Talk:SFX (magazine)

Untitled
Is this really a science fiction magazine, as the term is traditionally used? Traditionally a science fiction magazine features mainly written fiction. Notinasnaid 11:56, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's a science fiction magazine in that it consists of articles, reviews and features to do with science fiction/fantasy/horror-related TV shows, films, books, games and DVDs. It calls itself a sci-fi magazine, so the chances are that it *is* a sci-fi magazine.


 * The discussion kind of moved on, and I created the category "science fiction related magazines". Seems to work so far. I think it's more useful to try and maintain the original category to mean what it originally meant, i.e. magazines of written science FICTION. (The chances are that anything that calls itself sci-fi isn't a science fiction magazine as the term is traditionally used, but that's a whole other story). Notinasnaid 10:58, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

JMS and SFX
(Wow, too many initials)

Noted science fiction writer J. Michael Straczynski (Babylon 5) specifically denies them permission to reprint his words in his internet communications.

Could something be added to explain why? There is nothing on the Straczynski or Babylon 5 articles about this. This was news to me and I was very curious about it. After 15 mins' trudging through archives, I did find an explanation in the form of a post: in the thread "SFX Magazine, JMS and Double Standards" of rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated. Straczynski endorses this later in the thread. I haven't found an SFX response.

Telsa 09:27, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

The issue was raised on the SFX forum at http://forum.sfx.co.uk/index.php However, the thread was later auto-deleted (when it not was posted to after 4 weeks). The SFX response was that JMS dissed SFX in another interview shortly after a friendly interview was conducted with SFX, stating that the writers of SFX 'knew nothing' about science fiction. SFX noted that this coincided with negative reviews of Babylon 5 Season 5 and Crusade appearing in the magazine. Readers also noted that SFX Magazine continued to cultivate a friendly working relationship with actress Claudia Christian after she left B5 under a cloud. SFX offered JMS the chance to rebutt this in the magazine, but he refused all subsequent attempts by the magazine to contact him, whilst simultaneously continuing to bash the magazine repeatedly and heap praise on SFX's (much smaller) rival DreamWatch. It is difficult to fathom exactly what happened, but the writers and editors of SFX Magazine seem willing to discuss the matter on the above forum within certain limits. --Werthead 00:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Difficult to fathom what happened? Bullshit.  Follow Tesla's link to one fan's summary of the events which is both neutral and approved by JMS as an accurate retelling of the events that lead to SFX deservedly being shut out.  It very clearly states what happened.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 03:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I love the way you say 'deservedly' there. There was nothing deserved about it, SFX had no idea about the dodgy tapes, and JMS is just another whinger who can't stand the idea of getting a negative review in a magazine. --Stevefarrell 18:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ha! Like any artist worth his salt, JMS has recieved negative reviews from all over the spectrum including actual, legitamate magazines, and he's been cool with it.  This isn't petty retribution but a beef with a corrupt organization that has screwed over fans and pros alike and publishes crap that one shouldn't even use to line a canary cage for fear of killing the bird.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 06:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you actually hear yourself? "Actual legitimate magazines"? And SFX isn't an actual legitimate magazine why exactly? What would constitute a legitimate magazine to you? One that does everything exactly as The Industry wants it to be done, like DreamWatch? Or one that caters towards, oh, say, for example, the readers? SFX have never knowingly published false information.  This is just a tedious whining vendetta like that of Team17 against Amiga Power. SFX hasn't exactly suffered from not being able to write things he's written anyway. --Stevefarrell 10:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "Corrupt organization"!!! This reply doesn't even deserve to be taken seriously!  It's about time JMS and his fans got over what was obviously a series of misunderstandings - the personel at SFX have mostly changed since those days, anyway.  Stephenb (Talk) 08:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, it's been established that there's a longstanding disagreement between SFX and JMS. I would suggest that this is an inappropriate place to perpetuate the feud, particularly in such heated terms as those employed in the last few comments above.  A little more civility, and less contempt for each other's views, please?  Blufive 20:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I love the way he claimed the fan summary was "neutral". I just read it - if that's "neutral" then I've wired all my plugs up wrong at home :-) Stephenb (Talk) 11:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The article is verifiably inaccurate in many places. The cut-off between JMS and SFX came a year later than that incident (the tapes-at-Wolf-359 incident) and the article doesn't address any of JMS' derogatory comments towards SFX. It also doesn't address the fact that JMS perpetuates this idea of a feud whilst SFX has repeatedly offered opportunities to resolve it, offer apologies for any such misunderstandings etc. As was pointed out earlier, SFX hasn't exactly been damaged by this due to JMS' low-key activities since then. The pattern of activity here, borne out by JMS' attitude to Claudia Christian over her departure from the show based on errors made either by him or the production team, his cold treatment of cast members when B5 ended (see Pat Tallman's written report in The Babylon File, Volume 2), his departure from Jeremiah and his latest spat with Mongoose Publishing, all suggest that JMS cannot take criticism and bears a long-term grudge in retaliation, even when apologies and compromises have been offered. I admire his writing on Babylon 5 immensely, but his behaviour in these other arenas is somewhat disappointing.--Werthead 21:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
Is this sentence NPOV? "Sadly it has also gone back on itself many times, including damning the original years of Stargate SG1 as awful trash, yet relenting on this position a few years later".

--Stevefarrell 16:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Logo
We need a picture of the new cover logo Mindstar 13:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Straczynski

 * Noted science fiction writer J. Michael Straczynski (Babylon 5) specifically denies them permission to reprint his words in his internet communications.

This sentence looks a bit lost on its own. If it's going to be there, then there needs to be some sort of explanation - especially as to why the fight has lasted so long, when most such disputes fizzle out after particular personnel on one side or the other have departed. I'm not knowledgeable about this myself, but I have come across the argument from time to time - it's so vicious that it's hard to miss! - and having read one of the previous Talk sections above, it looks as though some very careful editing would be needed to avoid an instant disputed tag.

I had a look over on the Talk:J. Michael Straczynski page, and there someone's referred to a "neutral fan's" point of view, which is linked to here. Unfortunately it's a Usenet post, and I believe Wikipedia frowns on those being used as references; if it's been printed or quoted in a notable publication, though, that might be worth following up.

One final point: does Straczynski's "denial of permission" have any legal force at all? Again I don't have specialist knowledge, but I'd be very surprised if the law allowed someone to stop someone else quoting (subject to the usual fair dealing provisions) something they'd written in a public place. Loganberry (Talk) 11:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sfxcover.jpg
Image:Sfxcover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Naming question
Is the title of this magazine SFX or SFX magazine? If it's the former, the article should be moved to SFX (magazine) in accordance with WP:NAME guidelines. --Muchness 11:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)