Why B5 Worked and Crusade/Rangers Didn't

Why B5 Worked and Crusade/Rangers Didn\'t

I have a theory that I am sure very many out there in the B5 universe will not subscribe to, but here goes... I think B5 worked so well because it began on an upbeat note and a good deal mystery to be unraveled. Same with each season. I can' t think of any that began with a long-term depressing downer. I believe Crusade failed because it was depressing. The whole thing is premised on preventing the death of billions of lives. It could have been an endless storyline, and as it turned out, there was no resolution to it. In a way, it reminded me of Battlestar Gallactica. When your homeworlds are blown to bits and you're constantly fleeing, barely escaping destruction time after time, it gets depressing after a while. And Legend of the Rangers, I didn't think it was wise to begin immediately with a premise that there's a super-alien-race out there that is even more powerful than the Shadows and something the poor alliance may not be able to stand up to. Before a show challenges itself and its audience, i just happen to think it should make the audience feel a little good about it and its ability to move in a bright, positive direction. B5 never really placed itself in a doomsday-style position. The story line always gave the characters and the audience some hope that they would come out on top. Barely scrapping by from episode to episode like Crusade did never let the audience feel that the characters could turn things around quickly, that we would just have to wait for countless episodes to pass before we got to the inevitable resolution -- that Earth is saved. And we already knew from the storyline that Earth was saved, so what's the big deal? Why should an audience stick around for episode after episode, season after season to find out what they knew was going to happen anyway. Now, before everyone beats me up, let me say for the record that I would have watched Crusade and Rangers for season after season anyway, because it is superior science fiction compared to the crap that's out there (like Firefly, brother...). I hope JMS, if he gets a chance to try another B5 idea on film, just doesn't try to start with a looming armageddon.

Re: Why B5 Worked and Crusade/Rangers Didn\'t

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I believe Crusade failed because it was depressing. The whole thing is premised on preventing the death of billions of lives. It could have been an endless storyline, and as it turned out, there was no resolution to it.

[/quote]

1) Crusade didn't fail with the audience, which is what you seem to be implying. It was deep-sixed by the network for reasons having absolutley nothing to do with the appeal of the story six months before the first episode ever aired.

2) The whole thing wasn't "premised on saving billions of lives" anymore than Babylon 5 was "premised" on the mystery of the Minbari surrender or Sinclair's missing 24 hours.

3) The plague story wasn't the point of the series. The focus would have shifted to other matters before the end of the first season, and the immediate threat to Earth's population would have been removed in S2.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I didn't think it was wise to begin immediately with a premise that there's a super-alien-race out there that is even more powerful than the Shadows and something the poor alliance may not be able to stand up to.

[/quote]

The Rangers pilot wasn't picked up as a series primarily for reasons having little to do with ratings and nothing to do with audience reaction. The reasons mostly involved ownership interests and production expenses. So again, I think your premise is flawed. I don't think SFC ever got as far as analyzing reviews or looking at BBS posts to see what people thought of the movie before turning the series down. They had sufficient business reasons for doing that. The pilot being some kind of "downer" had nothing to do with anything.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I didn't think it was wise to begin immediately with a premise that there's a super-alien-race out there that is even more powerful than the Shadows and something the poor alliance may not be able to stand up to.

[/quote]

1) The alleged super-race is still in another dimension. Only their minions, armed with "toys" are an immediate threat to the Alliance. And Martel manages to best them with a sagging rust-bucket of a ship with almost no working weapons. Hardly seems like an impossible situation to me.

2) You're assuming that what the Hand's minion said was the literal truth, and that they really were as tough as they said they were. Why? I wouldn't take his word for it.

3) JMS loves misdirection. The pilot set up an apparent contradiction to established B5 history - which we know can't be what it seems to be. Did the Vorlons turn out to be what they seemed to be in The Gathering?

Regards,

Joe

Re: Why B5 Worked and Crusade/Rangers Didn\'t

Joe, I should have guessed you would be the first one to reply. You are the master when it comes to B5 and I greatly respect your knowledge and perspective. So, of course ... I agree with you! I did not think I was going to get a lot of support for my "theory." But I can't help but think, speculate ... what might have, could have happened if the ratings took off for Crusade, so much so that even TNT wouldn't want to kill the goose that laid a golden egg. With Call to Arms as a kickoff, I had hoped the plague thing would have been wrapped up sooner rather than later so there could be more plot, character and story development. But let's face it, a ship named Excaliber was sent on a mission to find a silver bullet to stop a plague, a rather narrow focus ... yeah, i know everyone says the plague thing would have been dispensed of in the second season. But while B5 opened with a universe of possibilities, Crusade struck me as the launch of a very specific mission. But, eh, what do i know ... just some random thoughts. Folks always talk about the enduring popularity of the Star Trek universe. I think it is because, except for Voyager, all vehicles were wide open to plot development. There was no single-minded purpose to Trek, NG or even DS9. I grant you, Voyager's only mission was to get itself home. I think it was darned lucky the series lasted long enough for them to actually wrap that up because usually those types of series don't last that long.

Re: Why B5 Worked and Crusade/Rangers Didn\'t

you do realise that Crusade was cancelled BEFORE it aired on tv - the ratings it recieved did not matter. And sci-fi didn't have the money to pick it up.

Re: Why B5 Worked and Crusade/Rangers Didn\'t

I think this is the logical point that is being missed here. You can't say Crusade failed with the fans if it was cancelled and stopped production before the first episode was even aired.

Re: Why B5 Worked and Crusade/Rangers Didn\'t

Unfortunately or fortunately...I'm a LIbra and can see both sides of a debate equally valid. I think instead of the reasons why two failes a better approach would be, the differences in the storylines between the three projects.

I agree with you on that much. The other problem with Crusade from a fan/watching perspective is the music didn't do anything to enhance what was happening on the screen. That to me is the most crucial part of any piece of film. The music is there to accent and enhance the actions on the screen. I was watching ACTA one time and by chance had a B5 cd in the player because I was washing dishes. (don't ask) I glanced at the screen while a battle scene was happening (with the volume turned down) and the music happened to sync with the movie. It made all the difference in the world!

And of course, Jo is right also. The politics behind the whole fiasco of Crusade and Rangers is in the history books for B5 fans as the greatest blunders of tv execs.
I saw a cartoon in the Sunday paper recently, maybe some of you saw it as well. As soon as I read it I thought of B5, TNT, and SciFi.
It was Wiley's 'Non Sequitur', titled, "The Hollywood Creative Session".
A producer is telling his writers that they have to put more substance in their stories with intriguing characters, a compelling story and not leaning on whiz bang special effects. The writers end up with their heads exploding.
That basically sums it up...

Re: Why B5 Worked and Crusade/Rangers Didn\'t

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
The other problem with Crusade from a fan/watching perspective is the music didn't do anything to enhance what was happening on the screen.

[/quote]
Am I the only one who much preferred Evan Chen's music for Crusade over Franke's score for B5? /forums/images/icons/confused.gif

Re: Why B5 Worked and Crusade/Rangers Didn\'t

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I think this is the logical point that is being missed here. You can't say Crusade failed with the fans if it was cancelled and stopped production before the first episode was even aired.

[/quote]


Just to play devil's advocate for a moment here...

I agree that Crusade's fate was sealed way before the series aired. However, given what the suits were seeing during filming and production, their instinct was to say this was going to fail. Maybe what they should have done then was to find a way to fix it. They didn't - instead they made damn sure it died.

However, it doesn't alter the fact that the episodes produced were not of the highest quality - this was surely recognised by the studio heads, and was later bourne out by the reaction of the viewers.

My question is, had the episodes been of a higher quality in the first place would it have died (notwithstanding JMS's statements about unreasonable studio interference during the creation)?

Oatley1

Re: Why B5 Worked and Crusade/Rangers Didn\'t

Yes, you are...

Re: Why B5 Worked and Crusade/Rangers Didn\'t

Neither show was given a real chance to see if would have been a hit for the network.

Re: Why B5 Worked and Crusade/Rangers Didn\'t

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
However, given what the suits were seeing during filming and production, their instinct was to say this was going to fail.

[/quote] Basing on said instinct, they made suggestions to JMS... which fully illustrated the "depth" of their vision. They never bothered with considering the story. Their instinct essentially said: "anything not visually resemblant of wrestling in space is going to fail". Yeah right. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

Re: Why B5 Worked and Crusade/Rangers Didn\'t

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Am I the only one who much preferred Evan Chen's music for Crusade over Franke's score for B5?

[/quote]

I thought that Franke's scores worked *very* well for B5.

However, I also liked the different feel and edge that Chen's scores gave Crusade. The backlash never made sense to me, except for the old "people are generally resistant to change" explanation.

Re: Why B5 Worked and Crusade/Rangers Didn\'t

No you are not the only one Krib /forums/images/icons/smile.gif
I liked the style, sometimes all that bombastic music tends to get tiresome, I like alternatives like Chens music alot.
Hmm as most others has already said what there is to be said, I am not going to add anything.

Re: Why B5 Worked and Crusade/Rangers Didn\'t

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I think B5 worked so well because it began on an upbeat note and a good deal mystery to be unraveled. Same with each season. I can' t think of any that began with a long-term depressing downer

[/quote]

1) Not all seasons began on an upper. Do you remember season 4? That was certainly not upbeat, yet it's one of the most popular seasons.

2) Where is the upbeat note that B5 begain with? In the pilot Sinclair is framed and put on trial, and we find out there's a mysterious 24 hours he can't remember. You call this upbeat?

Re: Why B5 Worked and Crusade/Rangers Didn\'t

There's a story somewhere about a bunch of science-fiction writers at a convention trying to find one piece of successful, literary science-fiction that's about something positive.

None of them could do it. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

Re: Why B5 Worked and Crusade/Rangers Didn\'t

Crusade didn't fail. It never got a chance to fail. It was equally as good, if not better than S1 of B5. The execs that thought "this will fail" when they looked at Crusade thought so because there wasn't enough sex and violance in it for them. Much the same way that I look at these execs and think "they are stupid."

Re: Why B5 Worked and Crusade/Rangers Didn\'t

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
<font color="yellow"> Originally posted by bobbydee49: </font color>
Voyager's only mission was to get itself home. I think it was darned lucky the series lasted long enough for them to actually wrap that up because usually those types of series don't last that long.

[/quote]

Darn lucky? No, Trek is often like a weed that ...will ...not ...die. Today, it's the sci-fi show that's allowed to survive without merit. Other sci-fi shows do not have this luxury. It's as if it's the one consolation that the mainsteam lets the sci-fi fan have, like "Here, you geeks can have this. Be grateful we let you have it."

Re: Why B5 Worked and Crusade/Rangers Didn\'t

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
There's a story somewhere about a bunch of science-fiction writers at a convention trying to find one piece of successful, literary science-fiction that's about something positive.


[/quote]

I believe science fistion writers play what can only be described as a prophetic role in society.

They use possible tomorrows to tell parables and allegories of of the kind of things we should be careful of today.

They look at the way science and politics are heading, and theorise predicitions as to what those two dangerous elements will combine to form in the future. They then warn us of the dangers, or say look this is how we can be if we only learn from our mistakes.

I've never read or seen 1984, nut I know strong themes contained within its tale, that must have strongly contributed to peoples resistance to over use of CCTV, ID tagging and the relentless pursuit of personal information our governments seek to obtain about us.

That last paragraph... am I compulsively paranoid, or a paranoid compulsive?

Re: Why B5 Worked and Crusade/Rangers Didn\'t

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Maybe what they should have done then was to find a way to fix it.

[/quote]

They did, in their own ham-fisted way. They interfered extensively, finally reaching the point where JMS refused to take any more of their instructions, at which point they shut down the production. The result is the distinctly inferior "black uniform" episodes. If you watch the first five episodes produced, and maybe add "Appearances and Other Deceits", you end up with a series that is, episode for episode, stronger through the first six shows than B5 S1 was.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
However, it doesn't alter the fact that the episodes produced were not of the highest quality - this was surely recognised by the studio heads

[/quote]

No, the network (not studio) heads failed to recognize the very high quality of the first batch of episodes and introduced changes that made the show worse. This over the objections of their own production department in Los Angeles, which had the day-to-day oversight of the show, and which had no problem with the first batch of episodes at all.

The Voyager and Enterprise situations are wholly different. They were produced by Paramount for a network which they own. They couldn't be allowed to fail. And they produced adequate ratings for a low-rated network like UPN, thanks to the fact that a lot of Trek fans will watch anything with the Trek name on it, regardless of the quality.

Regards,

Joe

Re: Why B5 Worked and Crusade/Rangers Didn\'t

I found Franke's music for B5 to be great, for B5.

Regarding Crusade, I find the intro. music catchy, and the music in the episodes generally OK. So, other than a few exceptions (a couple of moments when the music is a bit too loud and drowns out the dialogue), I think Chen's music was good for Crusade.

Frankly though, I'm usually so drawn into the story that I don't even notice the music. Sure, I'd notice if it was gone, but since it's always there, it's like background, and I'm too focused on the story and dialogue to notice the music. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif