Babylon 5 Lost Tales reviews needed

[princevintari]

I was just browsing Amazon UK and took a look at the Babylon 5 Lost Tales page (without art cards ) and found the following "reviews" right up to the top. I've knocked them down the page a little with my review but if others could follow suit it certainly couldn't harm the cause. Better some well-rounded comments rather than bogus or inaccurate "reviews".

0 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
Disapointing, 5 Sep 2007
By C. Saunders "Uruni" (London, UK) - See all my reviews


I have to agree totally with Mr. G. C. Morgan-Watson's review. These tales should have stayed buried. Nothing was really up to the B5 standard - the dialog was tedious (not to mention obvious), the plots underwhelming and didn't really fit into the rest of the series.
At the end of the second episode, which I assumed was the beginning of the real story, the dvd ended. Both my partner and I turned to each other and said "what?? That's it?".
It seems this was more a cheap money maker with very little to recommend itself. I'm sorry to see my favourite sci fi series end with this

Was this review helpful to you? (Report this)




3 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
Babylon 5 - Lost tales (2007), 4 Sep 2007
By Mr. G. C. Morgan-Watson (UK) - See all my reviews


It would have been better that they remain un-found. This is a very poor addition, using minimal actors ( we counted about 9 - including the two mbaris that kept walking around in circles and the only alien make-up) and old space ship footage. The stories were un-eventful, the dialogue incredibly long winded. A cheap production - not worthy to be in the Bab-5 collection. Disapointing and not reccomended.

[Jan]

It's unfortunate, but a negative review is still a legitimate viewpoint. The only inaccurate thing in them is that there was no old footage used. Couldn't be-the CG files were lost by WB.

The unfortunate thing is that so many people simply can't wrap their brains around the different format and tone. Not much we can really do to change that, I'm afraid. By all means, if you liked the disk, do post a review, though.

Jan

[princevintari]

It's unfortunate, but a negative review is still a legitimate viewpoint. The only inaccurate thing in them is that there was no old footage used. Couldn't be-the CG files were lost by WB.

The unfortunate thing is that so many people simply can't wrap their brains around the different format and tone. Not much we can really do to change that, I'm afraid. By all means, if you liked the disk, do post a review, though.

Jan

I agree negative reviews are a legitimate viewpoint but some are clearly fake reviews( loads have been posted on Amazon US months before anyone had even seen it), whether they have seen them or not. I mean there is no way you could say that any of the CGI was used from any of the previous series/movie. The CGI is literally leaps and bounds ahead of the CGI used in the series. Which puts into question the legitimacy of that particular a "review" in my opinion.

I agree we can't change anybody's minds who doesn't like the new Lost Tales but we can give those who haven't bought it yet a more balanced account.

[Jan]

I actually was one of those who did a 'review' months before it came out...but only because I'd seen the opening sequence that JMS showed at the New York con. And yeah, I posted it because there were so many negatives being posted by people who hadn't even seen a little bit of it.

Jan

[Joe Nazzaro]

It's interesting how people seem to be pointing out the need for positive reviews to offset the negative ones. Just to play devil's advocate here, could that be because some reviewers have more negative things to say, or is it just because it's the reviewers with an axe to grind who actually take the time to write it down? It's usually pretty easy to tell the people who can be objective (even if it's negative) and the ones who are biased one way or the other.

Ironically, I just had a commission this morning to write a film review for a British magazine, and the editor actually took the time to point out how important it was to be objective, even if those comments were less than positive. I guess these days, when anybody with a keyboard can be a film critic, it's easy to lump some of those newcomers with those of us who have been doing it for 25 years.

[princevintari]

I actually was one of those who did a 'review' months before it came out...but only because I'd seen the opening sequence that JMS showed at the New York con. And yeah, I posted it because there were so many negatives being posted by people who hadn't even seen a little bit of it.

Jan

I don't blame you because those negative reviews were completely out of order.

That was an awesome opening sequence. I think it took me nearly an hour to download it from you tube but it was worth the wait, had me welling up and so excited to get my DVD. I must have watched it about a dozen times that day.

Going slightly off Topic during the title sequence where we see all the characters with their respective home world's was that the first shot of the Vorlon home world? I can't seem to remember ever seeing it.

[princevintari]

It's interesting how people seem to be pointing out the need for positive reviews to offset the negative ones. Just to play devil's advocate here, could that be because some reviewers have more negative things to say, or is it just because it's the reviewers with an axe to grind who actually take the time to write it down? It's usually pretty easy to tell the people who can be objective (even if it's negative) and the ones who are biased one way or the other.

Ironically, I just had a commission this morning to write a film review for a British magazine, and the editor actually took the time to point out how important it was to be objective, even if those comments were less than positive. I guess these days, when anybody with a keyboard can be a film critic, it's easy to lump some of those newcomers with those of us who have been doing it for 25 years.

Joe, the way I see it is its mostly people with an axe to grind trying to make sure the Lost Tales fails in its tracks. I realise my comments tend to be on the positive side of objective but I do try to at least have a little objectivity.

A one-star review slamming everything with complete negativity is ridiculous to me. Even if you don't like the stories you can't help but comment about the quality of acting, writing, musical score , the CGI, surely the nod to Dr Franklyn and G'kar going beyond the rim is a touching moment for any fan and ofcourse the DVD picture quality.

BTW what was the film you'll be reviewing?

[Andrew_Swallow]

Ironically, I just had a commission this morning to write a film review for a British magazine, and the editor actually took the time to point out how important it was to be objective, even if those comments were less than positive. I guess these days, when anybody with a keyboard can be a film critic, it's easy to lump some of those newcomers with those of us who have been doing it for 25 years.

There are 4 voices in a review:
The author
The editor
The magazine
The proprietor.

The editor told you that none of the 4 were biased.

[Joe Nazzaro]

Vintari, the movie is Halloween, which apparently isn't getting many UK screenings, and wasn't screened for the critics here in the States.

Andrew, I don't want to agree with you, but there is probably a chunk of truth in there. There SHOULD only be one vioice, which is the critic, but I've certainly had experiences where an editor has stepped in, the most annoying being a review I wrote for SFX some years ago, where an editor inserted a single word, turning the review from positive to negative. I've never had an experience where reviews were altered at an even higher level, but I suspect when huge amounts of advertising dollars are at stake, those extra voices you alluded to may well come into play. More's the pity.

It hadn't occured to me that people would write negative Lost Tales reviews just to make the DVD crash and burn, but I guess that shouldn't surprise me either.

[vacantlook]

...the most annoying being a review I wrote for SFX some years ago....

Isn't SFX the publication that jms has openly forbidden from publishing any of his words that he posts online? Of all the B5 and jms lore I know, that story is one that I can't ever seem to remember any details of.

[Joe Nazzaro]

You recall correctly, but I'll be damned if I can remember the whole story after all this time. I do remember the SFX Awards in Blackpool, where JMS got the hall of fame award, which was presented to him by Blake's 7's Gareth Thomas, the only time I ever saw him at a loss for words. I also remember having to smuggle Gareth up to our hotel room and keeping out of public view so as not to blow the surprise, while my wife had to recreate his B7 makeup for the awards. What a surreal afternoon.

[Shr'eshhhhhh]

I think it goes back to the early days of the TNT/Crusade bing bong.

SFX published material that JMS objected to in the strongest terms and he denied them access to his words again.

Which is sad because SFX was behind the show when other magazines were looking the other way and whistling a tune by Jerry Goldsmith.

[vacantlook]

I tried searching some, and while I haven't really come up with anything yet that really tells the tale, some of jms's comments regarding SFX are hillarious.

link one

...SFX is a fairly useless publication on just
about every imaginable front. Never have so many jumped-up fanboys done so
little, with so much, for so long.

link two

...>> synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
>> to reprint specifically denied to
>> SFX Magazine)
>
>Nice touch, but you know they'll only make something up, don't you?
>

And that would be different...how...?

link three

>they go on to say "SFX is the only SF magazine not afraid to say what it
>thinks"

If that were actually true, then the magazine would consist mainly of blank
pages.

link four

>Understandable, since it crashed & burned in the US market; though
>I'd have thought you might at least have seen the review column I
>used to write for SFX...

Takes a lot for a man to come out and admit he wrote pornography....

link five

>Then on the back page in the smallest of small type they suggest "a
>course in British Sign language for JMS".

Perhaps while they're recommending classes they could try taking Journalism 101
to learn how real journalists work.

[Jan]

Here's a post from the moderated newsgroup that explains it in fair detail:

The awards were given by the *readers* of SFX. Not the magazine itself.

As for the rest, as usual, it's a lot more complicated than that. My
understanding of it is this (if anyone knows differently, or knows more,
please feel free to correct any misunderstanding on my part) :

The "problem" actually stems from a certain con organiser - part (and only
*part*) of the Wolf organisation. Way back when B5 was young, said
organiser started importing US taped copies of B5 episodes and started
showing them at public meetings. This is illegal here in the UK for both
copyright and certification reasons, and quiet words were had between the
B5 production office and this individual, who basically said he's stop the
practice.

He didn't. He carried on, just tried to be more sneaky about it. Since he's
not the sharpest pencil in the drawer, he failed miserably in his attempts
at subterfuge, and was taken to task once again, and issued assurances that
it wouldn't happen again. This is the reason Warner's despatches F.A.C.T.
people to conventions in the UK to make sure no Warner's stuff is shown.
Say thanks to this guy anyone who's ever been disapointed that there's no
B5 or Crusade shown at B5 cons over here.

Then came the first of the Blackpool cons, and questions arose concerning
the ultimate destination of money donated for charity. Assurances were
given that all was above board, and there were no issues. Stars were
photographed handing over cheques to Great Ormond Street children's
hospital etc. and all seemed well.

Another Blackpool con was set up, and the organisers promised that the
accounts would be made available at the end of the con to JMS and other
guests. Once again, questions arose over the charity auction funds. JMS and
others asked to see the promised accounts, which were not (and never have
been) forthcoming. This was the con where the Claudia Christian bombshell
hit, and JMS' notes for a lot of season 5 were destroyed by the hotel he
was staying at, so he understandably wasn't in the best of moods for
dealing with corruption issues.

Then came the Warner Bros. debacle over the public showing of "In The
Beginning" at the Warner's West End cinema. Warner's in their infinite
wisdom decided to use the Wolf organisation to contact fans who might want
to attend this event, which was a promotion for the forthcoming UK video
release of the TV movie. Unfortunately, it was decided to charge for the
tickets, which is against all sorts of US Actors Guild rules ("cinematic
presentation" or somesuch). So once again, Wolf is in the middle of a
controversy concerning cash and its ultimate destination. JMS stepped in,
and as a direct result of his intervention, fans were given refunds and the
event became what it was always supposed to be - a free one as a "thank
you" to the UK fans for their long-time support of the show.

Then comes the VOR con in the States, run by the same organiser, but
totally independent of Wolf. The budgeted 5,000 attendees turned out to be
around 1,500 for a wide variety of reasons - location and cost being the
main two. Given that the majority of the B5 cast were attending, the end
result was that some 90% of the speakers ended up either not getting paid
in full, or not getting paid at all. Nothing. Zip. In short, because of the
ineptitude of the organisers of VOR, most of the B5 cast were not paid what
they'd been promised. Quite why this failure was *their* fault, I have
never understood. As is his wont, JMS spoke up for the short-changed
actors, and was vociferous in his demands that they be paid what they'd
been promised.

Now in the middle of all of this, sits SFX magazine. Run by people who are
also not the sharpest pencils in the drawer, and who get taken in hook line
and sinker by the organiser's line that he's being victimised by these
nasty people (JMS in particular, but also the UK B5 group) and how unfair
it all is. They start to use this organiser and his lackeys as their main
story feed for B5 and JMS items. As a consequence, accuracy falls straight
through the floor, as does SFX's small remaining credibility with B5 fans.

SFX despatches an "independent journalist" to uncover the fuss over the In
The Beginning showing, and produces an article that manages to slate JMS
and the UK group without actually having dug *too* hard into the underlying
bad feeling. That a rabid defence of the organiser was posted to the UK
newsgroup a few months afterwards from the same PC used by the journalist
rather laid low any claim to impartiality from that quarter. She has denied
posting the message, but the computer's IP address is fixed, so it must
have been someone else using her PC then.

Around this point in time, the B5 production office decide they've had
enough of the stuff put out by SFX, and cut them off from any and all
communication. No press releases, promotional material, set visits, photos,
nothing. SFX comes to rely more and more on their "unofficial" sources of
information with an additional drop in quality.

SFX have never got over the fact that it seems to have been easy for the B5
production office to "cut them off", and this has coloured their reporting
ever since - despite the fact that they now seem to have severed their own
relationship with the con organiser. I don't know why they've done this. I
am curious, however!

I *think* this covers most of the events, in roughly the right order. I
have deliberately missed a few items out that are not directly relevant to
the JMS / SFX debate, but this is the broad overview from my perspective.

As I said at the top - feel free to correct any mistakes or omissions I've
made here.

Cheers,

Paul.

(c) Paul Harper 1999 - This article may not be reproduced in any form
without the author's permission. Permission is granted to the "JMS Digest"
organisation.

Jan

[Joe Nazzaro]

Oh dear, it all comes flooding back now. IÆm afraid I have to accept a bit of blame in this situation, because I was actually responsible for putting said organizer in touch with his first couple of B5 guests for the very early events, which I suppose in retrospect gave him the impetus to continue. In my defense, the only reasons I did it was A) it basically gave some of the B5 people a free trip to the UK, and B) I thought it would help promote the series, which at the time was getting more attention on the other side of the pond. In hindsight, maybe not the brightest thing I ever did, in light of everything that happened afterwards.