Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Interesting JMS Facebook Posts & Tweets

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • LateArrival
    replied
    Originally posted by Looney View Post
    I just don't understand why people even think they need to be redone. I mean maybe touched up a bit, but other than that I wouldn't change a thing. They are such a wonderful part of the series. People just need to learn to accept them as part of the story. I hear people throw the term "dated" around. What the hell does that mean in the big picture?!?!?!?! KING KONG (1933) is dated so does that mean we need it to be redone with the effects from KING KONG (2005)?! It makes no sense. The effects are such a wonderful part of the show. Why mess with it?! While their at it why don't they take the animated action from WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT? (1988) and replace it all with more up to date realistic looking modern animation? Ridiculous. If Babylon 5 needs to look different with different effects then that is what we'll get with a reboot.

    Could see possibly cleaning/upscaling, but if there is excess Time and Money to go around, better to devote those resources towards a New B5. The updated graphics for Trek TOS are certainly pretty, but that could just as easily be random stock footage (BSG/Space Mutiny) since the space effects for Trek weren't as linked to the show as they were with B5. And if the effects were replaced, would it be the same show? Part of why B5 is B5 is how they were able to accomplish what they did with what they had at the time.

    Leave a comment:


  • Looney
    replied
    I just don't understand why people even think they need to be redone. I mean maybe touched up a bit, but other than that I wouldn't change a thing. They are such a wonderful part of the series. People just need to learn to accept them as part of the story. I hear people throw the term "dated" around. What the hell does that mean in the big picture?!?!?!?! KING KONG (1933) is dated so does that mean we need it to be redone with the effects from KING KONG (2005)?! It makes no sense. The effects are such a wonderful part of the show. Why mess with it?! While their at it why don't they take the animated action from WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT? (1988) and replace it all with more up to date realistic looking modern animation? Ridiculous. If Babylon 5 needs to look different with different effects then that is what we'll get with a reboot.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jan
    replied
    A new post from JMS:

    Click image for larger version

Name:	B5 EFX.jpg
Views:	43
Size:	65.1 KB
ID:	161853

    Leave a comment:


  • Satai with Punsch
    replied
    This is kind of raising my expectations.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jan
    replied
    And today's post. If there's anything I can do, I sure will.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Will ask.jpg
Views:	76
Size:	31.7 KB
ID:	161548

    Leave a comment:


  • Jan
    replied
    And another post this morning (and all the bathroom humor's already been made over on Twitter, thanks...).

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Moving.jpg
Views:	85
Size:	10.1 KB
ID:	161541

    Leave a comment:


  • Looney
    replied
    I feel like teasing me is ......................... torture!!!!!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • Jan
    replied
    Originally posted by Dodger View Post
    Pilot order announcement?
    Could be? Alternatively, it could be any number of projects other than B5. I was just recalling recently that he'd been announced to write a pilot based on "One Second After" that I haven't heard of in a while. Or another comic. Or another feature? The man does keep busy!

    Leave a comment:


  • Dodger
    replied
    Pilot order announcement?

    Leave a comment:


  • Ubik
    replied
    This year Studio JMS will make the B5 feature film??

    Mildly snarky joking aside, am genuinely intrigued what's in the pipeline for B5. At least one of those things is done and dusted, if I am reading the past announcement correctly.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jan
    replied
    Curiouser and Curiouser...

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Watching.png
Views:	100
Size:	21.3 KB
ID:	161529
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • Jan
    replied
    Even if he can't be there, JMS gives us announcements during SDCC week:

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Glass Box.jpg
Views:	146
Size:	34.1 KB
ID:	161098

    Leave a comment:


  • Jan
    replied
    JMS' sync-up commentary for "Passing through Gethsemane" is now available on YouTube:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzQAU38a89M

    Leave a comment:


  • Jan
    replied
    As always, please take discussion to the Off Topic Forum. From JMS last night re: the SCOTUS ruling striking down Roe v Wade:


    A SUPREME COURT WORKSHEET
    Since you have chosen to apply the standards of the 18th century for how women were treated to the present moment, I wanted to take this opportunity to bring to your attention other aspects of their lives during this time that could be --
    -- useful in your future deliberations. Because surely if the one applies, then the rest must as well.

    1) Girls went to boarding schools or poverty schools where they learned how to read and write, music, and how to be “charming,” lessons which taught them to be submissive to--
    --men to help them land a husband. Women were not permitted to attend most colleges. This should be great for you because by limiting women’s education, per the standards at the time of the Constitution, they will be less able to understand what you're doing on their behalf. --

    2) Women were expected to marry young or be considered “spinsters.” Once married they were to concentrate only on housework, and did not work outside the home. Single women and spinsters were almost entirely relegated to working as milliners, washerwomen, midwives and milkmaids--
    So if you want to preserve that tradition, you definitely need to get right onto restricting the workplace and limiting what sort of jobs women can hold.

    3) There were no anesthetics, and medicine was poor compared to modern standards, and many women died in childbirth. --
    -- Even if the mother survived, infant mortality was horrifically high. Roughly 25% of children died before their fifth birthday. But I guess you can't make a patriarchy without breaking a few ovaries, eh? It would have been great if there were some medical way to prevent --
    -- problematic births, so that they would not have to be carried to term, killing both, or crippling and limiting the lifespan of the children that did survive birth, but it didn’t exist then, so as of today’s news, it doesn’t exist now. Which, by your lights, is --
    --exactly as it should be.

    Most religious practices are frozen in time by what was written at the time the religion was born. What was written down by desert-dwelling men two thousand years ago is still the rubric applied today to how men and women should comport themselves. --
    You are applying that same logic to the Constitution and the period in which it was written, which despite all the movies and books about that era was, by every yardstick we can apply, horrific in comparison to the present moment in its view of women, people of color, science --

    --and medicine. Most importantly, in the 18th century men had nearly absolute control over the lives of women, whether married, single or “spinster.” Acting not as judges of the present, but as high priests of the patriarchal past.

    And this is the world toward which you are --
    --compelling the nation. A world based not on the current world – contradicting the founders who based their Constitution on the state of their current world, not the time of the Old or New Testaments – but on a prior century’s assumptions about the world.

    To that purpose--
    --at the end of the day, please surrender your car, your cellphone, most of your medications, your driver’s license, any degrees earned by women in your family, and henceforth eschew airplanes, elevators, liver transplants, hair restoration, contact lenses --
    --the interstate freeway system, television, movies and recorded music.

    And while you’re at it: go fuck thyselves.

    Yr obdnt srvnt,

    JMS
    https://twitter.com/straczynski/stat...00078258860032

    Leave a comment:


  • Jan
    replied
    An interesting couple of tweets from JMS last night. In his usual Vorlon-esque way, he hints about more Thor in a post about the Anniversary issue he and Coipel have coming out tomorrow.
    https://twitter.com/straczynski/stat...69532382695424

    Absent a one-pager in 2019 written just for fun, it's been 12 years since I've played in the Marvel universe. This changes Wednesday with my contribution to the THOR anniversary issue (with art by Olivier Coipel). 'Twas much fun. And who knows, there may be more to come....

    (The "more to come," should it actually be, I dunno, anything at all, and may not be, has nothing to do with Thor, should it exist at all, since Thor has an amazing team behind it and this is all sheer speculation and there's absolutely nothing going on in sector 83 by 9 by 12.)

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X