Thread replies: 13
Thread images: 4
Thread images: 4
Anonymous
Deep Space 9 is PLAGIARISM 2017-06-26 02:11:45 Post No. 84298976
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Deep Space 9 is PLAGIARISM 2017-06-26 02:11:45 Post No. 84298976
[Report] Image search: [Google]
>I was working at Warner Bros. in the publicity department when Warner Bros. and Paramount were preparing to launch a joint network. Warner Bros. already decided to buy Babylon 5 for their adhoc PTEN network (a group of independent stations that agreed to show Warner Bros. shows in prime time.)
>Paramount and Warner Bros. both agreed that Deepspace 9 would be the show that would launch the new network and there wouldn’t be room for two “space” shows on the network. I was told they purposely took what they liked from the B5 script and put it in the DS9 script. In fact, there was talk of leaving the B5 script in tact and just setting it the Star Trek universe. I had to keep rewriting press release drafts while they were trying to make the final decision.
>But then, suddenly, Paramount decided to launch a new network on their own and screwed Warner Bros. over. That sent Warner Bros. scrambling to create their own network; grabbing up any station not already committed to Paramount and getting WGN to show the WB network on cable.
>So Paramount definitely knew about the Babylon 5 script
>>
Deep Space Nine was a ripoff but it was still superior in every way.
>>
File: Dr. Noah DS9.png (336KB, 576x432px) Image search:
[Google]
336KB, 576x432px
>>84299405
Twist: Babylon 5 is a ripoff of established elements of Star Trek
>>
File: dumb stupid Drazi.jpg (41KB, 1024x576px) Image search:
[Google]
41KB, 1024x576px
Daily Reminder that OP's story has been debunked for YEARS.
According to the source (Stevie Hopstaken), specifically his resume, he didn't join Warner Bros. until AFTER Babylon 5 and Deep Space Nine had BOTH gone on the air.
>citation: http://www.steve-hopstaken.com
Either Steven Hopstaken has a poor memory or he's a liar.
As for the bad blood between Paramount and Warner Bros., the Star Trek in question would be Voyager (developed as a network show in '93-'94 for a '95 release) as opposed to Deep Space Nine (developed as a syndicated show in '91-'92 for a '93 release). Voyager BTFO?
So either this Anonymous OP keeps "forgetting" that they're posting debunked material, or they're willfully lying to you.
Also,
>being a Drazi
>not appreciating both shows equally
Dumb stupid Drazi.
>>
Babylon 5 is a pile of shite
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpb1OXvNNMc
>>
>>84300157
>7 years spent defending deep shit 9
>>
>>84299405
>it was still superior in every way.
this is the half that's correct.
>>
File: Darmok International and Jalad at Warner Bros.png (38KB, 800x300px) Image search:
[Google]
38KB, 800x300px
>>84300678
>DS9 pilot airs in January 1993
>B5 pilot airs in February 1993
>Steven Hopstaken joins Warner Bros. in September 1993
The OP contains a statement from Steve Hopstaken, and it has been debunked for years.
If you don't want to get called out for posting bullshit then you shouldn't post bullshit. You have nobody to blame but yourself.
>>
>>84300987
Take your meds.
>>
>>84301096
Don't post things that you know are untrue.
Don't shift the blame onto other people when someone notices that you're posting untrue things.
>>
>>84300329
I liked B5 but it could widely vary in quality.
Something as poignant and well acted as this:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pJmuHNDcXLQ
Could be followed by shit like this:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CWtuKm6C1Sw
>>
>>84301159
Embarrassing.
>>
>>84298976
why do people go to Quarks if they can just replicate their food
Thread posts: 13
Thread images: 4
Thread images: 4