Not a complaint, per say....faith in JMS...

Deviot · Sep 8, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino:
no Howard the Duck <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hey are you being mean to Howard the Duck? LOL

Actually Howard the duck is about to make a come back in some comic actually it might be his own comic this time. I dunno what to think of this.

Ok back to your discussion.

------------------
Deviot
Lincbot@yahoo.com.au

**DONOTDELETE** · Sep 8, 2001

I have my reservations about Lucas that's for sure. One night about 6 months ago I went looking for scripts for the star wars movies on the internet and was surprised to find about 10 re-writes of the script for SW4: A new hope. I read them all and got to see how the movie evolved into what was eventually put on the screen over the course of 5-8 years. Although they were fun to read just because the original was very different from the finished work, most of the scripts were not very good. I think that SW was really made great becuase Lucas was able to find two-and-a-half (Ford had a little bit of experience) no name actors that meshed well together. That and the visual effects.

So... there it is.

------------------
Evil Guy #1: Have you any last words?
Ranger: We live for the one....

drakh · Sep 8, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Deviot:
Actually Howard the duck is about to make a come back in some comic actually it might be his own comic this time. I dunno what to think of this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It's his own 6 issue mini-series, being written by the guy who made Howard in the first place. He absolutely hates the movie.

------------------
You are not entitled to your own opinion. You are only entitled to your own informed opinion.
-- Harlan Ellison qouting Gustave Flaubert

drakh · Sep 8, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by WarrenGG:
You just keep losing respect in my eyes when it comes to this stuff.....Lord of the Rings not as strong as the others you mentioned? Oh come on.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>He said deep, not strong. Two different meanings. (And as I've only read LotR, I'm unable to comment on Joe's claim.) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Lucas created Star Wars. It didnt just so 'happen' to hit it big.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It hit big because it was enjoyable. It's how it became enjoyable that's the issue. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>It had memorable characters (Darth Vader) and Jedi,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Character's don't have to be deep to be memorable. And there's little to the SW characters beyond their stereotypes.

------------------
You are not entitled to your own opinion. You are only entitled to your own informed opinion.
-- Harlan Ellison qouting Gustave Flaubert

[This message has been edited by drakh (edited September 08, 2001).]

En'til'zha · Sep 8, 2001

I will watch it because I am a fan, but I have my doubts about it, especially after Crusade (which was aprtly JMS' fault, you can't lay the blame soley at TNT's feet). B5 was a one off, a five year story, by doing a spin-off he betrays that and is in danger of turning it into a franchise. He also had a lot longer to work on B5, 10 years before it even came to screen. Rangers isn't going to get that kind of attention, and I find it hard to see that anything will rival the quality of B5, even if it is written by JMS. it may however be great.

If it's good then thats fine, if it's terrible don't watch it, no-one is forceing you to. Even if it is the worst TV show in the history of television it will not take anything away from B5 itself. In my opinion certain TV shows have run for too long ('jumped the shark' as it is known), but these poor later series' don't diminish the earlier ones.

For example, I used to be a fan of Buffy (even as far back as when it was only a second rate B-movie), but in recent series' the show has been dire! In my opinion it should have ended at the end of the second season. Three was over doing it, four was too much and fivehas just lost it compleatly. At first I was angry that the show had been abused in such a way, but then I figured it doesn't matter. The first 2 seasons were great and the later ones do not diminish that. The same goes for Star Wars, the first three were great (if you ignore the Ewoks) but Episode 1 was a huge disappointment, especially that Midichlorian crap, but it doesn't take anything away from the first three.

I feel the same way about Rangers, although I doubt that JMS would sell out his fans in the same way that Whedon and Lucas have, he understands fan loyalty and will no doubt give us the show we deserve. So lets hope its a worthy spin-off but if its not then lets not get too worked up about it.

------------------
"Watch the Shadows, they move when you're not looking..."

Technomage Roanna · Sep 8, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by WarrenGG:
You just keep losing respect in my eyes when it comes to this stuff.....Lord of the Rings not as strong as the others you mentioned? Oh come on. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, your turn.

The Iliad, The Odyssey and War and Peace are towering works of classical literature that, in the first two cases, have stood the test of time in millenia, not centuries.I'm a big Lord of the Rings fan, but saying it isn't yet a literary classic like the first three is a justifiable and informed opinion. One I'm not sure I agree with, but can certainly understand.

If you've read the works Joe alludes to, and don't care for them, sobeit. Classical lit isn't everybody's cup of tea. Tolstoy certainly ain't mine.

If you haven't read them, try working a little more at informing your opinion and less on building the tower of high dudgeon you're so precariously perching in.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Lucas created Star Wars. It didnt just so 'happen' to hit it big. It had memorable characters (Darth Vader) and Jedi, a concept seen and used everywhere, and copied all over. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And you're the one worried about too much blind faith in JMS...

Lucas copied (this is an observation, not a criticism) a classic mythic journey structure. His dialog was neither poetic nor believable (this is a criticism).

Most significantly, he filled a void in Hollywood's storytelling and triggered the idea that SciFi might MAKE SERIOUS MONEY, which was a signficant realization that allowed more speculative fiction to be produced.

I'm grateful for that, and I enjoyed the first three movies (and part of the fourth) for what they were.

Not many of us have such an impact, but it ain't the same as a blind bard singing to us centuries later in another language.

Ro

------------------
A ship in a port is safe, but that's not what ships are for.

Rear Admiral Grace Murray Hopper

drakh · Sep 8, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by En'til'zha:
I will watch it because I am a fan, but I have my doubts about it, especially after Crusade<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And to think I'm one of those silly people who actually got quite a bit of enjoyment out of Crusade. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>(which was aprtly JMS' fault, you can't lay the blame soley at TNT's feet).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Who is to blame for what on Crusade has been throughly covered on the apropriate forum. Sufice to say that both positions mentioned above are oversimplifications. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>B5 was a one off, a five year story, by doing a spin-off he betrays that<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I've always said that there's a side story that could follow the 5 year B5 storyline, which takes place in the B5 universe, and follows on the heels of the events in B5...but who knows if that would happen?

Jms on Usenet, 23 September 1994, before the 1st season had finished airing.
http://www.prevuemag.net/Articles/Flash/142

PREVUE: Then do you already have a new five-year story arc?

STRACZYNSKI: There is always a multi-year story arc involved. You have to understand that when I created the Babylon 5 series, what I had to do was in broad strokes sketch out a million years of history in both directions and in fine detail work out a thousand years of history in both directions.

PREVUE: Where does The Legend of the Rangers fit in?

STRACZYNSKI: This story takes place about two and a half years after the events of the last proper B5 episode: ?Objects at Rest,? in the year 2265. I know all that happens in that time because I have to be able to refer to it in other material. So, the story is already there. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>and is in danger of turning it into a franchise.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>A francise is controled by the suits, and will continue as long as it's profitable regardless of quality. By ending Crusade instead of allowing TNT to get it's way, jms proved that the B5 univeres isn't a franchise. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>He also had a lot longer to work on B5, 10 years before it even came to screen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>He came up with B5 in 1986. the pilot was shot summer 92. That's a lot less than 10 years. Also, active development (funded by WB) of a B5 spin-off started in 1996. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Rangers isn't going to get that kind of attention, and I find it hard to see that anything will rival the quality of B5, even if it is written by JMS. it may however be great.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>His current comic mini-series, Midnight Nation, is probably among the best work he's ever done.

------------------
You are not entitled to your own opinion. You are only entitled to your own informed opinion.
-- Harlan Ellison qouting Gustave Flaubert

[This message has been edited by drakh (edited September 08, 2001).]

**DONOTDELETE** · Sep 8, 2001

What an interesting topic.

This is going to perhaps bother Joe D, but JMS could be seen in the same light as George Lucus - in my opinion, as uninformed as it may be. JMS by a stroke of luck wrote something that struck a cord with people. Two years earlier or later it could have died an unpleasant death, just as Star Wars could have died an unpleasant death if its timing weren't right.

In my opinion, both men simply tapped into something, and a number of factors were in their favour which helped success to follow.

I have read George Lucus' original biography - Skywalking. Like JMS blood, sweat, tears and passion went into the construction of Star Wars. He may not be a marvellous writer, or a fantastic visionary to some, but to me he is. Star Wars struck a deep and resonant chord within me, in the same way and to the same degree that B5 did so many years later.

Neither man I would follow blindly, but both men I hold in the highest regards, and despite their successes and supposed failures I look forward to each piece of work they produce. I personally liked Episode I. There were points that were curious, but Lucus was establishing a beginning point for a saga we already knew the end to. I think he did it well. But that is just me.

I trust both men, as creative personalities, but I don't follow blindly. I do possess the unrealistic expectation that what they produce and conceptualise will be quality, but I am forgiving by nature. One failure, or some bad dialogue, even Jar Jar Binks is not going to make me avoid what they do, or label them less talented than they are.

I hope this does not sound sanctimonious, no doubt it does, but I like others am disturbed by the rampant insults against other creators and creative works that now and again takes place on this site. I came to discuss B5 and its characters with fans I could come to enjoy the company of. Most of the time it happens - I love this site, of late there has been some drama. The best I can say about it, it is dynamic, and it is very interesting to see what people have to say, and where they are coming from.

In defence of WarrenGG, I don't think he was saying we follow JMS blindly, I think he was suggesting we defend him blindly, or perhaps with too much fervor? I don't know - and Warren, I apologise for reinterpreting your post, but to me that is how it read.

Thanks for your time reading this, everyone!

Though I am at times troubled by what I read, I love spirited debate.

------------------
We are Grey... We stand between the Candle, and the Star...
Between Darkness, and the Light...

drakh · Sep 8, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Dah'een:
This is going to perhaps bother Joe D, but JMS could be seen in the same light as George Lucus - in my opinion, as uninformed as it may be. JMS by a stroke of luck wrote something that struck a cord with people.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Jms involvement in the result, and the thought he put into it are all there in the 92(?) episodes he wrote, in the archives of his online messages, and everything said by those involved. With George Lucas, you have several quite "simple" films, and reading interveiws with the others involved, it's hardly the same tone... like how Alec Guniess described the film as charming but the lines an awful right from the go, he was the one who came up with the idea of having Obi Wan be killed in the first film. And the film generally regarded as the best was not durected by Lucas.

Another thing - JMS also has an established track reckord of improving just about any show he was on. Especially notable are The Real Ghostbusters, which was the number one rated animated show in the US while he was on in (and took a huge ratings hit when he left), and Captian Power, which was described by CNN as a "ratings powerhouse" and even got praise from Siskel and Ebert. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I hope this does not sound sanctimonious, no doubt it does, but I like others am disturbed by the rampant insults against other creators and creative works that now and again takes place on this site.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If you thought this was disturbing, you do not want to ask me about Gene Roddenberry.

"'Anybody who had to deal with Roddenberry on a daily basis was driven crazy,' [Harlan] Ellison says. 'And then, whatever came of it that was good---boom!---he was out on the goddamned stump circuit in fifteen minutes taking credit for it. He could barely write. I mean, he could really barely write.'
"In John D.F. Black's opinion, Roddenberry's rewrites rarely improved on the original drafts. 'He took the writing out of the scripts,' Black says."
Pp 97, "RODDENBERRY - The Myth and the Man Behind 'STAR TREK'" by Joel Engel

------------------
You are not entitled to your own opinion. You are only entitled to your own informed opinion.
-- Harlan Ellison qouting Gustave Flaubert

[This message has been edited by drakh (edited September 08, 2001).]

Jomar · Sep 8, 2001

The original question was are we following JMS blindly? I don't think so. The very fact that so many people on this board are so busy typing their finger off

discussing the work of JMS and comparing his writing to that of others indicates we are not following blindly.

The fact that we even mention the Iliad, and War and Peace in the same breath as Babylon5 seems to imply that we are sufficiently well-read to make these comparisons.

Babylon 5 was not literature written in prose, it was a series of scripts or plays covering a five-year period. You really can't compare it with other types of writing or movies. They are totally different.

JMS writes good comic books because they are primarily dialogue with pictures. That's about as close as you can get to television.

When Rangers (movie or series) comes out we will all be watching and then we will have a wonderful time filling pages and pages commenting, discussing, complaining, congratulating, etc. Won't that be fun?

------------------

**DONOTDELETE** · Sep 8, 2001

"In defence of WarrenGG, I don't think he was saying we follow JMS blindly, I think he was suggesting we defend him blindly, or perhaps with too much fervor? I don't know - and Warren, I apologise for reinterpreting your post, but to me that is how it read."

You are right Dah'een, I think everyone does defend him blindly. That is a good way to reinterpret it, thanks. Everybody says, "He is the great maker! Ill watch anything he dishes out!" and garbage like that.

Roanna, I have not read all of them, but from the one I did complete, I can say that in my opinion, it doesnt stack up to LOTR.

How does me saying, "Lucas created Star Wars. It didnt just so 'happen' to hit it big. It had memorable characters (Darth Vader) and Jedi, a concept seen and used everywhere, and copied all over. " give the allusion that I follow Lucas with blind faith? If you think I think StarWars is the best thing ever because of those 2 points, you are gravely mistaken. I could list dozens of things that make StarWars an epic, but I dont even think I need to. If you dont know them, or havent spotted them, then there is no point in me trying to convince you.

Lucas can be compared to JMS easily. Perhaps it is a matter of how you interpret it, but JMS created a story from his thoughts, as did Lucas, and each followed a similair path. JMS screwed up in Crusade (and I dont care if it has been discussed in another forum. It is being discussed here, as it is relevant here) and Lucas with Episode I. Luck is an illusional interpretation of chance, which relies on several variables. It is these variables, not simple flukes, that made Lucas MUCH more sucessfull than JMS.

------------------
It has been my observation that if someone cannot say what they mean, they can truly never mean what they say.

GKarsEye · Sep 8, 2001

George Lucas facts and consensus opinions:

The Good:
He thought up the whole idea of Star Wars. He wrote the stories for episodes 1-6 (at least). The whole thing is a product of his imagination.

The Bad:
He didn't write all the scripts, which had some awful dialogue. I don't know which parts were written by whom, but there are some moments that everyone loves, "Your lack of faith is disturbing," (pretty everything Vader said) and some real clunkers. Show me one person who doesn't crack up when Luke Skywalker wines about going to the station to pick up some power converters with his little friends. And, almost everyone I know would like to use C3PO as a punching bag.

He also didn't direct what most people consider the two best films in the series: Empire and Jedi.

The Ugly:
Lucas whored his product for merchandising. This is why the Ewoks were so damn cuddly. It was taken to extremes in Ep 1, with Gungans, a cute kid, robots, double lightsabers: I was waiting for the Toys 'R' Us ad to stop and the movie to begin.

JMS facts and consensus opinions:
The Good:
Like Lucas, thought up the whole story.
Unlike Lucas, wrote all scripts for most of the second and all of the third and fourth seasons, the seasons that most people consider the best part of the show.
Was smart enough to NOT direct it himself, understanding that this was not his strong point, a mistake Lucas rectified with Empire.

The Bad:
All that writing leads to such cringing things as Grey 17, N'Grath, Grail (I know a lot of people like this one, but I don't care, it sucked, says I) and some really corny dialogue, not to mention Byron's infamous willow tree. The bad, in this case, is small potatoes compared to all the good.

The Ugly:
It is absurd to judge Crusade. Can you imagine judging B5 on just the first 13 episodes? Suffice it to say, I wouldn't be a fan.

Star Wars: informed opinion
Luke and Obi Wan are good guys. Darth Vader and Emperor are baddies. Bad guys do bad things. Good guys fight them and win. Han Solo, super stud, gets the girl. Everybody happy. Big smile.

Babylon 5: informed opinion
The "good guys":
Sheridan: blows shit up, yells at people, royally screwed up regarding telepath colony
Delenn: key figure in almost annihilating a race. Actions resulted in Civil War.

The "bad guys":
Shadows: help younger races. Make them strong.
Bester: cared for his people. Worked to elevate and empower a marginalised group of people.

The point is, that they are a bit more complex and realistic.
How many times have we argued on these boards as to whether or not Bester is "evil," or really trying to do good, etc? You can't do that with Darth Vader, 'cause he's a bad guy.

Now, realise that it's unfair to compare the two. They are of different time periods and in different formats. However, Star Wars was never meant to be anything more than good ol' fashioned entertainment. We're supposed to sit there and say, "Wow, cool! Look at that!" then buy the T-shirts and such. It's a bit silly when people equate it with the like of Shakespeare, which I've seen. It's freakin' ridiculous.

I, for one, will watch both the the next Star Wars and the Rangers. Why? Because I like the other Star Wars / B5 stuff. Didn't all of you? What's the problem?

------------------
"You do not make history. You can only hope to survive it."

drakh · Sep 8, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by GKarsEye:
George Lucas facts and consensus opinions:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As a self-proclaimed board memeber of the Asociation for the Promotion of Non-DeMartino Postings

, I'd like to nominate this as a good posting not made by the DeMartino.

------------------
You are not entitled to your own opinion. You are only entitled to your own informed opinion.
-- Harlan Ellison qouting Gustave Flaubert

Joseph DeMartino · Sep 8, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>As a self-proclaimed board memeber of the Asociation for the Promotion of Non-DeMartino Postings

, I'd like to nominate this as a good posting not made by the DeMartino.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where do I sign up, and can I second the nomination.

G'Kar's Eye, I think that was a accurate and balanced analysis.

WarenGG:

You opened this thread by saying that some of us had "blind faith" in JMS, and later put added such absurdities as

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Everybody says, "He is the great maker! Ill watch anything he dishes out!" and garbage like that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Meanwhile you warn us against how JMS could turn into another George Lucas, for whom, as you youself say, you lost a lot of respect after Episode I.

Then I criticize Lucas and point out some of the short-comings in his work (as I've also done with JMS and B5 in discussing "Infection", "Gray 17" and other episodes) and all of a sudden I've committed heresy, and Lucas deserves to be mentioned with Tolstoy and Homer.

Huh?

I'm a Star Wars fan, as I noted several times above. I saw Episode I, I'm sure I'll see II and III and the time comes, and own at least two copies of each on DVD and whatever format succeeds it. (As always, I'm basing my expectations on past experience.) I'll judge them when I see them.

I'll also judge Rangers when I see it, as I did Crusade. I came very close to not tuning in to the second episode of Crusade because "War Zone" was such a turkey. But I gave it another shot, and the next one was better. It wasn't until the last five (in the TNT airing order) that I really started to see the potential of the show. It really plays much better in the JMS-approved order used by Sci-Fi.

I'll judge Rangers on its merits as well, just as I judged The Gathering when I finally saw it. (I suspect that if I'd seen it first I would not have watched the series. It is a flawed film, although there is potential there.)

But if I had to place a bet on which project was most likely to be as good as it should be, I'd have to go with Rangers. For the same reason I'd bet on a horse that had won five of his last six races at Belmont over one that lost his last six at Belmont, even if he'd won the Kentucky Derby the year before. That's why they call it a "track record."

Regards,

Joe

------------------
Joseph DeMartino
Sigh Corps
Pat Tallman Division
joseph-demartino@att.net

[This message has been edited by Joseph DeMartino (edited September 08, 2001).]

**DONOTDELETE** · Sep 8, 2001

"The Ugly:
It is absurd to judge Crusade. Can you imagine judging B5 on just the first 13 episodes? Suffice it to say, I wouldn't be a fan."

But your forgetting, we SHOULD have high hopes because Crusade came AFTER a great B5 run. Obviousely we cant judge B5 on its first season. But we can for Crusade, because it should have learned from B5s mistakes. Technology was better, everything.

------------------
It has been my observation that if someone cannot say what they mean, they can truly never mean what they say.

drakh · Sep 8, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by WarrenGG:
JMS screwed up in Crusade (and I dont care if it has been discussed in another forum. It is being discussed here, as it is relevant here)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I've been through the whole Crusade situation umpteen times, and I don't feel like tracking down all the info once again. But jms gave a pretty good summary when I asked him on the moderated group how he felt he did with Crusade now that he'd had a few years to put it behind him. The answer can be found in the B5LR news archives among other places.

------------------
You are not entitled to your own opinion. You are only entitled to your own informed opinion.
-- Harlan Ellison qouting Gustave Flaubert

GKarsEye · Sep 8, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by WarrenGG:
"The Ugly:
It is absurd to judge Crusade. Can you imagine judging B5 on just the first 13 episodes? Suffice it to say, I wouldn't be a fan."

But your forgetting, we SHOULD have high hopes because Crusade came AFTER a great B5 run. Obviousely we cant judge B5 on its first season. But we can for Crusade, because it should have learned from B5s mistakes. Technology was better, everything.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Technologly, schmecknology. Feh.

The quality of these shows are their characters and plots, and of course, the all-important Arc.

Yes, we should have high hopes for Crusade, but for all of Crusade. Writers and producers need time to "get to know" their characters. Look at the early episodes of B5. Don't the characters seem, well, out of character? By the end of the season, the show found its rhythm, so that season 2 picked up right on the track.

You seem to be saying that the first 13 eps of Crusade should have been better than the first 13 eps of B5. That's a bit much, no?

When making Crusade, they can learn from mistakes from B5, but it would be about stuff like scenery, cameras, costumes, makeup, etc (this is me trying to sound like I know what the fuck I'm talking about and failing miserably). Basically, production type stuff. And besides, remember that they were doing a lot of things different specifically to make it come off as a very different show.

But they can't learn about the characters or story because they're making a different story with different people. If, for example, they screw a scene focusing on Dureena's character, how could they have fixed that using any information from B5? She wasn't in B5.

------------------
"You do not make history. You can only hope to survive it."

**DONOTDELETE** · Sep 8, 2001

When I said technology, it was one of several things....what I mean (hard to type really) is that, do you expect the first 13 or so episodes of any new spin off series to keep sucking? Or ANY series for that matter?

The characters havent had time to develope or ANYTHING, or the story to unfold, thats a given. But in general, I would not expect the first season of Crusade to suck, because B5s first season did. And you simply dont keep expecting these things. Do I have to even mention the X-File/Alien parody?

------------------
It has been my observation that if someone cannot say what they mean, they can truly never mean what they say.

terrytvgal · Sep 8, 2001

I don't think faith, blind or not, has anything to do with the reasons the people on this board are willing to stick with JMS and support his work.
I think it has more to do with respect, dedication, and acknowledgement that not Everything has to be 100% perfect all the time for people to like and respect his work.

Not every book written by Asimov or Pol Anderson or Larry Niven (insert who you like ) is universally loved by everyone of their fans. They respect the Author's right to take chances and go into new directions. They realize that it's clear that the author has made an effort to do his best work. They know that in the end, they are investing their time and money and intellect in a body of work that will endure and hold it's value and relevance over the long haul.

That is why I will watch Rangers, even though I did not like Crusade. Good or not, Rangers will become a part of SF history and I want to be in a position to comment on it intelligently, the same way I would with a politcal development or a new scientific development or a new novel.

It has nothing to do with faith and everything to do with respect and the desire to be open minded and optimistic.

------------------
The avalance has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.

Joseph DeMartino · Sep 9, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>But they can't learn about the characters or story because they're making a different story with different people. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

*Ding* No more calls, please. We have a winner.

Every new show, involving new characters and new stories, takes time to find its feet. Even if the initial episodes are good the later ones will be different as the writers, producers and actors find the right tone for the characters and the stories.

One of the striking things about James T. Kirk in the first half dozen or so produced Star Trek episodes is how grimly serious he is all the time. The playful humor that is a trademark of the series is almost completely absent from the first part of S1.

M*A*S*H took the better part of a season to fine-tune the mix of comedy and drama, and the esemble cast, before it settled down into the familiar show. Star Trek: TNG was frankly dull for most of the first two years. I don't think it produced a really memorable episode until "Yesterday's Enterprise." Up until then the show was OK, but "routine."

Now to a degree this is all subjective, a matter of taste. But if you go back and look at most first season episodes from most long-running shows you'll find differences in style and approach, and they'll be real whether you think the later shows are better or worse.

This is because there is always a learning curve, especially with an ensemble show where the personalities of both the characters and the actors have to mesh, and the writers are influenced by the chemistry between different combinations of actors in crafting their scripts.

Star Trek almost became The Kirk and Spock Show by season three, because that relationship was so interesting and so compelling to the writers. Often Spock, as Science Officer, was given exposition to deliver that really should have come from McCoy, the ship's Chief Medical Officer. Why? Kirk and Spock were more fun to write, and the audience loved it, too.

There is less room for this kind of thing in a show with a story arc, but there is room for some of it. It didn't have to be Stephen and Marcus that made contact with the Mars Resistance, for instance. There wasn't any major arc-driven reason for them to get the assignment, almost any two characters could have been sent. I think JMS used the pair because they had been fun together in "Exogenesis."

As you go along in producing a show you learn what works and what doesn't for that show, which is different than the last show you did, and will be different from the next show you do. As you said, technical expertise carries over. Things specific to the story don't.

Regards,

Joe

------------------
Joseph DeMartino
Sigh Corps
Pat Tallman Division
joseph-demartino@att.net

Not a complaint, per say....faith in JMS...

Beyond the rim

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

Regular

Regular

Beyond the rim

Regular

Regular

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

Regular

Beyond the rim

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

Regular

Regular

Moderator

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

Regular

Regular

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

Regular

Moderator

Share this page

We value your privacy

DONOTDELETE

DONOTDELETE

DONOTDELETE

DONOTDELETE

DONOTDELETE