New FX/Old Show

[JoeD80]

1- I say Joe didn't have godlike control.
2- You say he did.

Never said it.

3 - I point out a clear instance where he didn't - B-prime being enfolded into B5, which worked out to everyone's benefit, but wasn't what he wanted.
4- You say "You're wrong, he didn't get all the B-prime stuff he wanted into B5, and as evidence..."

All I said was that I didn't agree with the premise that the two shows were completely collapsed into each other. This had nothing to do with the subject of Joe's control when I first stated it. That's why there are two separate paragraphs in the "I don't follow" and "I don't agree" message, because they were two completely separate thoughts that I had.

5- I point out that him having to leave stuff out doesn't support your theory of Joe's godlike control.
6- You say it does, neener neener.

Again, never said it.

 

[Republibot 3.0]

1- I say Joe didn't have godlike control.
2- You say he did.

Never said it.

3 - I point out a clear instance where he didn't - B-prime being enfolded into B5, which worked out to everyone's benefit, but wasn't what he wanted.
4- You say "You're wrong, he didn't get all the B-prime stuff he wanted into B5, and as evidence..."

All I said was that I didn't agree with the premise that the two shows were completely collapsed into each other. This had nothing to do with the subject of Joe's control when I first stated it. That's why there are two separate paragraphs in the "I don't follow" and "I don't agree" message, because they were two completely separate thoughts that I had.

5- I point out that him having to leave stuff out doesn't support your theory of Joe's godlike control.
6- You say it does, neener neener.

Again, never said it.

It still looks like you did to me. Sorry.

 

[JoeD80]

Really? Quote me one message where I did. And since we're on the subject since you for some reason are stuck on derailing this thread, crashing it in to a cliff, and setting it on fire instead of actually reading what I wrote:

He's saying everything happened according to plan, with only trivial departures, and everything Joe wanted to do he ended up doing.

I don't think I've ever even *THOUGHT* this so much as said it even in the days when I knew next to nothing about Babylon 5.

 

[Republibot 3.0]

Really? Quote me one message where I did. And since we're on the subject since you for some reason are stuck on derailing this thread, crashing it in to a cliff, and setting it on fire instead of actually reading what I wrote:

I don't think I've ever even *THOUGHT* this so much as said it even in the days when I knew next to nothing about Babylon 5.

I don't know what to tell you, my angry friend. I read your posts on this thread and I see "True Believer." I see a guy who gets upset when I suggest the Great Maker is a partial myth.

You say that wasn't what you intended. I don't claim to know your mind, so I'll trust you on that. I misinterpreted you. I've been wrong before, and it's entirely possible that decades of kool-aid drinking Trekies have made me hypersensitive to this kind of stuff, but it is *still* what I get out of your comments. But I do apologize.

As to derailing this thread, all I wanted to talk about here when I started it was what people would do if they could change the FX on B5. I was pretty content talking about that. I was talking to Triple F about JMS' comments differing from medium to medium, and then you blustered in with the "The story seems to hold up well to me," thing. And then we were off to the races. I fail to see how that's my fault.

 

[JoeD80]

I don't know what to tell you, my angry friend. I read your posts on this thread and I see "True Believer." I see a guy who gets upset when I suggest the Great Maker is a partial myth.

I'm not angry at all. However you keep mentioning your strange perception that I'm a believer in the "myth of Joe", and if you still interpret it that way, *quote me* so I can know what it is you are referring to, because I seriously have *no clue* what it is you keep seeing.

But I do apologize.

Accepted. Really I have no ill will towards you at all. Just a little frustrated because I keep re-reading my messages looking for this context that you say is there and I still can't find it. I even went and re-read my very old posts after thinking about it to check and make sure, I mean my mind does go in 1000 different directions so maybe I did say something similar once, but I see that even then my point was that Joe was a writer that was very good at handling changes thrown at him from every direction (studio, sponsor, network, etc.) and still making it work, not that he got to do whatever he wanted.

As to derailing this thread, all I wanted to talk about here when I started it was what people would do if they could change the FX on B5.

My comments about your "derailing the thread" refer specifically to your "1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6" message that really doesn't match what I said, specifically after I pointed out that my sequel comments had nothing to do with the Joe = God subject, but yes you're right I'm guilty of taking this thread pretty far off track, so I apologize for that.

 

[Republibot 3.0]

I'm not angry at all. However you keep mentioning your strange perception that I'm a believer in the "myth of Joe", and if you still interpret it that way, *quote me* so I can know what it is you are referring to, because I seriously have *no clue* what it is you keep seeing.

I can't, and if you say that's not what you were intending, I believe you. Sometimes things just read differently for different people. I said something very conservative on a Republican site yesterday, and got soundly trounced for it because of the way I phrased it (Which is why I seldom post on Republican sites. While I'm very Republican myself, I'm the first to admit that many of us ain't so very good with the words and the talking and the coherence, a-hyup-yup-yup). Sometimes the sense of something is just different than one intends.

My comments about your "derailing the thread" refer specifically to your "1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6" message that really doesn't match what I said, specifically after I pointed out that my sequel comments had nothing to do with the Joe = God subject, but yes you're right I'm guilty of taking this thread pretty far off track, so I apologize for that.

Don't sweat it, man. I know how maddening it can be when someone just will not see what it is you're talking about. (See paragraph above).

But let's put that to bed and get back on track: If you could change some of the B5 FX, and if you actually wanted to do so, what would they be, and how would you change 'em?

In B5 itself, basically I'd just upgrade the graphics, and re-orchestrate a few of the battle scenes involving the Omegas, like I said. In Crusade, I can't really explain it, but something about the Excalibur always seemed off to me. The design was fine, it was neat and all, the graphics were swell, but there's just something *off* about it, particularly in the battle scenes. They lack gravitas or something. In "Rangers" I'd simply re-do everything.

 

[JonFrain]

I

But admitting to that would have shown the production was being partly controlled by tv execs, and at the time he didn’t want that to be known. As a producer his motivations behind giving certain replies are not always obvious. Remembering that he’s a tv producer is always a handy thing.

“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.”

http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-16435

Clearly not the case. But he gave a few dodgy replies surrounding lotr in general, the motivations behind a reply like this are anyone’s guess (I can make a few ; ) but it’s also less than factually accurate.

Although JMSNews doesn't attribute credit to the people JMS quotes, which I don't really agree with as if you're going to quote someone then you should attribute it properly, he was responding to me in that post. It was very common for him to say that his most recent work was the best he'd ever done. Sometimes he was correct and other times he wasn't. In this case he was completely full of crap.

That scene I was worried about turned out worse than I ever could have imagined. Seeing her flailing around firing the weapons was absurd on a logical and visual level. It's the kind of thing I'd expect from a much lesser writer. Who would design a weapons system that causes the controller to become winded? Wouldn't it make more sense to at least use their eyes, if not their brains, to control those shots?

Regarding redoing the CGI, I personally don't really care but I think B5 could better attract potential viewers if the effects were brought up to date. I'm not sure a channel could be convinced to air it though as it really never gained the kind of acceptance I had hoped it would.

 

[Jan]

Although JMSNews doesn't attribute credit to the people JMS quotes, which I don't really agree with as if you're going to quote someone then you should attribute it properly, he was responding to me in that post.

You're probably aware, but in case others aren't, JMS's posts from the newsgroup and other systems were primarily automatically collected. His - nobody else's. So if the post he was quoting didn't include that poster's name, there was no attribution. As time progressed and automatic quoting became easier and included more information, more attributions appeared.

Regarding redoing the CGI, I personally don't really care but I think B5 could better attract potential viewers if the effects were brought up to date. I'm not sure a channel could be convinced to air it though as it really never gained the kind of acceptance I had hoped it would.

From JMS on his Facebook page:

Originally Posted by Fans of J. Michael Straczynski
It's not so much that the CGI masters were destroyed...it's that they were rendered at a standard aspect ratio for TVs at the time. The show was shot on what was essentially widescreen (the first TV series to do so, if I recall) but the tech wasn't there to produce the CGI in the same aspect ratio. (This was something I didn't actually know or realize at the time; I assumed it was being rendered wide.)

So the only way to integrate the CGI with the wider-aspect DVD release was to blow it up and crop, which was a far from satisfactory solution. It would be pretty much impossible to go back and try to re-render every single shot in widescreen, even now, to make this work.

The only way you could do it would be to do what they did in ST, which was to render all new EFX. The problem we'd have is that while an average ep of the original Trek had maybe a dozen or two effects shots in an episode, we had anywhere from 30 to, in a few extreme cases, a hundred shots in a single episode, many of which were composites using both live-action and blue-screen elements. So it would cost several times more to create new CGI for B5 than it cost for ST (which only had three seasons, vs. our five, which on its own would nearly double the cost even if our efx were no more than theirs.)

So I think, barring a miracle, that it's a dead issue.

Jan

 

[Triple F]

Nobody else if you exclude the newsgroup posts by producer George Johnsen that are in the archive. ; )

I know jmsnews was (originally) largely based on archives which others created, but it’s a pity those early AOL and Genie posts from the likes of Mojo, Everett Burrel, Ron Thornton, etc were never originally collected as well. Going by the few I’ve read, I suspect there would have been some really good information amongst them.


@ JonFrain
Nice to finally meet you. ; )