Babylon 5

[Asbo Zaprudder]

I would love the new B5 series to include more about planetary archaeologists uncovering mysteries of aeons past and running across surviving examples of ancient races such as the Walkers of Sigma 957. One of my favourite characters of the larger B5 universe was the conceited and annoying Max Eilerson of Crusade. The series could cover topics such as the Fermi paradox, how other species dealt with existential crises such as those that we now face, and how such species viewed themselves and their future as part of the cosmos. Would some expand and colonise without limit before collapsing, while others turned in on themselves to live out potentially many billions of years in VR worlds they construct to avoid dealing with the real universe? Is there a way of living without adopting either extreme? Perhaps the new series will give us some of those flavours. I'd like the aliens in a new series to be much more, well, alien and strange rather than mostly humanoids with bumpy foreheads and scalier skin.

 

[David cgc]

Actually, unless I'm misremembering something horribly, the Shadows are explicitly called out as one of the OLDEST of the First Ones. Maybe the oldest, excluding Lorien.

That was from Delenn explaining everything to Sheridan during "In the Shadow of Z'ha'dum," a description of the Shadows we later learned was riddled with inaccuracies. I don't think we can rely on that fact, given that so much else about the Shadows being a primal force of destruction that all the First Ones had been desperately fighting since the beginning of time later ended up being self-serving Vorlon propaganda.

Speaking of Z'ha'dum, I think I noted something while the series was airing.

In "Learning Curve", we learn the Minbari use mora'dum in their training of Rangers, which means 'the application of terror'.

That told me that Z'ha'dum likely means 'planet/place of terror', which by all rights, seems apt.

Also, "zha" is "the future," which pops up in a lot of Ranger terms; "Entil'zha," the leader of the Rangers (more specifically, the One; the other top Rangers in history are just "Ranger One"), and the jewel in their broach being called "isil'Zha." The pause in the "zha" syllable means "Z'ha'dum" is a place of death, where there is no future.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

"Z'ha'dum" is a place of death, where there is no future.

So Grimsby then.

 

[matthunter]

So Grimsby then.

Oh, I think that variant has spread...

 

[DonIago]

Speaking of Z'ha'dum, I think I noted something while the series was airing.

In "Learning Curve", we learn the Minbari use mora'dum in their training of Rangers, which means 'the application of terror'.

That told me that Z'ha'dum likely means 'planet/place of terror', which by all rights, seems apt.

I thought the same thing when I saw that episode.

 

[Steve Roby]

Are you in some way suggesting that the series and the Gingrich books are in some way connected? That's as silly as pretending that JMS' Superman: Earth One graphic novels were somehow connected to Babylon 5, isn't it?

You know what? Never mind.

 

[Kraig]

Don't know if this has already been posted here, more news on the CW Babylon 5 reboot.

 

[EmoBorg]

in the upcoming series, I would like to see the retelling of the Confessions and Lamentations episode where the Markab race suffers from a terrible pandemic.

And also the retelling of the episode where the Hyach try to hide the truth of the past genocide of their sister race, the Hyach-do.

Those episodes do pose a moral lesson in a sci fic setting which i am big fan of.

 

[valkyrie013]

Bit of possible news..
There looking to sell the CW network apparently.. Says that the CW was Never profitable..

Bab 5 was going to be on the CW.. Sooo possible problem?

 

[Athena28]

I’d like to watch the original. Never got around to it.

 

[Zod]

I’d like to watch the original. Never got around to it.

I envy you, getting the chance to see it for the first time. Its that good.

 

[Sci]

Bit of possible news..
There looking to sell the CW network apparently.. Says that the CW was Never profitable..

Bab 5 was going to be on the CW.. Sooo possible problem?

Possible problem, but also possible opportunity. This article indicates that the CW was never profitable on its own, but that its deal to stream its content on Netflix brought in a lot of revenue. But ViacomCBS and Warner Bros. have both developed their own respective streaming services (Paramount+ and HBO Max), so the Netflix deal expired and the CW saw a significant decrease in revenue.

The first thing to bear in mind is that they might not sell the CW after all. The second thing to bear in mind is that if they do sell the CW, the CW might still want to develop the B5 remake.

But even supposing the CW gets sold and loses interest, or gets shut down:

If JMS and his producing partners can convince Warner Bros. to move the B5 reboot to HBO Max -- maybe posit the B5 revival as HBO Max's answer to Star Trek on Paramount+ -- then I think the loss of the CW doesn't necessarily imperil them. In point of fact, the original B5 streaming on HBO Max last year was what led to the revival of interest in the show in the first place.

 

[valkyrie013]

That's what I don't get, in the rush to grab all their assets they gave up money.
That's what irritates me about everybody making their own streaming service.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

That's what I don't get, in the rush to grab all their assets they gave up money.
That's what irritates me about everybody making their own streaming service.

What the amazing lack of foresight these people seem to have?

 

[Sci]

That's what I don't get, in the rush to grab all their assets they gave up money.
That's what irritates me about everybody making their own streaming service.

Well, I think what's happening there is that the industry is in flux, things are changing, and the corporations aren't sure what business model is going to give them the maximum profits.

The traditional business model they've been using works this way: The studios contracts with a production company or companies to produce a show; the studio sells that show to the network; the network sells ads to commercials that pays for the cost of acquiring the show from the studio; and then the studio (and apparently the network) were licensing the re-run rights to a streaming service (Netflix).

Essentially, what Warner Bros. did when they decided to stop letting the shows they produce for CW stream on Netflix, is, they decided to cut out the middle man. Why license another company to stream your shows when you can stream your shows yourself and get your own subscription revenues?

And if they divest from CW or shut down CW, then the same logic will be at play: Why let a middle man distribute your shows to the country and keep their fee, when you can distribute your shows yourself in your own streaming service and keep the subscription money that way?

The question is whether or not that gambit will actually pay off -- will the studios make more money by relying on their own streaming services? I've argued before that it seems to me that the value of a streaming service to customers comes from the size and variety of the catalog that streaming service offers; people don't care about studio brands per se (with the possible exception of Disney and Marvel), but a studio with a large and diverse catalog on its streamer might do well. I do think HBO Max has a large and diverse enough catalog to do well, so ultimately I get why Warner Bros. might decide to pull the plug on the CW.

Anyway, something to bear in mind is that in terms of getting good press, it might be better for the B5 Reboot to be an HBO Max Original Series™ than to be branded as the other CW space opera alongside Pandora. It would probably be seen as more prestigious; and if HBO Max is interested in positioning the B5 Reboot as their answer to Star Trek on Paramount+ and The Mandalorian on Disney+, they might be willing to give it a larger budget than the CW would have or could have.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

I don't know why they didn't just adopt a buy what you want model and allow people to buy movies and TV shows on demand and download them to watch at their leisure? I mean some of them do offer this kind of deal like MS has that in their online store but a lot of other providers don't allow one to buy stuff to keep forever.

 

[Sci]

I don't know why they didn't just adopt a buy what you want model and allow people to buy movies and TV shows on demand and download them to watch at their leisure?

I would assume the subscription model probably allows the streamer to keep revenues relatively consistent across the fiscal year; I would imagine it probably also helps pay for the programs that are less broadly popular but which earn the streamer prestige and awards. But I don't know this for certain -- that's just my speculation.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

I would assume the subscription model probably allows the streamer to keep revenues relatively consistent across the fiscal year; I would imagine it probably also helps pay for the programs that are less broadly popular but which earn the streamer prestige and awards. But I don't know this for certain -- that's just my speculation.

No I get that but It would make them more money if streamers offered more options like that though. I have often found myself liking a movie or show so much I wanted to keep it but nearly all the major streaming services don't offer such an option.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Any sale is going to take a year or more. There’s a lot of hoops to go through. In the meantime, the network will have to continue producing and green lighting shows.

 

[Starscream2112]

Any sale is going to take a year or more. There’s a lot of hoops to go through. In the meantime, the network will have to continue producing and green lighting shows.

This....B5 will likely already be in it's second season by the time any deal is final.