Whatever became of Draal?
Brian Hulett
coming in the mail this week). If this is dealt with in the B5 novels
already published, I would certainly be happy to have a concise statement to
that effect. TIA. ;-}
Just curious, otherwise. As the series rolled on through the middle
seasons, Draal and the giant machines of Epsilon 3 below the B5 station were
always "held in reserve" for when needed, a kind of last resort.
They never were used in that regard during the series, were they? I admit I
missed two or three episodes due to my own failing memory, and perhaps that
also plays into why I don't recall Draal being called on to provide
defensive/offensive weaponry.
Or....as I suspect....are we to draw from this that we other sentient beings
grew stronger from not leaning on Draal?
--
---Brian Hulett, Publishing Editor
Fantasy Football Digest & Leagues
http://thewinningdrive.com
"Work well. Laugh hard. Play fair. Love completely."
Pål Are Nordal
>
> Just curious, otherwise.
The actor became unavailable.
Febo
back in time to fight in the first Shadow War during the series finale, but
events necessitated moving that part of the story to the middle of the third
season, and a new resolution to the Draal plot thread was never attended to.
It happens. No biggie.
Febo
Chris Adams
>Just curious, otherwise. As the series rolled on through the middle
>seasons, Draal and the giant machines of Epsilon 3 below the B5 station were
>always "held in reserve" for when needed, a kind of last resort.
Zathras drop Great Machine door opener, only have wrong tool to fix.
Zathras never get anything nice.
--
Chris Adams <cma...@hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
Brian Hulett
news:ant82j$haabm$1...@ID-30800.news.dfncis.de...
> Brian Hulett wrote:
> >
> > Just curious, otherwise.
>
> The actor became unavailable.
>
>
machine had made him look like he did when he was younger. Could not
continued contact have had the same effect further, or the strain of running
the machine had aged him? I don't know, I just find that unsatisfying.
Since when did an actor's lack of availability change the story? I guess it
must have just not been a big deal in JMS's mind at the time, but I always
was waiting for the other shoe to drop and it still hangs in space near a
floating pile of debris that used to be the B5 station. Oh well, reality
doesn't always tie everything up so neatly either.....
Pål Are Nordal
>
> Originally, Draal's "Big Payoff" was to be sending Babylon 5 and
> Sinclair/Valen back in time to fight in the first Shadow War during
> the series finale,
And you know this for a fact, how?
Lisa Coulter
> >
> > Just curious, otherwise.
>
> The actor became unavailable.
Of course, they'd already replaced him once, so this may not have been
the entire reason.
However, Epsilon 3 played a major part in WWE and is mentioned in
Zhadum as well. Can't recall exactly, but I think Susan is trying to
get through to Draal when the Shadows are surrounding them.
Finally, I wonder how the "shortening" of S4 since they weren't sure
if there'd be a S5 played into this.
Lisa Coulter
Brian Hulett
"Chris Adams" <cma...@hiwaay.net> wrote in message
news:uq4m3s3...@corp.supernews.com...
around, although he was the quiet one in the family......
Pål Are Nordal
>
> Of course, they'd already replaced him once, so this may not have
> been the entire reason.
I believe jms mentioned recasting him twice was stretching it too far.
Also, he felt that it wasn't something that was absolutely necessary for
the story.
Jason E. Schaff
>
>
> Since when did an actor's lack of availability change the story?
>
unavailability of Claudia Christian? (Admittedly, JMS has
indicated that this did not change the core elements of the
story arc for B5, but it certainly changed a lot of the
roles played by other characters in that arc.)
Jason
--
---------------------------------------------------------
Jason E. Schaff
Speak the truth, but leave immediately afterwards.
--Slovenian proverb
---------------------------------------------------------
Febo
I don't know it for certain, but I would defend it as a very likely theroy.
The are are many clues leading to this conclusion, but the one that is most
convincing to me is JMS's statement (somewhere in the lurker's guide), that
when he described his idea for the last episode to some studio execs back
before the series started, their jaws hit the floor. As much as a love SiL, it
really would not have been all that inspiring to anyone who hadn't been through
five years with those characters. However, WWE would have made an amazing
series finale, and the basic concept would have been very impressive even to
folks who had not seen the entire series.
Febo
Andrew Swallow
news:20021007221514...@mb-fu.aol.com...
JMS has hinted that the Great Machine would get used
in someway in Crusade. This did not occur during
Season 1. It does not make sense that when all the other
races on Babylon 5 were asked about the Great Machine
Sheridan forgot to radio Draal. The need for a physical
search implies that the Great Machine did not know the
cure. However, Draal may have instructed the Great
Machine to scan every planet in the galaxy.
The timings of the Crusade arc imply a false cure in
Season 2 and a real cure in Season 4. The fate of the
Great Machine may be attached to one of those or
possibly the conclusion to Crusade's real arc in
Season 5.
Andrew Swallow
Pål Are Nordal
>
> I don't know it for certain,
Then you shouldn't present it as fact, now should you?
> but I would defend it as a very likely theory. The are are many clues
> leading to this conclusion,
There are many clues leading to a gazillion different conclusions, and
every time this comes up, everybody just seems to end up believing what
they want to believe anyway, so I've pretty much given up on the subject.
> but the one that is most convincing to me is JMS's statement
> (somewhere in the lurker's guide), that when he described his idea
> for the last episode to some studio execs back before the series
> started, their jaws hit the floor.
Think you need to check your facts. It was Larry DiTillio (story editor)
and John Copland (Producer). And according to jms, their reaction was to
the sheer scope of the story, all the things that would need to take
place for things to end up the way they did.
Over the years, jms has said a whole bunch of things and really muddied
the water, and latching on to a select number of statements is pretty
much like the three blind men describing an elephant.
> As much as a love SiL, it really would not have been all that
> inspiring to anyone who hadn't been through five years with those
> characters. However, WWE would have made an amazing series finale,
> and the basic concept would have been very impressive even to folks
> who had not seen the entire series.
Aside from casting a shadow on jms' claim that the major points of the
story arc played out the way he'd imagined them, it would also have
severely screwed up jms' much touted novel like pacing of the story arc,
unless change the nature of the episode considerably, at which point
your argument becomes just as dubious as the rest of 'em.
Matthew Vincent
>>>Originally, Draal's "Big Payoff" was to be sending Babylon 5 and
>>>Sinclair/Valen back in time to fight in the first Shadow War during
>>>the series finale,
>>
>>And you know this for a fact, how?
>
>I don't know it for certain, but I would defend it as a very likely
>theroy. The are are many clues leading to this conclusion, but the
>one that is most convincing to me is JMS's statement (somewhere in
>the lurker's guide), that when he described his idea for the last
>episode to some studio execs back before the series started, their
>jaws hit the floor.
I thought this referred to SiL. I'd be very surprised if the final
episode was meant to involve WWE in this way. The show was always
meant to be about underlying issues like death and the meaning of
life, rather than just being about big exciting battles. I can't
imagine JMS wasting the last episode of the show on the latter. Then
again, I could be wrong; maybe he had a way in mind to tie it all
together. As far as I can see, though, many things earlier in the show
are all leading up the message in SiL.
Matthew
Joseph DeMartino
they serve Zima.) <g>
The fact is both Draal and the GM became something of an embarrassing
loose end after the trigger was pulled early on the B4 plot in order to
clear the decks for Sheridan's version of the commander's arc and wrap
up the Jeff Sinclair story. Sorta like Kosh's data crystal recording of
Talia. There wasn't much JMS could do with either, so he just ignored
them and hoped we'd forget after awhile. <g>
Regards,
Joe
Sean Monahan
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Joseph DeMartino wrote:
> There wasn't much JMS could do with either, so he just ignored
> them and hoped we'd forget after awhile. <g>
Evidently, he was wrong.
Daniel
I notice your posts from time to time and they always written from the point
of view of 'fact'.
Your statements seem final and knowledgeable, which leads me to wonder where
you get all your information from.
best
Dan
"Joseph DeMartino" <jdem...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Z41p9.59891$YK4.4...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...
Geruk Griy
> He and the Brothers Zathras are running a disco on Epsilon 3. (I hear
> they serve Zima.) <g>
'Twould explain why G'Kar wanted to go back. It wasn't the station, it was
the Zathri!
(What is the proper pluralization, anyways? I always forget...)
> The fact is both Draal and the GM became something of an embarrassing
> loose end after the trigger was pulled early on the B4 plot in order to
> clear the decks for Sheridan's version of the commander's arc and wrap
> up the Jeff Sinclair story. Sorta like Kosh's data crystal recording of
> Talia. There wasn't much JMS could do with either, so he just ignored
> them and hoped we'd forget after awhile. <g>
Forget? Us, the incredibly-discerning in-crowd? Never! It's part of why
many B5 fans dislike Trek--because they want us to forget, and we don't.
--
Geruk
========================================
Warning: The "w32.microsoft.windows" virus has been detected ("x-
newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express"). Recommended treatment: "FORMAT C:
/U".
Brian Hulett
>
Poor JMS. He did not take into account that many of us have no life. ;-}
Craig Powers
perspective, I'll weigh in...
Daniel wrote:
>
> I notice your posts from time to time and they always written from the point
> of view of 'fact'.
In this case, it's more like educated reasoning. For instance, we
know that Joe initially planned to have Talia throughout the show
(after he was unable to have Pat Tallman the whole way), and was
fortunate to get Tallman back when Andrea Thompson made herself
expendable. The conclusion that Kosh's recording was intended for
an undeveloped branch of the story is pretty obvious from this point
of view.
The Draal/GM/early B4 conclusion is less certain. Some people
(myself included) put the inconsistencies between B-squared and
WWE together with early statements about the show (one man's story,
Sinclair's story, ending which blew everyone's socks off) and
conclude that most probably, the original arc involved Sinclair
going back as Valen at the very end of the story. I hadn't
considered the Epsilon three angle, but that also fits.
I think the observation was also made at some point that one problem
with the Great Machine was that it was a giant deus ex machina.
> Your statements seem final and knowledgeable, which leads me to wonder where
> you get all your information from.
Joseph's conclusions can be deduced from information that's been
available in this newsgroup (even to someone like me, who has gone
for a couple of long stretches without reading it).
John W. Kennedy
Please do not state as facts things that you made up.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly;
the rich have always objected to being governed at all."
-- G. K. Chesterton, "The Man Who Was Thursday"
Febo
>Febo wrote:
>> Originally, Draal's "Big Payoff" was to be sending Babylon 5 and
>Sinclair/Valen
>> back in time to fight in the first Shadow War during the series finale, but
>> events necessitated moving that part of the story to the middle of the
>third
>> season, and a new resolution to the Draal plot thread was never attended
>to.
>> It happens. No biggie.
>
>Please do not state as facts things that you made up.
I did not make it up, it's a conclusion based on overwhelming evidence drawn
from watching Babylon 5 and reading JMS's comments. Yeah, there is a small
chance that it is not the case -- there's is also a small chance that OJ was
innocent and Elvis is still alive.
Why do so so many seemingly intelligent people seem resistant to apply
observation and critical analysis to the evoultion of the Babylon 5 story?
It's like there's this whole group of B5 "Creationists", who insist that JMS
created the story in its final form in 6 days. On the other side, I imagine,
would be the folks who insist that their "pet theories" on what JMS meant to do
must be the truth. I would like to think that I'm in the middle -- I do not
insist on any particular details -- I enjoy exploring all the possibilities --
but the general theory that the B4/Valen/Sinclair story arc was originally
meant to be resolved in the series finally seems to fit the evidence pretty
damn well for now.
Febo
Laura Appelbaum
> >
> I did not make it up, it's a conclusion based on overwhelming evidence
drawn
> from watching Babylon 5 and reading JMS's comments. Yeah, there is a
small
> chance that it is not the case -- there's is also a small chance that OJ
was
> innocent and Elvis is still alive.
>
far, far from the first to make this assertion. It's probably safe to say
that most of us who began watching the show from the beginning "know" in our
guts that it's the truth ('course many of those folks are long gone from
here). I don't know what's with his denial, except as you say, there
definitely are those fans who are "Creationists." Me, I see them more like
members of the Soviet Politboro who airbrushed out inconvenient individuals
from photographs (and sent the real people to the gulag) as part of their
constant rewriting of history. Fortunately, they're just doing it to a TV
show and not to anything that actually matters in real life.
LMA
Ryan Pearman
you are
> far, far from the first to make this assertion.
Yeah, even those of us who got *moderated* for saying basically the
same thing on the grounds that it was a "new story idea".
> definitely are those fans who are "Creationists." Me, I see them
more like
> members of the Soviet Politboro who airbrushed out inconvenient
individuals
> from photographs (and sent the real people to the gulag) as part of
their
> constant rewriting of history. Fortunately, they're just doing it to
a TV
> show and not to anything that actually matters in real life.
Interesting observation.......
--Ryan
Pål Are Nordal
>
> I did not make it up, it's a conclusion based on overwhelming evidence drawn
> from watching Babylon 5 and reading JMS's comments.
I have seen some that have some that have gathered a fair bit of stuff
pointing in one direction, but at the same time, ignoring anything that
points in a different direction (not necessarily directly opposite). As
far as I'm concerned, the waters are too muddy for there to be
*overwhelming* evidence as to anything, one way or another.
I have my own speculations, based on what I believe matches with the
most "evidence", but I've found that I don't have the time or energy to
present and defend them properly, so for the being I'm sticking to one
simple position:
Label the facts as facts and speculations as speculations. That's all.
Pål Are Nordal
(Who's only speaking for himself.)
John W. Kennedy
>>Febo wrote:
>>
>>>Originally, Draal's "Big Payoff" was to be sending Babylon 5 and
>>
>>Sinclair/Valen
>>
>>>back in time to fight in the first Shadow War during the series finale, but
>>>events necessitated moving that part of the story to the middle of the
>>
>>third
>>
>>>season, and a new resolution to the Draal plot thread was never attended
>>
>>to.
>>
>>>It happens. No biggie.
>>
>>Please do not state as facts things that you made up.
>
>
> I did not make it up, it's a conclusion based on overwhelming evidence drawn
> from watching Babylon 5 and reading JMS's comments.
And then assuming that he's a liar.
John W. Kennedy
> Don't sweat it -- John's been around here long enough to know that you are
> far, far from the first to make this assertion. It's probably safe to say
> that most of us who began watching the show from the beginning "know" in our
> guts that it's the truth ('course many of those folks are long gone from
> here). I don't know what's with his denial, except as you say, there
> definitely are those fans who are "Creationists." Me, I see them more like
> members of the Soviet Politboro who airbrushed out inconvenient individuals
> from photographs (and sent the real people to the gulag) as part of their
> constant rewriting of history. Fortunately, they're just doing it to a TV
> show and not to anything that actually matters in real life.
I do not see why I should be subjected to vicious personal attacks
merely because I continue to insist that JMS is not a liar.
Joseph DeMartino
Nobody is calling JMS a liar. Please produce a post where he said
flat-out that Sinclair was not intended to be the station commander for
the full five years. The only thing I've seen the "fundamentalists"
point to on this was JMS's story about telling his associates about "the
very last scene" and their stunned reactions. Since he later explained
that the "last scene" he had in mind then was the destruction of B5
itself, there is nothing in his statement that contradicts the idea that
Sinclair's little time jaunt could happen in the series finale.
Therefore nobody who believes that is calling him a liar.
Regards,
Joe
Febo
>merely because I continue to insist that JMS is not a liar.
Can you provide an example of a JMS quote which, in its original context,
directly (or even indirectly) contradicts the supposition that the
B4/Valen-Sinclair thread was originally meant to be resolved in the series
finally?
Febo
Laura Appelbaum
the issue; in "Babylon Squared" which was always, no matter what else you
believe, the "other side" of the jms' promised "one and only instance" of
time travel in the series, it is made painstakingly clear that entering and
leaving the tachyon field abruptly and unprotected kills the pilot who first
investigates it by abnormally aging him. *And* (this is the key point) in
doing so, it ages him *internally* but not *externally* -- he still looks
like a guy who just turned thirty but his inner organs are those of a very
old man.
At the end of the episode, we see a *visibly* aged Sinclair (with that
mysterious scar on his face) with Delenn (whose loving caress of his arm
makes it clear they are a couple in this distant future). In "War Without
End," jms manages to re-explain most of the inconsistencies that arose from
the removal of Sinclair from the center of the B5 story, but he did not,
could not, rewrite the "facts" established in B^3 about what happens when
you go through the temporal distortion. He tries to explain away Sinclair's
aging in B^3 by having him in WWE say it's because he's gone back and forth
in time unprotected, but that is clearly inconsistent with the pilot in B^3
*looking the same* but dying of old age. Furthermore, since it's
established in B^3 that Zathras and the Sinclair in the space suit (any
questions about whether anyone else was ever intended to be in the suit are
laid to rest in my mind by the interview with Michael O'Hare in Jane
Killick's 1997 "Signs and Portents" episode guide, where in talking about
the episode, MOH says "the reality is that's me touching myself -- if you
pardon the expression!") are risking their lives by using time stablizers
to give the crew time to get off B4 safely, and 2258's Sinclair is among
them, he has *not* at the time of WWE gone through time unprotected! The
only logical, non-revisionist explanation is that when we first saw the old
Sinclair, he's old because well, *he's old* -- lots of time has gone by
since 2258 and the moment he tells Delenn he tried to change things but
couldn't (which ehoes of his telling Mitchell that he tried -- and tries
everytime he dreams about The Line -- to warn him, but he didn't listen,
never listens). He's tried to warn people, they didn't listen, so the
Shadows are on schedule to bring "the end of everything" as Zathras says.
So there's only one thing left for him to do -- go back and become Valen.
This scenario -- and the evident sorrow between him and Delenn -- would fit
so neatly into the end of a "Sleeping in Light" type episode, instead of it
being Sheridan going off to die alone that it seems to me (and many others)
self-evident that this is how the original story would have gone.
At any rate, if you can follow that argument what with all my customary
imbedded parenthesis and asides, you get a gold star. ;D
LMA
Hank Arnold
re-runs, tapes and DVDs and let's move on........
--
Regards,
Hank Arnold
"Febo" <feb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021017093335...@mb-mh.aol.com...
Jan
<<At the end of the episode, we see a *visibly* aged Sinclair (with that
mysterious scar on his face) with Delenn (whose loving caress of his arm
makes it clear they are a couple in this distant future). >>
Laura, you make several good points but this one is just plain wrong, IMO. Did
Delenn hugging Draal or Londo mean that they had something going? Or when she
touched Lennier's hand or his face? No, of course not.
Delenn is/was simply a very tactile person with the people who she cared about.
And hey, I like parenthetical comments and asides!
Jan
Febo
>Who really cares???????????? B5 is what it is................... Enjoy the
>re-runs, tapes and DVDs and let's move on........
>
Part of enjoying the show is relfection and speculation. Reflection on the
show as it is, and speculation on what might have been. Isn't that why we
still participate in this newsgroup years after production ceased?
It seems to me that the B5 "fundamentalists" who refuse to speculate are the
ones taking the fun out of it.
Febo
Matthew Vincent
Febo wrote:
>>I did not make it up, it's a conclusion based on overwhelming
>>evidence drawn from watching Babylon 5 and reading JMS's comments.
I'd be fascinated to see some of this "overwhelming evidence". I'm not
convinced by anything that's been said about it so far.
>Don't sweat it -- John's been around here long enough to know
>that you are far, far from the first to make this assertion.
Which has no bearing whatsoever upon the truth of the assertion. Being
familiar with Asch's and Sherif's experiments on conformity has been a
useful asset in many of my internet debates over the years.
>I don't know what's with his denial, except as you say, there
>definitely are those fans who are "Creationists."
"What you know, you ignore, because it's inconvenient. What you don't
know, you invent." -- Delenn
This quote is often worth considering by both sides in a debate --
whether it's science vs. religious fundamentalism, or evolutionary
psychology vs. social constructionist theories, or many other of the
various debates around key social issues.
Matthew
Pelzo63
sinclair staying for 5 years are allowed to be posted.
someone posted this:
> >there is nothing in his statement that contradicts the idea that
> >Sinclair's little time jaunt could happen in the series finale.
> >Therefore nobody who believes that is calling him a liar.
i posted the below:
> from the lurkers guide:
>
> ---------------
> "So who IS the One? Some of the evidence points to Sinclair, but other bits
> seem to indicate Delenn. Yet neither seems to fit all the facts above."
>
> Exactly.
> What you have here in your message are two pieces of the puzzle. You're
> confounded by the fact that somehow they don't quite seem to fit into one
> another. That's because there's one last piece missing in this part of the
> picture, which fits in between them. The intent is to put this piece into
clear
> view in year three, probably between episodes 8 and 11 approximately. At that
> point, the question of the One will be fully answered.
> ----------------
>
> wwe was episode 3:16 and 3:17, 5 episodes LATER than this post implies for
> timing of the resolution of "the one"
interpret that how you will, apparently my interpretation is not allowed.
...Chris
Matthew Vincent
>He [JMS] tries to explain away Sinclair's aging in B^3 by
>having him in WWE say it's because he's gone back and forth
>in time unprotected, but that is clearly inconsistent with
>the pilot in B^3 *looking the same* but dying of old age.
The effects could be chaotic and unpredictable, and thus vary between
different individuals who are affected by it. It may also vary based
upon their 'destiny' in the grand scheme of things -- i.e. the same
reason that their destination in time can vary.
<snip>
>He's tried to warn people, they didn't listen, so the Shadows are
>on schedule to bring "the end of everything" as Zathras says. So
>there's only one thing left for him to do -- go back and become
>Valen. This scenario -- and the evident sorrow between him and
>Delenn -- would fit so neatly into the end of a "Sleeping in
>Light" type episode, instead of it being Sheridan going off to
>die alone that it seems to me (and many others) self-evident
>that this is how the original story would have gone.
There's just one problem with this theory of yours: isn't the Shadow
war already *over* before SiL comes around? I can't imagine that JMS
ever intended to write the story with that not being the case.
>At any rate, if you can follow that argument what with all my
>customary imbedded parenthesis and asides, you get a gold star. ;D
Sure, I'll collect the token reinforcer, for what it's worth. ;)
Matthew
P.S. I also agree with Jan -- Delenn's being affectionate is
meaningless, and could just as easily be platonic. A fan who has a
pre-existing belief that they are meant to be a couple may interpret
this action in that context, even if that meaning isn't really there.
Pål Are Nordal
>
> Part of enjoying the show is relfection and speculation. Reflection
> on the show as it is, and speculation on what might have been. Isn't
> that why we still participate in this newsgroup years after
> production ceased?
Ah, but that works both ways, does it not? If we are to accept your
position on the matter as fact, then any further discussion on the
subject becomes redundant...
Laura Appelbaum
news:20021018133750...@mb-fp.aol.com...
you *seriously* going to deny that Delenn and Sinclair *weren't* intended to
be together when there were *no* plans for a Sheridan character to replace
Sinclair as the lead??? That's just silly.
LMA
Laura Appelbaum
news:44aa4edb.0210...@posting.google.com...
> "Laura Appelbaum" <l-app...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >He [JMS] tries to explain away Sinclair's aging in B^3 by
> >having him in WWE say it's because he's gone back and forth
> >in time unprotected, but that is clearly inconsistent with
> >the pilot in B^3 *looking the same* but dying of old age.
>
> The effects could be chaotic and unpredictable, and thus vary between
> different individuals who are affected by it.
Uh, last time I checked, gravity affected all bodies the same way. In B5,
we're shown all kinds of phenomenon that are supposed to be accepted within
the "reality" of the series as gravity and other natural forces are in the
real world. Hyperspace doesn't "behave" differently depending on whether
you are Human or Minbari; why would a tacheon field? As I say, the only
reason for the inconsistency is because jms had to do some fast talking to
tie up as many lose ends as he could once the suits fired MOH. He did a
good job at it, but he couldn't possibly cover all the bases; and this
"smoking gun" in WWE is the most blatant example.
> <snip>
>
> >He's tried to warn people, they didn't listen, so the Shadows are
> >on schedule to bring "the end of everything" as Zathras says. So
> >there's only one thing left for him to do -- go back and become
> >Valen. This scenario -- and the evident sorrow between him and
> >Delenn -- would fit so neatly into the end of a "Sleeping in
> >Light" type episode, instead of it being Sheridan going off to
> >die alone that it seems to me (and many others) self-evident
> >that this is how the original story would have gone.
>
> There's just one problem with this theory of yours: isn't the Shadow
> war already *over* before SiL comes around? I can't imagine that JMS
> ever intended to write the story with that not being the case.
Sure, it's *probably* over by then, but that doesn't mean that in the
original scenario, Sinclair wouldn't have in that episode found out that he
has to go back in time and become Valen. The Shadows have to be defeated
and driven in to exile 1000 years before in order for the Army of Light to
defeat them in the 2260s. *When* Sinclair goes back in time to do that
doesn't matter so much as the fact that at some point, he *does.*
> P.S. I also agree with Jan -- Delenn's being affectionate is
> meaningless, and could just as easily be platonic. A fan who has a
> pre-existing belief that they are meant to be a couple may interpret
> this action in that context, even if that meaning isn't really there.
>
I only developed what you call a "pre-existing belief" by watching the
series from the first airing of the Gathering in 1993 in order *as it
unfolded*, with MOH as the intended star of the five year plan. It's not
"pre-existing," it's what things were. See, this goes to the core of these
kinds of debates around here -- most of the current participants in this
group tuned into the series much later on, when Boxleitner had already been
brought in and things were being rearranged to make his character
preeminent. But those of us First Ones who tuned in from the beginning
naturally have a different take on things than the aforementioned "late
comers" if you will. It's a natural phenomenon that effects all of human
experience -- the understanding of things that unfold in a person's lifetime
are different than the revisionists analysis that is penned by people living
at a later time who look back. Gee, I think there was even a B5 episode
about that ... ;D
LMA
Jan
LMA wrote:
<< And really, are you *seriously* going to deny that Delenn and Sinclair
*weren't* intended to be together when there were *no* plans for a Sheridan
character to replace Sinclair as the lead??? That's just silly.>>
My reference for what was 'originally' intended has to go back to the *first*
available data point, the series Treatment that JMS released through the Fan
Club (second draft, September 1, 1988). In it, Delenn was male. Not
androgynous, no hint of any change coming up. Male.
Delenn's relationship with Sinclair is described as "A friendship has grown
between the two since their simutaneous arrival at Babylon 5, a friendship
often tested - usually in humor - by one or the other. Because Commander
Sinclair still remembers the wars, and though he likes Delenn quite a bit,
there is still a certain restraint that creeps into he behavior, whether he
likes it or not."
Doesn't sound like much of a love story in the works to me.
Later, Laura wrote:
<< only developed what you call a "pre-existing belief" by watching the
series from the first airing of the Gathering in 1993 in order *as it
unfolded*, with MOH as the intended star of the five year plan. It's not
"pre-existing," it's what things were. See, this goes to the core of these
kinds of debates around here -- most of the current participants in this group
tuned into the series much later on, when Boxleitner had already been brought
in and things were being rearranged to make his character preeminent. But
those of us First Ones who tuned in from the beginning
naturally have a different take on things than the aforementioned "late comers"
if you will.>>
I'm sorry, this sounds like the epitome of snobbishnes to me. First Ones?
Latecomers? Since when is there a heirarchy in B5 Fandom?? For the record, I
missed the original airing of The Gathering (which I later saw in the original
state and it wasn't very good) but DID watch from the beginning of season one.
Not that I think that has anything to do with the validity of anybody's opinion
but my 'references' seem to have meaning for you.
<< It's a natural phenomenon that effects all of human experience -- the
understanding of things that unfold in a person's lifetime are different than
the revisionists analysis that is penned by people living at a later time who
look back. Gee, I think there was even a B5 episode
about that ... ;D>>
True, and an excellent episode it was, too. But see my comments about source
material. My source illustrates the *oldest* known 'snapshot' of what was
intended while yours begins from the next oldest, the pilot. Already there
were substantial changes in between. So how can *any* of us pretend to 'know'
what JMS 'originally' intended since what unfolded met the needs of the story
he wanted to tell rather than any rigid Plan Of How Things Must Be.
I try not to get into these arguements much because I prefer analysing the
story as it happened, not as it might have happened. It gets tiring reading
people who are certain that they actually have a handle on what JMS's
intentions were unless they're either quoting him directly or basing their
opinion on actual source material.
Jan
Jan
<<She wasn't in the first season when the scene was filmed. And really, are
you *seriously* going to deny that Delenn and Sinclair *weren't* intended to
be together when there were *no* plans for a Sheridan character to replace
Sinclair as the lead??? That's just silly.>>
Well, I have to admit I tend to accept the story as presented and I don't
speculate much about the might-have beens. If I did, though, I'd have to defer
to the Treatment that JMS released via the Fan Club. In that, you may recall,
Delenn was male. Not androgynous. Male. With no hint that he would be making
a change in the future. It stated that Delenn and Sinclair were close friends
but that, since both remembered the war, there was often a restraint between
them.
So while I don't deny that there were no plans originally for Sheridan to
replace Sinclair, I can't accept that Sinclair and Delenn were intended to
become a couple from the beginning either.
JMS has said repeatedly that he moved threads around to different people
depending on the needs of the overall story. I take that to mean that the
story got told even though the details might have changed from time to time.
Heck, does it really matter that Ivanova took over the coffee plants from
Takashima? To me, the changes that happened from the Original Concept are no
more important than that. It's the final story that matters.
Jan
Anna Hayward, Alien Visitor
Vincent <war...@es.co.nz> writes
>P.S. I also agree with Jan -- Delenn's being affectionate is
>meaningless, and could just as easily be platonic. A fan who has a
>pre-existing belief that they are meant to be a couple may interpret
>this action in that context, even if that meaning isn't really there.
I can't see how anyone could think they were supposed to be a couple.
Sinclair was very obviously totally in love with Catherine and
completely faithful to her - he was planning to marry her after all. And
Delenn was actually his Great great great great... great granddaughter,
so it would have been incest (not that either of them realised it at the
time). The more I see Season One, the more I am struck by Sinclair's
almost parental concern for Delenn (even though technically, she out-
ranks him). Think of Delenn as his daughter, and his whole manner
suddenly makes a lot of sense.
If you compare Delenn's body language with Sheridan, with her body
language with Sinclair, I think it is very, very obvious that one is
affection with great respect and platonic love, and the other is
romantic love combined with sexual attraction - the extended eye-contact
and continual face and hand touching that goes on between Sheridan and
Delenn is particularly noticeable.
I was reading the other day that stroking one another's faces, caressing
each others hands (including kissing them) and holding extended, mutual
gazes is a stronger signal of romantic attachment than having sex with
someone (although it can also be a parental thing, like when a mother
gazes at her baby and examines his little fingers and toes).
I saw a famous French film the other day in which a couple's
relationship was supposed to be purely sexual but they fall in love with
each other (it all ends in tears, of course, because this was a French
film). The point at which you realise this they are in bed together and
he suddenly raises his hand and follows the line of her face, from her
brow, around her eye and down her cheek to the corner of her mouth. It
was a very powerful scene. In body language terms it said "I want to
know your face like I know my own".
I've been trying to think of the point where we know that Sheridan and
Delenn are "involved" rather than simply great friends who flirt. I
think the line is crossed when she plays the rain-sounds for him in the
Whitestar, and takes his hand. Up until that point, any affection she'd
showed him could be misinterpreted as being due to the heat of the
moment, or simply the kind of affection we see between Sheridan and
Ivanova. She is so completely absorbed in him, despite everything that
is going on around them. And he almost seems to be holding his breath as
if he'd scare her off if he breathed - he really can't believe his luck!
Anyway, I don't have natural ability to read this kind of thing so I
can't be certain I'm right, but that's what seems to me. I have to say
the first time around, I never even had the slightest hint that Sinclair
and Delenn were romantically interested - and in fact my friend thought
that Sinclair and Ivanova were possibly interested in each other! To be
honest, emotionally the closest "couple" in Season 1 were Garibaldi and
Sinclair! (No, don't even think about going there...)
--
Anna Hayward, Alien Visitor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Boy, I've never seen that guy so down... or ever before"
- a janitor from Futurama
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Febo
_I_ don't even accept "my" position as a matter of fact. It's just a theory
that fits the facts. I would like to discuss how different possibilities also
fit the facts, but so far the only "discussion" has been people accusing me of
assuming JMS is a liar.
(I don't think JMS is a liar).
Febo
Pelzo63
>B5,
>we're shown all kinds of phenomenon that are supposed to be accepted within
>the "reality" of the series as gravity and other natural forces are in the
>real world. Hyperspace doesn't "behave" differently depending on whether
>you are Human or Minbari; why would a tacheon field?
uh, last time i checked, the time flashes affected each person differently,
it's been established.
uh, last time i checked, teeps are affected by hyperspace differently than
normals.
>I only developed what you call a "pre-existing belief" by watching the
>series from the first airing of the Gathering in 1993 in order *as it
>unfolded*, with MOH as the intended star of the five year plan
and by getting a schoolgirl crush on the man, forever clouding any opinion
related to sinclair, delenn, or sheridan.
...Chris, i can't believe i'm actually on the same side of an issue with
matthew.
Laura Appelbaum
"Anna Hayward, Alien Visitor" <An...@ratbag.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bAczdAAU...@ratbag.demon.co.uk...
> In article <44aa4edb.0210...@posting.google.com>, Matthew
> Vincent <war...@es.co.nz> writes
> >P.S. I also agree with Jan -- Delenn's being affectionate is
> >meaningless, and could just as easily be platonic. A fan who has a
> >pre-existing belief that they are meant to be a couple may interpret
> >this action in that context, even if that meaning isn't really there.
>
> I can't see how anyone could think they were supposed to be a couple.
> Sinclair was very obviously totally in love with Catherine and
> completely faithful to her - he was planning to marry her after all.
Yes, but so was Sheridan in love with Anna. Shit happens. Besides, it's on
the record from a contemporaneous article with Julia Nickson who played
Sakai that had things proceded as planned, Sakai was going to "have a
strange form of amnesia" -- which to me has always sounded like *she* was
going to be put in a Shadow vessel, be pulled out, but not be the same
person any more. So maybe she would then have left Sinclair cold. At any
rate, it would have left him open to develop his relationship with Delenn
just as Sheridan did.
I've also *never* understood the relationship between Sheridan and Delenn as
anything but a plot point. The two characters had nothing in common
whatsoever, where as Delenn and Sinclair had a lot -- an introspective,
religious bent, a feeling of being haunted by what they each did (or feel
they didn't do) during the war, etc. There was also absolutely zero
chemistry between Furlan and Boxleitner, but a lot between her and O'Hare.
It always seemed to me that sparks flew between the two of them in their
scenes. If they were real people in real life, I can't imagine Delenn and
Sheridan ever having anything to do with one another. And everyone in real
life I've ever known whose gotten involved with someone as completely
opposite as those two characters has rued it long and hard. YMMV.
And
> Delenn was actually his Great great great great... great granddaughter,
> so it would have been incest (not that either of them realised it at the
> time).
If you think that's incest, you've got a really strange sense of relations.
All around the world to the present day, and in this country up until maybe
50 or 60 years or so ago, cousin-marriage is and was a *very* common thing.
And by cousins, I mean first as well as second cousins. That's a hell of a
lot closer than being separated by 1000 years of generations. You go back
that far, and practically everyone within any given ethnic group are all
related and thus "committing incest" by your definition.
LMA
Febo
>Sinclair was very obviously totally in love with Catherine and
>completely faithful to her - he was planning to marry her after all.
I always assumed she would have dissapeared at Z'ha'dum.
>And
>Delenn was actually his Great great great great... great granddaughter,
>so it would have been incest (not that either of them realised it at the
>time).
I suspect that that tidbit was added after the Sheridan character was
introduced.
Febo
Anna Hayward, Alien Visitor
I do tend to think that discussions about "what JMS was going to write"
are a little pointless because the fact is, he didn't.
>> Sinclair was very obviously totally in love with Catherine and
>> completely faithful to her - he was planning to marry her after all.
>
>Yes, but so was Sheridan in love with Anna. Shit happens. Besides, it's on
>the record from a contemporaneous article with Julia Nickson who played
>Sakai that had things proceded as planned, Sakai was going to "have a
>strange form of amnesia" -- which to me has always sounded like *she* was
>going to be put in a Shadow vessel, be pulled out, but not be the same
>person any more.
Which would have given B5 such a totally different storyline, we are
basically not discussing the same series.
>I've also *never* understood the relationship between Sheridan and Delenn as
>anything but a plot point. The two characters had nothing in common
>whatsoever,
I totally disagree and I totally believed that they'd fall for each
other, right from the beginning of Season 2. They just seemed to
compliment each other so well - he was a better soldier than her, and
she was a better politician than him, but both learned the other's
"craft" as time progressed. They were opposites in many ways, but that
really works IMHO.
> where as Delenn and Sinclair had a lot -- an introspective,
>religious bent, a feeling of being haunted by what they each did (or feel
>they didn't do) during the war, etc.
You can be too similar to a person. I dread to think what my marriage
would be like if my husband was anything like me! As it is, he's totally
the opposite in many ways. I think a Delenn-Sinclair pairing could have
got incredibly introspective and intense and been a bit heavy.
> There was also absolutely zero
>chemistry between Furlan and Boxleitner, but a lot between her and O'Hare.
I disagree. Maybe knowing about the actors IRL changes your perspective?
I don't know about Furlan and Boxleitner, but Sheridan and Delenn
definitely have chemistry.
>If they were real people in real life, I can't imagine Delenn and
>Sheridan ever having anything to do with one another.
>From their first meeting, in the council chamber, it struck me that
there was a spark between them.
> And everyone in real
>life I've ever known whose gotten involved with someone as completely
>opposite as those two characters has rued it long and hard. YMMV.
I'm overly talkative, disorganised, somewhat hair-brained, extrovert,
quite imaginative, romantic and obsessed with movies, science-fiction
and tropical fish. My husband is virtually silent, extremely organised,
introvert, the least imaginative man I've ever met, is totally
unromantic and loves buses and trains. I'm a wannabe writer and he's a
mathematician/software engineer.
We actually couldn't be more different. So I disagree with your gloomy
prognosis of opposites attracting - it can really work. I can see it
working with Delenn and Sheridan precisely because they are quite
different.
>All around the world to the present day, and in this country up until maybe
>50 or 60 years or so ago, cousin-marriage is and was a *very* common thing.
>And by cousins, I mean first as well as second cousins. That's a hell of a
>lot closer than being separated by 1000 years of generations. You go back
>that far, and practically everyone within any given ethnic group are all
>related and thus "committing incest" by your definition.
Well that's a good point, but due to originally living in the same time
period, it gives me an icky feeling to think of them together.
David Williams
"Joseph DeMartino" <jdem...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:HGxr9.5519$ku....@news.bellsouth.net...
My post about same was bounced. Re-submitted it for review, and got no
reply. Just returned to Chicago from a week in sunny Fort Lauderdale, so I
really don't care that much. Nice to see others agree with my own
speculations regarding jms' originally planned climax for the series.
(Involving Draal, Sinclair, the Great Machine, and possibly B4.)
Regards,
-David
David Williams
> Laura,
> I do tend to think that discussions about "what JMS was going to write"
> are a little pointless because the fact is, he didn't.
Yes an no... Too tired to debate. Just a reminder that the thread actually
began with someone's question about some awkward loose ends in the series,
which were the result of some cast changes.
Regards,
-David W.
Andrew Swallow
of Draal and the Great Machine in Crusade.
Andrew Swallow
John W. Kennedy
"Originally"? I imagine it probably was in his head at one point in
the evolution of the story; the "Ulysses" symbolism seems to indicate
something of the sort. But he has repeatedly denied that "events
necessitated moving that part of the story to the middle of the third
season", or even that these darkly-hinted-at "events" occurred. It's
not at all uncommon for a writer to change his mind, and JMS has been
saying for eight years now that he changed his mind, and no-one changed
it for him.
Joseph DeMartino
back from the moderators.
Third attempt:
Most contrary arguments turn out to be based on misquotations or
misunderstandings, and therefore don't impress me at all.
For instance: The famous "last scene" story. JMS has since stated that
the scene he described to DiTillo, et. al. was *the destruction of B5*
20 some years after the beginning of the story. At that point he hadn't
written "SiL" so he didn't know what the *exact* last shot was going to
be, but he knew where he was heading. Similarly it is silly for people
to say, "It couldn't have happened any other way because 'WWE' and 'SiL'
are totally different." *Of course* "WWE" and "SiL" *as written*
wouldn't work for a story in which Sinclair remained the commander.
Half the fuction of "WWE" as it turned out was getting *rid* of Sinclair
and establishing Sheridan as "The One who Will Be". The only event that
would have been transposed to the last episode was Sinclair's departure.
It is entirely possible that we would revist the theft of B4 and even
learn that it was sent into the past to fight in the last Shadow War in
S3 - but without learning that the guy in the blue suit was Sinclair
from the future.
Also there is a message about the nature of "The One" in which JMS says
that the reason some clues seem to point to Sinclair and some to Delenn,
but some to *neither*, is that there is still "one more piece to the
puzzle" which will be revealed late in S3. Some people assume that this
means the clues mentioned extend as far back as S1, and that Sheridan
and "WWE" were always planned "from the beginning". But there is a key
fact about this message that is almost always omitted when it is quoted:
the *date* when it was originally posted. The date of that message is
April 1995 - about half-way through the broadcast of *S2*. In other
words, it was written long *after* Sheridan had been introduced into the
story, and the arc changed, if the "five year Sinclair" theory is
correct. So it cannot be used as evidence about the shape of the
original arc, or to justify the claim that JMS "must be lying" if
Sinclair was once planned to be the lead character throughout. What he
wrote in April 1995 was *true* - *as of April 1995*. But it tells us
*nothing* about his plans prior to Sheridan's creation.
Here are some JMS comments that I've collected over the years that I
think make i clear beyond a reasonable doubt that Sinclair was intended
to be the main character for all five years until sometime during
production of the first season, and that therefore the GM and Draal
ended up becoming something of a loose end:
The myth that Sinclair was always supposed to leave seems to be based on
a statement by JMS that the story always turned out the way he'd
intended. The implication, in the mind of some people, is that he had
every nut, bolt and screw pre-planned, and that anyone suggesting
otherwise is calling him a liar. But that is based on a misunderstanding
of how he works, and what he meant by "the story". Here's what he had to
say about that:
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Actually, the progression of the B5 story has been almost exactly the
same as the way I write my novels. I start off knowing where the story
has to go, what benchmarks I need to hit en route to the end, what my
repertory group of characters consists of, and then I start writing. As
someone said of a battle, an outline never survives contact with the
enemy, which in this case is the actual writing.
The outline, for me, is a safety net whose purpose is to keep me
nominally on track while allowing me the freedom to bounce around the
landscape, adding new threads, broadening out the storylines, fleshing
out the characters, and reorganizing how the characters move in and out
of the story. That makes the work organic. I still end up exactly where
I wanted to end up, but the road there is much more interesting than if
I'd just hewed to a very rigid structure.
-- 8/14/96 CompuServe
The creative process is fluid. Has to be. Consider for a moment the
position in which I find myself. Let's say I'm writing a novel. I start
with a fairly clear notion of where I'm going. Six chapters in, I get a
better way of doing something, so I go back and revise chapters 1-5, so
it now all fits; you never see what went before. Now, compare that to a
situation where you're publishing each chapter as you go, and you can't
go back and change anything. (This is pretty much the situation Dickens
found himself in, as he published his works chapter by chapter; you can
never back up, only go forward.)
At the same time, because we're using actors who have real lives of
their own, to whom things happen -- broken limbs, health problems that
may preclude appearing in a given episode, sudden career changes, you
name it -- you have real-life obstacles constantly in your way. The
closest thing I can compare this to...is if you're on stage, in front of
a large audience, and you have to do a very elaborate dance...and all
the while people are throwing bowling balls and chainsaws at you. You
either learn how to accommodate all that, and keep pretty much on
rhythm, or you're dead.
-- CompuServe 5/10/96
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Here are a selection of JMS posts relating to the removal of Sinclair
and the genesis of the Sheridan character:
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Okay, alternate-universe time to answer your question.... "What if
Sinclair had not left Babylon 5?" (Isn't this kinda like the Marvel What
If? comics..."What If Dr. Blake's Nurse Had Been The One to Find Thor's
Hammer?")
The differences would be more noticeable in the later episodes of this
season, rather than the first batch, which are still dealing in large
measure with the after-effects of the season finale. So the first few
episodes would have been somewhat the same in some ways to what is there
with Sheridan. The problem that I had was that he was becoming (and
would have become) mainly a problem-solver character; there's a squabble
or a problem between other characters who are rising in profile (G'Kar,
Londo, Delenn, etc.), and he solves the problem in some way. These, to
me, were the least interesting episodes of our prior season.
It would've been necessary to bring in another character with a direct
connection to the shadowmen, since Sinclair's main connection is to the
Minbari, and it would've been straining credulity to plug him too much
into THAT story as well...hero of the line, missing 24 hours, Minbari
soul, AND a tie to the Shadowmen...c'mon, what else does he do, fly
under his own power? Had he stayed, the Shadowman tie probably would've
gone to either Keffer or Garibaldi. Which, again, further removes
Sinclair from the main thrust of the story. He would have stayed on as
more of an observer of other people *acting*, while he *reacted*. I
can't get too specific otherwise without revealing, by contrast, what's
going to happen later on this season. Suffice to say this: watch the
show up to and through "The Coming of Shadows," "All Alone in the
Night," "Acts of Sacrifice," and "Hunter, Prey." (That's about episode
#13.) You can then ask the question again, but I have a real suspicion
that once you've seen those episodes, and what Sheridan does, you won't
NEED to ask, because you'll see how he fits into the overall story in a
very specific fashion with is 180-degrees different than Sinclair.
-- Usenet 12/06/1994
Sheridan, or more specifically the need for someone *like* Sheridan
began to get through clearly toward the latter part of last season*, as
I began planning out season two's progression, and kept looking at
elements of the story and trying to find ways to get Sinclair into the
heart of them.* They felt contrived, for the most part; and the other
characters, like Londo and G'Kar and Delenn, were *really* moving
forward in a big way. The role of Sinclair was becoming primarily that
of a "problem solver," and when that happens, a sort of glass bell falls
down around the character, and you can't do much with him. So what the
writer has to do is break that bell in one way or another; do something
totally unexpected to him, and bring in someone who has a direct,
personal connection with the storyline emerging in season two, so it's
not contrived or forced.
(italics added - JD)
-- Usenet 11/11/94
To the query above, yes, BABYLON 5 has a definite beginning, middle
and end. I've always enjoyed shows like that, such as THE PRISONER,
which has a beginning (he arrives at the village) and an end (he escapes
from the village...sorta), and good stuff in between.
All of this effort is so that we can tell A Story. A very long and
involved story, about one person, mainly,* but how that person's future
can affect the course of history. A saga.
* (italics added - JD)
-- GEnie 9/19/92
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
And, Finally.
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
At the end of the first season, one character will undergo a major,
MAJOR change, which will start the show spinning on a very different
axis. The first season will have some fairly conventional stories, but
others will start the show gradually moving toward where I want it to
go. One has to set these things up gradually. Events in the story --
which is very much the story of Jeffrey Sinclair* -- will speed up in
each subsequent season.
Someone he considers a friend will betray him. Another will prove to
be the exact opposite of what Sinclair believes to be true. Some will
live. Some will die. He will be put through a crucible of terrible
force, that will change him, and alter his destiny, in a profound and
terrible way...if he goes one way, or the other, will determine not only
his own fate, but that of millions of others. He will grow, and become
stronger, better, wiser...or be destroyed by what fate is bringing his
way. In sum, it is a story of hope against terrible adversity and
overwhelming odds.
That, in broad brush strokes, is a *taste* of what I plan to do with
the series. I note this here because when the pilot airs, I am going to
ask for your continued help in supporting the endeavor for the series,
and it occurs to me that you ought to have at least SOME idea of what
you're buying, and being asked to support. One should never be asked to
sign a blank check on the bank of one's conscience.
Reactions?
* (italics added - JD)
1/12/93
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
I haven't even bothered appending the various posts relating to Michael
O'Hare's departure which make it clear that it was an unplanned event
from both O'Hare's and JMS's perspective, although they were able to
work it out amicably.
All of the above statements can be found on www.JMSNews.com on the dates
indicated.
Regards,
Joe
Pål Are Nordal
> I haven't even bothered appending the various posts relating to
> Michael O'Hare's departure which make it clear that it was an
> unplanned event from both O'Hare's and JMS's perspective,
Well duh! But it's a long jump from that to putting the events of WWE at
the end of series, and I for one can certainly see several other options
which match the various things I've read better.
Febo
>> directly (or even indirectly) contradicts the supposition that the
>> B4/Valen-Sinclair thread was originally meant to be resolved in the series
>> finally?
>
>"Originally"? I imagine it probably was in his head at one point in
>the evolution of the story; the "Ulysses" symbolism seems to indicate
>something of the sort. But he has repeatedly denied that "events
>necessitated moving that part of the story to the middle of the third
>season", or even that these darkly-hinted-at "events" occurred. It's
>not at all uncommon for a writer to change his mind, and JMS has been
>saying for eight years now that he changed his mind, and no-one changed
>it for him.
No kidding it's not uncommon for a writer to change his or her mind. It's not
like anyone is saying, "Sinclair was originally meant to become Valen in the
series finally and that really unusual." We're just discussing the evolution
of the story. If you don't have anything useful or interesting to contribute
to that discussion, then leave it be; there is no need to state the obvious in
a condescending manner.
Febo
Pelzo63
>Also there is a message about the nature of "The One" in which JMS says
>that the reason some clues seem to point to Sinclair and some to Delenn,
>but some to *neither*, is that there is still "one more piece to the
>puzzle" which will be revealed late in S3. Some people assume that this
>means the clues mentioned extend as far back as S1, and that Sheridan
>and "WWE" were always planned "from the beginning". But there is a key
>fact about this message that is almost always omitted when it is quoted:
>the *date* when it was originally posted. The date of that message is
>April 1995 - about half-way through the broadcast of *S2*. In other
>words, it was written long *after* Sheridan had been introduced into the
>story, and the arc changed, if the "five year Sinclair" theory is
>correct. So it cannot be used as evidence about the shape of the
>original arc, or to justify the claim that JMS "must be lying" if
>Sinclair was once planned to be the lead character throughout. What he
>wrote in April 1995 was *true* - *as of April 1995*. But it tells us
>*nothing* about his plans prior to Sheridan's creation.
since i was the most recent one to post this quote, i feel i must clarify one
thing.
i do NOT feel that sheridan(or a character like sheridan) was the plan all
along. there are 2 interpretations for how the 3rd part of "the one" could be
shown, one is if o'hare(hint, not sinclair), stays all 5 years, the other is
based on what actually happened. i cannot be more specific in this newsgroup
because it keeps getting called a "story idea"(though i have yet to get a reply
as to what makes it a story idea).
and no, i did not omit the date, i got the post from the lurkers guide page for
B^3, no dates there to omit, and the date is also irrelevant to the viewers
observation, the viewer made that observation without seeing WWE.
if you wish to hear my so-called "story idea" as to what i believe would have
occured, email in private(no, it's NOT fanfic, i don't even understand how it's
a story idea, it's just a simple addition of one scene and a character
transposition)
...Chris
Anna Hayward, Alien Visitor
Personally, I think the series that JMS made *worked* and nothing can
take that away from him. Discussions about what might have been and what
would have been seem to detract from what was done - at least for me. I
feel it spoils it a bit.
Its a pity we don't say "Well, so-and-so left unexpectedly, but look how
JMS was able to turn it around to something great!".
Take the story about Talia being "Control" (which I believe arose when
the actress playing her suddenly resigned). Personally, that episode
came right out of left field for me, and left me wondering which
character was safe - *anything* could happen from then on. The heroes
and heroines might not come back from the brink and something
irredeemably awful might happen. That anxiety was played on mercilessly
throughout the 5 series. It wasn't like watching Star Trek TOS when you
*knew* that Spock and Kirk would always be just fine by the end of the
episode.
Perhaps this was one of the factors that lead me, the first time I saw
the end of Season 3, to really think that Sheridan was dead and gone
forever. I didn't think he'd come back and when he did, I was ecstatic.
I don't think I'd have felt like that if I hadn't already learned that
beloved characters didn't always come back.
The effect of Talias death on Ivanova was incredible - I think it gave
the character even more tragic depth. It really did seem as if anyone
she loved was doomed - as indeed turned out to be the case (though we
hoped against hope it wouldn't). Plus, it lead to the return of Lyta who
was a great character, even if we all wanted to slap her at times!
Personally, I think part of the greatness of the series was that
unpredictable things happened in real life that added to the realism of
what was happening in the B5 world. Even the Great Maker wasn't entirely
in control!
P.S. I adored Sinclair, but Sheridan also grew on me and since I fancied
him, I had no problem believing that Delenn would! ;o)
Pål Are Nordal
>
> Hi Paul,
Yay! You got my name right (well, as right you can get it without any
Norwegian characters) :)
> Personally, I think the series that JMS made *worked* and nothing can
> take that away from him.
So true.
> Discussions about what might have been and
> what would have been seem to detract from what was done - at least
> for me. I feel it spoils it a bit.
Ah, but jms kinda opened that Pandora's box when he started revealing
would-have-beens.
What caught my interest with them is how they showcase the flexebility
of the story... It facinates me how details could be shifted around,
either due to outside events or jms' own improvements to his story, and
yet the story still progressed towards the same events. I guess it's a
testament to his much touted "trap doors" he said would allow him to
write any character out of the story and still get it back on track
pretty quickly.
It's like a giant Lego construction, and I want to see where all the
pieces left in the box could have fitted.
John W. Kennedy
And again I'm insulted to my face for the crime of saying JMS isn't
a liar. Moderators, what are you up to?
Your words:
> events necessitated moving that part of the story to the middle of the third
> season
Are you claiming now that by "events" you meant only "JMS changing his mind"?
Laura Appelbaum
> > Take the story about Talia being "Control" (which I believe arose when
> the actress playing her suddenly resigned). Personally, that episode
> came right out of left field for me, and left me wondering which
> character was safe - *anything* could happen from then on.
I'm pretty sure she was always going to be Control, just as Sinclair was
always Valen, but that her desire to leave moved the revelation up in the
story. Like MOH's firing, that also left a hole, but in her character's
case, it only left one that couldn't be dealt with -- that of course, would
be Kosh's "recording" her personality "for the future," an incident that
like the question that began this thread; "whatever happened to Draal" was
rendered pointless once she was written out.
LMA
Andrew Swallow
news:urhe4v9...@corp.supernews.com...
[snip]
> I'm pretty sure she was always going to be Control, just as Sinclair was
> always Valen, but that her desire to leave moved the revelation up in the
> story. Like MOH's firing, that also left a hole, but in her character's
> case, it only left one that couldn't be dealt with -- that of course,
would
> be Kosh's "recording" her personality "for the future," an incident that
> like the question that began this thread; "whatever happened to Draal" was
> rendered pointless once she was written out.
>
be killed in "Spider in the Web". However, there may be two
Controls - Talia Winter's working for Bester and a specially
imported one working for "Bureau 13".
Andrew Swallow
Laura Appelbaum
news:20021023171929...@mb-fs.aol.com...
> since i was the most recent one to post this quote, i feel i must clarify
one
> thing.
>
> i do NOT feel that sheridan(or a character like sheridan) was the plan all
> along. there are 2 interpretations for how the 3rd part of "the one"
could be
> shown, one is if o'hare(hint, not sinclair), stays all 5 years, the other
is
> based on what actually happened. i cannot be more specific in this
newsgroup
> because it keeps getting called a "story idea"(though i have yet to get a
reply
> as to what makes it a story idea).
You mean like "the father, the son and the holy ghost?" Or maybe like "the
father, mother Mary and the holy ghost?" <G>
LMA
Febo
You're no fun to discuss this with. While other people are offer cool insights
and explanations and speculations on the subject at hand, you just keep arguing
semantics. If you don't want to discuss the possible alternate storylines,
read another thread!
Febo
Laura Appelbaum
news:apb90f$scv$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
was doing.
LMA
> Andrew Swallow
>
>
>
Andrew Swallow
who their operative is? I am suspicious. Two Controls
fits better.
Although Bureau 13 may have borrowed Control from
Bester's people. If Control/Talia had been borrowed
"13" may not have known that they were using both
a woman and a teep. After all when using teeps it is
normal to get them to perform a deep scan.
Andrew Swallow
John W. Kennedy
> "Anna Hayward, Alien Visitor" <An...@ratbag.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:eJIifNAN...@ratbag.demon.co.uk...
>
>
>>>Take the story about Talia being "Control" (which I believe arose when
>>
>>the actress playing her suddenly resigned). Personally, that episode
>>came right out of left field for me, and left me wondering which
>>character was safe - *anything* could happen from then on.
>
>
> I'm pretty sure she was always going to be Control, just as Sinclair was
> always Valen, but that her desire to leave moved the revelation up in the
> story. Like MOH's firing,
Which is it? Are you calling JMS a liar, or are you being
a liar yourself? Cause it's one or the other, kiddo, one
or the other.
John W. Kennedy
And now you're saying that I'm no fun to discuss things with
because it matters to me what you actually mean.
"Reality is leaking again."
-- Diana Trent
Laura Appelbaum
"John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4eWu9.7694$mt....@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> Laura Appelbaum wrote:
> > "Anna Hayward, Alien Visitor" <An...@ratbag.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:eJIifNAN...@ratbag.demon.co.uk...
> >
> >
> >>>Take the story about Talia being "Control" (which I believe arose when
> >>
> >>the actress playing her suddenly resigned). Personally, that episode
> >>came right out of left field for me, and left me wondering which
> >>character was safe - *anything* could happen from then on.
> >
> >
> > I'm pretty sure she was always going to be Control, just as Sinclair was
> > always Valen, but that her desire to leave moved the revelation up in
the
> > story. Like MOH's firing,
>
> Which is it? Are you calling JMS a liar, or are you being
> a liar yourself? Cause it's one or the other, kiddo, one
> or the other.
What the hell are you talking about? We're currently debating whether or
not Talia was always Control or not. What does that have to do with anyone
lying? Why are you so obsessed with the idea that someone, anyone is lying
or accusing someone of lying? I haven't seen anyone doing anything of the
kind in this entire discussion -- except for you.
LMA
Jan
John W. Kennedy wrote:
<<>
> Which is it? Are you calling JMS a liar, or are you being
> a liar yourself? Cause it's one or the other, kiddo, one
> or the other.
What the hell are you talking about? We're currently debating whether or
not Talia was always Control or not. What does that have to do with anyone
lying? Why are you so obsessed with the idea that someone, anyone is lying
or accusing someone of lying? I haven't seen anyone doing anything of the
kind in this entire discussion -- except for you.>>
Thank you, Laura, I was about to post the same thing.
It's nice that in other areas of the playground we're able to discuss things,
even controversial ones, without incendiary terms.
Jan
Barbara Krueger
> > "Anna Hayward, Alien Visitor" <An...@ratbag.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:eJIifNAN...@ratbag.demon.co.uk...
> >
> >
> >>>Take the story about Talia being "Control" (which I believe arose when
> >>
> >>the actress playing her suddenly resigned). Personally, that episode
> >>came right out of left field for me, and left me wondering which
> >>character was safe - *anything* could happen from then on.
> >
> >
> > I'm pretty sure she was always going to be Control, just as Sinclair was
> > always Valen, but that her desire to leave moved the revelation up in the
> > story. Like MOH's firing,
>
> Which is it? Are you calling JMS a liar, or are you being
> a liar yourself? Cause it's one or the other, kiddo, one
> or the other.
Aren't you the same one who claimed someone else was calling JMS a liar?
What is your trip, anyway? ???
You have a personal line to JMS and he keeps calling these speculations
lies?
Where are you coming from with this ranting?
John W. Kennedy
> "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:4eWu9.7694$mt....@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>
>>Laura Appelbaum wrote:
>>
>>>"Anna Hayward, Alien Visitor" <An...@ratbag.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:eJIifNAN...@ratbag.demon.co.uk...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Take the story about Talia being "Control" (which I believe arose when
>>>>
>>>>the actress playing her suddenly resigned). Personally, that episode
>>>>came right out of left field for me, and left me wondering which
>>>>character was safe - *anything* could happen from then on.
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm pretty sure she was always going to be Control, just as Sinclair was
>>>always Valen, but that her desire to leave moved the revelation up in
>>
> the
>
>>>story. Like MOH's firing,
>>
>>Which is it? Are you calling JMS a liar, or are you being
>>a liar yourself? Cause it's one or the other, kiddo, one
>>or the other.
> What the hell are you talking about? We're currently debating whether or
> not Talia was always Control or not.
Thanks for the proof that you're the liar.
Hint: if you're going to lie about what you just said,
don't do it in a venue where your previous words are on
record.
Further hint: see your own words quoted above.
> Why are you so obsessed with the idea that someone, anyone is lying
> or accusing someone of lying?
Why are you so obsessed with the idea that Michael O'Hare
was "fired", despite the fact that everyone who was actually
there says it isn't true?
> I haven't seen anyone doing anything of the
> kind in this entire discussion -- except for you.
I have several unfortunate habits, an insistence on logic
and a hatred of dishonesty being among them.
John W. Kennedy
Laura has just said, not for the first time, that Michael
O'Hare was fired.
JMS has been saying, quite clearly, and quite emphatically,
that that isn't true. He's been saying it for most of a
decade.
Ergo, Laura is calling JMS a liar.
It's worse that she won't admit it, even when she's caught
at it.
It's worse yet that so many people here cannot seem to reason
this out.
Jan
Sigh. I have a feeling I'm going to regret this...
<<
Why are you so obsessed with the idea that Michael O'Hare was "fired", despite
the fact that everyone who was actually
there says it isn't true?
> I haven't seen anyone doing anything of the > kind in this entire discussion
-- except for you.>>
Look, John, may I respectfully suggest that you explain what you're ranting
about (as you finally just did) and keep the condecension to a minimum (ie:
"Cause it's one or the other, kiddo, one or the other.") None of us are
children and your tone doesn't make it sound like you were using it as an
endearment.
You latched onto a side comment that Laura made and turned it into an incident
without letting the rest of us in on what tangent you were following.
Now then, just as a matter of explanation/clarification: Yes, JMS and Michael
O'Hare have both stated that the change in commanders was mutual and that
nobody went away mad. This speaks well for both of them.
Thing is, to many people in the every day workplace, the phrase 'parted by
mutual agreement' is Doublespeak/PCspeak for 'I quit/no, you're fired' (or
vice-versa) and so 'mutual agreement' is a face-saving device for both parties.
Generally, if you've been in one of those situations, you'll usually interpret
that phrase as whichever side of the table you were on yourself.
Now, whether JMS or MO'H are even aware of this, I don't know but the slip on
Laura's part doesn't warrant name calling.
<<I have several unfortunate habits, an insistence on logic and a hatred of
dishonesty being among them.>>
Never attribute to dishonesty what misunderstanding can explain.
Jan
Laura Appelbaum
> > What the hell are you talking about? We're currently debating whether
or
> > not Talia was always Control or not.
>
> Thanks for the proof that you're the liar.
Maybe in your mind. I'll be awaiting, along with everyone else, no doubt,
your apology, but given your apparent delusions and your obsession with
insulting and slandering others, I won't be waiting with bated breath.
>
> Why are you so obsessed with the idea that Michael O'Hare
> was "fired", despite the fact that everyone who was actually
> there says it isn't true?
>
Everyone else who was there? How about Michael O'Hare, you accusatory fool!
It's on the record in the archives of this group as well as elsewhere (like,
in remarks by his own *wife* on their website!) that at his last convention
appearance several years ago, MOH talked quite openly to the fans in
attendance about how half-way through the first season, Warner Brothers
decided that the show would get better ratings with a lead who was more
well-recognized (which for the record, it didn't) and basically gave jms an
ultimatum; fire MOH or they wouldn't fund the next season. Being the
gentleman that he is, MOH didn't want to see jms' dream die entirely, so he
didn't push jms to press the point, and the rest is history. Did jms tell
us here that it was *his* idea to change the story? Yes, he did. But to
paraphrase what he so famously and importantly had Sinclair note in "Sky
Full of Stars," "*EVERYONE* lies." The important thing is to find out WHY
someone is lying. Obviously, jms' lie about deciding, in concert with MOH,
to take Sinclair "off the chessboard" was done to protect MOH's reputation
in the industry at the time; it's hard to get rehired when people hear
you've been let go -- no matter how stupid the reason. So now, am I
accusing jms about lying on this matter? No. To me it's immaterial that he
gave the explanation he did, which I suppose someone with the "truth"
obsession you have might be considered a "lie," because it's more than
justified by his motivation. However, the fact, yes, fact, that MOH was
fired by Warner Brothers (before, according to MOH, they saw any of the
episodes that really advanced the character and showcased his skill as an
actor, like "Sky" for example) *does* have some bearing on the way the B5
story was altered, and thus obviously relates to the original topic here,
which was about what the show would have been like if Sinclair had been the
main character throughout.
These are the facts.
I'm waiting for that apology now. Make it good.
> > I haven't seen anyone doing anything of the
> > kind in this entire discussion -- except for you.
>
> I have several unfortunate habits, an insistence on logic
> and a hatred of dishonesty being among them.
Too bad you don't have a similar hatred for unwarranted attacks, slanderous
comments about other people, and while we're at it, let's not forget
arrogance.
LMA
Andrew Swallow
[snip]
> >
> Everyone else who was there? How about Michael O'Hare, you accusatory
fool!
> It's on the record in the archives of this group as well as elsewhere
(like,
> in remarks by his own *wife* on their website!) that at his last
convention
> appearance several years ago, MOH talked quite openly to the fans in
> attendance about how half-way through the first season, Warner Brothers
> decided that the show would get better ratings with a lead who was more
> well-recognized (which for the record, it didn't) and basically gave jms
an
What we have here is a good life lesson. When
you hear on the grape vine that head office is
looking for a scapegoat and has picked you take
Kosh's advice "JUMP. JUMP NOW".
Do not waste time, get a new job *now*. Then
your supervisor has a decision to make, he can
either give you a good reference or do something
that he thinks is wrong. Since he knows that you
are innocent you will win a new job and a good
reference. You will lose both if you try fighting
the witch hunt.
Andrew Swallow