Please do not stick this on O'Hare. Whatever decisions get made, it
is up to the producers -- me and Doug -- to implement those decisions, so
ultimate responsibility rests with me. If you're going to be angry at
anyone, be angry at me. Your anger is misplaced.

Again, this was *mutual*. We looked at the story, the way a
novelist looks at a novel he's one-fifth through writing, and you learn
things writing the novel that you can learn NO other way, however much
you plan and outline. And at some point, you say, "If we leave things
JUST as they are, no changes, we can do X and Y, which are both very
cool. But if we take a chance, and make some shifts in direction, we can
do X, and Y...*AND* Z...and Z is *VERY* interesting indeed. It opens up
whole new areas for us to explore. So we talked about it with Michael,
who had some thoughts of his own...and now here we are.

Granted, it's taking a chance. But we all swore a blood oath to
make the show consistently better. Any time a possible decision comes
up -- like, Should we do "Believers," knowing that it'll get us in
ENDLESS trouble -- we ask, "Will this benefit the show?" If the answer
is yes, we do it, regardless.

Once again, this is *mutual*. So blame me. And be assured, this
isn't now going to be a band-aid covering...it will let us get deeper and
faster into the meat of the storyline, and intensify the characterizations
and relationships. Sinclair's purpose in the large part of the first
section of the story was really to get everyone together...to start the
pieces moving. And now we've got all the players in position. The whole
24 hours/Line thread was *always* going to be resolved at the top of year
two, because you can't sustain that for more than 1.5 seasons at MOST.
The audience, rightly, won't stand for it. At that point, that mystery
dispensed with (which would lead to other questions), Sinclair kinda
faded a bit from the story, because now we have to bring the other
players into the foreground. So if he's going to fade *anyway*, why have
him meandering around? Why not "absent" him for a time...and up the
stakes for everyone else, and help focus on other aspects?

The story will go where it was always going to go. This much is
certain.

jms

Just to clarify again, this was a *mutual* decision. There are some
VERY interesting things that we can do if we take an extended hiatus from
Sinclair aboard B5 (while keeping his character alive elsewhere) that we
wanted to explore, and Michael had some thoughts of his own.

jms

"...terrible mismanagement of the production staff to not have
wrapped the main characters in contract for the duration."

We did.

As has been noted elsewhere...when you write a novel or produce a
series, you learn things you can learn no other way. And we looked at
where we were with the story, and figured we could keep on going just
fine as we were. But if we did X, risky as it might be, it would open up
whole new directions, and let us improve the quality of the story in its
range, its scope, and its impact. THEN we went to Michael for his
thoughts. Both sides had some good reasons for doing this. This isn't a
matter of "patching things over." On our part, this is a deliberate
decision which we think will improve the hell out of the story.

jms

Yes, you're right, I meant to type Moria, but my brain glitched and
it was late.

jms

The Battle of the Line and the hole in Sinclair's mind was always
intended as the entry point or trigger to the story. It's like Frodo
being given the Ring in LoTR. The story isn't about that, that's how we
get INTO it. Frankly, there's no way you can sustain that one element for
five years, nor did we ever intend to do so.

The only difference in the resolution of that aspect is this: we had
originally intended to resolve the missing 24 hours, and the Battle of
the Line, by episode four, season two. We've simply moved it up 3 eps to
the first episode. Because new players are coming onto the field, in the
form of the Shadowmen, and other forces, and we now have to begin turning
our attention to new mysteries.

jms

Getting in someone else to play Sinclair would be the solution if
the actor were the problem. He's not. It's a question of looking at the
character (at least from my side of this) and saying, "Is there something
different we can do here that's more interesting?" This isn't a question
of salvaging stuff.

jms

This to Patrick Rannou...I'm going to try this again, and see if it
sticks.

We DO have options on our actors. We DO and DID have options on
O'Hare. It was WE who first approached HIM, not the other way around.
Your characterization of his actions here is not only inappropriate, but
absolutely and catagorically untrue. If you've got a problem, you've got
a problem with me, not Michael.

Once again: this was MUTUAL, and it was AMICABLE.

jms

No, Sinclair will no longer command B5, that task will go to
another, while he undertakes another task.

jms