I *Never* Guessed What Happened to Michael O’Hare!

Goodbye, old friend . . .
Goodbye, old friend . . .

 

In 1992, actor Michael O’Hare was cast as Commander Jeffrey Sinclair, the lead character on the television program Babylon 5.

He remained with the show for its first season and then was suddenly written out.

When the second season began, Sinclair was replaced by Capt. John Sheridan, played by Bruce Boxleitner.

While I very much enjoyed Boxleitner’s performance, I–like all the existing fans–wondered what happened to O’Hare.

The truth is something I never guessed . . .

 

What People Did Guess

The leading theory in fandom was that the executives at Warner Brothers (or its subsidiary PTEN, which ran Babylon 5) had demanded that O’Hare be fired and replaced.

According to the common account, the show was struggling to get off the ground, and O’Hare’s performance was thought to be a drag on it.

A new, more likable main character needed to be brought in, and so the stoic Sinclair was replaced by the ebullient Sheridan.

It was thought that this was unfair to O’Hare, because he had been intentionally asked to play a character who was wounded.

The Battle of the Line

Sinclair had fought at the Battle of the Line, when the Minbari nearly destroyed Earth.

Something mysterious happened to him during this battle, and his memories of it had been erased.

The result left him one of the walking wounded.

During the first season of the show, cracks began to appear in the wall that had been built in his mind, and his memories began to resurface, bit by bit.

In one episode in particular, a covert group of agents from Earth put him through a kind of psychological torture in an attempt to force his memories to resurface.

Because he was mentally injured by the mysterious thing that happened to his character at the Battle of the Line, O’Hare was asked to initially play the part as solemn and reserved.

The idea was that he would open up as his character arc progressed and as he learned what had happened to him and he dealt with it.

By the end of the first season, he was less stiff and formal than he had been at the beginning. The loosening up was happening.

It seemed unfair that, just as the character was reaching this point in his personal story arc, he was written out by the executives’ demands.

Not the First Time

It wouldn’t have been the first time that this kind of thing happened in a television series–or even a science-fiction series.

In the long-running BBC Doctor Who franchise, the sixth actor to play the Doctor–Colin Baker–had been asked to play a deliberately abrasive Doctor in 1984.

When he was first introduced, he acted arrogant and erratic and physically attacked his uncomprehending companion.

He also declared: “I am the Doctor, whether you like it . . . or not!”

It seemed like a deliberate affront to the fans of the show, who immediately began to complain about the “unlikeable Doctor.”

The idea was that the arrogant, erratic Doctor would eventually be transformed into a likable one over the course of his character arc, but this wasn’t clear to the viewers, many of whom had a strongly negative reaction.

The show suffered as the result of this disastrous creative decision, and Colin Baker was fired in 1986 and the part went to Sylvester McCoy.

O’Hare’s Departure

Had the same thing happened on Babylon 5?

Had J. Michael Straczynski’s (JMS’s) creative decision to introduce Cmdr. Sinclair as an initially stiff, wounded character doomed him, just as he was starting to loosen up on the show?

This is what a lot of fans thought.

Their speculation seemed confirmed when, after O’Hare’s departure was announced, JMS took out an ad in the Hollywood newspaper Variety (if I recall correctly) endorsing Michael O’Hare, seeking to help his career as an actor.

It looked like JMS and O’Hare were on the same side against “the suits.”

Truth Is A Three-Edged Sword

But it turned out that the truth is something far stranger . . . and more tragic.

It can only be told now that O’Hare has passed away.

Michael O’Hare suffered a heart attack in September 2012 and died a few days later.

Just a couple of weeks ago, at a science-fiction convention in late May 2013, JMS revealed the truth that had been hidden all these years.

Between the Darkness and the Light

According to Wikipedia:

During the filming of the first season of Babylon 5, O’Hare began exhibiting symptoms of schizophrenia.

Halfway through filming, his hallucinations worsened and the stress of playing a character who was suffering from a similar mental illness was becoming overwhelming.

Remember that O’Hare was being asked to play the character of Sinclair, who had been psychologically wounded at the Battle of the Line and who now was suffering with breakthrough memories caused, in part, by the attempt of sinister, persecuting government agents to force his missing memories to the surface.

It became increasingly difficult for O’Hare to continue work, his behavior was becoming increasingly erratic and he was often at odds with his colleagues.

O’Hare sought treatment for his mental illness, but feared that, as the main character of Babylon 5, taking an extended medical leave of absence would destroy the show just as it was getting off the ground.

This brings us to the same point that many fans suspected: the future of the show was in question.

Only instead of it being O’Hare’s on-screen performance as judged by executives that was a threat to the show, it was O’Hare’s psychological health, as judged by O’Hare himself that was the threat.

 

Acts of Sacrifice

So what happened next?

J. Michael Straczynski, the show’s creator and main writer, offered to suspend the show for several months to accommodate O’Hare’s treatment; however O’Hare refused to put so many other people’s jobs at risk.

Straczinski agreed to keep his condition secret to protect O’Hare’s career.

O’Hare agreed to complete the first season but would be subsequently written out of the second season so that he could seek treatment.

The Long, Twilight Struggle

According to Wikipedia:

He reappeared in a cameo appearance early in season two and returned in season three for the double episode War Without End which closed his character’s story arc.

He made no further appearances in Babylon 5.

Although his treatments were somewhat successful, he was never fully cured.

On his return to Babylon 5, Straczinski promised again that he would keep his condition secret to his grave.

O’Hare told him to “keep the secret to MY grave” pointing out that fans deserved to eventually learn the real reason for his departure, and that his experience could raise awareness and understanding for people suffering from mental illness.

On May 25th 2013, Straczynski fulfilled his end of the promise and finally revealed the reasons behind O’Hare’s departure from Babylon 5.

Beyond the Rim

Here’s the video of JMS explaining what happened to Michael O’Hare and the other actors from the series who have passed, including Richard Biggs (Stephen Franklin), Jeff Conaway (Zack Allen), and Andreas Katsulas (G’Kar).

Discussion of Michael O’Hare’s departure begins at 9:40.

The Name of the Doctor

They're about to reveal Doctor Who's name. Here are some thoughts . . .

We’re just about up to the final episode of the current season of Doctor Who.

The title of the episode is “The Name of the Doctor,” and it promises to reveal the Doctor’s actual name, something that has never been revealed in the 50-year history of the show.

We’ll apparently learn the Doctor’s name–and why he’s kept is secret all this time–at 8 p.m. on Saturday, May 18, when “The Name of the Doctor” airs on BBC America (or a few hours earlier, if you’re in the U.K.).

Here are a few thoughts . . .

 

Will They Really Reveal It?

I’m guessing that they will.

This runs the risk of taking an element of the mystery out of the show, but they’ve been teasing the audience with the idea for some time, and recently they’ve ramped that up in a big way.

With all the teasing, with titling the season’s final episode the way they did, and with putting “His Secret Revealed” on the promotional poster (above), they’ll have a lot of hacked off fans if they fail to deliver.

 

How Might They Cheat The Audience?

I can think of at least a couple of ways.

KEEP READING.

What to Make of “Two and a Half Men” Star’s Outburst?

Angus T. Jones denounced his TV program as "filth" and urged people not to watch it. What are we to make of this?

A few days ago a video went viral in which Angus Jones of the sitcom Two and a Half Men called the show “filth” and urged people not to watch it.

Then there was a day where neither he nor the show’s producers could really be reached for comment.

I said to myself, “Desperate, back-stage damage control discussions.”

Now Angus Jones has come out with a kinda, sorta apology.

That didn’t take long.

Here’s the story . . .

KEEP READING.

Something Wondrous This Way Comes

Author Ray Bradbury has died in Los Angeles at the age of 91.

Bradbury is often referred to as a science fiction author, though he wrote much more broadly than that, including works of fantasy, mystery, and horror.

His titles include some of the best-known in the history of speculative fiction, including:

He worked in both short story and novel form. Many of his stories ended up in film or television form, including episodes of the Twilight Zone and his own Ray Bradbury Theater anthology series.

He is credited by some for having helped bring speculative fiction new literary respect due to his evocative, lyrical writing style that brings out the emotion of a situation rather than just focusing on technology or common fantasy tropes.

One of the things that stands out in Bradbury’s fiction is the way he juxtaposes the normal and the fantastastic. This happens across genres in his works.

KEEP READING.

Greydanus on The Lorax

Sometimes “family” films are a blow to the thorax.
So what shall we make of that film called The Lorax?
Is it preachy green screechy? Or will it be cute?
Should we shell out our greenbacks? Or give it the boot?

Have the producers delivered a definite plus?
Or should they admit they’re “Despicable Us”?
They must be concerned what the critics will say:
“Will they slam us? . . . Will they pan us?”
“And what shall be written by Steven Greydanus?”

Thoughts on Re-Watching Star Trek

BridgecrewSo… why did they need a helmsman *and* a navigator on the Enterprise (NCC-1701)?

Surely the degree of computerization in the 23rd century would be such that after the course is "plotted and laid in" all you'd need to do is set the speed and push "Boldly Go!"

Further, the ship should have been able to run on autopilot for lightyear after lightyear between stars.

And what's with all this staff on the bridge?

You only need a watch officer and maybe a petty officer to monitor the ship's functions, right? (That's assuming the petty officer *isn't* a ship's function; it really should be an AI.)

And why do we need a full-time receptionist?

Sulu, Uhura, and the gang must have been bored out of their minds.

Doctor Who: Night Terrors & The Girl Who Waited

Some years ago, back when Babylon 5 was on the air, I began to notice a pattern in how episodes in television programs are aired. Some episodes are naturally more powerful than others. For those shows that have ongoing storylines (where the "reset button" isn't hit at the end of each episode), the more powerful eps are sequenced in a particular way.

There's a rhythm to them. And it's a deliberate rhythm. The show producers schedule them so that they come in bursts, with the less powerful episodes between them. Joe Straczynski talked about this openly at the time, referring to the way you want "breather" episodes sequenced between the "wham!" episodes to let the audience catch their breath before you hit them with something big.

(Otherwise the whole show becomes emotionally overwrought and loses some of its potential; cf. the reimagined Battlestar Galactica, which I said at the time was well done but would not age well, as it's got the emotion meter cranked up to 11 all the time–or at least for long stretches.)

The result is if you're watching the "shape" of a season as it unfolds, you can predict  in advance which episodes are more likely to be the more memorable ones. 

In this season of Dr. Who, I noticed that–after the arc-driving, two-part opener (The Impossible Astronaut/Day of the Moon)–we got The Curse of the Black Spot, which was one of the weakest episodes in some time. The next week, though, we got The Doctor's Wife, which was an extremely strong episode. Penned by Neil Gaiman, the episode reinterprets a major piece of Doctor Who mythology. After that episode, the audience can never look at the Doctor's relationship with the TARDIS the same way again.

That fits with the way you'd want to schedule episodes: After the big "arc" episodes, you'd want a down episode, then an up episode to sustain the audience's attention. (Multiple down episodes in a row = lose your audience).

As I said in my review of A Good Man Goes to War/Let's Kill Hitler, I thought this two-part, arc-driving story stumbled. While it had much to be admired, Moffatt didn't do his best work on it, though he was trying to make these both up episodes.

So I thought, "I bet the next episode–Night Terrors–will be a down episode, but the one after that–The Girl Who Waited–may be an up."

I was right.

Nightterrors Night Terrors was an episode that, like Curse of the Black Spot, had some strong points (the creepy wooden dolls were particularly effective), but it also had significant flaws.

As before, the key flaw dealt with the emotional core of the episode, the way the characters relate to each other; in particular: the way the dad in the episode relates to the little boy.

The ostensibly heartrending, emotional climax–where the father embraces the boy as his son–does not work the way it should. The father has just discovered that his son is only slightly less sinister than the Midwich Cuckoos (or the kids in "Village of the Damned," to use the move version's name).

He's discovered that his and his wife's memories, perceptions, and most intimate, personal, and painful feelings have been profoundly violated in the service of an alien biological agenda.

Despite the years he's spent with the boy, that has to create an emotional separation between him and the child, the kind of separation that will force him to reevaluate his relationship with the boy. Imagine finding out that your son was not actually your son but another man's, and your had been the victim of an elaborate emotional betrayal by his true parents.

While that kind of situation can be overcome and a full filial relationship restored, it would take time (cf. seasons 1-3 of FRINGE and the ups and downs of Walter and Peter's relationship). It will not happen in mere moments.

And thus the ostensibly heartfelt reconciliation moment in Night Terrors rings false emotionally.

Bad climax. Flawed episode. However much good stuff it also had in it.

(BTW, I'd like to mention in passing something that I've noticed happing in multiple episodes of Doctor Who recently: Very important information is often blurted out in rapidfire dialogue during a crisis. It may just be because I have an American accent and my ear is not fully attuned to rapidfire British speech, but I find it difficult to process some of these lines as they whiz past. The Doctor's explanation of what the boy is, for example, just goes by way too quickly. If I didn't happen to catch the word "cuckoo," and know that they are brood parasites, I might not have caught what the Doctor was saying without rewinding and watching the line again. I wish they'd stop doing that!)

So if Night Terrors was okay but flawed–a down episode–was it followed by an up episode?

WOW!!!

The Girl Who Waited was one of the best episodes in I don't know how long! This may be the best episode of the whole season.

Girlwhowaited It's the inverse of Night Terrors. While the former episode has nice window dressing (e.g., the wooden dolls) but a flawed emotional core, The Girl Who Waited's flaws are all on the tinsel level (e.g., scientific implausibilities/non sequiturs, which are par for the course on this show) but it's emotional core is rock solid.

Notice that one of the things that makes it so powerful is that it's about the relationships of the main characters–people we've known and bonded with, not just one-episode walk-ons or suddenly introduced people. This episode focuses on the emotional triangle that the Doctor, Amy, and Rory form, and it puts their relationships to the test in big ways.

It's also a fully activated relationship, with each leg of the triangle under stress: there is drama between the Doctor and Amy, between Amy and Rory, and between Rory and the Doctor.

As in the previous episodes, Rory gets some of the best lines ("I don't want to travel with you!" "It's not fair! You're turning me into you!"), and I think there's a reason for that.

Rory is, perhaps, the most misunderestimated of companions. He seems to be a really mild, unimpressive guy. Not exotic companion material. It's almost like he's just along for the ride (dramatically speaking; literally he–like Amy–is just along for the ride).

But what's really happened is that he has supplanted Amy as the main viewpoint character–the one the audience can identify with and experience the world of the program. He's the everyman character, and as much as I like Amy, I find I identify with Rory and his non-exotic, ordinary responses to the extraordinary situations he finds himself in.

That, in a way, makes Rory a much more important character than he appears to be. Though he's Mr. Ordinary (as far as any time-travelling nurse can be Mr. Ordinary), he finds himself in close proximity to the core of the story and thus in position to get some of the best lines.

This episode also does something that is the flipside of Night Terrors, with its artificial "I accept you as my son and that resolves the plot" moment: It doesn't take the easy way out.

Occasionally on programs there are situations where friends get into life-or-death duels. Almost invariably the writers of the show take the easy way out, and a means of not killing one of the friends is found. How many times have we seen that happen on Star Trek and other shows?

And then Babylon 5 came along and put Londo in a to-the-death duel with a friend of his, and JMS did not take the easy way out, and Londo ended up having to kill his friend. Definite writing points for that.

Well, that's what we have in this episode. 

Only here it works even better because the friend, unlike the one-episode walk-on friend in Babylon 5, is one of the core elements of the show; someone we've spent time with and bonded with. 

Once the central plot problem of the episode had become clear, I could see several ways out that would effectively be "the easy way," and I was really hoping they wouldn't go down one of those paths. And they didn't! The episode thus had a really powerful emotional WHAM! in the last act. It was agonizing, and it was wonderful.

Amy's unanswered question in the last moments of the show is also an awesome stinger to go out on.

Notice also that this episode plays on long-established themes on the show. Amy has been The Girl Who Waited since she very first met the Doctor, just as Rory was the Last Centurion, the Boy Who Waited. This is the second time Amy has had to deal with abandonment issues by the Doctor. And the episode explores one of the staples of time travel stories; it's own version of Einstein's twin paradox. These all help give the show added weight.

There are, certainly, things about the episode that could be improved, but overall this was an outstandingly successful episode, and I am so glad they told this story.

I'll be interested to see if they can top it in what's left of the season.

P.S. One other thing the episode did that was permanently take some of the stupid off of the Doctor's soning "screwdriver." Amy finally said the obvious: It is a sonic probe. He just calls it a screwdriver as a bit of whimsy. (Okay, and can't do everything it does sonically, but that's something that can be resolved in another episode.) Come to think of it, they also partially rehabilitated the sonic screwdriver in Let's Kill Hitler, when Rory explained that it has a point-and-think psychic interface, which definitely explains its observed behavior. (Of course, it's really just a magic wand, and we've had those in stories for a long time.) 

Who Named the TARDIS?

Susan_Foreman So, Doctor Who's very first companion, his granddaughter, Susan (pictured), was said to have named the TARDIS.

At the time it the show first went on the air in 1963, it was thought the Doctor invented the TARDIS, and so it made sense why his granddaughter might have named it.

Later it was established the TARDISes were much older than that, and had not been invented by the Doctor (unless he is also "the Other" who worked with Rassilon and Omega).

Thus whether Susan came up with the name was thrown into question.

But why?

Hello! This is a *time travel* show!

I can think of *multiple* ways Susan could have been responsible for naming a machine invented long before she was born.

That kind of time paradox is nothing!

I mean . . . we've just seen that River Song was responsible for naming *herself*–TWICE–without even trying!