Probably, the last update to B5Scrolls.

[Triple F]

IÆll take that itÆs a yes then (thanks for the replies). Good. It would take a while and thereÆs a few problems surrounding the idea (due to the number and variety of screens û including ships, etc.) but it may be worth trying.

Now. Here comes the $64,000 question (connected to one of those problems).

To do this half decently IÆll need to include a lot of images to the various interviews (from various sources û not just B5). On this forum contains the largest collection of knowledgeable fans IÆm aware of. You guys have access to stuff I donÆt even know exists.

Anyone up for a bit of scanning. Yes I said scanning. ; )

It would also have the advantage (if you want to call it that) that old or rarely seen (on-line) stuff could raise new questions that I could ask the folks who were involved (as well as further images).

Just a thought, but it would make things easier to try this (and ultimately improve the content). If anyone is happy to help, give me a PM.

Cheers

[WorkerCaste]

Very nice, and no, I don't think it's too much.

[glindros]

I like it alot. Your definitely headed in the right direction. Your site is so packed full of knowledge, anything that makes it more accessible is great!

[Jan]

MUCH better! And I like the more scroll-like look.

Jan

[Zoltan]

So. Those that feel the site is too dark, is this more readable. Does anyone find it too bright or garish.

No, it's much better! Definitely the way to go!

(Though I used a black background on my site, it was mainly because the images from the animations were all from space, so in any other colour the details would be lost to the viewer. Also, unlike you, I had little text.)

[babylonlurker]

I've a question.

The other day I was ‘doodling’ with the current content of the site, with one eye on trying to address the main criticism some folks levelled at it. i.e. It’s too dark to comfortably view on their individual monitor set ups.

One of the things I was playing around with was a format

Is this any easier to read.

http://themadgoner.com/B5/B5Scrolls/B5ScrollsOld.htm

Personally I think it’s a bit too gimmicky.

It’s rough, very rough.

So. Those that feel the site is too dark, is this more readable. Does anyone find it too bright or garish.

Cheers.

Certainly more readable !

I could easily have gone with the old layout, just with some more contrast for the text. Dark grey text on a black background just does not work for me. Something like dark blue and light (no pastels ) yellow-ish has done fine for me.

Too bright ? not really, though, granted, a darker background would fit the B5 theme better.

Thanks for making the experiment, Triple-F.

[Triple F]

ok TripleF,
..........
TripleF, I look forward to your continued posts, and hope we can start anew as fellow posters.

Of course. My bad, in all seriousness. I really do find a purely written medium a hellishly clumsy and awkward way to communicate with people.

I've a question.

The other day I was ædoodlingÆ with the current content of the site, with one eye on trying to address the main criticism some folks levelled at it. i.e. ItÆs too dark to comfortably view on their individual monitor set ups.

One of the things I was playing around with was a format I discarded shortly after I started getting in contact with the contributors. ThereÆs a reason why the site is called B5 Scrolls.

Is this any easier to read. ItÆs just a test page (well six actually). ThereÆs not a lot of code behind the screen so the only buttons that work are the numbered options 1 to 6 at the top.

http://themadgoner.com/B5/B5Scrolls/B5ScrollsOld.htm

Personally I think itÆs a bit too gimmicky. Fine for a fan site full of nonsense but seemed increasingly inappropriate with each new contributor - which is why it was originally dropped. There was also a pile of other aesthetic and practical reasons for getting rid of it as the word count (and variety of images) continued to grow. That and IÆm not (maybe that should read was) overly experienced with getting the best from paint packages.

ItÆs rough, very rough. The pages from the Steve Burg interview are not in sequence, just picked at random. The screen compositions, images and colours, etc. are all over the place because itÆs just a test to see if the idea could work. No point spending time on details if the general idea doesnÆt work.

So. Those that feel the site is too dark, is this more readable. Does anyone find it too bright or garish.

Cheers.

[Ranger 6 and 7/8]

ok TripleF,
Let me preface this by first letting you know it was not my intent to raise your ire. Had I know of your Irish temper, I would have taken a different route...Perhaps offering you a stout one first. I was simply trying to point out that the tone I was seeing in your posts was looking, to me anyways, like you were focusing squarely on the people on this board.
That being said, I do spend much time delving into the histories of any show I take an interest in. Be it B5, Star Wars, Lost, Star Trek (yes I was one of the few that actually liked the premise of Enterprise). I have read the tech specs of the various shows, and as many others have commented on, your site offers some good examples for the modeling.
I think your subsequent posts have clarified what your peeve was. Feel free to correct me if I misinterepreted. We were coming from the point of viewing the writer as central to the story, whereas you were trying to point out the importance of the artist and other parties that bring the writer's imagination to life.
As a side point, i totally empathise with your internet connectivity issue. I am working with some fan podcasts where that is becoming a problem. For those of you not aware, not all countries base internet connectivity on a monthly unlimited amount. Some base your monthly access on the bandwidth, once you hit the max, you lose connection until the next month. As you can imagine, uploading and downloading audio files chews bandwith up in a heartbeat.

TripleF, I look forward to your continued posts, and hope we can start anew as fellow posters.

[Triple F]

(I am so going to get it in the neck for popping back online – if I get caught : )

The models were a throwback to an early version of the site – there was tongue in cheek descriptions next to them originally. I made about half of them, the rest are from the (far more) talented model builders who make their work available for others to nick – sorry use ( I have to put their names on each screen rather than on the separate credits section). I was experimenting with flash basically.

If you liked them, you should check out the work of someone like Amras Arfeiniel. He’s done a lot more than even I did.

http://b5.hc-gamer.de/index.php?

http://amras-arfeiniel.deviantart.com/

http://www.foundation3d.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1834

I met him online after doing mine, though he provided me with the late addition of the IA-1 (from the lost tales) that’s used on the site. His work is really beautiful and the mod for the X3 game is looking truly stunning.

[James TX]

Hi,

It’s been around a year since the last update to B5scrolls, so this one is a bit overdue. Though like the title says, this is likely to be the last one – even though there’s still things to add to it.

So, I'm not sure who you pissed off along the way to warrant the responses in this thread, but I'd like to say that your 3-d models of the vessels on your site are pretty amazing. Thanks for putting in that effort.

[WorkerCaste]

And I jumped down your throat a little as part of a robust defence of my viewpoint. (I’m Scottish, just be glad we’re not face to face as I’d waved my kilt at you – if I owned one : )

Be warned, being of Scottish descent I DO own a kilt -- and a claymore, and a dirk, and a skean dhu or two...

[Triple F]

Are you aware of just to what kind of degree you're nitpicking? "Just" to find out who designed a specific ship?

ThereÆs that whole taking things literally bit. Maybe I was using the single ship as a metaphor for a slightly bigger issue. But no worries, interpretation of replies (or poorly written comments û by me this time) is one of the things I truly dislike about a written medium like the internet. Way too much room for getting the wrong end of multiple sticks. I do it myself often û and find it frustrating as hell when I do -and smilies donÆt come close to filling the gaps.

ItÆs also a little strange that on the internet writing more than 20 words is often seen as a negative thing by some folks (I noticed you apologising about the word count of an ealier post). All the other methods we rely on for communicating donÆt exist, and the (highly subjective and inefficient) one that is left to us is discouraged from being used properly. How did that happen!!?

Wow, we're going right to "liar". It was never my intent to imply that you were a liar, and I apologize for writing it in a way that could be interpreted as such. I was describing my experience and my impressions.

Sorry, my bad. Poor choice of words on my part.

While there may be a few messages in the archive that mention Ron without his last name, I will still concede the point. I overestimated.

And I jumped down your throat a little as part of a robust defence of my viewpoint. (IÆm Scottish, just be glad weÆre not face to face as IÆd waved my kilt at you û if I owned one : )

Oh. My.... I *cannot* believe how blind I've been!

As I mentioned above, I do it allllllllll the time.

And thanks for noticing (if that sounded sarcastic it wasnÆt meant to be û sorry . . . . Arghhh I do hate the written medium)

ThereÆs a ton and a half of reasons as to why it happened, and you touched on a couple of big ones. I could have definitely worded things on the site differently, I could have spent more time directly pointing just how clever, imaginative and committed jms was in order to get the project off the ground and keep it going. But I had decided right from the start that if I was going to create an actual site, while trying to become familiar with the vagaries of coding a web page, I wanted to add something to what was already available online û and preferably û largely factual, rather than just opinions dressed up as facts.


Truth is, the thing was a ball hair away from being a major jms related site (though still focusing on the CGI ,etc.), I do admire him (as do all the contributors by the way û they just donÆt always see eye to eye). But a few years back, after going over a few sites for ideas, I read someone point out that some fans were writing FI and Thornton out the B5 history, which did get me a little curious as my first thought was who the hell is Ron Thornton (I didnÆt pay attention to the shows credits). If you wonder why folks may think that, look at the largest B5 fan site still in existence û B5Tech. Only Tim (Earls) is ever named or acknowledged as being involved with the show - and Brandon (the sites author) did have access to a lot of printed supplimentary material for the show. I canÆt be sure of course, but I suspect that plays a small part at least.

You know, better than me certainly, that thereÆs some very wacky ideas kicking around relating to the show and jms û sometimes loosely based on half truths. Some negative, some positive. Take that Repub thingy guy who pops up over at B5TV occasionally. Not a bad guy, but he runs an interactive site and will be repeating stuff like that nonsense he spouted about Paramount execs, and the like, while retelling stories (maybe that should read parables) of his Trek loving ôfriendsö.

Newbies, by definition, tend to listen to those who appear knowledgeable and have interesting tails to tell. I appreciate he has a certain viewpoint, but keeping to the facts (which are interesting on there own) isnÆt enough for someone like himself who wants to elevate his site above the din that is the internet. ItÆs a bit like the example used in the rant, (yon guy claiming the designers showed little imagination and copied the work of others), a fair and debatable viewpoint on itÆs own. ThereÆs no need to make stuff up or present pet theories as facts. If itÆs an opinion, why is it so difficult for some folks to just say that.

Anyway, as IÆm still on dial-up spending time on here is a luxury I canÆt afford, I really have to stay offline for a while. That site has cost me a f*cking fortune over the years (the wife is not a happy bunny). ; )
But it was fun to do.


[edit]

The only reason people are talking about JMS more than about, say, Eric Chauvin is that JMS created the story and characters of B5, and that's what people are here to discuss. Because Starfuries and Omega destroyers would be utterly, utterly meaningless without a story.

To true, couldnÆt agree more. Though an argument could be made about how the appearance and animation of the Omega or Starfury effected how the story was received. ItÆs impact on the viewer. How it effected (even minor plot developments), and even the success of the show, so without them maybe there would have been no opportnity to tell the story. Then there's the creative ideas which originated with them. Organic ships, the non anthropomorphic Shadows, realistic depiction of physics in space.

But IÆve added this edit to point something else out. I do kind of realise that on this board ôJMS created the story and characters of B5, and that's what people are here to discuss.ö. The ôrantö is referring to aspects of the content of the internet as a whole, itÆs why the examples used jump around. Your reacting (and donÆt take this negatively) as if IÆm somehow taking a pop at JMSNews specifically. IÆm not, and besides, jms and the story is not the only topics discussed on here. ; )

[Jan]

(The Moderator is going to ignore some unusual lapses in courtesy as long as it doesn't continue.)

Oh. My.... I *cannot* believe how blind I've been!

The whole essence of the rant is the ‘condition’ of the information currently available on-line.

Emphasis mine.

Online. Internet. A phenomenon that was only just gaining widespread popularity around '95 and '96. A phenomenon that requires people who are interested (like TripleF) to *put the content up*. Nowadays pretty much everything ends up online but that's a *very* recent phenomenon.

I only got my first computer in the fall of '96, which, according to the Lurker's Gude was very near the end of the third season. For at least the first year or two, my interaction with fans/B5/JMS was on the AOL B5 section which went 'poof' when AOL decided that it should. If it hadn't been for Troy Rutter and DougO and others, all of those messages from the forums would have been lost. Most were anyway. Which is one reason why the Asked & Answered books were done. Because the Internet can be exceedingly fleeting.

So the answer to why there's so little about the B5 creative teams online is multiple, TripleF:

A: It was never there. By the time the Internet (web, whatever) became widespread, folks who might have been interested in putting up info about the creatives had moved on. Back then, most of the email addresses of Internet content providers came from universities, IME.

or

B: Many of the sites that once existed no longer do. Thankfully there are sites that now are working to archive sites that the original owners no longer want to maintain but I'm sure that many were lost along the way.

and

C: The creatives themselves didn't arrange for an online presence.

We've been answering you as though you were claiming that the creatives weren't properly acknowleged but you've been asking (no, unhappy about, not really asking) about why you couldn't find it online and the simple reasons are the timing and people's interest.

That you seemed to pinpoint JMS as somehow responsible, I think is part of the reason for the misunderstanding. He's not now and never was involved in the archiving of his posts and he never could have foreseen in the beginning that they'd be archived as they have been. Despite many offers, he's never had a web page. I'm not sure, but I believe that at the time he made the oft-quoted 'many paged document' post, that document only consisted of various mailing lists from people interested enough to gather them up and share them.

So I for one apologize for not having read your posts properly.

Jan

[WorkerCaste]

Are you saying you found dozen of messages where jms directed fans to Ron Thornton? No he didn’t. Please prove me a liar by linking to dozens of examples of jms deferring to Thornton.

Wow, we're going right to "liar". It was never my intent to imply that you were a liar, and I apologize for writing it in a way that could be interpreted as such. I was describing my experience and my impressions.

For the record, do a search of the archives on Thornton and you will get 35 hits. If you go through each post and eliminate ones that simply mention Ron's name, you are left with the following messages that credit, praise or diretc people to ask a certain question of Ron:

http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-7512

http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-7512

http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-7400

http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-9672

http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-7097

http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-1827

http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-7733

http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-7484

http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-10183

http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-7732

http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-13561

http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-7565

http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-7621

http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-7697

http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-7558

http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-7606

http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-7548

http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-7745

http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-7479

http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-7549

http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-7675

I'm not going to take the time to create a link for each of these, but you can do the search or copy and paste from the list above. I will also take the hit on accuracy -- while the search returned dozens of messages, the number in the list above is actually only 21, so not actually dozens. While there may be a few messages in the archive that mention Ron without his last name, I will still concede the point. I overestimated.

[Jonas]

just to find out who designed the Omega destroyer

Are you aware of just to what kind of degree you're nitpicking? "Just" to find out who designed a specific ship? Is there information out there about other shows as to who designed every single costume, every prop, every whatever? From my previous post (which you ignored) you can see that there is a great deal of information still online about who designed what and who contributed in which area. Sure, not every single contribution can be found, but I also don't know who created the fonts for my favourite books - I just know about the authors, and sometimes about the editors. Now, the creative contributions of some of these folks may have been bigger than those of a font designer, but they were still in the context of a show written by JMS and produced by him and John Copeland. And both John Copeland and all the heads of the various departments are still well-known and have their contributions documented online, as I showed in my previous post. (And even many of the "smaller" contributions, like the design of individual ships, can be found online.)

So what's the point? It's fine to gather the information about who did what on a smaller scale - even admirable. But it's not fine to imply that there is some kind of JMS-centered cult or that everything everyone else did is being ignored, or that the information is not to be found. Most of the information can be found easily by a single search, with the exception of some truly small-scale stuff. Hardly what you claim is going on in your aggressive and unpleasant rants.

The only reason people are talking about JMS more than about, say, Eric Chauvin is that JMS created the story and characters of B5, and that's what people are here to discuss. Because Starfuries and Omega destroyers would be utterly, utterly meaningless without a story.