One other casting piece now to announce...the role of Commander Jeffrey Sinclair. The actor cast in that role is Michael O'Hare, who we discovered while casting out of New York, and who we have flown out to L.A. for this role. He's a classically trained actor, a graduate of Juliard, who just knocked us out when he came in to audition. He has a tremendous presence, and a voice vaguely reminiscent of Clint Eastwood at times. His face has a curiously haunted look, but at the same time is (I'm told by the women who go "yum" whenever he enters the room) quite appealing.
Michael has appeared in such films as "By a Thread," "Short Term Bonds," "Into Thin Air," "Pursuit," "The Promise," and others, as well as on television in "Blue Revolution," "Case of Deadly Force," "Rage of Angels," "The Adams Chronicles," and in such episodic television shows as "The Equalizer," "L.A. Law," "Kate and Allie" and others.
He is also a VERY accomplished stage actor, having appeared on Broadway to tremendous reviews in "A Few Good Men," "Players," "Man and Superman" and "Galileo," among many, many others.
The one thing we did NOT want, which we knew from the start, was
one more more pretty-boy TV actor...we wanted someone with character in
his face, with a broad dramatic range. And we got all of it in Michael
O'Hare..
JMS on "Day One" (on the set filming the pilot)
...and I cannot begin to tell you what star material we've found
in Michael O'Hare. He's got a voice and a presence that could give Sean
Connery or Clint Eastwood a run for their money... Jerry Doyle was great
as Garibaldi, as was Johnny Sekka as Dr. Kyle. (We've cast two strong leading
men in Doyle and O'Hare, and they are dynamite together...and there's a
*very* nice chemistry emerging between Sekka and O'Hare as well.)
Sep 28, 1992 [regarding heroes] . . . Incidentally, and not entirely as an aside, I spoke to Michael O'Hare today, who's in New York at the moment. (Michael, you'll all remember, is our lead, Commander Jeffrey Sinclair.) Basically called to bring him up to speed on a few things, and we got to talking about heroes. And how much he wants to bring out that aspect, for his own kid, and for others. One thing that Michael and I have in common is that we both resolutely and stubbornly continue to believe in heroes, and the need for same. Not bluff-and-bluster heroes, but ordinary people who are placed in extraordinary circumstances, and rise above what they believe are the limits of their endurance.
Also, just as an aside...was talking to someone today about how extraordinary a cast this is in terms of sheer intelligence; Michael O'Hare attended Harvard; ...they're all extremely sharp people, nowhere near the stereotype so many people have of actors.
jms
BTW, re: Sinclair remembering all those names...we used many of the real names of the people standing in line, many of whom *did* belong to the religion they had come to represent. We went down this line of 250 people, and went over their names *twice* with O'Hare. That's all. After that, he got each name right every time; amazingly quick memorization.
jms
Oct 15, 1993
As it happens, btw, Michael O'Hare's brother is a Commander in
the Gunfighters fighter squadron, running weapons, mainly, and flying an
F-14. At some point we'll probably stick him in a B5 cockpit, and stick
Michael in an F-14 cockpit....
On MOH's departure...
I have some news that must be imparted. I think that the best wayy to convey that news is to start at the end of the story, make my way to the middle, and end at the beginning..
So: the end of the story..
Everything is okay. Nothing major really changes. All is well.
Now the middle of the story..
I've been asked, several times, what happens if something *happens** to me, or one of the cast members, during the five year arc, since this is a fully-worked-out novel. Generally, I blow off the question with humor. But the truth is, obviously, I've taken every possible step to make sure that no one is disappointed. In my case, I've made sure the story is available somewhere..
The trouble, of course, is that unlike writing a novel, where the characters exist only on a sheet of paper, actors and writers are some discussion on the best of days). They can get sick, they canan get into contract disputes, they can be hit by meteors, they can decide to buy a house in Cambridge and raise hedgehogs under an assumed name. There are, in short, *always* unpredictables in any such endeavor..
Consequently, in drafting the story for Babylon 5, I made sure to compensate for any possible changes. For lack of a better term, there is a "trap door" built into the storyline for every character. Obviously, you don't want to lose anyone, but in *every* case any such change momentarily shifts the story about ten degrees to one side for a little bit, and then you're back on track again..
Case in point: Dr. Benjamin Kyle and Lyta Alexander. Here are the only two humans who have seen or scanned a Vorlon. This is Very Important to the storyline. Alas, as later events unfolded, things did not work out, and the characters were dropped...but their story remained important, in that it was established that they were soon afterward recalled to Earth under mysterious circumstances (as noted in "War Prayer"), which actually *helps* the storyline in many ways..
This is not meant to sound callous. As a writer, and as a producer,r, it's my job to tell the story, to be responsible, and to make sure every possible contingency is covered. To do anything less would bebe simply irresponsible..
Now to the beginning of the story..
Over the last few weeks, we've been re-activating our cast, making the deals for the coming season. One aspect of this has been a a series of conversations with Michael O'Hare. Having produced one full season, and having learned a lot, and having fine-tuned the "saga" along the way, it was our goal to expand the show, bring in some new characters, and take the show in some new directions, which will prove quite interesting, I think. (One sidelight to all this: now that we've established the series, we'll be able to spend a bit more time on personal stories, to let our audience learn more about the characters, particularly the humans, who kinda got short shrift this season.))
There is also the question, from an actor's point of view, about other opportunities, any possible concern about typecasting, the limitations of a continuing role (and the role of the commander does have some definite "walls," giving more freedom in many ways to other characters). Now is the point where one needs to take a breath and assess one's future, because the deeper we get into the story, the more problematic it is to change things (though,, again, it's do-able, as noted above)..
As a result of these discussions, it has been agreed that we will have a separation, in the role of the commander. Let me emphasize this very clearly, so there is no chance of miscommunication: this is a mutual, amicable, and friendly separation. This isn't a Tasha Yar situation. Moreover, we will be handling this in such a way that, down the road, Sinclair could potentially return to the story..
The character of Sinclair will achieve an important destiny, and the mystery of the Battle of the Line will be explained, both in the first episode of the new season. His story will still track. And the series will still track precisely as planned. I take pains to mention this because both Michael and I want it clear that we both believe in the show, and want this in no way to interfere with the series. He has asked me to convey for him his encouragement, his best wishes, and to emphasize that this is, again, an amicable andd friendly separation..
He has said that he is happy to continue to do the conventions, to promote the show, because he believes in it, and because he is an important part of this season's success. We can think of no finer ambassador for Babylon 5 at conventions than Michael O'Hare.. He is a dynamite speaker, he cares about the fans of the show, andd his compassion shows. We think he's a nifty guy.
On our part, we wish Michael only the very best. We know that he is very much in demand, and look forward to seeing him in other projects over the next year. This will also allow us to pursue some new directions avenues for the show that will help to expedite the overall story. Sinclair disappearing for an indeterminate period after the events of "Chrysalis" will allow us to tighten the screws of the story, and heighten the tension of things going on in the storyline..
If I can speak personally for a moment...those of you reading this on-line know that I've always talked straight with you. If I thought this in *any* way would interfere with the story, you'd hear about it from me loud and clear. When problems have arisen inin the past, I've always spoken about them quite bluntly here (much to the chagrin of some people). This is okay. We're all still very much friends. I speak frequently to Michael, and considerer him a friend, just as he considers me a friend. This was a hard decision, but we both knew that it was the right decision, for very different reasons. We both kinda came to the same place at the same time from different directions. We've got to do what's right for the show, and for each other, and in many ways,, this does just that..
So both we on the show, and Michael are served by this mutual andd amicable separation. We will go our separate ways for now, with the possibility of meeting Sinclair again down the road a piece, as Gandalf disappeared for a time into Mordor, only to return when needed most. (We will also be keeping the character of Sinclair alive in the comic, and some of the planned novels, to keep that option available to us.)
Once again, let me emphasize that the story continues on the path that has been set for it, everything you learn this season silll obtains, the show remains solid, with all of the other cast memberss coming back for a new season, and that the saga of Babylon 5 will continue to reveal itself exactly as planned. And I hope you will continue to stay with us for that journey..
Sincerely, Joe Straczynski Creator/Executive Producer BABYLON
5
21 May 1994
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 cann 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 toath 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 mysteryy 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
22 May 1994
Yes, it's quite true. And it was precipitated, in large measure, by an in-house evaluation of the story, and where we stood, and what more we could do to make the story tighter, more interesting, and bring in some surprises. Then followed our talks with Michael, who had some thoughts of his own. And this is not a total separation; there may well be some sightings of Sinclair along the way from time to time....
jms
Regarding the Spinoff Series-Sinclair:
Everything is currently very fluid. fluid.
jms
Editorial: Michael O'Hare's Departure
6 Jun 1994
As it turns out, Michael O'Hare came by the office today, and we spoke at some length about this issue. Michael has offered to compose a note confirming all that we've spoken about here, though I still don't think it's necessary.
There is no contradiction at work here. Michael very much believes in the show, and wants it to continue. So do we. As far as writing campaigns are concerned, it's one thing to support a show, and another thing to attack. Cynthia Lieberman, for instance, has nothing -- let me repeat, NOTHING -- to do with the running of Babylon 5, casting, or any other aspect. She is in Warners public relations..
If you've got a problem, then your problem is with me.
In addition, people keep seeing this as a cut-and-dried situation. It isn't. The reason Michael was here today was so we could film a piece that will appear later in season two, and will set up the framework for further appearances by Sinclair down the road.
If you send a lot of letters to Warner Bros., to the *wrong person* no less, all you will end up doing is pissing off Warner Bros., and with good cause. And the rebound effect would be to hurt Michael, and hurt the show.
Now, if fans want to write in noting how much they enjoyed Michael as Sinclair, and that they would enjoy seeing him again down the road, that I have no problem with. It's only the "WHY DID YOU DO THIS I HATE YOU YOU EVIL BASTARDS" kind of letter that can come out in this kind of situation that I've discouraged. If people want to say they'd like to see Sinclair again on the show...that they enjoyed his performance...fine, because that's certainly what we figure on doing at various points.
Meanwhile, there's no one at Warner Bros. to complain *to*. The. The ultimate action came from this office, and you should address any problems to me directly. Or to Michael, who will be hitting the conventions over the next several months, and can certainly speak for himself.
jms
More...3 Oct 1994
I *do* know that there were only four people in the room when we broached this with Michael, and you're not one of them. (Present: me, Michael, Doug Netter and John Copeland.) We indicated that there were some new and interesting directions that the story could take in season two, but it would mean Sinclair vanishing for a prolonged period of time, and what were his feelings on that? He noted that he'd been expecting this from where the scripts had been going, and that there were some opportunities that he wanted to explore on his own. It seemed like a good opportunity for both sides. It was made clear at that meeting that Sinclair was *not* gone for good, that he *would* be back at various points, but not in the same capacity...because we had some nifty ideas about something we could do with that character outside of the confining role of Commander. By the end of the meeting, it was decided that that was, indeed, what we would do.
We knew that Michael would be returning to New York soon to pursue
some long-standing options, and since we knew we'd be needing him (and
I knew where and when), I scripted out material for when he is seen again,
and we filmed that prior to his jaunt so we wouldn't have to shlep him
clear across the country later, and in case he should indeed be busy at
the time.
19 Oct 1994
Far be it from me to contradict the erstwhile Thaxton, but I would point out that actors CAN get out of their options VERY easily, if they really want to. The simple reality is that if an actor DOES NOT want to be there, their presence can totally destroy the morale of a show, the cast and crew. Caitlin Brown, I'd point out here, opted out of B5 of her own volition, and we chose not to gainsay her. And I stated as much here..
. . .
About every few weeks, I run across somebody else who has what he says is THE TRUE STORY...that posts on GEnie resulted in O'Hare being fired (stated as gospel at a convention by a journalist citing sources "inside Warner Bros."); that O'Hare walked over money issues (this one was on a number of systems); that Warners forced the issue; that JMS forced the issue...on and on and on. This has gone beyond the absurd. But someme people, it seems, need to gossip, and to post rumors, and to get into areas that are, frankly, none of their business.
Say O'Hare was fired. Why post that and ruin the man's career forer for the next several years. Say O'Hare quit. Why post that and generate hugege fan animosity toward him? Say the decision was advanced by me, and well greeted by O'Hare. Why? Well, because as Kissinger said, it has the added benefit of being true. Mutual and amicable. The other crap is just based on the desire of some people to hurt someone, or spread dirt, or boost their egos on the notion that information is power, and if we seem to have it, we thus have power.
Only four people were in the room when the conversation took place.lace. You weren't one of them. For me, that's the end of the discussion. Until next time, when somebody posts that evil Martian microwaves were beamed into my head making me fire O'Hare...and that's the *true* truth.
jms
21 Oct 1994
Bruce Boxleitner was not hired because of TVQ. Bruce was hired because he was the best actor for the part, *AND* because he had worked with Doug Netter and John Copeland before on other projects, and thus they knew him and had a very high regard for him. You conveniently ignore that aspect of it. Also, you ignore some of the other actors that we announcedd were also on the list, beneath Bruce, which included Roger Reece, who we were strongly considering as a backup to Bruce should Bruce not turn out to be available. Roger is a dynamite actor, but has zero TVQ. (To providede the "direct evidence" that Theron Fuller keeps nudging about, a call to his agent can confirm the discussions.) There were several other actors whose names you've probably never HEARD of on that list...so if the only thing we wanted was a TVQ actor, if that was the reason for replacing O'Hare, then why would we be wasting time talking to actors without a TVQ?
"My only interest is that I can't stand BS." Meaning you came into this with the ASSUMPTION, based on nothing, that this was BS. As far as I'm concerned, it's your comments that are strictly bullshit. Your whole attitude is one of just wanting to make people upset (your note about some truth to your getting a kick out of irritating people), and disdain at the people here as "worshippers." It seems to me that anytime in the past, as with here, when somebody mouths off out of ignorance or bile or cupidity, and gets called on it, he tends to try and kill the messenger by describing the folks doing the disagreeing as "worshippers." This is an old gag, and we've seen it here before. Seen it, been there, boring..
Re: O'Hare not saying much about the situation in Starlog...item number one is that you're relying on what was quoted, and that may not (almost certainly was not) all that was said. Item number two, and more important: Michael is a very private man. He didn't say anything about it because it's none of anyone's business, and he wants to keep the whole show on a positive basis because he believes in it. You operate off the boneheaded theory that someone who says nothing on the subject surely must have something to hide. Now me, I was born in America, where a person is innocent until proven guilty. You seem to operate from the assumptionn that everyone is guilty of whatever it is you think they're guilty of, until such time as they prove otherwise. You must come from a very odd,, and very dark place.
You can "stand your ground" all you want; you have nothing but your your erroneous facts, misapprehensions, delusions and convenient misquotings to rely on. Obviously you're laboring under some sort of problem in maturity or some other area, but either way it's got nothing to do with my show, or the people here.
And you have not answered my query: please provide for me the names of your last 3-4 employers, so that I may contact them, or speculate freely, about your reasons for departing said employment. After all, you haven't said anything about them in response to a direct query...thus by your own reasoning you MUST have something to hide. And by being here inn front of several thousand "worshippers," you're as public a figure as O'Hare.
Why would I possibly want to know this? Why, for the same reasons you express. "I can't stand BS.""
jms
Regarding MOH in first episode of season two...
We gave some serious thought to having Michael in the first episode, except as I got into the story, it really slowed things down...and I'm kinda partial to mysteries. I like *doing* something...and then a bit down the road you find out what it's all about. (Like this is news to anyone here.)
And Sinclair *does* appear later on this season.
29 Jan 1995
I have never stated, at any time, any specifics about the amount or duration of Sinclair's presence in the B5 storyline yet to come because a) there are things I wish to withhold, and b) some things must remain fluid because if Michael should get, for instance, a major role on a big network series offered to him, and with no guarantees of B5 next season, he would have to take it. There are certain things planned, but I don't generally pin this stuff down until I'm absolutely sure I've nailed down all the corners. We *will* see him briefly this season, and we will see more of him soon. Beyond that I haven't commented, and won't comment..
jms
Today was a very interesting day; today Michael O'Hare returned to the Babylon 5 stages in preparation for shooting the two-parter, which begins tomorrow. Today he came by for his wardrobe fitting and to get his hairr trimmed, say hi to folks, and hang out...lunch was me, John Copeland, Michael and Bruce Boxleitner eating together at one of the tables in the lunch area behind the stage, lots of laughing and kidding, and the two get on great. (Turns out they'd worked on other projects before, including the short-lived A Rumor of War series by Sterling Siliphant.)
Anyway, it's a great atmosphere, and everybody's psyched for the two-parter. It's like he never went away..
jms
25 Aug 1996
Let me clarify, so I won't be misunderstood...Bruce was ours our first choice after the change-over from Sinclair. Bruce would not havee been right for the choice of Sinclair, but was right for Sheridan. Michael was right for Sinclair, would not have been right for Sheridan.
jms
19 Nov 1994
Here's why I'm troubled by this discussion not at all.
I've been here before.
Last season, in the first handful of episodes we aired, some folks were screaming that they hated Sinclair, O'Hare was a terrible actor, on and on and on (many of them now the ones yelling about how he was the great thespic center of the story, and is irreplaceable). Same thing now with Sheridan.
You get to know a character OVER TIME. I made a conscious decision at the top not to go for broad-strokes characterization, but rather peel back layers over time. Lots of folks hated Londo at first. Then they got to know him *over time*, and turned around to the favorite character for many people.
This was made clearest to me after "Infection" aired, number four to be broadcast, when lots of people said that they felt O'Hare was finally settling into his role and had improved. Only later they discovered that "Infection" was actually the FIRST episode we shot, it just aired later than it was produced (4 rather than 1). It wasn't that O'Hare had settled into Sinclair, it was that the AUDIENCE was settling into Sinclair.
One of the things I've seen most often on the nets is a certain lack lack of patience...if the actor doesn't grab one right off with some folks, it's "he's a bad actor!" No, you don't work as much, and as successfuly, as Bruce and be a bad actor. He's not. It's just taking time -- as with ALL our characters -- to get to know the audience, and vice-versa.
I've been here before...heard some yelling that they hated Ivanova, Claudia was a rotten actor, space her (now one of the most popular characters on the show), same for Garibaldi and others at varying times. But by season's end, once we got to KNOW who these people WERE, then that changed. As it'll change here..
jms