It's also worth remembering that JMS himself came from a *very* poor background and now he's the head of his own company. Don't know if he's actually worth enough to be considered a millionaire
JMS has been the showrunner for a number of television series; those kinds of jobs tend to pay ridiculously well. For instance, Joss Whedon had development deals in the small mutli-millions back during the days of
Buffy and
Angel. Granted that his shows were never as big as Whedon's (and that Whedon's shows themselves were never huge), but my suspicion is that if JMS is not a millionaire, it is by virtue of him not having parlayed his salaries into investment and other opportunities; I suspect most people in his position would have a relatively easier time becoming multimillionaires if they aren't there already.
(none of my damn business anyway) but he knows the value of money because he remembers what it's like not to have any.
Which also doesn't mean he believes in the economic system Robinson endorses in the
Mars trilogy.
I have to say, it's a bit of leap to connect a depiction of someone being the head of a company as being "not liberal enough" or "too pro-corporate". Indeed, the very first thing Garibaldi does as the CEO is lay bare just how corrupt the old board was (to say nothing of the damage the company as a whole had been doing to Mars Colony) and kick them all out the door.
That's hardly a ringing endorsement of the executive lifestyle.
No, but it is still a depiction of the same basic economic system as enabling a happy ending; JMS depicts Edgars Industries as being corrupt until Garibaldi "cleans it up," but he does not depict the entire economic system of which Edgars Industries is only a small part as being corrupt. It's the difference between condemning a brick and condemning a house.
There's no particular sense that there's something unjust about the very idea of a corporation or of the existence of financial elites. This seems to reflect a mainstream American liberal idea, that you can have a moral capitalism if you have good regulation.
Mind you, I'm not coming to firm conclusions that JMS
won't construct a narrative that endorses Robinson's socialism. But he has a history of writing from a mainstream liberal point of view, and no particular history of Robinson's brand of radicalism.
Not to say that his adaptation won't reflect the politics of the Mars trilogy. But I'm curious if it will. There's a big difference between being implicitly anti-corporate and being active socialist, which is ultimately what Robinson's trilogy is. This is a politics that's outside the American mainstream, and JMS's politics on B5 was fairly mainstream liberal. So I'll be interested to see the narrative's politics in his adaptation.
It's all relative. You do realise that from this side of the pond, whenever we hear American's talk about socialism, and left wing politics, that to us what you're actually talking about is leaning *slightly* to the left with one flailing hand all the while both feet planted very firmly so far right it's a wonder the actual right wingers don't get shoved off the edge.
Yes, American socialists like myself are keenly aware that the term is often used to describe capitalistic policies that are merely on the more liberal side of capitalism. But Robinson's depiction of Martian socialism is genuinely socialistic, and not really a part of the American liberal tradition.
Anyway, JMS doesn't have to be anti-this or pro-that in order to portray multiple viewpoints, whether he personally leans that way or not. There's a big difference between writing about social issues in general and deliberately pushing a specific agenda. Also remember that depiction does not equate to endorsement.
Sure. But the
Mars trilogy
does have a point of view as a narrative on these issues, so I'm curious to see if JMS brings that point of view to the screen or changes it.
The reason I wonder with JMS is that, well, I think he often is polemic. Babylon 5's villains could occasionally be political strawmen, frankly, and JMS loves his speechification. Add to this the very simple fact that a large corporation is of course paying for the whole show. So I do wonder if he's going to write the adaptation from the same anticapitalist, market socialist perspective that the books are written from.
Look at the way religion was handled on B5. But JMS is an atheist. There's no doubt at all that JMS can write convincingly about views that he doesn't hold. Heck, he probably doesn't believe in Narns and Minbari and the rest!
I think this is the strongest argument I've seen for JMS being able to convincingly write a socialist narrative. For all that JMS is an atheist, a lot of B5 does seem to have a very religious feel to it, and the episodes written specifically about religion often seemed to have a narrative endorsing religious ideas -- "Passing Through Gethsemane" comes to mind.
My only concern about this, and it also applies to the recent announcement from the BBC about Phillip Pullman's 'His Dark Materials' trilogy is that they adapt all three books in the series and maybe even the short stories I believe KSR wrote as a companion piece. I'm old enough to remember the BBC only adapting two of John Christopher's (then) three Tripods novels back in the 80s. By the way do you think the success of 'The Martian' had a role to play in this decision?
It's my understanding from the
Variety article that Season One, consisting of ten episodes, will be an adaptation of
Red Mars. So they seem to be following the
Game of Thrones/
True Blood model, where a season's worth of episodes collectively adapt a single novel.
If that's the case, then Season One would have at least as much closure as
Red Mars itself has, and then Season Two would have at least as much closure as
Green Mars has. Each season would tell a complete story -- so even if it's not renewed, there'd be some closure.
And I think the success of
The Martian almost certainly helped convince Spike to greenlight the show.
I'm honestly more surprised Spike TV seems to be aiming for the highbrow market, though. They've been pretty firmly entrenched in the lowbrow/middlebrow market for a good long while, but now it looks like they want to do
Game of Thrones-style genre prestige television. Definitely a new direction for them.
