XPost: uk.media.tv.sf.babylon5   
   From: paul@harper.net   
      
   On 13 Oct 2005 11:28:09 -0700, "KoshN"  wrote:   
      
   [snipping throughout]   
      
   >Paul Harper wrote:   
   >> (Cross posted to umtsb5 from rastb5)   
   >>   
   >> On 12 Oct 2005 16:59:45 -0700, "KoshN"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >paul@harper.net wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >> The last few attempts at resurrecting the   
   >> >> franchise have ended in farce, disappointment and some really crappy   
   >> >> television.   
   >> >   
   >> >The last few?   
   >> >   
   >> >Crusade.   
   >>   
   >> Crap.   
   >   
   >I disagree.  No point in discussing it further because you're not going   
   >to change your mind about it, and neither am I.   
      
   Fair comment.   
      
   >> >Babylon 5 - The Memory of Shadows (feature film that never got made).   
   >>   
   >> All hype, no substance. Disappointment tinged with relief at not   
   >> having to sit through another couple of hours of turgid prose badly   
   >> disguised as dialogue.   
   >   
   >Hmmm.  Maybe you should write some TV shows and/or movies, and get them   
   >produced, so we could discuss *your* projects.  That way we could get   
   >some idea of the quality of your criticism.  Presumably, you'd try to   
   >put out what you consider to be really great work.  Chances are, your   
   >projects would be steaming piles of mega crap.   
      
   Agreed. Which is why I don't do it. (Was I supposed to be upset there?   
   Ah. Sorry...)   
      
   >"Babylon 5" IS done.  There will be no more TV shows centered around   
   >the Babylon 5 station (i.e. B5 between 2262 and 2281, with the new   
   >crew).    B5 being "done" does NOT mean that there can be no TV shows,   
   >movies or novels in the "B5 universe" ever again.  Your point here is   
   >narrow minded and utterly ridiculous.   
      
   Then stop prefixing everything and anything "Babylon 5". Just because   
   the setting is the same as some space station doesn't mean the whole   
   damn universe is called "Babylon 5: The_something_or_other"   
      
   >> >> That day was over half a decade ago.   
   >> >>   
   >> >> Anything being done now is little more than egowanking and flogging a   
   >> >> dead horse.   
   >> >   
   >> >Being done now?  NOTHING is being done now.  And it's only a dead horse   
   >> >because of some spiteful, stupid TNT-Atlanta execs, and execs without   
   >> >any brains, courage or faith at Warner Brothers.   
   >>   
   >> Well, that's not true.   
   >   
   >Bull!  "Now" is October 2005.  There are no new stories (new words)   
   >being written in the B5 universe.  W.R.T. the new novels, it appears   
   >that they were going to happen, then they were not going to happen, and   
   >now they maaaaaybe are going to happen.  I'll believe it when I see   
   >'em.   
      
   Erm.... so there may be new stories. So there may be something active.   
   So there maybe something going on now.   
      
   >> We've had books   
   >   
   >Not "now."  The last book came out in July 2001, over four years ago.   
   >The last short story came out in August 2000.   
      
   See your comment above.   
      
   >> (mostly unreadable),   
   >   
   >More BS.  Damn, I'd like to see you write some novels so we could get   
   >some glimpse of what you consider to be good writing.   
      
   You are missing the point by the length of an average Sheridan speech.   
      
   It is not necessary to write to know what constitutes a good book. It   
   is merely necessary to read and understand. Most of the B5 books were   
   pure undiluted drivel on just about every level.   
      
   It is often said that inside everyone is a novel, and that in 99.9% of   
   cases that's where it should stay. Some of the B5 book authors qualify   
   there.   
      
   >> we've had magazines,   
   >   
   >Again, not "now."  You're talking about five years ago.   
      
   Hence the use of the past tense. I'm clever like that.   
      
   >> we've had spin off series (cancelled)   
   >   
   >Yes, one, cancelled before 1 episode was even aired, mishandled (and   
   >that's putting it very charitably) by TNT in just about every way   
   >imaginable.   
      
   I'll take that as "yes" then.   
      
   >> and an aborted movie project.   
   >   
   >But we *didn't* have that.  It never got made.   
      
   Hence "aborted". Kinda what "aborted" means.   
      
   >Thanks to Warner Brothers,   
      
   We only have one side of that particular story.   
      
   >it couldn't be made the way it should have been made (with   
   >just the TV cast).  Because of Warner Brothers, their casting edict and   
   >their lack of backing, the whole thing imploded and we got nothing.   
      
   >> And now we have the recycled   
   >> scripts from the vanity publisher.   
   >   
   >Those are not new.  It's a printing of existing material, existing   
   >words, not new words.   
      
   New material that has in the main never hit the public domain. It   
   counts as new material as far as we're concerned as we've never had   
   the heaven-sent opportunity to throw money at someone for these   
   particular pieces of history before. So they're new.   
      
   >> Oh, there's plenty that's been going on over the last five years.   
   >   
   >We were talking about new TV episodes, new movies, and/or new written   
   >word in the B5 universe coming out now (October 2005) or in the future.   
   > The last five years is the past.  I'm talking about the future.   
      
   I can't claim to know the future. Nor can you.   
      
   >> Just none of it any good.   
   >>   
   >> >> I have had enough of these amateurish bumblings, and do not want to   
   >> >> have the few remaining precious memories I have of B5 and what it used   
   >> >> to mean spoiled any further.   
   >> >   
   >> >Who said you'd have to watch anything new that came out?  (Don't worry,   
   >> >you're not in danger, as nothing new is going to come out.)   
   >>   
   >> To use a fashion analogy, you don't have to buy cheap shit to know   
   >> that the fashion label you are fond of has been cheapened by turning   
   >> something special into a mass-produced parody of itself.   
   >   
   >And what caused this "cheapening?"   
      
   Action figures, cookbooks, security manuals, shot glasses, eBay   
   flogging off of tat, loads of crappy novels, swooning fanboys on   
   moderated newsgroups, online clothes store, dire spinoff series and   
   one-off (thank Ghod) teevee movies, teaser news items on newsgroups   
   that turn out to be nothing of the sort....   
      
   >> B5 is the same. B5 the series (the bastardised original 5-year arc,   
   >   
   >Hey, the real world intrudes.   
   >   
   >> I mean) was a pinnacle of achievement. Then the teevee movies started.   
   >   
   >Again, short items like movies are not JMS's strong suit   
      
   Perhaps Warner's know this, hence their desire to keep more control   
   over the movie-making process that JMS wanted?  Perhaps we *can* agree   
   that maybe Warners know more that they are given credit for?   
      
   >, although two   
   >of the movies were very good to excellent (I do wish he'd pay more   
   >attention to his science advisor, though.).   
   >   
   >> The appallingly bad books started   
   >   
   >I guess you're talking about the original Dell nine.  Of those, #7 and   
   >#9 were good.  The last three trilogies were mainly good (couple of   
   >mistakes here and there).  Of the novelizations, only "In the   
   >Beginning" was good, IMHO.   
      
   And the cookbook, don't forget the cookbook. And the security manual.   
      
   Or don't they count as they have pictures in them?  (Actually, I kinda   
   agree on that one, which is why I have never really clicked with the   
   kids comics and that yellow spandex)   
      
   >> and the   
   >> fanboy magazine (cancelled)   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)