New JMS post!!!

[frulad]

Anyone have a wish list of what these "other projects, some related to TMos, some not" might be?

Personally I'm hoping for maybe something on the book and/or comics front. If it is a film, then I would definitely expect some toy and possibly a video game tie-in. And I just might have to break my promise about not eating at McDonalds if they introduce the Babylon 5 Happy Meal!


What about audio drama? B5 has had a large following in England, home of Big Finish Productions, who have been doing a pretty good line of Doctor Who audio dramas for several years now, keeping the franchise alive for the BBC. Would that be a viable way to maybe finish off the Crusade storyline if a new series weren't feasable?

[jal]

it`s been a long wait for all of this to come together.

whatever the end result is, i look forward to watching it.

happy days are here again!

[Radhil]

originally posted by The One to Come
Now for any one who dares to say that I don't have faith in B5, **** ***, my ignorant friends let me enlighten you,

I think you need to calm down, amigo... I very highly doubt zeal impresses anyone here. Besides, CE (who was the only one who dropped the word faith, if I recall) was simply responding to what you yourself said. Namely -

It's not that I don't think it would be a good movie, with JMS writing and producing it would be a master peace but no one aside from us fan would see it and then we'll loss any chance at a new series

So even accounting for honest mistakes, I don't see where he's wrong to say that. Maybe you should read what you say yourself, before getting angry at others.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by The One to come

Now for any one who dares to say that I don't have faith in B5, **** ***, my ignorant friends let me enlighten you, unlike the US who had UPN showing B5

There goes your argument, for me personally. UPN never carried B5 consistantly, and in fact when I was a fan watching it in it's first run, it was often a challenge to find what station it was on, and there were episodes I missed simply because it had changed ships and I was unable to find it.

It wasn't until TNT had the fifth season going that it was a stable place.

As for the rest, you critize Blade Runner for not doing well at the box office, but it still made enough to make a profit in the long run, and B5 is a significantly safer bet then that one was to say the least. It dosen't have to be a huge blockbuster for WB to be intrested, it just has to be something that has at worst, a strong chance of making a reasonable profit, and B5 has always been a franchise that has produced a profit margain that almost always surprassed what was expected of it. DVD sales are a great example of this, and certainly there's enough going on there to make WB realize that it has a good shot at making a significant profit with a movie.

As for the rest, I think Radhill nailed it pretty much on the dot. Most people learn pretty fast that when you come out and attack people out of unsubstantiated anger, it tends to get any decent point you would have otherwise made ignored.

[LytaaaarGh]

i Cant believe it!!!!!
It's quite bloody emotional - wouldn't have exptected to feel like this but.... out of words.

OMG YESSSSSSS!!!! YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!! YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS! !!!!

Guys its good to be here and share this with so many =)
(and i cant believe the only days i havent checked for new messages avidly everyday, are the days he chooses to post.... and i call myself a teep =P)

[Joseph DeMartino]

I still don't think it's a movie it could be a series seeing that new show are being persented in wide screen now like enterprise (evil).

No flames, just some facts:

"Widescreen"

The Motion Picture Academy settled on a standardized frame aspect ratio for sound film (based on the fact that the optical soundtrack was carried on the same strip of film as the picture) in the 1920s or 30s and this remained the standard film ratio until the advent of Cinerama and its imitators in the 1950s. The "Academy Frame" was in the ratio 1.37 units wide to 1 unit high. When television switched from a round to a rectangular picture tube it went with the closest approximation of 1.37:1 that an electronic system could support, 1.33:1. Any aspect ratio (width to height) that is proportionally wider than 1.37:1 is "widescreen". And while many people don't seem to be aware of it, there are many widescreen aspect ratios

1.66:1 (popular in Europe), 1.85:1 (standard in American theaters for "small" dramas and comedies), 2.35:1 (for "epic" films, also expressed as 2.40:1) are all popular theatrical projection ratios today. (Although to save money and make it easier to sell films to television, many 1.85:1 films are shot "open matte" at 1.33:1 and simply masked off in the projector to the correct aspect ratio. The "dead" space at the top and bottom of the frame is never meant to be seen, and the director composes the shots with widescreen in mind, which is why you will sometimes see trash, or electrical cables or an actor with sneakers on his feet instead of shoes when a movie runs on TV, or spot jet contrails or overhead powerlines in a western. These "goofs" were never seen by theatrical audiences. They only show up in "full screen" TV airings and "full screen" home video editions.)


In the early, experimental widescreen days, films could be much wider. (I think Ben Hur clocks in at something like 2.70:1) But today 1.66, 1.85 and 2.35:1 are pretty much standard - in theaters.

On television most shows are either 1.33:1 (the old "4:3" NTSC standard) or 1.77:1 (16:9) No TV show has ever been filmed at 2.35:1, because it would have to be letterboxed even on a widescreen set - and extremely letterboxed on a 4:3 set. (To the point where many people would probably complain, as they complain about letterboxed airings of films like Star Wars and 2001 as it is.)

So regardless of anybody's theories, B5:TMoS has to be a theatrical film. JMS is too careful a writer, and plays too fair with his audience, for his reference to 2.35:1 to be an accident. And 2.35:1 can only refer to a theatrical film. QED.

As for the audience - I believe CE will back me up when I point out that a film that attracts a fraction of the audience of a even a flop TV show is likely to make money. You don't have to sell millions upon millions of tickets in the U.S alone to make your money back on a feature film. But a hit network television show has to attract tens of millions of viewers, week in and week out, for the network (not the studio which can resell the show overseas) to make any money. Books, plays, movies, all can get by on the crumbs of the kind of audience a TV show needs - and they do.

With a movie you have the actual prodution costs, then the costs of advertising, promotion and prints. Those are your fixed costs that have to be recouped. To get them back and turn a profit you can partner with other companies that will license your movie and produce toys, clothing etc from which you will earn royalties, which cost you nothing and which help to advertise your film. (Burger King and McDonald's tie-in meals for kids' movies do not happen by accident.) Then you sell the film overseas, either distributing it yourself or collecting a big check up front to let someone else distribute it. (And pay you a small additional royalty on each ticket sold.) Then there's the sales to pay per view, premium cable, network televison, basic cable and home video. In short, unless you're making a $100 or $200 million picture, you may be able to put yourself in a position where you have already broken even before the cameras start to roll.

B5 was getting anywhere from 500,000 to a million viewers on The Sci-Fi Channel, which not every American gets, when it was running in the early afternoon and every episode had been rerun at least 10 times over. Over the 10 years of its life so far, B5 has probably built up a fan base in the 10s of millions.
Even if only part of that base shows up in the theater, that's enough to "open" the movie. Then the film will depend on word of mouth - just like every other movie in the world.

(Oh, and memo to our ill-informed Canadian friend - B5 never aired on UPN or any other broadcast network. It was syndicated - bought on a city-by-city basis by individual TV stations. Some were independent, some affiliated with one network or another. But they aired B5 in off network hours just like they aired the local news and the syndicated game shows that were not connected with the network. In my area the show happened to air on the local UPN affilliate, but in other cities ir aired on the Fox channel, or an indy station, or even a "big three" network affiliate that was not network owned.)

Hype and fanatic fans can bring in enough bucks to keep a film in the theater for that first week or two, but good buzz and repeat business is what puts butts in seats. And precisely because only a fraction of the TV audience for a given show will make it to the theater, it is important that a film based on a TV show be accessible to folks who haven't seen the film.*

That's why a story like the Teep War would work, while many other fanboy notions wouldn't - the Teep War is fairly self-contained. In fact, in signifcant ways it resembles the "mutants vs. normals" themes of the very popular X-Men films, and wouldn't require significantly more explanation of its backstory than those two films did. (The essential information you need to have about the Shadow War and the IA to understand the Teep War could be conveyed in about 5 minutes of screen time - and not 5 straight minutes, either. The audience doesn't need to know every nuance of the whole five year story, or all the relationships. Relationships are established through actions and attitudes, not people standing around discussing their feelings. Sheridan encounters Ivanova, hugs her, she asks about Delenn and their son - we know that the two are friends, not lovers, that Sheridan is married, and has a son. Elapsed time, fifteen seconds. Garibaldi enters a room, sees Bester, decks him with one punch: Garibaldi and Bester are enemies. Elapsed time, five seconds.)

Regards,

Joe

* An object lesson in how not to do this was Ralph Bakshi's animated version of The Lord of the Rings from the late 70s or early 80s. Due to financing problems Bakshi was only able to animate and shoot half the story, and he cut this half into a single film. The idea was to make enough money off the first movie to make "part 2" to end it all later. But none of the publicity materials indicated that he had made half a movie. Those of you who have seen Peter Jackson's brilliant trilogy would wonder how you can cram enen half of Tolkein's story into a single slightly-more-than-two-hour movie? Short answer: You can't. Bakshi had to cut entire characters (including Eomer, the future King of Rohan) to keep the story managable. I saw the movie opening week in Manhattan. I'd say that half the audience were LoTR fanatics, and the other half were their dates - people who had never read the books and had been dragged to the film by their S.O.s. I knew the film was doomed during the intermission when I listened to the conversations in the lobby. No one who hadn't read the books had the faintest idea what was happening in the film. And everyone who had read the books was appalled at what was happening on screen. You can't have a hit film based on material from another medium if people who don't know the original can't figure it out - and you're really dead if people who do know the material hate what you've done with it. (Which was notably not the case with 90% of the Tolkein fans I know WRT Jackson's incredible films.)

JD

[Radhil]

Garibaldi enters a room, sees Bester, decks him with one punch: Garibaldi and Bester are enemies. Elapsed time, five seconds.)

No intelligent reply to the rest of your post here. Just a comment - I would so pay to see just that.

[circularREASON]

I agree with JD


Look at what Peter Jackson managed in the Prologue for 'Fellowship'. Just think of what JMS could do - he has 5 seasons of source material to go at as well.

The Possibilities are endless.

[The One to come]

I apologize for my comments they were made out of anger and were half-cocked sorry, but I still think that its rude to tell someone that they have no faith in B5 because they don't agree with some ones point of view. I have faith a plenty when it comes to B5 Just because I think that B5 would to better on the small screen does not mean I don't have faith.

As for Bladerunner I don't really want to get in to an argument about it's success (this is a B5 board after all), but in short, you probably think it is a successful movie because more thank likely you like it and many people you know like it too (most people 'hang' with like minded people), but for the average movie watcher (now and then) didnÆt understand it and so hated it, there fore it only has cult statues, that give it endurance but no successes. I always felt that to true mark of success in movies it when a horrible sequel is made to capitalize on the original success (i.e. Jurassic park, the matrix)

[Stunaep]

And well, finally, one would assume from your statement, that there has been no science-fiction film in the history of film-making that has not been based on a popular TV series or a book.

Of course, there were those two little things called the Matrix and Star Wars. Both weren't based on any particular piece of work (though were influenced by a great deal of sources, not unlike B5), and made heaps of money.

If it's a good movie then it can stand on it's own. Unless it can't. Gawd knows, considering the attention span of the average american.

[edit]

oh, and Blade Runner, along with 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Tarkovsky's Solaris is probably the most critically acclaimed sci-fi films ever. Personally, I don't care whether a bunch of overweight teenagers (no offense to any this may concern) go to see B5:TMoS or not, iIMO there are four options, two of which I'm content with.

a) It will make money, and get critical acclaim (example: LOTR)
b) It will make money, yet be a bad film (example: SW:TPM)
c) It won't make money (or at least loads and loads of it), yet be a good film, with good critical feedback (example.... 21 grams)
d) It'll flop on all fronts (erm.... Plan 9 from Outer Space?)

[Ranger1]

Well i hope it will be a good movie,let us not forget LotR...(and i dont mean Lord of the Rings )

[AaronB]

LotR vs. A real movie

Originally posted by Ranger1
Well i hope it will be a good movie,let us not forget LotR...(and i dont mean Lord of the Rings )

Let's remember one thing about The Legend of the Rangers, it was not designed to be a stand alone movie. It was for all intents and purposes a pilot for a series. I would think that is completely different from a full length movie since you are basically setting up characters and plot lines for a series.

I think that JMS knows how to do a movie especially with characters that were constantly talking to him while he was writing scripts for basically 5 years.

[Ranger1]

Re: LotR vs. A real movie

Originally posted by thebaron
Let's remember one thing about The Legend of the Rangers, it was not designed to be a stand alone movie. It was for all intents and purposes a pilot for a series. I would think that is completely different from a full length movie since you are basically setting up characters and plot lines for a series.

I think that JMS knows how to do a movie especially with characters that were constantly talking to him while he was writing scripts for basically 5 years.

The Gathering = awesome
A Call to Arms = awesome +
LotR = lame

but yeah i guess youre right

[Kevin]

Originally posted by The One to come
As for Bladerunner I don't really want to get in to an argument about it's success (this is a B5 board after all), but in short, you probably think it is a successful movie because more thank likely you like it and many people you know like it too (most people 'hang' with like minded people), but for the average movie watcher (now and then) didnÆt understand it and so hated it, there fore it only has cult statues, that give it endurance but no successes. I always felt that to true mark of success in movies it when a horrible sequel is made to capitalize on the original success (i.e. Jurassic park, the matrix)

Actually, to be honest, I hate Blade Runner

I didn't say it was a success, I said it made a profit because, well, it did ;P Check it out, I looked it up on a number of sources before I made the post, and they all returned the same figures: it did come out with a profit. It's no Jurassic Park or LotR or such, but few things are in Hollywood

[Dipper]

Just have to hope that JMS has learned his lesson from LoTR. The movie that had all the potential, but didn't hit it off because of bad acting, post-production .. everything.

And on a note I hated JMS's idea that The Hand was like kazillion times worse and more powerful than the Shadows. Give me a break, the at-the-time-younger-races barely held their own against the Shadows and the Vorlons .. what would they do now ? Leap 1000000 years in technological evolution in hmm .. few years ?

I recall that some here noticed that B5 cast members were cancelling their appearances because of some "project". If that is B5 related it quite effectively sizes down the possibilites for the movie. And frankly I love the idea of seeing all the old guys back again. The movie could deal with the struggle of the Inter Stellar Alliance and the fall of Centauri Prime, since it was so well introduced in the series but never dealt with.


Just my 0.02Ç =)