JMS teases Babylon 5 feature film at Comic-Con

Sounds a lot like what he talked about a few years back for that aborted, streaming only series that never was. As in a rebooted continuity, but with some familiar actors back in supporting/cameo roles.

One thing I do remember is that he said that there'd be no recasting G'Kar and that the character (or at least the name) would simply supplant G'Quan, presumably with a totally new Narn character in his place as ambassador. I can only assume JMS still has that idea in mind.

Honestly I'm OK with that. It's been a long damn time now even since 'Lost Tales' and there's simply no good way to pick the story back up. Not sure if a reboot like this has ever been done with the original guy still behind the wheel. Could be interesting, especially since there's great potential to use fan expectations and foreknowledge to mislead and pull a surprise plot twist.

 

Assuming a reboot or something similar, is it just me or with how serialised the Babylon 5 storyline is then what is the point in a remake?

 

So it's never happening, got it.

 

I see JMS doesn't want to do this, but I'm still hoping for a Dilgar war feature. It would fit perfectly with the existing material and you wouldn't need to worry about the ages of people involved. And it would be self contained, no need to have people watch what happened before to understand anything.

 

Apparently he think he can raise one to two hundred million dollars. I'd say that's sufficient.

The Dilgar War just isn't that interesting IMO. Granted we know net to nothing about it, but on the surface it just seems like a straight-forward WWII type conflict. A necessary part of the lore, but little more than a footnote compared to the central plot. Besides, B5 has already done a war movie and as good as it was, it struggled to encapsulate the entire conflict.

There's a good reason why the vast majority of war movies have very tight character based focuses, typically featuring only one tiny slice of the whole. Either from the perspective of one individual or a small group through the whole thing--in which case the war itself is just a dramatic backdrop (see: 'Full Metal Jacket', 'Glory', 'Schindler's List', 'Apocalypse Now' etc.)
The alternative is usually on a single engagement or campaign, in which case it's more along the lines of a Roland Emmerich disaster movie where the events are the focus and the characters are often little more than archetypes (see: 'Bridge Too Far', 'We Were Soldiers', 'The Longest Day')

The reason why neither approaches would work terribly well for a Dilgar War movie is that they all generally pre-suppose the audience is familiar with the conflict. You don't need to be a history professor or even an American to appreciate the historical context for the story of the 54th Massachusetts and it's significance.

How are you going to get an audience to care about the Earth Alliance beating back the Dilgar without it being a brainless "ra-ra Earth rules!" sci-fi action movie? I mean it's not like they invaded Earth. Hell, I'm pretty sure they didn't hit any EA territory, the EA just decided to wade in to basically show off for the sake of power and prestige.
That's not a war movie, it's a Tom Clancy thriller.

 

I know he's at a good place in his career, but being able to raise $200 million for a Babylon 5 movie of all things, especially with the home video market in the tank?

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

Gee JMS yet again claiming his ultimate next B5 project -- sounds like ANY Con he attends.

 

I defy you to name ONE instance when he made this solid a promise and failed to follow through. He generally doesn't make such claims lightly.

The inner workings of the Hollywood movie machine is a mystery to me, so I am in no way qualified to say how easy or hard it is to get any money for these things, let alone a nine figure sum.

JMS on the other hand has been working in that town for decades in television, movies and publishing. So if he thinks it's doable, then I can only assume he knows what he's talking about.

 

How many independently financed films have been made that cost $100-200 million and didn't have "Star Wars" in the title?

 

Eh, after all the terrible Babylon 5-related productions to come our way since "Sleeping in Light," I just don't care anymore. What's the point? What made Babylon 5 appealing was its story, and that story is over.

 

Mary Garibaldi discovers her inner bastard as her hair begins to fall out on her 30th birthday.

 

If it were really going to happen, he wouldn't have mentioned it outright. Sounds like he's trying to drum up fan enthusiasm or at least evaluate the possible feasibly/profitability of such a project.

I've attended some of JMS' convention appearances and one thing is certain - he really knows how to work a crowd.

Loved his run on Marvel's Thor comic a few years back - too bad it had no ending.

 

What's all this talk about a 200 million dollar budget?! "Serenity" had a budget of less than 50 million dollars. Granted, it didn't make its money back, but still ...

 

The Vree return Elvis Presley who they abducted and kept on ice since 1977.

There's a huge concert.

 

It seems like an exorbitant figure, but it's the one J. Michael Straczynski gave himself, reportedly...

 

Wouldn't the Marvel Studios titles before the Disney acquisition qualify?

 

I think they're fair examples, although before the Disney takeover, Marvel had the backing of Paramount (Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Thor, Captain America) and Universal (The Incredible Hulk) as distributors before production began.

 

That's very true, but on the flipside the universe he created was a very rich tapestry and it's a great thing to visit every now and then. Granted Crusade was slightly below par, the tv movies were largely hit and miss, and the two later spin offs failed to fire but if he's planning a reboot then we don't have to worry about that much.

I wonder if everyone will still say 'nuts' or 'hell' when they curse.

 

Only Reebo and Zooty can stop the plot to blow up the President!