• The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.

The Ending of Babylon 5

DaRkEnEdStAr

Regular
Babylon 5 seems to be in decline now , At least on many "Networks" as you Americans call them /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif and I personally do not blame them for not showing old re runs of Babylon 5 .... They are a buisiness after all and they have to make money . If they believe that its not gonna make them money they wont show it . Put yourself in their position ... would you ? Now thats not to justify the direction a lot of these networks seem to be going , mentioning no names ...
I have watched and enjoyed Babylon 5 for 3 years now and i am glad i knew it , I went through every possible emotion that there is while watching the series .. John Lennon Once said something when the beatles broke up ,
Its not the end of the world , Its just a rock`n`roll band that have spilt up ... you have all the old records if you want to remenisce
What i am unhappy about is crusade being cancelled , and sci fi not taking up lotr . Lotr was imho a bit weak and watery but it was better than most pilots and just can not understand why . but i am begining to move on .
 
Since this is the year the DVD's are being released, The main focus is on selling as many as possible. Would people be as anxious to buy them if they could watch the series on tv and tape it?

TPTB have only one goal and that is to make as much money as possible. If they think it is financially profitable to show the series again, it will be shown, Trust me.
 
I thought it was Warner Brothers that got the DVD profits, and Sci-Fi channel that got whatever profits from the ratings they get while they have the show.

I can't see Sci-Fi going out of its way to give profit to WB. /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif If anything, I'd think they'd use the DVD interest to milk their remaining days with the rights to show B5. /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif
 
I thought it was Warner Brothers that got the DVD profits, and Sci-Fi channel that got whatever profits from the ratings they get while they have the show.

Exactly. Also somewhere around 500,000 people were still watching B5 at its lowest ebb, and as many as 1,700,000 were watching when Sci-Fi first acquired the series. A few tens of thousands of S1 sets may have sold in the United States - not enough to seriously errode the television ratings. If anything folks introduced to the the show via that S1 set would be more likely to watch the reruns from S2 on while waiting for the later sets to be released.

However, Waner Bros. and SFC make their decisions based on their own enlightened self-interest. As long as SFC still has the exclusive right to air the series it can do whatever it wants, without regard to WB's marketing plans or bottom line. If Sci-Fi is retiring the series for a time (which I have repeated predicted they would at some point) then it is because that is the most sensible move for them. Presumably the ratings have continued to errode and it is simply time to give it a "rest". This move was inevitable. In six months or a year they'll bring it back - and may find a larger audience as people who were introduced to the show via DVD start tuning in. If their exclusive to the show expires before they bring it back they'll either renegotiate a deal (probably at a lower price) or pass and let Warner Bros. sell the reruns elsewhere. Either way B5 is likely to return to television and remain available in reruns for many years to come.

This is hardly the end of the world or the result of some byzantine plot - although that often seems to be fan's default assumption anytime anything happens to the show that they don't like. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Regards,

Joe
 
Babylon 5 seems to be in decline now , At least on many "Networks" as you Americans call them*

Factual correction: B5 doesn't air on "many networks" (as we Americans call them.) It airs on a single national cable service that has exclusive rights to the show. No broadcast stations are allowed to buy the show for airing in their own local markets. So the fact that the sole purveryor of B5, which has now aired the enitre show four or five times, after TNT had aired it a similar number of times, is retiring it due to poor ratings tells us nothing at all about the show's place in the general universe of American television. It hasn't aired in widespread syndication since the first run of the first four seasons. It has been exclusive to one of two cable channels (neither of which even reaches every American home with cable or satellite service, much less those that don't) since the first run of S5.

Regards,

Joe

* P.S.

What do y'all call 'em? /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Hi Joe,
Your right. B5 will be back. SFC is now in the process of trying to push it's new shows such as Tremors and the NEW Battlestar Galactica mini. The original BG will be airing in February as well as Buck Rogers In The 25TH Century.

Paul
 
Factual correction: B5 doesn't air on "many networks" (as we Americans call them.) It airs on a single national cable service that has exclusive rights to the show. No broadcast stations are allowed to buy the show for airing in their own local markets

Factual correction noted /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif as i dont live in America or have never been , It is rather difficult for me to understand the situation over there /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif In britain we have what we call Analogue terrestial channels (5 of them) bbc , bbc2 , ITV , Channel 4 and 5 ! then of course you have the digital (wich you recieve on cable NTL,Telewest or SKY digital)channels of wich bbc have a few of , channel 4 runs some movie channels itv has itv2 and so on .

However, Waner Bros. and SFC make their decisions based on their own enlightened self-interest.

Thats life for you joe . Why should they risk their necks ? And quite right for them to make such desicions , Why should they run a series wich is pretty old now (although some would call a classic) wich won`t bring anything to them . (money and direction of the market maybe ??) Granted that they never did give b5 much of a chance as i believe you are telling me , But as American series go it is in a very different format compared to usual American sci-fi programmes and JMS even said that on the S1 dvd , Wich is why it is more popular in Europe than the U.S. or could that be due to lack of coverage ? . Maybe Execs were scared of taking such a bold move , Didn`t think it do anything in the American market , Didn`t want to risk money , Viewers and direction of what the channel was showing . I personally do not agree with the direction of what Sci-Fi uk is taking but i will have to wait and see and judge it impartially .

NOTE BEING what do you mean when you say network ? and cable service ? I thought a network is a channel that runs through cable tv nationwide ??? we dont have them in the uk ....
 
Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a cable "network", but it is easy to understand how the term came to be used for national cable channels.

Networks predate cable. In fact, networks predate television. Networks arise from the fact that radio signals have a limited reach. The typical AM radio station has a broadcast radius of about 100 miles within which its signal can be received clearly. So a radio show being broadcast live in New York cannot be heard in Philadelphia or Washington, D.C. via direct broadcast. The desire to carry live broadcasts of news and sporting events inspired radio stations across the country to band together in "networks" which could share such programming. Initially carried by telephone wires, later by dedicated cables, the networks linked radio stations in different cities and allowed all of them to take the signal from the cable and then rebroadcast it over the air to their own local audience.

The major radio companies soon came to own a great many stations, and to share their programs with "affiliates" - independently owned stations that also carried network programs. The Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) was one of the three major networks. The other two were both owned by the National Broadcasting Company - which in turn was owned by the Radio Corporation of America, maker of radio receivers. Each covered different cities and they were known as the Red and the Blue networks.

For dramas and comedies essentially the same system was used, except that some stations (especially on the west coast) would record the signal off the cable feed onto wire or wax disc when it was transmitted (usually from New York) and play it back later. So the same show could air at 7 PM in New York and Los Angeles. You have to remember that the continental United States covers four time zones, so delivering TV (and radio) signals to the entire country is a much bigger problem than it is in the U.K. where distances are comparatively modest. (Counting Alaska, Hawaii and territories the U.S. covers eight time zones.)

When television came in the whole radio system, including ratings and advertising support, was transplanted to the new medium. A federal court anti-trust ruling forced NBC to give up either its red or blue network - I forget which. That spin-off network became the American Broadcasting Company (ABC), the third of the original "three major" networks. (Early television manufacturer DuMont had a network of five stations in five major east coast cities, but both the network and the TV factory soon went bust. I'm old enough that my family owned a DuMont television - our first - but not old enough to have watched any shows on the DuMont network. It had already vanished by the time I was born. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif)

The three broadcast networks, CBS, NBC and ABC, dominated American televison for the better part of 30 years. The Public Broadcasting System, a partially state-funded "network" of educational television stations which did not accept advertising, was founded in the mid 1960s, but was never real competition for the "Big Three" in terms of audience, and obviously wasn't any competition at all in terms of advertising dollars. Despite several attempts, no one would put together a viable fourth network until 1987, when Fox debuted, and it would not begin to attract a large audience for several years after that. In those days the broadcast networks routinely attracted audiences of 50 and 60 million people for individual shows, since nearly every American home received them, cable was niche system used to carry broadcast signals to remote rural areas and to watch uncut Hollywood movies in a handful of major cities. Satellite was almost unknown, and was delivered by 10 to 20 foot dishes, again mostly in rural areas. Most satellite broadcasts were not aimed at viewers with ground-stations, they were merely intercepting network signals being beamed to affiliates across the country.

Because cable channels like Sci-Fi and TNT are available nationwide, they are referred to as "networks", even though there are no local stations that are picking up and broadcasting their signals. The closest thing they have to "affiliates" are local cable companies which can choose to carry their signals (or not) and direct satellite providers like Dish Network and DirecTV.

Regards,

Joe
 
Lets wait and see if all these new shows that Sci Fi is pushing bomb and they decide to bring B5 back to boost ratings because they drove intelligent science fiction fans away with their mindless drivel. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 
Lets wait and see if all these new shows that Sci Fi is pushing bomb and they decide to bring B5 back to boost ratings because they drove intelligent science fiction fans away with their mindless drivel.

What scares me the most, RW, is that the stuff that makes me want to.. eh, let's just say the stuff that I hate the most, the Skiffy channel has done well with.

I guess it really is a combo of ratings and low production costs. /forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

Edwards babbling to people who think he can speak to the dead is a very low-budget show if his salary doesn't scream through the roof.

Firestarter. What confuses me is how Tremors will be low-budget. Can a monster show have less CGI than a space-based show? /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Eh, anyhow, I think Sci-Fi (Skiffy) has actually been fairly pleased with some of their ratings. As I said, mostly I think from the shows I hate the most. /forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

Intelligent television sci-fi is dead, I fear.
 
Scifi channel (IMHO) is dying a slow and painful death, mostly in part to Ms. Hammer and her "it's too scifi" mentality. I personally never watched "Farscape" but I don't see why it had to be canned. There's no way these new shows will make up for it. I'm gonna watch Tremors the series, but I don't see it lasting more than 1 season (if that long). Doesn't bother me if they take B5 off because I'll buy the DVDs whether it's on TV or not. The only way they can redeem themselves in MY opinion is if they put Wonder Woman back on /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
 
thank you for that illuminating history report on networks and cable . i dont want to offend the Females on this board (i allways seem to offend somebody !) but , could it be that she is a Woman ?? would any Man do this ?? I think not !!! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
i dont want to offend the Females on this board (i allways seem to offend somebody !) but , could it be that she is a Woman ?? would any Man do this ?? I think not !!!

Boy, I would duck and cover if I were you.

Yes, men would do that, and have, and continue to. They do worse as well. Just read AntonyF's most recent article, Beyond the Rim 4. All shows being cancelled by male network execs...

Angel's going to be the next to drop, unfortunately, as the stupid WB execs put it in the deadly 9pm Sunday slot where it had to go against Sopranos and Alias in the USA.

-Tim
 
For Tremmors if they stick to the monsters from the original movie(I have unfortunately seen the second) than they could easily keep costs down. Since the monster is underground you could use a single piece of stock footage for whenever the monster head breaks above ground. The rest of the time you could have the characters staring at a sizemagraph. Actually this could be quite funny if they would only use a single piece of stock footage. It could end up like the original Voltron cartoon in which regardless of where or when the action is happening the transformation scene is always in space.

Hero running to car in the middle of the night through a grassy field. People already in car yell for her to hurry. Creature catches up. See creature head pop out of desert at noon cut from the movie. Close up of woman screaming in pain. People in car mope.
End of scene
 
Boy, I would duck and cover if I were you.

*There is wisdom in these words*

If this were the Babbleon forum, I'd have him in handcuffs and chains by now. And I'd be polishing my best whips.

/forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif
 
I didn't say it would be good, just cheap. And yes, unintentional comedy is tricky and can be fairly shortlived.

I can still laugh at Voltron about a decade later.

Of course the fact that I was a tyke when I first saw it adds some nostalgia factor.
 
Back
Top