Text 42, 212 rader
Skriven 2005-03-12 22:10:06 av Kay Shapero (1:102/524.0)
Ärende: [2 of 3] JMS posts to moderated b5 newsgroup
====================================================
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 06:38:01 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Attn: JMS!!! On Other Projects...
From: jmsatb5@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated


"is there any thought to tying in your writing
for the comic with the theatrical release?"

I know they wanted to build the sales up a bit, which is one reason
they asked me to come on board, but there's no substantial effort to
tie them up story-wise mainly because the movie is an origin story and
the regular book is way, way down the road.

jms
------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 06:38:44 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Attn: JMS!!! On Other Projects...
From: jmsatb5@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated


"I'm sure you will, but *please*, if it there's any British
involvement, let it be as accurate as possible!  I grates very
severely every time Hollyweird re-invents major WWII events done by
others as though Americans did it!!  Let's not go anywhere *near* the
Enigma machine.... :-)"

You mean the Americans didn't win WWII all by themselves?

I'm shocked...shocked, I tell you....

Has the press been informed?


jms
------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 00:13:31 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: ATTN: JMS: The Siegels' Suit over Superman
From: jmsatb5@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated


"As a creator, a comics writer, and as a Superman fan, what's your take
on the case?"

There's the law and there's what's right, and sometimes they're on the
same side of the table, and sometimes they ain't.  When S&S signed with
DC, the terms were what they were...and they got bupkis.  But since
then Superman has become so massive a commodity that sharing some of
that with the folks who created it is the fair and right thing to do.

In terms of the present suit, I don't know all the details, so take my
opinion with a grain of salt...but as I understand it, the suit isn't
over Superman but rather over Superboy, that when he was created (to
keep a lock on all things Super) a different rights deal was made that
has now, in their view, expired, and they want a different piece of the
pie.  At least, that's my understanding of it, but I haven't read the
briefs.

But in general, I always stand foursquare for those who created
something getting a fair share of it...as one might well expect.

jms



------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 00:29:16 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: To JMS: Thanks for everything
From: jmsatb5@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated


"Forgive me if you're tired of talking about this right now, but are
you
currently looking to follow up on this (maybe negotiate deals to put
the
possibility of making the movie again sometime in the near future), or
are you tabling it for now until all the loose ends are tied up?"

My own feeling is that, after all that's gone on, best to let it rest
for a year or two, then see what happens.  Gearing up for sometehing
like this takes a lot of time, energy and visceral material, and when
something like this happens, it's best to just take a breather for a
bit.  Besides, there are other fish in need of frying now, and I have
to turn my attention to them.

jms
------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 07:43:03 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: ATTN JMS: Is the TMoS script covered by option? (Re: additional
from jms)
From: jmsatb5@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated



>I know, but if they paid for the script to be done, and they retain
the
>rights to it, they could try to sell it to someone else if they wanted
to
>try to produce it.


: The only way they could have "kept" it was if they started production
by, as
: JMS said, December, and then again by some un-specified extension
period.
: They didn't, so it reverted back to Joe.

Not correct.  The script cannot be sold by the other party without the
option.  In contrast, while I have the option again, the script (as the
basis of a film) is owned by the other party and if I were to try and
produce it or if another studio wanted to produce it, they would have
to buy it back from the other party.  Any ancillary use of the script
(such as a novelization) would also require that kind of buy-out.

The only exception to this is that under the WGA's Separation of Rights
Provision, the writer owns the physical script...so the script of any
movie or TV show, produced or otherwise, can be published AS a script,
or copies can be sold, because they are the writer's property.

But all production related rights are off the table.

jms
------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 07:45:22 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: additional from jms
From: jmsatb5@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated


"So basically, all the letters and hype and hatred for Warner Bros.
over
the past six months was less than pointless, since they had no role in
the B5 movie at all.
Ironic, really, considering how much in a tizzy some pople were around
here."

Your assumption is not valid.  Which is all I can say for the moment.

jms
------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 07:47:27 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: To JMS: Thanks for everything
From: jmsatb5@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated


Thanks...truth is, nothing about this show -- from the very beginning
until right now -- has ever been easy.  Not once, not one bit of it,
it's been an uphill climb at every imaginable step.

jms
------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 02:22:05 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: additional from jms
From: jmsatb5@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated



Methuselah Jones wrote:
> Carved in mystic runes upon the very living rock, the last words of
> <jmsatb5@aol.com> of rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated make plain:
>
> > When we were negotiating the original B5 deal -- by whose terms I
will
> > never see a dime in profit -- the one thing they did let me have
were
> > the movie rights.
>
> No wonder WB likes B5 -- they don't have to pay you anything for it.
> Kind of puts a different light on buying the DVDs and stuff, knowing
> we're just supporting some fat-ass studio execs and not the actual
> talent.
>

That's the great irony of the situation.  The criteria told to us right
up front while we were producing B5 was that each of the series on PTEN
had to show a profit *in that year* in order to stay on the air and be
renewed.  So we'd have these meetings with studio heads who were
congratulating us on how much money the show was making for them
(again, while we were still making for it), and then look at me,
realize what they'd said, and hurriedly add, "Though technically we're
still in the red."

The show, all in, cost about $110 million to make.  Each year of its
original run, we know it showed a profit because they TOLD us so.  And
in one case, they actually showed us the figures.  It's now been on the
air worldwide for ten years.  There's been merchandise, syndication,
cable, books, you name it.  The DVDs grossed roughly half a BILLION
dollars (and that was just after they put out S5, without all of the S5
sales in).

So what does my last profit statement say?  We're $80 million in the
red.

Basically, by the terms of my contract, if a set on a WB movie burns
down in Botswana, they can charge it against B5's profits.


--- MsgPost v1.01
 * Origin: StormGate Aerie.. all alone in the net... (1:102/524)