Will Rangers become a series? What are your feelings?

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Given how this site buckled and died under the onslaught of interest during and after the screening, it at least looks like the interest was greater than the expectations of the site admins. Now the interesting thing to know would be where those expectations are compared to those of SciFi....

------------------
If I tell you my name is Lorien, what good is that?

(Whatever happened to Mr. Garibaldi?)

 

[RW7427]

Well, I can't really spectulate on whether Rangers will become a series or not because you can never really predict what those network suits are going to do half the time. But I really would like to see a series. I would hope that they see enough of the potential that is there and act upon it.

------------------
Dulann: You don't solve your problems by hitting them.
David Martel: Yeah, well, it made me feel better.

 

[Morden]

We sure as Hell better get a series.

------------------
"Ink on a page!" -Refa describing the moral depths of a treaty.
"Life is life, whether it's wrapped in skin, scales or feathers." -Dr. Franklin

 

[Arrghman]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>My only sadness is that after the success of B5 in changing the face of SF television - you only have to look at the proliferation of ongoing story arcs and CGI in current shows (to name just two) - it is still required to get ratings for a pilot before getting a new series. Whereas Enterprise, with Voyager still fresh in everyone's minds, goes straight to series. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well paramount is a bit different, as not only are they more financially well off then SFC, but voyager i do believe UPN's highest rated show... continuing a franchise after a single season is really just a continuation of the same show ratings wise...

------------------
### Hi, I'm a sig virus. Please add me to the end of your signature so I can take over the world.### - caught from Saps @ B5MG

 

[Joe Siegler]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>If we're dependent solely on ratings, well then, we're boned. Going head-to-head with the NFL playoffs is a suicidal maneuver if you think you're going to get ratings. To make matters worse, this turned out to be one of the best games in the history of the NFL. (Football must be played outside, on grass, and, in January, in snow.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This reminds me of the proposed continuation of Doctor Who in 1996. Fox had said that if the Dr. Who movie did well enough, it would go series. It didn't, but as I recall, they positioned it against some mega episode of Roseanne, and of course, the ratings tanked.

Granted, Fox has a wider audience than Sci-Fi does, so the pure numbers would be different here, but Doctor Who has (I believe) a larger hardcore fanbase than B5 does (this is NOT a remark about quality of show - just long time fans) - obviously, because Doctor Who ran for 26 years in the UK. Granted, it's more of an icon in the UK than the US, but I feel the comparison is similar.

Some of these arguments (promotion, credits, etc) fit exactly the mood around the Doctor Who movie from 1996 - it was supposed to be a pilot for a new series, it had "credits" where a TV movie normally does not, and there was a ton of promotion for it. Well, OK, perhaps B5LR had more promotion than the Doctor Who movie did.

And the Doctor Who movie did not bring forth a series, unfortunately. (After 7 years off the air, I was desperate for new Dr. Who, I would have taken an americanized version! <g>)

Anyway, I suppose my point is that it's ultimately a business - and the majority of what's been posted here is wishful and hopeful thinking. It's up to Sci-Fi as to what they're gonna do. I'd be surprised if their minds are made up, although the angle of "can they keep all the actors together over this decision time" is an interesting one to ponder, too.

------------------
Joe Siegler
Webmaster - 3D Realms