|I'm sorry, Paul, but you're just not making any sense, on any
First, a general note, which is that there's a peculiarly British thing
that flares into existence whenever somebody is seen making any kind of
money from something. A work of art is fine and good as long as nobody
makes anything...the moment it becomes popular, well, then it's trash
or devalued. I've seen it again and again in the media there, so this
doesn't surprise me to hear it here. It's a class thing, I think.
I would also point out that WB didn't commission B5 for artistic
reasons...it did so because the studio thought they could make money
from it. And it has. Just the DVDs alone have grossed over half a
billion dollars. Of which, incidentally, I have seen not one penny.
Due to the nature of my contract, on my first series, I will never see
a dime in profit off B5. Ever.
That clean enough for your approval, Paul?
Now, to more specifics.
Paul Harper wrote:
> On Fri, 13 May 2005 23:18:21 +0000 (UTC), Oron Port
> <email@example.com> wrote:
> >If I had lots of money, and by lots I mean LOTS(!), that couple of
> >thousand dollars out of my back pocket won't change anything for me,
> >would have bought all those items. If you have the money, why not?
> Because it devalues it, that's why.
The show is the show is the show. This is stuff from my personal
And you know what, Paul? When it comes to what I do with my personal
life, and what I own personally...you don't get a vote. You don't get
to approve or disapprove.
> If any schmuck with a wallet full of dosh can, irrespective of their
> feelings for the show, buy into a piece of (what we probably all feel
> is) history, then where's the value - intrinsic, artistic or
> otherwise? Because it all boils down to cash. Something stupid, and
> the final analysis valueless.
More patent bullshit.
Look...in my collection I have two prize artifacts. One is a Conklin
fountain pen once owned by Mark Twain. The other is a copy of a Rod
Serling collection of short stories signed by Rod to, ironically, a
Joe. You don't want to *know* what I paid for those. Why was I
willing to pay that? Because of the provenance, because of who had
owned them, whose hands had touched them. That doesn't devalue Twain's
work, or Serling's work, it has to do with provenance.
And your argument that because something brings value it therefore has
no value or lesser value is one of the more breathtakingly vapid things
I've read in years. By that same logic, if someone pays lots for a
Picasso painting, it therefore has no value.
Again, it's that British class system thing rearing its annoying head.
> >Babylon 5 is dear to my heart, and to have that painting, for
> >instance, to wake up and look at every morning would have been
> Agreed absolutely.
> >But I am just a student with no job and a cheap bastard, who can't
> >even spare the 300 for the B5 dvds, so I can't afford any of these
> >items at those prices.
> Yes. My point exactly. Money is NOT might. Slinging cash at something
> that should [and did (imho)] have a higher artistic value cheapens
> devalues the whole enterprise.
So artists should suffer and be paid nothing so that their value
remains? You're not making any sense. Even for a Brit.
> How much better might it have been to either produce reasonable
> quality facsimiles of the original, under licence, so everyone can
> have a bite at the apple, then put the originals in a showcase
> somewhere so those that care about such things can view them?
> Sorry to the "Fans of Joe", but I really would have preferred this
> garage sale not take place. It has cheapened all of B5. It has, in
> every sense of the word, turned it into a marketing opportunity,
> is what Trek became several decades ago.
This is where the illogic of your argument takes flight into realms
hitherto undreamt of.
You're saying that in orderf to avoid something becoming a marketing
opportunity, one should mass produce the item in question, in lesser
form, removing therefore the benefit of provenance...and sell lots and
lots of copies.
See, to me, THAT is marketing, THAT is merchandising.
In most cases, these are one-offs that were used in actual production.
A copy wouldn't be the same thing, it's NOT the same thing...again,
it's the question of provenance.
> I personally take offence at that. I value B5 at considerably more
> than a throw-away eBay sale. B5 is not some deep-space franchise to
> profitted from.
Except that WB profits from it every day. The only person really who
doesn't profit from it is me. But that's okay by you, apparently.
Artists should make nothing, or they're sellouts.
Bullshit, Paul. Utter tripe. And by the way...you should really take
a good look at your sig next time before you post something like this.
> Never have so many jumped-up fanboys done so little, with so much,
for so long."