Potential GREAT news for Babylon 5 fans...
- Thread starter stonester1
- Start date
I must confess that my copy of Lost Tales sits on the shelf unwatched.
Crusade had a great premise and showed promise, but LOTR literally hurt this B5 fan. I thought is was a mess and the only character that showed promise other than the Drazi was the Minbari that saw dead people.
If something does get off the ground, I will be there. I remain optimistic.
Crusade had a great premise and showed promise, but LOTR literally hurt this B5 fan. I thought is was a mess and the only character that showed promise other than the Drazi was the Minbari that saw dead people.
If something does get off the ground, I will be there. I remain optimistic.
Hmmmm.... I have a copy of lost tales also that I've not watched.... You make me want to remedy that.... I think I'll break that out this afternoon and watch it... I enjoy B5 seen most episodes 5 or 6 times each.... the movies a couple of times...
but not that movie.... bad trull...
but not that movie.... bad trull...
RobertScorpio
Pariah
Depends..that last "GREEN SCREEN" direct-to-DVD production was a real BORING...I couldn't believe how bad it was...
Rob
I loved Babylon 5, but none of the spin-offs, sequels or telemovies have impressed me. So far as I can see, their problem has not been budgetary but lay in the writing. I think JMS had a great idea for a 5 year arc-based story and told it really well (the occasional cringeworthy dialogue aside). However, B5 does not seem to lend itself to an extended universe in the way that Star Trek has done - or if it does, then it clearly needs someone else to write it.
Gene Rodenberry didn't write the Star Trek movies or TNG while many feel that the Star Wars prequels would have benefitted from George Lucas stepping back or letting others help with the writing (ESB, generally regarded as the best SW movie had 2 other writers). Perhaps it's time for JMS to be similarly hands-off with B5?
Gene Rodenberry didn't write the Star Trek movies or TNG while many feel that the Star Wars prequels would have benefitted from George Lucas stepping back or letting others help with the writing (ESB, generally regarded as the best SW movie had 2 other writers). Perhaps it's time for JMS to be similarly hands-off with B5?
RobertScorpio
Pariah
I hadnt thought of that. I agree that JMS's stand alone aspect of BAB5 just aren't that good. He needs a larger tapestry than 120 minutes.
Rob
Which annoys me no end. Movies should be as long as the story requires. Seems odd to me that nobody seems to have noticed that the really big money-makers are the long films. So why do the theaters get to dictate how long a movie should be?
Jan
The theatres do have power; the Odeon chain in the UK is refusing to show Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" because of the short interval between the cinema and DVD releases. This is despite it premiering at the Odeon Leicester Square in London.
Shorter films allow the potential of faster turnaround, and higher turnover, of course.
Shorter films allow the potential of faster turnaround, and higher turnover, of course.
Which annoys me no end. Movies should be as long as the story requires. Seems odd to me that nobody seems to have noticed that the really big money-makers are the long films. So why do the theaters get to dictate how long a movie should be?
Jan
I've been saying that for years! A story takes as long as it takes. Mind you, I realise that as one of only a dozen or so people on Earth that actually liked 'The Postman' I'm very much in the minority.
Still, one of the oddest criticisms I keep hearing about Avatar is that "it's too long." I mean come off it! What kind of ritalin popping ADHD sufferer would you have to be to not be able to sit still for two and a half hours? Anything less and what little story and characterisation there is gets cut out and you're left with a Michael Bay film, minus the testicle jokes.
As for a B5 movie, I know I've said this before but I have to admit to be at a loss as to what a theatrical release could be about. While the new Star Trek was pretty good at balancing out fan appeal with wider accessibility, allot of the soul of Trek just wasn't quite there.
I suppose if the movie has nothing to do with the station or most of the known characters then it might be easier to introduce a new audience. Perhaps set it after 'Sleeping in Light' around the Rangers or IPX tripping over yet another mess the First Ones left behind?
Again, I'm repeating myself but my dream "it ain't ever gonna happen" B5 production would be an HBO type miniseries based around the first Psi Corps book (for starters.) Of all the pre-existing stories I think it's the most adaptable since 99% of it takes place in real locations on Earth and all but one or two characters are human and none of them would require getting previous actors back.
RobertScorpio
Pariah
Which annoys me no end. Movies should be as long as the story requires. Seems odd to me that nobody seems to have noticed that the really big money-makers are the long films. So why do the theaters get to dictate how long a movie should be?
Jan
I've been saying that for years! A story takes as long as it takes. Mind you, I realise that as one of only a dozen or so people on Earth that actually liked 'The Postman' I'm very much in the minority.
Still, one of the oddest criticisms I keep hearing about Avatar is that "it's too long." I mean come off it! What kind of ritalin popping ADHD sufferer would you have to be to not be able to sit still for two and a half hours? Anything less and what little story and characterisation there is gets cut out and you're left with a Michael Bay film, minus the testicle jokes.
As for a B5 movie, I know I've said this before but I have to admit to be at a loss as to what a theatrical release could be about. While the new Star Trek was pretty good at balancing out fan appeal with wider accessibility, allot of the soul of Trek just wasn't quite there.
I suppose if the movie has nothing to do with the station or most of the known characters then it might be easier to introduce a new audience. Perhaps set it after 'Sleeping in Light' around the Rangers or IPX tripping over yet another mess the First Ones left behind?
Again, I'm repeating myself but my dream "it ain't ever gonna happen" B5 production would be an HBO type miniseries based around the first Psi Corps book (for starters.) Of all the pre-existing stories I think it's the most adaptable since 99% of it takes place in real locations on Earth and all but one or two characters are human and none of them would require getting previous actors back.
I had no problem with Avatar's length. But the story was far from original. The plot was very predictable because it was so similar to earlier movies like DANCING WITH THE WOLVES, LAST OF THE DOGMEN.
But had it just been just a 2D movie? I'm not sure if it would have been as big.
Rob
The thing is, you're talking about a James Cameron movie. Cameron is well known for borrowing plots wholesale, adding special effects, and claiming them as his own. Terminator, for example, is based on works of Harlan Ellison, as proven in court. Avatar is based on Dances with Wolves (movie) and a short story, the name of which I can't remember right now, with fx.
And that's the thing about Cameron's films - they are pretty. He is a master of visual effects. In his films, fx come before plot, script, or anything else. Bringing that back to the topic of this thread, jms/B5 was never about the fx, it was about the story, the script, the characters.
As long as Maggie Egan is in it as Jane, yes. I'd see it in Imax every day it was in the theater. Jane in 3D ... And the station rendered in high def ... It is enough to make one believe in hope again.
Let's just say that I expected more from JMS.
Which annoys me no end. Movies should be as long as the story requires. Seems odd to me that nobody seems to have noticed that the really big money-makers are the long films. So why do the theaters get to dictate how long a movie should be?
Jan
Studios decide that not the theaters and it's done to try and ensure a profit for a movie.
Dances With Wolves owed quite a bit to A Man Named Horse, more than Avatar owed to DWW. There is very little that's original in Hollywood or anywhere. Cameron is hardly unique in this.
A pilot movie was made, and then they waited on the ratings before deciding to go to series. So the actual season would have started 4-6 months later, after football ended. They aired the movie on a Sunday night I recall, which is when all Sci-Fi TV Movies were aired back then. The regular series would presumably have aired on Friday nights in their new block of successful shows. Also, this was just a freak bit of bad luck. It was some colossally important game (I forget who or why). And the movie's time slot had been scheduled months in advance and had to stay there because the advertising campaign said it would be airing on that date and time.
That doesn't matter when it comes to ratings because it's the numbers that matter when setting the advertising rates. Yes, it was demonstrable that the ratings were great on the west coast where the movie wasn't in competition with the football game but overall, it wasn't enough for pick-up.
But you're right, there was at least a little bit more to it. Sci-Fi wanted to own part of Rangers and WB was reluctant because of Sci-Fi being owned by the competition. If the ratings had been better, they might have worked something out. If WB had been willing to let Sci-Fi have a piece, Sci-Fi might have been more willing to green-light a series.
I enjoyed Rangers and thought it did a nice job as a pilot. I liked the relationship between Martell and Dulann and I think I would've loved seeing the Narn engineer beat the ship into working order.
Jan
