Re: A Call to Arms: Fighting for the original cas
Now from what I've seen of the "discussion" the evidence is:
The main characters are all new with the exception of Galen.
Wrong. Even if you accept the casting
rumours as gospel truth (because they haven't been verified either) all that the advertised roles tell us is that they are the advertised roles. Sheridan, Delenn, Corwin and Jinxo could all be in the script. If the studio isn't currently seeking actors to fill those roles (either because they've already been cast or because no decision has been made either way) they wouldn't be advertised. So you're assuming something based on zero evidence. If you pick up the want ads tomorrow and find three of your co-workers' positions being advertised will you assume that you've been fired as well? Lochley is only mentioned because her relationship with one of the new characters helps define
his role.
Galen is being recast; probably (possibly) due to prior commitments.
Of the other cast, only Lockley is a major returning character and although I havn't seen any evidence stating that Tracy Scoggins will be playing her, her website does have some nice pictures on it
But she isn't listed in the "casting call" you put so much faith in. So either Scoggins has the job or another actor has already been cast, because we know the part is in the film but they aren't advertising for an actor to fill it.
JMS has stated before that he wouldn't write in previous characters JUST to have them in. Only if it was relevent to the story.
He has also said that one reason for doing a feature film would be to reward the original cast with a bigger payday. And how hard is it for a writer of JMS's talent to conceive of a story that would naturally involve all of the characters. (For anyone who beleives this is an absolute rule, I direct your attention to
In the Beginning. He managed to shoe-horn every major character into that one short of Corwin, and only left Garibaldi out because Jerry Doyle's agent talked his client out of doing the movie.)
JMS has stated no comment to the rumours.
No, JMS said that he would
like to comment on this, but can't. What he hasn't said is "Don't worry, there's no problem here." Now think about it. If there were no controversy, no fight with WB, why wouldn't JMS be able to say anything? He's being asked a specific question about a matter of fact. His answer won't interfere with contract negotiations or give away plot points or violate Hollywood protocol by announcing something that is properly the studio's to announce. Even if the actors aren't signed he could say, "The studio has not decided to recast as a matter of policy and we are talking to the cast, but actors are busy people and some of them might not be available."
No, if you consider it logically the
only reason for JMS's silence that makes any sense is that he'll get in trouble with Warner Bros. if he speaks out. And there's no reason for Warner Bros. to get ticked off at anything he says on the subject if the rumor is fake and nothing he says can cause any problems or embarassment. So even withhout any evidence and only the reactions of JMS to go on it is reasonable conclude that the rumors are true. I hadn't considered this line of reasoning before. Thank you for providing me with this elegant solution.
Peter Jurasic hinted that he was involved, other cast members have not.
And if there's a battle going on over who is to be cast, the actors
wouldn't know anything becasue they aren't going to be contacted until the decision is made. Peter made his comments months ago before the controversy arose. JMS may have quietly sounded him out because Peter has been at least semi-retired and if he were going to remove himself from consideration Londo would probably be the toughest role to recast.
Paraphrase: "Studios don't do that"
Maybe studios don't usually do the kind of manipulative leak suggested as a matter of policy - but then people involved in a production usually don't leak information to fans in the hopes of generating some grass-root support for
their side in an internal dispute, either. And while it is very unlikely that any WB executive approved or even knew of any counter-leak, it isn't beyond the realm of possibility that someone who wants to see the roles recast did a bit of leaking on his own. One thing you should always keep in mind when reading
any story based on a leak, anythinig from an unnamed source: The source always has an agenda. Sometimes it is a noble one to reveal misdeeds. But sometimes it is a petty one: to make a rival look bad, to embarrass someone, to undermine a plan you don't approve of.
The folks who have leaked to some at this site have an agenda that isn't hard to figure out: Making sure the original cast at least gets right of first refusal to their roles.
[Speculation snipped.]
I'm guessing you haven't read any of the novels. Hint: If the movie takes place in the
Crusade or
Rangers time-frame, G'Kar has been back for awhile. And Sheridan and Delenn aren't chained up in a dungeon on MINbar - not MIMbar - they are President and Vice President of the Interstellar Alliance and must frequently travel to other worlds. Michael Garibaldi's far-flung business ventures would certainly involve considerable travel. As for who would be involved in a Shadowtech plot: Ivanova is commanding a warship stuffed to the gills with disabled Shadowtech, and she, Sheridan and Lochley are the only ones who know the rest of the
Warlock class is similarly infected. Garibaldi inherited the late William Edgars' assorted black projects, many based on alien technology, some of it almost certainly obtained from the Shadows. Actually the character it would be
trickiest to involve - at least among those still living in that time frame - would be Londo, since from 2262 until 2278 he's trapped on Centauri Prime with little contact with the larger universe that isn't monitored and/or controlled by the Drakh. Etc., etc., etc.
I'm not claiming to be infallible and I'm not asking people to believe me because I'm me. I'm merely asking people to consider the following analogy:
You hear from some guy at work that he heard from a buddy who works for your Representative that Congress is going to start taxing e-mail. That's a rumor. It seems unlikely, you've heard it before, you don't pay attention to it.
Tomorrow you pick up the New York Times or turn on CNN. They report a story based on information from an unnamed "senior congressional staffer" that Congress is considering a proposal to tax e-mail.
Now all of a sudden it stops being "rumor" in your mind and becomes reality. Despite the fact that the source in both cases is unnamed - and could, in fact, be the very same guy.
In both cases the person telling the story
cannot say so publicly himself without facing serious consquences. So he (or she) has to remain unnamed.
Here's where the analogy breaks down: There is no NY Times or CNN for the people involved in
TMoS to go to. This isn't a big enough story for either the mainstream or the industry press to go with. And the industry press is pretty much off-limits anyway because the chances of the story's being traced back to the source are probably
better there than most places.
But some of the fans who have been contacted have, over the years, established reputations for not going off half cocked, for checking their facts and for knowing what they are talking about that makes them about as credible in the world of B5 fandom as the New York Times is in the general media. (Make that
more credible. I just remembered Jayson Blair.
)
Again, ask yourself the question: Would we be doing this if we didn't
know that we have our facts right?
People like you keep saying there is no officical "confirmation" Yet you accept "casting call" information from bogus web sites. (The character and plot information that everybody's heard about comes from a gossip column on an industry site in Canada, originally. It was clearly marked as rumor, and it did not characterize any of the roles discussed as "leads". This information was later picked up, altered, and posted to "Cast Call USA" a scam site that charges actors a fee to access casting information that is normally available from legitimate sources for free. Several similar scam sites, including one in the UK, have picked up the same information. All of these sites simply mine the net for any kind of casting rumors, official notices, etc. and put them up on their sites to attract the gullible. Which seems to be working out for them real well, by the way. In the meantime no official casting notices
from Warner Bros. have appeared in Variety, The Hollywood reporter or any of the other usual places.)
I don't know what people expect to see as confirmation. The head of production at Warner Bros. giving an interview in the LA Times about how he wants to recast the roles in a movie based on an old TV show? A full page ad in Variety signed by JMS, Doug Netter and Bruce Boxleitner protesting the studio's ill-treatment of them? That sort of thing just isn't done. Aren't you getting the message? The people who have told us what is happening, with the unspoken hope that we would rally the fans,
CAN'T @#$%^"&O@ CONFIRM THE STORY PUBLICLY If they could do
that they wouldn't need
us. What is so frickin' hard to understand about this concept?
And why are you
arguing with us anyway? Let's say we're wrong. What harm is done if fans send in letters supporting the use of the original cast. Another point I made in my original post (and which you ignored because it is not congenial to your argument) is that if successful this won't be the last
B5 film. Surely it can't hurt to let WB know we'd like to see the original actors if their characters are in the
next movie. Why post messages
discoraging others from participating. If you don't believe, don't send a letter. But why attack the effort?
Later,
Joe
