From: rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.misc
Subject: Re: The truth(?) about Deep Space Nine and Babylon Five
Date: 7 Sep 92 18:07:05 GMT
Reply-To: rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI

In <Bu7310.M44@acsu.buffalo.edu> v075q5fr@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Scott J Gorcey) writes:
>In article <920906.203345@3Mail.3Com.COM>, Ric_Goldman_-C@hqops.3mail.3com.com writes...
>>   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. 

This would be heartening if we had seen any signs of TNG changing since
Roddenberry died, but actually it been more or less homogeneous in concept,
tone and quality since "Encounter At farpoint" occurred.  Which to me says
either 1) That Roddenberry didn't have much input into the series since the
very beginning, or 2) Someone in power Up There DOES "give a shit" about
Roddenberry's vision of Star Trek.

>>   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).

>  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.  

So you say, but can you do more than just assert your denial of it?  Quite
a few people seem to think that B5 may have at least been an influence on the
creation of DS9.  Granted, they could be wrong, but, on the other hand, they
could be right.

>>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.

That's funny; I talked to someone in late July who said that he'd seen an
edit of the entire first episode of DS9.

>     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).

When TNG was announced, I was ecstatic (despite the fact that the last Trek
story released was The Voyage Home, which I thought and think is putrid).  I
was even very happy to hear that it was going to have little relation to
the original series, because it showed that they were interested in heading
in new directions.  Needless to say, my opinion of TNG today is just the
opposite.

I am not particularly looking forward to DS9 simply because the same people
who create TNG are going to be creating DS9, and that spells "low quality"
to me.  I *am* looking forward to B5, because it sounds like a fair amount of
work has gone into creating something relatively interesting (for what I
have heard of it), and the people who create TNG will *not* be involved
(thank ghod).

>>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...

Depends; how many of these suits are actually won?  Art Buchwald and... who
else?  Maybe Warner is simply waiting until both series premiere and thinking
that DS9 will get blown out of the water.  Or waiting until they actually SEE
SOME EPISODES so they can decide just what *sort* of a case they could build.

Or does that make too much sense?

-- 
Michael Rawdon				 rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI

"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the
contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one
person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
                                                      -John Stuart Mill