Who?

(Here's the alternate first episode opening, if we had these huge shadowships, miles across, right from the git-go....

EXT. BABYLON 5 - ESTABLISHING

As a jump point begins to form.

INT. OBSERVATION DOME

As Ivanvoa and Sheridan move to the window.

EXT. SPACE - SHADOW MEGAWALLOPCRUISER

As it blows up Babylon 5, Epsilon 3, and every ship in the vicinity.

FADE OUT:

End of Series

Just dialed in here...demographics are a dirty word where I come from. Basically, I write the story that I would like to see as a viewer. If my tastes reflect that of others, folks watch; if not, not.

This is how I've always written, all the way back to when I began in animation. "This would be a cool story." And that's the be-all and end-all of it. Same with everything else.

Back a few years ago, I was looking for a particular kind of horror novel. Couldn't quite find what I wanted. So I sat down and *wrote* it, wrote the novel I wanted to read. Finished it, and shoved it in the closet for, I think, about two years. One day, my agent suggested I really should write a novel someday. Reluctantly, I dragged it out of the closet. Gave it to her. She gave it to a NY editor, who sold it to the first editor who got it. It really wasn't written for anyone else but me; had it stayed in the closet forever, it would've accomplished that task.

I take that approach with everything I write; if I wouldn't watch it, I won't write it. So, basically, my demographic is me.

jms

The key to the questions is that you generally have to first be able to answer "who are you?" before you can intelligently determine "what do you want?" To deal right with "what do you want" before you know who you are is destructive in almost any situation.

We will see Lyta again.

RE: alternate lifestyles...I said when stuff happened, we wouldn't make a big deal out of it, it'd just be there...and I said we'd address it in our own way, in our own time. We've done a bit here, we'll do a bit more down the road. I won't give you or anyone a timetable; I'll do stuff as the integrity of the story permits, not sooner, not later. I will not allow this to become a political football. If you do nothing, folks yell at you for ignoring it; if you do a little, they yell for not doing more; if you do more, they yell for not doing it sooner. Screw it. I do what the story calls for, as the story calls for it.

jms

See, here's where I start to have a problem. For starters, I don't do any thing to be politically correct, or politically incorrect, I do what I do in any story because that's what the story points me toward. Anybody who says "It's not necessary" isn't entitled to that judgement, frankly; you don't know what's necessary to the story. And by framing it in the "is this NECESSARY?" way is designed to make you defend your position when such defense isn't the point; is it NECESSARY to have humor? to have a romance? to have correct science? No, *nothing* is NECESSARY. It's what the writer feels is right for that scene, that story, that character.

"Oh, well, I saw it, but was all that violence NECESSARY?" This is, frankly, a BS observation usually offered by someone with an agenda, who wishes to invalidate the notion of an artistic view and impose some kind of quota, or objective criterion to what is and isn't necessary for a movie or film. As far as I'm concerned, the first person to throw this into a discussion has, frankly, just lost the argument.

Point the second: one of the most consistent comments I get, in email and regular mail, is the spirituality conveyed in the show, that we have shown, and will continue to show, tolerance toward religion, even created sympathetic religious characters. "Thank you for your tolerance," they say...until we show somebody or some action THEY don't like...and at that point suddenly it's a lot of tsk-tsking and chest thumping and disapproval; so okay, how about I just stop all positive religious aspects of the show?

It seems to me, that if I do *all that* with religion, and with thje (the) simple act of showing maybe ONE PERSON in all the long history of TV science fiction across 40 years has a different view of life, that the show is somehow degraded, or downgraded, or dropped in opinion...this simply reinforces the notion, held by many, that a lot of folks in the religious right wish to make sure no other perspective or lifestyle is ever shown on television, at any time, unless in a negative fashion.

The thing of it is, while on the one hand I'm getting praise from religious folks for addressing spirituality in my series (speaking here as an atheist), I've gotten flack from others who think it has no place in a SCIENCE fiction series, and why the hell am I putting something in that goes right against my own beliefs? "Because," I tell them, "this show is not about reflecting my beliefs, or yours, or somebody else's, it's about telling this story, about these people, with as much honesty and integrity as I can summon up. That means conceding the fact that religious people are going to be around 260 years from now." Well, fact is, all kinds of people are going to be around 260 years from now. And what did the anti-religion folks say specifically about including spirituality in my series? "It's not *necessary*," they said.

Translation: they didn't like it. Well, tough. It was right for this story, and this show. And it seems to me rather hypocritical for some folks, who applaud the show for tolerance, for my standing up to those who want to exclude religion from TV, to then turn around and say the show is diminished because it showed that same tolerance...to another group or perspective. I guess tolerance is only okay as long as it's pointed one way.

You say that as a christian, you think any sex except that between a husband and a wife to be wrong. Well, as I recall, the bible also speaks against murder. We've depicted deaths by the hundreds of thousands. (And we're talking here about the *depicting* of the act, simply showing it, not the value judgements made after the fact.) Why does the one (which is so barely hinted at as to be almost invisible) cause the show to be diminished where the other does not?

My job is not to reinforce your personal political, social or religious beliefs. My job is not to reinforce MY personal political, social or religious beliefs. Then it isn't art or storytelling anymore, it's simply propaganda. My job is to tell this story, about these people, AS people, as mixed and varied as they are today. And there is no outside objective criteria as to what is, or isn't *necessary* in a story; that is the sole province of the author. You may or may not like it. You may or may not choose to watch it. Just as people who don't like to see religion and god discussed on TV may dislike it or choose not to watch it.

But you'll excuse me if I see complaints about this one little thing from the religious side, after all I've done to present religious characters and the religious life in a positive fashion, to be hypocritical and frankly somewhat ungrateful. It's as though all this means nothing because of one thing, one outside-imposed litmus test that disregards anything and everything else that has been done.

So straight up...if I should stop tolerating or showing viewpoints that are not my own (spoken as someone who is absolutely straight), then should I now stop showing religion as well? Because that's what this comes down to. Is that what you want? Because religion is included at my discretion as well as anything else on this show. You want me to be less tolerant? Just say the word.

jms

Yes, we'll see both the tines being repaired, and the core shuttle being fixed, in ep 1 of year 3. The tines are mainly to stabalize incoming cargo ships so they can be offloaded (something we've shown there from time to time) into the zero-g cargo bay.

Ken: yes, showing does not mean endorsing, showing just means saying "this is here," not to make an issue of it. If I'm going to start endorsing ANYbody's POV around here, it's going to be mine, and I think we all know how dreadful THAT would be.

Re: Kosh...we'll see him again outside his suit in "Dust to Dust," but in a somewhat unconventional fashion....

As for "including controversy rather than skirting it," this is more or less the point. The goal here is to not have our characters or our show make *value judgments* about what our characters do, because then you're hitting the audience over the head with the MESSAGE. "Believers" is a good example of that; some came away using parts of that to argue pro and anti interference in medical situations; ditto for "Confessions" which hit squarely on BOTH sides of the issue (no, you can't blame morality for disease...but then, we had our characters openly requiring blood testing, which annoys many on the other side of the issue)....my sense is that our audience is smart enough to take the elements we present them with, and discuss them, and come to their own conclusions and draw their own meanings from them. It's the part of objecting to even *presenting* the situation that seems to me a marginal position at best.

jms

We're trying to moderate the jumpgate sound a bit; it may have gotten a bit too hot there for a while.

As for Ivanova...remember that the core of good drama is conflict. So here we have a situation where a possible romantic involvement is shaping up for her in year three. It shouldn't be made too easy. So you create a situation that really hurts her deeply; she made a difficult step, got over her distance, opened herself up, became vulnerable...and got hurt very badly as a result. The same thing that happened in first season, when her old flame was discovered to be a big guy with Home Guard.

You now have someone who's freshly hurt, who is going to be unwilling or slow to open up again, who's now experienced every kind of relationship and NONE of them have worked...in short, she's one exposed nerve ending, perfect for someone now to come in who may be right, but for whom she has little time, and is disposed not to get involved.

Sounds a lot like my own dating history...keep them razor blades and salt sprays a'comin.....

jms

Correct; while one cannot deny the effects of poverty, and drugs, and crime, and illiteracy, there's something numbing and destructive about the death of myths, of a broader social mythology, and we're working hard to provide that.

jms

"So why do you rush your work out the door?" I don't. The script takes the amount of time needed to get it right. Sometimes I take 7-10 days to write a script. Sometimes I do it in just a couple of days; and often, the 2-3 days jobs are actually better because it's done in white heat, with the image clearest in my mind.

In television, you can't take 6-8 weeks or even 2 weeks to turn in a script; it's got to be done on a schedule; remember, you're using up one script every 7 days, and you have to have scripts in hand 3 in advance minimum for proper prep work.

"I find input from my writing group to be very helpful." I don't. I've been writing professionally for 23 years now (started at 17), full time for the last 17. I know what I want to say, and how I want to say it. Does a sculpter go to a sculpting group and say, "Y'know, I think I see a horse in this bit of clay, but I'm not sure, what do the rest of you think?" An artist follows the dream or the vision that is in his or her head. There's this notion that writing is somehow different; it ain't.

Nothing decent has been done by committee since Stonehenge and the pyramids.

jms

The script never technically leaves my hands. Once the final draft is written, it's given to every department, which breaks it down in terms of set, extra, day-player, EFX, music, sound and other requirements. We have visual effects, art department and other meetings to go over what's in the script and make sure we all understand what's required. Any new designs for prosthetics, costumes, EFX, ships, or other episode-specific elements are drafted, and shown to me for approval.

The script department breaks down the script in terms of shooting schedule, timing of scenes, and arranges a production board indicating which scenes will be shot on which days (Based on which sets are being used; you don't shoot in sequence...you do all the C&C scenes done on day 1, then move into the Zocalo for all those scenes, and so on.)

The director and I have a tone meeting to go over the script page by page. At this time, the director sometimes suggests changes in locales for production purposes, though this often happens earlier in the process. I make sure we both understand what each scene is about, context and subtext. Then there's a production meeting of all departments, where we all go through one last time and break down each scene of the script by what's required.

The director then takes the script to the stage, and shoots what's written. Dailies arrive each day thereafter, and go to post production, where an editor does a preliminary assembly of the episode. If the episode appears to be coming in long, we have the option of trimming a scene here or there in shooting...or expanding if it's coming in short.

After 7 days of shooting, the raw film is complete, and the editor gives the director his assembly. The director then comes in and takes about 3-4 days making his or her cut. The director's cut then goes to me, and John Copeland and I go in to make the producer's cut, often re-editing every single frame, though sometimes less, depending on many different factors. This is done on computers, the Avid.

This final edit is then used to assemble the actual film (we take the Avid computer disk and turn it over to a supercomputer which assembles the film overnight). Using this online copy, I now sit down with the composer, and sound people, and watch it again, going through it and noting where sound effects and music are required, and what kind I have in mind. "In at 03:13:18 (three minutes, 13 seconds, 18 frames), out at 04:14:22. I'd like something soft, strings mainly, underscoring that doesn't get in the way...with a tone change at 04:05:13, into the action, and since we've got a lot of combat going on there, we need you to clear out the low-end for the battle stuff."

Composer and sound EFX people then do their thing, and a couple weeks later, we do the audio mix. (During this time, Ron and company have delivered the last of their CGI.) At the audio mix, all of the final elements are inserted/layered in, including any last-minute looping or dubbing. This done, the episode is delivered to PTEN about 5 days later.

Total time to complete an episode (after the last day of filming per se): 52 days.

jms

The group critiquing process may be, and likely is, useful when one is an art major or learning to write or draw.

Then you have to leave that nest and fly on your own. The whole PURPOSE of workshops and critiquing should be to help you find your own voice (for a writer) or your own eye and style (if an artist). It should help you make the work more muscular, and less artificial...peeling away the layers until just the individual stands there, saying *exactly* what he wants to say. The group isn't there to make you write like the group, or please the group; it's there as a means of finding your own voice.

Once you've found it, you have to walk away. Otherwise the whole endeavor has been for nothing.

Back in college, I took two writing workshops led by Richard Kim, a transplanted Korean novelist, very well regarded. I learned a *hell* of a lot. I signed up for a third semester. Now, mind, I liked the class, we liked each other, it was good. FIrst day of class, he looked out,s aw me, and said, "Go. You've learned all you can learn. Don't take any more workshops, from me or anybody else here. You have the tools, now find your voice. If you stay here, you'll risk losing it." At the time, I felt as though it were a rejection, but over time I began to understand what he was talking about.

jms

Actually, we make as sure as possible that every episode contains the information required to follow it; any needed background is restated or contained within the episode. You can see some, all or any other number of episodes and be able to follow them...in some countries, they're running the show *completely* out of order, except by season overall, and it seems to be doing okay.

jms

Thanks. To me, emotion is the *core* of drama...an episode, a story, should leave you feeling something...make you worry, or think, or get mad, or laugh. So the stories tend to proceed very much from an emotional core. Thanks for jumping in.

jms

I often work on more than one thing at the same time; on B5, in addition to the producing jobs, I'm outlining one script, writing another, editing a third....

Prior to B5 (which is all-consuming), I'd often be in somewhat lower pressure jobs (standard writer/producer, not exec), and would be writing the episodes, plus a novel, plus stories, plus a screenplay, plus other stuff, all pretty much at the same time.

The key, though, is to FINISH what you write. Otherwise it's useless.

jms

P.S. You misspelled "weird."

Except, of course, that there wasn't "a quick directional change by offering a new enemy" (in second season) because that enemy - the Shadows -- was in there right from the git-go, in season one...in "Chrysalis," which we shot #12 even though it was aired #22 as our cliffhanger, and in "Signs and Portents," short shortly thereafter. So it was always there, and has always been there...they're the primary antagonist, in a philosophical sense, throughout a major part of the story.

"...and the mutation of another primary character." This, also, was in the outline of the story from the very first episode onward; it's *important* to the story, and wasn't done for any of the reasons you cite. (The only change here was that Delenn was originally planned to be a male character, if androgynous, which emerged female from the chrysalis, but we couldn't get the male-altered voice to sound right, so this was dropped, though we kept the more-human aspects.)

You seem to determine "the maturity of the show" by not offering real or substantive changes; but this show is *about* change, and the choices we make that create those changes. There's this notion that if someone's the captain, he has to stay the captain all the time; which is the element that many ST fans criticize in TNG as to why Riker stayed first-officer for seven years, which would kill any other career.

So it's not a reset, it's an advancement of the storyline...look at Londo as we first saw him, and now; ditto for G'Kar...we're talking here major, substantive changes. That aspect is at the very core of the story. You really can't look at this as you would a regular episodic drama in that one respect; "Oh, they just changed characters, so they're just starting all over again." That's not the intent at all.

"the show (TNG) stayed with its basic core of characters and followed a similar structure...B5 episodes seem to detract from this formula." Which is precisely the intent. I don't like formula, or predictability, or to lock down a structure and never change it...that's not life, and I try to make this show emulate life. People change, die, get promoted, demoted, transferred, corrupted, redeemed...change, for me, is the *drama* of the story; to stay static and unchanging the reverse of that. It's *process*, and I find process fascinating.

"I guess patience is a virtue." Well, I have to say that if you're waiting for B5 to settle down into a predictable, unchanging formula, you're going to have a long wait ahead of you, because that's not in the cards. The changes and developments only pick up greater speed and ramifications the deeper we go into the storyline.

jms

(PS...as for "all or some of the credit" for the new SF shows going to ST, much as one might wish that were true, it isn't. Otherwise you'd've had a lot more of them in the last 30 years. I've been in meetings with network and studio execs, and one reason it took us 5 years to sell B5 was because, as we were told verbatim, "There's no market in TV for SF other than Trek; the market won't sustain more than one SF show like that; people don't want SF, they want ST." It was used, repeatedly, to justify why you couldn't do these kinds of shows...and I'd point out that B5 is the FIRST SF show in 30 years, since ST, to be set in the far future, with mankind as a spacefaring civilization, and with a fully worked out cosmology of other races, politics, and governments...and particularly one of the very few to go past two seasons in general. Now you're getting more SF on the air because the networks have finally seen that ST does NOT have a death-grip on TV SF, and other shows, like B5 and X-Files *can* survive.

(Certainly it was never ST's intent for this to happen, and I'm not saying that it is or was; but this has definitely been the result, and the ST shadow has been something for other SF shows to overcome; it has not made the process easier, only more difficult. How many American-made space SF series have gone past 3 seasons other than ST? It's after 4 seasons that the networks/studios begin making back their money, and since the answer to that is "virtually none," you begin to see why they've been reluctant to do more than stick their toes in over the last three decades.)

I don't tend to leave out things in my stories, particularly B5, as much as morph them into something else if I feel it'd work better a different way. For any writer to be so hidebound to stick to every single tiny element of the outline, once one is at the script stage (or the novel writing stage) is foolish, and I can't think of anyone who doesn't diverge to one degree or another.

For me, an outline is basically a series of directions on a map; get here, turn *right*, take highway 407 to here, get off and proceed south. But if you get into a part of your trip, and suddenly see that there's a fork in the road you hadn't anticipated that'll cut hours off your trip, you'd be foolish not to take it. Non-writers never understand that; they only see the work when it's done, not the process, which is alien to them.

If you make a course correction, you have to make sure everything still tracks with your goal, natch, or risk getting lost along the way...but to the "experience" part of your question...that's the instinct that keeps you ever heading toward your destination. That comes only with time. And I've been at this a LONG time.

jms

Act Breaks: FADE OUT, [End Act One] - new page - [Act Two] FADE IN:

B5 as teaser, acts 1-4, tag.

Establishers aren't numbered in a treatment, or called out.

Credits aren't listed in a script; and don't worry too much about the margins being *exactly* right; they vary considerably.

jms

I disagree with the term ego in this connection. (Big surprise, right?) On one level, anyone who is involved in any aspect of the arts has exercised ego in the sense of, "I am going to make little black marks on this piece of paper," or "I am going to make colored brushstrokes on this canvas, and they will be sufficiently impressive that you will want to pay money for them." That aspect is part and parcel of working in any form of the arts.

But B5 specifically? I don't think so. First off, there's a great deal of misunderstanding in this discussion about how television works. In a TV series, the story editor *NEVER, EVER* rewrites the executive producer. It would be a hideous breach of protocol. On MURDER, SHE WROTE or JAKE, or other shows, I *never* touched my exec's scripts. The network puts an executive producer/writer on premises for one singular reason (not counting the one billion others): to set the tone for the writing for everyone else to follow. They rely on YOU to absolutely govern that aspect, or you're not doing your job, and betraying your commitment to the network.

So when someone says "It's ego not to let the story editor revise the executive producer's scripts," that betrays a total lack of understanding of how television production works.

Finally, working 5 years to get B5 produced had nothing to do with ego and everything to do with obsession. There's this story that I like, which I hope others will like. The ONLY way that this story will ever be told is if one person fights for it tooth and nail for every day of every year required to tell it. I have an obligation to this story to see it through. Getting doors slammed in your face for five years takes its toll on the ego; ego says, "Screw it, go find a nice cushy job on another show where nobody'll slam the door on you." Obsession says, "Keep going." Ego hates to fail. Obession *requires* that you fail from time to time, in striving for something greater.

jms

Christian: I quote Mark Twain: "The test of any good fiction is that you should care something for the characters; the good to succeed, the bad to fail. The trouble with most fiction is that you want them all to land in hell, together, as quickly as possible."

jms