B5Scrolls is now running wild on the internet

[Jonas]

This is probably impolite and flame-inducing to say, but I do find some of the anti-JMS tone to be a little unpleasant. I do not "worship" JMS in any way, and I realize that TV, like theatre, is a medium in which many must cooperate to create a show... but there seems to be something of an overly strong desire to point out everything you consider JMS to have done wrong or mistakenly claimed credit for. Not only does this ignore the way a show-runner actually works, some of it is also silly - especially your comments on the similarities of the Omega class destroyer and the Leonov (and yes, I am a big fan of 2010 - but JMS' comments still make sense, and the tone of the Wikipedia entry there is rather biased), and some of the nitpicking about faults in the CGI (I'm with John Copeland there - next to nobody notices these things except for people who have forgotten this is a show about characters, not ships... or people who want to see them).

Now. After that little outburst, I do find the amount of work you have put into the site commendable, though some of the content and writing is a little incoherent. But hey, you did this for free and for other people, and out of your own enthusiasm, and that's great. And for those interested in the ships, it is probably a very nice reference work. So good work on that.

The design of the site is pretty, and works perfectly in Firefox 3 (for me, that is). I had no problem reading anything and everything loaded properly.

(The above comments were not intended as a flame! They are an honest, if critical, opinion that I felt it necessary to express. I hope no-one takes offense.)

[Jan]

This is probably impolite and flame-inducing to say, but I do find some of the anti-JMS tone to be a little unpleasant. I do not "worship" JMS in any way, and I realize that TV, like theatre, is a medium in which many must cooperate to create a show... but there seems to be something of an overly strong desire to point out everything you consider JMS to have done wrong or mistakenly claimed credit for. Not only does this ignore the way a show-runner actually works, some of it is also silly -

While to an extent I feel that Triple F's questions sometimes lead the interviews in a 'tell us what JMS didn't really do' direction, seeing some of the comments made (Ron Thornton comes to mind) don't surprise me as I've seen a few (very few, thankfully) of the actors do the same. Sometimes, when they were told to do something they thought should be done another way, it seems to have gotten blown all out of proportion and it does show that they only saw their part of the picture.

Not being able to see which posts Triple F chooses to send to the interviewees as his examples of "JMS said" is one thing I think should be corrected by adding a link to the post so that the reader can read what's being responded to.

While I'm here, I'll add my vote for better contrast. The only way I can read the text for more than a minute is to highlight all of the text and read it in white on blue.

Jan

[Triple F]

OK. Now I knew this was going to be something that would at least be felt by some fans. And thanks for bringing it up because it’s something that is worth talking about I feel.

First off. Here’s a VERY relevant quote from John. I put it right at the front of our published Q&A’s.

“There's a number of other folks out there, that are real fans of the series, but don't buy into a lot of the fan generated Joe-centric stuff. I'm sure you've probably seen The Lurker's Guide. It was originally created by Stephen Grimm. I'm not sure if it still is, but he made it a pretty democratic site initially. Joe was, and still is, first and foremost a sci-fi fan and comic fan that goes to many conventions. Over the years, before B5 and while we were trying to sell it, he would moderate panels at cons asking fans what they liked in shows that had been on tv and what they didn't, as well as what they would like to see. So fans originally had a lot of influence on Joe's development of the project. And Joe always went to the cons and there, and here on the web, was the most visible B5 person. Fans began referring to him as the Great Maker and there are folks out there who aren’t familiar with television production, and over time, have come to let that concept take center stage about the making of the series.”

And that’s the thing. I haven’t made any attacks or comments on jms making claims to have done things. My problem is with how fans read things into his comments and over the course of 15 years have created an incredibly bias and one sided view of how the show was made, and who was responsible. Hey, EVERY one of the contributors are aware of it. Even John Copeland.

Please quote, in context, where I have directly attacked anything that jms has said. (with the exception of the omega nonsense). Where do I claim that he has taken responsibility for things that the did not do.

What I am doing is taking very obvious pops at what some fans have claimed that he has done. That quote above, look at the question for it. How is that anti-jms. IT IS anti-narrow-minded-but-well-meaning-jms-fans who can find it difficult to separate the man from the myth and themselves.

I find it difficult NOT to make this sound like jms ‘bashing’ sometimes. Simply because, over the years some well meaning, but keen, fans have given him a lot of credit for things he obviously didn’t do. Which is unnecessary as what he did do was impressive enough without the ‘great maker’ tag. So trying to separate fact from fiction and shoehorn a couple of other names into the mix has the real potential to rub some of these ‘hardcore’ jms fans the wrong way. At the end of the day this is a B5 fan site, not exclusively a jms one.

You may have missed this bit. Go into the links section. There you will find 3 pages under the heading of WHY. Those explain my stance, and the reasons for creating the site – at least a couple of them.

This I not also an attempt at lighting any flames. And if you want to discuss this. Then I’m all for it – we can have a quote shoot out at 20 paces .


AS for incoherent typing – ha ha ha ha – that’s called having a sense of humour, and not taking yourself too seriously.

Edit.
The omega thing
Jms reply on that issue. The one I quoted. It is incredulous. Have you looked at the ships page for the omega. It shows an image of both the leonov and the Omega. To say those similarities are form following function is laughable. There is no reason what’s so every that they should look anything like each other. Truth is there was a lot of nods taking place that Joe did not know about. Equally true is that he didn’t like it when the VFX guys (and others) did things like that and fans asked him about it. Again, Hows that anti-jms. It’s just a fact.

As for the Wikipedia articles tone being bias (now that's comedy given the content of many sites, forums and B5 articles bias towards jms). . . . . .But exactly bias in favour of whom?



Edit (for a second time)
The quoting of jms to explain the jms said type things. I thought long and hard about that. But didn’t include any because I know the vagaries of the net. What I didn’t want was to put a couple (because it isn’t that many really) of links to outside sites that could have their address changed or are no longer available. Anyone interesting in such things can find them themselves.

Also, I’m guessing you may be thinking (due to the word choose) that I’m selectively putting jms quotes at the guys – maybe to give an inaccurate impression of things. I’m not, if you read through the John C interview you’ll notice I mention to him that other quotes exist that say other things.

At that’s another reason for not including them. Depending on the subject, there could be many quotes that could be linked to on any given subject, and B5Scrolls is not going to turn into an off branch of the jms archive providing (possibly hundreds) of links just to cover every jms related quote on any given subject which he may have touched on. Because If I do one or two, pound to a penny, somebody will accuse me of being bias, inaccurate, misleading or not very comprehensive by not including (possibly hundreds) more.

And where would it end (you know what some folks are like). Joe made a point of saying the scene of the walkway on the great machine was NOT a nod to Forbidden Planet, and it was only right at the end, when he saw the final thing that he said he thought people might draw a comparison. Yet Luc Mayrand says Joe used Forbidden Planet as a reference for the design of it from the very start, and he (Luc) describes his design as an obvious nod.

Now, if I was going to fill B5Scrolls with anti-jms stuff, then I would have highlighted what jms had said on the subject as part of my response to Luc’s reply (and a hell of a lot more) but I DIDN’T. Because it isn’t an anti-jms site.

[Jan]

Of course, neither I nor Jonas said anything at all about you attacking JMS or anything he's said, did we? Since the accusation was never made, there's no need to defend against it.

My problem is with how fans read things into his comments and over the course of 15 years have created an incredibly bias and one sided view of how the show was made, and who was responsible. Hey, EVERY one of the contributors are aware of it. Even John Copeland.

Yes, except that the tone of your questions seems to lean more toward a "JMS said blah-blah, tell us differently" tone instead of a more open "Can you expand on your contribution to blah-blah". So your questions end up being just as biased as the view you're trying to counter and the response you get is automatically on that same bias. I may be wrong about that, though, as I've hardly read the entire site. That's the impression I've come away with, though.

And you make two excellent points in the first sentence quoted above: That fans read and sometimes interpret things incorrectly and that the view is one sided. Why is it one-sided? Because either the others never stood up and told their stories or when they did, those are not nearly as accessible nowadays as what JMS has said. *Many* of the crew were spotlighted in the B5 Magazine, for instance which is long out of print and hard to find these so that only one viewpoint is available. That's really not anybody's fault, now, is it?

But just for the heck of it, I just pulled out a random issue of the B5 magazine. Let's see how JMS-centric it is. The issue I pulled is Volume 2, issue 2-August 1998. Paging through it, I see:

- a spotlight on Marshall Teague
- an article by reference editor Fiona Avery on the prep for 'A Call to Arms' which talks about casting, makeup designs, set dressers.
- an interview with William Sanderson
- an article by Jeffrey Willerth spotlighting Matt Plummer (a painter) and Nancy Tarczynski (a decorating carpenter) along with a couple of background actors
- an update on Harlan Ellison and his projects
- items on Yasemin Baytok (In the Beginning), James P McCormack (Gen Lefcourt) and the passing of Gregory McKinney (TKO)
- a joint interview with Bruce Boxleitner and Michael O'Hare
- an article on the B5 CCG
- an article about life after B5 featuring JMS, John Copeland and Doug Netter
- a huge insert section on the making of "In the Beginning" with items on JMS, an overview of the movie, Peter Jurasik, Yasmin Baytok, John Iacovelli, the make-up department, Claudia Christian, Lane Davies, Mira Furlan, Bruce Boxleitner, Tricia O'Neil, Jeffrey Willerth, EFX, James P McCormack, Andreas Katsulas, John Copeland.
- an update on merchandise and books available, including Peter Jurasik's "Diplomatic Act"
- an item on Peter David's "In the Beginning" novelization
- a review of "Lines of Communication"
- an item on Marjorie Monaghan
- a report from the set of making "And all my Dreams, Torn Assunder", "Movements of Fire and Shadow", "The Fall of Centauri Prime"
- an interview with Dana Barron
- reader letters
- Last Word column by JMS titled "Issues of the Soul"
(and by the way, our own Joe Nazzaro is prominent throughout the mag!)

All of which is a long way of pointing that, when possible the many contributors to all aspects of creating the show were very much given a chance in the spotlight. Are there quotes by JMS? Yes, many and varied and most of them culled from his online posts. But the magazine was about the show and it did a fine job of really giving credit to all involved.

So the issue you're combatting is with people who came along late to the party who get the wrong impressions because the main source of information available is from JMS's archived posts. That's no one's fault and there's nothing to be done about it.

Jan

[Triple F]

Of course, neither I nor Jonas said anything at all about you attacking JMS or anything he's said, did we? Since the accusation was never made, there's no need to defend against it.

Your correct no one has used the word attack. Being bias is a pretty strong word though. So is the observation that I’m leading the contributors in a certain direction.

To that second point. There’s 14 separate contributors (15 if you include Syd Mead). With the exception of Syd, they have all seen this site LONG before I published it. They know the content and the context, and not one has expressed either of those concerns about being bias or leading them in a certain direction. (except Ron right at the vey start but that was more becasue at the time there was no one else being contacted - and at the time I was falling into the trap of blaming jms for what the fans were saying - which was wrong of course)

There was a little fine tuning in a couple of the replies by a couple of the contributors. But that was regarding their responses, not the questions. The 14 people who where there, think the site is great.

Yes, except that the tone of your questions seems to lean more toward a "JMS said blah-blah, tell us differently" tone instead of a more open "Can you expand on your contribution to blah-blah". So your questions end up being just as biased as the view you're trying to counter and the response you get is automatically on that same bias. I may be wrong about that, though, as I've hardly read the entire site. That's the impression I've come away with, though.

Your correct again. You haven't looked over the entire site. And please don't take this as a flame. But your a moderator on a site called JMSNews. While that doesn’t invalidate your opinion (which is perfectly fair) you do approach this subject from a different perspective than most people who will ever read B5Scrolls.

Most people who contribute to JMSNews are very likely gong to share your opinions about B5Scrolls. Which is totally understandable, and not unexpected. But then again how many people are regular posters to this forum. 10, 15, 50 . . . . . . 100. How many enjoyed the show 10, 15, 50 . . . . . . .100 million.

The point being that like you, there are many people with equally valid opinions. Mine just so happens to be that there is a very strong bias towards jms displayed on the internet when it comes to ALL things Babylon 5. I can fill this forum with quotes to back that opinion up. On B5Scrolls, I just don’t say things are like that but I touch on why. And none of it is bias against jms, but it does mention misguided fans.

The fact that THEY exist is something that we do at least agree on.

But just for the heck of it, I just pulled out a random issue of the B5 magazine. Let's see how JMS-centric it is. The issue I pulled is Volume 2, issue 2-August 1998. Paging through it, I see:

- a spotlight on Marshall Teague
- an article by reference editor Fiona Avery on the prep for 'A Call to Arms' which talks about casting, makeup designs, set dressers.
- an interview with William Sanderson
- an article by Jeffrey Willerth spotlighting Matt Plummer (a painter) and Nancy Tarczynski (a decorating carpenter) along with a couple of background actors
- an update on Harlan Ellison and his projects
- items on Yasemin Baytok (In the Beginning), James P McCormack (Gen Lefcourt) and the passing of Gregory McKinney (TKO)
- a joint interview with Bruce Boxleitner and Michael O'Hare
- an article on the B5 CCG
- an article about life after B5 featuring JMS, John Copeland and Doug Netter
- a huge insert section on the making of "In the Beginning" with items on JMS, an overview of the movie, Peter Jurasik, Yasmin Baytok, John Iacovelli, the make-up department, Claudia Christian, Lane Davies, Mira Furlan, Bruce Boxleitner, Tricia O'Neil, Jeffrey Willerth, EFX, James P McCormack, Andreas Katsulas, John Copeland.
- an update on merchandise and books available, including Peter Jurasik's "Diplomatic Act"
- an item on Peter David's "In the Beginning" novelization
- a review of "Lines of Communication"
- an item on Marjorie Monaghan
- a report from the set of making "And all my Dreams, Torn Assunder", "Movements of Fire and Shadow", "The Fall of Centauri Prime"
- an interview with Dana Barron
- reader letters
- Last Word column by JMS titled "Issues of the Soul"
(and by the way, our own Joe Nazzaro is prominent throughout the mag!)

All of which is a long way of pointing that, when possible the many contributors to all aspects of creating the show were very much given a chance in the spotlight. Are there quotes by JMS? Yes, many and varied and most of them culled from his online posts. But the magazine was about the show and it did a fine job of really giving credit to all involved.

Lovely. But as you say. It's out of print and very difficult to get hold of. It also doesn't get quoted very often when it comes to subjects being discussed about Babylon 5 (as opposed to jms) on discussion forums, personal blogs, on-line magazine articles, reference sites or fan sites. But if you want to talk about giving contributors the chance to be highlighted. When was the last time, for example Ron Thornton or Paul Bryant, Luc Mayrand or Larry Bowman, mentioned, by name, in interviews that touched on the VFX Babylon 5.

Here’s a quote from the recently produced CGSociety article on the lost tales. Hmmmmmm

Straczynski, never at loss for a story, went on to elaborate. “The initial render farm consisted of several Amiga’s linked together with wires that ran through the apartment of the guy who initially did the FX. The wires also ran through his rabbit cages. Every so often, in the middle of a render, a rabbit would chew through a wire. They would call me to tell me they had a rabbit crash. And now here we are today.”

Do a google with the word “Babylon 5” and the likes of Luc Mayrand or Larry Bowman and see what comes up. You yourself said, who is Chris Wren the other week in another thread. He’s the guy who designed all the ships and a whole pile of other things seen in LOTR. How many fans of Babylon 5 knew that. How many fans knew Paul Bryant designed the Omega or the Narn heavy cruiser. How many fans have even heard of Larry Bowman.

These are not nobodies, these are the sorts of people who provided an abosolute TON of input into the show yet hardly get a mention. Why? Because the hardcore B5 fans tend to be hardcore jms fans and as John Copeland said, they can focus on the Great Maker tag a little too much. Is that jms’s fault – no. Did I say or imply it was – again no. In fact I go out of my way to say it is not.

So the issue you're combatting is with people who came along late to the party who get the wrong impressions because the main source of information available is from JMS's archived posts. That's no one's fault and there's nothing to be done about it.

TOTALLY and 100% CORRECT, well done. Though your wrong, there is something that can be done about it. For my part it’s called B5Scrolls. What you or anyone else does about it, including nothing at all except repeating the jms-centric nonsense, is up to them.

[edit]
For example the archive of jms quotes is attached to this site. How about getting hold of jms and asking him for permission to display the contents of the magazines in another searchable archive. If interested in doing so, he’ll be able to get permission from any other parties that might claim copyright to them – shouldn’t be hard given their age, content and the fact there out of print.

Now that would be a good thing to do.


I imagine most B5 fans would LOVE to be able to read the articles on the various aspects of the show, I know I would.

[Jan]

Your correct again. You haven't looked over the entire site. And please don't take this as a flame. But your a moderator on a site called JMSNews. While that doesnÆt invalidate your opinion (which is perfectly fair) you do approach this subject from a different perspective than most people who will ever read that site.

True. Because my perspective is always going to be that of a JMS fan, then a B5 *story* fan. No offense to those who care for that sort of thing, to me the whole effects/ships thing is texture and has little to do with the story. I'd mentioned that back the first time you invited people to visit your site, I believe.

Lovely. But as you say. It's out of print and very difficult to get hold of. It also doesn't get quoted very often when it comes to subjects being discussed about Babylon 5 (as opposed to jms) on discussion forums.

Obviously. Why? Because it's not indexed and it's scarce and *it's not online* and easy to quote from. Even I, who have them right next to the computer desk here avoids having to use them as source material because most of the time whatever point I want to make isn't worth an hour's research.

But if you want to talk about giving contributors the chance to be highlighted. When was, for example Ron Thornton or Paul Bryant, Luc Mayrand or Larry Bowman, mentioned, by name, in interviews that touched on the VFX Babylon 5.

I'm not much of one for names but I can tell you that Ron Thornton was mentioned, quoted and interviewed many, *many* times back when...well, back when he was contributing. The B5 magazine began publishing after Netter Digital took over the effects and in their third issue there was a four page interview with Shant Jordan, Paterick Perez, Jeff Montray and Geoffrey Mark on the effects.

Do a google with the word ôBabylon 5ö and the likes of Luc Mayrand or Larry Bowman and see what comes up. You yourself said, who is Chris Wren the other week in another thread. HeÆs the guy who designed all the ships and a whole pile of other things seen in LOTR. How many fans of Babylon 5 knew that. How many fans knew Paul Bryant designed the Omega or the Narn heavy cruiser. How many fans have even heard of Larry Bowman.

How much did he contribute to the actual story? That would explain my lack of knowledge and interest. Like I said, I'm a story fan which is why I ended up a JMS fan. Other fans have other interests. For all you and John Copeland seemed to be amused by them, many are interested in costumes and conventions. Many more are interested in the actors. How many are interested in ships and effects? Quite a number, I'm sure. But they're more likely to hang out at sites like B5tech. I'm not saying that the people you note didn't contribute a lot, just that what they contributed wasn't part of my particular interest.

These are not nobodies, these are the sorts of people who provided an abosolute TON of input into the show yet hardly get a mention. Why? Because the hardcore B5 fans tend to be hardcore jms fans and as John Copeland said, they can focus on the Great Maker tag a little too much. Is that jmsÆs fault û no. did I say or imply it was û again no.

No, they concentrate on what interests them and B5 is about story first, last and always. I happen to disagree that "they" 'concentrate on the Great Maker' tag much at all. It's generally a term of affection, not a term very many take very literally. I interact with a *lot* of fans both online and at cons so I feel qualified to have that informed opinion.

TOTALLY and 100% CORRECT, well done.

Wow, did you actually intend for that to sound as condescending as it did?

Though your wrong, there is something that can be done about it. For my part itÆs called B5Scrolls. What you or anyone else does about it, including nothing at all except repeating the jms-centric nonsense, is up to them.

Like it or not, JMS has been the voice of B5 for over 15 1/2 years now. Many people may well be interested in reading what all the folks on your site have to say. Don't pretend to be unbiased, though, when you automatically accept what they say as unthinkingly as you claim others do for JMS.

Jan

[Jan]

[edit]
For example the archive of jms quotes is attached to this site. How about getting hold of jms and asking him for permission to display the contents of the magazines in another searchable archive. If interested in doing so, heÆll be able to get permission from any other parties that might claim copyright to them û shouldnÆt be hard given their age, content and the fact there out of print.

Now that would be a good thing to do.

Excuse me??? You're not seriously suggesting the above, I hope. Let me explain just a couple reasons why it's not possible. A) He's got better things to do. After all, Babylon 5 has been off the air for many years now. B) The number of permissions necessary would be incredible beginning with Warner Bros., continuing through Titan Publishing and then trickling down to the individual writers.

I get the impression that you think that JMSnews.com is an official site of J. Michael Straczynski. It's not. Never has been. What it is is a site that has JMS' permission to archive his posts but it has no official connection with him at all. This site was created and is managed by Doug Olson.

Jan

[babylonlurker]

TripleF , A few comments on the content :

Your correct no one has used the word attack. Being bias is a pretty strong word though. So is the observation that I’m leading the contributors in a certain direction.

I need to read more of your site to comment on that

And none of it is bias against jms, but certain, misguided fans.

Anyone can get it wrong ! You, I, Jan, JMS, Copeland .... you name them. And the fact that an interview takes place so long after the fact , can also lead to , let us say , faded memories. Still they can be absolutely correct, I could not tell, because I was not there.

As I think you are well aware of, jms has often emphasized the fact that creating a TV series like B5 is a collaboration. I mainly support this view from reading the Lurker's Guide

The fact that THEY exist is something that we do at least agree on.

Indeed ! What I respect JMS for is coming up with the great idea (I have always thought of the "Great Maker" as an inside joke for all of us knowing the show well) - and for his excellent *writing*. Something I appreciate even more after starting reading his accounts (and scripts) in the Script Books.

These are not nobodies, these are the sorts of people who provided an abosolute TON of input into the show yet hardly get a mention. Why? Because the hardcore B5 fans tend to be hardcore jms fans and as John Copeland said, they can focus on the Great Maker tag a little too much. Is that jms’s fault – no. Did I say or imply it was – again no. In fact I go out of my way to say it is not.

TOTALLY and 100% CORRECT, well done. Though your wrong, there is something that can be done about it. For my part it’s called B5Scrolls. What you or anyone else does about it, including nothing at all except repeating the jms-centric nonsense, is up to them.

[edit]
For example the archive of jms quotes is attached to this site. How about getting hold of jms and asking him for permission to display the contents of the magazines in another searchable archive. If interested in doing so, he’ll be able to get permission from any other parties that might claim copyright to them – shouldn’t be hard given their age, content and the fact there out of print.

Now that would be a good thing to do.

I can wholeheartedly agree with that. A very nice addition to jms posts. Whether it will be possible or not is another matter

Are you aware of the Babylon Podcast ? they have some interviews with a great variety of contributors to B5, and are not "afraid" of being critical of JMS when they think he got something wrong. If not you may find their views of interest, but I would not be surprised if you know that one.

imagine most B5 fans would LOVE to be able to read the articles on the various aspects of the show, I know I would.

me, too .... have a few of the mags BTW

So many things to enjoy - so little time ...

[Triple F]

I get the impression that you think that JMSnews.com is an official site of J. Michael Straczynski. It's not. Never has been. What it is is a site that has JMS' permission to archive his posts but it has no official connection with him at all. This site was created and is managed by Doug Olson.
Jan

Shame on you Jan, ha ha ha ha. (that’s a particularly cheap shot)

No I don’t think JMSNews is an official anything.

But I’m a fan, a nobody, but I contacted all those contributors and created something new from scratch. I don’t know what Joe’s, WB or Titans position would be in doing something like that. NEITHER DO YOU – though you can no doubt make an educated guess, in fact I think you just did. But then again, I didn’t know the attitude of the contributors. I took an educated guess and thought it be a polite but definite Sod Off . . . . . . until I actually tried doing it that is.

How much did he contribute to the actual story?

I don’t know, I didn’t go into asking much in the way of story contributions (If I did I’d probably be accused of trying to redirect some of Joe’s thunder ). But here’s a thing to remember. How much of the Babylon 5 story revolves - sorry, uses as a conduit for story telling purposes - organic tech and ships. Ron Thornton pushed for that.

When people quote their reasons for loving the show or what impressed them about it, the story (very very rightly) is on the list. But so is things like the more realistic depiction of space travel (that would be Ron again). The fact that it was able to stay on budget (John Copeland’s production model), the Alien Prosthetics (that would be Everett and the gang).

And I REALLY believe they should be acknowledged far more (within the confinds of the Babylon 5 fan community) than they are.

The Beatles (or the spice girls for that matter) and a fair few others are immensely popular pop groups. But when they inevitably split up their solo careers are never as successful. Why. One reason is all those millions of fans of the pop group were fans of the complete package. Only a proportionally small number would then follow one individual member.

But the bottom line to what your saying is your a story fan and therefore a jms fan. Fine - I love the story as well. But there are people who love other aspects as well, and all I'm doing is highlighting a FEW of those involved in creating those aspects of the complete package.

The 'problem' is in order to do that I have to yank jms (in the minds of some hardcore types) away from things they think he did.

[Triple F]

As I think you are well aware of, jms has often emphasized the fact that creating a TV series like B5 is a collaboration. I mainly support this view from reading the Lurker's Guide

Spot on, yep couldn't agree more. The problem is though that not everyone echo's that sentiment - actually most don't if on-line articles are anything to go by. Like the CGsociety thing that says jms's career in ANIMATION started in the 1980's

Indeed ! What I respect JMS for is coming up with the great idea

He did, and I TOTALLY RESPSECT him for it. By the way just in case you think something else so does Ron Thornton and everyone else I spoke to. They are jms fans in that respect.

As I keep saying though. Reading stuff on the internet BY FANS who interpret his posts on the moderated forum, you'd think he made all the decisions, which, of course he did not.

I can wholeheartedly agree with that. A very nice addition to jms posts. Whether it will be possible or not is another matter

I don't know either. I did toy with the idea of asking around . . . . . . .now that I think about it . . . . NO, I'm knackered I'm taking a break.

Are you aware of the Babylon Podcast ? they have some interviews with a great variety of contributors to B5, and are not "afraid" of being critical of JMS when they think he got something wrong. If not you may find their views of interest, but I would not be surprised if you know that one.

Yup, they're in the links section, spoke to Tim a couple of times, and the idea of a uba podcast with Ron, John Copeland and a few others came up. Though I've stepped back from that. It was the best part of a year ago so I imagine it's fell through for one reason or another.

[Jan]

Shame on you Jan, ha ha ha ha. (thatÆs a particularly cheap shot)

No I donÆt think JMSNews is an official anything.

Actually, I really did think you were under that impression. Apologies if I was wrong. You may not have been reading here much in between posting about your site but I think most people would tell you that I try to avoid taking cheap shots.

As for the other, if you're interested in what the contributors to the Titan Mag might think of your idea, check with Joe Nazzaro. He hangs out here sometimes and often quotes his interviews with various B5 folks and doesn't mind disagreeing with JMS.

Jan

[Jan]

Spot on, yep couldn't agree more. The problem is though that not everyone echo's that sentiment - actually most don't if on-line articles are anything to go by. Like the CGsociety thing that says jms's career in ANIMATION started in the 1980's

It did. The trouble is you're thinking of creating it and what he did is write for it. The Real Ghostbusters. Jake and the Wheeled Warriors. He-Man. She-Ra. Those are animated shows.

Jan

[Triple F]

But he was the writer, he wasn't involved in creating the animations. . . . . or was he??? But it doesn't stop people writing/implying things like that seen in the CGsociety article.

Something that highlights what I'm getting at is the article of Joe on wikipedia. (Four awards on there have nothing to do with him (three Technical Emmys; and the second from the Space Foundation - the first was said to be a mistake but I'm not going there) yet they are attributed to him.

When, a few weeks back, I quoted it on here and said does anyone spot the errors. YOU SAID yeah, it's missing a few awards.

LOL.

Sorry, but that demonstrates how deeply ingrained many misconceptions are. To be honest I REALLY did think you would have known the mistakes.

[Jan]

But he was the writer. Not in creating the animations.

His career still started in animation. The article didn't say his career started as an animator, did it? There's a difference.

Sorry, but that demonstrates how deeply ingrained many misconceptions are. To be honest I REALLY did thing you would have known the mistakes.

Ask me about stories or the dialogue, I'm likely to know. Ask me about episode titles, I'm likely to know. There are many things I'm likely to know and *at least* as many I won't. Thanks for the implied compliment, though. And, yes, there *were* some awards missing. But you've hit the nail on the head - the concept for many that JMS = Babylon 5. Because, while many many varied and talented people contributed much, it's still based on the vision of one person. FWIW, when people do heap praise on him, he really doesn't take it as praise for himself, he takes it as praise for, and on behalf of, the work.

BTW...getting upset about Wiki being inaccurate is kinda like being upset that water's wet.

Jan

[Jonas]

Couple of things - don't have time to post more right now.

1. As Jan said, his career began in animation means that he started by writing for animated shows. If we say his career began in feature films, that doesn't have to mean he was a film director (or director of photography)... it simply means that was the field he began in. And reading the sentence to imply something else is, yes, biased. It's looking for something to complain about.

2. Joe was writer, creator and executive producer of Babylon 5. He was showrunner. Part of the job of a showrunner is using the talents of the people who work for him and harnessing them towards a single vision - much like what a director does with actors. So while we definitely should appreciate the work done by so many people - and it's safe to say that 99% of all people on these boards do so - it is JMS, as creator and showrunner, who is ultimately responsible for how the show came together. Because the Centauri ships wouldn't be interesting if Londo wasn't interesting, and Londo wouldn't be interesting if he didn't have the words that he does. And even if everything else about the show was perfect, it still wouldn't be interesting if the story and the characters were boring.