JMS and fans\' reactions to AICN B5LR review
<font size="+1">JMS and fans' reactions to AICN B5LR review</font>
<font size="3">Plus: the reviewer and an ex-AICN reviewer speak to B5LR.com</font>
The scathing review of Babylon 5: The Legend of the Rangers which was published at Ain't It Cool News recently has stirred up a strong response in the fan community—and from JMS himself.
The reviewer, "Christopher Pike", came to B5LR.com to discuss some of his reasoning with the fans. Although, of course, not backing down from his views, he did go into more detail and responded to fans' questions. When talking about B5, he said, "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." You can read his post, and various replies by fans and cast, by clicking here to visit the relevant thread at the B5LR.com messageboard. You can find more topics in the Rangers forum.
JMS, however, was naturally not amused with the review. He made the following post in the B5 newsgroup in response to a fan's message about the review.
<font color="#99cc99">Let's see...a reviewer who goes under the handle Captain Christopher Pike (a classic Star Trek character), compares everything in B5 to Star Trek, and is subbing for another so-called reviewer called Herc who is a bigtime B5 hater from way back...AND he posts a negative "review" of B5: Rangers?
I'm shocked...shocked, I tell you.
Lemme give you a heads-up here...there is a qualitative difference between an actual reviewer and the kind of jumped up fanboy who posts a message on this kind of system specifically for the purpose of trashing something out of the usual fanboy feud shit we've seen over the last seven years. (And then, from what I've heard, pops on over to b5lr.com to get reactions because he wants to get his jollies.)
This is not a review. It's not even close to a review, and this kind of crap is what totally destroys and has destroyed any hope of legitimacy that aicn has, which is why just about everybody in the business now totally writes them off. It started off as a news site, now it's a fanboy site with clearly distinguished biases.
They don't like that I say this? Tough. It's my review of their performance.
Look, how about we actually *see* the thing? I think it may be one of the best things B5 we've ever done. WB had NO NOTES on the thing. SFC had ONE note, to make one word (entil'zha) a bit louder because it's kind of a plot point. Both places referred to it as stunning and beautiful and maybe our best work to date.
So for some cretin as this to come out and try to torpedo something out of the same crap feud that's been out there for seven years, and for people like you to actually *fall* for this crap and post things like....</font>
The newsgroup poster, Jonathan, also said, "If this telefilm tanks, I'd honestly be open to the idea of someone else taking over the universe from Joe." JMS replied:
<font color="#99cc99">[This] demonstrates a degree of credulity bordering on the mind-boggling.
This happens every time we do anything B5 related, it happened every season of the show ("We've seen scripts for season three and it's going to be just action, no more character stuff") and you'd think sooner or later people would learn not to fall for the okeydoke especially when a piece like this is SO obviously a plant by someone with an anti-B5 bias (a prior aicn review that slipped in, from someone WITHOUT any B5 bias, LOVED the film and this was before the EFX were even in the damned thing).</font>
It is interesting to note that a positive review at AICN passes with little comment. But unsurprisingly a negative review engenders strong reactions from the fan community. It should be remembered that a review is always subjective, and contains the opinions of the reviewer in question. Everybody should make up their own minds by watching B5LR when it airs in their area.
However, publishing site AICN isn't without some controversy. Recently Freddie Prinze Jr. led an attack on the site and its practices followed by another actor, Matthew Lillard. How much a film star knows about a site such as AICN is, however, questionable. A person who can give proper insight is someone like L. E. McClintock, who spoke to B5LR.com recently after the review went live. McClintock, who wrote for the B5 magazine, reviewed Crusade episodes for the site when they first aired.
"The reviewers at AICN are not professional," explained McClintock. "They do not get paid. They have no formal education in writing or journalism. This is why they have no journalism etiquette, and that's why they have no respect within the industry.
"Most of the reviewers like to hide behind fake names like Captain Pike, etc. This is because they are thieves in most cases stealing property that is not theirs. Or at the very least they get the tapes in totally underhanded, unethical ways. But, even if a AICN writer wants to use their real name, this is denied them. I wanted to review Crusade under my own name, but was told that was not allowed. I never knew why. It was never made clear."
He also explained how things work when done via the proper channels. "Professional reviewers receive tapes from the networks in advance, in exchange for agreeing to an embargo date on when the review can be published. The studio or network usually will not allow a review to be printed until just before the show airs. They like the reviews to run the week before the show airs, or in the days just before the show airs... or in some cases in the days just after. In most cases, for newspapers, they would want the review to run the same day the show airs. These embargo date agreements are what make professional reviewers professional. That, and their education and experience in journalism. A good critic is well read in the writings past critics, and does not resort to slangy street talk, or personal invective against the material or the creators of the material.
"AICN has no credibility or stature in Hollywood. Their comments are fan boyish. Positive reviews can be bought by taking AICN reviewers to junkets and giving them free food, and other gifts. All together it's a shoddy operation, that no one should ever take seriously. They have no merit. They are not Roger Ebert, Pauline Kael, or Howard Rosenberg. They are not TV guide, or Variety, the Hollywood Reporter, New York Times, Washington Post, Time or Newsweek."
[This message has been edited by B5LR (edited October 19, 2001).]
<font size="+1">JMS and fans' reactions to AICN B5LR review</font>
<font size="3">Plus: the reviewer and an ex-AICN reviewer speak to B5LR.com</font>
The scathing review of Babylon 5: The Legend of the Rangers which was published at Ain't It Cool News recently has stirred up a strong response in the fan community—and from JMS himself.
The reviewer, "Christopher Pike", came to B5LR.com to discuss some of his reasoning with the fans. Although, of course, not backing down from his views, he did go into more detail and responded to fans' questions. When talking about B5, he said, "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." You can read his post, and various replies by fans and cast, by clicking here to visit the relevant thread at the B5LR.com messageboard. You can find more topics in the Rangers forum.
JMS, however, was naturally not amused with the review. He made the following post in the B5 newsgroup in response to a fan's message about the review.
<font color="#99cc99">Let's see...a reviewer who goes under the handle Captain Christopher Pike (a classic Star Trek character), compares everything in B5 to Star Trek, and is subbing for another so-called reviewer called Herc who is a bigtime B5 hater from way back...AND he posts a negative "review" of B5: Rangers?
I'm shocked...shocked, I tell you.
Lemme give you a heads-up here...there is a qualitative difference between an actual reviewer and the kind of jumped up fanboy who posts a message on this kind of system specifically for the purpose of trashing something out of the usual fanboy feud shit we've seen over the last seven years. (And then, from what I've heard, pops on over to b5lr.com to get reactions because he wants to get his jollies.)
This is not a review. It's not even close to a review, and this kind of crap is what totally destroys and has destroyed any hope of legitimacy that aicn has, which is why just about everybody in the business now totally writes them off. It started off as a news site, now it's a fanboy site with clearly distinguished biases.
They don't like that I say this? Tough. It's my review of their performance.
Look, how about we actually *see* the thing? I think it may be one of the best things B5 we've ever done. WB had NO NOTES on the thing. SFC had ONE note, to make one word (entil'zha) a bit louder because it's kind of a plot point. Both places referred to it as stunning and beautiful and maybe our best work to date.
So for some cretin as this to come out and try to torpedo something out of the same crap feud that's been out there for seven years, and for people like you to actually *fall* for this crap and post things like....</font>
The newsgroup poster, Jonathan, also said, "If this telefilm tanks, I'd honestly be open to the idea of someone else taking over the universe from Joe." JMS replied:
<font color="#99cc99">[This] demonstrates a degree of credulity bordering on the mind-boggling.
This happens every time we do anything B5 related, it happened every season of the show ("We've seen scripts for season three and it's going to be just action, no more character stuff") and you'd think sooner or later people would learn not to fall for the okeydoke especially when a piece like this is SO obviously a plant by someone with an anti-B5 bias (a prior aicn review that slipped in, from someone WITHOUT any B5 bias, LOVED the film and this was before the EFX were even in the damned thing).</font>
It is interesting to note that a positive review at AICN passes with little comment. But unsurprisingly a negative review engenders strong reactions from the fan community. It should be remembered that a review is always subjective, and contains the opinions of the reviewer in question. Everybody should make up their own minds by watching B5LR when it airs in their area.
However, publishing site AICN isn't without some controversy. Recently Freddie Prinze Jr. led an attack on the site and its practices followed by another actor, Matthew Lillard. How much a film star knows about a site such as AICN is, however, questionable. A person who can give proper insight is someone like L. E. McClintock, who spoke to B5LR.com recently after the review went live. McClintock, who wrote for the B5 magazine, reviewed Crusade episodes for the site when they first aired.
"The reviewers at AICN are not professional," explained McClintock. "They do not get paid. They have no formal education in writing or journalism. This is why they have no journalism etiquette, and that's why they have no respect within the industry.
"Most of the reviewers like to hide behind fake names like Captain Pike, etc. This is because they are thieves in most cases stealing property that is not theirs. Or at the very least they get the tapes in totally underhanded, unethical ways. But, even if a AICN writer wants to use their real name, this is denied them. I wanted to review Crusade under my own name, but was told that was not allowed. I never knew why. It was never made clear."
He also explained how things work when done via the proper channels. "Professional reviewers receive tapes from the networks in advance, in exchange for agreeing to an embargo date on when the review can be published. The studio or network usually will not allow a review to be printed until just before the show airs. They like the reviews to run the week before the show airs, or in the days just before the show airs... or in some cases in the days just after. In most cases, for newspapers, they would want the review to run the same day the show airs. These embargo date agreements are what make professional reviewers professional. That, and their education and experience in journalism. A good critic is well read in the writings past critics, and does not resort to slangy street talk, or personal invective against the material or the creators of the material.
"AICN has no credibility or stature in Hollywood. Their comments are fan boyish. Positive reviews can be bought by taking AICN reviewers to junkets and giving them free food, and other gifts. All together it's a shoddy operation, that no one should ever take seriously. They have no merit. They are not Roger Ebert, Pauline Kael, or Howard Rosenberg. They are not TV guide, or Variety, the Hollywood Reporter, New York Times, Washington Post, Time or Newsweek."
[This message has been edited by B5LR (edited October 19, 2001).]
