JMS: Was this the original plan?
Dave Ryan
I was just wondering if the 5-year arc has changed any in the past three
years. During the first season, I assumed that the arc would concern the
mystery of why the Minbari surrendered so abruptly, and what role Sinclair
had in it. Then, that mystery was wrapped up in about five minutes, and
the Shadows, et al took the stage.
Was this planned, or was the Minbari/Sinclar plotline scrapped when
Sinclair left the show?
- Dave
Jim Sorenson
JMS has stated in the past that the Sinclair - hole in the mind plot was
just the doorway into the much larger story. It was originally intended
to be resolved by episode 4 of season 2. SInclair's departure pushed
that up to episode 1 of season 2.
So the Mimbare plot was wrapped up a little early, but not much. Watch
Chrysalis again and notice how the shadows are portrayed . . it's pretty
clear they'll be important in the future.
-Galvatron, almighty leader of the Decepticons-
* * * * * * * * *
* "Accidents happen!" *
* -J.T. Marsh *
* * * * * * * * *
Antonio Romero
Dave Ryan wrote:
>
> I was just wondering if the 5-year arc has changed any in the past three
> years. During the first season, I assumed that the arc would concern the
> mystery of why the Minbari surrendered so abruptly, and what role Sinclair
> had in it. Then, that mystery was wrapped up in about five minutes, and
> the Shadows, et al took the stage.
>
> Was this planned, or was the Minbari/Sinclar plotline scrapped when
> Sinclair left the show?
>
> - Dave
It's pretty clear that this was mostly planned. The Minbari/Sinclair
thing might have taken a little longer to come out, but if you
look back to Signs and Portents, when the first Shadow Ship showed
up and Morden made his first approaches to the ambassadors on the
station, it's not too hard to conclude that the Minbari/Sinclair
plot underwent some significant adjustments but at least the reasons
for ending the war and the reality of the Shadows would have
been revealed at some point that season.
JMS has done quite a job of working around unforeseen changes
in cast and so on. While some things, like the simple substitution
for Draal, don't work for me, and some other things like the sudden
disappearance of Sinclair and introduction of Sheridan could have
gone more smoothly, on the whole he's been pretty good at making the
story resilient.
-Antonio Romero aro...@ix.netcom.com
Jms at B5
The curious thing...the interesting thing...is that in just about
everything I've ever written, yes, I generally follow where I want to go,
end up where I want to end up, but once I get *into* it, once the
characters come alive on the page, I inevitably find better ways of doing
things, stronger and more muscular paths to the story, more interesting
side roads.
Also, this original story was worked out in 1986/87; that's nearly ten
years ago. In those ten years, I've become -- or like to think I've
become -- a better writer, learned more, written more, picked up some new
tools I didn't have then. So you have a situation where the writer in
1996 looks at the writer in 1986 and says, "No, listen...there's a better
way. Yes, we'll still get to Disneyland on time, you'll still have plenty
of time to ride the haunted mansion...but if we go *this* way, we can stop
off and also see Knotts Berry Farm, and the Winchester Mystery Mansion,
and maybe even Hearst Castle on the way."
The destination is still the same..but I've found a *lot* more interesting
ways of getting there. Which, after all, is what an outline is for: a
safe home base that allows you to wander off, knowing that you can always
return to it if you get lost.
jms