JMS, of Babylon 5...
- Thread starter foxmulder710
- Start date
- Status
This guy always seemed like an attention whore to me. B5 was decent but I think overrated.
And his treatment for Trek was not very good.
I tend to agree with you in terms of what the proposal says, but for comparison's sake, it may be interesting to see some of what was in the early promotional material for B5, which you can find at this link:
http://www.zteamproductions.com/babylon5.html
I find this quote especially interesting (since it's nothing like what actually happened in the B5 series):
With this in mind, I have to wonder if JMS's Star Trek treatment is really what he had in mind for the series or if it was only meant to whet the appetite of the studio. Or, it could at least show that JMS has no qualms about changing his mind if he thinks of a better approach. So, even if this is what JMS originally had in mind for his Star Trek series, there's a good chance that that he would deviate from it in some way once production started.
You'd be hard pressed to find a bigger fan of B5 than I am.
However, this whole "Star Trek stole from JMS" (and after all, this is simply yet ANOTHER twist on that sad and tired DS9-related argument I've dealt with for years) thing really is LONG past it's expiration date.
If JMS ever in a million years had a viable case for Star Trek stealing from him, he'd have long ago been to court and collected his bazillion dollars from Paramount.
Since that hasn't happened, I think it's safe to say that all of these endless accusations are little more than fan speculation - most of which is intended to do little more than create a riff between Trek fans and B5 fans for no good reason whatever.
However, this whole "Star Trek stole from JMS" (and after all, this is simply yet ANOTHER twist on that sad and tired DS9-related argument I've dealt with for years) thing really is LONG past it's expiration date.
If JMS ever in a million years had a viable case for Star Trek stealing from him, he'd have long ago been to court and collected his bazillion dollars from Paramount.
Since that hasn't happened, I think it's safe to say that all of these endless accusations are little more than fan speculation - most of which is intended to do little more than create a riff between Trek fans and B5 fans for no good reason whatever.
Except this thread isn't about that at all. The subject is the Trek treatment which JMS wrote four years ago, and on which Paramount opted to pass.
This:
In fact, I also wanted to stay away from the "who stole what from whom" argument, as evidenced here:
It was going rather well, too.
Yes. Anything is better than VOY and ENT's first two seasons.
Opinions. You're entitled to yours, but it doesn't make the opposite wrong.
I enjoyed those better than all of B5.
number6
Vice Admiral
I enjoyed chlaymidia more than B5.
One quick correction: the treatment by JMS and Bryce Zabel was never pitched to Paramount.
Jan
There's nothing wrong with JMS's concept -- a reboot and reimagination of Star Trek. However, he probably would have turned Star Trek into a soap opera with long reaching story arcs instead of what it did best -- and that was to give us great episodic televeision.
Story arcs are fun when they are only 3 episodes long, and happen only once every couple of seasons. Otherwise I think people tire of them. Those types of shows burn bright for a season or two, then fizzle out.
That's not to say there can't be an underlying season-long plot that helps move the season along, but that should only be a sub-plot to the "threat of the week" type of episodes.
And I think TV is best when that "threat of the week" has no personal connection with the main characters; the characters are there to face that threat and save the day, but they should not be personally connected to that threat otherwise. All Star Treks for the most part was very good at this, except for DS9, where Sisko and Odo not only acted on the "threat of the week" but were often intimately connected to that threat.
B5 did this all the time. It was a rare that there was some outside threat that they all had to confront; instead the threat usually came from within, and personally involved one of the main characters. Again, this type of story-telling is fun for a few episodes sprinkled throughout a season, but it gets old fast when that becomes the standard method of storytelling.
Story arcs are fun when they are only 3 episodes long, and happen only once every couple of seasons. Otherwise I think people tire of them. Those types of shows burn bright for a season or two, then fizzle out.
That's not to say there can't be an underlying season-long plot that helps move the season along, but that should only be a sub-plot to the "threat of the week" type of episodes.
And I think TV is best when that "threat of the week" has no personal connection with the main characters; the characters are there to face that threat and save the day, but they should not be personally connected to that threat otherwise. All Star Treks for the most part was very good at this, except for DS9, where Sisko and Odo not only acted on the "threat of the week" but were often intimately connected to that threat.
B5 did this all the time. It was a rare that there was some outside threat that they all had to confront; instead the threat usually came from within, and personally involved one of the main characters. Again, this type of story-telling is fun for a few episodes sprinkled throughout a season, but it gets old fast when that becomes the standard method of storytelling.
^
^^ Sure, because nobody can keep up with the commitment of watching the show week after week on TV, even if they want to, so they have to get the DVD after the season or series ends its run.
I think BSG and 'Lost' (somewhat) are exceptions to that. BSG breaks up it's seasons into 10-episode "half seasons" and the most recent seasons of 'Lost' are only 16 or so episodes long. These are easier to commit to, although at 16 episodes, Lost's season is almost too long.
^^ Sure, because nobody can keep up with the commitment of watching the show week after week on TV, even if they want to, so they have to get the DVD after the season or series ends its run.
I think BSG and 'Lost' (somewhat) are exceptions to that. BSG breaks up it's seasons into 10-episode "half seasons" and the most recent seasons of 'Lost' are only 16 or so episodes long. These are easier to commit to, although at 16 episodes, Lost's season is almost too long.
I stand corrected.
Those that survive for more than six weeks, anyway.
It's not unheard of; take Clerks: The Animated Series, for instance.
http://www.amazon.com/Clerks-Animated-Uncensored-Brian-OHalloran/dp/B0000541WH
Further information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerks_(TV_series)
I get what starship polaris, however, is getting at, but I leave it to him to explain.
And this is supposed to pass as some sort of compliment?
A lot of British series are/were six eps. Red Dwarf, up until series seven, an for six episodes at a time and do very well on DVD.
It's not unheard of; take Clerks: The Animated Series, for instance.
http://www.amazon.com/Clerks-Animated-Uncensored-Brian-OHalloran/dp/B0000541WH
Further information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerks_(TV_series)
I get what starship polaris, however, is getting at, but I leave it to him to explain.
Oh yeah, I love that series. I meant that question in the context of serialized shows.
A lot of British series are/were six eps. Red Dwarf, up until series seven, an for six episodes at a time and do very well on DVD.
OK, I didn't mean season-wise either. I'm talking one show, and here is the key word -- canceled after six episodes or less. In other words six episodes total ever made. The original statement made was "those that survive." Red Dwarf was intended to be six episodes each season.
- Status
