Babylon 5 - DVD Movie Collection thread

[CRONAN]

The truth?

What is the truth?

[Gkar4ever]

You can't *handle* the truth!

[Joseph DeMartino]

Nose.
Face.
Knife.
Spite.

Yep, all the ingredients seem to be here. Carry on!



Regards,

Joe

[AmyG]

Originally posted by cornholio1980:

So "Believers", "Day of the Dead" etc. are just Expanded Universe?

I don't know...

haven't seen those.

Wait a sec...

Are you saying you haven't gotten up to those episodes yet (hard to believe, as "Believers" is Season 1)...or that you refuse to watch those episodes because JMS hasn't written them? You're kidding, right?

Well, I'm sorry for you that your thinking is so rigid. You're missing out on a lot of _excellent_ material in this most fascinating universe.

Aisling
(on my eighth trip through the series, and just watched D.C. Fontana's excellent contribution to the series, "A Distant Star")

[WalkingEagle]

Originally posted by Z'ha'dumDweller
<<But let's not disrespect STAR TREK. It was that 60s show that broke the ice for what you see today. Without ST there would never have been a B5 or many of the other SF shows that came afterwards. Many of the leading SF writers alive during that time wrote episodes for classic STAR TREK. So Roddenberry's show should not be spat upon. Even STAR WARS paid respect to Trek and all the forerunner ST shows and movies and movie series. In truth, B5 and SW stand on the shoulders of the others.>>

They meant the ST novels. The novels. Not the show. They thought you were jaded by the ST novels, which you no doubt didn't read anyway, as you are a "purist."

Pukist is more like it.

I don't read novels from TV shows or movies. I watch the shows and the movies and that is it. I read DUNE and DUNE MESSIAH when they were first published. Years later in 1984 when DUNE was made into a film by David Lynch and Rafaella DeLorentiis I went to see it during a sneak preview. The film was an atrocity. But I don't read novelization of movies. For me its pointless especially if the novelization isn't written by the creator of the film vis-a-vis PREDATOR; a story originated by Jim and John Thomas but the novelization being done by someone else. I would stay with the Thomas' film.

[B5_Obsessed]

Then I skipped to The River of Souls sort of on the theory that you should eat your broccoli first and get it out of the way, so you'll enjoy your entree and desert more. Anyway, when it debuted I didn't like the film, and have never really watched it since. I thought it the poorest of the lot, and if I happened to stumble across it in progress I might leave it on as "background music" (and to wait for the holo-Lochley scenes to come on) but didn't pay it much attention.

I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised. It is really a much better film than I remembered. Martin Sheen's performance seems much less mannered and odd to me now, especially once his character starts to get a handle on English, I enjoyed the humor and the whole thing seemed better paced. I liked it even better when I watched it again tonight, this time with the subtitles and the commentary track. .

Regards,

Joe [/B]

I agree. Expectations hurt "River of Souls" a lot the first time because fans expected the B5 movies to be these epic features (most of them were) and RoS really plays like an extended episode. It's a pretty good one though, and for me, a home run for Lochley's character. IMO, she comes off better in this movie than at any time on the show. The Raulga flashback sequence is beautiful.

The one thing I never agreed with was the backlash against Martin Sheen. I never had a problem with his performance. I especially liked his Doctor Mondo eyes when he first appeared.

"How do we know? .......We know."

It's just too bad they couldn't get Sheen to wear the cloak. His outfit is a bit flamboyant without it.

[NotKosh]

Originally posted by WalkingEagle
If its isn't coming from JMS' hand and head, but someone elses, then to me it isn't really JMS'. Even if he said "ok".

But let's not disrespect STAR TREK. It was that 60s show that broke the ice for what you see today. Without ST there would never have been a B5 or many of the other SF shows that came afterwards. Many of the leading SF writers alive during that time wrote episodes for classic STAR TREK. So Roddenberry's show should not be spat upon. Even STAR WARS paid respect to Trek and all the forerunner ST shows and movies and movie series. In truth, B5 and SW stand on the shoulders of the others.

Like I said...I'm a purist to a degree. You know the old saying about too many hands in the pie. Things tend to get muddied. One great thing about seeing that 90%+ of the episodes written by JMS is that you see how he had evolved with the show on a psychological, emotional and even spiritual level. That's what made it so very enjoyable.

Again, you leap to assumptions. You are very good at that. As for Trek, teaching your grandmother to suck eggs would be more profitable than attempting to educate someone about Trek who still has a fallling apart 1st edition of The Making of Star Trek by Whitfield and Rodenberry

I am a Trek fan, and haven't bashed the series at all. What I bash when it comes to Trek is the mass of novels that it has spawned. That and the refuse that Berman/Pillar/B* have turned the franchise into; see Voyager and to a degree Enterprise. My loathing of what they have done was solidified in a Voyager episode where they get the ship back to the Solar System, albeit in a different time and then had be tossed back to where they were, instead of just whipping around the Sun to change their time.

Frankly, I don' think may leading writers wrote ST:TOS eps. I know of Ellison, and Sturgeon, Spinrad and Bloch wrote episodes, of those only I would consider only the 1st two, possibly three worthy of leading status. The vast majority of episodes came from Gene Coon, DC Fontana and The Great Bird of the Galaxy. I don't recall Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke, Bradbury, Haldeman or Niven writing an episode. Those were the leading writers of the the 60s.

[Jan]

Originally posted by NotKosh
Frankly, I don' think may leading writers wrote ST:TOS eps. I know of Ellison, and Sturgeon, Spinrad and Bloch wrote episodes, of those only I would consider only the 1st two, possibly three worthy of leading status. The vast majority of episodes came from Gene Coon, DC Fontana and The Great Bird of the Galaxy. I don't recall Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke, Bradbury, Haldeman or Niven writing an episode. Those were the leading writers of the the 60s.

On the other hand, it did ST:TOS did give David Gerrold his first sale.

Jan

[Joseph DeMartino]

But let's not disrespect STAR TREK. It was that 60s show that broke the ice for what you see today. Without ST there would never have been a B5 or many of the other SF shows that came afterwards.

And that, more than anything else, shows the sheer depth of your ignorance of these matters. The only thing Trek ever paved the way for was more Trek. That series made it harder to get another SF franchise off the ground for the better part of 20 years. Far from making the networks want more SF the original series was a ratings flop and a financial albatross that scared the networks away from the whole idea of outer space SF.

When it made Paramount some money in syndication they considered reviving it as part of their plan to create a (at that time) fourth TV network. When the network idea crashed and burned they would have shelved Trek again were it not for the success of a little picture called Star Wars. That is what got the suits at Paramount all excited, not some mystical faith in the genius of Gene or all the pathetic fanboy begging and letter-writing campaigns. What revived Trek was the fact that somebody else was making oodles of money off outer space again and some anonymous suit at Paramount said, "Wait a minute. Don't we have one of those?" - and took it away from the TV division faster than Dureena could roll a lurker.

The movies eventually led to TNG and DS9 in syndication, but they (along with other expensive flops that tried to cash in on the Star Wars craze like Battlestar Galactica, Buck Rogers and Space: Good-bye and Good Luck) only cemented the idea that no space-based SF show could ever be produced for the budget that the producers agreed to, and that there was only room on mainstream TV for one such franchise - and it had to have Trek in its name. (In fact, the attitude at the networks was that Trek wasn't SF at all, but a genre unto itself. "That isn't science fiction, that's Star Trek." The perception was that SF tanked and Trek succeeded.

JMS and Doug Netter spent the better part of 10 years fighting to overcome the giant stumbling block called Star Trek before they finally convinced a studio to take a chance and went on to become the only non-Trek SF space show to make it past its third season since TNG. (Since even TOS didn't manage that feat.) To believe that Star Trek helped "pave the way" for B5 is like believing in the Tooth Fairy. The facts just don't support it. (And I haven't even mentioned Paramount's deliberate attempts to kill B5, their threats to withhold their shows from stations that also carried B5, their cynical rush to shoot a DS9 pilot in record time to get their space station movie on the air first or any of the rest of the dirty pool the boys from the Mountain were playing in the early 90s.)

Regards,

Joe

[Jan]

Now, now, Joe....be fair.

I don't think Dureena would ever roll a lurker.

Jan

[Joseph DeMartino]

The vast majority of episodes came from Gene Coon, DC Fontana and The Great Bird of the Galaxy.

Gene R. wrote scarcely a word of Trek after the first pilot, which is probably a good thing since when you come right down to it, he was a better producer than he was a writer. I know his name appears on some scripts, but that doesn't mean he wrote them. The "name" SF writers who worked on TOS were almost all recruited by Harlan Ellison in an attempt to keep the show alive and develop a connection with the literary side of the genre.

True, David Gerrold did make his first sale to TOS, but it isn't like he wouldn't have broken the ice with a novel or a short story or a sale to another TV show (although not necessarily an SF show.) The talent was just there and it was going to be found sooner or later, by somebody if not Gene Coon.

Regards,

Joe

[NotKosh]

Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino
And that, more than anything else, shows the sheer depth of your ignorance of these matters. The only thing Trek ever paved the way for was more Trek. That series made it harder to get another SF franchise off the ground for the better part of 20 years. Far from making the networks want more SF the original series was a ratings flop and a financial albatross that scared the networks away from the whole idea of outer space SF.

When it made Paramount some money in syndication they considered reviving it as part of their plan to create a (at that time) fourth TV network. When the network idea crashed and burned they would have shelved Trek again were it not for the success of a little picture called Star Wars. That is what got the suits at Paramount all excited, not some mystical faith in the genius of Gene or all the pathetic fanboy begging and letter-writing campaigns. What revived Trek was the fact that somebody else was making oodles of money off outer space again and some anonymous suit at Paramount said, "Wait a minute. Don't we have one of those?" - and took it away from the TV division faster than Dureena could roll a lurker.

The movies eventually led to TNG and DS9 in syndication, but they (along with other expensive flops that tried to cash in on the Star Wars craze like Battlestar Galactica, Buck Rogers and Space: Good-bye and Good Luck) only cemented the idea that no space-based SF show could ever be produced for the budget that the producers agreed to, and that there was only room on mainstream TV for one such franchise - and it had to have Trek in its name. (In fact, the attitude at the networks was that Trek wasn't SF at all, but a genre unto itself. "That isn't science fiction, that's Star Trek." The perception was that SF tanked and Trek succeeded.

JMS and Doug Netter spent the better part of 10 years fighting to overcome the giant stumbling block called Star Trek before they finally convinced a studio to take a chance and went on to become the only non-Trek SF space show to make it past its third season since TNG. (Since even TOS didn't manage that feat.) To believe that Star Trek helped "pave the way" for B5 is like believing in the Tooth Fairy. The facts just don't support it. (And I haven't even mentioned Paramount's deliberate attempts to kill B5, their threats to withhold their shows from stations that also carried B5, their cynical rush to shoot a DS9 pilot in record time to get their space station movie on the air first or any of the rest of the dirty pool the boys from the Mountain were playing in the early 90s.)

Regards,

Joe

I beg to differ a little here. BG actually did ok, and the network misstepped. They actually brought it backed as Galactica Spastic, and that of course tanked. I think the ratings were OK->Good for the original series.

I also thought Space: Above and Beyond was also doing ok, its just that Chris Carter stabbed it in the back. He exerted influence because he wanted his co-producers or whoever back. X-Files was doing better, so the network rolled and axed Space:...

Alien Nation also ran at least 2 years I thought, then they made some movies.

Then there was V. Which in general upsets my stomach as a I speak about it, but it made it through a mini-series, a series and a movie or so.

How could you forget Quark???? Richard Benjamin on a Space Garbage truck. I like the writing on that one.

Space Rangers got axed after 1/2 dozen episodes or so.

Despite the bias by the networks against SF that wasn't called Trek, others were proving that it did work.

Across the pond, ITV had Space 1999, there was Doctor Who and Blakes 7. There was also UFO, which did good, but was stupidly dropped after the USAF came out with their "There are no UFOs" statement.

Please elaborate on all the dirty pool Paramount was doing. Not that I doubt, but I don't know all the details.

[Joseph DeMartino]

You listed a whole bunch of shows, some of them not even set in space (which was one of my criteria and which excludes things like The X-Files) none of which made it past two seasons and all of which were cancelled. As far as network and studio exec perceptions go (and perception is reality in these cases) it matters not at all why theh shows were cancelled or what the circumstances were. They were all flops in the minds of the guys who had to evaluate the next "big thing" in SF. Tell me again how these shows were proving that non-Trek fare was "succeeding"?

Joe

[NotKosh]

Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino
Gene R. wrote scarcely a word of Trek after the first pilot, which is probably a good thing since when you come right down to it, he was a better producer than he was a writer. I know his name appears on some scripts, but that doesn't mean he wrote them. The "name" SF writers who worked on TOS were almost all recruited by Harlan Ellison in an attempt to keep the show alive and develop a connection with the literary side of the genre.

True, David Gerrold did make his first sale to TOS, but it isn't like he wouldn't have broken the ice with a novel or a short story or a sale to another TV show (although not necessarily an SF show.) The talent was just there and it was going to be found sooner or later, by somebody if not Gene Coon.

Regards,

Joe

Here is the resource I found.

http://www.startrekcrossindex.com/CRwrditos.html

True, in a lot of cases (12?) Roddenberry came up with some concept, told it to someone else, and they did the screenplay.

As for Coon, the above list shows at least 10-12 shows, where he is credited with story, teleplay or writing.

I note a number of aliases used (times by Coon). I wonder if they were running into guild issues/network issues, where they didn't want their hand(s) to be so visible on the writing end... Even DC Fontana was aliasing (2 times). The answers are probably in "The Making of..." but I don't want to dig it up now.

[NotKosh]

Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino
You listed a whole bunch of shows, some of them not even set in space (which was one of my criteria and which excludes things like The X-Files) none of which made it past two seasons and all of which were cancelled. As far as network and studio exec perceptions go (and perception is reality in these cases) it matters not at all why theh shows were cancelled or what the circumstances were. They were all flops in the minds of the guys who had to evaluate the next "big thing" in SF. Tell me again how these shows were proving that non-Trek fare was "succeeding"?

Joe

They didn't succeed in the eyes of the networks, but they weren't all rating flops either. Just differing in the semantics, but there is no doubt about their fates.