• 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.

Update from JMS

Er, actually, the Crusade problems came out of TNT's LA offices, not Atlanta...

Er, actually...

It was TNT Atlanta (but not Ted Turner, as JMS noted repeatedly) that was the source of the Crusade problems. TNT Productions in LA consisted of the same folks who had worked with Babylonian Productions on B5 and the TV movies and had, in fact, been instrumental in getting the network to pick up both the fifth season and Crusade. (In this effort they also had some help from folks in the marketing department in Atlanta.)

Thought I'd get that in before Mac did. :)

All of JMS's accounts make this clear, and I've heard the same thing first hand and in-person even from one of the folks who used to work for TNT Productions in LA, right up until the network disbanded the unit, so I'm very sure of my facts on this one. (I also know that some of the TNT Productions people were called on the carpet for not keeping close enough tabs on Babylonian. The whole Crusade debacle began when Atlanta found out that LA had not been reviewing dailies from the first five episodes shot because they were busy working on other projects and because they knew the caliber of work that Babylonian did. Given that Atlanta had approved the scripts they saw no reason to micromanage the production. A contingent from Atlanta flew out to California and the first production halt hit within days.)

And because they're bright enough to realize that the entire world doesn't revolve around the B5 universe.

Nice to at least hear about such people in the midst of this thread. :) While I think there was some actual personal ill-will with some folks at TNT in the immediate aftermath of the final production halt (and JMS's comments about the network) I seriously doubt that even the people who are still in the same jobs would even recognize the name Crusade, much less care what happened to it. I think a few people wanted to make sure that a series they dropped didn't get picked up by another network (because it might make their judgment look bad if it turned out to be a success and because they didn't want to give a smart-ass like JMS the satisfaction) then. Now? Unlike some fans, I think they've managed to move on.

I also agree with whoever said that all this Crusade speculation is a little odd. Once again, it is the success of B5 that has impressed people, and not everyone makes the leap from B5 to Crusade. If the Crusade DVDs do really well (which is to say, exceed WB's expectations without coming anywhere near B5's sales figures, which is the likely scenario) then we might see some interest in the "side story" - not before.

Regards,

Joe
 
It was TNT Atlanta (but not Ted Turner, as JMS noted repeatedly) that was the source of the Crusade problems.

Damn. Right. Sorry about that. I need to stop relying on my memory for these things. I just transposed the two groups, and placed your contact in the wrong, er, place...

Ignore the line in question. The rest of my post stands without it.

I also agree with whoever said that all this Crusade speculation is a little odd.

Were we speculating about Crusade? I certainly wasn't. I was talking about some generic, unspecified B5-related project...
 
That's an entirely separate question from what was under discussion. The question was "What networks are *possible* outlets?" *not* "Who would do it justice if they got any control over it?"

Again, I'm looking at the end result. What good is it if a network picks it up and doesn't do justice to it? Would the Babylon 5 universe show be better off after another nail in the coffin? So far, we have the perceived nails of Crusade, and "To Live and Die in Starlight" (where I've got to wonder what the heck JMS was thinking). At what point does it begin to look like you're trying to plant an Elm tree in the same hole where two previous Elm trees died of Dutch Elm disease?

And things change with time. What happened with B5:LotR is not necessarily the attitude that would prevail forever afterwards in B5 related negotiations with SciFi. And what changes could be on either side of the negotiations.

And petty, vindictive people remain petty and vindictive. They are not ruled by logic or legitimate "business" interests. If they perceive themselves as having been stung by JMS in the past (TNT by JMS with Crusade, Sci-Fi by JMS with "To Live and Die in Starlight"), and if those people are still in power at the network, they are unlikely to back another JMS (especially B5 universe, in this case) project.

The difference could be that WB decides (after seeing actuall DVD profits) that they would rather let SciFi have a piece of any future home video pie (and get something out it) than keep 100 % of nothing. (I have no idea if such shift is likely at WB production, just pointing out the theoretical possibility.)

See the monkey/nut/jar analogy JMS uses to describe Warner Brothers. They would rather have 100% of nothing than less than 100% of something. It is not logical, but it's the way they are.

I think that assumes that the overall Universal corporate octopus is much more monolithic and centralized in its decision making than it actually is.

I was ascribing logic to the decision of which of the sister stations would get sci-fi programming. [Homer Simpson] DOH! [/Homer Simpson] I now see the error of my ways. :p :rolleyes:



I still don't agree that the reasoning that you proposed (number of fans that will decide to subscribe based on a single series, mini-series, or special being picked up) is how HBO and Showtime select their series.

They still have to figure there will be enough return for their buck to do it. Are they going to be convinced by B5 DVD sales? Do they think that a significant portion of those who are buying the B5 DVDs will subscribe because they commission a new B5 universe miniseries or TV movie, and then (hopefully) will hang around after it's completed its run because of their other stuff? I wouldn't. Instead I'd be dropping 'em like a hot potato after the TV movie or miniseries was over.

If it was nothing new would ever be commissioned by them. You could argue *now* that there are a fair number of people who eventually got HBO for The Sopranos, but there is no way that anyone would have predicted that with *any* confidence back when they signed the contracts to produce the first season.

I haven't had HBO since the mid-1980s, back before the DVD age, and I got it then for the movies. Like JoeD said, that reason is not as big a deal today. Regarding the rest of their programming, there is not enough of it to entice me to get the channel today. Instead, I'd be more likely to just go buy the DVDs. I'm in a similar situation with Sci-Fi and SG-1 (record and take the chance of missing something or cable going out or a glitch in their copy (e.g. Sci-Fi and Brimstone "Ashes" - same pixilation error always in the same spot), or just buy the set on DVD ("Official" and professionally made). I've been buying the DVDs. That's the end result I want, anyway.

Do you really think that Showtime thinks that renewing or not renewing "Dead Like Me" will directly change their number of subscribers by a number large enough to pay for all of their production costs?

It depends on how good of a financial shape they're in, how close they're working to the edge. If you're pretty well off, you can afford to look more toward the long run for your returns.


No, it's more of a cumulative buzz affect.

...and prestige.

And B5's Hugos etc. could add their additional little piece to a premium networks overall buzz (They seem to really like touting the phrase "Award winning", regardless of what the award was.)

All networks like to do that. However, how many people know what a Hugo even is, compared to an Emmy? Granted, people who are already subscribing to these channels might have a better understanding of what a Hugo is, compared to the average TV viewer.
 
Perhaps because they expect that an "original cast" B5 production would draw a bigger audience?

This is the channel that's only putting respectable amounts of money behind "big name" projects. The sole exception would seem to be the upcoming Battlestar Galactica miniseries, but then again, that's only four hours long. To get more, you need a name like "Steven Spielberg" or "Frank Herbert" (hope I got the latter one right, as I'm typing this offline and can't check). Is "Straczynski" such a name?

The problem is not whether or not it's an "original cast" B5 production. It's whether or not the story is any good, and whether or not you give the writer the proper resources to tell that story. If they could scrape together one ounce of sense among their collective brains, they would see the gaping hole that exists in the B5 universe story and finish something that had already been started, Crusade. It has been said that nature abhors a vacuum, and it tries to fill it. In this respect, the Sci-Fi Channel is definitely unnatural. Instead of filling the vacuum, fixing the open wound that's existed in the B5 universe ever since September 1999, they start something new and leave the bloody wound which has never healed open for all to see. Hell, they parade it around for all to see, showing it over and over again without fixing it. They create demand with no intention of satisfying it, as some sort of perennial, sick tease.

Perhaps because their decision-making criteria for a one-shot movie are different from their decision-making criteria for a potential continuing series?

or a miniseries? Oh, their decision-making criteria is probably different depending on the length and cost of the intended production. Still, it makes me wonder why they haven't gone the miniseries route to complete Farscape or Crusade.

Perhaps because their situation and needs now are different from their situation and needs of nearly two years ago?

Over the last two years, they've shown a tendency to back big name miniseries, cheap (and usually schlock) TV shows and cheap, schlock TV movies (e.g. their recent string of twenty-two $2 million TV movies). Bear in mind that the Rangers pilot had a $3 million budget. Well, "Straczynski" is not a big name in the same sense that Spielberg and Herbert are, so what kind of production do you think they'd fund for JMS, big bucks or shoestring budget? They'll go the shoestring budget (Legend of the Rangers pilot or less money) route every time. Shoestring budget used to work back in the early days when we knew little of B5 and also back when B5 was a well oiled machine, with all of its library of CGI built up and ready to use. Now, we're used to seeing all of B5 and Crusade that we saw up to 1998/1999, and now, all of that library of CGI is gone, thanks to good old Warner Brothers. Now, we require visual continuity from B5 (1998)/Crusade (1999) to the new project. Now, they would require a larger budget just to get back to the point where they were at the end of Crusade. Think Sci-Fi would be willing to spend that money? I doubt it!

Or perhaps not. I am by no means stating that they would pick up on a potential B5 project. I am simply saying that there is no known legitimate reason to assume that they wouldn't if the proper circumstances arose.

Those proper circumstances would need to be either a change in management, or force from above (from NBC). From what I've heard of NBC so far, it appears that any changes from above would be further tightening of the purse strings, not good. The only extremely faint glimmer of hope I can see from NBC is that they were the original home ot Trek, and now maaaaaybe they may want to have a space based sci-fi project (maybe a B5 universe project) in their stable (not on NBC, of course).

Universal, I think you mean..

Typos.

but if there's a Universal channel that gets a sci-fi miniseries or TV movie, it won't be USA. It'd be Sci-Fi,

Ah. Spoken to them about that, have you? Or are you just making it up?

No, ascribing logic to the split-up of programming between the sister stations. Like I said above, in my response to Pillowrock's post, I now see the error of my ways. After all, that would be expecting The Sci-Fi Channel to go after shows that are science-fictiony, and we can't have that. :p :rolleyes:

JMS shy? In what way would that be? Just because they don't air the one new TV project he's done since then? There are lots of other producers who haven't had anything on Sci-Fi in that period, so does that stand as evidence that they'll never get anything on Sci-Fi? That sounds like a silly argument.

Granted, it's only one data point on The Sci-Fi Channel, but they shied away from going with a continuation of Crusade, didn't postpone the Rangers pilot or increase its budget when it became evident that Warner Brothers had lost all of the B5/Crusade CGI, and then were disappointed at the ratings that the Rangers pilot got. They wanted a 2.4 and it got a 1.7. Then, they rejected Polaris as too science-fictiony. This, said by a supposed "Sci-Fi" Channel, strikes me as more than a little odd. All this has happened while they move B5 and Crusade to progressively worse timeslots, replaced by things such as Knight Rider, :p and promote the hell out of schlock like Scare Tactics. Given their moving B5 and Crusade to progressively worse and worse timeslots (and I think they're in almost the worst imaginable timeslots, now), it would seem that they are desperately in need of new B5 material, yet they refuse to go for any. It looks like they've lost interest and/or think their audience has lost interest.


Response seen. You are, of course, once again confusing the issues of a one-off movie vs. a continuing series,...

Other people have been bringing in the idea of series. I've been talking about B5 TV Movies or at most "mini"-series. JMS has ruled out "series" for the two possible projects, unless this is a sneaky way of saying another new pilot. If it's the latter, I say: "No, not another new one. Finish the ones you've already started."

... and also making huge assumptions about information you don't have, such as the viewership that the premium channels would expect.

Once again, they very well might not prove to be interested, but we have no reason to assume that.

Well, I don't know how their minds work, or what they expect. I've been out of the loop with respect to premium channels since the mid-1980s, and things have changed a lot since then. Personally, I'd hate to have to subscribe to a premium channel, digital cable, or get satellite, just to get a new B5 universe TV movie or miniseries. I'd probably do it (and drop it afterwards); it's just that I wouldn't like to have to do it.

Er, actually, the Crusade problems came out of TNT's LA offices, not Atlanta...

[Sorry, I had it all written and couldn't pass up the chance to use it.] :)

BZZZT! Wrong. TNT-LA was A-OK with the way Crusade was going. It was when TNT-Atlanta discovered that TNT-LA wasn't micromanaging Crusade, that TNT-Atlanta decided to take over, take a real "hands-on" approach, and decided they knew how to write sci-fi. After all, their experience with westerns and wrestling surely must have prepared them. :p :rolleyes:

Yes, quite frankly, I think they wouldn't try their best.

I think they wouldn't even have the slightest clue it was going on in the first place. And even if they did happen to find out, I think they quite simply wouldn't give a shit, because it didn't involve them or their jobs. And because they're bright enough to realize that the entire world doesn't revolve around the B5 universe.

Like I said, petty and vindictive people stay petty and vindictive. If those people are still there, and it's likely that at least some of them are (probably in now positions of even greater authority), they would still be harboring a grudge against JMS and B5 universe projects. I think that those people at TNT would do anything they could, exercise any influence to prevent a JMS or B5 universe show from coming back to TNT or from going to TBS. It's similar to but not exactly the same as The WB not wanting any show that had been touched by PTEN (See JoeD's explanation.).
 
While I think there was some actual personal ill-will with some folks at TNT in the immediate aftermath of the final production halt (and JMS's comments about the network) I seriously doubt that even the people who are still in the same jobs would even recognize the name Crusade, much less care what happened to it. I think a few people wanted to make sure that a series they dropped didn't get picked up by another network (because it might make their judgment look bad if it turned out to be a success and because they didn't want to give a smart-ass like JMS the satisfaction) then. Now? Unlike some fans, I think they've managed to move on.

They might have managed to move on, until their memories are tickled by any new mention of a B5 universe project or Crusade coming close to their neck of the woods again. Then, the old ill-will will come flooding back. I don't trust 'em (TNT-Atlanta) as far as I could throw a certain five mile long space station.


I also agree with whoever said that all this Crusade speculation is a little odd.

To whoever said that: Who are you? Speak up or point to the post #. K?
 
OK KoshN, time for you to take one of those little pills the doctor gave you. You are starting to exceed your posting threshold. 75% of the last dozen or so of these posts are yours, including 3 in a row, and they weren't short posts at that. Don't get all worked up now...
 
What, you don't me to reply to the folks who reply to my posts? If I don't reply, they'll take it as an admission that they were right and I was wrong about every point where we disagreed.

Can't do that.
 
What, you don't me to reply to the folks who reply to my posts? If I don't reply, they'll take it as an admission that they were right and I was wrong about every point where we disagreed.

Can't do that.

Ah! A Ranger in mortal combat. :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:
 
Yea but KoshN you are fighting a battle on like 3 or 4 fronts all by yourself yo. People need to not get worked up over this stuff, sheesh...
 
The problem is not whether or not it's an "original cast" B5 production. It's whether or not the story is any good,

Wrong. Completely and utterly wrong.

The quality of the story is absolutely and totally irrelevant, except in the rare cases where it is believed that it will affect the only important point, which is how many people (and in which demographic categories) will watch the show.

Your inability to grasp this point is one of the (apparently many) reasons you are unable to understand the way the industry works.

If they could scrape together one ounce of sense among their collective brains,

(I'm passing up a great opportunity, again.)

they would see the gaping hole that exists in the B5 universe story and finish something that had already been started, Crusade.

Why? What possible reason is there for them to do this? Just because a few rectocranially inverted fans keep ranting on about it?

This whole argument is well beyond silly. In fact, I can't come up with words to describe it, since right now I'm not inclined to spend the time to get up from the keyboard to fetch my thesaurus.

Nor, for that matter, am I inclined to spend the time to read and respond to the rest of your post right now. I have better things to do with my time this afternoon. Perhaps I'll come back to it later, or perhaps I'll take the advice of that old saying about unarmed opponents...
 
::scans topic:: Gezes. . .

::decides once and for all to ask the nice people over at Kansas to start a General Sci Fi section::

No offense or anything but lighten up.We might be getting more B5 (hopefully with Bruce and all those good people :D). Go us!

Some of you guys need to lose your quoting privileges.


-SG
 
As for me...

I have a severe aversion to leaving incorrect "facts" unchallenged.

Yes, I frequently get carried away with it...

If the general opinion is that I should just shut up about it already, I'll just shut up about it already,

I apologize for wasting everybody's time.
 
Um, wow.

The only thing I have to add to this coversation is that I wouldn't count out the premium channels because of "limited audience"--their original progamming isn't as dependent on Nielson ratings as the broadcast channels, who use it to determine advertising rates on their shows. The pay channels do not have that problem, and they have a lot more money to throw around (on fewer projects). A B5 miniseries project on a pay network is a definate possiblity, especially with JMS's success with another scifi series.

Also, Universal is looking to unload USA and ScFi (by the way, USA owned ScFi for years before Universal bought them).

However, my take is that the project is probably a feature film produced directly by Warners. The film would probably have an option for a second and third if successful, so the story could be the Telepath War, which would lead in to the Centuari conflict.

The second project (which is probably a backup) is a short miniseries dealing with the same thing.
 
Originally posted by KoshN:
The problem is not whether or not it's an "original cast" B5 production. It's whether or not the story is any good,

Originally posted by Marty:
Wrong. Completely and utterly wrong.

The quality of the story is absolutely and totally irrelevant, except in the rare cases where it is believed that it will affect the only important point, which is how many people (and in which demographic categories) will watch the show.

Your inability to grasp this point is one of the (apparently many) reasons you are unable to understand the way the industry works.

That's a helluva large exception. If it's rare that the quality of the story affects "how many people (and in which demographic categories) will watch the show," then that's a sad commentary on the viewing audience.



Originally posted by KoshN:
If they could scrape together one ounce of sense among their collective brains,

Originally posted by Marty:
(I'm passing up a great opportunity, again.)

Pardon me while I attempt to contain my excitement at the news of you passing up an opportunity. <S>

Note: Since there is a smile in the :p icon, I felt it didn't properly convey the pureness of the sarcasm.



Originally posted by KoshN:
they would see the gaping hole that exists in the B5 universe story and finish something that had already been started, Crusade.

Originally posted by Marty:
Why? What possible reason is there for them to do this?

Since there is an audience at The Sci-Fi Channel which has demonstrated an interest in watching B5-universe shows, there might be a sizable enough audience out there who'd want to see a story that was started, get finished. After all, who likes listening to only the first line of a song, reading only the first chapter of a novel, or watching only the first 15 minutes of a movie?

Amazon puts excerpts up on their site, to act as an enticement, a tease, something that will cause people to order a book. When you order the book, they don't send you just the first chapter. They send you the whole thing. People like to finish a story. Making the excerpts available helps to create demand. What Sci-Fi is doing with the Crusade reruns is like showing only the first 15 minutes of a movie, over and over and over again, with zero hope of continuation.

Gees, could it possibly be that the reason for less than great ratings numbers for Crusade is the fact that everybody knows there's no continuation or ending? Who wants to start a story when they know for a fact that there is no continuation or ending? Answer: Only the people who watched it in the first place, who just want to experience something good again, those who appreciate what's there. The rest are going to feel bitten when they get to episode 13 and there is nothing else.



Originally posted by Marty:
Just because a few rectocranially inverted fans keep ranting on about it?

Not that this deserves a response, but I guess if I disagree with you, I therefore must be wrong, huh? News Flash: Not everybody agrees with you. Get over it.

I don't know if you've noticed, but when somebody disagrees with me, I don't insult them, I don't tell them they have their head up their ass, or anything remotely like that. In this way, I am not like you, and that's a good thing.



Originally posted by Marty:
This whole argument is well beyond silly. In fact, I can't come up with words to describe it, since right now I'm not inclined to spend the time to get up from the keyboard to fetch my thesaurus.

Nor, for that matter, am I inclined to spend the time to read and respond to the rest of your post right now. I have better things to do with my time this afternoon. Perhaps I'll come back to it later, or perhaps I'll take the advice of that old saying about unarmed opponents...

Oh, don't bother fetching, reading or replying. In fact, consider yourself plonked. Go flame somebody else.

The last time I experienced a Sci-Fi Channel/media apologist this rabid (and he accuses me of ranting?) was the last time I read a post from Bicker, somebody else I have plonked. - Undoubtedly, you'll take as a compliment. Trust me, it wasn't one. You're now in the company of Bicker, Theron and FordAT.
 
Originally posted by Recoil:
Yea but KoshN you are fighting a battle on like 3 or 4 fronts all by yourself yo. People need to not get worked up over this stuff, sheesh...

I've been alone before. It's likely that others are intimidated.
 
KoshN...seriously man...you are the ONLY person I know who posts several times consectively. And your posts are long as it is. What is the sense in posting 3 long posts back to back? Just post one SUPER long one and be done with it.
 
I'm not lazy, taichidave, but I am too lazy to compile them all into one SUPER LONG post as Recoil wants. Instead, I do a reply to each, and I think it helps break 'em up.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top