TMoS is dead OFFICIAL THREAD

[SpanishFan]

From the beginning I said I'd rather no movie than a movie i don't recognize as B5
Still,... I feel so sad.
So terribly sad that i think i'm going to watch some DVDs right now.

[Ranger1]

TMoS is dead OFFICIAL THREAD

We all know it by know,start your cursing and crying over here

[Jan]

None from me. Oh, I'm sad, very sad...but I can wait for the movie that JMS wants, not just whatever comes along. From what I can gather, the company/individuals was simply unable to put the finacial deal together which might just have compromised quality in the end.

I'll wait.

Jan

[Ranger1]

I was pretty sad and pretty pissed last night when i found out about it,but now when i think about it,it ain't so bad....i mean,like JMS said: I'd rather have no B5 movie than one that doesn't live up to what fans and I myself would want to see.

And a big side note: thanks to all those who contributed by sending letters,emails posted on various boards and helped with TMoS recasting issue,at the end no one won but we sure kicked major butt and its nice to see that after all these years Babylon 5 still has a strong fan base who can kick and scream when they are asked to.

Don't give up! we will need your support for the next movie

[Jan]

And a big side note: thanks to all those who contributed by sending letters,emails posted on various boards and helped with TMoS recasting issue,at the end no one won but we sure kicked major butt and its nice to see that after all these years Babylon 5 still has a strong fan base who can kick and scream when they are asked to.

Yes, my thanks also. The support and outpouring of ideas and initiative were nothing less than stunning and heartwarming.

There's even some small validation from JMS about the campaign, too. Answering a post from somebody claiming that the letter writing campaign was

less than pointless

JMS responded:

Your assumption is not valid. Which is all I can say for the moment.

So while we may never know what or how much of an effect we might have had, those who were telling us that we were silly or hysterical or wrong to do it were...incorrect. That's enough for me.

Jan

[cornholio1980]

You know... it's less the fact that we had hopes (and semi-confirmation) about a B5-movie in the works sincs april 2004 (at the latest), but rather that I have to admit that I'm a little worried about the future of the universe. Honestly... the DVD's sold extremely well, Star Wars will be done with after May (at least until that rumored TV-series shows up), and Star Trek lies in a coma. What better time to launch a major B5-movie that pleases the fans and brings new audiences to this wonderful world created by JMS? Serioulsy, if all those things didn't convince WB to support the movie - what else will? Maybe I'm just depressed at the moment, but... somehow I really doubt that we will ever see B5 on the big screen. NOW was the right time to do it, and it just feels kinda like a "now or never"-situation to me. Hope I'm wrong...

By the way... does anyone know how the "Death" of TMOS may affect some of the other projects that were hinted by JMS a couple of weeks/months ago (like a new B5 graphic novel and new books)?

Let's just all hope that JMS will be proven right and that Faith indeed manages...
cornholio1980

[Satai Delenn]

I can wait .Waiting a little longer for the right portrayal of B5 I guess is worth it.

[Sherlock]

I'm disappointed that there will be no movie, because I at least hoped to see that station and some of the B5 cast on the big screen. That alone would have been worth the $9 to enter the theater.

However, I read the casting call character descriptions, and frankly it sounded kinda "bleh." Granted, the casting call doesn't necessarily mean anything about the final movie, but the plot/character setup just didn't much interest me. I'm not a technomage/Galen fanatic, either, so maybe that's part of it. I barely consider Crusade canon because it didn't last long and just wasn't particularly well done. Who knows, though? The movie might have been good.

[Sherlock]

As an aside, Aintitcool news (not a very good site, but sometimes I read it) has countless jerks cheering the demise of this movie, and taking swipes at JMS because of the "claim" that Deep Space Nine ripped off B5. Jerks -- and none bigger than the "Hercules" dork who works at AICN and posted the story to begin with and baited the anti-JMS comments with the tone of his post.

[Doktor]

Hell, what's wrong with being pissed about it? A year ago, we all thought we were going to get a real, no compromise, big screen B5 movie. Now we're getting jack. Yes, I'd rather have no film at all if it's a choice between that and some studio-pleasing compromise - but that doesn't stop me being very disappointed. It's OK to grieve you know.

[The One to come]

Angry....... No

Disappointed........ not really (well a little but not much)

As much as I would have liked to see a B5 movie, I have the feeling that it would have killed the franchise.

At least now I can hold out hope for a new B5 series, anyway cheerup people not all is lost, you never know what tomorow will bring.

[frulad]

Angry? No.

Disappointed? You beat yer hindquarters.

(Originally, my post on this was going to be an expletive in rather large type, but I'm too lazy to go check the forum rules on cussing... )

[Joseph DeMartino]

I find myself once again astounded by how things are done in HOLLYWOOD. B5 still in the red? Increasing viewing figures from season to season, world wide appeal and guarenteed merchandising sales ranging from calenders to models, and DVD sales that reached HALF A FRAGGIN' BILLION DOLLARS AND THE SHOW WAS STILL IN THE RED. Who was working the WB calculator...Stevie Wonder? Helen Keller....?

Well, at the risk of sounding like I'm defending Warner Bros. or the accounting systems used by the studios generally - what they're doing isn't wholly irrational, nor, indeed, wholly unfair.

The studio puts up all the money for all of its projects. It is all coming out of one big pocket called "Warner Bros." All the profits ultimately go back into one big pocket as well. To say the "project A made a profit but project B lost money" is ultimately meaningless. The bottom line is that unless A made more than B lost, the studio as a whole lost money on the two. If they were the only two movies or TV shows that it made that year, it would be ludicrous if they didn't set B's loss against A's gain when calculating profit and loss. It would be incredibly unfair to the shareholders.

Most TV shows lose money, because most TV shows don't last long enough to go into syndication (and because the studios generally spend more producing each episode of a show than they collect in fees from the network, the show has to go into syndication to get out of the red. B5 was an exception in this respect.) The people who made those shows still got their full payments, and if the shows were cancelled in mid-season many continued to receive their full salaries for the rest of their contracts unless they agreed to some kind of lump-sum settlement. That money has to come from somewhere. Ultimately it comes from the shows that did last long enough to go into syndication. It isn't like any of the "profit participants" in teh failed show are also required to pay off their share of the loss when it bombs. The studio assumes the entire risk, so it is only to be expected that they charge off the inevitable losses.

Now, what is unfair and outrageous is the way that the studios have abused this reasonable principle by accounting tricks that hide overseas income and other ancillary monies from the original productions. (Toys and games based on TV shows and movies are credited to the studio's merchandising divisions, with nothing going back to the P&L on the original production, which is shameful.)

The studios are ripping the artists off, but not as much as is popularly imagined and the whole thing is not as unreasonable as is sometimes presented. It is true that with no writers, actors, directors (and grips, gaffers and makeup people) the studios wouldn't make a dime. But it is equally true that without the multi-million dollar production facilities, the on-site fire department, medical facilities, carpentry, electrical and metal working shops, the millions of dollars to pay outside contractors for SFX and music, etc., a guy like JMS just has 150 pages of typing. He doesn't have a movie.

Regards,

Joe

[Jan]

Angry? No.

Disappointed? You beat yer hindquarters.

(Originally, my post on this was going to be an expletive in rather large type, but I'm too lazy to go check the forum rules on cussing... )

The official guidline:

Foul language *is* permitted, as long as it is not personally directed at a user or violates the second ôruleö above. Just donÆt be too obscene or vulgar.

Jan

[Jan]

The studios are ripping the artists off, but not as much as is popularly imagined and the whole thing is not as unreasonable as is sometimes presented. It is true that with no writers, actors, directors (and grips, gaffers and makeup people) the studios wouldn't make a dime. But it is equally true that without the multi-million dollar production facilities, the on-site fire department, medical facilities, carpentry, electrical and metal working shops, the millions of dollars to pay outside contractors for SFX and music, etc., a guy like JMS just has 150 pages of typing. He doesn't have a movie.

Ah, Joe, always the voice of reason. You're right, of course, and you didn't even mention expenses like security and advertising and insurance. Where I lose the thread is figuring out just how thin the expenses get spread. B5 is a good example. It stopped having direct expenses several years ago but indirect expenses are still being charged against it...and apparently every other past show. Does that ever stop? It would seem to me that a show would have to drop off of the 'expense rolls' at some point or the slices of the pie would get too thin.

Just wondering...

Jan