• 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.

How Will The B-5 Universe Change when JMS is gone?

Dayton3

Regular
Star Trek went on......and on........and on.......after the death of its creator, Gene Roddenberry. And Roddenberry and no real influence for years before that.

Battlestar:Galactica is now reimagined (radically I say) outside the control and influence of its creator Glen A.Larson.

Various other science fiction series have grown away from their creators.

Given that the original Babylon-5 was alot more successful than the original Battlestar:Galactica, its not hard to see the series being continued or revived in some way years down the road without the input of JMS.

Any thoughts as to how the B-5 universe might change (for better or worse) without his input?
 
Nope. If it's not canon, I'm not interested and unless JMS says that he's entrusting the B5 universe to somebody, as far as I'm concerned the universe will end with JMS.

For all you might compare it to the original Battlestar, there's a crucial difference. If you see any of the original actors you'll hear stories of how the nework/studio meddled with the show from day 1. This is simply not the case with B5 which is now and always has been the vision of one person.

Jan
 
I'm in a very small minority here, but I've always been very open to seeing what other talented writers could do with the B5 universe.. For example, I think the telepath trilogy by J Gregory Keyes is an outstanding and significant contribution to the B5 canon, and in some ways it stands as an epic literary work in its own right, and its all the better because it doesn't trample over what JMS created.. A lot of the reason for me holding this opinion is that I absolutely adore what Nicholas Meyer and Harve Bennett did with Star Trek, without Gene Roddenberry's creative involvement.

The biggest barriers are B5's self-contained format and unusually detailed continuity, particularly things like the '100 years peace' mentioned in Deconstruction of Falling Stars. And of course one of the best things about having a single creative force is that there are virtually no continuity errors. One thing I am sure of.. Popular culture definitelty loves to recycle old ideas, so whether we like it or not, it is going to happen eventually.
 
Battlestar:Galactica is now reimagined (radically I say) outside the control and influence of its creator Glen A.Larson.

Thank Heaven. Glen A. Larceny didn't so much "create" BG as cobble it together from bits and pieces of other people's superior work. (Which has pretty much always been his standard operating procedure.)

Given that the original Babylon 5 was alot more successful than the original Battlestar:Galactica...

B5 wasn't 1/10th as successful as the first season of BG, so your permise isn't a "given", it is incorrect. JMS would have killed for the kind of ratings that show got. The problem is it cost a fortune to produce. Larson pulled the then-typical space show shell-game: Submit a grossly understated budget "estimate" to the studio, run up huge deficits producing the first season, assume that rather than cut its losses the studio will finance subsequent seasons in order to hit the magic number 5 and have enough to sell into syndication and eventually make a profit. ABC called his bluff. They wre ready to pull the show, which is why the Earth-based "reimagined" disaster called Galactica 1980 was created. This show was cheaper than BG but still on the pricey side since it used more FX than the typical contemporary drama, and it wasn't drawing nearly the audience of the original series, so it was axed. (But it was still probably seen by 2 or 3 times as many people in the U.S. at the time it was cancelled as B5 was at its ratings peak on PTEN.)

...its not hard to see the series being continued or revived in some way years down the road without the input of JMS.

WB owns the property, so of course they could do it. They could have done season 6 of B5, which TNT expressed an interest in, they could have taken Crusade away from JMS and brought in a new producer who would have been more acommodating to TNT (since at that point nobody knew that TNT was determined to kill the show regardless of what happened.) Instead when JMS refused to accept TNT's interference and halted production on the show himself, the studio stood by him and at the loss of millions of dollars in fees it was unable to collect from TNT.

B5 has never been the kind of franchise property that a Star Trek turned into the minute it went into syndication. Even with the profits from that, it was only the unexpected success of the first Star Wars film that got Paramount (and all the other studios) to start looking through their archives for any space-based movies or series that they might have the rights to. That's where the idea of building the new network they were then considering around a revived Trek series came from, and when the network foundered the series was converted to ST:TMP.

Similarly Universal didn't start to think about BG because it was some kind of on-going profit center. (Was it even in reruns anywhere in the U.S.?) They did so first because Bryan Singer, then "the" hot director in Hollywood, got to talking to another childhood fan of the show and decided to do an update. When that project fell apart, Universal promptly lost interest. It was only after The Sci-Fi Channel (U.S.), which had done well with reruns of B5, failed to make a series deal with Warner Bros. for Legend of the Rangers that they thought about BG. They thought a space-based, arc-driven military adventure show would appeal to the right demographic, as shown by the B5 ratings. But they wanted to own a part of the property, and Warner Bros. doesn't do that kind of deal, as a rule. Then somebody remembered that Universal, which owns Sci-fi, also owned BG, and that the Bryan Singer thing has produced a lot of interest, buzz and free publicity in fans cirlcles. So they brought in a DS9 alumnus (how appropriate) to turn the basic concept of BG into Sci-Fi's own version of a B5 series. All of which just about buries the needle on the old irony meter, but there you have it.

WB knows that at this point B5 is JMS and JMS is B5. There is simply no other way to approach it, certainly not one that the fans will accept. Nor is it the kind of virtual ATM for WB as Paramount was for Trek (and there even Paramount proved you could go to the well one time too many. The last two series and the last two films have mostly sucked and the ratings and box office reflected the fact.)

I don't think WB is going to have any compelling reason to continue B5 beyond JMS's active participation. Maybe 30 or 40 years from now some witer producer who grew up watching B5 will approach the studio about doing a reboot (which by that time they may be able to shoot largerly in orbit, with location shooting on Mars ;)) and convince them that s/he knows how to pull it off. But I can't see them deciding to bring it back and then seeking out a show-runner to make it for them.

Unless science fiction goes through one of its periodic down cycles and the whole genre almost vanishes from movies and TV (except for kiddie stuff) and it then revived by the mid-century equivalent to Star Wars. Then WB might asked the same question Paramount did ("Say? Don't we have one of those space ship things?") and remember B5

But I honestly can't think of a more pointless excercise than trying to imagine what studio execs who haven't been born yet might do with this show in a time that many of probably won't live to see. So I'll leave that to others. :)

Regards,

Joe
 
Thank Heaven. Glen A. Larceny didn't so much "create" BG as cobble it together from bits and pieces of other people's superior work.

Didn't he pretty much rip it from the Old Testament? I pretty much remember him using that as his defence when Lucas
plc sued because of similarities to Star Wars. The obvious parallel being The Exodus, in which you merely substitute the setting and the twelve tribes of Israel for the 12 zodiac signs which act as colonies.
 
Thank Heaven. Glen A. Larceny didn't so much "create" BG as cobble it together from bits and pieces of other people's superior work.

Didn't he pretty much rip it from the Old Testament? I pretty much remember him using that as his defence when Lucas
plc sued because of similarities to Star Wars. The obvious parallel being The Exodus, in which you merely substitute the setting and the twelve tribes of Israel for the 12 zodiac signs which act as colonies.

That and "Chariots of the Gods" by Erich von Daniken, who postulated that "life here began out there" and that our ancient cultures were influenced by extraterrestrial intelligence (a concept recycled again in "Stargate"). I think Lucas's problem was more with the look and design asthetic than with the plot of the show. The ships and uniforms were very similar, except for the faux Egyptian helmets (again, "Chariots of the Gods").
 
I've been told that The Book of Mormon figures in the background to BSG, but I have never read it and therefore don't know if this is true or not.

Regards,

Joe
 
I've heard also that the experience of the Mormons (and I believe Larson is a Mormon) being forced from their homes in the Midwest across the U.S. to Utah did feature heavily in Larsons thinking of the Galacticas "quest".

And I knew full well that the original Galactica had more viewers than B-5.

That said, all things are relative.

And given that we are on a science fiction show website, I think speculation about the future is both fun and interesting.
 
I do remember reading the book and that the Cylons were actually aliens wearing armour that was grafted on them.I'm pretty sure the officers had two brains and the Imperious Leader had three.
 
I don't know if you can use those figures. There were less channels back then so audience share was higher surely? Or has the US always had shedloads of TV channels?
 
I bet the original BSG hasn't sold nearly as many DVDs as B5, or scored as many epsiode downloads. Times have changed..

(That said, I enjoy the original BSG, and I did buy the DVDs)
 
But thats exactly my point. I'm saying it's irrelevant to say BSG had x amount of viewers in the 70's but B5 only had y amount in it's heyday... because modern programmes will never reach the same TV audience levels as they did in the 70's (except in the UK for royal births marriages and deaths... everybody seems to default back to "aunty" on those occasions.

DVD sales are almost certainly more accurate because they reveal a better picture on how strong a dedicated fan base is. Going on the given notion that 1 person who commits an action thinks the same as 10 other people who didn't follow through, gives you a wopping great figure.
 
I don't know if you can use those figures. There were less channels back then so audience share was higher surely? Or has the US always had shedloads of TV channels?

Most U.S. cities have always been served by more TV channels than most U.K. cities (7 VHF channels in New York City, about as many UHF channels, similar numbers for Los Angeles and other larger cities. At least 3 or 4 VHF channels and a couple of UHF ones in most other cities and larger towns.) And by the late 70s and early 80s cable was delivering dozens of channels to most larger communities and even many rural areas, with satellite coming on fast.

And even today a hit show on a broadcast network will attract 20 or 30 million viewers. It is true that there are more choices today, but it is also true that there are more people, and that more of those people have TVs and more of those TVs are connected to cable boxes and satellite receivers. In 1980, which is about the peak of the audience share for the "Big Three" broadcast networks, the U.S. population was about 230 million. This year it topped 300 million. That's 70 million potential new TV viewers in about 25 years. :)

Any way you slice it B5 was not nearly as successful as BSG. It was drawing 3 or 4 million viewers when Friends was pulling down 30 million.

Regards,

Joe
 
I'm convinced one of the main reasons B5 became so hugely successful here in the UK was because for the first 3 seasons it had a 6pm timeslot on channel 4 at a time when there were only 4 terrestrial channels in the UK (I think in response to BBC2 airing star trek so successfully in a weekday 6pm timeslot).. And Channel 4 promoted it heavily, and published a large range of books, so it had a prominent section in most bookshops and hard not to be aware of it.. The radio times (our equivalent of TV Guide) also gave it heavy and mostly favourable coverage. It began to penetrate mainstream consciousness as well, and was occasionally mentioned out of context in other media. Then for no apparent reason season 4 was aired after 11pm, and Season 5 was relegated to early mornings on a Sunday. Then the whole thing went to satellite, and lo and behold, the hype faded away..
 
Do you think they will ever release future special editions with effects upgrades? Or is that a bit too Lucasy for people here to find tasteful?
 
Re: How Will The B-5 Universe Change when JMS is g

I asked just that to JMS a few months ago, on the newsgroup. Here is what he answered:
shabaz.x@gmail.com wrote:
> JMS,
>

> Star Trek: The Original Series is getting a
> makeover for the HD era (more info can be found on their website here:
> http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/23775.html ). The
> show is being remastered for High Definition video, and the effects
> scenes are getting a CGI makeover. I had a twofold question about such
> an HD makeover, if I may. A deal with the Sci-Fi Channel got us a
> widescreen version of the show. How realistic is it to expect a similar
> HD treatment for original B5, maybe when HD has become as common as
> colour television now, after another network or syndication deal?
> Possibly with the CGI re-rendering we never got because WB lost the
> computer files?
>

That's a studio question, far outside my expertise. I suppose it's as
possible as anything else.

> Second, is it _technically_ possible to do an HD version of original
> B5? Does the Super 35 film that I believe the live action was shot on
> offer the option of re-scanning for HD? For the live action / CGI
> composited shots, are the live action parts of those still stored in a
> format that would allow rescanning into a higher resolution and
> different aspect ratio? And last, with new CGI assets being created for
> The Lost Tales, would that make it in any way easier for the CGI to
> finally be re-rendered at some future point in time, even with the
> original files missing?
>

Yes, you can up-rez 35mm to HD fairly easily, especially since we had
to deliver film negative masters to WB...but again you'd have to crop
the CGI if you wanted it in wide. We tried experimenting with
up-rezzing Jeremiah to HD and it looked fine.

jms
I personally would like to see it if possible, mostly to get CGI and composited scenes that aren't cropped. We had a fairly lengthy discussion about it here where I and others explained our reasons for wanting or not wanting to see something like this. It kind of devolved into a discussion about some rather arcane technical details though. :p
 
Do you think they will ever release future special editions with effects upgrades? Or is that a bit too Lucasy for people here to find tasteful?

Well the Gathering had a special edition already, but I can only think of one effects shot (two laser blasts hitting a wall) that wasn't either in the original cut or culled from later seasons. I still don't think there's anything wrong with B5's effects, because I think it's a classic case of artistic talent and expression rising above technology. And like other elements of B5, I get a kick out of the exponential improvement curve as the series progresses. I also used to be a huge Amiga fan, and still don't really trust PCs to this day..
 
Re: How Will The B-5 Universe Change when JMS is g

Just a couple of nitpicks ...

And Channel 4 promoted it heavily, and published a large range of books ...

Actually, I don't think "large range" is particularly accurate. The novels published by C4 in the UK were just the same novels as published by Dell in the US. There were a few others ... the Security Manual, David Bassom's book on the making of B5, etc. but I thought they were published by Titan rather than C4. Could be wrong though.

Then for no apparent reason season 4 was aired after 11pm ...

Actually it was 10:40pm (right after the Space Cadets quiz show) and it was done so that C4 could show the episodes uncut (i.e. with all the violence intact) following fan complaints at how much stuff had been sliced and diced in the first 3 seasons ... and the sense that S4 was going to need even more cutting if they were going to show it at 6pm.

... and Season 5 was relegated to early mornings on a Sunday ...

And G'Quan only knows why they thought that was a good idea. It was, however, a marginally better idea than showing the last five episodes at around 9:30am Monday - Friday in one week of the Christmas period.
 
Re: How Will The B-5 Universe Change when JMS is g

Fortunately I had the time booked off over Christmas and never missed an episode.
 
Re: How Will The B-5 Universe Change when JMS is g

Actually, I don't think "large range" is particularly accurate. The novels published by C4 in the UK were just the same novels as published by Dell in the US. There were a few others ... the Security Manual, David Bassom's book on the making of B5, etc. but I thought they were published by Titan rather than C4. Could be wrong though.

That's right about most of the C4 books being reprints of the Del Rey books, but wasn't there also a C4 published episode guide which ran up to mid season 3 (not the episode guide in the Making of book)? They used to push them after the end credits. I'm trying now to remember which of the books I used to own had the 4 logo..

Actually it was 10:40pm (right after the Space Cadets quiz show) and it was done so that C4 could show the episodes uncut (i.e. with all the violence intact) following fan complaints at how much stuff had been sliced and diced in the first 3 seasons ... and the sense that S4 was going to need even more cutting if they were going to show it at 6pm.

My memory might be faulty here, but I seem to remember the timeslot start to wander around at random after Space Cadets finished early in season 4 (presumably to replicate the full US experience) and that it was on past 11pm at least a couple of times.. That was my first year at uni, and I remember the timing was important to me because I kept having to persuade the drunken non-fans in the TV room to give it a try..

It was, however, a marginally better idea than showing the last five episodes at around 9:30am Monday - Friday in one week of the Christmas period.

Yeah, B5 and Big Breakfast! A match made in heaven!! :) :) :)
 

Latest posts

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top