D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
Christopher Pike here. I wrote Aint It Cool News' highly inflammatory review of B5: LOTR. I've been following multiple threads on this message board since it was called to my attention a few days ago, and feel compelled to reply to a few points which have been made regarding myself and my "review".
First off, I DID NOT SELECT THE SPY NAME "CHRISTOPHER PIKE" This was a spy name given to me by Harry Knowles in an effort to conceal my true identity. I'm guessing he chose a Trek name bacuse Harry appreciates such incindiary things. Come what may, I am now trapped with the name "Christopher Pike". There's got to be some way to change this limitation. There's a way out of any cage, and I'll find it.
DO I LOVE STAR TREK? I love Trek. But I think the franchise has seen *considerably* better days, and should be turned over to fresher, newer blood for a complete overhaul & retrofit.
DO I LOVE BABYLON 5? I love Babylon 5. Like many of you, the show has affected me in ways too numerous to describe. But, like Trek, I feel the franchise has seen considerably better days & needs a good sprucing-up.
WHY PICK ON JOE STRACZYNSKI? "Cause Joe is "Da man!" And when you're a creator/exec producer on a series, you are also responsible for taking the hits and criticisms leveled against it.
DO I HATE JMS? No. When he's good, I feel he's damn close to being a genius. But when he's bad...<<whew!>> However, I do hold him accountable for the decisions he makes. Just as I hold Berman and Braga accountable for (what I believe to be) some rather poor Trek-related decisions of late. As I hold my own self accountable for my own decisions every day.
WHAT QUALIFIES ME TO WRITE A REVIEW OF THIS TV MOVIE? If you knew my credentials, you'd understand my qualifications -- you might even say "Oh, it's HIM!?!?!?" For numerous professional reasons, I am unable to reveal my identity, although long-time B5 fans may be able to pick-up on a few well-placed clues left here and there. I know this sounds like I'm playing a game, I don't mean it to sound that way. There are...considerations.
WHY WAS THE REVIEW AMATEURISH? It was written to be simple and quick. Period. Also, the gang at AICN apparently have some heavy tech troubles in the past week and have been unable to cut and paste my review as it was originally presented to them (entire sentences are missing from the review as currently posted).
WHY DIDN'T I OFFER MORE DETAILS ABOUT THE PLOT OF THE SHOW? Honestly, there's not much to say about the plot/storyline. But, since so many of you complained about not having any sense of plot, here goes. WARNING -- MINOR SPOILERS AHEAD! IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW, MOVE-ON TO THE NEXT PARAGRAPH! In short: discredited captain & his band of merry men & women (aka the Rangers crew) are assigned to a clunky old rustbucket ship Liandra (which is, happpenstantially, haunted). Their task: to escort a new mega-warship (also a Ranger vessel) named the Valen. The Valen is carrying a bunch of diplomats to some sort of political talks. Trouble happens along the way, when our heroes meet The Hand (the new bad guys). The Hand is described along the same lines as The First Ones in the original B5 series, but they're never exactly called "First Ones", nor is any reference made to how these superbeings could remain unreferenced for so long if The Hand makes even The Shadows look like "insects".
It's all very loosey-goosey and odd. And, for such powerful beings, The Hand doesn't hold a lot of weight. Their vessels get smoked pretty quickly, we see very few vessels on-screen at the same time (throughout the entire movie), and The Hand doesn't seem particularly savvy or shrewd. We do see a representative of The Hand. Essentially, it's a faceless dude in a robe -- like a Ring Wraith from The Lord of the Rings. It's a simple story, with very little sweep or spectacle. The few moments of "size" the show might have had are diluted by the way the story is told (like the girl in the VR bubble, referenced in my review).
I WAS NOT TRYING TO BE HARD ON THE ACTORS IN MY REVIEW. Fact of the matter is, JMS gave them little to do. So much so that evaluating their performances is almost pointless, and even unfair too the actors in question. There is not a lot of depth to this story. There is a "naming ceremony" when the leads introduce themselves and say why they're on the ship. A perfect op to learn more about these people & bring some dimension to their characters. That information just ain't there.
YOU SAY IT'S LIKE STAR TREK -- IS THAT AN INSULT? No, I mean...simply...it is like Star Trek. We have a Kirk/Spock relationship (roguish Captain is best friends with his steady, dry witted, analytical, pseudo-telepathic Minbari sidekick), for example. There are other similarities, but I'll leave some for you to find on your own.
There are probably more points to be made, but I hope this helps clear-up the tone/context of my review. I will be happy to discuss the movie & my review on these boards, if anyone is interested. But, I will not say much more about the plot (I wouldn't mind addressing a few points here and there though, like -- to the poster who said Grey Council meetings are always held on Minbari ships -- that doesn't appear to be the case anymore. At least, that's what I inferred from this movie) . If "To Live and Die in Starlight"s plot was more substantive, it would be able to withstand some spoilage. But it's pretty thin, and I'm inclined to agree with Dylan that...the less said...the better.
Until we meet again...
------------------
First off, I DID NOT SELECT THE SPY NAME "CHRISTOPHER PIKE" This was a spy name given to me by Harry Knowles in an effort to conceal my true identity. I'm guessing he chose a Trek name bacuse Harry appreciates such incindiary things. Come what may, I am now trapped with the name "Christopher Pike". There's got to be some way to change this limitation. There's a way out of any cage, and I'll find it.
DO I LOVE STAR TREK? I love Trek. But I think the franchise has seen *considerably* better days, and should be turned over to fresher, newer blood for a complete overhaul & retrofit.
DO I LOVE BABYLON 5? I love Babylon 5. Like many of you, the show has affected me in ways too numerous to describe. But, like Trek, I feel the franchise has seen considerably better days & needs a good sprucing-up.
WHY PICK ON JOE STRACZYNSKI? "Cause Joe is "Da man!" And when you're a creator/exec producer on a series, you are also responsible for taking the hits and criticisms leveled against it.
DO I HATE JMS? No. When he's good, I feel he's damn close to being a genius. But when he's bad...<<whew!>> However, I do hold him accountable for the decisions he makes. Just as I hold Berman and Braga accountable for (what I believe to be) some rather poor Trek-related decisions of late. As I hold my own self accountable for my own decisions every day.
WHAT QUALIFIES ME TO WRITE A REVIEW OF THIS TV MOVIE? If you knew my credentials, you'd understand my qualifications -- you might even say "Oh, it's HIM!?!?!?" For numerous professional reasons, I am unable to reveal my identity, although long-time B5 fans may be able to pick-up on a few well-placed clues left here and there. I know this sounds like I'm playing a game, I don't mean it to sound that way. There are...considerations.
WHY WAS THE REVIEW AMATEURISH? It was written to be simple and quick. Period. Also, the gang at AICN apparently have some heavy tech troubles in the past week and have been unable to cut and paste my review as it was originally presented to them (entire sentences are missing from the review as currently posted).
WHY DIDN'T I OFFER MORE DETAILS ABOUT THE PLOT OF THE SHOW? Honestly, there's not much to say about the plot/storyline. But, since so many of you complained about not having any sense of plot, here goes. WARNING -- MINOR SPOILERS AHEAD! IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW, MOVE-ON TO THE NEXT PARAGRAPH! In short: discredited captain & his band of merry men & women (aka the Rangers crew) are assigned to a clunky old rustbucket ship Liandra (which is, happpenstantially, haunted). Their task: to escort a new mega-warship (also a Ranger vessel) named the Valen. The Valen is carrying a bunch of diplomats to some sort of political talks. Trouble happens along the way, when our heroes meet The Hand (the new bad guys). The Hand is described along the same lines as The First Ones in the original B5 series, but they're never exactly called "First Ones", nor is any reference made to how these superbeings could remain unreferenced for so long if The Hand makes even The Shadows look like "insects".
It's all very loosey-goosey and odd. And, for such powerful beings, The Hand doesn't hold a lot of weight. Their vessels get smoked pretty quickly, we see very few vessels on-screen at the same time (throughout the entire movie), and The Hand doesn't seem particularly savvy or shrewd. We do see a representative of The Hand. Essentially, it's a faceless dude in a robe -- like a Ring Wraith from The Lord of the Rings. It's a simple story, with very little sweep or spectacle. The few moments of "size" the show might have had are diluted by the way the story is told (like the girl in the VR bubble, referenced in my review).
I WAS NOT TRYING TO BE HARD ON THE ACTORS IN MY REVIEW. Fact of the matter is, JMS gave them little to do. So much so that evaluating their performances is almost pointless, and even unfair too the actors in question. There is not a lot of depth to this story. There is a "naming ceremony" when the leads introduce themselves and say why they're on the ship. A perfect op to learn more about these people & bring some dimension to their characters. That information just ain't there.
YOU SAY IT'S LIKE STAR TREK -- IS THAT AN INSULT? No, I mean...simply...it is like Star Trek. We have a Kirk/Spock relationship (roguish Captain is best friends with his steady, dry witted, analytical, pseudo-telepathic Minbari sidekick), for example. There are other similarities, but I'll leave some for you to find on your own.
There are probably more points to be made, but I hope this helps clear-up the tone/context of my review. I will be happy to discuss the movie & my review on these boards, if anyone is interested. But, I will not say much more about the plot (I wouldn't mind addressing a few points here and there though, like -- to the poster who said Grey Council meetings are always held on Minbari ships -- that doesn't appear to be the case anymore. At least, that's what I inferred from this movie) . If "To Live and Die in Starlight"s plot was more substantive, it would be able to withstand some spoilage. But it's pretty thin, and I'm inclined to agree with Dylan that...the less said...the better.
Until we meet again...
------------------
However, if the point of a review is to make a statement (ignoring my previous post on whether it should have been written at all) and have people hear your side, would it not help to present your opinions in a way that doesn't turn your readers away and causes them to discard your work as "childish" and "unprofessional"? (Not my words, mind you; I'm still avoiding reading your review altogether.)