• The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.

A message from Christopher Pike

D

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest
Christopher Pike here. I wrote Aint It Cool News' highly inflammatory review of B5: LOTR. I've been following multiple threads on this message board since it was called to my attention a few days ago, and feel compelled to reply to a few points which have been made regarding myself and my "review".

First off, I DID NOT SELECT THE SPY NAME "CHRISTOPHER PIKE" This was a spy name given to me by Harry Knowles in an effort to conceal my true identity. I'm guessing he chose a Trek name bacuse Harry appreciates such incindiary things. Come what may, I am now trapped with the name "Christopher Pike". There's got to be some way to change this limitation. There's a way out of any cage, and I'll find it.

DO I LOVE STAR TREK? I love Trek. But I think the franchise has seen *considerably* better days, and should be turned over to fresher, newer blood for a complete overhaul & retrofit.

DO I LOVE BABYLON 5? I love Babylon 5. Like many of you, the show has affected me in ways too numerous to describe. But, like Trek, I feel the franchise has seen considerably better days & needs a good sprucing-up.

WHY PICK ON JOE STRACZYNSKI? "Cause Joe is "Da man!" And when you're a creator/exec producer on a series, you are also responsible for taking the hits and criticisms leveled against it.

DO I HATE JMS? No. When he's good, I feel he's damn close to being a genius. But when he's bad...<<whew!>> However, I do hold him accountable for the decisions he makes. Just as I hold Berman and Braga accountable for (what I believe to be) some rather poor Trek-related decisions of late. As I hold my own self accountable for my own decisions every day.

WHAT QUALIFIES ME TO WRITE A REVIEW OF THIS TV MOVIE? If you knew my credentials, you'd understand my qualifications -- you might even say "Oh, it's HIM!?!?!?" For numerous professional reasons, I am unable to reveal my identity, although long-time B5 fans may be able to pick-up on a few well-placed clues left here and there. I know this sounds like I'm playing a game, I don't mean it to sound that way. There are...considerations.

WHY WAS THE REVIEW AMATEURISH? It was written to be simple and quick. Period. Also, the gang at AICN apparently have some heavy tech troubles in the past week and have been unable to cut and paste my review as it was originally presented to them (entire sentences are missing from the review as currently posted).

WHY DIDN'T I OFFER MORE DETAILS ABOUT THE PLOT OF THE SHOW? Honestly, there's not much to say about the plot/storyline. But, since so many of you complained about not having any sense of plot, here goes. WARNING -- MINOR SPOILERS AHEAD! IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW, MOVE-ON TO THE NEXT PARAGRAPH! In short: discredited captain & his band of merry men & women (aka the Rangers crew) are assigned to a clunky old rustbucket ship Liandra (which is, happpenstantially, haunted). Their task: to escort a new mega-warship (also a Ranger vessel) named the Valen. The Valen is carrying a bunch of diplomats to some sort of political talks. Trouble happens along the way, when our heroes meet The Hand (the new bad guys). The Hand is described along the same lines as The First Ones in the original B5 series, but they're never exactly called "First Ones", nor is any reference made to how these superbeings could remain unreferenced for so long if The Hand makes even The Shadows look like "insects".
It's all very loosey-goosey and odd. And, for such powerful beings, The Hand doesn't hold a lot of weight. Their vessels get smoked pretty quickly, we see very few vessels on-screen at the same time (throughout the entire movie), and The Hand doesn't seem particularly savvy or shrewd. We do see a representative of The Hand. Essentially, it's a faceless dude in a robe -- like a Ring Wraith from The Lord of the Rings. It's a simple story, with very little sweep or spectacle. The few moments of "size" the show might have had are diluted by the way the story is told (like the girl in the VR bubble, referenced in my review).

I WAS NOT TRYING TO BE HARD ON THE ACTORS IN MY REVIEW. Fact of the matter is, JMS gave them little to do. So much so that evaluating their performances is almost pointless, and even unfair too the actors in question. There is not a lot of depth to this story. There is a "naming ceremony" when the leads introduce themselves and say why they're on the ship. A perfect op to learn more about these people & bring some dimension to their characters. That information just ain't there.

YOU SAY IT'S LIKE STAR TREK -- IS THAT AN INSULT? No, I mean...simply...it is like Star Trek. We have a Kirk/Spock relationship (roguish Captain is best friends with his steady, dry witted, analytical, pseudo-telepathic Minbari sidekick), for example. There are other similarities, but I'll leave some for you to find on your own.

There are probably more points to be made, but I hope this helps clear-up the tone/context of my review. I will be happy to discuss the movie & my review on these boards, if anyone is interested. But, I will not say much more about the plot (I wouldn't mind addressing a few points here and there though, like -- to the poster who said Grey Council meetings are always held on Minbari ships -- that doesn't appear to be the case anymore. At least, that's what I inferred from this movie) . If "To Live and Die in Starlight"s plot was more substantive, it would be able to withstand some spoilage. But it's pretty thin, and I'm inclined to agree with Dylan that...the less said...the better.

Until we meet again...




------------------
 
Chris stated:
(entire sentences are missing from the review as currently posted).

Then would you care to post the entire review as you originally wrote it here, so that we may judge the review as you meant it? Perhaps some issues/problems/insults/whatever will be cleared up by doing so...

I'm not saying I am for or against your review; frankly, I'm avoiding it because a) I have a great deal of confidence in JMS as a storyteller and b) I don't want to be spoiled. However, I think it's completely fair for both sides in this if we all argued based on your actual review and not a potentially-skewed version thanks to your editors. I.E. let everyone flame you for your words, not someone else's.

Just my humble opinion...

Cheers,
-mcn
 
Chris-

Ok, thanks for coming in and clearing stuff up - we now know where you're coming from. We really appreciate it, especially since we honestly didn't have your side of the story. Don't take the following personally - I'm just a fellow critic giving you a few pointers.
smile.gif


However, if you *do* have the credentials to be reviewing B5LR, why on Earth did you publish something so... well, so unprofessionally written? You might have helped your cause were it more coherent and less scribbled, the kind of thing that doesn't need to be defended like this on a public message board.

I can understand technical difficulties, yeah. But the entire article honestly sounded like you were an angry fanboy with a grudge. There were very few clues within the article to say otherwise. For example, I caught the one about you knowing the Grey Council's past. But other than that? Nothing, really.

I don't mean to be insulting - it's just that it honestly sounded like something John Doe Trekkie wrote while eating Cheet-O's, not something that that was very well thought-out. Your ethos was horrible.

Revised, that article could have had a very, very, good import, and I'm sure that we here at B5LR would be taking you a lot more seriously. Thanks, though, for coming on and giving us your side of the story. That's something we should always have.

------------------
Channe, the pseudo-Ranger, who lives for the One and dies for the chocolate cheesecake
--
OnlineDude: I suppose now would not be the time to bring up the old one about the starlet who was so new to Hollywood she slept with the writer...
JMS: But that was only because she heard that in Hollywood, *everyone* screws the writer.
--
"Foreshadowing! Your key to quality literature!" -Berkeley Breathed

[This message has been edited by channe (edited October 17, 2001).]
 
Originally posted by Capt. Neville:
Chris stated:

(entire sentences are missing from the review as currently posted).

Then would you care to post the entire review as you originally wrote it here, so that we may judge the review as you meant it? Perhaps some issues/problems/insults/whatever will be cleared up by doing so...


The review (as submitted) will not substantially change anyone's (already established) opinion of the piece. But, for whatever it's worth, here is the review as initially written:

------------

Just saw Babylon 5: The Legend of the Rangers. It's a movie scheduled to air early January on Sci Fi. It is really bad.

It is better than Crusade, which...to me at least...pretty much represented how low Babylon 5 could go. But it's still no good. Mike Vejar...usually a very talented B5/Trek director...brings nothing interesting or inventive to the table here. In fact, his work feels hurried and unrefined.

The FX are somewhat improved over Crusade, but there's nothing particularly *special* about them. Far too much over-reliance on FX simulating a rumbling, shaking camera when ships fly past, land, etc. Nearly every substantive FX in the movie employs the shakycam, diminishing the impact of the conceit, and frequently distorting the image so severely it's often difficult to see what's actually happening on-screen. Which totally removes the viewer from the action.

Spaceship designs are very poor -- nothing iconic, elegant, or memorable about any of them. They look and feel "familiar", but there's a clunky "fan rendered" feel about them suggesting the designs should have been allowed to mature a few more generations before rendering. Among numerous inexplicable designs changes: hyperspace looks different (the Jump Gates used to access them look pretty-much the same -- but Hyperspace now looks more like a PC screensaver than the red "hell" we saw in B5 & Crusade); jumps into & out of hyperspace look different (more swirly/swishys in the toilet bowl effects); the spinning centrifuge of Babylon 5 (the station is seen in the last shot of the movie, although we never board it) is considerably slower; and the cities of Minbar now look more like Blade Runner than the crystalline sprawls witnessed in the series set a few years earlier.

A lot of old, old, ineffective clichés. The main ship is haunted: the people (old crew) haunting it look like dorks dressed-up as a Scooby Doo zombie for Halloween. The characters feel like the line-up from some defunct Glen A. Larson series: a young, maverick captain & a slightly renegade crew of loyal-but-irregular Rangers. Including: a warrior vixen (think Tasha Yar, or Worf's woman from Trek: TNG); a big, loveable oaf Drazi, a mousy ship's doctor, and a guy with a holosuit which allows him to imitate any character. We've seen all of this...or variations of all of this...before. Joe Straczynski (B5 over god) used to rail against SF clichés, but he seems to have has no problem slathering them on this time around.


Andreas Katsulas (reprising his role as G'Kar) does nothing but dispense sagely advice, which often is so oblique it's meaningless. He repeatedly interrupts Grey Council meetings (!?!?!?!?). He's generally a pest, and even annoying at times. His character is pushed sloppily through the plot, allowing him only a few opportunities to say something which passes as "important". And when he says "important" stuff? It feels like a tedious lecture, or a tiring pontification. A waste of a great actor and character. His presence feels tacked-on.

In one of the dumbest ideas seen on TV in some time: the ship's gunner-babe has to dive into a VR bubble to operate her vessel's defensive systems When she does this, we see her flying through VR-sim space like Superman (one arm back, one arm, thrust forward), hurling balls of flame out of her hands and feet (representing her ship firing at its opponent). We almost never cut away too see her ship actually *doing* anything in battle. It's all told from her point of view. This chick is flailing about (with poor wire work), discharging fireballs from nearly every orifice of her body, blowing-up stuff we can't see clearly. A really bad way to draw viewers into the tension of battle.

One interesting new "approach" for the series: the show tries to convey much of its action in a slightly pumped-up way. Christopher Franke's score...usually cacophonous & atmospheric...is very up-front in this movie. Reasonably strong melody lines roll throughout action sequences, like Michael Mann employed in Last of the Mexicans, or Jerry Bruckheimer utilizes in many of the movies he produces. But there's not enough visual energy (often due to a decided lack of coverage) to support what they're trying to accomplish. Speaking of Bruckheimer: there's a scene in this movie who is almost exactly like a sequence in Armageddon: the Rangers are flying through the tale of a comet & it looks just like the approach to Armageddon's asteroid (swishy blue tendrils of shit coming at them, etc).

Acting in the movie is all over the place. A few performances might have worked with better writing, but Joe gives 'em nothing to do.
And, many performers are just plain *bland*. The K/S people (a contingent of Trek fans believing Kirk and Spock were gay lovers) will have a field day with the two leads in B5: LOTR (notice how LOTR = Legend of the Rangers, *and* also Lord of the Rings -- a strong inspiration of Straczynski?) The acerbic, brash captain is *close* friends with his second-in-command Vulcan -- I mean Minbari. It's *very* Trek. In fact, the whole show is *very* Trek. Anyone who thought Crusade was inspired by its competition ain't seen nothing yet.

New villains show-up. They're called The Hand. The show melodramatically informs us these guys are tougher & more bad-ass than The Shadows we saw in B5 ("They make The Shadows look like insects!"). Maybe The Hand looks good on paper, but they're stupid as hell. It doesn't take much to blow-up their ships (silver/blue starfish), and they're easily tricked. I'm not quite sure how these folks made it through kabillions of years of galactic history if they've always been this dumb. And, for serious B5 junkies, it's never explained whether this "The Hand" is the same "The Hand" referenced in the Sheridan/Ivonova dream of the original series, or is in any way related to "The Hand" which ran around trying to kill Michael Caine in a 1981 feature film (the only hand really needed here is the one which should be slapping Joe). .

There are a few flashes of cleverness or coolness throughout the movie, which suggest...somewhere down inside...Joe still has a bit of "B5 spark" left in him. But the entirety of the work doesn't do much to convince me he's the person to be mastering the franchise right now. I think there are many B5 stories still waiting to be told, I'm just not sure if he's the person to be telling them anymore. Maybe he's blown his wad. Or, maybe his muse ain't pulling her weight. This movie has been in the can for some time now -- it's a backdoor pilot for a proposed series. Sci Fi has been greenlighting series out the yazoo -- but they've said nothing about picking-up Legend of the Rangers.

Now that I've seen it, I'm not surprised.

------------------


------------------
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by channe:

However, if you *do* have the credentials to be reviewing B5LR, why on Earth did you publish something so... well, so unprofessionally written?


Pike says: Pike says: Fair question, good question. If the review had been written in my normal style & with my normal level of detail, the (proverbial) "jig" would have been-up...my identity might have quickly been compromised...and I could be in big trouble.
I know that sounds a little fishy, but it's the truth. My job is at stake -- I need to be *very* careful. That simple.




------------------
Click to expand...
 
Ok, I can see now that you've posted the entire thing. Thanks a ton!
smile.gif


I like your use of words like "atmospheric" and "orifice." How cool
smile.gif
Acerbic, too. Your vocab rocks.

However, it was phrases like "show up" and "bad-ass" that put me off, as well as your sentence structure, which could have honestly been more polished, that really made me turned off towards your review.

------------------
Channe, the pseudo-Ranger, who lives for the One and dies for the chocolate cheesecake
--
OnlineDude: I suppose now would not be the time to bring up the old one about the starlet who was so new to Hollywood she slept with the writer...
JMS: But that was only because she heard that in Hollywood, *everyone* screws the writer.
--
"Foreshadowing! Your key to quality literature!" -Berkeley Breathed
 
Chris -

Understandable. Still, however, there has to be a better way to present yourself - perhaps use a different sort of style when doing things for AICN. Moonlighting is dangerous.

It's just that... well, if you know anything about rhetoric, you know that you can't convince anyone of anything if you don't have a good ethos (personal appeal). And an unprofessional review, no matter where it is, is going to knock your ethos to the ground and smash it into tiny pieces.

------------------
Channe, the pseudo-Ranger, who lives for the One and dies for the chocolate cheesecake
--
OnlineDude: I suppose now would not be the time to bring up the old one about the starlet who was so new to Hollywood she slept with the writer...
JMS: But that was only because she heard that in Hollywood, *everyone* screws the writer.
--
"Foreshadowing! Your key to quality literature!" -Berkeley Breathed
 
Let's see if I have this straight: chrispike can't tell us what his credentials are because he's too important to admit what his credentials are. That's what I assume he meant when he said:

"WHAT QUALIFIES ME TO WRITE A REVIEW OF THIS TV MOVIE? If you knew my credentials, you'd understand my qualifications -- you might even say "Oh, it's HIM!?!?!?" For numerous professional reasons, I am unable to reveal my identity"

How lame. How utterly pitiful. My conclusion: what an idiot. Why should I believe a person who is saying this? It’s just unbelievable. I sure wish I could get away with saying “I’d show you my credentials, but I’m just too important to admit what they are”. Unfortunately, I have a job that REQUIRES solid credentials. The kind that mean nothing until they are VERIFIED.

At least he gave me a good laugh. He isn’t completely useless.


------------------
"I do not believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense,
reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."-- Galileo
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by channe:
Chris -

Understandable. Still, however, there has to be a better way to present yourself - perhaps use a different sort of style when doing things for AICN. Moonlighting is dangerous.

It's just that... well, if you know anything about rhetoric, you know that you can't convince anyone of anything if you don't have a good ethos (personal appeal). And an unprofessional review, no matter where it is, is going to knock your ethos to the ground and smash it into tiny pieces.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fair enough. However, I remember the "good old days" of Glen Oliver's B5 coverage at Aint It Cool News. No matter how eloquently he wrote, people still annihilated his work and assassinated his character. It goes with the territory. Trust me, I know from my own personal experience. If you're writing something someone does not like to think about, it doesn't matter how well you present the point, the natives become very restless *very* quickly. This isn't an effort to argue (or invalidate) your point. Just a counter observation.


------------------
 
Originally posted by hypatia:
Let's see if I have this straight: chrispike can't tell us what his credentials are because he's too important to admit what his credentials are.

Nope, it just means I could be fired if someone found out I was doing this. Has nothing to do with *me* being important (although you *might*...possibly...conceivably... recognize my name). Just has to do with this crazy desire I have to eat and pay bills.


------------------
Click to expand...
 
"Chris":

I can understand your reason for anonymity and protecting yourself against the repercussions of releasing information on something you're not supposed to be releasing.

However, at that point, I would question the ethical nature of writing the review in the first place. If it's a matter of having seen an advance screening and being told "this is top secret, don't tell anyone about it", then have you not just violated that trust? The results could be rather bad for everyone concerned, particularly given your insistence on anonymity--if the Powers That Be discover that there's a leak (you) but don't know who that leak is apart from an alias, they might be inclined to stop showing advanced screenings to *everyone*. That would be bad.

If this is not the reason for your secrecy, then what is? Note that I'm not trying to attack you or the content of your review; I am simply trying to clarify (and make a few points) on why you wrote it at all.

Regards,
-mcn
 
Oh, and another note:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chrispike:
No matter how eloquently he wrote, people still annihilated his work and assassinated his character.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True; however--and I think this has already been mentioned in another thread--writing with eloquence and style (or at least sensibility) restricts those who argue against you to arguing against what you *say* and not how you say it.

Yes, there will be people that attack either way. I believe "zealous" and "passionate" are both in the definition somewhere of a B5 fan :) However, if the point of a review is to make a statement (ignoring my previous post on whether it should have been written at all) and have people hear your side, would it not help to present your opinions in a way that doesn't turn your readers away and causes them to discard your work as "childish" and "unprofessional"? (Not my words, mind you; I'm still avoiding reading your review altogether.)

Slinking back into my shadow now...
-mcn
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hypatia:
Let's see if I have this straight: chrispike can't tell us what his credentials are because he's too important to admit what his credentials are....
...How lame. How utterly pitiful. My conclusion: what an idiot. Why should I believe a person who is saying this?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This disturbs me too. I don't trust information sources that don't come with verifiable credentials. If chrispike is at risk of losing a job for speaking his mind and expressing an honest opinion in a public forum why express the opinion at all? Further to say that the story didn't get posted in it's entirety due to technical problems...well I'd have told them to wait until it could be posted properly. Nope he hasn't said anything in his comments here to alter the weight I give his review.

------------------
The avalance has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.
 
"WHY WAS THE REVIEW AMATEURISH? It was written to be simple and quick. Period. Also, the gang at AICN apparently have some heavy tech troubles in the past week and have been unable to cut and paste my review as it was originally presented to them (entire sentences are missing from the review as currently posted)."

So you admit it was 'amateurish'. You admit it was written to be 'simple' and 'quick'.

Well, this just totally throws me off from taking anything you said seriousely, as you yourself have admitted it was an amateur, quick and simple review.

Now dont get me wrong folks; I am not going to slam the review because I think JMS is da man and anything he does is good. I will judge the show myself when I see it. But to post such a pathetic review that was written by a nobody, in a quick time, to be simple, is not valid at all.

If anything, I must concur with the 3d control of the ship. I could tell from the trailer that the pilot/gunner woman would be doing those backflip kicks and such to fire weapons. Lame, IMHO. But, I must reserve judgement until I see the movie, for then, and ONYL then, can I write my NON-AMATEURISH review for others to see.

------------------
It has been my observation that if someone cannot say what they mean, they can truly never mean what they say.
 
Originally posted by Capt. Neville:
"Chris":


However, at that point, I would question the ethical nature of writing the review in the first place. If it's a matter of having seen an advance screening and being told "this is top secret, don't tell anyone about it", then have you not just violated that trust? The results could be rather bad for everyone concerned, particularly given your insistence on anonymity--if the Powers That Be discover that there's a leak (you) but don't know who that leak is apart from an alias, they might be inclined to stop showing advanced screenings to *everyone*. That would be bad.

If this is not the reason for your secrecy, then what is?
-mcn


I wrote the review because I'd seen little on-line perspective on the project, and thought a review might be interesting to people anticipating the production. I betrayed no trust by reviewing the film. The policies of my employers prohibit me from contributing to sites & discussion groups. It's a form of employee control & censorship. They're afraid "trade secrets" will be divulged by people with loose lips. B5:LOTR has *nothing* to do with the people I work for (and only tangentially with the industry I am in), so I decided to take a chance & share the wealth (although, many people may not characterize my efforts as "wealth"...)



------------------
Click to expand...
 
You know, the truly fascinating part of this "argument" is that it boils down to a multitide of fans unhappy with one person's *opinion* of LOTR.

The truly sad part is that a good deal of you feel it's neccesary to attack the person behind the review... As if that in some way invalidates an *opinion* a person holds.

It's a shame that fandom has neither the intelligence nor the maturity to not go flying off the handle as soon as someone states an *opinion* that might be counter to the one they personally hold.

Lighten up, people. Watch LOTR when it airs and draw your own conclusions. It's a sure sign of personal doubt if you're this touchy about the project after *one* review.

------------------
 
Sorry, Chris, I'm still going to have to agree a bit with Capt. Neville. What you wrote, in your review and your defense, could, in some eyes be termed "childish."

I know - I write reviews myself, opinion, editorial, you name it, and if somebody lives anywhere within one hundred miles of my hometown (not where I live now) that someone has probably read something I've written. However.

Ok, you're a professional. And you have to eat, and pay bills, and for a person who makes his or her living on writing this can be hard. However, you shouldn't get all bent out of shape if you get criticized for your writing style. You're a professional, right? When you're a professional opinion writer you shouldn't *have* to defend yourself outside what you've already written. That, for me, was always part of the territory.

Yeah, you get busted on, but you *expect* to get criticized. It's part of the territory, as you said. ALSO part of the territory, part of what it means to SURVIVE as a successful opinion writer, is to let criticism like the stuff you've seen here slide off your back and keep writing. JMS does this all the time. Part of the cross we carry as opinion writers is the fact that we're gonna have people that disagree with us, and we CANNOT let it bother us.

But that's just my experience...

Nobody on this board call me hypocritical because I, too, can't exactly prove that I'm a writer.

I have never met one that took a rejection like you have. I don't mean to be really badly critical of you, but your "defense" honestly doesn't help your case any.

You could honestly do well to start developing a separate style for "Christopher Pike." Many professional writers I know have done this with quite a bit of panache.

From the vocabulary I saw you use in your article, that could make you unstoppable.

------------------
Channe, the pseudo-Ranger, who lives for the One and dies for the chocolate cheesecake
--
OnlineDude: I suppose now would not be the time to bring up the old one about the starlet who was so new to Hollywood she slept with the writer...
JMS: But that was only because she heard that in Hollywood, *everyone* screws the writer.
--
"Foreshadowing! Your key to quality literature!" -Berkeley Breathed
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chrispike:
I wrote the review because I'd seen little on-line perspective on the project, and thought a review might be interesting to people anticipating the production.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the lack of on-line perspective could be because very few outside the "inner circle" (production staff, etc) have been allowed to see it. As far as being "interesting to...", the general feeling I get is that everyone is fighting tooth and nail for Sci-Fi to pick B5LR up as a series, and for various reasons. Such a review by a self-reportedly credible source (I'm not saying you're not, I'm just saying nobody has a way of knowing other than your word) could quite likely only hinder this effort.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>B5:LOTR has *nothing* to do with the people I work for (and only tangentially with the industry I am in)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not about to argue whether the policies of your employer are valid and/or fair. However, the general idea of a chain-of-command in any organization and the reason for such rules is that the higher-ups who make such rules are in a better position to judge what will and will not hurt the company (and, correspondingly, what does and does not have something to do with their work). This is particularly true in any company where only the highest members have the Big Picture(tm). With what you know, you may be right in judging that the information is harmless; however, what about what you do not know?

Again, I am not attemping to flame you or bash your character; I am simply trying to point out that, IMHO, it sounds like you were not in the best of positions to be posting such a review to the general public, and even if you were, your precautions to ensure anonymity only damage your credibility, and skew the opinions of those who do listen without any knowledge of the where (or whom) the opinions in the review come from. Which, I believe, is at least partially why you have received such a negative response from the B5 community--in an environment where B5 is attacked repeatedly by arguably uncredible or unknowledgeable sources, your writing "style" and insistence on anonymity only helps to associate your review with those attacks, even if indirectly.

I am also still interested in why you have not remarked on your choice of "style" to preserve anonymity, particularly since you must have been aware how much it would reduce the respect and credibility with which your work would be perceived.

Regards,
--mcn
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tobias Clutch:
It's a shame that fandom has neither the intelligence nor the maturity to not go flying off the handle as soon as someone states an *opinion* that might be counter to the one they personally hold.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I, personally, question the the reliability of any source that breaks the rules of his own employer to express his opinion. It's not the opinion he expresses I have a problem with. I'm just not sure I want to give 100% of my trust to an opinion from someone who is admittedly a deceptive person.

------------------
The avalance has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Capt. Neville:
Well, the lack of on-line perspective could be because very few outside the "inner circle" (production staff, etc) have been allowed to see it. As far as being "interesting to...", the general feeling I get is that everyone is fighting tooth and nail for Sci-Fi to pick B5LR up as a series, and for various reasons. Such a review by a self-reportedly credible source (I'm not saying you're not, I'm just saying nobody has a way of knowing other than your word) could quite likely only hinder this effort.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOTR will either be picked up or not picked up on its own merits. It is highly suspicious that, in a time when the Sci-Fi Channel has picked up everything short of the kitchen sink, LOTR has not entered the picture.



------------------
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 462 (members: 0, guests: 462)

Share this page

Back
Top