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: Re: Why is it J. Michael Straczynski
      To: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated  
    Date: 6/24/2003 5:58:00 PM  

Message 1 in thread 

View this message only
 



>Actually, it's mainly to sneak up to the startling Straczynski part
>gradually.
>And because it doesn't scare the cat. ;-)
>

That's actually more or less correct.

BTW, for those who've been asking about Rising Stars, if you go over to

http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/?column=13

you'll get a pretty good answer.

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: Why is it J. Michael Straczynski
      To: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated  
    Date: 6/24/2003 5:59:00 PM  

Message 2 in thread 

View this message only
 



Never, ever do this again. Not to a man in my condition. And I didn't even
HAVE a condition until I read this.

jms

>It's because it has better balance: 1 syllable, 2 syllables, 3 syllables
>rather than 1 syllable, 1 syllable, 3 syllables.
>
>You see, as ever, it goes back to the Minbari's obsession with the number
>three. Three words, with a total of six syllables. What is six, but three
>factorial ( 3! ), which is 3 z 2 z 1. Also, 3 + 2 + 1 = 6 - amazing!
>And take into account that 1 appears in both sums - yes, you guessed it -
>"the one" ! You see - more Minbari numerology in there!!
>
>The Minbari connection is even more remarkable, when you do a quick
>numerological analysis on both forms you suggested:
>
>-----------------------------------------
>
>J MICHAEL STRACZYNSKI
>
>J 10
> 10 SUB-TOTAL
>M 13
>I 9
>C 3
>H 8
>A 1
>E 5
>L 12
> 51 SUB-TOTAL
>S 19
>T 20
>R 18
>A 1
>C 3
>Z 26
>Y 25
>N 14
>S 19
>K 11
>I 9
> 164 SUB-TOTAL
>
> 225 TOTAL
>
> 2 + 2 + 5 = 9 = 3 x 3
>-----------------------------------------
>
>JOE M STRACZYNSKI
>
>J 10
>O 15
>E 5
> 30 SUB-TOTAL
>M 13
> 13 SUB-TOTAL
>S 19
>T 20
>R 18
>A 1
>C 3
>Z 26
>Y 25
>N 14
>S 19
>K 11
>I 9
> 164 SUB-TOTAL
>
> 207 TOTAL
>
> 2 + 0 + 9 = 9 = 3 x 3
>-----------------------------------------
>
>At first sight, it seems that both forms are in fact Minbari-linked, with
>the totals collapsing down to 9. However, closer analysis shows that the
>first form must be the ideal candidate. If you take the first word from
>each form, you get J (10 summed letters), and JOE (30 summed letters).
>
>Rewriting these in Bolloxian form, you get:
>
>(1) J = 10
>(2) JOE = 30
>
>Substituting (1) into (2), you get:
>
>(3) 10OE = 30 => OE = 3
>
>Now, as we know, Joe is a great wordsmith, so it is obvious that that OE can
>only refer to the Oxford English dictionary. And in this context, it is
>obvious that (3) is telling us that we are talking about the 3 volume
>_Shorter_ Oxford English Dictionary. Since J is shorter than JOE, then we
>can only conclude that the first form is correct.
>
>~~~~
>
>Just as an addendum, look at the numerical positions in the alphabet of JMS:
>
>J 10
>
>M 13
>
>S 19
>
>Cam you see the pattern? Yes, the differences are:
>
>J 10
> \
> 3
> /
>M 13
> \
> 6
> /
>S 19
>
>There you go again. Three and six, both multiples of three. And what do
>you get if you add them up? 3 + 6 = 9 = 3 x 3.
>Unbelievable!
>
>
>I hope that this answers your question.
>
>--
>Mark Alexander Bertenshaw
>Kingston upon Thames
>UK
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
    From: jmsatb5@aol.com (Jms at B5)
 Subject: Re: Why is it J. Michael Straczynski
      To: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated  
    Date: 6/25/2003 11:42:00 PM  

Message 3 in thread 

View this message only
 



>You have here a very large and loyal fan base; surely there must be something
>we your fans can do
>by combining our forces in unity?

No, it really is an internal matter, and it wouldn't be appropriate to take
advantage of fans in that fashion.


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: Why is it J. Michael Straczynski
      To: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated  
    Date: 6/25/2003 11:56:00 PM  

Message 4 in thread 

View this message only
 



>Question: Why is it there are so many alliances you've been involved in
>which seem great to start with, and then turn not just sour, but absolutely
>putrid?

Actually, they've been more the exception to the rule than the rule. The
nature of TV is that there are egos involved, lots of money involved, and those
two don't tend to play well together.

Nonetheless: my experience with Universal was great on both Murder and Jake, my
experience with WB was great on B5, my experience with Marvel has been
terrific, Showtime was great to work with, and I could go on at some
considerable length about others.

TNT was a nightmare to work for on Crusade when they changed watchmen on us and
took away the good guys who worked with us on b5 and gave us idiots. Top Cow
was a good experience until the situation with the movie manifested itself,
which again results from egos and money in unfortunate confuence.

>Were you really giving a hyperbolic description of yourself when you
>had Sebastian comment about being "like Diogenes, with his lamp" searching
>for someone willing to die for a just cause for all the wrong reasons?

If I were, consciously or otherwise, it would be awfully self-indulgent of me.


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: Why is it J. Michael Straczynski
      To: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated  
    Date: 6/26/2003 11:59:00 PM  

Message 5 in thread 

View this message only
 



>OTOH, IIRC jms has indicated at one point or another in the past that there
>are ***some*** scripts that you write simply because they are paying you to
>do so. But you can't let yourself fall in love with them, because the final
>product that will make it to screen will be completely unrecognizable.

Which is one thing...the other thing is being lied to, which I don't cotton to
real well. If you're going to change something, have the stones to tell me,
don't tell me "the script hasn't come in" because sooner or later the truth
will out, and it ain't pretty.

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 © 2008 Midnight Design Productions  -  Message content © 2008 by Synthetic Worlds  -  Privacy Statement