Specualtion and Worries on New B5 project
Jeffrey Gustafson
of a new B5 project. However, it was mixed trepidation because as we
are also all aware, we have been here before. Twice. And both times
it didn't turn out well. Of course those were unique situations.
Crusade, aside from being killed in the cradle, was written by an
admittedly burned out JMS. While the show had great potential, it
just wasn't the right time for Joe, or the powers-that-be.
Legend of the Rangers is something that I often try to forget... From
a success stand-point, it had bad luck being placed opposite the NFL
playoffs. In addition, it was just plain awful -- honestly truly
abmismal, maybe because JMS was given so little time by Sci-Fi to
throw together a new B5 show. In any event, I personally do not
lament its loss the same way many of us do Crusdade. Like I said, I
just try to forget about it.
As a result of the last two failures (is that too strong a word?), it
might seem like the law of diminishing returns applies even to B5.
JMS is one of the best, and most underrated visual (film, comics)
writers in America, but he's not perfect. What if B5 turns into Trek,
each incarnation nauseatingly worse than the one before? I honestly
doubt this would happen - JMS wouldn't let it.
Now as for the new project, we know its not a show/book/comic (<cough>
still waiting on the DC graphic novel, patiently), so its either a TV
Movie or Feature Film. Or not. But maybe.
If it's a TV movie, how impressive could it be? If past results are
any indication, it'll be OK. Could it top In The Beginning? Could it
be worse than Legend of the Rangers (can anything be worse than
that?)? It's not a pilot, so its a stand-alone, but of what? Watch
me be wrong and it turns out to be the greatest telefilm ever made.
With JMS at the helm, all is possible..
But if its a feature film (which we are all hoping for, I reckon), I
have worries. Not that one is being made, per se, but that if one
does get made, it will go over alot of folks' heads - not bad for us,
but bad for the franchise. A commercial failure could kill B5 for
good. Most, including I, assume a feature will be about the telepath
war. If thats so, you would need a rediculous amount of exposition
(if you really want to delve into the story) for the majority of movie
goers who have never heard of Babylon 5. If you want it to be
successful, anyway, which I reckon WB and JMS do. After all, it
always comes down to dead presidents, for the studios, and for Joe too
- yes for a writer the art takes precedence, but what's art if no-one
sees it? What's a career in art if you make no money? That view is
too cynical in light of what we know of JMS; I have the utmost
confidence that he can craft the story and make it accessible to
new-comers as well as gratifying to die-hards, or if he wants, make it
just for us - studios be damned, and that he'll do it *his way* no
matter what.
However, something has occured to me. If it is a feature film, maybe
it won't have anything to do at all with the Telepaths at all. Maybe
it'll be a stand alone adventure, which would need less exposition,
bring more folks to B5, and would serve to maybe get the ball rolling
on another project where we finally do see the Telepath War.
Then again, does WB have incentive to make a B5 feature? To do it
right and really invest tens of million of dollars? Sure the DVDs
sell marginally well, but as much as we love it, the show was never
main-stream like Trek. Though Joe is almost a god of sci-fi teevee
and big name comic books, aside from it's difficult pronunciation for
some and spelling for most (heh), Straczynski is not yet a house-hold
name. B5 was ignored by critics and has been off the air since '98,
with the exception of sporadic ratings bursts in staggered reruns. An
argument might say that old tv shows are regurgitated into movies all
the time, but this is different, because Babylon 5 is utterly unlike
any television show, ever.
Now, looking at what JMS said in September, it's clear this project is
not a TV series (his own words). However, what if it's a mini-series?
I know I'm treading a fine line there, but it's a possibility. But a
mini-series based on what? A new story is a possibility, but what
if... You see, it all comes back to the Telepath War. Something we
all assume would be a feature film would suit itself just dandy to a
mini-series. Sure it's not exciting as THE MOVIES!, but it would get
the job done.
If we're laying bets, I will say that the new project is a mini and
that it takes place during the Telepath War. It has enough scope to
expand over 4 or 6 hours, its the only untold one we know of from the
established chronology that I feel *can*, without loosing everyone in
a fog (8 hours of the Mars food riots! A two-parter about the Drakh
plague from the P.O.V. of a ferret! WHO CARES?). And I, personally,
would rather see the Telepath War (if not in a feature film) in a
mini-series rather than a telefilm. A mini-series would cost less
than a feature, consists of less risk for Warners, and can tell the
story better than a stand-alone.
Or all of this is total claptrap, and it really will be about the
Meaning of Spoo. Which, you know what, I really wouldn't mind at all.
-The Jeff
Sheridan:"So how did you find out all of this?"
Bester:"I'm a telepath. Work it out." <*>
Joseph DeMartino
thats so, you would need a rediculous amount of exposition (if you really
want to delve into the story) for the majority of movie goers who have never
heard of Babylon 5. <
Why would a Teep War film require any more exposition to explain the
telepath situation for folks who have never seen "B5" than the first "X-Men"
film did to explain mutants, the "X-Files" film to tell *its* story or "The
Fellowship of the Ring" to tell the *essentials* of the Ring's origin? And
which "story" are you delving into? As long as you're concentrating on
telling the story *of the current project* you can simply leave out *tons*
of irrelevant details. Those who know the sereis will get more out of it,
as was the case with those who knew the comics for "X-Men", the series for
"X-Files" and the book for "FotR". But those who don't will still be able
to follow and enjoy the movie, which is the point?
Did you have to be a "TNG" and "TOS" fan and have seen every appearance of
the Borg to watch "First Contact"? The backstory that *mattered* for the
film was laid out early on, much of it in snippets of dialogue during
fast-paced scenes that were *mostly* about other things.
I frankly don't see the problem.
Regards,
Joe
Recoil
> have worries. Not that one is being made, per se, but that if one
> does get made, it will go over alot of folks' heads - not bad for us,
> but bad for the franchise. A commercial failure could kill B5 for
> good.
I share your opinion about a lot of things you said, and your
disappointment with Crusade being derailed (for various reasons) and
Rangers not being what we had hoped. However I guess where I disagree
with you, is in the above quote. To quote JMS via Susan Ivanova "This
isn't some deep space franchise, this station is ABOUT something."
I have never viewed B5 as a franchise. Not to put words in his mouth,
but I am pretty sure JMS has commented that it isn't a franchise
either. While we would all like some story to continue to be told in
that universe (crusade and rangers for one) we have already been given
the very core story of the B5 universe. All else is icing on the
cake. I have no reservations on if this project is a Feature Film.
We will find out once and for all of the rest of the people out there
really have "gotten it" like us B5 fans have. I don't see "killing
the franchise" as a good reason though, just because I have never
thought of this show as a franchise.
And that is a good thing.
Rob Perkins
>Could it
>be worse than Legend of the Rangers (can anything be worse than
>that?)?
The most recent Star Trek movie?
Rob
Brian Hulett
comments are inserted below.
--
---Brian Hulett
2003 FanEx champ and dime store philosopher: http://fanexfootball.com
"God is dead." - Nietzsche
"Nietzsche is dead." - God
Radio Free Hulett, featuring an indescribable mix of the greatest music of
the past 80 years: http://tinyurl.com/2ofut
Recently played: Talking Heads "Take Me to the River," Was (Not Was) "Walk
the Dinosaur," Kirk Franklin "Why We Sing," The Art of Noise "Paranoimia
(featuring Max Headroom)," John Prine "Souvenirs," Jason Mraz "Curbside
Prophet (Radio Version)," Tobymac "Irene (The Lord's Gonna Answer Your
Prayer)," Talk Talk "It's My Life."
"Jeffrey Gustafson" <Psico...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ddedcc5.04020...@posting.google.com...
> The ardent JMS fan I am, I was overjoyed, like all here, at the news
> of a new B5 project. However, it was mixed trepidation because as we
> are also all aware, we have been here before. Twice. And both times
> it didn't turn out well. Of course those were unique situations.
>
> Crusade, aside from being killed in the cradle, was written by an
> admittedly burned out JMS. While the show had great potential, it
> just wasn't the right time for Joe, or the powers-that-be.
>
> Legend of the Rangers is something that I often try to forget... From
> a success stand-point, it had bad luck being placed opposite the NFL
> playoffs. In addition, it was just plain awful -- honestly truly
> abmismal, maybe because JMS was given so little time by Sci-Fi to
> throw together a new B5 show. In any event, I personally do not
> lament its loss the same way many of us do Crusdade. Like I said, I
> just try to forget about it.
I will never understand this. Can someone tell me why "Legend of the
Rangers" is viewed by some as an ugly stepchild? I thought it was an
exciting, well-paced film that told an interesting story. The only
semi-reasonable knock I could see against it is that its overarching story
was too similar to a Star Trek series, a ship full of different characters
going through space on a mission with broad parameters. How is that enough
to tear it apart as you did above?
>
> As a result of the last two failures (is that too strong a word?), it
> might seem like the law of diminishing returns applies even to B5.
> JMS is one of the best, and most underrated visual (film, comics)
> writers in America, but he's not perfect. What if B5 turns into Trek,
> each incarnation nauseatingly worse than the one before? I honestly
> doubt this would happen - JMS wouldn't let it.
I disagree again here about Trek. I'm far more of a B5 fan than any Trek
series, but I thought TNG was abysmally boring. DS9, however, and even
Voyager, appealed more to me. Again, opinion. (No, I can't stomach the
Enterprise series either.)
>
> Now as for the new project, we know its not a show/book/comic (<cough>
> still waiting on the DC graphic novel, patiently), so its either a TV
> Movie or Feature Film. Or not. But maybe.
I'm going to open the door for some real indigant remarks here, but I have
never understood a grown person having any interest in a comic book, or
so-called "graphic novel." Sure, this is opinion too, but I find it
impossible to completely take anyone seriously when their remarks include
anything of any substance in reference to something that I outgrew before I
hit puberty. All due respect to JMS, who showed his chops beyond question
with B5, but comic books are to literacy what pro wrestling is to sports,
IMO. (And I fully understand that many other 44-year-olds would say the
same about SF in general, and my own fanboy attitude toward B5 in specific,
so again, take it with a grain of salt. Probably just splitting hairs, in
the eyes of many.)
Hm. Sounds like you're hoping for another "Legend of the Rangers" after
all.
Kathryn Huxtable
> Legend of the Rangers is something that I often try to forget...
> From a success stand-point, it had bad luck being placed opposite
> the NFL playoffs. In addition, it was just plain awful -- honestly
> truly abmismal, maybe because JMS was given so little time by Sci-Fi
> to throw together a new B5 show. In any event, I personally do not
> lament its loss the same way many of us do Crusdade. Like I said, I
> just try to forget about it.
As much as I didn't care for "Legend of the Rangers", I didn't like
"The Gathering", either. Remember that pilots are where they work out
bugs in the concepts and implementation of a show. The actual show
might have been pretty good.
'Nuff said.
-K
Wendy of NJ
<edi...@thewinningdrive.com> wrote:
>I'm going to open the door for some real indigant remarks here, but I have
>never understood a grown person having any interest in a comic book, or
>so-called "graphic novel." Sure, this is opinion too, but I find it
>impossible to completely take anyone seriously when their remarks include
>anything of any substance in reference to something that I outgrew before I
>hit puberty. All due respect to JMS, who showed his chops beyond question
>with B5, but comic books are to literacy what pro wrestling is to sports,
>IMO. (And I fully understand that many other 44-year-olds would say the
>same about SF in general, and my own fanboy attitude toward B5 in specific,
>so again, take it with a grain of salt. Probably just splitting hairs, in
>the eyes of many.)
I'm not a big fan of graphic novels, either, but it's for other
reasons than what you stated...
The graphic novel is like a storyboard, IMHO, and I see the appeal for
it for screenwriters, because it's a visual medium and a way to tell a
visual story with a budget of hundreds or thousands of dollars vs.
hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. That's why so many
graphic novels and comics are adapted to the screen.
You probably don't like to read plays or screenplays, either, I'll
bet.
The reason I don't like graphic novels is that I like to create my own
visuals based on the writer's descriptions, and I find that more
enjoyable. (And I also don't enjoy the feel of pulp paper, and most of
the time, the printing isn't that great, and the art doesn't come off
in the best light). And I seem to use up a graphic novel in about
1/10th the time it takes me to read a regular novel.
It's too bad that you've rejected an entire art form because you've
grown up to be a literary snob.
-Wendy
MJB
news:lcwVb.1692$fV5....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>> Now as for the new project, we know its not a show/book/comic (<cough>
>> still waiting on the DC graphic novel, patiently), so its either a TV
>> Movie or Feature Film. Or not. But maybe.
>
> I'm going to open the door for some real indigant remarks here, but I have
> never understood a grown person having any interest in a comic book, or
> so-called "graphic novel." Sure, this is opinion too, but I find it
> impossible to completely take anyone seriously when their remarks include
> anything of any substance in reference to something that I outgrew before I
> hit puberty. All due respect to JMS, who showed his chops beyond question
> with B5, but comic books are to literacy what pro wrestling is to sports,
> IMO. (And I fully understand that many other 44-year-olds would say the
> same about SF in general, and my own fanboy attitude toward B5 in specific,
> so again, take it with a grain of salt. Probably just splitting hairs, in
> the eyes of many.)
OK -- here's your indignant remark. I used to think the same as you
about comic books. Then, as I was collecting the B5 comics to get
some background story that was only available there, I got a few issues
of a book for free thrown in with some B5 comic I'd mail-ordered.
Well, the story in it was better than most of what I'd been finding in
many of the SF and fiction novels I'd been reading. Bendis, Priest and
a few others are actually very good writers that happen to have some
artists drawing pictures of the scenes they're writing. Sometimes the
art is actually quite good.
The Jinx books were quite good. The "Sam & Twitch" books were very good.
The "Quantum & Woody" stories were great. Hey, damn, I'm reading comic
books instead of serious "novels". Why ? Because the stories are better.
Of course, your mileage may vary, we all like different things, but there
are "comic" books that are written for adults with adult dialog and
word choices. Only a few are written at the college level, but hell,
the newspaper is written at a 4th grade level so the others aren't
doing to badly. And for funny adult humor, it's hard to beat Frank Cho,
and his artwork is amazing too. Oh, yeah, and there's also this
JMS guy who puts words together in an interesting way in his comics
and tackles interesting subject matter :) (see Midnight Nation ).
Mark Alexander Bertenshaw
> Whoa. You're stating a number of opinions as if they were fact. My
> comments are inserted below.
>
>
> news:4ddedcc5.04020...@posting.google.com...
> I'm going to open the door for some real indigant remarks here, but I
> have never understood a grown person having any interest in a comic
> book, or so-called "graphic novel." Sure, this is opinion too, but I
> find it impossible to completely take anyone seriously when their
> remarks include anything of any substance in reference to something
> that I outgrew before I hit puberty. All due respect to JMS, who
> showed his chops beyond question with B5, but comic books are to
> literacy what pro wrestling is to sports, IMO. (And I fully
> understand that many other 44-year-olds would say the same about SF
> in general, and my own fanboy attitude toward B5 in specific, so
> again, take it with a grain of salt. Probably just splitting hairs,
> in the eyes of many.)
I think you are mixing up the medium with the message here. You can write
about anything in a comic book that you want. It just happens that the
majority of them are published by Marvel or DC, and therefore happen to be
mainly about superheroes. Unfortunately, you seem to share the general
condescending attitude about "funny books" with many other people; an
attitude that is rooted in ignorance. You obviously, like everyone else
here, watch television, and that requires no literacy at all; yet you won't
find me criticising you for your viewing habits. I find your insinuations
that comic books are the province of children most amusing: I never read
comic books until I was 27 - I actually got into it by accident after
reading about Neil Gaiman's Sandman series, and it just escalated.
--
Mark Bertenshaw
Kingston upon Thames
UK
Iain Clark
(Jeffrey Gustafson) wrote:
>The ardent JMS fan I am, I was overjoyed, like all here, at the news
>of a new B5 project. However, it was mixed trepidation because as we
>are also all aware, we have been here before. Twice. And both times
>it didn't turn out well. Of course those were unique situations.
>
>Crusade, aside from being killed in the cradle, was written by an
>admittedly burned out JMS. While the show had great potential, it
>just wasn't the right time for Joe, or the powers-that-be.
I agree with you on this, although there are some superb episodes.
>Legend of the Rangers is something that I often try to forget... From
>a success stand-point, it had bad luck being placed opposite the NFL
>playoffs. In addition, it was just plain awful -- honestly truly
>abmismal, maybe because JMS was given so little time by Sci-Fi to
>throw together a new B5 show. In any event, I personally do not
>lament its loss the same way many of us do Crusdade. Like I said, I
>just try to forget about it.
>
I disagree here. Although, like Crusade, Rangers has some clunky
moments (like the Holographic weapons interface) and the odd dodgy
actor it's *far* from abysmal.
What it suffers from, for me, is trying to present all of the style
and feel of a Season 3 Rangers v Shadows story, without any of the
context or build-up required to give it weight, complexity and
maturity. It feels too much like a retread, and one stripped of the
arc elements which made S3 so appealing.
However, there is much to enjoy. The Captain and First Officer are
both very good, and it's good action-oriented fun. The premise of the
show lends itself to a lot of possibilities. Also it had much more of
a B5 "feel" than Crusade did.
Plus I've now seen (and read) more than enough of jms' work to know
that if the show had been picked up there would have been story arc
and rug-pulling aplenty, and that nothing would have turned out the
way it first appeared. B5, Jeremiah, Midnight Nation, Rising Stars,
Supreme Power... all of these show Straczynski's immense skill as a
long-term plotter with an amazing knack for misdirection and emotional
sucker punches.
The weakness of this approach is that before you get the WHAM episode
you need something strong enough to stand on its own terms. Rangers,
though entertaining, was just not special enough to make an impact.
IMO.
>As a result of the last two failures (is that too strong a word?), it
>might seem like the law of diminishing returns applies even to B5.
>JMS is one of the best, and most underrated visual (film, comics)
>writers in America, but he's not perfect. What if B5 turns into Trek,
>each incarnation nauseatingly worse than the one before? I honestly
>doubt this would happen - JMS wouldn't let it.
>
There's a risk of this, I agree. The story of B5 is done and can
never be undone, but there's the danger that several B5-lite spin-offs
will dilute the reputation of the show.
On the other hand, it's not like we have a glut of high-quality
space-bound SF at the moment. Enterprise is mediocre at best, Firefly
cancelled, Farscape cancelled (although it now has another short
mini-series to run). Only Battlestar Galactica shows some potential
for quality and longevity (and I can't believe I'm saying that!).
There's room on TV for more B5.
>If we're laying bets, I will say that the new project is a mini and
>that it takes place during the Telepath War. It has enough scope to
>expand over 4 or 6 hours, its the only untold one we know of from the
>established chronology that I feel *can*, without loosing everyone in
>a fog (8 hours of the Mars food riots! A two-parter about the Drakh
>plague from the P.O.V. of a ferret! WHO CARES?). And I, personally,
>would rather see the Telepath War (if not in a feature film) in a
>mini-series rather than a telefilm. A mini-series would cost less
>than a feature, consists of less risk for Warners, and can tell the
>story better than a stand-alone.
I think it's another TV Movie / pilot. I'd love it to be a
mini-series. I doubt it's a theatrical movie (although I may be being
overly pessimistic.)
Iain
--
"She had something breakable
Just under her skin"
Brian Hulett
> about anything in a comic book that you want. It just happens that the
> majority of them are published by Marvel or DC, and therefore happen to be
> mainly about superheroes. Unfortunately, you seem to share the general
> condescending attitude about "funny books" with many other people; an
> attitude that is rooted in ignorance. You obviously, like everyone else
> here, watch television, and that requires no literacy at all; yet you
won't
> find me criticising you for your viewing habits. I find your insinuations
> that comic books are the province of children most amusing: I never read
> comic books until I was 27 - I actually got into it by accident after
> reading about Neil Gaiman's Sandman series, and it just escalated.
>
diverge widely. Most who populate this NG seem to be almost exclusively
into science fact and science fiction; personally I'm not scientifically
literate and don't necessarily gravitate to a lot of SF. For instance, the
topic that's recently caught my attention has been that of the Zodiac
Killer, the serial killer of '60s California, a modern Jack the Ripper story
as the killer still hasn't been definitively identified. Picked up a thick
used paperback about the case and devoured it in two days, then visited the
websites on the topic for updates until I had read them all.
Mostly on TV these days I find myself gravitating toward similar types of
topics, like "Cold Case Files" on A&E and "Law and Order" reruns, a series I
just discovered last year because I don't watch much TV unless football is
on. ;-} Something fascinating to me about aberrant psychology, and
something satisfying about seeing the bad guys get their due (part of why
Zodiac is so fascinating, as he apparently hasn't yet). Generally,
otherwise, I just like a good story, and B5 was certainly that. I look
forward with great anticipation to another story from that universe.
Comics have simply never done it for me. The only one I ever truly enjoyed
was the Silver Surfer, because due to childhood issues I identified with the
feeling of being a banished loner. Truly no one was to blame for those
issues, sometimes stuff happens, but that only took me another 25 years or
so to grapple with before it was no longer a problem within myself.....
John W. Kennedy
> (And I also don't enjoy the feel of pulp paper, and most of
> the time, the printing isn't that great, and the art doesn't come off
> in the best light).
Pulp paper, forsooth? How many floppy drives does your TRS-80 have?
--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
John W. Kennedy
> I'm going to open the door for some real indigant remarks here, but I have
> never understood a grown person having any interest in a comic book, or
> so-called "graphic novel." Sure, this is opinion too, but I find it
> impossible to completely take anyone seriously when their remarks include
> anything of any substance in reference to something that I outgrew before I
> hit puberty. All due respect to JMS, who showed his chops beyond question
> with B5, but comic books are to literacy what pro wrestling is to sports,
> IMO. (And I fully understand that many other 44-year-olds would say the
> same about SF in general, and my own fanboy attitude toward B5 in specific,
> so again, take it with a grain of salt. Probably just splitting hairs, in
> the eyes of many.)
Actually, you are making a more fundamental error than those who reject
SF. They object to a certain kind of story, a complaint that, however
wrong, is at least relevant to the question of whether the story is any
good. You object to a certain medium for telling the story, which is not.
You will find Moore and Gibbons' "Watchmen" in any respectable
bookstore. Read it. At least twice -- you will /not/ get all the
subtleties the first time.
After that, go to a comic-book store and read "The Gateless Barrier",
the title story in volume 2 (of 28) of the collected "Lone Wolf and Cub"
("Kozure Okami") by Kazuo Koike and Goseki Kojima.
Mark Alexander Bertenshaw
>> I think you are mixing up the medium with the message here. You can
>> write about anything in a comic book that you want. It just happens
>> that the majority of them are published by Marvel or DC, and
>> therefore happen to be mainly about superheroes. Unfortunately, you
>> seem to share the general condescending attitude about "funny books"
>> with many other people; an attitude that is rooted in ignorance.
>> You obviously, like everyone else here, watch television, and that
>> requires no literacy at all; yet you won't find me criticising you
>> for your viewing habits. I find your insinuations that comic books
>> are the province of children most amusing: I never read comic books
>> until I was 27 - I actually got into it by accident after reading
>> about Neil Gaiman's Sandman series, and it just escalated.
>>
> As with anything posted by any thinking person, naturally opinions
> will diverge widely. Most who populate this NG seem to be almost
> exclusively into science fact and science fiction; personally I'm not
> scientifically literate and don't necessarily gravitate to a lot of
> SF.
Ha! I wish that were the case. So many times I have heard people defend
nonsense science in SF shows by saying "It's only science fiction!". You
don't have to necessarily understand the science, but generally a good (and
correct) science speculation tends to make better stories than just
confabulating, if only because most stories require a framework of rules to
support the story, and science definitely has a pretty good foundation!
> Mostly on TV these days I find myself gravitating toward similar
> types of topics, like "Cold Case Files" on A&E and "Law and Order"
> reruns, a series I just discovered last year because I don't watch
> much TV unless football is on. ;-} Something fascinating to me
> about aberrant psychology, and something satisfying about seeing the
> bad guys get their due (part of why Zodiac is so fascinating, as he
> apparently hasn't yet).
They have been showing Law & Order seasons 8 to 11 over here, and they are
quite addictive, I agree. However, I really don't see the point of the
spin-offs. Special Victims Unit is just depressing, and Serious Crimes
seems to be like any other cop show. CSI: Crime Scene Investigations is my
favourite, though. Probably due to the real cool science bits. :-)
> Comics have simply never done it for me. The only one I ever truly
> enjoyed was the Silver Surfer, because due to childhood issues I
> identified with the feeling of being a banished loner. Truly no one
> was to blame for those issues, sometimes stuff happens, but that only
> took me another 25 years or so to grapple with before it was no
> longer a problem within myself.....
Like all mediums, comics have their own niche. Comics have the visual
impact of film, but also have all the advantages of the internal monologue
of literature. Good practitioners of the art of comics writing know how to
use the medium to its advantage. For instance, having an unreliable
narrator is much easier in comics than in literature. Your narrator might be
telling a story via the internal monologue, but the pictures would be
telling a different story. In a book, you might have to continuously drop
hints which the character would be unlikely to reveal in real life. The
arrangement of panels is also a great device. Instead of the 1D flow of
words, you can have the 2D flow of artwork. In books such as "The
Invisibles", Grant Morrison shows concepts which would be very difficult to
communicate in words. I think it really depends on the story you want to
tell.
Iain Clark
<edi...@thewinningdrive.com> wrote:
>> I think you are mixing up the medium with the message here. You can write
>> about anything in a comic book that you want. It just happens that the
>> majority of them are published by Marvel or DC, and therefore happen to be
>> mainly about superheroes. Unfortunately, you seem to share the general
>> condescending attitude about "funny books" with many other people; an
>> attitude that is rooted in ignorance. You obviously, like everyone else
>> here, watch television, and that requires no literacy at all; yet you
>won't
>> find me criticising you for your viewing habits. I find your insinuations
>> that comic books are the province of children most amusing: I never read
>> comic books until I was 27 - I actually got into it by accident after
>> reading about Neil Gaiman's Sandman series, and it just escalated.
>Comics have simply never done it for me. The only one I ever truly enjoyed
>was the Silver Surfer, because due to childhood issues I identified with the
>feeling of being a banished loner. Truly no one was to blame for those
>issues, sometimes stuff happens, but that only took me another 25 years or
>so to grapple with before it was no longer a problem within myself.....
You should pick up the collection of jms' Midnight Nation. Seriously.
It's a realistically drawn, modern day story about real people (and
horror, hope and purpose), and it's a million miles away from stupid
juvenile superhero comics.
It really is one of the smartest, most deeply felt and, well, literate
things jms has ever done. Nothing could demonstrate more clearly the
difference between the medium (sequential art) and the content.
After all, both the novel and TV in their time were considered debased
media. Unfit for the attention of serious folk committing art.
Iain
--
BARTLET: "hooked on a bad soap opera
that's passing itself off as important."
Alex Thorpe
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
On 2004-02-08 17:58:14 -0600, Rob Perkins <rob_p...@hotmail.com>
said:
> > Could it
> > be worse than Legend of the Rangers (can anything be worse than
> > that?)?
>
> The most recent Star Trek movie?
Actually, I thought that Nemesis was slightly above average for a Star
Trek movie, which isn't saying much. But about the only things about
LorR that looked right were the Minbari makeup and Andreas Katsulas.
And the latter's dialogue was pretty silly.
--
-Alex
Vorlonagent
> Actually, you are making a more fundamental error than those who reject
> SF. They object to a certain kind of story, a complaint that, however
> wrong, is at least relevant to the question of whether the story is any
> good. You object to a certain medium for telling the story, which is not.
With my mom, it's just so strange to her than she can't suspend disbelief.
She's otherwise quite imaginative too.
> You will find Moore and Gibbons' "Watchmen" in any respectable
> bookstore. Read it. At least twice -- you will /not/ get all the
> subtleties the first time.
Agreed on that score. Moore writes so much good stuff...
--
Vorlonagent
"Methane martini.
Shaken, not sitrred."
Jeffrey Gustafson
> >Legend of the Rangers is something that I often try to forget... From
> >a success stand-point, it had bad luck being placed opposite the NFL
> >playoffs. In addition, it was just plain awful -- honestly truly
> >abmismal, maybe because JMS was given so little time by Sci-Fi to
> >throw together a new B5 show. In any event, I personally do not
> >lament its loss the same way many of us do Crusdade. Like I said, I
> >just try to forget about it.
> >
> I disagree here. Although, like Crusade, Rangers has some clunky
> moments (like the Holographic weapons interface) and the odd dodgy
> actor it's *far* from abysmal.
>
> What it suffers from, for me, is trying to present all of the style
> and feel of a Season 3 Rangers v Shadows story, without any of the
> context or build-up required to give it weight, complexity and
> maturity. It feels too much like a retread, and one stripped of the
> arc elements which made S3 so appealing.
>
That, in a nutshell, is pretty close to why I dislike that movie so.
> However, there is much to enjoy. The Captain and First Officer are
> both very good, and it's good action-oriented fun. The premise of the
> show lends itself to a lot of possibilities. Also it had much more of
> a B5 "feel" than Crusade did.
Strangely, I posted the exact opposite reaction here when the movie
first aired. There was substance in Crusade, as in B5. Nothing but
hollow re-treading in B5LR.
>
> Plus I've now seen (and read) more than enough of jms' work to know
> that if the show had been picked up there would have been story arc
> and rug-pulling aplenty, and that nothing would have turned out the
> way it first appeared. B5, Jeremiah, Midnight Nation, Rising Stars,
> Supreme Power... all of these show Straczynski's immense skill as a
> long-term plotter with an amazing knack for misdirection and emotional
> sucker punches.
>
I agree (it's hard not to). However, the fundemental difference
between B5LR and the other B5 incarnations is that of feeling. When
first watching B5 or Crusade, even just the pilots, there was an
intangible sense of something more. B5LR didn't have that for me.
> The weakness of this approach is that before you get the WHAM episode
> you need something strong enough to stand on its own terms. Rangers,
> though entertaining, was just not special enough to make an impact.
> IMO.
>
> >As a result of the last two failures (is that too strong a word?), it
> >might seem like the law of diminishing returns applies even to B5.
> >JMS is one of the best, and most underrated visual (film, comics)
> >writers in America, but he's not perfect. What if B5 turns into Trek,
> >each incarnation nauseatingly worse than the one before? I honestly
> >doubt this would happen - JMS wouldn't let it.
> >
> There's a risk of this, I agree. The story of B5 is done and can
> never be undone, but there's the danger that several B5-lite spin-offs
> will dilute the reputation of the show.
Exactly. It happened with Trek - too many movies, too many series.
TNG was a fine show, and aside from the obvious co-opting of JMS's
work, so was DS9. Then it went downhill. We've seen a similar
pattern in B5 already, though that is unfair to Crusade because its
cancellation was outside its control. But there are pretty good
reasons B5LR didn't become a series, (and ratings had little to do
with it, I believe. I could be wading through choppy water here, but
don't forget that "To Live And Die In Starlight" was originally slated
to air in September. It was done by then, so why shelve it? Entirely
baseless speculation here, but if Sci-Fi thought it was any good
(which I wouldn't if I were them), they would've aired it as
originally scheduled or two months later during sweeps. Not in the
nether-zone of January opposite the NFL Playoffs.)
> I think it's another TV Movie / pilot. I'd love it to be a
> mini-series. I doubt it's a theatrical movie (although I may be being
> overly pessimistic.)
Percieved pessimism is in actually the realism people are loathe to
accept.
Jeffrey Gustafson
> > But if its a feature film (which we are all hoping for, I reckon), I
> > have worries. Not that one is being made, per se, but that if one
> > does get made, it will go over alot of folks' heads - not bad for us,
> > but bad for the franchise. A commercial failure could kill B5 for
> > good.
>
> I share your opinion about a lot of things you said, and your
> disappointment with Crusade being derailed (for various reasons) and
> Rangers not being what we had hoped. However I guess where I disagree
> with you, is in the above quote. To quote JMS via Susan Ivanova "This
> isn't some deep space franchise, this station is ABOUT something."
Okay, it's a deep space franchise ABOUT something, then.
> I have never viewed B5 as a franchise. Not to put words in his mouth,
> but I am pretty sure JMS has commented that it isn't a franchise
> either.
He has commented that he never wanted it to become a franchise.
However, that exact thing *has* happened, whether or not he intended
it to. 110 episodes, 4 telefilms, two (failed/killed) spinoffs (one
of which saw 13 episodes), dozens of tie-in books, stories & comics,
dozens of cds, Videos, DVDs, and some scant merchandising (games,
toys, shirts) later, plus yet another project on the front burner, all
making money for WB and JMS (to an extent)... tell me B5 isn't a
franchise!
> I don't see "killing
> the franchise" as a good reason though,
I didn't say the risk of killing the franchise is reason enough to not
make the film - if they will make it, then by all means make it! I
was only raising the possibility of what failure could cause.
However, not trying at all is the worst possible outcome, and no
matter the project, I will be there, first in line.
> just because I have never
> thought of this show as a franchise.
See above.
Jeffrey Gustafson
> I will never understand this. Can someone tell me why "Legend of the
> Rangers" is viewed by some as an ugly stepchild? I thought it was an
> exciting, well-paced film that told an interesting story. The only
> semi-reasonable knock I could see against it is that its overarching story
> was too similar to a Star Trek series, a ship full of different characters
> going through space on a mission with broad parameters. How is that enough
> to tear it apart as you did above?
My words on B5LR didn't come close to what I and others have hitherto
said, and what I really feel. For the sake of keeping redundancy
polution to a minimum, look at posts from myself and others here from
January and February 2002. Boy howdy, you'll see what I mean.
> I'm going to open the door for some real indigant remarks here, <snip>
Deserved remarks, too. However, I shall steer clear and simply say,
your loss.
> Hm. Sounds like you're hoping for another "Legend of the Rangers" after
> all.
That comment is patently offensive to me. I wish no failure for B5.
I was just stating my worries on what could cause such a failure while
examining past mis-steps, as well as my own speculation on the
project.
Mickey
news:lcwVb.1692$fV5....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> I'm going to open the door for some real indigant remarks here, but I have
> never understood a grown person having any interest in a comic book, or
> so-called "graphic novel." Sure, this is opinion too, but I find it
> impossible to completely take anyone seriously when their remarks include
> anything of any substance in reference to something that I outgrew before
I
> hit puberty. All due respect to JMS, who showed his chops beyond question
> with B5, but comic books are to literacy what pro wrestling is to sports,
> IMO. (And I fully understand that many other 44-year-olds would say the
> same about SF in general, and my own fanboy attitude toward B5 in
specific,
> so again, take it with a grain of salt. Probably just splitting hairs, in
> the eyes of many.)
So, let us review.
Movies (pictures without words) are OK
Books (words without pictures) are OK
Comics (pictures with words or words with pictures) not OK
Odd logic.
Mickey
John W. Kennedy
> After all, both the novel and TV in their time were considered debased
> media. Unfit for the attention of serious folk committing art.
Not to mention the "Universitie Wittes" at Oxbridge who poked fun at
that lowbrow Shakespeare guy who thought he could write tragedies
without knowing a word of Greek.
Brian Hulett
> It's a realistically drawn, modern day story about real people (and
> horror, hope and purpose), and it's a million miles away from stupid
> juvenile superhero comics.
>
real problem with getting into "graphic novels" or "comics" or whatever, now
that this thread has made me really examine why I feel this way about them,
is that I have a tremendous love of words. When reading I prefer to let my
imagination draw the images. That may seem a dichotomy, since I've been a
TV and movie viewer (to varying degrees) for decades, and I've always
enjoyed that, but the reading process, to me, is quite different. I can't
grasp the concept of drawings being a major part of my reading. I could
compare it to my love for playing a round of golf while I have never even
tried a computer golf game because it's *so* not golf. To me, in the same
way, a "graphic novel" or "comic" is *so* not reading.
David Williams
"Iain Clark" <iain...@dragonhaven.plus.com> wrote in message
> You should pick up the collection of jms' Midnight Nation. Seriously.
> It's a realistically drawn, modern day story about real people (and
> horror, hope and purpose), and it's a million miles away from stupid
> juvenile superhero comics.
Agreed. It is a truly compelling story. And it has some very important
messages in it, couched in very rich allegory. And, oddly enough, I think
it's a story that (IMO) could ONLY be told in this medium. Unless maybe
they made a (LONG) feature-length film out of it. But I find the odds of
that pretty slim.
You just have to read it.
Trust us.
Oh, and if it makes you feel better, you don't have to search out all the
back issues of the comic. You can buy the whole story contained in one
graphic novel. Just got mine out and noticed that (strangely) it says
"Volume 1" on the spine. There is ONLY one volume.
Regards,
-David W.
Graeme Kingston
news:4ddedcc5.04020...@posting.google.com...
>Snip<
> Legend of the Rangers is something that I often try to forget... From
> a success stand-point, it had bad luck being placed opposite the NFL
> playoffs. In addition, it was just plain awful -- honestly truly
> abmismal, maybe because JMS was given so little time by Sci-Fi to
> throw together a new B5 show. In any event, I personally do not
> lament its loss the same way many of us do Crusdade. Like I said, I
> just try to forget about it.
> Snip<
I still reckon some here are way too hard on Legend of the Rangers and give
JMS way too little credit. There was much to enjoy about that pilot. How
many times has he suckered us in the past about where a plot was going only
to reveal something far greater? It would've developed as B5 did from the
its original pilot. And how many of us really liked The Gathering,
especially in its first incarnation?
I wanna know where that story goes too. Less than I do Crusade, admittedly,
but then Crusade was developed further.
Graeme
Aisling Willow Grey
(in message <4ddedcc5.04020...@posting.google.com>):
>
> Or all of this is total claptrap, and it really will be about the
> Meaning of Spoo. Which, you know what, I really wouldn't mind at all.<<
Ha, you'll all be eating your words when I turn out to be right, and have
that quickly-spaced red-shirt character named after me!
:-)
Aisling
Jan
>Or all of this is total claptrap, and it really will be about the
>Meaning of Spoo. Which, you know what, I really wouldn't mind at all.
Why not just wait and see what it is with an open mind? As much as I love the
B5 universe, it's still not worth worrying about. Gives you wrinkles, yaknow.
<g>
I've seen enough of Joe's work to trust where he leads. Most of what I've
seen, I've liked a lot. Some I've loved. A very few I didn't care for. No
matter what, everything we get after the main series is 'lagniappe' - a little
something extra for free.
So speculating is fun but worrying is pretty useless.
Jan
Jan
>I will never understand this. Can someone tell me why "Legend of the
>Rangers" is viewed by some as an ugly stepchild?
That's been asked many times but few real details have come forth. I think
it's the 'if I don't like one thing, then the *whole thing* stinks' phenomenon.
> Sure, this is opinion too, but I find it
>impossible to completely take anyone seriously when their remarks include
>anything of any substance in reference to something that I outgrew before I
>hit puberty.
With all due respect, unless you've actually *read* some of the comic form
recently, you shouldn't judge. Just to stick with JMS's work, check out the
Midnight Nation series. Trust me, they ain't just 'Archie' comics these days;
they're real stories with real characters that you can relate to.
Jan
DodoBrd16
have worries. Not that one is being made, per se, but that if one
does get made, it will go over alot of folks' heads - not bad for us,
but bad for the franchise.<<
Which is why I have said again and again, I hope any major motion picture is a
remake of ITB.
Cant shoot over a larger audiences head if you start... ITB.
Aisling Willow Grey
(in message <fn3d209nq1iufj2ds...@4ax.com>):
> Psico...@hotmail.com (Jeffrey Gustafson) wrote:
>
>> Could it
>> be worse than Legend of the Rangers (can anything be worse than
>> that?)?
>
> The most recent Star Trek movie?<<
Right, you mean the one that was about the Romulans, yet they didn't have the
sense to use the one recurring Romulan from TNG...who happened to have been
played by Andreas.
Sheesh.
Aisling
Mac Breck
news:fn3d209nq1iufj2ds...@4ax.com...
> Psico...@hotmail.com (Jeffrey Gustafson) wrote:
>
> >Could it
> >be worse than Legend of the Rangers (can anything be
worse than
> >that?)?
>
> The most recent Star Trek movie?
No. I enjoyed the most recent Star Trek movie more than "To
Live and Die in Starlight" (TLaDiS), but that's probably
because I don't expect much from Trek. With TLaDiS, I
expected B5/Crusade level stuff and got Trek level stuff.
Come to think of it, JMS was supposedly at a low ebb (tired,
burned out[1]) when he was doing Crusade, yet TLaDiS doesn't
seem *nearly* as strong as Crusade to me. I can re-watch
any Crusade episode, even "War Zone," "Visitors from Down
the Street" and "Ruling from the Tomb," but I have this
aversion to re-watching TLaDiS. I mean, right now, this has
caused me to think of some Crusade episodes, and now I want
to go pop them in the DVD player (I transferred my SVHS
recordings to DVD.). This desire of mine to re-watch,
doesn't happen with TLaDiS.
[1] Can't find the right quote on JMSNews, or else I'd use
those words.
--
Mac Breck (KoshN) - from the desktop PC
-------------------------------
http://www.scifi.com/babylon5/
http://www.scifi.com/crusade/
http://www.scifi.com/bboard/browse.cgi/1/5/1521 (Brimstone)
Mac Breck
message
news:4ddedcc5.04020...@posting.google.com...
at the news
> of a new B5 project. However, it was mixed trepidation
because as we
> are also all aware, we have been here before. Twice. And
both times
> it didn't turn out well. Of course those were unique
situations.
>
> Crusade, aside from being killed in the cradle, was
written by an
> admittedly burned out JMS. While the show had great
potential, it
> just wasn't the right time for Joe, or the powers-that-be.
>
forget...
Ditto.
> From
> a success stand-point, it had bad luck being placed
opposite the NFL
> playoffs. In addition, it was just plain awful --
honestly truly
> abmismal,
Agreed.
> maybe because JMS was given so little time by Sci-Fi to
> throw together a new B5 show.
That's what I thought, too, but no. See:
> In any event, I personally do not
> lament its loss the same way many of us do Crusade. Like
I said, I
> just try to forget about it.
Agreed.
> As a result of the last two failures (is that too strong a
word?), it
> might seem like the law of diminishing returns applies
even to B5.
> JMS is one of the best, and most underrated visual (film,
comics)
> writers in America, but he's not perfect. What if B5
turns into Trek,
> each incarnation nauseatingly worse than the one before?
I honestly
> doubt this would happen - JMS wouldn't let it.
Plus, JMS wouldn't get as many chances (incarnations) as the
Trek people do.
> Now as for the new project, we know its not a
show/book/comic (<cough>
> still waiting on the DC graphic novel, patiently), so its
either a TV
> Movie or Feature Film. Or not. But maybe.
>
> If it's a TV movie, how impressive could it be? If past
results are
> any indication, it'll be OK. Could it top In The
Beginning?
..or "A Call to Arms." That'd be tough to do.
> Could it
> be worse than Legend of the Rangers (can anything be worse
than
> that?)?
I never thought it could get worse than "The River of
Souls," but the Rangers pilot proved that wrong.
> It's not a pilot, so its a stand-alone, but of what?
Watch
> me be wrong and it turns out to be the greatest telefilm
ever made.
> With JMS at the helm, all is possible..
>
> But if its a feature film (which we are all hoping for, I
reckon), I
> have worries. Not that one is being made, per se, but
that if one
> does get made, it will go over alot of folks' heads - not
bad for us,
> but bad for the franchise. A commercial failure could
kill B5 for
> good. Most, including I, assume a feature will be about
the telepath
> war. If thats so, you would need a rediculous amount of
exposition
> (if you really want to delve into the story) for the
majority of movie
> goers who have never heard of Babylon 5.
I don't think this will be a problem with a Telepath War
feature film. Gotta agree with JoeD on this one.
Laura Appelbaum
news:20040208165349...@mb-m01.aol.com...
> Brian Hulett wrote:
> Sure, this is opinion too, but I find it
> >impossible to completely take anyone seriously when their remarks include
> >anything of any substance in reference to something that I outgrew before
I
> >hit puberty.
>
> With all due respect, unless you've actually *read* some of the comic form
> recently, you shouldn't judge. Just to stick with JMS's work, check out
the
> Midnight Nation series. Trust me, they ain't just 'Archie' comics these
days;
> they're real stories with real characters that you can relate to.
>
Yeah, yeah, yeah. <G> But surely you've noticed that outside of the science
fiction/fantasy community (and in Japan, where the culture and the whole
relationship to literacy and images is entirely different from here in the
west), you're not likely to come upon too many adults who disagree with
Brian -- or for that matter, with me, on this one. And has it never
occurred to you that there might be a *reason* for that, which isn't just a
knee-jerk prejudice against "kid stuff" but an appreciation of truly
great -- and in-depth -- *writing* that is only possible in an essay or a
novel or a book? Every time this argument comes up around here, I wonder
when the last time it was that the ardent, defensive and often
self-righteous defenders of the Great Graphic Novel (not necessary or
specifically you; any of the folks who've weighed in over the years on this
one) -- read an actual work of literature or a masterful piece of prose with
say, three hundred or more pages of words.
Can you tell a story in a graphic novel? Sure. Can you raise some
interesting issues, I'm quite certain it can and has been done. But can you
compare that to what someone truly talented can do in an actual *book*? No.
It's like comparing a five-course meal with fast food. They'll both fill
you up, but the depth and complexity of one cannot be honestly compared to
the efficiency and convenience of the other.
LMA
Kathryn Huxtable
What she said. And I have read graphic novels. They're fun and they
can say interesting things. But they don't compare to a real
book. Actually, most SF is pretty fluffy compared to real books,
though there are plenty of exceptions.
-K, who sometimes likes fluff.
Joseph DeMartino
which isn't just a knee-jerk prejudice against "kid stuff" but an
appreciation of truly great -- and in-depth -- *writing* that is only
possible in an essay or a novel or a book? <
*Gasp*! You're *right*! And that explains why there has never been any
great writing for television or the movies or the stage. Because *great*
writing can only can only come in the form of text between covers. Quick,
somebody tell JMS to stop wasting his time with this drama nonsense and get
back to work writing books.
Thanks for clearing that up for me. Imagine some of us being foolish enough
to think that different forms of story-telling can be equally valid, or that
it is even more foolish to reject a story-telling *medium* out of hand than
to reject an entire literary genre.
Regards,
Joe
Opie301
Spin that around, now. When was the last time that an individual
whose experience in literature is that of the masterful piece of prose
has been exposed to some of the great and meaningful story-telling
that is available in the 'Graphic Novel' form. That argument swings
both ways. It may true that it's hard to argue the merit of a graphic
novel, if you've never sat down with Hemmingway, Elliot, Faulkner, or
Shakespeare. But can you really argue the Graphic Novel's depth if
you never picked up Moore, Gaiman, or Itto?
Before reading 'The Watchmen', i think i would have agreed with you,
Laura. Now, i don't think i can.
> Can you tell a story in a graphic novel? Sure. Can you raise some
> interesting issues, I'm quite certain it can and has been done. But can you
> compare that to what someone truly talented can do in an actual *book*? No.
> It's like comparing a five-course meal with fast food. They'll both fill
> you up, but the depth and complexity of one cannot be honestly compared to
> the efficiency and convenience of the other.
This seems to be a close-minded, and rather elitist, point of view.
Would you lump movies and television into the fast food category of
your analogy? TV, Film, and Comics all use the same basic format of
images and dialogue to tell their stories. Depth and complexity are
all based on the ability of the writer and artist... not the method by
which they bring you their message.
I can't believe that you would see something like JMS's 'Midnight
Nation' as inferior to some harlequinn romance simply because you view
the format as inherrently less.
I'm not asking you to go out and pick up every book we've talked about
here, simply not to discount the format until you've experienced what
it has to offer.
Wendy of NJ
<macthe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Rob Perkins" <rob_p...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:fn3d209nq1iufj2ds...@4ax.com...
>> Psico...@hotmail.com (Jeffrey Gustafson) wrote:
>>
>> >Could it
>> >be worse than Legend of the Rangers (can anything be
>worse than
>> >that?)?
>>
>> The most recent Star Trek movie?
>
>No. I enjoyed the most recent Star Trek movie more than "To
>Live and Die in Starlight" (TLaDiS), but that's probably
>because I don't expect much from Trek. With TLaDiS, I
>expected B5/Crusade level stuff and got Trek level stuff.
>Come to think of it, JMS was supposedly at a low ebb (tired,
>burned out[1]) when he was doing Crusade, yet TLaDiS doesn't
>seem *nearly* as strong as Crusade to me. I can re-watch
>any Crusade episode, even "War Zone," "Visitors from Down
>the Street" and "Ruling from the Tomb," but I have this
>aversion to re-watching TLaDiS. I mean, right now, this has
>caused me to think of some Crusade episodes, and now I want
>to go pop them in the DVD player (I transferred my SVHS
>recordings to DVD.). This desire of mine to re-watch,
>doesn't happen with TLaDiS.
That may have to do with the casting. The only reason I'd watch TLaDiS
again is to see Andreas. Everyone else is completely forgettable.
Not so with Crusade. Crusade made me go watch more Gary Cole stuff
(although I haven't got enough intestinal fortitude to watch the Brady
Bunch Movie). Crusade had great characters that interacted well with
each other, from the first episode. TLaDiS just - didn't.
Iain Clark
<edi...@thewinningdrive.com> wrote:
>> You should pick up the collection of jms' Midnight Nation. Seriously.
>> It's a realistically drawn, modern day story about real people (and
>> horror, hope and purpose), and it's a million miles away from stupid
>> juvenile superhero comics.
>>
>Thanks, you make a good case for giving it a try, but I guess basically my
>real problem with getting into "graphic novels" or "comics" or whatever, now
>that this thread has made me really examine why I feel this way about them,
>is that I have a tremendous love of words. When reading I prefer to let my
>imagination draw the images.
I agree, although it's worth remembering that a good comic is not just
a film on paper. The brain puts in a lot more imagination into
reading a comic than watching a film.
For example, the panels in a comic have no inherent speed. The reader
controls how quickly or slowly they flow. Movement is inferred from
still images. As with a book, the reader provides the acting
performances, the sounds, the movement, the pacing. Many of the most
important moments happen in the imagination of the reader, between the
panels rather than in them.
Comics are strange in that they're somewhere between a book and film,
but they also have unique properties.
Hey, I've gone all evangelical. :-)
> That may seem a dichotomy, since I've been a
>TV and movie viewer (to varying degrees) for decades, and I've always
>enjoyed that, but the reading process, to me, is quite different. I can't
>grasp the concept of drawings being a major part of my reading. I could
>compare it to my love for playing a round of golf while I have never even
>tried a computer golf game because it's *so* not golf. To me, in the same
>way, a "graphic novel" or "comic" is *so* not reading.
I can understand that. I do agree that the worst comics are hardly
"reading" at all. More like the level of attention you need to browse
a cheap magazine! However, there's nothing about the medium that
inherently excludes language. jms' style of narration for example,
is good language, and comics depend on the written word.
At the same time, a comic by definition has to be more than words.
The good writers know when to let loose with the verbiage, and when to
sit back and let the pictures speak a thousand words. The best comics
have a kind of alchemy in the way they combine eloquent language with
telling images.
(It's something jms didn't do very well when he first started to write
comics IMO, but has picked up very well.)
Iain
--
"Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion,
by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense."
Jay E. Morris
<kos...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
....
> You just have to read it.
> Trust us.
> Oh, and if it makes you feel better, you don't have to search out all the
> back issues of the comic. You can buy the whole story contained in one
> graphic novel. Just got mine out and noticed that (strangely) it says
> "Volume 1" on the spine. There is ONLY one volume.
>
It was done by the same guy that creates the "first annual" events.
--
Jay E. Morris - morrisj at epsilon3 com
Posted with Ink Spot (for Windows CE) from DejaVu Software, Inc.
Usenet wherever you are - http://www.dejavusoftware.com/
Laura Appelbaum
news:c06avn$3jb$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> "Jeffrey Gustafson" <Psico...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4ddedcc5.04020...@posting.google.com...
>
> >Snip<
> > Legend of the Rangers is something that I often try to forget... From
> > a success stand-point, it had bad luck being placed opposite the NFL
> > playoffs. In addition, it was just plain awful -- honestly truly
> > abmismal, maybe because JMS was given so little time by Sci-Fi to
> > throw together a new B5 show. In any event, I personally do not
> > lament its loss the same way many of us do Crusdade. Like I said, I
> > just try to forget about it.
> > Snip<
>
> I still reckon some here are way too hard on Legend of the Rangers and
give
> JMS way too little credit. There was much to enjoy about that pilot.
I'm glad that you felt that way; because at my house, we were torn between
dismay and embarrasment. And whatever you call it when you can't stop
laughing at something because it's so bad it hurts.
How
> many times has he suckered us in the past about where a plot was going
only
> to reveal something far greater? It would've developed as B5 did from the
> its original pilot. And how many of us really liked The Gathering,
> especially in its first incarnation?
>
I did. It was slow -- in that first incarnation -- but it never made me
cringe -- in fact, it sent me online (for the first time in my life) to find
out when the series was going to begin.
LMA
Andrew Swallow
news:XKrWb.17076$Ch.1...@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
[snip]
> *Gasp*! You're *right*! And that explains why there has never been any
> great writing for television or the movies or the stage. Because *great*
> writing can only can only come in the form of text between covers. Quick,
> somebody tell JMS to stop wasting his time with this drama nonsense and
get
> back to work writing books.
>
WRITING! It will not last. *Real* Druids and Minstrels learn the
ballads off by heart and every line rhymes. <g>
Andrew Swallow
Eliyahu Rooff
> interesting issues, I'm quite certain it can and has been done. But
can you
> compare that to what someone truly talented can do in an actual
*book*? No.
> It's like comparing a five-course meal with fast food. They'll both
fill
> you up, but the depth and complexity of one cannot be honestly
compared to
> the efficiency and convenience of the other.
>
reading the "Classics Illustrated Comics" version of The Iliad. IIRC,
Kryton's comments on perusing the comic were along the line of, "Hmmm.
Let me see... [reading from the comic] 'Slash! Chop! Die, Greek scum!'
... Yep. Pretty close to the original text." :-)
Eliyahu
Pelzo63
<< . But can you really argue the Graphic Novel's depth if
you never picked up Moore, Gaiman, or Itto?
>>
well, i have to be honest, i haven't found them yet, but i do read joe. so i'm
not sure what other things gaiman et al have found to do in graphic novels, but
i can tell you one of the things that GN's do much better than prose or film
have ever done, and this is usually evident in any GN penned by anyone with a
high skill level.
that "one thing"(that i can think of) is the ability to portray large groups of
people in varying and moving ways, in a very short time. invariably, when
prose attempts to depict the reactions of a large # of people(above say....15)
to a single event, it either becomes tedious if they try to describe everyone's
actions/reactions, as in "and joe had x look, while jen had y expression, while
steve reacted with z" etc etc, or it becomes too general, when they simply say
"somee people were shocked, some amazed, some horrified" etc. when film
attempts to show similar reactions, it either ends up looking too general, with
wide camera shots of many people all reacting the same way(how many extras are
given any direction individually in crowd scenes? having been one, i can say
i've never seen any it occur, everyone is told "you're
frightened/scared/excited/happy/etc"), or it ends up looking stilted and
trite(see the end of the movie "volcano" for the mot obvious example). though
some films have gotten it right here and there, it's truly hit and miss, and
takes a good directorial eye to make it look right.
on the other hand, a simple look at the 9/11 issue of spiderman shows this
strength of GN's in a strong way, the issue is filled with drawings of dozens
of people, and each face has a different expression, and a different sense of
fear, or resolve, or anger. each face tellls it's own story, and the reader
can choose to look at that story, or just continue on. you get out of it, what
you invest, and those "thousand words" must be searched out of each picture,
instead of being given to you on a silver platter. it's a lot like poetry,
where much of the message isn't in the words that are spoken, but in the subtle
meaning between those words, and the choice to place those words exactly where
they are.
...Chris, a poet.
People like you make me want to access your brain, and type rm -r -f /
Jan
>But surely you've noticed that outside of the science
>fiction/fantasy community (and in Japan, where the culture and the whole
>relationship to literacy and images is entirely different from here in the
>west), you're not likely to come upon too many adults who disagree with
>Brian -- or for that matter, with me, on this one.
Yeah...true. But this *is* a science fiction community. ;-)
>And has it never
>occurred to you that there might be a *reason* for that, which isn't just a
>knee-jerk prejudice against "kid stuff" but an appreciation of truly
>great -- and in-depth -- *writing* that is only possible in an essay or a
>novel or a book? Every time this argument comes up around here, I wonder
>when the last time it was that the ardent, defensive and often
>self-righteous defenders of the Great Graphic Novel (not necessary or
>specifically you; any of the folks who've weighed in over the years on this
>one) -- read an actual work of literature or a masterful piece of prose with
>say, three hundred or more pages of words.
Well, in my case, I read 'real' books of 300-1000 pages regularly (aside from
the fact that my initial response was to Brians's comment about having
'outgrown comics before he hit puberty). I don't, however insist that
everything I read be Masterful or Literature. I just like a good story with
characters I can care what happens to. What other reason is there for reading
fiction? By your logic, the short story is to be avoided, too.
<<But can you compare that to what someone truly talented can do in an actual
*book*? No.>>
Why would you want to? Perhaps *you* should wonder if that verbose author who
wrote the Great Novel you're reading could get the essence of the story
distilled enough to go into a comic series? <g>
>It's like comparing a five-course meal with fast food. They'll both fill
>you up, but the depth and complexity of one cannot be honestly compared to
>the efficiency and convenience of the other.
You seem to be thinking that one would read comics/graphic novels because it's
easier, takes less effort or thought and the form belongs to prepubescent kids
who *need* pictures for when they don't understand the words and that's not it
at all.
Most of the time I try to avoid a "you shouldn't have an opinion unless you've
tried it" attitude, but I'm making an exception in this case because of the
disdain often expressed by the non-comics posters. You have no right to an
opinion about a form that you've refused to even sample. *After* you've read a
reasonable sampling of an adult title (the oft suggested Midnight Nation, for
instance) and come back and say that it's not to your taste, then there might
be a discussion. Till then, all you're expressing are snobbish attitudes and
uninformed prejudice.
Jan
Aisling Willow Grey
(in message <4ddedcc5.04021...@posting.google.com>):
>
> Exactly. It happened with Trek - too many movies, too many series.
> TNG was a fine show, and aside from the obvious co-opting of JMS's
> work, so was DS9. Then it went downhill. We've seen a similar
> pattern in B5 already, though that is unfair to Crusade because its
> cancellation was outside its control. But there are pretty good
> reasons B5LR didn't become a series, (and ratings had little to do
> with it, I believe. I could be wading through choppy water here, but
> don't forget that "To Live And Die In Starlight" was originally slated
> to air in September. It was done by then, so why shelve it? Entirely
> baseless speculation here, but if Sci-Fi thought it was any good
> (which I wouldn't if I were them), they would've aired it as
> originally scheduled or two months later during sweeps. Not in the
> nether-zone of January opposite the NFL Playoffs.) <<
Whether or not something is "good" (a subjective assessment at best) has very
little impact on whether or not a cable network will air something. Business
decisions aren't generally made like that, and the entertainment industry is
a _business_.
Aisling
Aisling Willow Grey
(in message <102j7ji...@corp.supernews.com>):
I wouldn't compare a graphic novel to a book. Instead, I would compare it to
a film or a television program. In many cases, I find graphic novels to be
richer than either of those, because, as with the case of
books-compared-to-movies/tv, graphic novels allow for more use of your
imagination.
And, unlike a book but _like_ a movie, or a tv show, or even a _painting_,
graphic novels can use the visual medium to express something _instead_ of
words in certain passages. And if you don't think the visual medium can be a
powerful way of conveying ideas, I give you the scene in G'Kar's cell on
Centauri Prime in which he has just cut the deal with Mollari to help dispose
of Cartagia, and the light shines in on him. Among many other such scenes in
_many_ films/tv programs.
And, for the record, I read plenty of books, all the time. I'm in the middle
of an 800-page one right now.
Aisling
Aisling Willow Grey
(in message <20040208165349...@mb-m01.aol.com>):
> Brian Hulett wrote:
>
>> I will never understand this. Can someone tell me why "Legend of the
>> Rangers" is viewed by some as an ugly stepchild?
>
> That's been asked many times but few real details have come forth. I think
> it's the 'if I don't like one thing, then the *whole thing* stinks'
> phenomenon.<<
Just putting in my oar here in the "I didn't hate LotR:TLaDiS" camp.
Sure, there were some things about it I wish weren't there, or could be
changed, but it was a _pilot_, ferchrissakes. There are some strong
complaints about The Gathering, too, but do you even want to imagine a world
in which we didn't get the next five years of _that_ story??
We'll never know what we lost with the failure of Rangers, and I'm pretty sad
about that. Same with Crusade. Fingers crossed that the third time's the
charm (i.e. that whatever comes out next has a chance of becoming, or
spawning, another B5 series). And, that G'Kar is in whatever it is!!! :-)
Aisling
Mac Breck
news:5nuk20lv2d1kqcqe8...@4ax.com...
Pretty much, except for Na'Feel (who seemed to have some of
Na'Toth's ol' spark<G>) and Dulann. David seemed a bit too
"Leave It To Beaver"-ish to me. He looked too young, fresh
faced and inexperienced to pull off what he was doing.
Maybe if they would have weathered him a bit, it might have
worked. I dunno.
> (although I haven't got enough intestinal fortitude to
watch the Brady
> Bunch Movie).
Me either!
> Crusade had great characters that interacted well with
> each other, from the first episode. TLaDiS just - didn't.
That's certainly one of the major attractions of Crusade. It
had a bunch of strong, seasoned professional,
multidimensional characters (Eilerson, Gideon, Galen,
Dureena, Matheson). In the case of Legend of the Rangers,
the age and experience level of most of the characters, and
the length of time we got to see the characters, worked
against it.
Man, do I ever want to see more of Crusade!
Mac Breck
The only parts of "The Gathering" that brought me close to
cringing were:
The "pong" sounds of the weaponry.
The "Zoo" scene.
and
Sinclair wildly (over the top) looking back at the camera,
1/2 second before he'd get jumped, every time.
The Rangers pilot had many more cringe worthy moments that
were much longer in duration.
Laura Appelbaum
news:b2aa14e1.04021...@posting.google.com...
>
> > Can you tell a story in a graphic novel? Sure. Can you raise some
> > interesting issues, I'm quite certain it can and has been done. But can
you
> > compare that to what someone truly talented can do in an actual *book*?
No.
> > It's like comparing a five-course meal with fast food. They'll both
fill
> > you up, but the depth and complexity of one cannot be honestly compared
to
> > the efficiency and convenience of the other.
>
> This seems to be a close-minded, and rather elitist, point of view.
If it's "elitist" to love an in-depth exploration of a topic in words, to
love just the pure beauty of a well-crafted sentence or paragraph, then
guilty as charged. :Shrug:
> Would you lump movies and television into the fast food category of
> your analogy?
No, most of what's on tv and in the movies these days is more like the
scrapings out of the bottom of a Dumpster. Occasionally there's a good
snack on, and you might even find a rare meal in the theatre, but this
happens less and less all the time. I am *far* from alone in that
conclusion about the sad state of visual media today.
TV, Film, and Comics all use the same basic format of
> images and dialogue to tell their stories. Depth and complexity are
> all based on the ability of the writer and artist... not the method by
> which they bring you their message.
To some degree, yes. But any artist can tell you that if you're going to
choose a media in which to try to create a work of art that might someday
hang in the halls of the world's great museums and be recognized by millions
as a truly outstanding piece that speaks across the ages, you'll want to
work on the best canvas, with the best paints you can possibly afford. When
you use lesser or inferior materials, no matter how fantastic a visionary
you are, you are inherently limiting the final nature of the final product.
If you chose to try to relate let's say, your understanding of some of the
great philosophical questions of life to what, 100 pages of squares and
rectangles filled with ink drawings that will be reproduced using the simple
screen-printing method and the few sparce words you can fit into those
spaces, you can't possibly do justice to the topic the way you might with
the almost unlimited number of words and the unlimited number of images you
can conjure up in your reader's minds in a book.
>
> I can't believe that you would see something like JMS's 'Midnight
> Nation' as inferior to some harlequinn romance simply because you view
> the format as inherrently less.
>
Harlequinn romance? Is that what you think I'm talking about when I talk
about great literature and great prose? If so, you clearly need to get out
more -- and *read.* As for "Midnight Nation" specifically, I have nothing
to say; haven't read it.
> I'm not asking you to go out and pick up every book we've talked about
> here, simply not to discount the format until you've experienced what
> it has to offer.
>
What makes you think I'm so unfamiliar with the medium of which you speak?
As I said in my initial post, this is *precisely* the inevitable argument
that gets hauled out everytime this topic comes up -- "clearly" anyone who
thinks graphic novels are not worth their time hasn't read any. For your
information, I recently read read all of Miyazaki's "Naussica" (which
actually bears almost no resemblance to the movie of the same name). It was
huge. It took him 12 years to complete. It was a herculean effort, no
question. But ultimately, as a "novel," even as a coherent story, it was
unimpressive and disjointed at best. Was it a good way to waste a weekend
when I was "between books"? Sure; it was no worse than staring at junk on
TV all day; and sometimes all you *want* to do is stare at the TV all day.
But is it something I personally would recommend other grown adults do on a
regular basis? Not when there are literally a thousand books I could
suggest they read instead.
LMA
Graeme Kingston
> news:c06avn$3jb$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> > "Jeffrey Gustafson" <Psico...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:4ddedcc5.04020...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > >Snip<
> > > Legend of the Rangers is something that I often try to forget... From
> > > a success stand-point, it had bad luck being placed opposite the NFL
> > > playoffs. In addition, it was just plain awful -- honestly truly
> > > abmismal, maybe because JMS was given so little time by Sci-Fi to
> > > throw together a new B5 show. In any event, I personally do not
> > > lament its loss the same way many of us do Crusdade. Like I said, I
> > > just try to forget about it.
> > > Snip<
> >
> > I still reckon some here are way too hard on Legend of the Rangers and
> give
> > JMS way too little credit. There was much to enjoy about that pilot.
>
> I'm glad that you felt that way; because at my house, we were torn between
> dismay and embarrasment. And whatever you call it when you can't stop
> laughing at something because it's so bad it hurts.
>
OK, passion indeed! :-)
What I liked about TLaDiS (it's been a while since a saw it, so please
forgive any memory lapses):
1) Dulann and David's relationship - a *real* gem, IMO.
2) G'Kar (as always)
3) Each and every crew character, including the ship itself. All deftly
drawn in a short time.
4) Much of the dialogue was clever and witty
What people seemed to hate about it (all things explainable or fixable if it
had gone to series, IMO):
1) Weapons control system? (some were able to justify it anyway - it could
have been dropped, decomissioned, was it a prototype?)
2) The apparent over-acting and aggression of the weapons woman (I think she
has a history that would've explained that - a rough background was hinted
at - she has a lot of anger, and the history would've been revealed if a
series had followed)
3) Bad, inconsistent CGI (fixable)
4) Insistence on the Ranger creed. Hmm. I see the point, but still
tweakable, since they'd learn from David's experience. And this was
action/adventure rather than drama.
Technicalities or explainable. A series would have been good in my
estimation.
Graeme
Vorlonagent
> >> Rangers" is viewed by some as an ugly stepchild?
> >
> > That's been asked many times but few real details have come forth. I
think
> > it's the 'if I don't like one thing, then the *whole thing* stinks'
> > phenomenon.<<
>
sad
> about that. Same with Crusade. Fingers crossed that the third time's the
> charm (i.e. that whatever comes out next has a chance of becoming, or
> spawning, another B5 series). And, that G'Kar is in whatever it is!!!
:-)
I think most of us will agree that Legend of the Rangers was not JMS' finest
hour (2 hours?).
I won't go into my personal reasons why because they aren't strictly
relevant.
That's the thing for me. I know JMS can do better--lots better--than what
I'm seeing, and I am disappointed by this. If the episode or movie is
sufficiciently bad--and "Legend" was--I get frustrated.
Anyway, that's why *I* have little good to say about Legend of the Rangers.
Or the first-run of Crusade's season 1.
--
Vorlonagent
"Methane martini.
Shaken, not sitrred."
Mac Breck
news:Caudna3vWMU...@sti.net...
> That's the thing for me. I know JMS can do better--lots
better--than what
> I'm seeing, and I am disappointed by this. If the episode
or movie is
> sufficiciently bad--and "Legend" was--I get frustrated.
>
> Anyway, that's why *I* have little good to say about
Legend of the Rangers.
> Or the first-run of Crusade's season 1.
"or the first run of" ? Referring to TNT's botched order?
David Williams
> more -- and *read.* As for "Midnight Nation" specifically, I have nothing
> to say; haven't read it.
If you remember, jms himself has remarked in this very group that it is one
of the best things he's ever written, and one of the things he's most proud
of. I've note read EVERYTHING he's ever done, but as far as I can see,
he's right. So, again, I highly suggest you do get MN and read it. It
opened my eyes to the possibilities of a medium that I myself used to
relegate to geeks and adolescent mind-sets.
Let me try to put it another way...
There are story-telling, mood-conveying, and meaning-imparting techniques
that a graphic depiction of a story can employ, which plain written text can
not (and vice-versa, but noone is arguing that).
E.g. many of the great film-makers will tell you that learning to use
Silence in a film is very important. (It is *similar*, but definitely not
the *same* as "negative space" in a painting.)
Well, it's nearly impossible to create Silence in the written text, because
the text on the page just goes on and on. So, unless you make a point of
STOPPING every sentence or two in your reading to ponder what you've read,
some important moments can slip by you. (I've had personally had the
experience of reading truly great novels over and over again, catching
things I missed the first read through.) Graphic novels OTOH can offer
panels, or whole pages where the characters say and do nothing. But a great
deal is conveyed through the artwork.
That's just one example.
An example of a benefit that the graphic novel has over, say film is it's
static nature. In film, the story moves along at a certain pace. But, in a
really good film, no matter how well-edited it is, there are always moments
you wish could linger just a little bit longer. In the static format of the
graphic novel, you can pace your viewing of the images however you like.
Of course, having said all that, the graphic novel is no different than any
other medium - Who was it? - Someone was once quoted here as saying that 90%
of it may be crap, but then 90% of EVERYTHING is crap. You gotta' look for
the good stuff.
Midnight Nation is not just some of the good stuff, it is GREAT stuff.
Regards,
-David W.
Vorlonagent
> love just the pure beauty of a well-crafted sentence or paragraph, then
> guilty as charged. :Shrug:
No. That's not elitism.
Elitism is loving "just the pure beauty of a well-crafted sentence or
paragraph" to the point that you look down on other related forms (such as
comics) as inferior.
Vorlonagent
> better--than what
> > I'm seeing, and I am disappointed by this. If the episode
> or movie is
> > sufficiciently bad--and "Legend" was--I get frustrated.
> >
> > Anyway, that's why *I* have little good to say about
> Legend of the Rangers.
> > Or the first-run of Crusade's season 1.
>
> "or the first run of" ? Referring to TNT's botched order?
Yup. The ones that TNT showed second weren't the best. The ones shown first
were better.
I thought I had heard that the second set of episodes were actually taped
first (JMS reportedly wanted to "hit the ground running") but people here
(Joe in particular) took issue with this view. I won't dredge up the
discussion.
Joseph DeMartino
> love just the pure beauty of a well-crafted sentence or paragraph, then
> guilty as charged. :Shrug:
LOL! My goodness you *do* think *well* of yourself, don't you?
Newsflash, O Elite One. People who like graphic novels are *also* capable
of loving "an in-depth exploration of a topic in words, to love just the
pure beauty of a well-crafted sentence or paragraph." *Many* of them do.
*Some* of them are even better read and educated than yourself. Such
elevated emotions are *not* the exclusive possessions of intellectual snobs
such as yourself. In fact, the people who can love novels and essays as
much as you *and* love plays, movies, television and graphic story-telling
are arguably much less intellectually narrow than you, who can only
appreciate stories told in certain physical forms.
> To some degree, yes. But any artist can tell you ...
<snippage of much artistic blather that totally misses the point >
You're thinking of the "artwork" in a graphic novel as pictures that are
added to the words, and whose primary purpose is to *be* single pictures -
in effect you view them as "failed paintings" In fact many comics and
graphic novels are pictures with words added to them - the writer and artist
hash out an overall plot, the artist goes off and tells the story in a
series of silent panels, then the writer comes back and adds dialogue and
captions based on what the artist has drawn. And often enough the artist
and the writer are the same person.
I assume you also view TV as radio with pictures tacked on, or movies as
scripts with a bunch of people moving around and saying things while *the
words* tell the story. (In which case, how do you explain silent films,
where the word are often limited to location changes and underscoring plot
points?)
Images in visual story telling are *part and parcel* of the storytelling.
And there are things that can be done in terms of storytelling that can be
done in a page full of graphic panels that *cannot* be done in a page of
text, or on a TV or movie screen. If you are an artist who wants to tell a
story that *can't* be conveyed in the kind of single image you don't waste
your time with paint and canvas and vie for a place in a museum (Where, by
the way, there is at least as much sheer *crap* as you'll ever find in
contemporary films, TV, music or your average Harlequin Romance.)
Oh, and thanks for your technical description of the printing process used
for most graphic novels TWENTY YEARS AGO. It makes easy to see how much you
know about the entire subject.
Regards,
Joe
John W. Kennedy
> This brings to mind the episode of Red Dwarf where Kryton finds Lister
> reading the "Classics Illustrated Comics" version of The Iliad. IIRC,
> Kryton's comments on perusing the comic were along the line of, "Hmmm.
> Let me see... [reading from the comic] 'Slash! Chop! Die, Greek scum!'
Which is unfair. I remember the "Classics Illustrated Iliad", and it
was _much_ more sound than that.
But I really must insert here a plug for Eric Shanower's "Age of Bronze"
(http://age-of-bronze.com/aob/index.shtml).
--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
Jeffrey Gustafson
> Which is why I have said again and again, I hope any major motion picture is a
> remake of ITB.
Um. That's like saying, "Hey, lets make a movie thats a remake of the
series!" Not to mention that ITB is damned near flawless, and any
remake would be even more excrutiatingly redundant since the original
is *right there* and not very old at all.
-The Jeff
Sheridan:"So how did you find out all of this?"
Bester:"I'm a telepath. Work it out." <*>
Jeffrey Gustafson
> Can you tell a story in a graphic novel? Sure. Can you raise some
> interesting issues, I'm quite certain it can and has been done. But can you
> compare that to what someone truly talented can do in an actual *book*? No.
> It's like comparing a five-course meal with fast food. They'll both fill
> you up, but the depth and complexity of one cannot be honestly compared to
> the efficiency and convenience of the other.
Thats a tad elitist. I'd say, with utter certainty, that,
proportionally, the amount of great graphic work equals the amount of
great film work equals the amount of great stage work equals the
amount of great literature. It's Sturgeon's Law in reverse. Some
writers who have a masterpiece of a story to tell are more oriented
towards comics versus books, film versus stage; because they are
visually oriented storytellers they should be penalized out of hand
based on their chosen medium rather than the merits of their work?
Its like someone saying science fiction can be no good because it
ain't *real* literature or *real* drama, when *we* all know that such
a view is limiting and absurd. Honestly, the same applies for anyone
writing off whole sections of human creativity based on preconcieved
misconceptions. It's folly, especially if you enjoy great works.
Eliyahu Rooff
"Aisling Willow Grey" <ais...@fjordstone.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BC500EB2...@news.verizon.net...
Just some idle thoughts here for the theoretical physics buffs among
us... If, as they say, the third time's a charm, does that mean that
the first two times are "up" and "down"?
Eliyahu
Joseph DeMartino
hate... <
And the fact that the test audience hates it indicates that *real* audiences
will hate it, the word-of-mouth will suck and it will be cheaper for the
studio to shelve the movie, sell it to cable or release it direct-to-video
than to distribute it and advertise it in theaters. So we're back to its
being a business decision, in this case how to minimize losses. And it is
pretty much the same with all the other examples you gave - pilots are focus
grouped and test-audienced to death, the majority of them never going on the
air. The exceptions that *do* go on the air are either filling dead time or
they will live or die based on their ratings.
Most decisions about which scripts to make (for TV and movies) have less to
do with their inherent aesthetic quality than with their perceived appeal to
a desired audience. Most decisions about which *books* to publish have
less to do with quality than what is currently hot in the market.
In fact, you can almost always assume that a decision to *kill* a project is
mostly a matter of business. It is the rare decision to go ahead with
something that doesn't fit the established template for success or to keep a
series going beyond the normal cancellation point that indicates a stubborn
(and brave) studio or network decision maker trusting his or her gut. When
they're right (and the project is called "Star Wars" or the series "Cheers"
or "M*A*S*H") they can be very right. When they're wrong - well, they're
usually gone. <g>
Regards,
Joe
Is any of this news to you?
Opie301
>
> If it's "elitist" to love an in-depth exploration of a topic in words, to
> love just the pure beauty of a well-crafted sentence or paragraph, then
> guilty as charged. :Shrug:
The elitist comment wasn't really in reference to the works that you
enjoy. It was pointed more towards, what appeared to be, your
willingness to dismiss an entire medium out of hand; your apparent
belief that an in-depth exploration of a topic is possible in text
only.
Personally, i don't see that the love of the pure beauty of a
well-crafted sentence, a love which i share, and a love for the
subtelty and emotion of a well-crafted image are mutually exclusive.
> > Would you lump movies and television into the fast food category of
> > your analogy?
>
> No, most of what's on tv and in the movies these days is more like the
> scrapings out of the bottom of a Dumpster. Occasionally there's a good
> snack on, and you might even find a rare meal in the theatre, but this
> happens less and less all the time. I am *far* from alone in that
> conclusion about the sad state of visual media today.
I'll concede that the majority of what is available on television and
in the theatres is of no consequence... drivel produced for the lowest
common denominator. These media, however, are definitely capable of
producing significant and meaningful projects. I 'feast' regularly
before the 'meals' served up by my DVD player. While i disagree with
the view that the state of visual media today is on some sort of
decline, i'm not really up for arguing that right now.
> TV, Film, and Comics all use the same basic format of
> > images and dialogue to tell their stories. Depth and complexity are
> > all based on the ability of the writer and artist... not the method by
> > which they bring you their message.
>
> To some degree, yes. But any artist can tell you that if you're going to
> choose a media in which to try to create a work of art that might someday
> hang in the halls of the world's great museums and be recognized by millions
> as a truly outstanding piece that speaks across the ages, you'll want to
> work on the best canvas, with the best paints you can possibly afford. When
> you use lesser or inferior materials, no matter how fantastic a visionary
> you are, you are inherently limiting the final nature of the final product.
> If you chose to try to relate let's say, your understanding of some of the
> great philosophical questions of life to what, 100 pages of squares and
> rectangles filled with ink drawings that will be reproduced using the simple
> screen-printing method and the few sparce words you can fit into those
> spaces, you can't possibly do justice to the topic the way you might with
> the almost unlimited number of words and the unlimited number of images you
> can conjure up in your reader's minds in a book.
It seems to me that one's vision would be limited by inferior
materials only if one is not aware of the capabalities of those
materials... or possibly if one chooses the wrong material for the
message. If my blinding flash of artistic brilliance hinged on a
single powerful image, or series of images, then, say, writing a song
about it might be limiting the final impact of my project. These
people are deeply familiar with their chosen medium, and the
individuals with real chops know how to use that medium to its fullest
extent.
Now, i agree that one of the beauties of a book is that the writer's
words create an image in the reader's mind that is unique to that
individual... an image influenced and colored by the experiences of
that person. But sometimes the flexibility of the written word can't
compare to the impact of a single well-crafted image (or series of
images).
> > I can't believe that you would see something like JMS's 'Midnight
> > Nation' as inferior to some harlequinn romance simply because you view
> > the format as inherrently less.
> >
> Harlequinn romance? Is that what you think I'm talking about when I talk
> about great literature and great prose? If so, you clearly need to get out
> more -- and *read.* As for "Midnight Nation" specifically, I have nothing
> to say; haven't read it.
No... i don't (and didn't) think that these were the kinds of books
you were talking about. It was simply an exageration of the point i
believed you were trying to make. If you saw that the comic format
was somehow inherrently flawed, that this medium was incapable of
anything more than some superficial fluff, then, by extension, the
very best of the graphic novel medium would still be below the very
worst of the prose format. At this point, i don't think that was
where you were going, so i guess that point kind of fell through.
I'm a little offended at the implication that I'm illiterate, or, at
least, that I eschew any book over 150 pages. I'm going to assume,
however, that this was not your intention, that you were having a
little fun with exagerration as well, and move on.
> > I'm not asking you to go out and pick up every book we've talked about
> > here, simply not to discount the format until you've experienced what
> > it has to offer.
> >
> What makes you think I'm so unfamiliar with the medium of which you speak?
> As I said in my initial post, this is *precisely* the inevitable argument
> that gets hauled out everytime this topic comes up -- "clearly" anyone who
> thinks graphic novels are not worth their time hasn't read any. For your
> information, I recently read read all of Miyazaki's "Naussica" (which
> actually bears almost no resemblance to the movie of the same name). It was
> huge. It took him 12 years to complete. It was a herculean effort, no
> question. But ultimately, as a "novel," even as a coherent story, it was
> unimpressive and disjointed at best. Was it a good way to waste a weekend
> when I was "between books"? Sure; it was no worse than staring at junk on
> TV all day; and sometimes all you *want* to do is stare at the TV all day.
> But is it something I personally would recommend other grown adults do on a
> regular basis? Not when there are literally a thousand books I could
> suggest they read instead.
You know, I was with you, right up to the end there. But those last
few sentences but me right back in front of the point I think you're
trying to make. It seems to me, that what you're saying is that the
graphic novel format is incapable of producing anything meaningful,
well-crafted, and profound. What you're telling me is that unless
one's artistic vision leads him or her to type up 500 page manuscripts
or apply oils to canvas or chip stone away from statues then it's just
filler.
Look, I freely admit that 95% of what's available at the comic shop
are diversions that tell interesting stories through the use of
dialogue and pretty pictures. I'll also admit that 80% of what's
available at my local bookstore are stories that won't challenge me
too much (percentages used here are based on my own opinion and
experience and not factual evidence). But that disparity has more to
do with the comic industry's relative youth and its lack of focus on
'think pieces' that it does on the format's inability to express
meaningful concepts.
I don't really think that either one of us is going to suddenly start
accepting the other's point of view here. This is probably an 'eye of
the beholder' thing. I see beauty and meaning where you do not. And
i'm willing to call it a day on that note.
David Williams
> Honestly, the same applies for anyone
> writing off whole sections of human creativity based on preconcieved
> misconceptions. It's folly, especially if you enjoy great works.
Well, except maybe mime. <VEG>
-David W.
Dan Dassow
Not to mention that the fourth time is strange.
Dan Dassow
Daryl Nash
You are so right! I had never before realized the depths of literature
I had been missing by reading all these funny books rather than books
with no pictures! I'm going to toss out Neil Gaiman's Sandman, Moore's
Watchmen, JMS's Midnight Nation, Sim's Cerebus, Jeff Smith's Bone,
Katsuhiro Otomo's Akira, Frank Miller's Ronin, and all those other comic
books that I used to think were great art!
Instead I'm going to pick me up some real honest to god books with no
pictures in them, because I'm sure they will be deep and meaningful. I
think I'll start with some bestsellers... maybe The Da Vinci Code or
something by J.D. Robb or John Grishom. Then there's the Non-fiction --
Give Me a Break by John Stossel and Who's Looking Out for You? by Bill
O'Reilly and Dude, Where's My Country? by Michael Moore. Must be great
literature, after all, THEY AIN'T GOT NO PICTURES.
</sarcasm>
Not that those books above are bad (I've read a couple), but I'd trade
them all for ONE of the graphic novels listed in the first paragraph.
Wake up and smell your snobbery.
Daryl
> Can you tell a story in a graphic novel? Sure. Can you raise some
> interesting issues, I'm quite certain it can and has been done. But can you
> compare that to what someone truly talented can do in an actual *book*? No.
> It's like comparing a five-course meal with fast food. They'll both fill
> you up, but the depth and complexity of one cannot be honestly compared to
> the efficiency and convenience of the other.
>
> LMA
>
>
>
>
John W. Kennedy
> If it's "elitist" to love an in-depth exploration of a topic in words, to
> love just the pure beauty of a well-crafted sentence or paragraph, then
> guilty as charged. :Shrug:
You mean like something like this?
"Beneath this crude, rumpled veneer, there yet skulks
a vague approximation of panache."
Eliyahu Rooff
"John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:n7VWb.12590$I67.5...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> Eliyahu Rooff wrote:
> > This brings to mind the episode of Red Dwarf where Kryton finds
Lister
> > reading the "Classics Illustrated Comics" version of The Iliad.
IIRC,
> > Kryton's comments on perusing the comic were along the line of,
"Hmmm.
> > Let me see... [reading from the comic] 'Slash! Chop! Die, Greek
scum!'
> > .... Yep. Pretty close to the original text." :-)
>
> Which is unfair. I remember the "Classics Illustrated Iliad", and it
> was _much_ more sound than that.
>
sentence construction in the Illiad, rather than at the comics.
Eliyahu
Joseph DeMartino
Live And Die In Starlight" was originally slated to air in September. It
was done by then, so why shelve it? Entirely baseless speculation here, but
if Sci-Fi thought it was any good (which I wouldn't if I were them), they
would've aired it as originally scheduled or two months later during sweeps.
Not in the nether-zone of January opposite the NFL Playoffs.) <
I don't remember the film being scheduled originally for September, but my
memory is far from perfect. But let's see... why would a cable channel
change its programming plans in *September of 2001*? Why? Gee, I just
can't think of a reason. It isn't like anything significant happened then
that might focus all eyes on the broadcast news shows and the 24 hour cable
news networks...
"Entirely baseless speculation here..."
They should have aired it during "sweeps" - Cable networks, like broadcast
networks, set their ad rates based on the national overnights. "Sweeps"
only affect local broadcast channels, whose ratings (and ad rates) are only
calculated four times a year. The reason the broadcast networks save
first-run series episodes, major movies, specials and "stunt-programming"
for sweeps periods is to help their *local affiliates*. Cable networks
like Sci-Fi typically *counter program*, keeping their best stuff *out* of
sweeps periods where they would get buried and airing it when the broadcast
channels are in reruns. That's one reason the Sci-Fi Channels highest-rated
original productions have mostly aired in December.
At that time the air date was set, the NFL had not formulated its post-9/11
plans and no play-off game was scheduled for that date and time. So there
was no way to know that it might be a problem. (Nor was there any way to
know who would be playing, or any reason to believe that this particular
game would be one of the highest-rated play-off games in the last couple of
decades.)
Moving the film would after the NFL schedule was announced would have been
hard because of the *massive* publicity campaign that Sci-Fi put on for this
"lousy" film that they knew stunk and were trying to bury. All those ads on
other cable and broadcast networks, magazines, the Daily Variety and
Internet Movie Database web sites and the *trailers that ran before showings
of "The Fellowship of the Ring"* in selected cities all had the "bad"
January date on them. And you're right, of course. Marginal cable channels
*always* spend money to run theatrical trailers for TV movies they have no
confidence in.
The ratings for the "Rangers" pilot were *not* horrible. The average rating
across the country was decent, but no more. The west coast ratings were
probably somewhat better. The real problem was the ownership issue. Warner
Bros. would like to stick to the "old" TV model where the studio owns the
show, the TV outlet pays a licensing fee, and the studio gets all the
long-term income. Sci-Fi prefers the new model where the TV outlet either
owns the show outright or gets a piece of the action. (Or where the
producing studio is a corporate sibling so that ultimately the parent
company gets all the profits.) The reason why the actors were only signed
to deals for the pilot and that there was no money to build the weapons
system that JMS called for in his script (leading to the unfortunate bit of
on-set improvisation they were forced into to save the budget) is that
neither side would pony up, and they couldn't come to terms on who would own
the show. If Sci-Fi had owned a piece of the action, the ratings the movie
got would probably have been enough, under the circumstances, to them to
take a chance on at least a 13 episode order. Same thing if SFC *didn't*
own a piece of the show, but the ratings had been around 3.8 or 4.1 instead
of (and I'm going from memory here) averaging around a 1.7. With ratings
that high Sci-Fi would gain enough in ad revenue to make doing the show
worthwhile, even if it didn't own it. (Oh, and lets not forget the post
9/11 advertising recession which bled most TV and radio stations, networks,
newspapers and magazines of ad revenues that had already been declining
since summer because of the over-all economy. A show that was "affordable"
when you were booking "x" dollars annually in ad revenue in 2000 becomes a
disaster waiting to happen in 2001. If the studio was unable or unwilling
to deficit-finance a show, it could become too expensive for the network to
carry - which was likely the fate of "Farscape")
Let's face it: SFC approved the concept, approved the script, approved the
dailies, allowed the film to proceed through post-production, promoted the
hell out of it and aired it several times. *You* may not have liked it, but
*they* clearly did. You can't now retroactively project your *feelings*
onto them and try to make it sound like they agreed with you.
Regards,
Joe
Mickey
news:c0fu9v$815$0...@208.239.203.62...
Especially Galen. I think the episode which he played along side his father
was one of the better episode in either series.
Mickey
Aisling Willow Grey
(in message <4ddedcc5.04021...@posting.google.com>):
> Aisling Willow Grey (ais...@fjordstone.com):
>
>> Whether or not something is "good" (a subjective assessment at best) has
>> very
>> little impact on whether or not a cable network will air something.
>> Business
>> decisions aren't generally made like that, and the entertainment industry
>> is
>> a _business_.
>
> Business decisions *are* made like that in the entertainment industry
> all the time. Whether or not something is good has everything to do
> with it.<<
No, definitely not "everything."
>> Some hack throws together the worst script ever written. Nobody buys
> it.
>
> A studio makes a movie that they end up hating, that test audiences
> hate... they either shelve it for good, banish it to cable or video,
> or release it in February with no promotion. <<
Audiences liking or not liking something is not an indicator of quality.
>> A pilot is commisioned, nobody likes it, it never airs and a series is
> never made.
>
> An independent film is made and nobody wants it -- festivals, studios,
> television, nobody.
>
> These things happen *ALL THE TIME* in Hollywood. <<
We're talking apples and oranges here; different points in the decision
process. Obviously, if someone pitches a script to a person at a studio, and
the person at the studio - and all of his/her scriptreaders - hate it,
obviously they won't proceed with it. Part of their loving or hating it,
though, includes a determination of whether or not it will make a boatload of
money. So, if some intrepid producer, say a 40-year old male, reads a script
that he doesn't _personally_ care for, like a script for a movie geared
toward 12-year old girls, he can still see the potential marketability of it,
thus "liking" it. But in any case, that's not the decision point we are
talking about.
We're talking about after something has been produced, and has aired. We
here of the moderated newsgroup, a lofty bunch of opinionated individuals who
arguably have _collectively_ decent taste in sci fi may _hate_ something
that's aired on the SciFi channel, but if it gets good ratings, guess what?
It's going to go to series. Doesn't mean a jot whether it's "good" or "bad"
(which is subjective).
>> Yes, the entertainment industry is "a buisness," and as a business
> they make decisions on quality, they have to. If something isn't
> terribly good, as in, in at least my opinion (and quite a few others)
> Rangers, they must make a decision based on subjective criteria. And
> it is my (notedly baseless, random) speculation that Rangers got the
> scheduling shaft because it really wasn't that good at all.<<
You're free to think what you want; I don't agree.
Aisling
Mac Breck
message
news:4ddedcc5.04021...@posting.google.com...
>
> > Whether or not something is "good" (a subjective
assessment at best) has very
> > little impact on whether or not a cable network will air
something. Business
> > decisions aren't generally made like that, and the
entertainment industry is
> > a _business_.
>
> Business decisions *are* made like that in the
entertainment industry
> all the time. Whether or not something is good has
everything to do
> with it.
>
Nobody buys
> it.
>
> A studio makes a movie that they end up hating, that test
audiences
> hate... they either shelve it for good, banish it to cable
or video,
> or release it in February with no promotion.
>
a series is
> never made.
>
> An independent film is made and nobody wants it --
festivals, studios,
> television, nobody.
>
> These things happen *ALL THE TIME* in Hollywood.
>
business
> they make decisions on quality, they have to. If
something isn't
> terribly good, as in, in at least my opinion (and quite a
few others)
> Rangers, they must make a decision based on subjective
criteria. And
> it is my (notedly baseless, random) speculation that
Rangers got the
> scheduling shaft because it really wasn't that good at
all.
>
Some hack throws together a reality series, it's awful *but*
popular and so a network backs an entire season of it and
then signs for another season, and another season, etc....
Happens all the time, hence the current glut of reality TV
garbage.
Aisling Willow Grey
(in message <gaidncIsY8C...@comcast.com>):
> <sarcasm>
> You are so right! I had never before realized the depths of literature
> I had been missing by reading all these funny books rather than books
> with no pictures! I'm going to toss out Neil Gaiman's Sandman, Moore's
> Watchmen, JMS's Midnight Nation, Sim's Cerebus, Jeff Smith's Bone,
> Katsuhiro Otomo's Akira, Frank Miller's Ronin, and all those other comic
> books that I used to think were great art!
>
> Instead I'm going to pick me up some real honest to god books with no
> pictures in them, because I'm sure they will be deep and meaningful. I
> think I'll start with some bestsellers... maybe The Da Vinci Code or
> something by J.D. Robb or John Grishom. Then there's the Non-fiction --
> Give Me a Break by John Stossel and Who's Looking Out for You? by Bill
> O'Reilly and Dude, Where's My Country? by Michael Moore. Must be great
> literature, after all, THEY AIN'T GOT NO PICTURES.
> </sarcasm>
>
> Not that those books above are bad (I've read a couple), but I'd trade
> them all for ONE of the graphic novels listed in the first paragraph.
> Wake up and smell your snobbery.<<
Don't know why I didn't think of this earlier in the thread, but someone
ought to quote Alice in Lewis Carroll's "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"
(maybe me, since the two "Alice" books have been my favorite pieces of
literature since earliest childhood). The very first line of chapter 1, in
fact:
>> Alice was beginning to get very tired of sitting by her sister on the bank,
and of having nothing to do: once or twice she had pepped into the book her
sister was reading, but it had no pictures or conversations in it, "and what
is the use of a book," thought Alice, "without pictures or conversation?"<<
Aisling
Aisling Willow Grey
>>On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 20:04:32 -0500, Jeffrey Gustafson wrote
(in message <4ddedcc5.04021...@posting.google.com>):
> Aisling Willow Grey (ais...@fjordstone.com):
>
>> Whether or not something is "good" (a subjective assessment at best) has
>> very
>> little impact on whether or not a cable network will air something.
>> Business
>> decisions aren't generally made like that, and the entertainment industry
>> is
>> a _business_.
>
> Business decisions *are* made like that in the entertainment industry
> all the time. Whether or not something is good has everything to do
> with it.<<
No, definitely not "everything."
>> Some hack throws together the worst script ever written. Nobody buys
> it.
>
> A studio makes a movie that they end up hating, that test audiences
> hate... they either shelve it for good, banish it to cable or video,
> or release it in February with no promotion. <<
Audiences liking or not liking something is not an indicator of quality.
>> A pilot is commisioned, nobody likes it, it never airs and a series is
> never made.
>
> An independent film is made and nobody wants it -- festivals, studios,
> television, nobody.
>
> These things happen *ALL THE TIME* in Hollywood. <<
We're talking apples and oranges here; different points in the decision
process. Obviously, if someone pitches a script to a person at a studio, and
the person at the studio - and all of his/her scriptreaders - hate it,
obviously they won't proceed with it. Part of their loving or hating it,
though, includes a determination of whether or not it will make a boatload of
money. So, if some intrepid producer, say a 40-year old male, reads a script
that he doesn't _personally_ care for, like a script for a movie geared
toward 12-year old girls, he can still see the potential marketability of it,
thus "liking" it. But in any case, that's not the decision point we are
talking about.
We're talking about after something has been produced, and has aired. We
here of the moderated newsgroup, a lofty bunch of opinionated individuals who
arguably have _collectively_ decent taste in sci fi may _hate_ something
that's aired on the SciFi channel, but if it gets good ratings, guess what?
It's going to go to series. Doesn't mean a jot whether it's "good" or "bad"
(which is subjective).
>> Yes, the entertainment industry is "a buisness," and as a business
> they make decisions on quality, they have to. If something isn't
> terribly good, as in, in at least my opinion (and quite a few others)
> Rangers, they must make a decision based on subjective criteria. And
> it is my (notedly baseless, random) speculation that Rangers got the
> scheduling shaft because it really wasn't that good at all.<<
You're free to think what you want; I don't agree.
Aisling
Mac Breck
> > > That's the thing for me. I know JMS can do
better--lots
> > better--than what
> > > I'm seeing, and I am disappointed by this. If the
episode
> > or movie is
> > > sufficiciently bad--and "Legend" was--I get
frustrated.
> > >
> > > Anyway, that's why *I* have little good to say about
> > Legend of the Rangers.
> > > Or the first-run of Crusade's season 1.
> >
> > "or the first run of" ? Referring to TNT's botched
order?
>
> Yup. The ones that TNT showed second weren't the best.
The ones shown first
> were better.
I don't know if that's what you meant to say. In place of
"shown" you probably meant to say "shot." The five episodes
that were *shot* first were *shown* last by TNT. These are
the grey/red
uniform episodes, and are the ones that the general
consensus
seems to think are better.
Production Order:
101 The Needs of Earth
102 The Memory of War
103 Racing the Night
104 Visitors from Down the Street
105 Each Night I Dream of Home
The first production shutdown. (Black uniform eps. follow.)
106 The Well of Forever
107 The Long Road
108 War Zone
109 The Path of Sorrows
110 Patterns of the Soul
111 Ruling from the Tomb
112 The Rules of the Game
113 Appearances and Other Deceits
Personally, I find it hard to pick out a best and worst
list. Every episode has elements that I like. Only 104 and
111 have elements that I really dislike. 108 has elements I
dislike *but* it seems to get 'em out of the way relative
quickly and they're pretty much overshadowed by good stuff
of the rest of the story.
TNT Order:
Title, Airdate, Rating, Comment (if any)
Black Uniform Episodes:
War Zone, 06/09/1999, 1.9
The Long Road, 06/16/1999, 1.4 (1st game of NBA finals)
The Well of Forever, 06/23/1999, 1.2 (4th game of NBA
finals)
The Path of Sorrows, 06/30/1999, 1.1 (NBA Draft, so Crusade
started at Midnight)
Patterns of the Soul, 07/07/1999, 1.3
Ruling from the Tomb, 07/14/1999, 1.3
The Rules of the Game, 07/21/1999, 1.0 (JFK Jr. plane crash)
Appearances and Other Deceits, 07/28/1999, 1.3
Grey/Red Uniform Episodes:
Racing the Night, 08/04/1999, 1.2
The Memory of War, 08/11/1999, 1.3
The Needs of Earth, 08/18/1999, 1.5
Visitors from Down the Street, 08/25/1999, 1.3
Each Night I Dream of Home, 09/01/1999, 1.4
> I thought I had heard that the second set of
..TNT aired...
>episodes were
actually taped
> first
> (JMS reportedly wanted to "hit the ground running")
True, with "Racing the NIght."
> but people here
> (Joe in particular) took issue with this view.
What??? No, *TNT* took issue with that. I don't think
there's any question that the way JMS had intended Crusade
to air, *was* "hitting the ground running." "Racing the
Night" was set a few months into the mission. We would have
gone straight from "A Call to Arms" to "Racing the Night"
IF TNT hadn't screwed things up.
Wesley Struebing
<jdem...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> If it's "elitist" to love an in-depth exploration of a topic in words, to
>> love just the pure beauty of a well-crafted sentence or paragraph, then
>> guilty as charged. :Shrug:
>
>LOL! My goodness you *do* think *well* of yourself, don't you?
>
<snip since I only want to make a point>
Joe, PLEASE don't snip attributions, or else get yourself a newsreader
that doesn't. Trying to follow who said what or to whom you';r
replying is next to impossible.
Like the snippet above. You are obviously the replier ("LOL..."), but
no idea in the world who the person you're replying to is.
(note that Agent inserted at the top of this post:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 01:02:50 +0000 (UTC), "Joseph DeMartino"
<jdem...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
and the on ">" is a good indication of what you said...
(I now return you all to your regularly-scheduled mayhem)
--
Wes Struebing
Like many other tools, government is dangerous
in direct proportion to its usefulness. - Jerry Hollombe
Laura Appelbaum
news:n7VWb.12590$I67.5...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> > This brings to mind the episode of Red Dwarf where Kryton finds Lister
> > reading the "Classics Illustrated Comics" version of The Iliad. IIRC,
> > Kryton's comments on perusing the comic were along the line of, "Hmmm.
> > Let me see... [reading from the comic] 'Slash! Chop! Die, Greek scum!'
> > .... Yep. Pretty close to the original text." :-)
>
> Which is unfair. I remember the "Classics Illustrated Iliad", and it
> was _much_ more sound than that.
>
> But I really must insert here a plug for Eric Shanower's "Age of Bronze"
> (http://age-of-bronze.com/aob/index.shtml).
>
book fan (and why he -- typically, tho' not always, the fan is a male -- is
even the brunt of jokes in the *animated* series "The Simpsons"). Someone
here evokes the Iliad. The freaking Illiad for chrissakes! One of
mankind's first works of great literature. The comic book fan immediately
jumps in with "oh! The Iliad! You *have* to read some comic book!" just
like the one-track minded, thinks he's a superior intellect but is actually
a socially and mentally malajusted fool, Comic Book Guy.
LMA
Laura Appelbaum
> > If it's "elitist" to love an in-depth exploration of a topic in words,
to
> > love just the pure beauty of a well-crafted sentence or paragraph, then
> > guilty as charged. :Shrug:
>
> No. That's not elitism.
>
> Elitism is loving "just the pure beauty of a well-crafted sentence or
> paragraph" to the point that you look down on other related forms (such as
> comics) as inferior.
No, elitism would be saying "people who love to read comic books aren't
*capable* of understanding a well-crafted sentence," which you will note I
have never said.
LMA
Eliyahu Rooff
> Laura Appelbaum wrote:
> > If it's "elitist" to love an in-depth exploration of a topic in
words, to
> > love just the pure beauty of a well-crafted sentence or paragraph,
then
> > guilty as charged. :Shrug:
>
> You mean like something like this?
>
> "Beneath this crude, rumpled veneer, there yet skulks
> a vague approximation of panache."
>
Eliyahu
Aisling Willow Grey
(in message <102t8gf...@corp.supernews.com>):
Actually, the poster didn't invoke The Illiad; the poster invoked the
Classics Illustrated Illiad.
Aisling
Aisling Willow Grey
(in message <K_eXb.3170$WW3...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
Yeah, I kept waiting for them to put Alwyn in the wicker man and burn him,
but oddly, it never happened...
Aisling
Aisling Willow Grey
(in message <%PNWb.39571$8a5....@bignews1.bellsouth.net>):
>
> Moving the film would after the NFL schedule was announced would have been
> hard because of the *massive* publicity campaign that Sci-Fi put on for this
> "lousy" film that they knew stunk and were trying to bury. All those ads on
> other cable and broadcast networks, magazines, the Daily Variety and
> Internet Movie Database web sites and the *trailers that ran before showings
> of "The Fellowship of the Ring"* in selected cities all had the "bad"
> January date on them.<<
Hey, when talking about the massive Rangers publicity campaign, don't forget
the cars. The five wrapped cars driving around had the bad date on them,
too!
Aisling
John W. Kennedy
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
Laura Appelbaum wrote:
> See? Here we go -- this is *exactly* what is so irritating about the comic
> book fan (and why he -- typically, tho' not always, the fan is a male -- is
> even the brunt of jokes in the *animated* series "The Simpsons"). Someone
> here evokes the Iliad. The freaking Illiad for chrissakes! One of
> mankind's first works of great literature. The comic book fan immediately
> jumps in with "oh! The Iliad! You *have* to read some comic book!" just
> like the one-track minded, thinks he's a superior intellect but is actually
> a socially and mentally malajusted fool, Comic Book Guy.
As a member of the cast of the NYC première performance of Kálmán Imre's
"Die Herzogin von Chicago" (as well as the first NYC productions of his
"Gräfin Maritza" and "Die Czardasfürstin" without American
interpolations), as the publisher of the first edited text of Lewis
Theobald's "Double Falshood" (1728), as someone who has supplied the
Oxford English Dictionary with several citations of words antedating
their current entries (including a 1929 example of "gay" meaning
homosexual), and as someone who numbers among his closest friends the
only professional director in the world who has done all of
Shakespeare's plays, I'll stack my culture points against anyone else
here except JMS.
Of course, what with JMS being a _professional_ Comic Book Guy, perhaps
he shouldn't be counted.
Mac Breck
message news:e08t20tkkpdchlgpr...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 01:02:50 +0000 (UTC), "Joseph
DeMartino"
> <jdem...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> If it's "elitist" to love an in-depth exploration of a
topic in words, to
> >> love just the pure beauty of a well-crafted sentence or
paragraph, then
> >> guilty as charged. :Shrug:
> >
> >LOL! My goodness you *do* think *well* of yourself,
don't you?
> >
> <snip since I only want to make a point>
>
> Joe, PLEASE don't snip attributions, or else get yourself
a newsreader
> that doesn't. Trying to follow who said what or to whom
you';r
> replying is next to impossible.
>
> Like the snippet above. You are obviously the replier
("LOL..."), but
> no idea in the world who the person you're replying to is.
Maybe it has something to do with the name "Joe." <evil
grin>
Running, 'cause I'm in big trouble now! <g>
Mac Breck
message
news:K_eXb.3170$WW3...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
snip
> > > Crusade had great characters that interacted well with
> > > each other, from the first episode. TLaDiS just -
didn't.
> >
> > That's certainly one of the major attractions of
Crusade. It
> > had a bunch of strong, seasoned professional,
> > multidimensional characters (Eilerson, Gideon, Galen,
> > Dureena, Matheson). In the case of Legend of the
Rangers,
> > the age and experience level of most of the characters,
and
> > the length of time we got to see the characters, worked
> > against it.
> >
> > Man, do I ever want to see more of Crusade!
>
> Especially Galen. I think the episode which he played
along side his father
> was one of the better episode
"The Long Road" Personally, I found it to be a middling
episode, though it was fun to see them work together.
> in either series.
Some UK people I know via the web, actually *dislike* Peter
Woodward as Galen because of his diction [one person who
shall remain nameless saying it "I found Peter Woodward's
portrayal of Galen intensely irritating. I found his
affected, faux-Shakesperean delivery incredibly annoying.
The whole delivery is just so fake. :-( " ]. Being from
the US, I thought it was one of his *strong* points. Right
out of the gate, Galen was my favorite Crusade character,
partly for his accent and clear enunciation, the antithesis
of a "mushmouth." It's a case of UK ears vs. US ears, I
guess.
John W. Kennedy
> The ratings for the "Rangers" pilot were *not* horrible. The average rating
> across the country was decent, but no more. The west coast ratings were
> probably somewhat better.
If I remember rightly, the west-coast ratings were excellent.
Joseph DeMartino
> If I remember rightly, the west-coast ratings were excellent.
We never saw more than anecdotal evidence of West Coast ratings. One or two
reports from local cable operators, that sort of thing. And what we *did*
see wasn't consistent. Some cities had double the East Coast ratings,
others had numbers hardly any larger. It is very difficult to estimate what
the average West Coast ratings would have been, because we don't know how
many total cable systems carry Sci-Fi (or carried it then) nor how many of
those carried the East Coast vs. the West Coast feed. The same for
satellite subscribers. I remember playing around with some "what if"
scenarios at the time and the only assumptions that gave you a really high
West rating also assumed simply *dreadful* East Feed numbers, probably below
what the game could have produced, or what seems like an improbably high
percentage of West Feed viewers.
In any event I think JMS's subsequent posts strongly suggest that the
ownership issue was more of a factor than the raw ratings, and that was the
point I was arguing. (Which takes the whole matter out of the real of "it
failed because it was bad/I didn't like it") .
Regards,
Joe
John C. Anderson
<< And has it never
occurred to you that there might be a *reason* for that, which isn't just a
knee-jerk prejudice against "kid stuff" but an appreciation of truly
great -- and in-depth -- *writing* that is only possible in an essay or a
novel or a book? >>
Does this include movies and television? Considering the unifying subject of
the group, I assume you also consider theatrical fiction to be worthy of time
and interest. It's true that you can't find writing of the same kind as you
find in truly great novels in visual media. That is because they are *visual*
media. Just like you can't find the staggering beauty of great music in a
novel. Or the majesty of a great painting in a poem. They are different media,
wholly different forms. It is true that sequential art (the technical term for
comics) is related to prose and to theatrical arts, being that all of them are
narrative in structure. But they deliver narratives in distinctly diferent
ways. Novels can only use words, naked language, without actors or visuals or
music or even time to help deliver the authors intent. Out of necessity, great
authors have elevated the use of language to a unique level, a level that
cannot be achieved in film, theatre or comics. But the other forms use
different tools, tools that great artists can elevate to a level that cannot be
reached by words alone. It's the difference between reading Hamlet and seeing a
truly great performance of Hamlet on stage or screen. It's the difference
between reading Clarke's 2001 A Space Odyssee, and watching the Kubrick film.
To bring it back on topic a bit, it's the difference between reading even the
best of the B5 novels, and watching the series itself. It's also the difference
between watching the Spiderman film (which I did enjoy btw) and reading a great
Spiderman comic. Or, to take it back to the level of truly great art, it's the
difference beetween watching the film of From Hell and reading the far superior
comic.
<< Every time this argument comes up around here, I wonder
when the last time it was that the ardent, defensive and often
self-righteous defenders of the Great Graphic Novel (not necessary or
specifically you; any of the folks who've weighed in over the years on this
one) -- read an actual work of literature or a masterful piece of prose with
say, three hundred or more pages of words. >>
Me for one, right now as we speak. I love novels. I want to read more of the
great works of fiction than I have, but I'll bet I've read far more that the
"average Joe" who dismisses comics as juvenile trash. I'm currently rereading
the Hobbit, after having reread LOTR thrice in the last three years. Next I
plan to read a missed Clive Barker novel or jump into Goerge R R Martin's
fantasy trilogy, in between my quickly growing collection of tomes on folklore,
mythology and art history. All over 300 pages, BTW.
<< Can you tell a story in a graphic novel? Sure. Can you raise some
interesting issues, I'm quite certain it can and has been done. But can you
compare that to what someone truly talented can do in an actual *book*? No. >>
OK, let me present your same challenge back to you. When is the last time you
read a comic of more that 30 pages, let alone 300? They are out there. Try a
few. You may change your opinion of the medium, even if you don't care for the
form as much as prose. Try some Alan Moore, some Frank Miller, some Neil
Gaiman. Try "Maus" or "Cerebus" or "Elektra: Assassin" or "Watchmen".
<< It's like comparing a five-course meal with fast food. >>
No, it's like comparing French food to Mexican food when all you have had if
the later is "Taco Bell".
Yes, as has often been stated, 99% of everything is crap. Movies, TV, music,
comics, even novels. If you don't want the written word judged by Harlequin
Romance and Tom Clancy you shouldn't judge sequential art by X-Men and
Garfield.
"Good Smeagol. Always helps."
Jeffrey Gustafson
> > A studio makes a movie that they end up hating, that test audiences
> hate... <
>
> And the fact that the test audience hates it indicates that *real* audiences
> will hate it, the word-of-mouth will suck and it will be cheaper for the
> studio to shelve the movie, sell it to cable or release it direct-to-video
> than to distribute it and advertise it in theaters. So we're back to its
> being a business decision, in this case how to minimize losses. And it is
> pretty much the same with all the other examples you gave - pilots are focus
> grouped and test-audienced to death, the majority of them never going on the
> air. The exceptions that *do* go on the air are either filling dead time or
> they will live or die based on their ratings.
>
> Most decisions about which scripts to make (for TV and movies) have less to
> do with their inherent aesthetic quality than with their perceived appeal to
> a desired audience. Most decisions about which *books* to publish have
> less to do with quality than what is currently hot in the market.
>
> In fact, you can almost always assume that a decision to *kill* a project is
> mostly a matter of business. It is the rare decision to go ahead with
> something that doesn't fit the established template for success or to keep a
> series going beyond the normal cancellation point that indicates a stubborn
> (and brave) studio or network decision maker trusting his or her gut. When
> they're right (and the project is called "Star Wars" or the series "Cheers"
> or "M*A*S*H") they can be very right. When they're wrong - well, they're
> usually gone. <g>
>
> Regards,
>
> Joe
>
> Is any of this news to you?
Of course not. The point to my post in context, which you reaffirm
above, was that business decisions in the entertainment industry are
always made on percieved notions of quality.
Sometimes they are right, and a project is mercifully stuffed.
Sometimes they are wrong, and a worthy project is not given its due.
My point stands.
-The Jeff
Sheridan:"So how did you find out all of this?"
Bester:"I'm a telepath. Work it out." <*>
Jeffrey Gustafson
<snip>
> *You* may not have liked it, but
> *they* clearly did. You can't now retroactively project your *feelings*
> onto them and try to make it sound like they agreed with you.
Well, that (clearly) wasn't my intent. As I said, it was "baseless
speculation" - a pretty clear indication that as I wasn't there, I
can't say for sure one way or the other, and that it was a random
silly side thought, a remote possibility if that.
Jeffrey Gustafson
Mine have been showing up late (2 days plus), rather than missing, so
you are not alone.
Mickey
Yes, and some say the same about William F. Buckley. It's an odd world where
people are chastised for speaking TOO correctly.
Mickey
Alex Thorpe
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
On 2004-02-16 20:54:04 -0600, Psico...@hotmail.com (Jeffrey Gustafson) said:
> Mine have been showing up late (2 days plus), rather than missing, so
> you are not alone.
Mine seem to take anywhere from 2 hours to a full week to show up,
though I suspected the fact that I only recently rejoined the group may
have something to do with it.
--
-Alex
Common Sense Ain't.
Joseph DeMartino
"Jeffrey Gustafson" <Psico...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ddedcc5.04021...@posting.google.com...
> Of course not. The point to my post in context, which you reaffirm
> above, was that business decisions in the entertainment industry are
> always made on percieved notions of quality.
>
> Sometimes they are right, and a project is mercifully stuffed.
> Sometimes they are wrong, and a worthy project is not given its due.
> My point stands.
Please read my post again. Not only do I *not* reaffirm your point, I do my
best to refute it. Quality has nothing to do with any of this. If a studio
makes a piece of crap film that test audiences *like*, they'll release it.
If they make a *great* film that test audiences are lukewarm to, they won't.
Because one will make them money, and the other won't.
"Independence Day" is a piece of crap. It is not going down in cinema
history alongside the likes of "Citizen Kane", and most people wouldn't even
try to argue the relative quality of the two. Most people also wouldn't
argue the quality issue when it comes to the cuisine at a fine restaurant
and a burger and fries from McDonalds. But you know what? McDonald's sells
a helluva lot more burgers and fries than every 3-, 4- and 5-star restaurant
in the United States serves meals *combined.* (In part because some days,
even the chef at a 5-star restaurant feels like having a burger and fries,
just as an Harvard literature professor may come home from a hard day in the
classroom and relax by watching an old "Gilligan's Island" rerun or Three
Stooges movie.)
More people would be willing to sit through "Independence Day" than "Citizen
Kane". I'm sure no one working on the former confused it with the latter,
and certain the studio knew it was making the cinematic equivalent of a
McDonald's burger and fries but they did it because they knew it could make
money. And they'll reject the most heartbreakingly beautiful screenplay
ever written if they don't think enough people will be interested in seeing
the resulting film.
Like I said, "Independence Day" is a piece of crap. But I own a copy on
DVD, and I'm sure I've watched it many more times than I've watched either
my laserdisc or my DVD of "Citizen Kane". Because the former is loud and
colorful and fun and because things blow up real good in it. And I'm more
often in a mood to be diverted by something like that, which features a lot
of engaging performers having fun playing wafer-thin characters, than I am
in the mood to watch a dark, depressing study of the rise and fall of a
not-very-appealing man. (Although when I *am* in such a mood, "Kane" is
definitely the movie I'm watching. <g>)
"Quality" has nothing to do with it. "Profit" is everything. If the
networks and studios can make a profit doing quality stuff, so much the
better. But it is *never* the primary consideration. It can't be. These
are businesses, not charities. They can't afford to lose their
shareholders' money in noble attempts to create high art.
Regards,
Joe
Jms at B5
>above, was that business decisions in the entertainment industry are
>always made on percieved notions of quality.
>
>Sometimes they are right, and a project is mercifully stuffed.
>Sometimes they are wrong, and a worthy project is not given its due.
>My point stands.
Your point could not possibly be more incorrect.
Movies are green-lit because the studios think they can make money from it.
Period. If it's a quality movie, great, but that's secondary to: will we get a
profit out of it? Frankly, it's *harder* to ge a quality movie made these days
than ever. It took "Secondhand Lions" ten years to get made, as just one
recent example.
But commercial movies that can get cranked out and pull in the money,
regardless of the actual quality of the product, are simplest of all to put
forth. Freddy vs. Jason, Alien vs. Predator, the last couple of Batman
movies...80% of what gets pumped out to movie theaters is awful. What we
remember are the stellar 20%, but those are the ones that were hardest to get
going, that took years and blood and shouting to get made...but for which
everyone subsequently takes full credit.
Your assumption, and the truth, dine at totally separate tables.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2004 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)
Dan Dassow
Be still my heart. Could it be the announcement
for which we have all been waiting?
- - Snip - -
> Your assumption, and the truth, dine at totally separate tables.
I resemble that remark. :-)
Dan Dassow
Wendy of NJ
True. Independence Day isn't even Star Wars. But when my 14-year-old
stepson saw it, it became *his* Star Wars. Maybe that's why he doesn't
enjoy Sci-Fi movies.
Well, let's just hope that these "low brow" films earn enough to
support some "high art" from time to time. That's what book publishers
do - and record companies (until recently) - support the depth of the
product line with a few popular titles.
And we, as individuals can help support such projects by supporting
various independent artists. Which I think many of us here do already.
-Wendy
Wendy of NJ
wrote:
It's not just the entertainment industry, either. It's the way we do
business across the board: If something isn't making enough profits,
toss it and everyone who worked on it into the street. It certainly
doesn't feel like the right way to do business.
-Wendy ("contract" employee after being tossed into the street with a
project, and whose contract is running out soon)