B5Scrolls is now running wild on the internet

[Triple F]

You’re a lovely man. (I’m assuming you’re a male - Christ, I REALLY hate the net for that though, you never know who your talking to)

Here’s something that I just found - I never asked him to do that. Admittedly it’s 'only' written by Alec (one of the contributors ) and I’m going to kill him for using my name. But it does mirror how the contributors view the thing (as best as I know) as well what the site is meant to be about.

http://www.alecm.com/

[Joe Nazzaro]

Sorry to come to this party so late, but I couldn't resist throwing in my two cent's worth. This will be a short-ish post as I've got a big article to finish tonight, so I shouldn't be off playing.

Anyway, I agree with previous posters, that things seem to be getting a bit heated here, when much of it is actually quite unnecessary. I think it's laudable for anybody to try and create their own fan site, and I don't envy the amount of work involved. That being said, having published a couple of hundred B5-related interviews in my day, I can certainly confirm that the way a question is asked will almost certainly elicit a specific kind of answer; in fact, my wife and I were just talking about that very subject a few days ago, when she pointed it out in a recent phone interview I did. There are more than a few B5 people with axes to grind, and if you give them the opportunity to grind them, they'll be more than happy to do so. In some cases, I think that's entirely valid. Other than JMS, there is probably nobody that knows more about B5 than John Copeland- one of the small handful of people that was there from the beginning- so his words carry a certain amount of weight. And now that he's no longer actively involved in producing the series, I suspect he's able to be a bit more frank about things than he was at the time.

Just to clarify a few points, Ron Thornton was actually interviewed for the B5 Magazine, which I know because I interviewed him. It was actually in the short-lived US version, which only lasted for an issue, before the license was subsequently picked up by Titan. And while the Titan version did feature a certain diversity of opinion (and sometimes criticism), everything that was printed in each issue had to be approved. I'm not saying that JMS approved every word himself, but I know the material was certainly vetted by Fiona Avery, who by that time was on the B5 payroll. In fact, one of the reasons that Titan ultimately let their license lapse is because there was in later days a request that Avery recieve a fee for doing that very work, although she was presumably being paid to do so as part of her job at the time. Since sales figures at that point were already going down (as they do with many licensed magazines once the show is off the air), it was easier to let the magazine go than keep it running on a marginal, or at least less profitable basis. And lest anybody suggest I don't know what I'm talking about, I was actually writing for the magazine at the time and had lunch with my then-editor in London to talk about the reasons why it was coming to an end.

But to get back to my original point, while I don't think there's anything wrong with printing someone's interview responses exactly as they were given, sometimes it's the asking of a question that is most important. And just because one CAN awaken a sleeping lion by poking him with a stick, that doesn't mean one SHOULD do so. Especially if that lion is the creator of a popular, award-winning SF series.

And finally, I totally agree that there are certain people involved with B5 who don't get nearly as much credit as they should. If somebody makes an effort to correct that imbalance, it's no bad thing.

[Jonas]

Disclaimer: This is not an attempt to stir up a bigger fight. Please forgive a frustrated pedant.

But IÆm not changing the content, layout or ôverbageö (by the way what does that mean exactly û did you mean verbiage) because a handful of jms hardcore fans feel IÆm being aggressive or bias.

See, this kind of snide side-comment is exactly part of the problem, and why people are accusing you of trolling. All it serves to do is make you look ridiculous - making fun of someone missing an "i" when in the same post...

YouÆve expressed your views, your entitled to them, but IÆm not changing the content of B5Scrolls so it comes a little closer to meet with YOUR views of what should be said or how I should present it (as you seem to perceive it) in a less anti-jms manor. (read the first question I set to John Copeland, and then look at what your saying.)

(my italics!)

...you seem unable to differentiate between the mansion or landed estate of a lord (manor) and the way something is done (manner). And I can give you a further list of comments in such a tone. This has nothing to do with your arguments, but says a lot about your perspective.

Again, the problem people on these boards are having is not that you're highlighting the work of other people. The Babylon 5 Podcast does the same thing, to a much larger degree, and no-one has complained about that, have they? You keep accusing people of not being able to stand a non-JMS view or aspect of B5... but then why do people listen to all the interviews?

The problem is that your whole idea of a jms-centric cultdom... is more or less fantasy. Joe was the writer and creator of the STORY of Babylon 5, and it's the story that people watch it for. That's what means the most to them. It's the same thing with Josh Whedon. (Who does have actual worshippers.) Or Ronald D. Moore. And yet I don't see anyone running around complaining that Josh Whedon gets too much credit for Buffy the Vampire Slayer. And everyone does see Ronald D. Moore as the mind behind BSG. Funny, that.

It is part of the showrunner's work to incorporate the ideas of other people. That's why he or she hires them. It's also part of his work to reject ideas when they're not appropriate to his or her vision of the story. There's nothing strange or unique to B5 about this. You keep behaving as if it's somehow strange that someone else designed the ships. It's not. That's why you hire artists. And it's not weird that the producer will decide upon the schedule. Or make other contributions. That does not mean that it ceases to be the creator's work of art. Because (s)he makes the choices. And that's normal.

[Jan]

Let's turn the conversation back to the actual *content* of the site, shall we? There are a few things that I think could make the site more likely for me to return to (besides the aforementioned contrast issues).

- For whatever reasons, I'm not necessarily familiar with all of the names so it would be helpful to have their (former) jobs listed with their names. For instance, I'm more interested in production personnel so those would be the folks I'd click on first.

- If you could talk John Copeland into discussing more about the 'breast bowl' and 'butt bowl' contests, that'd be fun. And Lyta's Lingerie. And any other such mood-lighteners that happened during the course of the show. For that matter, any reminisces he might want to share about the day-to-day production would be fun.

- My understanding is that JMS did encourage staff members to participate in the online experiment but that often those who did were driven off by the the amount of anonymous cruelty the Internet allows. One of the few folks who used to come and play with us online was Matt Plummer, a painter. His posts were always a lot of fun and often insightful. Don't know if he could be found but I think it might be fun to showcase some of the less 'showy' jobs that contributed, too. For instance, my script collection came from a member of the Art Dept. and I learned a lot about the incredible level of detail and thought that went into the show just from the notes he wrote on his scripts.

- Finally, I'm looking forward to seeing the concept art section filled. I've been fortunate enough to pick up some of Tim Earls' pieces and they're great.

Jan

[Triple F]

I have absolutely no idea what your referring to.

'Breast bowl' and 'butt bowl' contests, LYTA'S LINGERIE!!!!!

(seriously IÆve never heard of any of that) But I suppose thatÆs yet another problem with coming in so late. I had a funny feeling I was missing things (remember I did ask at one point on here, if anyone wanted to ask any questions). I donÆt mean that to sound negative in any way, itÆs just that I suspected there was ægoodÆ stories/topics to follow up on, that I didnÆt know about.

With the contributors, IÆve basically, said thanks gentlemen for the help, thatÆs me done. So unless anyone comes back to me with bits of artwork (which is possible) ThereÆs going to be nothing new added to the site (from them that is). I donÆt mind chasing people for stuff for a little while, but I was always very conscious of the fact that they all have far more important things to do than rack their brains answering dumb questions from me.

Saying that though, (at some point in the future) I might try contacting different people, but even then IÆm not sure. Right now IÆm off doing other stuff as well.

[Jan]

'Breast bowl' and 'butt bowl' contests, LYTA'S LINGERIE!!!!!

No, these are pretty new stories (to me, anyway) which came out in the script books. Briefly, in the first two, notebooks containing photos of the aforementioned body parts were circulated and the cast and crew tried to guess which belonged to whom.

Lyta's Lingerie was a joke that Pat Tallman played on (at least) JMS and John Copeland where she convinced them that she was starting a company whereby fans could buy the underwear she wore during filming.

I'd've enjoyed seeing their faces...

Jan

[JoeD80]

- My understanding is that JMS did encourage staff members to participate in the online experiment but that often those who did were driven off by the the amount of anonymous cruelty the Internet allows. One of the few folks who used to come and play with us online was Matt Plummer, a painter.

George Johnsen also answered some questions online.

[grumbler]

I don't think the argument is about the show being credited for the accomplishment of any single contributor, be it Ron Thornton or anyone else. It's about the showrunner as an individual being solely credited for accomplishments others had significant, if not the main input. The comparison relevant would not be RotK being credited for 11 Oscars, but Peter Jackson being credited for all of them, including those awarded to technical and creative teams.

It happens elsewhere, and I don't like that tendency either. And I've seen people complaining when JMS is at the receiving end of such reports. For a very current example, when Changeling is universally labelled a "Clint Eastwood film", or an "Angelina Jolie film", and JMS isn't even mentioned as a writer.

Strictly speaking, the two Hugo's were awarded to B5 for "Best Dramatic Presentation". It's an award for a team's work, and yet often it is listed as if the Hugo's were awarded to JMS as the sole recipient. It's even more obvious with technical Emmies. Same thing with the comic book works - in some instances, JMS is referred to as the sole awardee, when actually the award was given to the comic book, including the artist and supporting staff. It's as annoying for fans of the people neglected as the disregard of JMS in the Changeling case is for JMS' fans. In either case, I don't see how it diminishes the accomplishments of a director or showrunner or writer or creator if credit is given to the team when it is due.

Agree 100%. The answer to JMS being given excessive credit by fans is the truth, though, not a counter-crusade that sets up strawman arguments about what JMS "claims" but did not claim.

Balance is the key.

[grumbler]

Garibaldis Hair, JoeD80, and Grumbler.
Your making comments based on your perception of things and, dictionary definitions on what a show runner is, and 15 years of jms quotes. IÆll let you into a little secret û each of you are assuming way too much with regards to what happened on Babylon 5 on a day to day basis. Read the bloody site.

You have opinions. So do I. I posted links to the site to around a half dozen forums over the week-end, and those that have so far responded have opinions as well...

You do not have a monopoly on either the truth or understanding.

I did read your site, and posted quotes from your site. How could I have done the latter without doing the former?

I simply pointed out places where I think you went much further than the evidence you presented supported. The weakness in you site, IMO, is in your own prose. The stuff you quote from others is great. The quotes you made up destroy the credibility of your site, as I see it. Look at the "why" pages, and you will realize that all of the quotes on the second and third pages are entirely made up by you to try to give evidence to your argument. Google them to make sure. This is strawmanism at its purest, and that is not honest.

If you don't like the message, don't smite the messenger.

You asked for an opinion, and I gave it. Ignore it, by all means, if you wish.

Just don't pretend that the message is bad because the messenger is "assuming way too much with regards to what happened on Babylon 5 on a day to day basis" because that just makes you look like an ill-tempered boob. I do not have a dog in this fight. I think JMS tells us what he thinks and remembers and I don't think either his opinions or his memory are infallible.

It would be nice to see your site (and its actual contributors) get the credit it and they deserve for exposing the work of all the design people, but frankly your attitude makes that unlikely. It is a pity, because people trusted you with their words and opinions, and they deserve better than your petulance.

Rethink your insistence that you must retain all of the made-up quotes from "JMS fanatics" on your "why" pages 2 and 3, and I can live with all of the artificial "discrepancies" in the ship pages.

[Garibaldi's Hair]

Originally Posted by Triple F
Garibaldis Hair, JoeD80, and Grumbler.
Your making comments based on your perception of things and, dictionary definitions on what a show runner is, and 15 years of jms quotes. IÆll let you into a little secret û each of you are assuming way too much with regards to what happened on Babylon 5 on a day to day basis. Read the bloody site.

You know what Triple F, I would do exactly that, if I could. But, in spite of my interest in reading the site content, I cannot for the reasons I outlined at the start of this thread. I made clear my issues with reading the site, you don't appear minded to do anything about that.

Fine, that's your choice.

I don't have any problem with what you are doing here, and certainly don't have any issue with drawing attention to those people who previously haven't had it. However, you don't help your cause when you state

I DID have an agenda û I thought it was obvious. Knocking some of the sillier fan generated jms-centric stuff. ThatÆs it.

That, for me, is a shame. I think the exercise you have done in pulling together all of these alternate views and enriching the knowledge of the fans by allowing us to see some more of what went on behind the scenes is a great agenda in itself, and far more likely to endear you to the "JMS-centric" fans than telling them that your sole agenda was to knock them.

If you can/will address the visual shortcomings of the site, I would love to spend some time poring over that information and those views. If not, I guess that's my loss in the whole scheme of things.

[Triple F]

ThereÆs obviously little or no point in replying, again, to the specific various accusations, complaints and observations. Other than to say, that some members on this board are the ONLY people to have made those various accusation, complaints and observations.

And that speaks volumes.

[Jan]

And that speaks volumes.

Not unless you provide data such as how many responses you've gotten from other sites. Without that, it's meaningless.

Jan

[Triple F]

It doesnÆt relate to the number of responses or the number of people making them, but the content of the responses. Do you really want me to link you into other forums where other people have seen the site.

To me that does seem a bit of a lame thing to do, and taking a guess IÆd imagine the replies on here (if any ) will be something about them not being jms fans or something equally sensible.

The other thing about linking, as you bring up meaningless.

IÆm hearing a lot hear about my attitudes. Not a lot in the way of actual evidence to back that up though. I do say IÆm making fun at silly jms fans, especially those that canÆt separate the myths or themselves from the man himself. Yet I still see a lot of me being negative towards jms himself accusations.

Care to quote!!??

[Jan]

Okay, once again...enough. If the conversation can't turn constructive, I'm simply going to have to close the thread. I'm hardly without fault, either but I can refuse to take the bait that's being offered. And make no mistake, Triple F, what you're doing in the last few posts is nothing more than baiting.

So everybody, neutral corners or get out of the ring completely.

Jan
Moderator

[Triple F]

It’s a simple conversation. For my part, I’m genuinely not taking offence or getting hot and bothered. Theres’ certain techniques everyone uses in a debate, where it get’s silly is when folks fain ignorance or innocence when using them.

Anyway, as you asked, here they are.

As I said earlier, I’ve only ‘contacted a handful of forums to let folks know the final version is made (seeing how they liked the beta). I imagine, I’ll sit down one day soonish and really blanket the place – since the overwhelming responses appear to indicate the readers are getting a kick out of it.


These are the forums that already knew about the beta from earlier on in the year

http://forum.spacebattles.com/showthread.php?t=135067

http://forums.firstones.com/showthread.php?t=11400

http://www.b5tech.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4417

http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85779

http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/forum.php

This is a new site and as you see, the first poster points out his surprise that anyone will be offended by me ‘advertising’ it there. I can look up the original posts to the other sites – if you deem that it’s really necessary - that all say the same thing when first airing the beta version at the start of the year.

http://www.starshipmodeler.net/talk/viewtopic.php?t=64058&sid=d7f3c4c1ac81c632dc20bd8ee96593e5

edit
oops, forgot one.

http://forum.gateworld.net/showthread.php?t=56143

As I said, it’s not the number of the posts but the content, as only a few folks ever post on a subject (look at the number of views on this thread for example). And the responses to the site is uniformly the same sort of thing. Except for one forum, here. I genuinely do think that a couple or three folks are being a bit too sensitive and seeing things that are really not there. I'm not having a go at jms, but I am highlighting what is prevalent – FAN generated silliness, and even then, that’s only to explain why the content on B5Scrolls is different.