Legend of the Rangers (the 2nd viewing)

[Ariake]

Well, I think that the likely reason that LotR was not included in the movie box set is because it did not center on any of the major characters from the title series. LotR, being s stand-alone project, deserves to be published on its own. It also will help to distinguish itself from the rest of the shows.

[TheNextLight]

Legend of the Rangers on DVD??

So im new here..and well im curious if anyone has any idea about the potential release or reason against the release of Legend of the Rangers. Why was it not on the dvd movie box set. Its now the only B5 program not to be released...just curious how or why...any comments...remember new here...

[I love Lyta]

I share your fate.

But in MY case it's because it never aired here
I'm being in the disadvantage of either not being able to see many things that all or with one to three years delay while being all curious about it.

[cruiser]

Welcome Ariake....

Originally posted by AriakeI am the only big B5 fan I know that has not seen LotR.

I too have been deprived of LotR...

Posit: Things that mysteriously disappear are sucked into a vortex.
Observation: Money vanishes mysteriously.
Conclusion: There is a money vortex.

And it's located somewhere close to the palm of my wifes hand....

[Jan]

Re: LotR DVD

Originally posted by Ariake
I have read many, many opinions on LotR (and, like others who have posted, I always have to think about that acronym lest I get confused with Lord of the Rings), both good and bad. However, I am the only big B5 fan I know that has not seen LotR. Working in the evenings and a lack of cable/satellite sucks. Has anyone heard news as to when LotR will be released on dvd?

Welcome Ariake!

Historically we've gotten announcements on the next DVD 6 to 8 weeks after the current release. I don't know if that'll hold true this time since it's a single MOW. Let's hope.

Jan

[Ariake]

LotR DVD

I have read many, many opinions on LotR (and, like others who have posted, I always have to think about that acronym lest I get confused with Lord of the Rings), both good and bad. However, I am the only big B5 fan I know that has not seen LotR. Working in the evenings and a lack of cable/satellite sucks. Has anyone heard news as to when LotR will be released on dvd?

[WorkerCaste]

Originally posted by iamsheridan
I don't know about the other stuff, but maybe there are places where they gather too?

Intriguing thought!

Posit: Things that mysteriously disappear are sucked into a vortex.
Observation: Money vanishes mysteriously.
Conclusion: There is a money vortex.

Note to self: Find other end of money vortex.

[Jan]

Originally posted by iamsheridan
I don't know about the other stuff, but maybe there are places where they gather too?

You may have something there. Pens are what collect near me. Now, I'm fussy about my pens so all these other ones must just be jealous because I'd certainly never use them.

Jan

[iamsheridan]

Originally posted by Shr'eshhhhhh
Workercaste I see you favour the parallel dimention theory rather than the sock monster one.

Same place I gather where Biro's, combs,Lighters and pencil erasers go too.

I may have an answer to that, because I too have a problem with pencils: they end up AT MY DESK. Every other day I find a new pencil here so I guess my desk is at or close to the other end of the pencil vortex. It also seems as if a really stressful assignment increases the pencil accumulation.

I don't know about the other stuff, but maybe there are places where they gather too?

/IamS

[WorkerCaste]

Originally posted by Shr'eshhhhhh
Workercaste I see you favour the parallel dimention theory rather than the sock monster one.

I'm not ruling out the sock monster. I saw "Monsters, Inc." Maybe they take stuff for entertainment every once in a while.

[Shr'eshhhhhh]

"Maybe it's where all the lost socks go. "

Workercaste I see you favour the parallel dimention theory rather than the sock monster one.

Same place I gather where Biro's, combs,Lighters and pencil erasers go too.

[WorkerCaste]

Shr'eshhhhhh, I won't quote you in order to save space.

You definitely have me at an advantage with regard to details since I haven't seen the movie since its broadcast. I watched it twice then, but sometime after that the tape got lost in the esther. Maybe it's where all the lost socks go. If (when?) it gets released on DVD I'll pick it up and watch again, so I would then be able to get much more specific.

Here's where I think we'll really have to agree to disagree... many of these items come down to budget and I am willing to "grade on a curve." I can understand how some of these things might drop you out of that critical suspension of disbelief. All I can say is that for me it didn't.

Show business is a business. The folks at B5 have so often done miracles with the budget they were given that it's tempting to expect miracles all the time, but in this case they had to go back to square one. IMO, this SF pilot stood up well against other SF pilots, and, in fact, against dramatic television in general.

One minor nit from your message. I said the actors did a great job, not that the performances were great. I know it's a pretty fine line, but it comes down to the "grading on a curve" philosophy. I thought the ctaors tuned in good, solid performances, and I was comparing them to more experienced actors in a TV pilot. To me, the cast was a direct result of budget allocation, and I think the producers got good value for their dollar. BTW, by most accounts I've heard, Jerry Doyle was playing Jerry Doyle. Truly convenient when it works, but it doesn't come around too often. Richard Biggs was a very experienced TV actor.

On sets, I recall that I liked the bridge. My assumption about the holographic room on the cruisers was that the commanders used that to isolate them from ship operations and allow them to concentrate on the tactical situation with many other people implementing their decisions through crystal based control interfaces, ala Whitestars. In a small ship there wouldn't be enough crew to seperate roles in that way.

At the end of the day, as Mr. G. might say, I enjoyed it and would purchase it. Compared to most pilots I've watched on TV, I thought it was quite good. I thought it compared favorable to "The Gathering." I had faith that the series would have addressed any of the shortcomings as happened in nearly all successful shows. Pilots are hard to do. Most series today don't even seem to do them. Instead, they do a premier episode with a 6 or 13 ep committment.

[bakana]

Ratings info for LOTR showed that the number of viewers Jumped quite a bit as soon as the Football game was Over.
And were significantly higher on the West coast where the show was aired Later.

So, yes there is a good bit of evidence that a lot of B5 fans also watched the game.
And probably Recorded the movie to watch later.
Which DOESN'T "Count" as far as ratings go.
Because they can fast forward thru the commercials.

Also, the ratings Increased each 15 minutes of the movie, which indicates that people who tuned in Late stayed to watch the ending.

Decreasing ratings each 15 minutes would indicate that people are Leaving the show for something else, so TV Execs are Very sensitive to such stats.

LOTR did better than average in that respect.

[Shr'eshhhhhh]

"I think where we missed was around the "minor" comment I made. I was directing that comment to my own complaints."

Thanks workercaste I sometimes too think that the wonderful world of the written word is more open to misinterpretation than speach. (lack of internation, that sort of thing) I've often been accused of being rude or patronising or arrogant when I thought I was being helpful, direct or just trying my best at being funny. I have made an effort to try and read everything I repond to from a number of different angles to avoid this. I guess this time I missed target of your words, I stand corrected on this point.

"I liked the writing and did think it was up to JMS's standards. I accepted the pacing as being a result of lots of exposition -- necessary in any pilot. I thought the screenplay was a nice balance of telling a complete story and introducing a much grander tale -- never an easy balance to strike."

My complaint wasn't so much that the plot of the film contained too much exposition. But more in the manner by which this was rather ham fistedly shoe horned into the dialogue.
On B5 exposition was usually handled by a character in the know telling a character not in the know a chunk of information that their character may have found useful and by doing so letting us know about it also. One example being Susan telling Talia (after being rude, avoiding her and then recieving indictations that she isn't all that bad) about her mother's suicide. We learn about how evil the Corps can be (especially Psi Cops) we learn why she was being rude to a telepath and we learn something important about Susan's family. Now if I were to come upto one of my friends in the street and say "Hi John, you may work in insurance and have chronic fatigue syndrome but that's no excuse for wearing shorts in winter." You'd think I was odd. John would think I was odd, I'd think I was odd. LotR is full of expositional dialogue like that and being a pilot for a show can not excuse JMS, an experienced writer, for producing it.

"I thought the actors did a great job. They were young actors getting these characters for the first time. IMO they did a better job hitting those characters than many more experienced actors do in a pilot."

Being inexperienced or young doesn't mean one should lower the gate when it comes to good acting. You feel that the performances were great, and better than what many more experienced actors could deliver. I really can't point to one main actors and say thats as good as Jerry Doyle in the Gathering, That's as good as Pat Tallman or Richard Biggs (who wasn't even in the pilot but from the moment he appeared had to virtually carry that episode) The cast of B5 was constantly changing but usually exeptional. Daniel Dae Kim was totally new to the B5 universe in Crusade's Racing the Night (originally the pilot)and his performance was perfect.
None of these actors had a great deal of direct tv acting experience under their belt but were perfectly cast and did the job well from the start.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say the characters were "dull." I found them engaging, although by no means complete. 90 minutes to introduce characters and plot is not a lot of time, no matter how gifted a writer may be, but still we started seeing something of the principle characters and their background. I enjoyed seeing the lighter side of G'Kar, which didn't strike me as camp. To me, that was another aspect of G'Kar that had always been there. JMS has linked humor and enlightenment several times, so I didn't feel it was at all out of character."

One of the reasons why the character seemed dull to me(if a series had happened they may have grown but we don't know that.) Is exactly because JMS felt the need to introduce them. The most important element in any story is the plot. What actually happens. Characters move and act and develop through it. What we had in LotR was a group of characters paraded before us, they justify their presence and the plot just gives them something to do for 90minutes or so. If this was the beginning of a new show we would have found out about each character in the fullness of time. All that they need to do in this first part of the story was be there reveal a character detail if relevent and do what ever the character would normally do if not. It partially goes back to what I was saying earlier about expositional dialogue. If a character does nothing but constantly explain and justify his actions he comes across as being dulland unrealistic. If a character is well written he can leave clues to his motives without having to broadcast them at the highest volume.

"Yes, the sets and effects were not among the best you will see on television, but I would argue that they were good for the budget and their placement in a pilot. People are rarely willing to put up the money necessary to produce an unproven commodity as a top-of-the-line show. If it had gone to series, both sets and effects would have improved over time as more money could be incrementally invested. I'd also have to say that I think losing the CGI models is an excuse for not having things exactly the same. Reproducing a CGI model from images would be much more time consuming (expensive) than creating something new in the style of what has gone before, especially when using different tools. "

They only had to make a a few sets so they might as well have gotten them right. It wasn't like B5 where they had to create the impression of a vaste space station on a shoe string, or even Crusade which had a huge ship full of interesting areas to design for. They just needed a few corridors a bridge and a balcony.
Minbari battle cruisers don't have instramentation at all on their bridges why didn't they go with that, they could have had a holographic bridge which was constantly breaking down. And had the most minimalistic bridge sets on TV. Anything would have looked better than the one in the show which they would have been stuck with if ithe show had taken off. Dr Who in the 1970's had sets just as bad but it was better written and acted. And as for not recreating the lost models They only needed a Minbari cruiser, a few Whitestars and a Tuzanor spire or two and spaceport. These had already been designed for the orignal series, they just needed new models. they had to hire someone to design the new models in this film which didn't look as good, didn't link in to the B5 universe and proberbly took more time and money to produce.

If this had been an Andromeda style show, I'd have still not liked it but not been so grouchy about it. But as I said the fact that it's JMS and a B5 show made its weaknesses seem all the worse. I'd rather have no new B5 at all than have bad B5 which doesn't go anywhere. Especially when Crusade was so good and was wrecked despite (or perhaps because) of it being so good.

[WorkerCaste]

Originally posted by Shr'eshhhhhh
Forgive me if I am misrepresenting your words but from my reading of the above quoted posting you are disagreeing with almost all of my comments (though you agree to some negative comments not posted by myself but by other members) and then describe the points I raise as minor and more like a preference. Thus my previous response.

At no point do you counter my observations with observations of your own in favour of the film, it's plot , it's acting, set design and how YOU liked it. You just say you liked the film and that my comments (which if not successfully dismissed are rather damning) are minor and a reflection of my personal taste.

I gave the show two viewings and after the second I sat down and listed what I thought it short comings were. I concede that I also didn't enjoy the film. (Largely because of the points I mentioned)

What did you like about the film? Maybe I've missed something? Maybe you have a take on the film that will prompt me to look again. If you don't share you views how can I see things from your perspective?

Sometimes, I think, working with written messages gets in the way of saying what you really mean to say. I'm sorry if I haven't been clear. I'm going to try again, but please believe me when I say that I have no wish to be dismissive to you or your thoughts.

You are correct when you say that I am disagreeing with most of your complaints. I think where we missed was around the "minor" comment I made. I was directing that comment to my own complaints. I consider my personal complaints about the implementation of the weapons system and the repitition of "WLFTO,WDFTO" to be minor. For someone else they could easily be major complaints. Also, looking back at my post, I would write it differently now (correcting grammar errors first ), I still believe that you are being overly hard on the quality, but the "preference" part of the statement wasn't really what I meant.

When you point out that I didn't provide counter point to your observations, you make a fair observation. As explanation I can only say that I have expressed my views in the past, and sometimes I get caught between providing enough background and not wanting to bore people by repeating myself too often. In this case, I would say that I erred in not recapping some of my thoughts. Let me rectify that now.

I liked the writing and did think it was up to JMS's standards. I accepted the pacing as being a result of lots of exposition -- necessary in any pilot. I thought the screenplay was a nice balance of telling a complete story and introducing a much grander tale -- never an easy balance to strike.

I thought the actors did a great job. They were young actors getting these characters for the first time. IMO they did a better job hitting those characters than many more experienced actors do in a pilot.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say the characters were "dull." I found them engaging, although by no means complete. 90 minutes to introduce characters and plot is not a lot of time, no matter how gifted a writer may be, but still we started seeing something of the principle characters and their background. I enjoyed seeing the lighter side of G'Kar, which didn't strike me as camp. To me, that was another aspect of G'Kar that had always been there. JMS has linked humor and enlightenment several times, so I didn't feel it was at all out of character.

I liked the touch of mystery provided by the "haunted" ship line. I felt it held together with past indications that something of a person can linger behind after their death, and that telepaths can pick up on that. I saw it as an extension that could be logically fit in to the existing framework. Also, I thought the Hand were interesting, not because of what we saw there, but because of the way JMS writes. It never entered into my mind that the villians would be cliched. Instead of focusing on the cliche, I was immediately trying to guess what JMS was hiding behind his back.

Yes, the sets and effects were not among the best you will see on television, but I would argue that they were good for the budget and their placement in a pilot. People are rarely willing to put up the money necessary to produce an unproven commodity as a top-of-the-line show. If it had gone to series, both sets and effects would have improved over time as more money could be incrementally invested. I'd also have to say that I think losing the CGI models is an excuse for not having things exactly the same. Reproducing a CGI model from images would be much more time consuming (expensive) than creating something new in the style of what has gone before, especially when using different tools.

As for the weapons system, it was not implemented as written becuase of budget. They tried something and it didn't work. I'd rather see them try and occasionally fail than be conservative. I didn't like it. Most people didn't seem to like it. I would've bet that they would have fixed it in the series, though. For that reason, it didn't distract me too much.

At any rate, I enjoyed the movie, and it accomplished just what it needed to as far as I was concerned -- it drew me in and made me want to come back for the rest of the story. In my estimation, compared against all TV, B5 and Crusade included, I would call it a good show, but not great. When judged exclusively against cable-produced pilots, I would call it very good.