Talk:Michael O'Hare

Does anyone know what the nature of O'Hare's "disagreement" was? I can only find the vaguest imaginable references, although it is referred to in several other Wikipedia articles (including Babylon 5, Jumping the shark, and Chuck Cunningham syndrome, to name only three). Something so noteworthy as to turn up within three different unrelated articles deserves a better explanation. I have heard the rumor that Bruce Boxleitner was always Straczinski's first choice in the role but had been unavailable; when he became available, JMS hired him and O'Hare was out. I can see "disagreeing" with being treated that way, but this is just an unsubstantiated rumor. Canonblack 05:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Canonblack. I'm not sure what "disagreement" you're reffering too. The article states that despite rumours to the contrary, "the departure was amicable and the result of mutual agreement between O'Hare and series producers, including J. Michael Straczynski" (emphasis mine). From what I've read in newsgroups, Mr Straczynski thought that the rest of the series wouldn't work with Sinclair as commander of the station and decided it would be better to have a new character take his place, while Sinclair would take a more background role. At around the same time, O'Hare decided he wanted to stay in NY full time rather than have to live in LA for most of the year. Also, the fact that Mr O'Hare returned as a guest star seems to suggest he remained on good terms with the producers. --Matthew Humphreys 13:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think that needs to be addressed in the article. As it's currently worded, it sounds much too mysterious, and the mention of "rumors to the contrary" suggests some sort of dispute. Taken together with his character's unseen and feebly explained absence from the show, it sounds like a spin job to conceal facts unpleasant for the actor or inconvenient for the producers. Your paraphrasing of JMS' thought that it "wouldn't work with Sinclair" echoes the rumor about the sudden availability of Boxleitner: changing series leads suddenly is disconcerting to viewers, and is rarely done, partly because it can be misconstrued as a symptom of a problem on the set. It's much easier to transform the character through drama than to replace the actor. Considering the show's track record with departing stars, some of the departures acrimonious in nature (Andrea Thompson, Claudia Christian), you can see how a reader might be mislead. Canonblack 05:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

1) The actor was not replaced. Sinclair & Sheridan are different characters. 2) It wasn't an unseen absence; Sinclair shows up in seasons two and three 3) Michael O'Hare continued to attend the Babylon 5 conventions every year for its entire run in support of the show, so it would seem that he had zero ill will toward the show. 4) It's hardly disconcerting to change commanding officers in the case of Babylon 5 considering the teaser of the first episode in season 2 starts with "Commander Sinclair has been transferred permanently." 5) When asked about his talks with Joe, Michael said "I agreed with [JMS] that the show needed to take another direction. The Sinclair character had reached its pinnacle of definition." JoeD80 (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have reworded it and found the 1994 meassage where Mr Straczynski broke the news of O'Hare's departure to the fans (on Midwinter, a site which archives his newsgroup posts) so have added this as a source. Are you happy with it like that?--Matthew Humphreys 10:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Recently Jerry Doyle has apparently come forward on his radio show saying that there was some sort of problem with O'Hare's behavior on set. Unfortunatly I don't have any actual refrences, just hearsay. Though apperantly other cast members have come forward also since then. It's obviously not material for the main entry untill someone can get solid sources, but, at least that's someplace to start hunting. StarkeRealm 05:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

In an older interview with IGN (about 2004?) when asked directly about Michael, Jerry said that he didn't know why Michael left other than "it was a business decision" made by Douglas Netter, John Copeland, and JMS, which squares with Joe's comments about them meeting with Michael to make a mutual decision for Commander Sinclair to move on. JoeD80 (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Although not encyclopedic, nor backed up by any evidence, I personally feel that it's quite obvious that the late Mr. O'Hare had to have been replaced because his acting was just so atrocious. Completely wooden describes his performances fairly well. He's not the only wooden actor to have starred on a TV show or movie, but for this series to have succeeded, he really had to go. The show sadly had some other pretty bad actors besides him in major roles (along with decent, and even a couple of very good ones I grant you), but as the Star Trek franchises showed, a few good leads can carry the mediocre baggage. Boxleitner was able to do this, there's no way O'Hare could have done so over a number of seasons, sorry to say for him and his career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.228.36 (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Although backed up by the above evidence it's not encyclopedic, I personally feel that it's quite obvious that you are a complete moron, insensitive dolt, with no sense of anything other than your giant ego. 23.17.109.191 (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Finally the truth is out there...

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rkftme

In the end his health was not up to it and he saved the show by stepping aside. Maybe now we can let all the rumours about disagreements be finally put to rest. A brave thing to do to step aside, knowing that your mental health was suffering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bewareshadows (talk • contribs) 07:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

Image:B5 sinclair.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 Wikipedia: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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've re-added the image to the article. I added another fair use rationale. Is this good enough? (Why am I talking to a bot?) --Aladdin Sane (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

date of death listed is incorrect as far as i can tell. JMS reported on his facebook page that mr o'hare passed away on sunday, which was the 23rd - not today. http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=477779002256968&id=139652459402959. also as far as o'hare leaving B5, this is the only definitive thing i've ever been able to find. http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/misc/sinclair-leave.html --Mari Adkins 23:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariAdkins (talk • contribs)

No, JMS said, "He suffered a heart attack on Sunday and was in a coma until his passing this afternoon." So the death date is today. Kevyn (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm still not seeing a reliable cite. Facebook doesn't work, just like any blog doesn't work as a reliable cite for our purposes. Y'all will just have to wait until tomorrow, when I expect this will show up in more useful places. I just repeated my search from this morning, and am still not seeing much. - Denimadept (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

" fans were unaware of the fact that he suffered from delusions and paranoia due to mental illness. That was the real reason he left the show after only one season. Straczynski explained how O'Hare struggled, how he was barely able to come back for a two-parter to close his character's story, but above all, that O'Hare wanted people to know the truth after his death.... "

• Straczynski reveals moving story of why Michael O'Hare left Babylon 5.Nemissimo (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I find it somewhat disrepsectful and a bit gossipy that the section on his mental illness dwarfs the rest of the article. Perhaps it could be pared down. 66.220.112.4 (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Disagree. There is no real stigma attached to mental illness, especially for one who has died. There is no disrespect present. What really happened to Michael O'Hare was a huge mystery for his fan base, and Babylon 5 fans, for decades, which makes it encyclopedic. Having just the facts about his life is what Wikipedia is here for. I do agree that it makes up a disproportionate part of the article, but that is because so much of the man's biography has not been filled out here in this article. The solution is to expand the article to include much more of detail of his life. Kevyn (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Too big?! It doesn't even say what the mental illness was. I came here to complain about that. Not enough information. --73.136.191.253 (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

"What the mental illness was" -- His mental illness were paranoid delusions, says it right there in the article. The causes for mental illnesses are still not, or not fully, understood. It can be caused by some kind of physical or psychological trauma, or it might just manifest itself. -- DevSolar2 (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Paranoid delusions are not a mental illness, but a symptom of a mental illness. The article doesn't actually say what the mental illness was, but paranoid delusions are a common symptom of schizophrenia. 73.129.52.119 (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

I disagree that there is no real stigma - maybe there shouldn't be, but culturally I think there probably is. That being said, as long as it's properly sourced (is it currently?) and neutral it should be included. --Fru1tbat (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply