Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

JMS - Cult of Personality?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Triple F View Post
    If someone did a write up on jms that included inaccurate or misleading information about him (either deliberately or accidentally) and it was in a publication that is viewed by many 10Æs of thousands of people, how would (or perhaps should) most fans of Babylon 5 and/or jms react. Indeed how would he react. Accept it, debate it or try and correct the person or article involved.
    Publication as in print publication? Chances are, especially back in the day, what fans would do is notify JMS via the moderated newsgroup and/or also let the publication know. What would JMS do? Unknown, but it's pretty well established that if the misleading information impugned his good name in any way, he'd fight long and hard to get it publicly corrected and apologized for.

    Why do you think that some people throw about the accusation of a cult of personality.
    Assuming it's a genuine opinion? As I said upthread, I think that it's due in large part because so many fans use JMS quotes when discussing things about B5 or fandom. The person being responded to may assume that the person quoting JMS doesn't think for themselves (though it's likely that JMS just said it better).

    Additionally, it's fashionable these days to display a cynicism or mistrust of online personalities. It seems that many people would prefer to view anything a celebrity, however minor, does with extreme mistrust assuming that said celeb is arrogant and a prima donna.

    Finally, since it's traditional to quote JMS, I think that this is appropriate to the question:
    Here's the thrust of it, and the same thing happens every time. If you want,
    you can clip this to your monitor and check it against all internet/usenet
    flame wars.

    Person A makes a negative assertion, and some of his/her pals jump in and enjoy the slagging.

    Person B comes in and protests.

    Persons A, C and onlooker D yell and scream that they have a right to say
    anything they want.

    Person B makes the same claim. Persons E, F and G join in supporting this.

    Persons A, C and D, feeling attacked, accuse B of having a thin skin, and E, F, and G as being sycophants.

    Person B makes the point that A, C and D are reacting to B's criticism in a way that can be considered even more thin-skinned...that if you criticize the
    criticizers, they go insane with rage and begin using invective and personal
    slagging and profanity.

    Now that the conversation has become about the conversation, it can never end. And this is where the thing degenerates to a point where there's no longer a point in carrying it on, because it becomes about who-shot-John and discussions *about* the discussion, rather than the subject that started it.
    Emphasis added by me.

    Jan
    "As empathy spreads, civilization spreads. As empathy contracts, civilization contracts...as we're seeing now.

    Comment


    • #32
      Well, there goes my dream of being a sycophant. I guess the CoJ just frowns on that sort of thing. Or is this considered a commandment? Where's a priest when you need one?

      Comment


      • #33
        Cults of Personality

        Originally posted by Triple F View Post
        Two Questions.

        If someone did a write up on jms that included inaccurate or misleading information about him (either deliberately or accidentally) and it was in a publication that is viewed by many 10Æs of thousands of people, how would (or perhaps should) most fans of Babylon 5 and/or jms react. Indeed how would he react. Accept it, debate it or try and correct the person or article involved.
        It should not make any difference whether the target of the inaccurate and misleading information is JMS or someone else. Neither should it make a difference whether the audience is one person or millions of people. Passing on information, whether positive or negative that does not come from a trusted source, can cause problems.

        Defending against inaccurate information can be difficult, even when you have first hand knowledge of the events. People intent on gossip and innuendo will find willing allies in the na´ve and the gullible.

        Why do you think that some people throw about the accusation of a cult of personality.
        Accusations of cults of personality are easy to make and difficult to defend against. It has been my experience that those who levy this charge are either jealous or are trying to make up for a lack self confidence by tearing down the image of others.

        Comment


        • #34
          Been away for a few days, my apologies. I'm the culprit in question.

          First of all, I'm aware that JMS has been very wary of a cult of personality developing. It was one of the reasons he gave for choosing not to have a website of his own. So my feeling is that he tried to counteract it, and certainly didn't foster it. However, this decision also shows that he was very well aware of the danger existing.

          Also there is the question whether the unwilling subject of that sort of reverence can even do something effective to counteract it.

          Where does a cult of personality in a fandom start in my opinion? When discussions are no longer about whether one agrees or disagrees with an opinion, but about whether it is illegitimate for someone to even have a particular opinion (and I'm talking about ordinary criticisms, like "I think the choice to withdraw the script books after May 31 is unfortunate", which was the argument in question. I'm not talking about insults, defamatory or racist statements, or the like.) And when measures besides the ordinary presentation of arguments are taken to try and silence that opinion.

          Do certain fandoms, or parts of them, show characteristics of a cult of personality? In my opinion, there's no doubt there are groups in fandoms who practically worship the actor, creator, or whoever in question. Does the B5 fandom, or part of it, show characteristics of a cult of personality? Actually I've been contesting that in the past, elsewhere. It's funny that just last week I was the one accused of "thinking that jms can do no wrong" in another forum because of an issue relating to the portrayal of Captain Sheridan. But I have to say that discussion about the script books, plus the information that the reproach has been heard "many times before" got me thinking. Accusations of cults of personality are easy to make, but it's also easy to dismiss them on the grounds that people are just stupid or just can't bear being wrong. If the same accusations are repeated many times by many people, IMO one should at least consider if there might be another reason besides stupidity and hurt ego that makes people feel that way. For perhaps the world is right and Delenn is wrong.

          In any event, that discussion has led me to reconsider a few things about the fandom - and for that, if nothing else, I'm grateful. It's always good not to become too sure about things.
          Last edited by mandragora; 04-23-2008, 04:06 PM.

          Comment


          • #36
            Originally posted by SmileOfTheShadow View Post
            Joss Whedon is my master now...
            I must confess I have left the CoJ at times to visit the Extranormal Wittified Church of the Whedonverse. I admit it freely! But it's not because my psuedo-fan-faith is waning, it's...well...it's because....I'm ecclectic...that's it!

            I've also been to the Filmic Congregational Church of Spielbergian Cosmologies and the Moore Is Less Fellowship of the Lost Tribes, which can be a bit dark-side at times, but it's still extremely enlightening.

            (NOTE: I will be visiting the FCCoSC on May 22nd for what will hopefully be a very fulfilling time!)

            Ok...I'm not just ecclectic....I just love everyone! That's it! I AM the universe! And I'm still trying to figure this shit out.



            CE
            Anthony Flessas
            Writer/Producer/Director,
            SP Pictures


            I have no avatar! I walk in mystery and need nothing to represent who and what I am!

            Comment


            • #37
              Originally posted by colonyearth View Post
              And I'm still trying to figure this shit out.

              CE
              Let us know when you do. We all need a little inside info.

              Comment


              • #38
                Originally posted by mandragora View Post
                Accusations of cults of personality are easy to make, but it's also easy to dismiss them on the grounds that people are just stupid or just can't bear being wrong. If the same accusations are repeated many times by many people, IMO one should at least consider if there might be another reason besides stupidity and hurt ego that makes people feel that way. For perhaps the world is right and Delenn is wrong.
                I think what's necessary is to, as my mother would say, "Consider the source." Because in many, even most of the cases I've experienced the situation is exactly as you describe plus the occasional case of hurt feelings.

                For instance, a pretty common scenario is that of a fan who bursts into the moderated newsgroup and starts asking JMS lots of questions and gets hir feelings hurt when the old-timers, assuming that the poster wants the answer at least as much as s/he wants to connect with JMS, give hir the answers to the questions, most of the time quoting JMS to show that the question has been asked and answered before. Instead of appreciating the answer, they complain that the question was for JMS, not anybody else, start an argument about whatever point they wanted to make and eventually fling accusations of cliqueishness and sycophancy behind them as they figuratively stomp out of the room and slam the door after them. The description 'bull in a china shop' comes to mind.

                Keeping to this example, every group has its own dynamic and some are more tolerant of new folks than others but it's really up to newcomers to observe it before trying to enter, isn't it? They may not be stupid but 'graceless' would be a good descriptor and it's not the fault of the group that they stubbed their toes. Should the group then pay any mind to accusations thrown at them by these folks? I don't think so.

                And then there are discussions like the one in the Scripts Forum that are between people who've proven worth giving consideration to. Which is why (after I cooled off ) I opened this discussion.

                In any event, that discussion has led me to reconsider a few things about the fandom - and for that, if nothing else, I'm grateful. It's always good not to become too sure about things.
                I agree completely.

                Jan
                "As empathy spreads, civilization spreads. As empathy contracts, civilization contracts...as we're seeing now.

                Comment


                • #39
                  I agree with a lot of what Mandagora has said.

                  Although no one here may be over obsessing about jms, it doesn’t mean that some fans don’t.

                  I’m in the process of putting a certain site together. One of the main reasons for doing it was, when I first came on-line and started reading up on Babylon 5 I was quite surprised at just how jms-centric things were surrounding the subject. I don’t just mean fan sites like here, with a name like JMSNews you’d expect a fair bit of the focus to be on him.

                  What I mean is I kept reading things like jms was the creative force behind essentially every decision made on the show – which was obviously so daft it beggared belief. When things were discussed essentially the only evidence for opinions or replies to questions was the quoting of jms, the parallels with quoting the scriptures was a little weird to read to be honest as well. Then I heard he was called The Great Maker!!!!! That’s the point I started to think these people are off their f**king heads and among those weird buggers that hang around the internet you keep reading about.

                  BUT, and this is a big but, I stuck around for a little while and started to realise why things appeared the way they did to someone who didn’t understand why things were the way they were. Like probably everyone else who occasionally crossed swords with more established members of the B5/jms fan community and had the same initial thoughts I did.

                  Jms has said a few times on both the moderated forum and during interviews that he was involved with more or less every aspect of the show. But he rarely qualifies that by stating most of that involvement was nodding at things the great team around him created. I now KNOW this, established fans KNOW this but others do not. What they read on (some) forums is (some) fans selectively quoting him (accidentally or deliberately) while occasionally embellishing his statements with there interpretation of what it means.

                  I now KNOW why the archive of jms quotes exist, established fans KNOW the reason as well but others do not. What they read on (some) forums is (some) fans quoting jms in response to every questions or to support every opinion simply because there is essentially bugger all else out there from other people (yes, I know there’s a few bits and pieces but not a lot).

                  I think that has something to do why the accusation of a cult of personality exists. To “outsiders” (Christ that sounds bad given the context of this debate). Better do that again. To people who are not familiar with the history of things it is actually a pretty understandable accusation. Though I’m sure there are others who just use it as a convenient generic insult in inter-universe slagging off competitions as well.

                  Another thing that well meaning, possibly misguided, fans do can be seen in his entry on Wikipedia. Exaggerate things or incorrectly attribute things to him. In wiki and all the other standard reference sites it clearly states, and I quote
                  “ His awards include two Hugo Awards, the Ray Bradbury Award from the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, a Saturn Award, the E Pluribus Unum Award from the American Cinema Foundation, the Eisner Award, the Inkpot Award, and three technical Emmy Awards (for Babylon 5). He has also received an Eagle Award, and two awards from the Space Frontier Foundation.”
                  Anyone spot the TWO (rather big) errors in that.

                  Something else which I think helps create this idea of something going on in the jms community is the VERY thing that jms tried to do which was unique. ie create a record through things like the moderated forum of how the show developed. Now this bit might get me shouted at (if the others haven’t already).

                  The idea was good, the execution was terrible in places. One example of this is not qualifying certain things (as mentined above). Though I can TOTALLY understand that doing that over and over and over and over again every time some subjects come up is inpractical. The other thing that he did (I can go drag up quotes if necessary) was get involved in arguments that is best left between run of the mill fans (not creators of television programs). One big no no that he has done (more than once) was implying that babylon 5 fans where more intellegent and generally *nicer* than Star Trek fans. Not the best thing for someone in his position to do and probably goes some way to supporting the idea of a cult of personality in the eyes of those that believe one exists.

                  Anyway, that’s just a couple of thoughts I have on the subject.

                  Comment


                  • #40
                    Originally posted by Triple F View Post
                    Jms has said a few times on both the moderated forum and during interviews that he was involved with more or less every aspect of the show. But he rarely qualifies that by stating most of that involvement was nodding at things the great team around him created. I now KNOW this, established fans KNOW this but others do not. What they read on (some) forums is (some) fans selectively quoting him (accidentally or deliberately) while occasionally embellishing his statements with there interpretation of what it means.
                    jms did oversee all editing sessions, all scoring sessions, all casting sessions, wrote 91 out of 110 scripts and outlined most of the rest of the stories -- that is way more involvement than any other producer of a show that I am aware of.

                    Originally posted by Triple F View Post
                    The other thing that he did (I can go drag up quotes if necessary) was get involved in arguments that is best left between run of the mill fans (not creators of television programs).
                    He didn't come online because of the show. He was online well before Babylon 5 around 1985 or so. Why should he change his online personality because of the show? If he wants to join in arguments that's his prerogative.

                    Originally posted by Triple F View Post
                    One big no no that he has done (more than once) was implying that babylon 5 fans where more intellegent and generally *nicer* than Star Trek fans. Not the best thing for someone in his position to do and probably goes some way to supporting the idea of a cult of personality in the eyes of those that believe one exists.
                    I don't recall that happening. jms is in fact a big fan of the original Star Trek. He was vocal about Trek fans who didn't like CGI, but that's hardly a comment on Trek fans' intelligence.
                    Last edited by JoeD80; 04-23-2008, 08:30 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #41
                      Originally posted by Jan View Post
                      I think what's necessary is to, as my mother would say, "Consider the source." Because in many, even most of the cases I've experienced the situation is exactly as you describe plus the occasional case of hurt feelings.
                      In other cases, you find the reproach in sources that have nothing to do with fan discussion whatsoever. For instance, in the introduction to an IGN interview it reads:

                      During his series-long tenure as Creator/Executive Producer of the award winning television epic Babylon 5, Straczynski [...] has built a cult-like following of fans, who have stood by his side through numerous "Renew the Show!" campaigns and the vitriolic firestorm surrounding TNT's handling (and ultimate cancellation) of the Babylon 5 spinoff, Crusade. (http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/035/035904p1.html)

                      Now I don't know if that is meant as a compliment, but in any event it tells something about how the fandom is perceived by outsiders.

                      For instance, a pretty common scenario is that of a fan who bursts into the moderated newsgroup and starts asking JMS lots of questions and gets hir feelings hurt when the old-timers, assuming that the poster wants the answer at least as much as s/he wants to connect with JMS, give hir the answers to the questions, most of the time quoting JMS to show that the question has been asked and answered before. Instead of appreciating the answer, they complain that the question was for JMS, not anybody else, start an argument about whatever point they wanted to make and eventually fling accusations of cliqueishness and sycophancy behind them as they figuratively stomp out of the room and slam the door after them. The description 'bull in a china shop' comes to mind.
                      Such a situation ending that way isn't something that is somehow inevitable, or that I observe on a regular basis in every forum. Mind you, I could name sites associated with other fandoms (names irrelevant here) where that situation does happen on a daily basis and on a grand scale, and it's obvious for everyone outside that there's a cult-thing going on. The people in that community of course don't see it that way.

                      Keeping to this example, every group has its own dynamic and some are more tolerant of new folks than others but it's really up to newcomers to observe it before trying to enter, isn't it? They may not be stupid but 'graceless' would be a good descriptor and it's not the fault of the group that they stubbed their toes. Should the group then pay any mind to accusations thrown at them by these folks? I don't think so.
                      It depends on what that group's intentions are. If the group wants to help the fandom to live on and grow, that's not helped by being less than tolerant with newcomers, and by situations arising repeatedly that end up with newcomers leaving with hurt feelings, even if those newcomers had their share in it by being "graceless". The result is those newcomers leave with the impression that that fandom, or part of it, isn't something they want to be part of, and likely spread that impression. The moderated newsgroup is in a special situation in this respect, because it's the group where JMS has been posting himself on a regular basis and it's thus perceived as particularly closely related to him.

                      Now it's up to everyone to decide whether they care what a fandom's reputation is, how it is perceived by newcomers and outsiders, and whether it attracts new members or not. Personally I don't think if newcomers and outsiders get the impression, no matter if correct or not, that a fandom or part of it shows cult-like traits, it does the fandom, the creator or the show anything good.
                      Last edited by mandragora; 04-24-2008, 04:30 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #42
                        Originally posted by mandragora View Post
                        In other cases, you find the reproach in sources that have nothing to do with fan discussion whatsoever. For instance, in the introduction to an IGN interview it reads:

                        During his series-long tenure as Creator/Executive Producer of the award winning television epic Babylon 5, Straczynski [...] has built a cult-like following of fans, who have stood by his side through numerous "Renew the Show!" campaigns and the vitriolic firestorm surrounding TNT's handling (and ultimate cancellation) of the Babylon 5 spinoff, Crusade. (http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/035/035904p1.html)

                        Now I don't know if that is meant as a compliment, but in any event it tells something about how the fandom is perceived by outsiders.
                        Turning again to Wiki since I've never believed that a discussion can really be held if everybody doesn't know that they're all talking about the same thing, I think this is a fairly accurate definition of what we're talking about:
                        Cult typically refers to a cohesive social group devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture considers outside the mainstream, with a notably positive or negative popular perception. Many religions were considered cults before they became considered religions. In common or populist usage, "cult" has a positive connotation for groups of art, music, writing, fiction, and fashion devotees,[1] but a negative connotation for new religious, extreme political, questionable therapeutic, and pyramidal business groups.[2] For this reason, most, if not all, non-fan groups that are called cults reject this label
                        Which is fairly different from the 'Cult of Personality'. In this case I'd say the label applies but it's *not* a reproach at all, rather a shorthand description of fervent and engaged fans. Whether those fans are a cohesive group...that I differ with.

                        It depends on what that group's intentions are. If the group wants to help the fandom to live on and grow, that's not helped by being less than tolerant with newcomers, and by situations arising repeatedly that end up with newcomers leaving with hurt feelings, even if those newcomers had their share in it by being "graceless".
                        That supposes that the group has some actual intention other than hanging out. In the example I used, the group was trying to be helpful and it was rejected. Especially over there, since one of its main purposes has always been to protect JMS from story ideas, there's probably less acceptance of off-the-wall speculation than there might be among other groups.

                        The result is those newcomers leave with the impression that that fandom, or part of it, isn't something they want to be part of, and likely spread that impression. The moderated newsgroup is in a special situation in this respect, because it's the group where JMS has been posting himself on a regular basis and it's thus perceived as particularly closely related to him.
                        To which I can only reply, "So what?" The people over there, like the people over here aren't any sort of 'special' fans, nor are they/we likely to be any more friends or close to JMS than fans elsewhere, simply more visible, perhaps. That something is percieved incorrectly doesn't place any burden on the ones being observed. To accept that responsibility, IMO, would actually put us closer to the 'Cult of Personality' label being applicable.

                        Now it's up to everyone to decide whether they care what a fandom's reputation is, how it is perceived by newcomers and outsiders, and whether it attracts new members or not. Personally I don't think if newcomers and outsiders get the impression, no matter if correct or not, that a fandom or part of it shows cult-like traits does the fandom, the creator or the show anything good.
                        As seen above, the definition of 'cult' that I'm using isn't nearly as negative as what you appear to think. As for "...it's up to everyone to decide...", that makes it sound like fandom is a cohesive group that actually decides anything. I'm a fan. I'm not part of anything called fandom because fandom isn't a group or club.

                        Jan
                        "As empathy spreads, civilization spreads. As empathy contracts, civilization contracts...as we're seeing now.

                        Comment


                        • #43
                          Originally posted by Triple F View Post
                          Anyone spot the TWO (rather big) errors in that.
                          Well, I can name at least two awards not listed but what are you talking about? You've mentioned the errors twice now and not actually pointed them out.

                          [quote/The other thing that he did (I can go drag up quotes if necessary) was get involved in arguments that is best left between run of the mill fans (not creators of television programs). [/quote]

                          Now here I beg to differ. The whole point is that JMS is just a guy, not some icon on a mountain top. The rules can't be different for him than for anybody else or it does end up making him "rather godlike".
                          [quote One big no no that he has done (more than once) was implying that babylon 5 fans where more intellegent and generally *nicer* than Star Trek fans. Not the best thing for someone in his position to do and probably goes some way to supporting the idea of a cult of personality in the eyes of those that believe one exists. [/quote]
                          This one I'd like to see supported by quotes. I've seen him praise the quality of the B5 fan but I don't recall him tearing down any other fans. The closest I can think of was his quoting somebody else from a convention who mentioned that (paraphrasing) 'any other fans would have torn the place apart' when there was no room for them in the panel room or something.

                          Anyway, thatÆs just a couple of thoughts I have on the subject.
                          You make some good points. One that I think bears repeating is that 'new' fans may not understand the history/dynamic that's evolved among the 'long-established' fan. My point is still that it's up to them to observe or ask questions when joining discussions. Most of the fans I know are delighted to expound upon their favorite subject to a new audience. As I'd mentioned to you earlier, one reason why JMS is so oft-quoted is because the other folks involved aren't as accessibly quotable as JMS is. One of these days I'm looking forward to going through your site in more detail and seeing what the other creative folks have to say.

                          Jan
                          "As empathy spreads, civilization spreads. As empathy contracts, civilization contracts...as we're seeing now.

                          Comment


                          • #44
                            Originally posted by Jan View Post
                            Well, I can name at least two awards not listed but what are you talking about? You've mentioned the errors twice now and not actually pointed them out.
                            I think he is refering to Technical Awards credited to JMS as oppossed to Optic Nerve, etc... He is correct, but this error is typically made by others and not JMS himself.

                            I find Triple-F's comments thought provoking, sometimes uncomfortable, but result in me questioning my previously held beliefs. Keep the "Other side" coming. I welcome it.
                            What a wonderful world you live in. -
                            Yeah, well, the rent is cheap, the pay is decent and I get to make my own hours.

                            Comment


                            • #45
                              Two Emmy’s are normally associated with the show as you know. Neither of which were presented to jms. So why are they listed in a sentense that begins with the words “His awards include . . . . . . .”, when he has in fact never received any Emmy – has he ever been actually nominated for one?

                              The inclusion of the third (I think I know where that originates from) is like saying <pick your favourite newspaper columnist> is responsible for the creation of the word processor because he uses one.

                              The second error is the two awards from the Space Frontier Foundation. I won’t go into the reasons why one was issued to him and others. But the second, which was issued the following year, was not in fact awarded to him – take a look at their site.




                              As for the intelligence thing. I knew 2 seconds into writing the original comment that this one was going to be a real sticking point. I said he inferred Babylon 5 fans are more intelligent than Star Trek ones. As this is an overall perception that a reader CAN be left with after reading a collection of comments from jms it’s going to be a bugger to demonstrate to someone who is very unlikely to perceive it the same way and is likely to become a convoluted and long winded conversation.

                              He mentions, quite often, anecdotal accounts of things he has seen and received. For example the “never apply a Star Trek solution to a B5 problem”. I don’t want to get bogged down in this particular point as it relies highly on perception, but take a look at this interview, for example.

                              http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/035/035906p1.html


                              Did he raise the questions – no, of course not. The interviewer knows that a little shit stirring makes good copy, ( as does jms ; ). But in the larger context of how the B5/jms fandom can be viewed by those looking in, and their perceived relationship with jms, his choice of replies can be seen to encourage the separation of B5 fans from those of Trek.

                              PLUME: Which is the type of audience needed to mesh with the storytelling style of B5...
                              JMS: It's not a jingoistic show. If you really want to, I suppose you could just watch it for the space battles and stuff, but to really see what's going on, you've got to pay attention. There's stuff happening all the time in the corner of the eye and small little references. Some folks say they can watch the Trek shows while knitting or making dinner or whatever else, but with B5 you gotta stop, sit down, and watch the program – and you have to bring something to the table... Bring intelligence to it. Which is why it will never be a huge, popular show. It will always be a cult show, because it requires a lot of the viewer.
                              Do you see it the inference. How about if I swap the shows names round.

                              There's stuff happening all the time in the corner of the eye and small little references. Some folks say they can watch the Babylon 5 shows while knitting or making dinner or whatever else, but with Star Trek you gotta stop, sit down, and watch the program – and you have to bring something to the table... Bring intelligence to it.

                              It is continued in the next question and reply……….

                              PLUME: And it's a show not just with a past, but also with a future...
                              JMS: Oh yeah. Most definitely. It's just a different philosophy. One NASA engineer once sent me a note that said on a bulletin board there at NASA they pout up a sign saying, "Never apply a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem."
                              If you read that section of the interview as a whole, it doesn’t take a genius to see how the language used could (quite understandably) rub up some Star Trek fans the wrong way.

                              IMPORTNT. I’m using this to highlight one of the possible reasons for the topic of this thread. It doesn’t necessarily mean I agree with the interpretations but I acknowledge that some might view the likes of this interview as jms separating the B5 fans from Star Trek fans on the basis of intellect and maturity – read the rest of the interview……… Hell, here’s the very next Q&A which could very easily (especially in the context of the previous two Q&A’s plus what follows in the next few) be seen to imply some B5 fans (sorry that should read Star Trek fans) are a bit tribal and child like in their approach to things.

                              PLUME: It's ironic, considering the message behind Trek, that they would be so militant...
                              JMS: Yeah... IDIC – Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. Once the show entered into syndication and it became less of an obvious threat to some of the Trek shows, I've heard more and more from fans that we're getting more of the Trek crossover audience. There isn't a week that goes by where I don't get two or three pieces of e-mail from someone saying, "I didn't watch the show when it was first on – I was a Trek fan and I thought it would be disloyal to watch it. I just started watching the show and I realize I missed one of the most important science fiction shows of the last several years, and I think it's a great show." So that audience – now that it's safe to watch the show since it's over – are now coming to the show as well.

                              The question is, jms is a wordsmith, he's an experienced tv producer and someone who came throught the ranks of sc-fi fans so knows the score so very very well. So what is he trying to convey with his choice of language?? Hmmmmm what is it they say about bad publicity and even controversy. The “problem” is some people really do get drawn into this and take things very personally and way to seriously



                              [edit]

                              @ Glindros

                              Your 100&#37; correct. I’m deliberately making comments that could be seen as thought provoking, even negative towards jms and the fan community. Christ I am a fan of the show and what jms was saying through it. The effort being put into the site I’m creating should prove that, hopefully.

                              The reason for doing it (the site) is that I think the jms centric nature of what’s on the net is off-putting to new people. It was to me, but like I said I stuck around a bit and started to understand. Besides having alternative views is healthy.
                              As to the wiki thing. That’s exactly my point. Overly keen, or well meaning fans can do things like that. Which ironically just provide “evidence” for those wanting to take a pop at jms, the show or indeed them. So the creation of (and the non removal of) such errors ultimately have a negative effect on a number of levels.
                              Last edited by Triple F; 04-24-2008, 06:58 AM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X