JMSNews
The J. Michael Straczynski Message Archive

 

JMSNews provides an archive of messages posted
by J. Michael Straczynski (JMS).

  Home      Community Forums      Contest      Links      FAQ      About JMS     

RSS Feed  

 Search all Messages

   Sort by: 

This field searches the text of all messages in the archive.

 Message
    From: jmsatb5@aol.com (Jms at B5)
 Subject: From jms Re: Jerry Doyle hopeful of B5 revival
      To: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated  
    Date: 9/9/2003 7:05:00 PM  

Message 1 in thread 

View this message only
 



Forgive the repost in case the other note doesn't get through....

So there's a response on filmforce.ign.com from Jerry to the discussion t=
hat
took place here about his statements on that system that he was putting
together a follow-up to B5 as a series. I thought I'd repost what I just=
sent
to the folks who posted his reply, as well as Jerry's comments, unaltered=
.. =20

My comments are prefaced by the > character.


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

To quote from the note from Jerry, and respond, with my responses in ital=
ics:
=20
I'm not one for chat rooms or newsgroups, but this was brought to my atte=
ntion
by numerous people, and here's my response=E2=80=A6

F*** Joe and his typical controlling bull****.
=20
>Well, at least we've defined the terms of the discussion.

I guess Doug Netter hasn't been talking to me or the "radio guy" or whoev=
er.=20
=20
>Doug returned Jerry's call, yes. We do that when our cast members call.=
But
to my knowledge there have been no talks between Doug and the "radaio guy=
.."=20
Which is exactly what I'd said.
=20
I guess Doug didn't send demographics and related data to the "radio guy".
=20
>Jerry asked us to send information, information was sent. That doesn't =
have
anything to do with anything that I said in my notes on the newsgroup.
=20
I guess Doug is lying when he told me he's had conversations with the "ra=
dio
guy" and that Joe already has some ideas on paper.=20
=20
>It's clear that someone has their wires crossed, yes. But to go back to=
what
I'd said: if someone has the clout to make a deal, I'm here to talk to th=
em,
whilch again is what I'd said. But no one has yet come to either Doug or
myself with anything close to that. I've never done any work based on so=
me guy
in Chicago who thinks he can make something happen with Jerry. =20
=20
I guess I didn't fly out to Chicago to meet with the "radio guy" in the m=
iddle
of August.=20
=20
>I never said he didn't. What Jerry does or doesn't do on his own time, =
with
his own dime, is Jerry's business. This is a case of Jerry defending him=
self
from an accusation that I never made. All I've ever said is that nobody =
has
yet come to us with anything resembling a deal, or shown the potential to=
make
a deal happen.
=20
Oh by the way, the "radio guy", he's the NUMBER ONE syndicator in the cou=
ntry
and has strong ties to the head of Fox. I guess that's something else I m=
ade
up.
=20
>Again, this has nothing to do with what was said. I didn't say this guy
wasn't a syndicator of any level, and never said he didn't have ties to F=
ox.=20
So once more Jerry is setting up a straw man argument to defend something=
that
was simply never implied or stated. =20

Joe can say what he wants. He can spout his crap about how "he's the man"
around which all things B5 spin.=20
=20
>Well, yeah, I did create the series, executive produce it, write 91 out =
of 110
episodes, and I do control many of the rights. And no deal can go forwar=
d
without my involvement. By contract, if it doesn't happen with me, it do=
esn't
happen. I still don't see what that has to do with anything, however. =20
=20
At least I'm still trying to bring back what should never have been taken=
off
the air. The fans deserve the show.=20
=20
>I've never said anything to the contrary. I've said, and I'll say it ag=
ain
here, that I'll listen to anybody who has the wherewithal to put a deal
together. So far that hasn't happened, despite Jerry's pronouncements. =
I
pointed that fact out. That is the only fact that Jerry hasn't dealt wit=
h
here, apparently finding it easier to respond to things I didn't say than=
to
things I did say, which is odd, but there you go.
=20
Joe's ego deserves a much bigger person.
=20
>Some things deserve a response, some things don't. This is one of the l=
atter.
He hasn't refuted anything I said, which was that Jerry has talked a lot=
about
a lot of prospects, but to date none of them have materialized. If I wer=
e
wrong, then something would have been put forward. That's simply a state=
ment
of fact, ego has nothing to do with it. =20

Feel free to post this from where it came. I'm tired of all the bull****.
=20
>I'm glad that Jerry has taken this opportunity to vent. Clearly, he mis=
ses
the show and wants it to come back. We all miss the show. But at the sa=
me
time, it's not fair to the fans that Jerry mentions to get people excited=
about
something that doesn't exist. I'm glad that he is trying to get things g=
oing,
for himself and with others, but talking about things doesn't make them s=
o, and
pointing this out is not inappropriate when, based on those statements, I=
find
my email box filled with inquiries about things that simply aren't happen=
ing.=20
I've worked with the online community for ten years now, talking about B5=
and
being painfully honest about what's going on. =20
=20
>If there were something going on involving a return of the series that w=
as
real, I'd be the first person to talk about it and let people know. But =
there
isn't. I have to be honest with people, because I have ten years worth o=
f
reputation and credibility with the fans to protect. I see that Jerry do=
esn't
like that, but I can't change that now because he's offended. And again,=
at
the end of the day, it comes down to this: Jerry says he's got something =
going
that's real. If he does, and makes it happen, then I look like a fool, w=
hich
I'm okay with, it wouldn't be the first time. Then he's right to be offe=
nded.=20
If he doesn't, and he can't...then on what possible basis can one be offe=
nded?
=20
>Just a thought or two for anyone looking on.
=20
>Joe Straczynski
jms

(jmsatb5@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2003 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,=20
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine=20
and don't send me story ideas)
    From: jmsatb5@aol.com (Jms at B5)
 Subject: Re: From jms Re: Jerry Doyle hopeful of B5 revival
      To: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated  
    Date: 9/9/2003 7:16:00 PM  

Message 2 in thread 

View this message only
 



Nuts...sorry, folks, I didn't realize that the italics codes wouldn't
translate. Here's a cleaner version to read, my apologies for the technical
glitch.

So there's a response on filmforce.ign.com from Jerry to the discussion that
took place here about his statements on that system that he was putting
together a follow-up to B5 as a series. I thought I'd repost what I just sent
to the folks who posted his reply, as well as Jerry's comments, unaltered.

My comments are prefaced by the > character.


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

To quote from the note from Jerry, and respond.

I'm not one for chat rooms or newsgroups, but this was brought to my attention
by numerous people, and here's my responseâ?¦

F*** Joe and his typical controlling bull****.

>Well, at least we've defined the terms of the discussion.

I guess Doug Netter hasn't been talking to me or the "radio guy" or whoever.

>Doug returned Jerry's call, yes. We do that when our cast members call. But
to my knowledge there have been no talks between Doug and the "radaio guy."
Which is exactly what I'd said.

I guess Doug didn't send demographics and related data to the "radio guy".

>Jerry asked us to send information, information was sent. That doesn't have
anything to do with anything that I said in my notes on the newsgroup.

I guess Doug is lying when he told me he's had conversations with the "radio
guy" and that Joe already has some ideas on paper.

>It's clear that someone has their wires crossed, yes. But to go back to what
I'd said: if someone has the clout to make a deal, I'm here to talk to them,
whilch again is what I'd said. But no one has yet come to either Doug or
myself with anything close to that. I've never done any work based on some guy
in Chicago who thinks he can make something happen with Jerry.

I guess I didn't fly out to Chicago to meet with the "radio guy" in the middle
of August.

>I never said he didn't. What Jerry does or doesn't do on his own time, with
his own dime, is Jerry's business. This is a case of Jerry defending himself
from an accusation that I never made. All I've ever said is that nobody has
yet come to us with anything resembling a deal, or shown the potential to make
a deal happen.

Oh by the way, the "radio guy", he's the NUMBER ONE syndicator in the country
and has strong ties to the head of Fox. I guess that's something else I made
up.

>Again, this has nothing to do with what was said. I didn't say this guy
wasn't a syndicator of any level, and never said he didn't have ties to Fox.
So once more Jerry is setting up a straw man argument to defend something that
was simply never implied or stated.

Joe can say what he wants. He can spout his crap about how "he's the man"
around which all things B5 spin.

>Well, yeah, I did create the series, executive produce it, write 91 out of 110
episodes, and I do control many of the rights. And no deal can go forward
without my involvement. By contract, if it doesn't happen with me, it doesn't
happen. I still don't see what that has to do with anything, however.

At least I'm still trying to bring back what should never have been taken off
the air. The fans deserve the show.

>I've never said anything to the contrary. I've said, and I'll say it again
here, that I'll listen to anybody who has the wherewithal to put a deal
together. So far that hasn't happened, despite Jerry's pronouncements. I
pointed that fact out. That is the only fact that Jerry hasn't dealt with
here, apparently finding it easier to respond to things I didn't say than to
things I did say, which is odd, but there you go.

Joe's ego deserves a much bigger person.

>Some things deserve a response, some things don't. This is one of the latter.
He hasn't refuted anything I said, which was that Jerry has talked a lot about
a lot of prospects, but to date none of them have materialized. If I were
wrong, then something would have been put forward. That's simply a statement
of fact, ego has nothing to do with it.

Feel free to post this from where it came. I'm tired of all the bull****.

>I'm glad that Jerry has taken this opportunity to vent. Clearly, he misses
the show and wants it to come back. We all miss the show. But at the same
time, it's not fair to the fans that Jerry mentions to get people excited about
something that doesn't exist. I'm glad that he is trying to get things going,
for himself and with others, but talking about things doesn't make them so, and
pointing this out is not inappropriate when, based on those statements, I find
my email box filled with inquiries about things that simply aren't happening.
I've worked with the online community for ten years now, talking about B5 and
being painfully honest about what's going on.

>If there were something going on involving a return of the series that was
real, I'd be the first person to talk about it and let people know. But there
isn't. I have to be honest with people, because I have ten years worth of
reputation and credibility with the fans to protect. I see that Jerry doesn't
like that, but I can't change that now because he's offended. And again, at
the end of the day, it comes down to this: Jerry says he's got something going
that's real. If he does, and makes it happen, then I look like a fool, which
I'm okay with, it wouldn't be the first time. Then he's right to be offended.
If he doesn't, and he can't...then on what possible basis can one be offended?

>Just a thought or two for anyone looking on.

>Joe Straczynski
jms

(jmsatb5@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2003 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)
    From: jmsatb5@aol.com (Jms at B5)
 Subject: Re: From jms Re: Jerry Doyle hopeful of B5 revival
      To: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated  
    Date: 9/10/2003 1:19:00 AM  

Message 3 in thread 

View this message only
 



>I'm not so sure I agree with you here Joe. I have seen more than one show
>revived from the dead by viewer voice. Maybe getting a lot of people excited
>about it and writing in to the powers that be is the answer.

This is to an extent true, though fan campaigns have kind of been devalued with
the studios over the years because it seems that almost any show can get such a
campaign going.

That issue aside...the situation here is that there *is* no big Bring Back B5
campaign going on, because the series was meant as a five year series, minus
any sideline ventures into MOWs and the like. Nor was this any part of what
Jerry was talking about. Just FYI.

jms

(jmsatb5@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2003 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)
    From: jmsatb5@aol.com (Jms at B5)
 Subject: Re: From jms Re: Jerry Doyle hopeful of B5 revival
      To: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated  
    Date: 9/11/2003 9:35:00 PM  

Message 4 in thread 

View this message only
 



>there was a cute story JMS told about how, while writing the
>scene where Lyta and Byron make love he paused and wrote (paraphrased) "I
>wonder which is more embarrassing, writing this or reading it?". Several
>years
>later (and long after I'd've thought I'd forgotten the story) I read the
>script
>and there it was. Joe could have easily been forgiven if he'd made up that
>story but he hadn't-it was true.

I'd totally forgotten about that until you posted it here. Which is probably
one of the big reasons I don't tend to stretch the truth as a rule...to be an
effective fibber, you really need a good memory, and I don't have one.

(Funny aside about that scene...I made it clear, to protect Pat's privacy
during the love making scene, that it be a closed set, only essential camera
crew, nobody else. It's just something you do to be respectful, since there
would be a lot of skin flashing. Even I would not be on set out of a desire
for her privacy. So I'm out at editing that day, and come back to find that,
during that scene, Doug had brought some studio guys and financing guys by for
a set tour...and walked them right in on this. Suffice to say words were
spoken.)

jms

(jmsatb5@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2003 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)

Site © 2015 Midnight Design Productions  -  Message content © 2015 by Synthetic Worlds  -  Privacy Statement