Text 53, 281 rader
Skriven 2005-06-04 19:18:08 av Kay Shapero (1:102/524.0)
Ärende: [4 of 5] JMS posts to moderated b5 newsgroup
====================================================
> any so-called class system and everything to do with prejudice.
>
Right, this is why the only place I've ever considered living in
outside the States is Great Britain. I've been painfully up-front
about the American foibles and blindnesses and prejudices, so this
isn't anything of the kind.
> And yes, I would go so far as to say racial prejudice.
>
> >Because the former has been chronicled for decades by writers and
> >social scientists and commentators...many of them also British, by
the
> >by.
>
> There goes the Victorian imagery again. We have electricity these
> days, you know.
>
> Paul.
>
> --
> . A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a
personality
> . JMS: "SFX is a fairly useless publication on just about every
imaginable front.
> Never have so many jumped-up fanboys done so little, with so much,
for so long."
> . EMail: Unless invited to, don't. Your message is likely to be
automatically deleted.
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 21:56:05 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: from jms: too damned much stuff
From: jmsatb5@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ali Hopkins wrote:
> <jmsatb5@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1116042082.156643.48310@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> I've nothing to add to the general debate, but wanted to comment on
the
> following, hence the snippage:
>
> > First, a general note, which is that there's a peculiarly British
thing
> > that flares into existence whenever somebody is seen making any
kind of
> > money from something. A work of art is fine and good as long as
nobody
> > makes anything...the moment it becomes popular, well, then it's
trash
> > or devalued. I've seen it again and again in the media there, so
this
> > doesn't surprise me to hear it here. It's a class thing, I think.
> >
> <snippage>
>
> > Again, it's that British class system thing rearing its annoying
head.
> >
>
> >So artists should suffer and be paid nothing so that their value
> >remains? You're not making any sense. Even for a Brit.
>
> I don't know why you felt it necessary to insult all of us Brits, but
I find
> it deeply offensive. I've no problem with you insulting individual
posters,
> Usenet is like that. But this was utterly uncalled for.
>
> You *had* a lot of fans over here. I suspect you may have just
alienated and
> lost a fair few, and I include myself in that.
>
> Ali
Are you saying the class system/attitude doesn't exist?
Or that it was rude of me to point it out?
Because the former has been chronicled for decades by writers and
social scientists and commentators...many of them also British, by the
by.
jms
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 03:42:04 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: from jms: too damned much stuff
From: jmsatb5@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
I'm sorry, Paul, but you're just not making any sense, on any
conceivable level.
First, a general note, which is that there's a peculiarly British thing
that flares into existence whenever somebody is seen making any kind of
money from something. A work of art is fine and good as long as nobody
makes anything...the moment it becomes popular, well, then it's trash
or devalued. I've seen it again and again in the media there, so this
doesn't surprise me to hear it here. It's a class thing, I think.
I would also point out that WB didn't commission B5 for artistic
reasons...it did so because the studio thought they could make money
from it. And it has. Just the DVDs alone have grossed over half a
billion dollars. Of which, incidentally, I have seen not one penny.
Due to the nature of my contract, on my first series, I will never see
a dime in profit off B5. Ever.
That clean enough for your approval, Paul?
Now, to more specifics.
Paul Harper wrote:
> On Fri, 13 May 2005 23:18:21 +0000 (UTC), Oron Port
> <zoraxe22@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >If I had lots of money, and by lots I mean LOTS(!), that couple of
10
> >thousand dollars out of my back pocket won't change anything for me,
I
> >would have bought all those items. If you have the money, why not?
>
> Because it devalues it, that's why.
>
Bullshit.
The show is the show is the show. This is stuff from my personal
collection.
And you know what, Paul? When it comes to what I do with my personal
life, and what I own personally...you don't get a vote. You don't get
to approve or disapprove.
> If any schmuck with a wallet full of dosh can, irrespective of their
> feelings for the show, buy into a piece of (what we probably all feel
> is) history, then where's the value - intrinsic, artistic or
> otherwise? Because it all boils down to cash. Something stupid, and
in
> the final analysis valueless.
>
More patent bullshit.
Look...in my collection I have two prize artifacts. One is a Conklin
fountain pen once owned by Mark Twain. The other is a copy of a Rod
Serling collection of short stories signed by Rod to, ironically, a
Joe. You don't want to *know* what I paid for those. Why was I
willing to pay that? Because of the provenance, because of who had
owned them, whose hands had touched them. That doesn't devalue Twain's
work, or Serling's work, it has to do with provenance.
And your argument that because something brings value it therefore has
no value or lesser value is one of the more breathtakingly vapid things
I've read in years. By that same logic, if someone pays lots for a
Picasso painting, it therefore has no value.
Again, it's that British class system thing rearing its annoying head.
> >Babylon 5 is dear to my heart, and to have that painting, for
> >instance, to wake up and look at every morning would have been
> >wonderful.
>
> Agreed absolutely.
>
> >But I am just a student with no job and a cheap bastard, who can't
> >even spare the 300 for the B5 dvds, so I can't afford any of these
> >items at those prices.
>
> Yes. My point exactly. Money is NOT might. Slinging cash at something
> that should [and did (imho)] have a higher artistic value cheapens
and
> devalues the whole enterprise.
>
So artists should suffer and be paid nothing so that their value
remains? You're not making any sense. Even for a Brit.
> How much better might it have been to either produce reasonable
> quality facsimiles of the original, under licence, so everyone can
> have a bite at the apple, then put the originals in a showcase
> somewhere so those that care about such things can view them?
>
> Sorry to the "Fans of Joe", but I really would have preferred this
> garage sale not take place. It has cheapened all of B5. It has, in
> every sense of the word, turned it into a marketing opportunity,
which
> is what Trek became several decades ago.
>
This is where the illogic of your argument takes flight into realms
hitherto undreamt of.
You're saying that in orderf to avoid something becoming a marketing
opportunity, one should mass produce the item in question, in lesser
form, removing therefore the benefit of provenance...and sell lots and
lots of copies.
See, to me, THAT is marketing, THAT is merchandising.
In most cases, these are one-offs that were used in actual production.
A copy wouldn't be the same thing, it's NOT the same thing...again,
it's the question of provenance.
> I personally take offence at that. I value B5 at considerably more
> than a throw-away eBay sale. B5 is not some deep-space franchise to
be
> profitted from.
Except that WB profits from it every day. The only person really who
doesn't profit from it is me. But that's okay by you, apparently.
Artists should make nothing, or they're sellouts.
Bullshit, Paul. Utter tripe. And by the way...you should really take
a good look at your sig next time before you post something like this.
jms
> --
> Never have so many jumped-up fanboys done so little, with so much,
for so long."
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 05:54:04 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: jms NOT in Bristol
From: jmsatb5@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
fletc...@post.queensu.ca wrote:
> jmsatb5@aol.com wrote:
> > I've been fighting a worsening ear infection since flying back from
> > Toronto last week
> too bad on the ear infection, those always suck pretty harsh.
>
> in terms of the trip to toronto though... something show related
happening
> there?
Not per se, no...I was there to make a surprise appearance at the
Toronto Comicon, and by the time I'd left was already picking up a case
of convention crud, which was exacerbated by the flight back. The
thing moved from my throat to my ear, and it just went to hell after
that.
jms
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 00:59:38 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: jms NOT in Bristol
From: jmsatb5@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Well, ain't life grand.
I've been fighting a worsening ear infection since flying back from
Toronto last week, and in a follow-up today with my doctor he explained
that if I get on a plane anytime in the next seven to ten days, I risk
blowing out my left eardrum and potentially losing my hearing in that
--- MsgPost v1.01
* Origin: StormGate Aerie.. all alone in the net... (1:102/524)
|