Babylon 5

[Asbo Zaprudder]

The first version of The Gathering was pretty rough. The revised version (sans uplifted gorilla bartender, alien zoo tour, and Stewart Copeland's music) was an improvement but still very inconsistent with the series. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone I was hoping to turn into a B5 fan.

 

[DonIago]

When I show B5 to people who haven't seen it, I tend to say that if S1 isn't doing it for them, give it at least a couple of episodes into S2. Usually by "Babylon Squared" things are okay though.

 

[Jan]

So yeah typical JMS.

My, somebody's got gravel in their shoe. Are you suggesting that it should have been the other way around? Or perhaps that he shouldn't have analysed what worked and what didn't in order to make it better? Having seen one of the memos regarding said analysis, I'd have to say that you perhaps read the attitude wrong...or inserted your own.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Pilots exist to test if a concept has potential and to see what works and what doesn't. I suspect The Gathering was borderline but maybe the TV execs desperately wanted something to compete with the Trek shows.

 

[Noname Given]

My, somebody's got gravel in their shoe. Are you suggesting that it should have been the other way around? Or perhaps that he shouldn't have analysed what worked and what didn't in order to make it better? Having seen one of the memos regarding said analysis, I'd have to say that you perhaps read the attitude wrong...or inserted your own.

Given how he was promoting what was in the Pilot on Compuserve in the weeks leading to the premiere - yep.

Considering the way he gaslight both Andrea Thompson and Claudia Christian during the show's PTEN run; yeah, it was a showcase of classic JMS.

 

[Jan]

Given how he was promoting what was in the Pilot on Compuserve in the weeks leading to the premiere - yep.

Been reading those posts. I see nothing wrong with anything he's said and I don't see anybody thrown under a bus. Later on, quite a bit later, he had little nice to say about Compton's filming and editing but I don't disagree with him there. I've never once seen him say anywhere that the crew was anything other than dedicated, talented and hard working.

Considering the way he gaslight both Andrea Thompson and Claudia Christian during the show's PTEN run; yeah, it was a showcase of classic JMS.

Are you claiming that Thompson didn't ask to be released from her contract? As for Christian...I've personally heard *four* versions from her of her quitting the show and only one from JMS. So I know who I believe. Wait - PTEN run? What on earth did he say about Christian before she left the show?

So...do tell.

 

[Aeon]

Then after the premiere when everyone started talking about how cheap the alien sector looked; JMS started throwing the production staff of the pilot under the bus, and that he had to make compromises and really didn't get the things he wanted for the set, etc.

I've read most of the old messages from JMS and I remember him mentioning the alien sector... or as people decided to call it: the alien zoo. If anyone has missed it, it was basically meant to show a difference in their culture with lesser need for privacy. He stated many times that the idea obviously didn't work out and people received it badly so he tweaked the sector so it wouldn't confuse anyone. I can't really remember anything about him throwing anyone else under the bus because one idea didn't work out.

Also the only thing he mostly complained about The Gathering was his own lack of experience in producing a scifi show of his own making. IIRC he had two choices when deciding the final edit: either speak out when it seemed off or let it go and trust the editor. He chose the latter which he regretted and later on tried to salvage with the Special Edition. Nothing too unusual in Hollywood.

And speaking of Hollywood of course I've read some minor grumblins about JMS here and there (IIRC more recent interviews of the CGI people of the show, old magazine interviews from the 90s etc.) but no one is perfect in the business.

 

[David cgc]

As for Christian...I've personally heard *four* versions from her of her quitting the show and only one from JMS. So I know who I believe. Wait - PTEN run? What on earth did he say about Christian before she left the show?

Wasn't there something in Chrsitan's memoir about JMS making a pass at her and then fictionalizing it as the subplot where Ivanova is trying to figure out if Corwin is going to sell them out to Clark and he thinks she's acting weird because she's coming on to him? I didn't read the book, only heard about it second-hand, but that could be what's being referred to.

 

[Jan]

Wasn't there something in Chrsitan's memoir about JMS making a pass at her and then fictionalizing it as the subplot where Ivanova is trying to figure out if Corwin is going to sell them out to Clark and he thinks she's acting weird because she's coming on to him? I didn't read the book, only heard about it second-hand, but that could be what's being referred to.

Dunno about the ficionalization with Corwin but yes, she wrote about an instance where he invited her someplace and it appeared that it was meant to be a date but she hadn't taken it that way. Is that considered making a pass or just mixed signals (serious question; I've been out of the dating scene for many years)? Could be what Noname was referring to? Not sure how "gaslighting" could be meant there but if/when Noname explains, we'll know.

 

[Reverend]

I think it's a given that even trying to date one of your employees is a bit off, to say the least.

But then crap like this is one of several reasons I don't read biographies or memoirs. I really can't bring myself to care about other people's personal lives, especially not when it comes from an inherently subjective source.

 

[Jan]

I think it's a given that even trying to date one of your employees is a bit off, to say the least.

But then crap like this is one of several reasons I don't read biographies or memoirs. I really can't bring myself to care about other people's personal lives, especially not when it comes from an inherently subjective source.

Yes...but much less so in the mid-90s than it is today.

Christian's left me cold, TBH. I dont care about...let's call it her medical history. JMS's though, was really good. He wove a mystery about his family through it. First part was really hard to read from an emotional standpoint, though.

 

[Reverend]

Yes...but much less so in the mid-90s than it is today.

I don't feel like "tolerated misbehaviour bordering on abuse of power" and "it's still a bit off though" are mutually exclusive concepts.

Christian's left me cold, TBH. I dont care about...let's call it her medical history. JMS's though, was really good. He wove a mystery about his family through it. First part was really hard to read from an emotional standpoint, though.

In this instance of course a has-been b-movie actor's biography isn't going to be as well written as someone that's been surgically grafted to his keyboard since the mid 80's.
But see now, there's a problem right there. If biographies are to be graded mostly on their entertainment value, then what's the point? Surely badly written facts are preferable to entertaining horseshit? Which is of course the thing with biographies; it's 90% hearsay and anecdotal, presented by the party most invested in presenting themselves in whatever light they wish to. At that point, it may as well be fantasy.

Not that I'm taking sides in any of this since as previously stated, I don't care about other people's personal lives. Just illustrating why I find biographies to generally be almost useless sources of information, especially when accounts conflict.

 

[Jan]

I don't feel like "tolerated misbehaviour bordering on abuse of power" and "it's still a bit off though" are mutually exclusive concepts.

Scuse? What 'misbehavior bordering on abuse of power'? Escalate much? He invited. She accepted what she thought was a simple outing between friends (as I understand it) and duscovered that he seemed to want a date. Uncomfortable but hardly anything abusive or 'off' about it.

Not that I'm taking sides in any of this since as previously stated, I don't care about other people's personal lives. Just illustrating why I find biographies to generally be almost useless sources of information, especially when accounts conflict.

There's no side to take in this case. She saw fit to tell tales out of school, not he.

 

[Reverend]

Scuse? What 'misbehavior bordering on abuse of power'? Escalate much? He invited. She accepted what she thought was a simple outing between friends (as I understand it) and duscovered that he seemed to want a date. Uncomfortable but hardly anything abusive or 'off' about it.

I was responding to your (truthful) assertion that this kind of thing was less frowned upon in the 90's. And yes, I'd characterise inviting an employee to dinner as poor behaviour, and a misuse of power. Ever had the kind of job when you can be fired on a whim of your immediate boss? Ever needed that job to still have a roof over your head? Ever had an arsehole for a boss? This is not an uncommon venn diagram, especially in show business.

As for who agreed to what and why: The onus here is on the inviter, no the invitee. The latter is not responsible for misreading the former's intent as platonic whether or not it was otherwise. And when said former is in a position of power and authority over the latter, it's hardly a level playing field. And that's not even taking into account the implicit gender dynamics. Given all that, saying "no" might not seem like an option for someone that still wants to be employed tomorrow.

At best, it's a very stupid move for him to make since even if his intent was benign, it's still liable to look like some Harvey Weinstein crap from her POV. At worst, it IS some Harvey Weinstein crap.

There's no side to take in this case. She saw fit to tell tales out of school, not he.

Of course there is. One side being silent on a claim of impropriety doesn't make the claim magically vanish, it just means there's a question mark hanging in the air. But like I said, I'm not terribly concerned either way. Ultimately, people are generally going to believe what they want to believe. For all I know she's full of shit and that dinner never happened, which brings my back to my initial point; biographies are unreliable narrators at best.

 

[Jan]

One side being silent on a claim of impropriety doesn't make the claim magically vanish, it just means there's a question mark hanging in the air.

Why is it I have to keep pointing out that there's no claim - by anybody but you - of impropriety? You keep claiming somenthing about something you admit you have no actual knowledge of. Please don't.

 

[Reverend]

Why is it I have to keep pointing out that there's no claim - by anybody but you - of impropriety? You keep claiming somenthing about something you admit you have no actual knowledge of. Please don't.

Perhaps you're reading a little more subtext into that word than I intend. All I mean by it is literally just behaviour that is improper (read: the invitation in and of itself), not as a euphemism for something sinister. One does not get involved in one's employees' personal lives. It is not proper behaviour, just as (for the sake of argument) it's not proper behaviour to turn up to work drunk, or to tell little white lies on your expenses claims.

 

[Jan]

Perhaps you're reading a little more subtext into that word than I intend. All I mean by it is literally just behaviour that is improper (read: the invitation in and of itself), not as a euphemism for something sinister. One does not get involved in one's employees' personal lives. It is not proper behaviour, just as (for the sake of argument) it's not proper behaviour to turn up to work drunk, or to tell little white lies on your expenses claims.

I'm sure you're right. Too bad nobody told Christian while she was having an afair with the married DP, huh? Judge not...

 

[Reverend]

I'm sure you're right. Too bad nobody told Christian while she was having an afair with the married DP, huh? Judge not...

...which is also improper behaviour, and in no way makes the other thing suddenly proper again. It's not a zero sum game.

 

[JD]

I don't feel like "tolerated misbehaviour bordering on abuse of power" and "it's still a bit off though" are mutually exclusive concepts.

In this instance of course a has-been b-movie actor's biography isn't going to be as well written as someone that's been surgically grafted to his keyboard since the mid 80's.
But see now, there's a problem right there. If biographies are to be graded mostly on their entertainment value, then what's the point? Surely badly written facts are preferable to entertaining horseshit? Which is of course the thing with biographies; it's 90% hearsay and anecdotal, presented by the party most invested in presenting themselves in whatever light they wish to. At that point, it may as well be fantasy.

Not that I'm taking sides in any of this since as previously stated, I don't care about other people's personal lives. Just illustrating why I find biographies to generally be almost useless sources of information, especially when accounts conflict.

Are you talking about biographies or autobiographies? There are a lot of biographies that will get into stuff beyond just what the person being written tells them.

 

[Reverend]

Are you talking about biographies or autobiographies? There are a lot of biographies that will get into stuff beyond just what the person being written tells them.

Honestly I've never seen much of a meaningful distinction between the two when most "autobiographies" are ghostwritten anyway. Straight-up biographies on the other hand are just a different flavour of unreliable. There's always some angle they're coming from, some bias they're leaning into whether they know it or not.