Question:B5 - Day of the Dead - Penn and Teller?
Daniel Tropea
Could someone explain the purpose of why
Penn and Teller were in this episode. They
did not drive the story line and the scenes
that they were in were pretty much useless.
Except we found out that (a) comedy is
universal and (b) Lochley has good taste.
The scene in Delenn/Sheridan's room seemed
more like a talk show then anything else and
for JMS to state that politicians are comics.
Diane K De
>The scene in Delenn/Sheridan's room seemed
>more like a talk show then anything else and
>for JMS to state that politicians are comics.
>
>
JMS didn't write the script
DD
jere7my tho?rpe
In article <6e93gh$4hi$1...@newsd-143.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
Fals...@webtv.net (Daniel Tropea) wrote:
* The scene in Delenn/Sheridan's room seemed
* more like a talk show then anything else and
* for JMS to state that politicians are comics.
Yo, Dan...Neil Gaiman wrote this ep.
----j7y
******************************** <*> ********************************
jere7my tho?rpe "That's what writers and artists and
c/o kesh...@umich.edu creators _do_, boy. Listen to the Void
(313) 769-0913 and try to hear dead folks' thoughts."
----M. Silenus, _The Rise of Endymion_
Mike Niendorff
In article <6e93gh$4hi$1...@newsd-143.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, Fals...@webtv.net (Daniel Tropea) wrote:
>Penn and Teller were in this episode. They
>did not drive the story line and the scenes
>that they were in were pretty much useless.
>Except we found out that (a) comedy is
>universal and (b) Lochley has good taste.
>
(Spoiler space, just in case my speculation w/r/t R&Z actually turns out to be
right ... read on at your own risk)
Some speculation :
I think we may come to find that R&Z's scenes -- esp. the scene in Sheridan's
quarters -- hold more than it appears. When Penn (I think the speaking one is
Penn) talks about how nobody listens to what comedians say -- even when
they're talking about something serious -- my ears perked up. My guess is
that this means that the lines that these two comedians spoke in this show
were of *great* import to the coming arc. So, let's see what we have here :
First, we are told that they were going to cash in on their fame and
go into politics.
Second, we are told that Zooty has an "invisible friend".
Third, the *only* words Zooty has *ever* been heard to say are :
"why?" ... "because it makes me do it".
I'm sure that there's more that I didn't catch, but even from these few
snippets I can see "Drakh/Keeper" written all over this (in mile-high flaming
letters). Moreover, and *greatly* to the writers' credit, it was done subtly
enough that I think virtually everyone (myself included) totally missed it
when it first went by (just like the subtle clues dropped by Cap'n Jack on
Mars, it doesn't make sense until you understand that they're trying to tell
you something, but the Keeper won't let them come right out and say it). Of
course, I could be wrong :)
MDN
Sean O'Hara
Mike Niendorff wrote:
S
P
E
C
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
&
M
A
Y
B
E
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
> Some speculation :
>
> I think we may come to find that R&Z's scenes -- esp. the scene in Sheridan's
> quarters -- hold more than it appears. When Penn (I think the speaking one is
> Penn) talks about how nobody listens to what comedians say -- even when
> they're talking about something serious -- my ears perked up. My guess is
> that this means that the lines that these two comedians spoke in this show
> were of *great* import to the coming arc. So, let's see what we have here :
>
> First, we are told that they were going to cash in on their fame and
> go into politics.
>
> Second, we are told that Zooty has an "invisible friend".
>
> Third, the *only* words Zooty has *ever* been heard to say are :
> "why?" ... "because it makes me do it".
>
> I'm sure that there's more that I didn't catch, but even from these few
> snippets I can see "Drakh/Keeper" written all over this (in mile-high flaming
> letters). Moreover, and *greatly* to the writers' credit, it was done subtly
> enough that I think virtually everyone (myself included) totally missed it
> when it first went by (just like the subtle clues dropped by Cap'n Jack on
> Mars, it doesn't make sense until you understand that they're trying to tell
> you something, but the Keeper won't let them come right out and say it). Of
> course, I could be wrong :)
>
> MDN
To quote Ivanova, "There are some days I'm glad I don't have to think
like you." The scary part is, it might be true. And I thought Zooty's
line was just some cryptic throwaway on Gaiman's part, never to be
explained.
barbara haddad
nien...@ix.netcom.com (Mike Niendorff) writes:
> In article <6e93gh$4hi$1...@newsd-143.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, Fals...@webtv.net
> >Could someone explain the purpose of why
> >Penn and Teller were in this episode. They
> >did not drive the story line and the scenes
> >that they were in were pretty much useless.
> >Except we found out that (a) comedy is
> >universal and (b) Lochley has good taste.
> >
> >The scene in Delenn/Sheridan's room seemed
> >more like a talk show then anything else and
> >for JMS to state that politicians are comics.
>
> (Spoiler space, just in case my speculation w/r/t R&Z actually turns out to b
> right ... read on at your own risk)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Some speculation :
>
> I think we may come to find that R&Z's scenes -- esp. the scene in Sheridan's
> quarters -- hold more than it appears. When Penn (I think the speaking one i
> Penn) talks about how nobody listens to what comedians say -- even when
> they're talking about something serious -- my ears perked up. My guess is
> that this means that the lines that these two comedians spoke in this show
> were of *great* import to the coming arc. So, let's see what we have here :
>
>
> First, we are told that they were going to cash in on their fame and
> go into politics.
>
> Second, we are told that Zooty has an "invisible friend".
>
> Third, the *only* words Zooty has *ever* been heard to say are :
> "why?" ... "because it makes me do it".
>
>
> I'm sure that there's more that I didn't catch, but even from these few
> snippets I can see "Drakh/Keeper" written all over this (in mile-high flaming
> letters). Moreover, and *greatly* to the writers' credit, it was done subtly
> enough that I think virtually everyone (myself included) totally missed it
> when it first went by (just like the subtle clues dropped by Cap'n Jack on
> Mars, it doesn't make sense until you understand that they're trying to tell
> you something, but the Keeper won't let them come right out and say it). Of
> course, I could be wrong :)
>
> MDN
>
>
>
>
>
Excellently stated! That is -exactly- what I thought when I heard
the 'it makes me' line!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a thought from barbara haddad -> (bha...@LunaCity.com)
LunaCity BBS - Mountain View, CA - 650 968 8140
Steve Brinich
barbara haddad wrote:
>nien...@ix.netcom.com (Mike Niendorff) writes:
>> (Spoiler space, just in case my speculation w/r/t R&Z actually turns
>> out to b right ... read on at your own risk)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Some speculation :
>>
>> I think we may come to find that R&Z's scenes -- esp. the scene in Sheridan's
>> quarters -- hold more than it appears. When Penn (I think the speaking one i
>> Penn) talks about how nobody listens to what comedians say -- even when
>> they're talking about something serious -- my ears perked up. My guess is
>> that this means that the lines that these two comedians spoke in this show
>> were of *great* import to the coming arc. So, let's see what we have here :
>>
>>
>> First, we are told that they were going to cash in on their fame and
>> go into politics.
>>
>> Second, we are told that Zooty has an "invisible friend".
>>
>> Third, the *only* words Zooty has *ever* been heard to say are :
>> "why?" ... "because it makes me do it".
>>
>>
>> I'm sure that there's more that I didn't catch, but even from these few
>> snippets I can see "Drakh/Keeper" written all over this (in mile-high flaming
>> letters). Moreover, and *greatly* to the writers' credit, it was done subtly
>> enough that I think virtually everyone (myself included) totally missed it
>> when it first went by (just like the subtle clues dropped by Cap'n Jack on
>> Mars, it doesn't make sense until you understand that they're trying to tell
>> you something, but the Keeper won't let them come right out and say it). Of
>> course, I could be wrong :)
>
> Excellently stated! That is -exactly- what I thought when I heard
> the 'it makes me' line!
The problem with this theory is that Zooty's schtick is at least eleven
years old (i.e. from long before the Shadows started what turned out to be
the final kick-over-the-anthills cycle).
--
Steve Brinich ste...@access.digex.net If the government wants us
PGP:89B992BBE67F7B2F64FDF2EA14374C3E to respect the law
http://www.access.digex.net/~steve-b it should set a better example
WWS
> >
> > I think we may come to find that R&Z's scenes -- esp. the scene in Sheridan's
> > Penn) talks about how nobody listens to what comedians say -- even when
> > they're talking about something serious -- my ears perked up. My guess is
> > that this means that the lines that these two comedians spoke in this show
> > were of *great* import to the coming arc. So, let's see what we have here :
> >
> > First, we are told that they were going to cash in on their fame and
> > go into politics.
> >
> > Second, we are told that Zooty has an "invisible friend".
> >
> > Third, the *only* words Zooty has *ever* been heard to say are :
> > "why?" ... "because it makes me do it".
He said, "Because it tells me to" while pointing at his heart.
>
> To quote Ivanova, "There are some days I'm glad I don't have to think
> like you." The scary part is, it might be true. And I thought Zooty's
> line was just some cryptic throwaway on Gaiman's part, never to be
> explained.
I didn't think it was cryptic, or a throwaway. Zooty/Teller points to
his heart, says "Because it tells me to", answering the question which
was the only word he spoke in ten years. This is a nice parallel to the
Minbari belief to "follow the calling of your heart" and also a clever
real life explanation of why P&T do the things that they do. He wasn't
pointing at the head, which I took as just a substitute for Harpo's
horn. It did look like they stole it from the Grand Nagus.
--
_______________________________________________________WWS______________________
Matthew Breton
>>The scene in Delenn/Sheridan's room seemed
>>more like a talk show then anything else and
>>for JMS to state that politicians are comics.
>JMS didn't write the script
In a way, he did: he's still the producer, the script had to pass his approval. Even if he didn't pen the words, he agreed with the (trite) sentiment.
-Matt
Ubiquitous
In article <6e93gh$4hi$1...@newsd-143.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, Fals...@webtv.net (Daniel Tropea) says:
>Could someone explain the purpose of why Penn and Teller were in this
>episode? They did not drive the story line and the scenes that they
>were in were pretty much useless.
I really was disappointed by the appearance of "Rebbo and Zoot" (?).
They weren't nearly as funny as they had been cracked up to be
in the ep in which they were mentioned (Sheridan told Londo about
them). I'm still trying to figure out what was sppsed to be so funny
about them.
==============================================================================
"Gay people, well, gay people are EVIL, evil right down to their
cold black hearts which pump not blood like yours or mine, but
rather a thick, vomitous oil that oozes through their rotten
veins and clots in their pea-sized brains which becomes the
cause of their nazi-esque patterns of violent behavior. Do
you understand?"
Ubiquitous
>When Penn (I think the speaking one is Penn) talks about how nobody
>listens to what comedians say -- even when they're talking about
>something serious -- my ears perked up.
Hmm, now that you mention it, I found that very insightful.
What was the other thing he said about polticians?
> Second, we are told that Zooty has an "invisible friend".
Hmm, must have missed that one...
> Third, the *only* words Zooty has *ever* been heard to say are :
>"why?" ... "because it makes me do it".
*shrug* I thought he said ".. because it's there".
Morgana
On 15 Mar 1998 14:41:39 GMT, web...@polaris.net (Ubiquitous) wrote:
>In article <6e93gh$4hi$1...@newsd-143.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, Fals...@webtv.net (Daniel Tropea) says:
>
<snip>
>
>I really was disappointed by the appearance of "Rebbo and Zoot" (?).
>They weren't nearly as funny as they had been cracked up to be
>in the ep in which they were mentioned (Sheridan told Londo about
>them). I'm still trying to figure out what was sppsed to be so funny
>about them.
Nothing that you or I would understand as most of the humor was
related to 23 century events we wouldn't be privy to. It's kind of
like Jimmy Walker and "Dy-no-mite!" back in the 70s. At one point
that was pretty funny, today it just sounds lame. Much of humor has
to do with current events if The Tonight Show is any indication.
Centuries from now, who's going to find Jay Leno's jokes humorous?
-----
Morgana.
Matthew Murray
On 15 Mar 1998, Ubiquitous wrote:
> I really was disappointed by the appearance of "Rebbo and Zoot" (?).
> They weren't nearly as funny as they had been cracked up to be
> in the ep in which they were mentioned (Sheridan told Londo about
> them). I'm still trying to figure out what was sppsed to be so funny
> about them.
That was the point!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew A. Murray | The script calls for fusing and using our smarts,
| And greatness can come from the sum of our parts,
mmu...@cc.wwu.edu | From now on I'm with you--
| And with you is where I belong!
http://www.wwu.edu/~mmurray | -David Zippel, City of Angels
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Flore
Ubiquitous wrote:
> I really was disappointed by the appearance of "Rebbo and Zoot" (?).
> They weren't nearly as funny as they had been cracked up to be
> in the ep in which they were mentioned (Sheridan told Londo about
> them). I'm still trying to figure out what was sppsed to be so funny
> about them.
You and Capt. Lochley. While the rest of the crowd was thoroughly
enjoying the antics of Reebo and Zooty, she seemed particularly
pained to be be sitting through the routine. Not all humor is to
everyone's tastes, even in today's age. Look at the slapstick
humor from the early film age, that was extremely popular (namely
the Keystone Kops), or even more recent slapstick humor such as
the Police Academy films. Even though they were popular (weren't
there about 7 or 8 Police Academy films?), I would dare to say
that the humor seems extremely dated and non-funny today.
--
Stephen Flore
sflo...@idt.net
http://idt.net/~sflore19/
Dan
Ubiquitous wrote:
>
> In article <6e93gh$4hi$1...@newsd-143.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, Fals...@webtv.net (Daniel Tropea) says:
>
> >episode? They did not drive the story line and the scenes that they
> >were in were pretty much useless.
>
> They weren't nearly as funny as they had been cracked up to be
> in the ep in which they were mentioned (Sheridan told Londo about
> them). I'm still trying to figure out what was sppsed to be so funny
> about them.
I thought that the comedy duo provided a good counterpoint to t
>
> ==============================================================================
>
Theron Fuller
Morgana wrote in message <350e00d6...@news.panix.com>...
>On 15 Mar 1998 14:41:39 GMT, web...@polaris.net (Ubiquitous) wrote:
>
>>In article <6e93gh$4hi$1...@newsd-143.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
Fals...@webtv.net (Daniel Tropea) says:
>>
><snip>
>>
>>I really was disappointed by the appearance of "Rebbo and Zoot" (?).
>>They weren't nearly as funny as they had been cracked up to be
>>in the ep in which they were mentioned (Sheridan told Londo about
>>them). I'm still trying to figure out what was sppsed to be so funny
>>about them.
>
>Nothing that you or I would understand as most of the humor was
>related to 23 century events we wouldn't be privy to. It's kind of
>like Jimmy Walker and "Dy-no-mite!" back in the 70s. At one point
>that was pretty funny, today it just sounds lame. Much of humor has
>to do with current events if The Tonight Show is any indication.
>Centuries from now, who's going to find Jay Leno's jokes humorous?
It's one thing to tell an audience that Rebo and Zooty are outrageously
funny and popular, and to show scenes where we are shown how different
characters react to their humor. But if a relatively large amount of an
audience's time is going to be taken up with Rebo and Zooty actually doing
their routine, it should either be something that's fundamentally and
universally funny about human nature regardless of the historical setting,
or something that's funny in our own time! Or, it should reveal to us
something about the nature of human society in the Babylon 5 future.
I can see at least two possible explanations for the great amount of time
this episode spent on Rebo and Zooty doing their routine. Joe Straczynski,
et al thought it was funny and would be a great comic counterpoint to the
serious nature of the "dead" segments. (Joe Straczynski is a great one for
counterpoint). Another is that this is the Season V (for Victory) version
of foreshadowing. A very heavy-handed set up for the "Nobody is What They
Seem" revelation later in the season.
Whatever the dramatic purpose, the effort failed miserably. The explanation
that we simply don't understand future humor is a Fanboy copout. It's sort
of like watching a popular South American comedian doing his stand-up
routine on the Spanish channel. The audience is laughing hysterically and
I'm wishing I understood Spanish so I could laugh along with them. But
since I don't I flipped the channel.
And Lochley and Zoe's encounter should have been an encounter between
Ivanova and her mother. Lennier should have had an encounter with someone
from his own past. We should have found out why Lennier became a monk in
the first place, and why he values honor so highly, and just exactly why he
is so devoted to Delenn.
I suspect the Morden/Lennier encounter was originally supposed to be a
Morden/Vir encounter but Furst was unavailable to make the episode.
G'Kar has been relegated to being Londo's comic sidekick. Pity. I would
have liked to learn more about G'Kar's past, what motivates him, and what
brought him to Babylon 5 in the first place.
Regards,
Theron Fuller
LisaB
Matthew Murray <mmu...@cc.wwu.edu> wrote:
>On 15 Mar 1998, Ubiquitous wrote:
>
>> I really was disappointed by the appearance of "Rebbo and Zoot" (?).
>> They weren't nearly as funny as they had been cracked up to be
>> in the ep in which they were mentioned (Sheridan told Londo about
>> them). I'm still trying to figure out what was sppsed to be so funny
>> about them.
>
> That was the point!
Oh.
That must have been some fun explaining to Pell and Teller.
If that was *all*, five minutes airtime had ought to have sufficed.
Sheridan's intro scene, perhaps, and Lockley futilely scanning for a
no-zoot-station. Drop the whole cliched "maybe we should go into
politics, people *listen* to those clowns" scene.
Less P&T could have meant seeing more dead folk (and there are a *lot*
to choose from, aren't there?)
YMMV. I know, everybody's a critic.
LisaB
Lizard
On 15 Mar 1998 14:41:39 GMT, web...@polaris.net (Ubiquitous) wrote:
>In article <6e93gh$4hi$1...@newsd-143.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, Fals...@webtv.net (Daniel Tropea) says:
>
>>Could someone explain the purpose of why Penn and Teller were in this
>>episode? They did not drive the story line and the scenes that they
>>were in were pretty much useless.
>
>I really was disappointed by the appearance of "Rebbo and Zoot" (?).
>They weren't nearly as funny as they had been cracked up to be
>in the ep in which they were mentioned (Sheridan told Londo about
>them). I'm still trying to figure out what was sppsed to be so funny
>about them.
>
What's funny about the following:
"Who's on First?"
"Where's the beef?"
"They killed Kenny! You Bastards!"
Outside of the context, none of these phrases is remotely amusing. But
within the correct cultural context, they can be side splitting.
Trust me. If you'd grown up in the 23rd century, you'd be laughing
every time someone said "Zooty! Zoot zoot!".
*----------------------------------------------------*
Evolution doesn't take prisoners:Lizard
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice;
Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue:AuH20
http://www.mrlizard.com
Sheena McGrath
Theron Fuller wrote:
(major snipping)
> G'Kar has been relegated to being Londo's comic sidekick. Pity. I would
> have liked to learn more about G'Kar's past, what motivates him, and what
> brought him to Babylon 5 in the first place.
>
> Regards,
> Theron Fuller
I have to say that I did wonder *why* G'Kar reacted to the idea of the
dead as he did. Maybe the Narns who follow G'Quon have a belief that the
dead are bad or vengeful, or that they don't like coming back, and get
mightily angry. He seemed almost panicky when he talked to Lochley,
although the humour there was that G'Kar is always the one who warns
about impending danger and no one listens, and so now he is finally
wrong.
Just my thoughts.
Sheena
Robert Holland
Lizard wrote:
>
> What's funny about the following:
> "Who's on First?"
> "Where's the beef?"
> "They killed Kenny! You Bastards!"
"Kenny's a middleman--you're still a bastard."
> Trust me. If you'd grown up in the 23rd century, you'd be laughing
> every time someone said "Zooty! Zoot zoot!".
Say, that *is* funny...
--RH
David Serchay
: > Penn) talks about how nobody listens to what comedians say -- even when
: > that this means that the lines that these two comedians spoke in this show
: > were of *great* import to the coming arc. So, let's see what we have here :
: >
: > go into politics.
: >
: > Second, we are told that Zooty has an "invisible friend".
: >
: > Third, the *only* words Zooty has *ever* been heard to say are :
: > "why?" ... "because it makes me do it".
: > I'm sure that there's more that I didn't catch, but even from these few
: > snippets I can see "Drakh/Keeper" written all over this (in mile-high flaming
: > letters). Moreover, and *greatly* to the writers' credit, it was done subtly
: > enough that I think virtually everyone (myself included) totally missed it
: > when it first went by (just like the subtle clues dropped by Cap'n Jack on
: > Mars, it doesn't make sense until you understand that they're trying to tell
: > you something, but the Keeper won't let them come right out and say it). Of
: > course, I could be wrong :)
: > MDN
: To quote Ivanova, "There are some days I'm glad I don't have to think
: like you." The scary part is, it might be true. And I thought Zooty's
: line was just some cryptic throwaway on Gaiman's part, never to be
: explained.
Hey. so was the "cramps" line that Peter David wrote for Delenn :)
--
David Serchay
a013...@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us
Matthew Breton
>What's funny about the following:
>"Who's on First?"
>"Where's the beef?"
>"They killed Kenny! You Bastards!"
>Outside of the context, none of these phrases is remotely amusing. But
>within the correct cultural context, they can be side splitting.
....And it's not too difficult to go through the backlog and discover the context. You still may not think it's funny, but at least then you'll be able to make a judgment.
Not so here. The audience is *told* these guys are funny, given no chance to make it's own mind. A bit of a railroad?
>Trust me. If you'd grown up in the 23rd century, you'd be laughing
>every time someone said "Zooty! Zoot zoot!".
The viewers are supposed to be, for a moment, in the 23rd century -- in other words, there to pick up on the relevant context. It wouldn't be too hard to write thirty seconds of comic interchange - something besides flipping hats - to help the audience understand. And the Point that humor isn't universal could still be made: Lochley would still find them repugnant, undoubtedly.
Instead, we're left to script gaps and rationalizations. Hoorah.
-Matt
Morgana
>
>Morgana wrote in message <350e00d6...@news.panix.com>...
>>On 15 Mar 1998 14:41:39 GMT, web...@polaris.net (Ubiquitous) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <6e93gh$4hi$1...@newsd-143.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
>Fals...@webtv.net (Daniel Tropea) says:
>>>
>><snip>
>>>
>>>I really was disappointed by the appearance of "Rebbo and Zoot" (?).
>>>They weren't nearly as funny as they had been cracked up to be
>>>in the ep in which they were mentioned (Sheridan told Londo about
>>>them). I'm still trying to figure out what was sppsed to be so funny
>>>about them.
>>
>>Nothing that you or I would understand as most of the humor was
>>related to 23 century events we wouldn't be privy to. It's kind of
>>like Jimmy Walker and "Dy-no-mite!" back in the 70s. At one point
>>that was pretty funny, today it just sounds lame. Much of humor has
>>to do with current events if The Tonight Show is any indication.
>>Centuries from now, who's going to find Jay Leno's jokes humorous?
>
>
>It's one thing to tell an audience that Rebo and Zooty are outrageously
>funny and popular, and to show scenes where we are shown how different
>characters react to their humor. But if a relatively large amount of an
>audience's time is going to be taken up with Rebo and Zooty actually doing
>their routine, it should either be something that's fundamentally and
>universally funny about human nature regardless of the historical setting,
>or something that's funny in our own time! Or, it should reveal to us
>something about the nature of human society in the Babylon 5 future.
Only if it were you writing that particular episode my dear, otherwise
we saw it as it was meant to be seen. Perhaps Neil simply had more
respect for this audience than to spoon feed them everything on a
silver platter. After all, we're heard that "Zoot, Zoot, Zooty" for
awhile now, but it was never explained. All we knew was that it had
the power to make those people laugh. Having set that up, the writer
could go either way. Make their humor understandable to us or leave us
as bystanders wondering what the heck it was all about. The former is
easy, the latter stirs debate and is far more interesting in the long
run.
Btw, Zooty's Minbari joke cracked me up, simply because Mira's
laughter was so infectious and she played that scene to perfection.
>
>I can see at least two possible explanations for the great amount of time
>this episode spent on Rebo and Zooty doing their routine. Joe Straczynski,
>et al thought it was funny and would be a great comic counterpoint to the
>serious nature of the "dead" segments.
Er...JMS didn't write this ep or didn't you know? JMS said he nipped
and tucked a bit...but only for continuity in the rest of the series,
as expected, but that was mostly Neil Gaiman.
Btw, Neil is a pretty funny guy. You should read, "The Day I Swapped
My Dad for Two Goldfish". You'd have to be dead not to find it
funny. I think it might even be funny in the 23 century, but don't
quote me on it.
>(Joe Straczynski is a great one for
>counterpoint). Another is that this is the Season V (for Victory) version
>of foreshadowing. A very heavy-handed set up for the "Nobody is What They
>Seem" revelation later in the season.
Say what? My goodness, where do you come up with these ideas about
JMS' motives? He's a writer, and as such he can use as many plot
devices he deems necessary to get the story told. I don't understand
your argument against him using those techniques, but then again, from
your comments you seem to think you can tell someone else's story
better than they can. Weird.
>
>Whatever the dramatic purpose, the effort failed miserably. The explanation
>that we simply don't understand future humor is a Fanboy copout.
........or a plot device. :)
> It's sort
>of like watching a popular South American comedian doing his stand-up
>routine on the Spanish channel. The audience is laughing hysterically and
>I'm wishing I understood Spanish so I could laugh along with them. But
>since I don't I flipped the channel.
Would you feel better if it was just a case of some people getting
*it* while others didn't? Look at Lochley's reaction. She was right
there with some of us...going "huh"?
>And Lochley and Zoe's encounter should have been an encounter between
>Ivanova and her mother.
Again. You are trying to write someone's story for them....it won't
work. Ivanova is no longer a character on this show. You mean you
haven't noticed that she's gone? Talk about raising a ghost!
>Lennier should have had an encounter with someone
>from his own past.
Morden is dead. He's the past. Close enough.
Jeeze, you wanna talk about foreshadowing? Watching "Dust to Dust"
today, Lennier makes a comment to Delenn and Vir that, "A darkness
carried in the heart cannot be cured by moving the body from one place
to another." He's talking about Londo but we can now see its
implication wrt himself. Lennier certainly has a darkness in his heart
wrt to Delenn and Sheridan's union. He has joined the Anla-shok and
left B5, but he's not cured. How about that for foreshadowing? It
was nicely set up too.
>We should have found out why Lennier became a monk in
>the first place, and why he values honor so highly, and just exactly why he
>is so devoted to Delenn.
All questions that have been asked and answered if you've been paying
attention. He became a monk because he followed the calling of his
heart. We've been told a number of times that's a BIG THING among the
Minbari.
Secondly, honorable people simply value honor in themselves and in
others. Not difficult concept to understand. He has often shown his
willingness to sacrifice his life and his honor in the service of
others.
Wrt his devotion to Delenn? He started out in awe of her position as
Satai of the Gray Council. Later, upon observing her strength of
purpose, her character and faith in prophecy; coupled with the demands
of her position, and ultimately, her unselfish sacrifice. Awe changed
to devotion. And devotion turned to love. Now his love is
unrequited. And unrequited love can be a dangerous and unpredictable
emotion if the person suffering has not resolved the issue in heart
and mind, as Morden tried to warn Lennier.
>
>I suspect the Morden/Lennier encounter was originally supposed to be a
>Morden/Vir encounter but Furst was unavailable to make the episode.
Suspect all you wish. Wish all you might. JMS stated that Neil chose
the specifc characters in the B5 universe that *he* wanted to use.
Unless you're a teep and in line-of-sight wrt Neil Gaiman, the story
we saw was what he wrote.
>
>G'Kar has been relegated to being Londo's comic sidekick.
Jeeze. And here I thought he was going to be Londo's bodyguard.
So you're having problems with the humor we understand too? Now
that's a pity. Londo and G'Kar often engage in witty repartee that's
a pleasure to watch. Kudos to Peter Jurasik and Andreas Katsulas.
They really shine during the comedic elements of the show.
> Pity. I would
>have liked to learn more about G'Kar's past, what motivates him, and what
>brought him to Babylon 5 in the first place.
Sorry. I wasn't aware that you hadn't been watching the show. I
could have sworn in the past four years that we've gotten into the
Narn's past, and sometimes, even his mind.
Stop waiting to see the show you would have written and try to enjoy
the show that is.
----
Morgana.
Jonathan Jarrard
WWS wrote:
>
> >
> > like you." The scary part is, it might be true. And I thought Zooty's
> > line was just some cryptic throwaway on Gaiman's part, never to be
> > explained.
>
> his heart, says "Because it tells me to", answering the question which
> was the only word he spoke in ten years. This is a nice parallel to the
> Minbari belief to "follow the calling of your heart" and also a clever
> real life explanation of why P&T do the things that they do. He wasn't
> pointing at the head, which I took as just a substitute for Harpo's
> horn. It did look like they stole it from the Grand Nagus.
> --
> _______________________________________________________WWS______________________
Except he didn't point to his heart -- he pointed to his little talking
maching (which was in his breast pocket at that point).
Lizard
In article <6ekm61$d...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, Matthew Breton <mbr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>What's funny about the following:
>>"Who's on First?"
>>"Where's the beef?"
>>"They killed Kenny! You Bastards!"
>
>>Outside of the context, none of these phrases is remotely amusing. But
>>within the correct cultural context, they can be side splitting.
>
> context. You still may not think it's funny, but at least then you'll be able
> to make a judgment.
>
and I'll tell you if they're funny.
Gaiman plays that trick a lot -- giving us fragments of things out of context,
without ever saying what those things mean. It's a good way to get your
audience to think, to realise they're watching a world which exists outside
the borders of the screen. A perfect example in in Star Wars:
"Years ago, you helped my father in the Clone Wars..." (or whatever the line
was)
No one said, "Ah, the clone wars! When we fought over...." or anything like
that. Everyone had read their history datapads -- they KNEW what the clone
wars were. It would be like two people 'explaining' World War II to each other
in a movie set in the modern day.
So it is with Rebo&Zooty. Did I laugh at anything they did? No. But did I
believe that they could be funny to an audience familiar with their work,
their references, their history? Yes. And Lochley acted just the way I do when
confronted with a lot of what passes for comedy these days. :)
>Not so here. The audience is *told* these guys are funny, given no chance to
> make it's own mind. A bit of a railroad?
>
We're also told humans don't like spoo and that Sheridan's flarn needs salt.
Talk about railroading! I want to try some spoo myself.
>>Trust me. If you'd grown up in the 23rd century, you'd be laughing
>>every time someone said "Zooty! Zoot zoot!".
>
>The viewers are supposed to be, for a moment, in the 23rd century -- in other
> words, there to pick up on the relevant context. It wouldn't be too hard to
> write thirty seconds of comic interchange - something besides flipping hats -
> to help the audience understand. And the Point that humor isn't universal
> could still be made: Lochley would still find them repugnant, undoubtedly.
>
Let me try this one more time -- how many belly-laughs does the average
American get from watching a Shakespeare comedy? If it's been updated or
well translated, lots. If he watches it as written, with no grasp of the
context, the language, or the humour, he might giggle a bit at the more
obvious gags,but the bulk of it will fly over his head. Three hundred years
either way makes humour inaccessible.
So we could have watched 30 seconds of R&Z exchanging quips in a way which
made no sense to us, or we could have had 30 seconds more with Garibaldi, or
Londo, or Lochley. I'm pleased we got the latter.
Matthew Breton
In article <6empm7$6...@enews1.newsguy.com>,
liz...@mrlizard.com (Lizard) wrote:
>In article <6ekm61$d...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, Matthew Breton <mbr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>Outside of the context, none of these phrases is remotely amusing. But
>>>within the correct cultural context, they can be side splitting.
>>.....And it's not too difficult to go through the backlog and discover the
>> context. You still may not think it's funny, but at least then you'll be able
>> to make a judgment.
>Sure. Give me the next 300 years worth of comedy, so I understand the context,
>and I'll tell you if they're funny.
You don't need three hundred years worth of comedy to understand any of the (previously mentioned, now snipped) comedy. What makes, say, Dy-no-mite funny? Lack of familiarity, that's all: the first time you see it (regardless of which century you're in -- exaggerated expressions have always been used as a source of humor) it's funny; past that, it grows boring.
There are sections of humor from Shakespeare that can go untouched and people still find them funny: they're the sections that *don't* require translation, because they touch on the universal. (What disappears is the merely topical, the timely.) So, presumably, if a show is going to hail something as being *the* ultimate in 23rd century humor, it can in some way relate back to the 20th c.
*Everything* we've seen previously -- in fact, the whole notion of having a show based in the 23rd century -- relies on B5 being understood and relevant to the actual audience. To suddenly shy away from this undercuts the effort of the series.
And, as someone else pointed out -- it's an excuse, a weak one at that. The point could have been made, and subtlely at that, without "tricking" the audience.
>Gaiman plays that trick a lot -- giving us fragments of things out of context,
>without ever saying what those things mean. It's a good way to get your
>audience to think, to realise they're watching a world which exists outside
>the borders of the screen. A perfect example in in Star Wars:
>"Years ago, you helped my father in the Clone Wars..." (or whatever the line
>was)
>No one said, "Ah, the clone wars! When we fought over...." or anything like
>that. Everyone had read their history datapads -- they KNEW what the clone
>wars were. It would be like two people 'explaining' World War II to each other
>in a movie set in the modern day.
Good writing seamlessly intertwines necessary expository segments with the more dramatic stuff.
Comedy doesn't need *that* much context to be funny.
>So it is with Rebo&Zooty. Did I laugh at anything they did? No. But did I
>believe that they could be funny to an audience familiar with their work,
>their references, their history? Yes. And Lochley acted just the way I do when
>confronted with a lot of what passes for comedy these days. :)
So I repeat: We're made a part of the (fictional) Baylon Five culture. Not 24/7 exposure, but enough to understand these people; we see what drives tham and what makes them laugh. We're given the opportunity - in every other instance of humor - to understand what makes it funny, or ironic - really, what makes it pertinent. Here, nothing. Well, a lot of That Was The Message calls from the gallery.
(One poster mentioned the possibility that in B5's time all humor was sound-bite driven: does that even loosely resemble the show?)
It's really basic characterization: You don't tell people someone's a clown, you show them.
>>Not so here. The audience is *told* these guys are funny, given no chance to
>> make it's own mind. A bit of a railroad?
>We're also told humans don't like spoo and that Sheridan's flarn needs salt.
>Talk about railroading! I want to try some spoo myself.
Different, and you know it.
We have *human* comedians joking with a (largely) *human* audience, all of which share a similar cultural outlook as the present-day audience. To the greatest extent, 2260 culture is our culture. (And, as importantly - was flarn every even a subplot of an episode?)
>>>Trust me. If you'd grown up in the 23rd century, you'd be laughing
>>>every time someone said "Zooty! Zoot zoot!".
Doubt it. Most likely because I expect the creators of the 23rd century would've somehow forgotten to make it mean something.
>>The viewers are supposed to be, for a moment, in the 23rd century -- in other
>> words, there to pick up on the relevant context. It wouldn't be too hard to
>> write thirty seconds of comic interchange - something besides flipping hats -
>> to help the audience understand. And the Point that humor isn't universal
>> could still be made: Lochley would still find them repugnant, undoubtedly.
>Let me try this one more time -- how many belly-laughs does the average
>American get from watching a Shakespeare comedy? If it's been updated or
>well translated, lots. If he watches it as written, with no grasp of the
>context, the language, or the humour, he might giggle a bit at the more
>obvious gags,but the bulk of it will fly over his head. Three hundred years
>either way makes humour inaccessible.
You have pretty low opinion of 'average' people. This - meaning what you write above, but of course - is mere speculation.
If the intent was to show exactly how little we might understand the 23rd century -- well, again, the underlying (suspension of dis)belief is that 226x is being brought to us for our enjoyment. We understand the language; to some extent, we even understand flarn. Zoot?
Let me try this one more time: How many belly-laughs could we have gotten from r&z? Well, p&t are in actuality a pretty funny comedy team (not my personal opinion, but enough people seem to think so) so the potential was there. How many belly laughs did we get? Um, zero, although that's a very unofficial poll. No one seems to have admitted to it so far.
Nevertheless - the potential was there, and wasted. That much is for sure; all this speculation on Gaiman's intent to Drive Home A Message is pure fan-fiction.
>So we could have watched 30 seconds of R&Z exchanging quips in a way which
>made no sense to us, or we could have had 30 seconds more with Garibaldi, or
>Londo, or Lochley. I'm pleased we got the latter.
Um, no. We could have traded in the thirty seconds of R&Z that *were* in the ep for a pair that actually resembled comedians (instead a pair of mouthpieces for the author).
Incidentally, I'm stuck thinking that - like you suggest above - we could have traded away the *entire* Rebo-n-Zooty laff-fest, and except them from the entire episode. But, we gotta follow that A-plot/B-plot format, right?
-Matt
William December Starr
In article <350e00d6...@news.panix.com>,
ro...@panix.com (Morgana) said:
> Nothing that you or I would understand as most of the humor was
> related to 23 century events we wouldn't be privy to. It's kind of
> like Jimmy Walker and "Dy-no-mite!" back in the 70s. At one point
> that was pretty funny, today it just sounds lame. Much of humor has
> to do with current events if The Tonight Show is any indication.
> Centuries from now, who's going to find Jay Leno's jokes humorous?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Straight lines of the gods, folks, straight lines of the gods...
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
Morgana
On 18 Mar 1998 06:11:55 -0800, wds...@crl.com (William December
Starr) wrote:
The gods must be crazy. ;p
---
Morgana.
Troy_...@hotmail.com
In article <6egsji$ejp$1...@news1.apstech.com>,
"Theron Fuller" <tfu...@moon.jic.com> wrote:
>
>
> I can see at least two possible explanations for the great amount of time
> this episode spent on Rebo and Zooty doing their routine. Joe Straczynski,
> et al thought it was funny and would be a great comic counterpoint to the
> counterpoint).
Straczynski didn't write this story. Neil Geiman wrote it. Make sure you aim
first before shooting.
Troy
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Paul G. Barnes
Matthew Breton wrote in message <6enldv$h...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>...
>Comedy doesn't need *that* much context to be funny.
10 hysterically funny lines:
1. Ho ho ho, little boy, have I got a surprise for you!
2. Watching the lorry.
3. I just happen to have a palm tree right here.
4. How do you know she even has a cat?
5. They could only go "snorky".
6. I intend to be a queen. I intend to be the biggest queen there ever was!
7. I am a knight errant, not an errant fool.
8. So they killed all of the computer engineers and lived happily ever
after.
9. I was raised to be charming, not sincere.
10. Today my jurisdiction ends here.
Not very funny out of context, but they make me laugh every time.
Anyone care to try to put them in context?
--
Paul G. Barnes
paul....@mmc-s.com
remove the dash and change the com to org to email me
"Am a perfectionist and rarely if if ever forget details."
--- Seen on a resume
Wolf
Paul G. Barnes wrote in message ...
>Matthew Breton wrote in message <6enldv$h...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>...
>10. Today my jurisdiction ends here.
>
>Not very funny out of context, but they make me laugh every time.
>
>Anyone care to try to put them in context?
John Cleese in the movie Silverado. The rest I have no clue, but you make a
good point. Zooty, Zoot Zoot.
Seam O'Flaherty
> Lennier should have had an encounter with someone
>from his own past.
He was probably expecting Macros.
>We should have found out why Lennier became a monk in
>the first place, and why he values honor so highly, and just exactly why he
>is so devoted to Delenn.
He was probably born into the religious cast. He values his honor because
of his religious training. He is devoted to Delenn because he is in love
with her.
Theron Fuller
Troy_...@hotmail.com wrote in message <6eruef$9kf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <6egsji$ejp$1...@news1.apstech.com>,
> "Theron Fuller" <tfu...@moon.jic.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I can see at least two possible explanations for the great amount of time
>> this episode spent on Rebo and Zooty doing their routine. Joe
Straczynski,
>> et al thought it was funny and would be a great comic counterpoint to the
>> serious nature of the "dead" segments. (Joe Straczynski is a great one
for
>> counterpoint).
>
>Straczynski didn't write this story. Neil Geiman wrote it. Make sure you
aim
>first before shooting.
Uh, Troy, who _produces_ the show? Who wrote the show's "bible?" Who
produced the "arc" for Season V (for Victory)? Who invented the Rebo and
Zooty characters?
And completely off the subject, how many of those 100 people you introduced
to Babylon 5 have quit watching this season?
Regards,
Theron Fuller
PVerdieck
>4. How do you know she even has a cat?
>
>
Southpark, "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe", it is a response to what Kenny says,
which was something like "maybe you'll get to touch/see her pussy"
>10. Today my jurisdiction ends here.
>
>
I know it was in Silverado, as previously mentioned, did Jackie Gleason say it
at some
point in one of the Bandit movies?
Philip Verdieck
James C. Ellis
Theron Fuller wrote:
>
> Uh, Troy, who _produces_ the show? Who wrote the show's "bible?" Who
> produced the "arc" for Season V (for Victory)? Who invented the Rebo and
> Zooty characters?
What does any of that have to do with your complaint about the amount
of time devoted to Rebo and Zooty in that episode?
As Troy pointed out; Neal Gaiman wrote the episode in question. If
you have complaints, direct them towards him (all of your above points
are pretty much irrelevant).
Biff
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Me? Lady, I'm your worst nightmare - a pumpkin with a gun.
[...] Euminides this! " - Mervyn, the Sandman #66
-------------------------------------------------------------------
pyotr filipivich
sea...@earthlink.net (Seam O'Flaherty) writes:
>In article <6egsji$ejp$1...@news1.apstech.com>, "Theron Fuller"
><tfu...@moon.jic.com> wrote:
>> Lennier should have had an encounter with someone
>>from his own past.
>He was probably expecting Macros.
Who knows what he was expecting? He had heard that "strange
things" are said to occur, and he wanted to have a religious experience.
>>We should have found out why Lennier became a monk in
>>the first place, and why he values honor so highly, and just exactly why he
>>is so devoted to Delenn.
>He was probably born into the religious cast. He values his honor because
>of his religious training. He is devoted to Delenn because he is in love
>with her.
Sounds about right.
Besides, we don't know that a) Lennier is a "monk", or if the
Minbari have "monks" (at least as we know the concept). It appears to
me that the Minbar have a religious caste which is part hereditary, part
voluntary. Some caste members are more religious than others, but what
else is new?
tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich aka Nikolai Petrovich.
Is good to be Tsar, you never need to apologize. All you say is
"I am Tsar, I can not be Tsary."
Matthew Breton
In article <OyhQ.843$7e.24...@news2.atl.bellsouth.net>,
"Paul G. Barnes" <paul....@mmc-s.com> wrote:
>Matthew Breton wrote in message <6enldv$h...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>...
>>Comedy doesn't need *that* much context to be funny.
>10 hysterically funny lines:
Since I'm at risk of being taken out of, ah, context, let me add to my above statement:
The post I was responding to suggested that, in order to appreciate a pun or joke in Shakespeare, we would need to study the three hundred years previous to Shakespeare to fully appreciate... which seems so obviously ludicrous, imho, that it doesn't really need rebuttal.
It's interesting; in order to understand your "10 hysterically funny lines", you need to know the context. Without the context, the lines can mean, well, almost anything -- pondersome to one, worrying to another, arousing nostalgia in a third. The only assurance given that they're funny is your word ... which is exactly why I dislike the easy characterization of r&z as comedians: the only reason we're told to think they're funny is that The Script Says So.
Pavlov's Dog, I ain't.
This (apparently novel to some) Message that comedy needs context is, honestly, a no-brainer to me -- well, duh. It falls back to the old writer's saw: Don't tell, show. Giving context to understand the characterization (either of a fictional person - or of a joke) leads to an appreciation of the effort and a feeling that the characterization is honest. "See Jane be a comedian" is old before you turn three.
-Matt
Troy_...@hotmail.com
In article <6errik$q2k$1...@news1.apstech.com>,
"Theron Fuller" <tfu...@moon.jic.com> wrote:
>
>
> Uh, Troy, who _produces_ the show? Who wrote the show's "bible?" Who
> produced the "arc" for Season V (for Victory)? Who invented the Rebo and
> Zooty characters?
JMS gave Geiman free reign to write whatever story he wished, with whatever
characters he wanted. As for Rebo & Zooty, JMS invented the names, GEIMAN
invented the personalities.
> And completely off the subject, how many of those 100 people you introduced
> to Babylon 5 have quit watching this season?
Funny you ask, because I've received alot of email from those folks lately.
MOST of them are still tuned in, and are bigger fans now then when I last
talked to them.
Thanks for asking. :)
Ubiquitous
>What's funny about the following:
>"Who's on First?"
>"Where's the beef?"
>"They killed Kenny! You Bastards!"
>
>Outside of the context, none of these phrases is remotely amusing. But
>within the correct cultural context, they can be side splitting.
I think if a theoretical show had a character laughing about one of
those lines and then showed it, it'd be a lot funnier than what
happened with R&Z.
>Trust me. If you'd grown up in the 23rd century, you'd be laughing
>every time someone said "Zooty! Zoot zoot!".
Yes, it was much better than "Cats"...
==============================================================================
"Kiss it!" William Jefferson Clinton
Ubiquitous
In article <seano1-1903...@ip205.santa-clara6.ca.pub-ip.psi.net>, sea...@earthlink.net (Seam O'Flaherty) says:
><tfu...@moon.jic.com> wrote:
>>We should have found out why Lennier became a monk in
>>the first place, and why he values honor so highly, and just exactly why he
>>is so devoted to Delenn.
>
>He was probably born into the religious cast. He values his honor because
>of his religious training. He is devoted to Delenn because he is in love
>with her.
I think we already know the answers to those questions.
PVerdieck
>
> Besides, we don't know that a) Lennier is a "monk", or if the
>Minbari have "monks" (at least as we know the concept). It appears to
>me that the Minbar have a religious caste which is part hereditary, part
>voluntary. Some caste members are more religious than others, but what
>else is new?
And then there are those who become members of the religious caste at
the wrong time. See Neroon.
Philip Verdieck
William December Starr
In article <351301...@cadvision.com>,
"James C. Ellis" <ell...@cadvision.com> said:
>> Uh, Troy, who _produces_ the show? Who wrote the show's "bible?"
>> Who produced the "arc" for Season V (for Victory)? Who invented
>> the Rebo and Zooty characters? [Theron Fuller]
>
> What does any of that have to do with your complaint about the
> amount of time devoted to Rebo and Zooty in that episode?
>
> As Troy pointed out; Neal Gaiman wrote the episode in question. If
> you have complaints, direct them towards him (all of your above
> points are pretty much irrelevant).
Um, Biff, you seem to be saying that if Neil Gaiman had written a
script that consisted entirely of forty-four minutes of G'Kar sleeping
(and snoring loudly) and an episode had been produced in accordance
with that script, then all -- _all_ -- complaints about the final,
aired episode should be directed at Gaiman because, after all, he was
the one who wrote it...
Theron Fuller
Troy_...@hotmail.com wrote in message <6f0bna$iv8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <6errik$q2k$1...@news1.apstech.com>,
> "Theron Fuller" <tfu...@moon.jic.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Uh, Troy, who _produces_ the show? Who wrote the show's "bible?" Who
>> produced the "arc" for Season V (for Victory)? Who invented the Rebo and
>> Zooty characters?
>
>JMS gave Geiman free reign to write whatever story he wished, with whatever
>characters he wanted. As for Rebo & Zooty, JMS invented the names, GEIMAN
>invented the personalities.
Joe Straczynski created the characters of Rebo and Zooty and inserted them
into the Babylon 5 arc (Zooty, Zoot, Zoot!). He hired Penn and Teller to
play the characters. He scheduled the episode they were to appear in.
Straczynski provide the screenwriter with the continuity of how the
characters fit into the past arc, and set any requirements for developments
in the episode that will tie them to the arc in future episodes. I'm sure
there's enough blame to go around for the size of the egg Rebo and Zooty
laid in this episode. Joe Straczynski deserves a great deal just for
putting Penn and Teller into the roles.
>
>> And completely off the subject, how many of those 100 people you
introduced
>> to Babylon 5 have quit watching this season?
>
>Funny you ask, because I've received alot of email from those folks lately.
>MOST of them are still tuned in, and are bigger fans now then when I last
>talked to them.
>
>Thanks for asking. :)
So how many of the 100 have told you they _quit watching_?
Regards,
Theron Fuller
Steve Brinich
Theron Fuller wrote:
>> Straczynski didn't write this story. Neil Geiman wrote it. Make
>> sure you aim first before shooting.
>
> Uh, Troy, who _produces_ the show? Who wrote the show's "bible?" Who
> produced the "arc" for Season V (for Victory)? Who invented the Rebo
> and Zooty characters?
Sorry, Theron, irrelevancies will not allieviate that sharp pain
in your foot.
--
Steve Brinich ste...@access.digex.net If the government wants us
PGP:89B992BBE67F7B2F64FDF2EA14374C3E to respect the law
http://www.access.digex.net/~steve-b it should set a better example
Steve Brinich
Really, this is the sort of silly straw man that I would have
expected from Theron, not from you.
There is an clear and fundamental difference between a producer
trusting the writer on points about which reasonable people might
disagree and a producer accepting obvious crap from the writer.
William December Starr
In article <35173B74...@access.digex.net>,
ste...@access.digex.net said:
>>> As Troy pointed out; Neal Gaiman wrote the episode in question.
>>> If you have complaints, direct them towards him (all of your above
>>> points are pretty much irrelevant). [James C. Ellis]
>>
>> Um, Biff, you seem to be saying that if Neil Gaiman had written a
>> script that consisted entirely of forty-four minutes of G'Kar
>> sleeping (and snoring loudly) and an episode had been produced in
>> accordance with that script, then all -- _all_ -- complaints about
>> the final, aired episode should be directed at Gaiman because,
>> after all, he was the one who wrote it...
>
> Really, this is the sort of silly straw man that I would have
> expected from Theron, not from you.
Straw man? Looked to me like a logical conclusion clearly drawable
from James' words.
> There is an clear and fundamental difference between a producer
> trusting the writer on points about which reasonable people might
> disagree and a producer accepting obvious crap from the writer.
If you put it like that, yes. But that's not how James put it.
And in the end, if the writer turns out to have been massively wrong
about a point upon which the producer trusted him, all blame and
responsibility _is_ the producer's. Why? Because in terms of
ultimate power, all the writer can do is make suggestions; it's the
producer who makes the decisions.
Look at it this way: In drawing up a plan of battle, a general is
given a suggestion by one of his aides, a colonel. The general
accepts the suggestion and incorporates it into the battle plan. In
the actual battle, the idea turns out to be a massive blooper the
implementation of which gets most of the general's troops killed.
Who bears the responsibility, the general or the colonel?
Robert Holland
Steve Brinich wrote:
>
> William December Starr wrote:
>
> >> As Troy pointed out; Neal Gaiman wrote the episode in question. If
> >> you have complaints, direct them towards him (all of your above
> >> points are pretty much irrelevant).
> >
> > script that consisted entirely of forty-four minutes of G'Kar sleeping
> > (and snoring loudly) and an episode had been produced in accordance
> > with that script, then all -- _all_ -- complaints about the final,
> > aired episode should be directed at Gaiman because, after all, he was
> > the one who wrote it...
>
> Really, this is the sort of silly straw man that I would have
> expected from Theron, not from you.
> trusting the writer on points about which reasonable people might
> disagree and a producer accepting obvious crap from the writer.
Are you kidding? Straczynski's an overbearing mother hen when
it comes to writing scripts for his baby. There are plenty of
posts in the lurker dbase to show you how Straczynski works
with other writers.
--RH
