>fours, you're IMHO not as likely to use your limbs to hold things in any
>but the crudest of ways. Which doesn't mean your species won't be very
>successful, but it will probably never leave the forest/jungle/ocean.
Non-bipeds with 'hands' include elephants, tapirs, squid and
octopi. Hmmm. Add tree-rats, raccoons and pandas. Tree-rats and raccoons
*have* adapted to urban life (Toronto has hundreds of thousands of raccoons
living in it, according to the CBC). There are probably more handed animals
I'm not thinking of (Do kangaroos have thumbs?). The apes don't have a
monopoly.
James Nicoll
Pirate (Anthony Taylor)
> Non-bipeds with 'hands' include elephants, tapirs, squid and
>octopi. Hmmm. Add tree-rats, raccoons and pandas. Tree-rats and raccoons
>*have* adapted to urban life (Toronto has hundreds of thousands of raccoons
>living in it, according to the CBC). There are probably more handed animals
>I'm not thinking of (Do kangaroos have thumbs?). The apes don't have a
>monopoly.
>
> James Nicoll
Actually, I've heard that it's amazing what dolphins can do with their
snouts. Just a rumour :)
-------------------------------------------------
Pirate Anthony Taylor
fn...@elmer.alaska.edu
No stupid .sig
Gary Hoo
> Non-bipeds with 'hands' include elephants, tapirs, squid and
>octopi. Hmmm. Add tree-rats, raccoons and pandas. Tree-rats and raccoons
>*have* adapted to urban life (Toronto has hundreds of thousands of raccoons
>living in it, according to the CBC). There are probably more handed animals
>I'm not thinking of (Do kangaroos have thumbs?). The apes don't have a
>monopoly.
True, they've all *adapted* to urban life, and to the omnipresence of
humanity generally, but the issue is whether these species could
*create* a technologically sophisticated culture on their own.
On a slightly related note: a few weeks ago, I asked why we don't see
more nonhumanoid aliens (not just on B5, but on the ST* series as well).
Someone mentioned that human(oid) appendages give us an advantage in
tool handling and the like.
Sounds good to me, but there have been SF writers who have envisioned
multi-appendaged beings with minds capable of managing several tasks
at once. You would think that in a galaxy capable of spawning at least
three species intelligent enough to understand the vagaries of the
English language (:-), there would exist at least one technologically
advanced species with multiple appendages that could survive in the
"normal" (human-oriented) environment of B5 *and* that would possess
sufficient political power to warrant representation at the station.
(Did I cover all the points that have been brought up recently? :-)
Of course, you could argue that the measure of a species' intelligence
is its success at *avoiding* contact with humanity--but I digress.
Felix Lee
a. Technical difficulty and expense. SF is a medium of ideas, so
cheap, glossy visuals are perfectly adequate for conveying the
messages injected into the stories.
b. The seeder hypothesis has been confirmed. All intelligent,
English-speaking life is genetically descended from an ancient race.
This race discovered that their own intelligence was a cosmic fluke.
Feeling lonely and depressed, they created life throughout the galaxy,
using themselves as a template, but suicided from despair before the
project reached completion.
c. Yes, there are plenty of non-humanoid aliens, but they look
remarkably silly and clash with the spirit of Serious SF shows. Just
look at Dr. Who. Since SF shows won't take them, non-humanoids have
had to find other work, in places like Sesame Street and The Muppet
Show. Barney the Dinosaur is a recent success story.
d. The Lord made man in his own image and placed him at the top of
Creation. Non-human intelligence is an ABOMINATION in the eyes of
God. The FUTURE belongs to GOD. There is NO PLACE in it for TALKING
ANIMALS.
e. What I don't understand is why they show *men* in space.
Elementary biometrics clearly show that women are better adapted for
space travel. The handicaps that men need to overcome make it highly
unlikely that a male spacefaring culture will ever develop.
f. Space? Yes, the fascination that humanoid species have with space
is really quite quaint. Perhaps someday these humanoids will learn
how insignificant space is. Then they can join us mature species in
studying cadralkath and pe!oksfit.
g. There's no way some blobby thing with tentacles is going to be able
to drive a car. So how do you expect them to build a spaceship, much
less fly one?
h. It won't play in Peoria. Non-humanoid aliens are just too weird.
Joe Q. Public will see one, say "What's this sh*t?", and keep flipping
channels until he finds Married with Children.
i. Non-humanoids can't avoid being caricatures. If they're not ugly
or scary, they're cute or silly. We don't need a ship full of these
archetypal caricatures stealing attention from the starring actors.
j. Ever try to get a non-humanoid to act? They just can't seem to get
the hang of those gestures and facial expressions. This wouldn't be
so bad, but their inflection stinks too. (Well, there's that one
Denaldi that does an excellent King Lear, but it was adopted by human
parents when it was only a bud, so it's clearly an exception.)
That's it. I'm out of ideas.
--
Robert Winkler
Sorry for butting in, but...
-> Again IMHO (and I'm certainly not an evolutionary biologist) the
-> primary reason humans developed intelligence is because we're not
-> well-equipped to survive in the wild without it. If you have sharp
-> claws and you can outrun your prey, being smart won't have nearly as
-> much effect on your chances of
It's all nice & tandy, but according to your theory, all monkeys &
giraffes & hundreds of other species should've developed an intelligence
MUCH HIGHER than that of the human specie... not to mention dolphins, or
tunas for that matter... ;-)
Take care
Robert
Pirate (Anthony Taylor)
One thing to keep in mind when discussing evolution-- A species really
doesn't 'develop' a feature. Either it has a certain feature or it
doesn't. If a feature is advantagous, the individual in the species who
possesses that feature will be selected for, and the individuals in that
species who lack that feature will not be selected for.
If you're interested in studying evolution, an excellent book to start with
is _The Blind Watchmaker_, by somebody who's name I've temprorarily spaced.
Just thought I'd stick my nose in.
TTFN
Allen J. Newton
>In article <60.644.523...@canrem.com> robert....@canrem.com (Robert Winkler) writes:
>
>>-> Again IMHO (and I'm certainly not an evolutionary biologist) the
>>-> primary reason humans developed intelligence is because we're not
>>-> well-equipped to survive in the wild without it. If you have sharp
>>-> claws and you can outrun your prey, being smart won't have nearly as
>>-> much effect on your chances of
>>
>>It's all nice & tandy, but according to your theory, all monkeys &
>>giraffes & hundreds of other species should've developed an intelligence
>>MUCH HIGHER than that of the human specie... not to mention dolphins, or
>>tunas for that matter... ;-)
>>
>>Take care
>>
>>Robert
>
>One thing to keep in mind when discussing evolution-- A species really
>doesn't 'develop' a feature. Either it has a certain feature or it
>doesn't. If a feature is advantagous, the individual in the species who
>possesses that feature will be selected for, and the individuals in that
>species who lack that feature will not be selected for.
You guys are talking apples and oranges.
Anthony, you are discussing micro-evolution, which has to do with
natural selection and changes within a species which make it more
apt to survive. Micro-evolution is fact, and has been/can be observed.
Robert is talking macro-evolution, which is a change in species or
the acquisition of new organs or other features which didn't previously
exist (presumably more complex than its ancestors). Macro-evolution
has never been observed, only postulated by evidence in the fossil
record (which, BTW is inconclusive. Darwin postulated macro-evolution
based on the observed similarity in form between species and the
presumption that over time more evidence of transitional life forms
in the fossil record would be discovered. Well, we've dug up stuff
all over the earth and haven't found ANY truly transitional life forms
in the fossil records (i.e. the "gaps" in the fossil record are just
as big as in Darwin's time, and keep in mind that Darwin had no idea
about DNA, as it hadn't been discovered yet)). Also, macro-evolutionary
theory postulates that the first cell formed from random combinations
of amino acids combining into some sort of DNA strand (mathematicians
and statisticians will tell you exactly HOW unlikely that is, something
like 1:10^200 -- they consider anything less likely than 1:10^50
absurd). Not to mention development of sexual reproduction, the
fact that amino acids in nature tend to break down, not combine,
and other improbabilities...
>
>If you're interested in studying evolution, an excellent book to start with
>is _The Blind Watchmaker_, by somebody who's name I've temprorarily spaced.
Does this one discuss macro- or micro-evolution? It might not say, but
you can ascertain this by the content. The author and publisher names
would indeed be useful.
>
>Just thought I'd stick my nose in.
Me too! *Boink*
>
>TTFN
>
>-------------------------------------------------
>Pirate Anthony Taylor
>fn...@elmer.alaska.edu
>
>No stupid .sig
Awww.... Come on!
>
--
-AJN (ane...@basis.com) *** standard disclaimers apply ***
Peter Dudey, Order of the Golden Parentheses
>is _The Blind Watchmaker_, by somebody who's name I've temprorarily spaced.
>
Shouldn't this be on talk.origins?
--
: Peter Dudey, dud...@storm.cs.orst.edu, 257 NE 13th, Salem, OR 97301 :
: Oregon State University, Dept. of Computer Science (MS student in AI) :
: My views are my own, and I'm more than willing to discuss them. :
: Please finger me for some questions I have, and email any answers. :
Pirate
>From: ane...@bbx.basis.com (Allen J. Newton)
[ delete ]
> exist (presumably more complex than its ancestors). Macro-evolution
> has never been observed, only postulated by evidence in the fossil
> record (which, BTW is inconclusive. Darwin postulated macro-evolution
> based on the observed similarity in form between species and the
> presumption that over time more evidence of transitional life forms
> in the fossil record would be discovered. Well, we've dug up stuff
> all over the earth and haven't found ANY truly transitional life forms
> in the fossil records (i.e. the "gaps" in the fossil record are just
> as big as in Darwin's time, and keep in mind that Darwin had no idea
> about DNA, as it hadn't been discovered yet)).
Hmmmm..... Interesting. There are quite a few paleontologists who would
disagree that the gaps are as large as they were in darwin's time. Since
Darwin we've discovered Java man, Neaderthal man (who may only be a genetic
cousin), and Lucy. Or have they proven Lucy isn't a good specimen? I don't
remember.....
The point is, the discoveries we've made fit with the evolutionary model.
> Also, macro-evolutionary
> theory postulates that the first cell formed from random combinations
> of amino acids combining into some sort of DNA strand (mathematicians
> and statisticians will tell you exactly HOW unlikely that is, something
> like 1:10^200 -- they consider anything less likely than 1:10^50
> absurd). Not to mention development of sexual reproduction, the
> fact that amino acids in nature tend to break down, not combine,
> and other improbabilities...
Read Isaac Asimov's _Beginnings_ for a good treatment of the rna/dna
'initiator.'
>>
>>If you're interested in studying evolution, an excellent book to start with
>>is _The Blind Watchmaker_, by somebody who's name I've temprorarily spaced.
>
> Does this one discuss macro- or micro-evolution? It might not say, but
> you can ascertain this by the content. The author and publisher names
> would indeed be useful.
>>
>>Just thought I'd stick my nose in.
>
> Me too! *Boink*
>-AJN (ane...@basis.com) *** standard disclaimers apply ***
BUT! To make this post relevant to B5, I don't think it's possible for us
to restrict intelligence in any way. There is no 'preferred' form. We
can't use a sample of one (humans) to determine what it takes to become
intelligent.
JMS and co. can do anything they want. In fact, the less human in
appearance and attitudes and basic assumptions an alien is, the more I'll
believe it is truly alien and not just some clown in a rubber suit.
Most aliens in science fiction are too much like humans, IMO. I would like
to see JMS and Ellison and Gerrold and everybody else at B5 create some
truly bizarre and _alien_ aliens. With the promise of CGI, I suspect we'll
see some strange looking creatures. But what good is an alien if it acts
just like a human?
Off the top of my head, an alien would have to be---
Unpredictable -- 'cuz we're used to dealing with humans. How much
do we take for granted because people are 'human?'
Easily misunderstood -- speech and information transfer is based on
protocol, which is based on assumptions and precedence. There was a child
a few years ago who was raised with dogs. The parents threw the infant in
with the puppies and took very minimal care of him for the first four years
of his life. He has trouble communicating, even though he has been taught
language.
Strange -- they'd go around doing strange things for no apparent reason.
How many things do we do every day of our lives that are really useless?
Some of them we do for pleasure. Others we do out of habit.
Okay. That was five minutes worth of work. Anybody else? What kind of
criteria should we judge B5 aliens on?
Mike Van Pelt
>Off the top of my head, an alien would have to be---
>
> Unpredictable -- 'cuz we're used to dealing with humans. How much
>do we take for granted because people are 'human?'
> Strange -- they'd go around doing strange things for no apparent reason.
>How many things do we do every day of our lives that are really useless?
>Some of them we do for pleasure. Others we do out of habit.
Good points, but I would hope JMS is *very* careful how he does this.
Too often in science fiction (not just media skiffy, but books, too)
aliens just do weird stuff "because they're alien", with no rationale
behind it. Yes, have the aliens' thought processes different from
human -- but the alien *must* have thought processes, and they *must*
(in B5, anyway, since any aliens must by necessity be space-faring) be
thought processes that are consistent with spaceship-building
technology. (Life-in-space, like Niven's starseeds, excepted of
course.) The thought processes must make some kind of sense given
the alien's biology, ecology, and history.
You don't have to explain all of the "whys", but if you don't think
the "whys" out very carefully, and make the alien's weird actions
consistent with that background, it soon becomes very clear that the
alien is just doing weird stuff to advance the plot by authorial fiat.
A Adams
To quote one of the more famous SF peoples:
The John W Campbell definition of believable Alien races:
"They must think _as well as_ but not _like_ humans"
this is pretty much all encompassing for what we're discussing. I like
the bits of it we've seen so far, for instance the EA-M war stops
just when the M are about to win, and the M surrender? JMS has the
whys of this pretty well worked out and we should get bits and pieces
of the puzzle over the lifetime of the show (if it fades before we get
the full 5 year arc (I really hope not) I hope we'll still get the answers).
I'm hoping it's somthing really strange that makes "a weird sort of sense
provided you remember they aren't human" which I'm sure is a quote from
somewhere but I can't remember where.
--
TTFN, Zaphod (Two Heads, No Brain)*E-mail*csc...@gps.leeds.ac.uk****
************************************snail*Flat 18,26 Brudenell Road**
**Happiness is a cigar ...*********mail*Leeds,LS6 1BD,UK***********
**shoved up a smoker's arse!**********Tel*UK-0532 789237*************
Allen J. Newton
> [ delete ]
>> exist (presumably more complex than its ancestors). Macro-evolution
>> has never been observed, only postulated by evidence in the fossil
>> record (which, BTW is inconclusive. Darwin postulated macro-evolution
>> based on the observed similarity in form between species and the
>> presumption that over time more evidence of transitional life forms
>> in the fossil record would be discovered. Well, we've dug up stuff
>> all over the earth and haven't found ANY truly transitional life forms
>> in the fossil records (i.e. the "gaps" in the fossil record are just
>> as big as in Darwin's time, and keep in mind that Darwin had no idea
>> about DNA, as it hadn't been discovered yet)).
>
>Hmmmm..... Interesting. There are quite a few paleontologists who would
>disagree that the gaps are as large as they were in darwin's time. Since
>Darwin we've discovered Java man, Neaderthal man (who may only be a genetic
>cousin), and Lucy. Or have they proven Lucy isn't a good specimen? I don't
>remember.....
>
>The point is, the discoveries we've made fit with the evolutionary model.
Your information is apparently outdated. "Java man" was based on a
single tooth, which later turned out to be a pig's tooth. And "Piltdown
man" was a complete hoax. Furthermore, "Lucy", which was classified as
an "Australopithecus" turned out to be just an extinct form of gibbon,
not at all related to Homo Sapiens (They were a larger form of gibbon
than presently exists, BTW). Paleontologists were the ones to discover
this.
Re: Neanderthal man. It is presently supposed that Neanderthal Man was
not discernably different from present-day man, and probably wasn't any
more different than, say, a Chinese man from an African. To date,
there is no evidence of any link (hence "missing link") between humans
and any other primates in the fossil record. All that has been found
is other hominids which existed in parallel with many species alive
today.
>
>> Also, macro-evolutionary
>> theory postulates that the first cell formed from random combinations
>> of amino acids combining into some sort of DNA strand (mathematicians
>> and statisticians will tell you exactly HOW unlikely that is, something
>> like 1:10^200 -- they consider anything less likely than 1:10^50
>> absurd). Not to mention development of sexual reproduction, the
>> fact that amino acids in nature tend to break down, not combine,
>> and other improbabilities...
>
>Read Isaac Asimov's _Beginnings_ for a good treatment of the rna/dna
>'initiator.'
Sounds like a speculative work to me, which I don't have a problem
with. Just realize that speculation != fact, and the problems I
mentioned are acknowledged by biologists and paleontologists alike...
>
>BUT! To make this post relevant to B5, I don't think it's possible for us
>to restrict intelligence in any way. There is no 'preferred' form. We
>can't use a sample of one (humans) to determine what it takes to become
>intelligent.
I don't disagree with any of this. In fact, in sci-fi, the fun thing
to do is explore what life on other planets COULD be like. Intelligent
cloud-like beings, etc...
>
>JMS and co. can do anything they want. In fact, the less human in
>appearance and attitudes and basic assumptions an alien is, the more I'll
>believe it is truly alien and not just some clown in a rubber suit.
They still need something for the audience to attach to. Without that,
it ceases to be entertainment and you lose your audience (then your
funding, etc). Not suggesting that JMS would prostitute himself by
compromising his ideas for the sake of the audience, but in TV, these
things are considerations...
>
>Most aliens in science fiction are too much like humans, IMO. I would like
>to see JMS and Ellison and Gerrold and everybody else at B5 create some
>truly bizarre and _alien_ aliens. With the promise of CGI, I suspect we'll
>see some strange looking creatures. But what good is an alien if it acts
>just like a human?
Me too, and I think he plans to, judging from the posts we get here...
>
--
Patrick McKinnion
> Your information is apparently outdated. "Java man" was based on a
> single tooth, which later turned out to be a pig's tooth. And "Piltdown
> man" was a complete hoax. Furthermore, "Lucy", which was classified as
> an "Australopithecus" turned out to be just an extinct form of gibbon,
> not at all related to Homo Sapiens (They were a larger form of gibbon
> than presently exists, BTW). Paleontologists were the ones to discover
> this.
>
First off, I think you are confusing Java Man, with "Nebraska
Man". There was more fossil evidence for Java Man then just a single
tooth, (most of the skull, jaw, etc.) "Nebraska Man" was the case
where they built up a proto-hominid skull from a single tooth, only to
find out later it was from a extinct species of pig. (The
paleontologist responsible was trying to prove his belief that mankind
originated in the new world, and promply went off the deep end.)
Second off, where do you base your contention that the
proto-hominid fossil "lucy" was a gibbon ?? All the most current texts
I've ran across still place lucy within the family leading up to the
genuis Homo, (Homo Erectus, I beleve). Are you quoting from a
paleontologist ?? Who, and what text ??
- Patrick McKinnion
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
patr...@netlink.cts.com The views expressed are mine, and not those
of Grossmont College. So there !!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary = Eme...@netrun.cts.com Secondary = patr...@netlink.cts.com
Last resort = patri...@aol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
O -Jan 1994 - Babylon Five -
Roger Crew
>
> Your information is apparently outdated....
Never mind that NOBODY on this thread even mentioned Piltdown man.
Never mind that it was shown to be a hoax nearly FORTY YEARS AGO once
accurate dating methods became available (talk about outdated information!).
Never mind that no recent biology text (except, perhaps, those put out
by the Institute for Creation Research) uses it as evidence for anything.
Anyway, I stopped reading right there. Take this to talk.origins.
--
Roger Crew OBEY MARRY AND REPRODUCE CONSUME STAY ASLEEP
Usenet: {arpa gateways, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!crew
Internet: cr...@CS.Stanford.EDU
Allen J. Newton
>
>Never mind that NOBODY on this thread even mentioned Piltdown man.
>
>Never mind that it was shown to be a hoax nearly FORTY YEARS AGO once
>accurate dating methods became available (talk about outdated information!).
>
>Never mind that no recent biology text (except, perhaps, those put out
>by the Institute for Creation Research) uses it as evidence for anything.
>
>Anyway, I stopped reading right there. Take this to talk.origins.
Keep in mind I didn't start this
thread. And YOU'RE propagating it
by responding to it...
>--
>Roger Crew OBEY MARRY AND REPRODUCE CONSUME STAY ASLEEP
>Usenet: {arpa gateways, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!crew
>Internet: cr...@CS.Stanford.EDU
--