From: Ric_Goldman_-C@hqops.3mail.3com.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.misc
Subject: Re: The truth(?) about Deep Space Nine and Babylon Five
Date: 7 Sep 92 08:33:00 GMT

Scott,
   Thanx for taking the time to respond.  I'm intrigued by the, shall we
say, *intensity*, of your message.  Like I said, I was merely passing on
the information of a friend who's been chatting with the folk at the TNG
and B5 sets.  And I'll acknowledge, *she* hasn't put any of it in print
either.

{V075Q5FR@UBVMS.bitnet} (Scott Gorcey) writes:
>Ric_Goldman_-C@hqops.3mail.3com.com writes:
>>I was chatting on with a friend of mine who freelances for various
>>Hollywood 'zines including Starlog, and she had some interesting info on
>>the whole DS9/B5 phenomenon.  I'm curious if anyone has heard anything
>>similar or opposite to the following  (Disclaimer: this is all phone-
>>speak & I do not have independent verification):
>>
>>1) ST:DS9 was Michael Piller's idea (or was it?  see below).  Gene
>>   Roddenberry hated it, and it had been canned, but was resurrected
>>   almost immediately after Gene died.
>
>     Roddenberry, I've also heard, hated the idea, but it was NOT
>     canned simply because he didn't like it.  Contract stipulations
>     explicitly gave Roddenberry absolute control (except in case of
>     emergency... whenever that is - if not first season, when?) of
>     TNG, but not its spin-offs, film or television.
>
>     The film division has been ignoring Roddenberry since 1982...
>     Why is it so surprising that the Network Television division
>     was doing so since the second season?
>

As to your points, regardless of whether Gene had control of the ST
or spinoffs, DS9 was initially rejected and then brought back, and
supposedly Piller *is* the driving force behind it. 

>>2) The TNG folk (lead by Richard [Rick] Berman) accept DS9 as a step-child
>>   because Paramount bought the idea and because it keeps Piller out of
>>   their hair while he's working on his 'baby'.
>
>     Piller and Berman TOGETHER created DS9.  Berman runs TNG overall,
>     while Piller runs the writing aspects of the series -- but Berman
>     is his boss.
>     It was decided that Piller would run DS9 because it is impossible
>     for one man to hands-on executive produce TWO series at once,
>     especially given the production complexity of a STAR TREK series.
>     This isn't anybody's "baby" and Michael Piller isn't being
>     ostrasized -- if he was as despised as your friend makes it
>     sound, he would merely have been fired.
>

Even so, it may not be Berman's favorite way to go.  Anyway, I doubt 
that a difference of opinion/philosophy/whatever is sufficient firing in 
this case (but you're right - it *would* read like soap opera), nor do I 
imply that running DS9 is tantamount to being ostracized for Piller.

>>   
Privately they expect 
>>   and will be glad when it dies, because its rejection will validate
>>   Gene's vision of ST
>
>      Sorry if I'm bursting any bubbles but:
>
>          NOW HEAR THIS:  NOBODY LIKED GENE RODDENBERRY!
>
>          IN FACT, EVERYBODY - AND I MEAN EVERYBODY - HATED
>          HIS GUTS!  HE WAS A DICTATORIAL, MEDDLESOME BASTARD
>          WHO STOLE HIS FAIR SHARE OF IDEAS TO GET TNG ON THE
>          AIR -- AND STOLE THEM FROM LONGTIME FRIENDS (DC Fontana
>          and David Gerrold, who were promised on a handshake -
>          by Roddenberry - that they would receive co-creator
>          credit).
>
>          Nobody gives a shit about "Gene's vision of Star Trek."
>          That's all propoganda that THE FANS EAT UP.
>

Regardless of Gene's personal popularity, the 'antiseptic' nature of TNG 
(which a lot of folk on the net complain about) *is* consistent with 
what's called his view of the ST universe, so it will be interesting to 
see how the 'darker grittier' vision compares. 

>, even though 
it means they'll have to put up with >>   Piller back on TNG staff
>
>     Hang out a second: this isn't a second rate soap opera: if Piller
>     is so pathetic and everyone hates him, and he hasn't a talented
>     bone in his body...  Well, he would be fired... not given a
>     multi-million dollar bonus for beginning a new multi-million
>     dollar series for Paramount.
>
> (allegedly Berman and Piller *dont* see eye-

See above comment on difference of opinion. 

>>   to-eye on 'wither ST').  Note: these are the artistic types talking -
>>   not the studio financial types.
>
>      What a vivid imagination.  "Artistic types?"  Would it be pushing
>      to label Michael Piller the "Andy Warhol of Star Trek?"  No?
>      This man co-executive produces one of the most successful
>      television series in the history of the world... and he's
>      an "artistic type?"  He seems to balance the business half
>      of his brain very well, thank you.  YOU CAN'T BE AN ARTISTIC
>      TYPE IN HOLLYWOOD.  BELIEVE ME, I KNOW.
>

Also, I didn't group Piller himself into the 'artistic types' category - 
rather that the artistic types were commenting *about* him.  As to being 
an artistic type in Hollywood, I have a lot of friends and acquaintances 
trying (and sometimes succeeding) who consider themselves artistic types 
because they take pride in their work; not everyone in the business is 
a complete sellout.  If your comments relate to personal experience or 
that of friends, I'm sorry those experiences were dissapointments.

>>3) Here's the clincher.  DS9 MAY ACTUALLY BE A RIP-OFF OF B5!
>
>          It's what in Hollywood is called "independant creation."
>          Something along the lines of the climactic leadworks scenes
>          in both Terminator2 and Alien^3.
>

Calling it independent creation doesn't necessary make it so :-).

>>   Apparently the B5 folk had submitted the idea to Paramount a while
>>   back, and the studio sat on it because they already had a winner in
>>   TNG.
>
>      The studio did not "sit on it," they said, "Thanks, but
>      no thanks."  This was QUITE a few years ago, if I recall
>      J Michael Starynski's narrative correctly... like, when TNG
>      was still in active development... (anecdotal rumor: Roddenberry
>      threw a fit when he heard there was SF competition in the wind
>      from his own studio... not that this had anything with Paramount
>      declining Babylon5).
>

"Sit on it" did not imply as in time - rather, that he was put off, 
which he was.

>>  Anyway, Warner Bros. eventually *did* buy the idea.
>>   However, Piller used the B5 treatise as the basis for his DS9
>>   proposal.
>
>        THIS IS COMPLETELY UNTRUE.  COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY.
>        That's like saying ALIEN is a rip-off of STAR TREK because
>        both take place on spaceships.
>

No it really isn't.  One scenario *could* have been the basis for the 
other; there are situational similarities.  By the way, ALIEN *IS* a rip-
off of STAR TREK (isn't it?  Wasn't the first title for ALIEN, Revenge 
of the Mutant Gorns on Steroids?  :-)))) 

>>4) The industry folk think there will be an initial good reaction to DS9
>>   when it first comes out in January, but the fireworks will come in
>>   February when B5 debuts.  They (no, I don't know which they 'they'
>>   are :-), expect B5 to blow DS9 right off the air, once it's shown up
>>   as a pale version of the real thing.
>
>     The "industry folk?"  How can the "industry folk" think anything
>     since the pilot is only half-finished production?  Have these
>     industry folk been attending dailies?  No.
>     It is true, however, that Babylon5 is expected to make a huge
>     impact... like BATTLESTAR GALACTICA, maybe?...  (Incidentally,
>     I'm looking forward to B5, but this roundhousing of DS9 smacks
>     just a little too much of the reaction to TNG 'lo those years
>     ago...  think about whether there's any basis for your criticism,
>     other than nervousness... and whether there's any basis in reality
>     to some of these outlandish rumors (because it's so easy to discern
>     whether most of them are true or false).
>

Finally, as to the industry folk opinion, well the pundits don't always 
have it right, but it's interesting to see what they think anyway.  And 
although you may not realize from the info I passed on, *I* am actually 
looking *forward* to *both* DS9 and B5, hoping against hope that they'll 
both be worth watching, but reserving judgement 'till I actually see the 
actual product. 

>>Side note: to all the B5-not-on-ras*'ers - I think we may now have a 
>>reason to keep B5 discussions here; it would B5 may actually be a ST-
>>cousin (or vice versa).
>
>     Not true.  If any of this had even the slightest possibility
>     of being true - these theft allegations  - don'thca think
>     Warner Brothers would have filed suit by now?  If you know
>     how entertainment law works even a little bit, you'd know
>     the grudge suit would be RAGING by now.
>     Starynski hasn't even made a grievance with the Writer's Guild
>     for Christ's sake...

I suspect if there *is* any basis for lawsuits, it'll wait until there's 
enough profit on one side or another to make legal action worthwhile.

Anyway, as I said, since you seem to have such strong opinions on all 
this, I'm curious what sources your information came from - I'm not 
doubting your sincerely or veracity - I really do want to know, since I 
just started gettting some of this stuff myself, which is why of course 
I asked what everyone else had heard.

Thanx, Ric

/**********************************************************************\
| Ric Goldman (not a stage name, | NoHo - Los Angeles' answer to SoHo. *
|   but thanx for asking!)       | So if the clown behind the desk at  *
| Spellbinder Systems Group      | the local Howard Johnson's screws   *
| North Hollyweird, CA, USA, etc | up, Is that a NoHo HoJo Bozo NoNo?  *
\**********************************************************************/
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.misc