XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv, alt.tv.babylon-5   
   From: forrest@lmcg.wisc.edu   
      
   "Alison Hopkins"  writes:   
      
   >  Well, I was backstage, as I have said repeatedly, and was told many   
   > things by many and several people. And then there are the set visits, of   
   > course. What are your sources, by the way?   
      
   Nothing that you will agree with because it's mostly what's been   
   archived on the lurker's guide.  Why I believe it is because it was   
   things said long before the season five situation.  From Feb. 1996:   
      
   But there are a number of common-sense things at work here, as much as   
   anything involving a studio can be described as common sense.  Given   
   that all our actors/service contracts are deliberately for 5 years not   
   the more traditional 7, continuing B5 per se past year 5 becomes   
   impossible, due to the hideous level of re-negotiation of contracts   
   that would have to take place.  The cost would skyrocket.   
      
      
   And Claudia herself talks about not signing her contract extension, so   
   I accept it as fairly evident that there were five year (meaning that   
   at the end of each season the studio had the option of picking up   
   the contract for an additional year) contracts in place at the time.   
      
   > Right. So all of us are wrong and you are right. OK. As has been said,   
   > people will believe what they choose to believe. This may be based on   
   > evidence, or it may be based on supposition, of course.   
      
   It is based on evidence, as much as any hearsay can be accepted as   
   evidence, along with the requirement that it make logical sense.  If   
   there were new contracts, there would have had to have been some   
   negotiation between the parties, otherwise you are making all of the   
   cast (and their agents) out to be fools.   
      
   > > Which isn't to say that the cast might not feel that the contracts had   
   > > changed.  I would certainly feel that way if I was suddenly going to   
   > > get less money for the same work, but there is a difference between   
   > > the contract changing and the circumstances under which the contract   
   > > is executed changing.   
   >   
   >  Interesting choice of semantics there.   
      
   Yes, it is.  It's the difference between being "screwed" and being the   
   victim of circumstance.   
      
   Anyway, I've said about as much on this thread as I can (being home   
   sick has its advantages).  I would like to thank you for a civil   
   (except for once when someone you referred to as Troy interjected)   
   discussion.   
      
   --   
   Dan   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)