Text 14, 235 rader
Skriven 2004-11-07 23:45:45 av Kay Shapero (1:102/524)
Ärende: (1/3) JMS posts
=======================
Something ate the last three posts I made from the Aerie before they reached
Doc's Place. I'm trying this again by hand instead of letting the robot do it.
This is a collection of recent posts by JMS to the newsgroup
rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
See also http://america.net/~judge for Dirk Loedding's archives
of JMS posts.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 12:25:57 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Err... (gulps) Ahh... JMS, I hope I didn't open a "can of worms"
From: jmsatb5@aol.com (Jms at B5)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
>So anyways, just for giggles I thought "Well I wonder what Jerry Doyle
>thinks about the new project?" so I sent an (ONLY ONE!!!) E-mail.
>Thinking Jerry's a busy guy might not even see mine. Which, hey I'm
>fine with, and understand, 9 out of 10 E-mails I get I don't even
>read, DELETED.
>
>So you can imagine my shock when I got an E-mail back in a few days!
>
>Now keep in mind I have the mind set of a Babylon 5 hard core geek. So
>when I wrote the E-mail, I was thinking "Oh, gee, I'll bet the cast is
>as up to date on Babylon 5: The Memory of Shadows as all of us "here"
>are. What better way to sneak (here's where you can slap me up side
>the head) some info on the new project!"
>
>So it's with that in mind that the following E-mail "happened".
>
>_________________________________________
>arkofthekundert@juno.com wrote:
>
>"So, has JMS let you see the script for "Babylon 5: The Memory of
>Shadows"?
>I gather if so that you can't talk at length about it, but what are
>your thoughts regaurding the over all writing of it? Good, bad?
>
>Arlen Kundert"
>
Allow me to explain the multitude of things you did wrong here.
There's fannish (I use that term in a neutral fashion here, only to distinguish
between a fan of what's done, and those charged with the doing of it) fannish
interest in something, and the day to day reality of people who make a living
in this area.
You went to someone you did not know, asking a question you knew in your heart
you probably couldn't get an answer to in any event, about a confidential
matter which that person may or may not yet have been informed
himself...meaning if he wasn't, he'd feel out of the loop, and if he was, he'd
have to lie or be disingenuous.
You did not "open a can of worms."
You stuck your nose where it did not belong. Slight difference.
Never. Do it. Again.
jms
(jmsatb5@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)
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:39:23 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Err... (gulps) Ahh... JMS, I hope I didn't open a "can of worms"
From: jmsatb5@aol.com (Jms at B5)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
>Wow, kinda harsh there, don't you think?
>
>With respect JMS, the email sent to Jerry Doyle doesn't seem much different
>from the several thousand times you and the actors have been asked
>substantially the same question in person at conventions.
It was harsh, perhaps...but at the same time, that doesn't mean that it was
*wrong*.
The thing of it is, in a public forum, as part of a dialogue that's been
ongoing for a long time now, I expect questions of that sort. But to go in a
private email, to someone with whom one *hasn't* been having an ongoing
conversation, and that person is not in charge of the situation but rather is
kind of on the outside...it was the combination of factors behind the question,
rather than the question per se, which struck me as wrong-headed.
Just to clarify.
jms
(jmsatb5@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)
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 02:42:47 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Err... (gulps) Ahh... JMS, I hope I didn't open a "can of worms"
From: jmsatb5@aol.com (Jms at B5)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
>And that would be *between* you and the actor, who are both
>*in* the business. If it had been asked at a con, where
>both you and Jerry had been sitting next to each other at
>the same table, *that* would have been OK, correct?
Absolutely.
jms
(jmsatb5@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)
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 02:42:57 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Err... (gulps) Ahh... JMS, I hope I didn't open a "can of worms"
From: jmsatb5@aol.com (Jms at B5)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
>That's really great to hear, Joe. (not being sarcastic) I've always
>thought of you as just one of the guys in this ng. However, I do get the
>feeling that sometimes people refrain from disagreeing with you...well,
>because you're you. That's what my original comment was directed at.
It's always been my perception that that is the perception of the people who
don't actually spend any time here...because I gotta tell you, I've far more
than once had my pants yanked up around my head by folks here...sometimes
rightfully, sometimes not, but it doesn't stop the pants-yanking from happening
in the first place.
Only difference is you don't have a lot of folks here who just yell YOU SUCK!
all the time.
Though I *have* considered making t-shirts emblazoned with JOE YOU SUCK! on
them to sell at conventions...I mean, give people what they want, right...?
jms
(jmsatb5@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)
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 06:13:48 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: JMS: When did you know?
From: jmsatb5@aol.com (Jms at B5)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
>I've wondered for a while now. At what point in the writing was it that you
>knew that you wouldn't return to Jeremiah even if there were a third season?
It was an incremental process. I began the season thinking that if certain
things changed, then I could stay on, providing there was a third season (which
would have been more probable if I had gone that way)...but if certain things
did *not* change, then there was no way in god's green earth that I could stay
on beyond that point.
I think I crossed that particular rubicon about two or three episodes in....
jms
(jmsatb5@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)
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 15:34:33 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: attn jms: Star Wars DVDs - Your opinion on who "owns" a story
From: jmsatb5@aol.com (Jms at B5)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
>So my purely abstract question to you is - do the fans or consumers of a
>story (in any media) ever really have a right to complain about stuff like
>this?
Unfortunately, this is a whole bunch of questions in one...and the answer to
just about all of them is yes-and-no.
Do fans have a right to complain? Absolutely. I get buckets of it...some of
it quite well founded, some of it arguable, but I only tend to argue on points
of fact and logic, NOT taste...because you can't argue taste. If somebody just
doesn't like a book or show of mine, that's their right. Lots of folks like
anime...it just leaves me cold for reasons I probably could never qualify.
Different strokes and like that.
The larger question is, once something enters the public consciousness, who
"owns" it, and what comes of changing it?
Ultimately, the creator of a given work owns it, in some cases outright
legally, in other cases morally and ethically. WB *owns* B5...but it's *my*
show. Fans of a given form can purchase that work, can give their opinions and
reactions to it, but they do not *own* it any more than the audience in a
symphony owns Ode to Joy.
Then there is the side-issue of what happens when you cange something after it
enters the collective consciousness. In the B5 situation, I re-did The
Gathering...some people liked the new version better than the original, some
preferred the first one. (In most cases, it was what people saw the first
time. Somebody once said, "Patriotism is at its core the love of the food you
ate as a child.")
It's your right as a creator to make those changes...and the right of the
audience to pink you if they don't work...though again "work" is subejctive. I
think the re-edited Gathering works better...your mileage may vary, as it
should.
In the case of Star Wars...it's George Lucas' baby. He owns it, morally,
ethically and to a large extent legally. He can re-edit it to his heart's
content, that's his right. Some will like it better, some worse, but that's
just the way it goes.
Subjectively, I prefer the original Star Wars over the re-done one because
there's something about the pacing in the special edition that feels...slower
to me, less dynamic, less involving. But is it *really* that way, or is it
that way only in comparison to the way it *used to be* and the way part of my
brain *expects it to be*?
George says this is the film the way he wanted it to be, but couldn't do it
--- Msged 6.0.1
* Origin: StormGate Aerie... all alone in the Net... (1:102/524)
|