From: v075q5fr@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Scott J Gorcey)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.misc
Subject: Re: The truth(?) about Deep Space Nine and Babylon Five
Date: 7 Sep 92 06:22:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <920906.203345@3Mail.3Com.COM>, 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?

>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.  

>   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. 

, 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-
>   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.

>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.

>   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.  

>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).

>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...