From: jmsatb5@aol.com (Jms at B5)
Subject: Re: JMS: B5 Editorial: Lamenta
To: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Date: 7/26/1994 4:11:00 PM
|
Message 1 in thread
View this message only
|
RE: Coke being more "reasonable" in Blade Runner because it's
closer...that doesn't seem to be the point of the original post. It's
ANY "commercial product" in a show that ruins it. Extrapolation doesn't6
seem to enter into it. Which is what makes it, in my view, a doofus note.
jms |
|
From: jmsatb5@aol.com (Jms at B5)
Subject: Re: JMS: B5 Editorial: Lamenta
To: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Date: 7/27/1994 5:26:00 AM
|
Message 2 in thread
View this message only
|
Yes, you're absolutely right; we have maybe half Trek's budget. If
someone said, as you posit, "Here...stick this futuristic Pepsi can in
the background of one of your episodes, as was done with Enemy Mine, and
you'll get five hundred thousand dollars you can use to make a better
show," I'd do it in a hot second. Absolutely. Because it would let us
do bigger, and better, and spiffier episodes, tell even grander stories,
hire REALLY big-name actors for guest spots...yeah, I'd do it.
It's just that it didn't happen *here*.
jms |
|
From: jmsatb5@aol.com (Jms at B5)
Subject: Re: JMS: B5 Editorial: Lamenta
To: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Date: 7/27/1994 5:57:00 AM
|
Message 3 in thread
View this message only
|
Actually, the idea of Zima lasting even into 1995 is hysterical. I
keep fighting the urge to have some guy show up on B5, "Zo then I zays to
him, nize ztation"...and five Narns just jump on him and beat the shit
out of him, WHAMWHAMWHAMWHAMWHAM!
jms |
|
From: jmsatb5@aol.com (Jms at B5)
Subject: Re: JMS: B5 Editorial: Lamenta
To: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Date: 7/27/1994 5:45:00 PM
|
Message 4 in thread
View this message only
|
Do not twist my words around. I don't like it.
When I said that Zima making it to 1995 was "hysterical," I was not
making fun of people or kids who are or become alcoholics. I grew up in
an alcoholic family, and there is *nothing* whatsoever funny in that, nor
was that intended in my message. It was strictly a comment about the
product probably not making it past 1994. Period. Don't go off on
tirades against my message that have nothing to do with what i wrote, and
then try and blame it on me. That's not what I said, not what I wrote,
not what was meant.
jms |
|
