How bitter was J. Michael Straczynski towards DS9?

I think B5 and DS9 are both great shows, and I think the "ripoff" allegations are mostly pretty dumb. I was wondering how much JMS was bothered by DS9. I've heard the people behind the two shows had pretty good relations with each other, but I've also heard about JMS saying some kinda douchey things about DS9.

 

No disrespect intended, but if you want to know, almost all of JMS' posts are archived at http://jmsnews.com/ so you can go look it up. Some of it may even have been discussed in the sticky thread at the top of this forum.

Most of the rest of the folks here have concluded that what happened over 20 years ago really doesn't matter anymore.

 

I don't recall JMS ever being flat-out angry about it. He put in some good natured jabs ("This isn't some Deep Space franchise, this station is about something!"), and probably wasn't too happy when Robert Foxworth got double-booked on DS9 and B5 at the same time and happened to choose DS9*, but other than that, any 'anger' issues were probably largely fan generated.

*RF chose DS9 because it was a two-parter (Homefront/Paradise Lost). So JMS then killed off General Hague, whom RF had been playing on B5.

 

JMS was clear that he thought Paramount had knowingly ripped off the B5 idea but that he decided to live and let live. (I don't think this was "douchey" at all, FWIW.) He makes an extensive comment about it here.

 

He felt that Rick Berman and Michael Piller didn't rip him off, but he does think that some Paramount Exec probably used some ideas he remembered from JMS and put them in DS9.

 

Speak for yourself, I and plenty of others are intensely interested in what happen involving Trek in the past.

 

Though JMS allowed it to stay in the script, it was actually Peter David who wrote that line.

Jan

 

There's a nice outtake on one of the Babylon 5 DVD's where the character Major Ryan, played by Bruce McGill, is asked the fate of General Hague and replies with:

"General Hague... is doing Deep Space Nine. It seems he was double-booked by his agent and there was nothing to be done. So you'll have to do with me, sir."

 

This again? Oh dear.

Look, it's been said over and over and over that whatever concepts or ideas may or may not have been "borrowed" from JMS's early pitch to Paramount, JMS has never expressed what I'd call "bitterness" about the whole thing. Mildly peeved at the time, perhaps. They were after all in direct competition and he may have made some tongue-in-cheek jabs here and there. But even if there was more too it, it's all water under the bridge, down the valley and out into the ocean.

It seems the only people who care are those who insist on exhuming this zombie of a straw-man argument for reasons I can't even begin to fathom, if indeed I ever cared to try.

Further to what Jan points out regarding Peter David's line; it should be noted for those that don't know (I certainly didn't before I looked it up) that David has written over 40 Star Trek novels over the years (plus 3 B5 ones!) so the idea that there was ever any true animosity here is quite frankly preposterous.

I am however a little curious as to why he was never tapped to write for one of the shows.

 

You do realize that not everyone has the same knowledge base and that questions like that come up regularly is absolutely natural?

 

Let's be clear: JMS wasn't bitter toward Berman, Piller or Taylor. He was bitter toward Paramount, and yes, he did consider legal action.

 

Who knows what happened. But considering JMS's conduct regarding Before Watchmen, I'll never feel too sorry for him anyway.

 

I would take everything Captain Braxton says with a grain of salt IMO...

 

You mean this behavior? Where he and the other writers treated the characters created by (but not owned by) Moore with respect after Moore's repeated refusal to do so regardless of invitations by DC? Bottom line, Moore played 'dog in the manger' and had no complaint coming.

Jan

 

Justify it all you like if it makes you and your hero feel better.

 

To be honest, Alan Moore always seemed to be a bit... touchy when it came to his graphic novels. He apparently hates pretty much everything other people are doing with them, be it the publication of prequel comics or the making of film adaptations.

Well, if it's that important to him he just shouldn't have signed contracts allowing DC to do just this, I guess...

 

The bottom line here is that we fans got not one, but two space station based shows to watch and enjoy.

And after twenty years, isn't THAT more important?

 

What's to justify? I haven't seen any kind of cogent, rational rebuttal. Did you actually read any of the books at all?

 

To be fair to Moore, he has been burnt by both the comics and movie industries, so I can see why he'd be prickly. However, when it comes to an argument about respecting the wishes of the original author (implicit or otherwise) considering what Moore chose to do with the characters of L. Frank Baum and J. M. Barrie, I rather think he gave up the moral high ground in this instance.

 

What's Babylon 5?