A new JMS message and hint 4/29

[Jade Jaguar]

I believe the LoTR films used an aspect ratio of 2.40:1 but yes 2.35:1 is much more common in epic feature films.

"2.35:1" and "2.40:1" refer to the same aspect ratio. The exposed frame and the projected image rarely match exactly, because the projected imaged is generally matted in the projector to cover frame lines and the like. I don't pretend to understand the technical details myself, but film restorationist Robert Harris (My Fair Lady, Spartacus) has assured me that this is the case and I believe him. See The Widescreen Advocacy Page for more detailed information on film formats and aspect ratios.

So yes, the proposed B5 film would be exactly the same AR as LoTR, 2001, Star Wars, etc. - wider than, say, Young Frankenstein or Airplane!.

Regards,

Joe

The only matting in a projector is done by the aperture plate. Different aperture plates are used for different aspect ratios, with the proper size and shape hole cut for the aspect ratio/film stock being projected. Without the aperture plate, white from the projection lamp would show on the sides of the frame, and parts of the preceeding and following frames would show on the top and bottom. I know that they must be cut slightly undersized, so that you don't see anything you're not supposed to see. I'd always thought they were cut in the exact ratio of the film stock, but perhaps the plates are cut a bit off, due to the different nature of the top/bottom, and the sides, producing the 2.40:1 ratio. At any rate, 2.35:1 is what is considered the widest standard existing aspect ratio. That aspect ratio was introduced, or at least made a standard, in 1953, by Cinemascope, deliberately to do something different, presumably grander than TV. The Robe was the first Cinemascope release. There were much earlier widescreen films, of various aspect ratios. I don't have my reference books with me, but an early talkie western, I think the 1929 "The Virginian", used a wide screen format. I think the widest format ever used was 2.95:1. The first Cinerama films, which used three projectors, were in 2.85:1 and 2.75:1.

At one time, after 1.85:1 became the norm, 2.35:1 was a sure sign of a rather big budget film, but since Super 35 is often used for it these days, I don't think that the aspect ratio alone says it is very big budget, but it is obviously a theatrical film, so for JMS it will be a big budget. And, in the theater, 2.35:1 means that they open the masking wide, for a bigger picture.

I agree with Joe and others, that the director is a big concern, since in the feature film world, they rule. I, too, hope that MIke Vejar, or Janet Greek will be at the helm. Not just because I think they are best suited to do justice to JMS's work, but because it could well give them some well-deserved recognition, and elevation in the biz.

I disagree with Grumbler who said that JMS isn't good at long stories. I know what he means, that his TV movies have not all been his best work. But I think that JMS is great at long stories - VERY long stories, which is what B5 is. The problem is, it takes him a while to really get rolling. Even a long feature film doesn't give him that long. Of course, I very much want him to be successful, and us pleased, so I hope he takes all of the time he needs, and makes it good!


EDIT: That early talkie western in wide screen was actually "The Big Trail", 1930, in "Grandeur," which was 2:1. I checked my references.

 

[KoshN]

Hope he's got some good science advisors this time, who can at least get basic physics right, and not have obvious errors like he had in Crusade (just off the top on my head):

<snippage>

What, like you're somehow going to do BETTER than the NASA space scientists at JPL...??

Then explain how they missed all the stuff I listed, and how it jumped right off the screen at me. I suspect the NASA space scientists at JPL were sleeping (They had to have been unconscious.), or JMS didn't take their advice.

 

[A_M_Swallow]

Then explain how they missed all the stuff I listed, and how it jumped right off the screen at me. I suspect the NASA space scientists at JPL were sleeping (They had to have been unconscious.), or JMS didn't take their advice.

Or being a rushed episode, they were not consulted.

 

[grumbler]

Then explain how they missed all the stuff I listed, and how it jumped right off the screen at me. I suspect the NASA space scientists at JPL were sleeping (They had to have been unconscious.), or JMS didn't take their advice.

KoshN, three examples (one of which you admit to be incomplete) doesn't equal "all that stuff" wrong with the series.

The bullet train travels at a peak speed of 120MPH or so, but the average is far, far less, due to acceleration and deceleration.

Helm orders didn't make sense to me at all (and I was 26 years in the Navy) but I just ignored all of those blunders because I knew JMS was just writing stuff that "sounded right" and didn't have the time to have some navy dude read it and tell him what orders should have been given).

None of the "errors" listed were significant and none were things JPL would be involved in.

 

[KoshN]

Then explain how they missed all the stuff I listed, and how it jumped right off the screen at me. I suspect the NASA space scientists at JPL were sleeping (They had to have been unconscious.), or JMS didn't take their advice.

Or being a rushed episode, they were not consulted.

Which were rushed episodes, Racing the Night, The Needs of Earth, or The Path of Sorrows? The first two were among the first five shot (the pre-interference episodes that were the last to go through post production, due to TNT), but does that mean they were "rushed?" "Path" was a black-uniform TNT ep., but was generally a very good episode as well.

As for being not consulted, well, the JPL credit[1] was prominently displayed across the end of every Crusade ep. If stuff like I listed is going to make it through, what is the value of that credit, bragging rights for JMS/WB? It reminds me of a storefront in an old TV western, mostly for show.

Maybe JMS just consulted them on more of a case-by-case basis, when he were unsure of something he wanted to do in a script. If that's the case, he should have either run it all past JPL (scripts and screenings), or had a full time science advisor on the set.

[1]
Technical Advisors
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
JPL
California Institute
of Technology

 

[KoshN]

Then explain how they missed all the stuff I listed, and how it jumped right off the screen at me. I suspect the NASA space scientists at JPL were sleeping (They had to have been unconscious.), or JMS didn't take their advice.

KoshN, three examples (one of which you admit to be incomplete) doesn't equal "all that stuff" wrong with the series.

The bullet train travels at a peak speed of 120MPH or so, but the average is far, far less, due to acceleration and deceleration.

True, but the average tube trip was probably a lot shorter than the maximum possible length that I listed. Most trips seemed to be to and from the bridge, which is near the center of the ship (e.g. bridge to flight deck, and vice-versa, bridge to med bay, etc.).

Helm orders didn't make sense to me at all (and I was 26 years in the Navy) but I just ignored all of those blunders because I knew JMS was just writing stuff that "sounded right" and didn't have the time to have some navy dude read it and tell him what orders should have been given).

Again, true, but some of it falls into the realm of common sense. e.g. Matheson's warning to Gideon about using the main guns in Racing the Night. We've seen how smartly the Excalibur's engines can accelerate the ship (e.g. The Needs of Earth, The Well of Forever, etc.). Now if they're resisting with full engine output and are still losing ground, the order to route almost all engine power to the main guns should have elicited a much stronger warning from Matheson, and the act itself should have caused a marked change in ship motion. Not having either of these happen puts the scene into the realm of Wile E. Coyote not falling until he sees he should be falling.

None of the "errors" listed were significant and none were things JPL would be involved in.

I was hoping that if JPL was listed as "Technical Advisors" that they'd have reviewed 100% of every episode, and not let "Wile E. Coyote" moments slip through.

 

[PsionTen]

Rangers suffered a lot more from a studio and network that were not on the same page and Sci-Fi's own indecision about what kind of show it wanted, not to mention a too-small budget and too-rushed schedule (especially the writing schedule) than is generally realized, in part because JMS never talks about it directly. (Before their final break he did much the same with TNT, putting the best possible "spin" on their notes and decisions, because he planned to work with those people in the future and wanted to be able to get along.)

Why is it that whenever JMS makes something that sucks there's always budget problems, studio problems, scheduling problems ... etc? Is it so inconceivable that he just made something that sucks? Isn't JMS, like every other human being, allowed to make something that isn't that good? Why do we always have to go through this convoluted treadmill to explain why something JMS did wasn't good? Rangers did suck, there's no getting around that, but hopefully this new project will be better.

 

[vacantlook]

I think I might be the only person who actually liked Legend of the Rangers. I didn't think it was perfect or anything, but I still enjoyed it.

 

[colonyearth]

Ok....time for the filmmaker to weigh in on a few things here. First of all, JDM is right on aspect ratios. There are two standard ratios in practice today, 1.85:1 (Flat) and 2.35:1 (Scope). Spielberg used to shoot in Scope until "E.T", after which he predominantly started shooting in Flat (though I'm a big Scope fan myself, I feel it gives a film a broader and more epic canvas, making it feel wider like the horizon and thus grander in scale and feel). This is why LOTR was shot in 2.35:1 to give it that epic feel(and yes it was 2.35:1...period). This is why Spielberg returned to Scope for "Schindler's List" as well.

The fact that JMS hints at a 2.35:1 ratio gives me the impression that they are looking at Scope for the film, which means they're going for a grand epic feel and look. This is a wonderful sign.

As for the director's ego. Yes, that can be a problem, but it can also be an asset, if you find the right director. Whether it's TV or film, a director will always bring their own vision to the project, period. The trick is finding a director who shares the main vision but who can bring his own style and approach in such a way that it complements the story. I feel pretty confident that JMS has contracted many "controls" over this project. I'm also fairly confident that he won't just be the screenwriter on this but a Producer as well, therefore giving him a great deal of power on the set and over the production and over choice of director and other lead crew and supporting cast, etc.

A good producer will work closely as a team with a director. In Hollywood today, the producer and the director (unless your Spielberg or Scorsese and even then they still are), are a team these days...trying to work in tandem to create the best film. This is the goal at least. Sometimes it works, sometimes it don't...that's why I'm certain JMS will do his best to find the right man for job. Someone who will respect JMS's vision and still have his own with which to complement it. If you try to control or limit any director's vision for a film, then it's over...shut the project down because it will end up terrible. Film is a collaborative medium and the best directors out there are the ones who either have a great talent at taking their vision and collaborating seamlessly with his cast and crew to foster extreme creativity on the set, or is someone like Kubrick who's vision was so solid in his head he simply expected people to do as he asked and trust him. Few directors have reached the genius of Kubrick, and the level of respect and awe he fostered in those around him though.

So as to letting a TV director take the reigns...I would really be a lot more leery of that than finding a proven and visionary feature director who loved and respected JMS's work and wanted to enhance that vision with his own. A few examples of TV directors going big screen are David Carson (ST: Generations), Jonathan Frakes (ST: First Contact and ST: Insurrection), and Rob Bowman (X-Files). The one thing all of these films have in common, is that they were all touted as feeling like two hour eps. on the big screen. Directing TV is a vastly different beast than features. The pacing and the vision are completely different. Besides, a TV director, being given his "big break" notoriously is afraid to ask for vital things he needs and to push the envelope of vision and scope and will accept less when he shouldn't because he doesn't have the clout to demand what he could and should demand from the studio, from the actors, from everyone. No, Vejar is an ok TV director, as is Greek and the others, but trust me...while I respect their work in B5, they are not ready to nor should they direct this feature. This has to work big and feel big. It's too risky to let a TV director take the reigns. Besides, as a director I can truly say that the times I find myself cringing at a bad performance in B5 it is usually due in one form or another to a poor directoral decision. A great director has the ability to draw performances from actors that others can't.

Example: Watch Hayden Cristianson in "Life as a House" and then watch him in "SW: AotC." The first performance is phenomenal the second is weak and aimless and missing passion. Do I blame an actor who I know is capable of a great performance? Or do I blame the director who commanded that weaker performance and didn't know how to tap into the actor's talent? Answer: I blame the director.

Compare Ewan McGregor's performances in "Moulin Rouge" and "SW." One is incredible, the other is plain and hollow.

Nicholas Meyer knew how to draw the best performance from Shatner which is why ST II and ST VI are two of the best. Nimoy discovered better how to do so by ST IV, but wasn't as capable in ST III, which was his first feature by the way.

Watch David Lynch's "Mullholland Drive." In that film there is a place where a character who's an actress performs the same scene two different ways and it will illustrate the power and influence a great director has.

A great director can even illicit a great performance from a lesser actor, or can find that talent that before was hidden and the actor feared to open up to the world. Nope. A TV director just doesn't have that level of influence and doesn't command that level of insight into the feature format and pacing and structure nor does he have that immense respect he will need to allow the cast to trust him and his vision.

As for DP, again, JMS must hire a great feature film cinematographer. Aspect ratio has nothing to do with the quality of lighting and look. And DP can change ratios and still be great or suck. It makes no difference on the talent or knowledge. It's the director who will or won't know how to use the Scope frame to its fullest, the DP is simply there to make sure it's done. The DP is the master in charge of the look and feel of the image itself and he must work closely and in tandem with the director who must also have a grasp on his vision from moment to moment and frame to frame and be capable of communicating that vision to the DP (and everyone for that matter). While Flinn did some good work on the series, JMS needs to find a great feature DP for "TMoS." Otherwise it will end up looking like an ep. on the big screen. Feature lighting is very different and much more complex.

As for Franke...given more time (which he will have) and more money (which he will have) and the opportunity to compose for a full orchestra (which he will have), he is the one person behind the camera (other than JMS, himself) who I believe has the ability to move to the big screen. His talent is wondrous and I have faith that he would deliver a fantastic score. However, that being said, I also wouldn't be surprised if WB and JMS didn't try to get someone with epic scoring abilities like Howard or Horner or Shore. If they've decided on an epic LOTR scale feel (which my instincts tell me they have and are going to try for), then they're going to want a composer who can deliver one without question.

Remember, this will be B5 on the big screen, epic in size and scope. It will have to be bigger than it ever has before to pull it off and find a wider audience. It will have to have a newer, grander look and feel. JMS, though loyal to crew, will have to admit this to himself, and go for what's best for the project if this is going to be a success on the scale it needs to be. It's how I would approach it and it's how WB and JMS will have to approach it if they're smart. They don't want to make the horrible mistakes that ST did with the TNG films (mainly by bringing all if the TV people to the features...they were out of their element and didn't understand big screen feel).

B5 has to leap to a higher level now. And TV folk just aren't going to be up to the challenge and worth the risk they're taking here. History has proven it. Rarely are TV people able to instantly or ever make the leap to features and be praised for it and draw large audiences. It's not going to be worth the risk and JMS has to accept that.

Again, you cannot stifle the director's vision. It's an ensemble effort and every great film usually has been. JMS has to find people who understand and respect his vision, but who are capable and not afraid to bring their own.

He has his work cut out for him. As for those of you who I've read on here dogging out JMS...shame on you. Oh ye of little faith. I'm certain that, even as tired and drained as he was after B5 and at the beginning of CRUSADE, JMS would've delivered another phenomenal series and story with CRUSADE. I was already being drawn into another wonderful and mysterious story with great and well developed characters. I know JMS would've delivered. Did you all forget S1 of B5? It was all build-up, exposition, character developement and revelation and story set-up. To a degree most of us didn't realize the first time we saw it. But look at it now...yes there were some weak eps. But look at how much set-up there was in S1. And I could tell from 13 eps just how much set-up he was doing in CRUSADE already. For a pilot, LoTR was wonderful compared to VOYAGER's (or any Trek premiere for that matter) or even THE GATHERING. I'm certain some things would've been changed and altered for a series. The characters were interesting and I know JMS well enough to know that we were in for massive revelation and mystery and character growth and developement in a series. What you see in a JMS pilot or premiere is rarely what it seems. Have none of you learned that one yet?

This time, it's a feature, not a pilot that has to introduce new characters and set up a series arc. He can concentrate on the story at hand and blowing us away with powerful emotion and passion, which we all know from B5 he's more than capable of doing.

"Faith manages" people. Those of you who don't trust JMS or have faith in him are no better than the suits who couldn't see what he did with B5 and realize that they should just get out of the way and let the master create. There are few writers or filmmakers I will ever use the word genius for: Kubrick...Spielberg...Scorsese...Ford...Demille...and a few more. JMS is one man on whom I easily use the term. He has vision and passion and the will and fortitude to bring it forth, even against great odds and is willing to never allow it to be distorted by outsiders. He can take a past, an idea told countless times, and re-envision it anew and exploding that vision forth from his soul, he carries his own hopes, fears, dreams, passions and beliefs. That is genius. And in the genius, though I do not always agree with them, I see wonder and inspiration that stands the test of time.

Do not judge something you have yet to see. JMS has yet to really let me down. CRUSADE never got the chance to fulfill its promise though the sign of promise was clearly evident. And LoTR never even got beyond its initial introduction to make it promises. You who judge without sight are no better than SG-1 fans I've run into who are already bad-mouthing and writing off SGA before it's even had the chance to hit the air. Shame. Are you a real fan, or a fair weather one? A real fan will stand by it until they have been completely and totally betrayed to the point where it hurts. This is how is was with me and Trek...I felt betrayed and used and no longer respected.

I could never believe JMS would do such a thing. And until he does...my faith and my hopes are in him.

Oh, and you who pick apart the technobabble details...if technobabble is so important to you...go watch Trek (which is made up shit anyway). The things you mentioned (and I'm a continuity nut) never bothered or even drew my attention to them. If the story is vast, the characters real and powerful...I could care less about the techno-crap. Do I buy it? That's all that matters. How it works or why is irrelevant, as long as it works and I believe that it works.

The bullet car could go that fast...it doesn't mean that it did always go that fast. It was based on Mag-lev technology. Which yes, has the ability to travel that fast...but in such a short amount of space would rarely have the need or even time to get to such a speed.

CRUSADE was for the most part technically accurate. Much more than any other SF series, including Trek, who just makes up whatever techno-junk they need when they need it, including words and theories. B5 didn't do that. JMS was as accurate as he could be within the confines of any given story and according to the laws and rules he had and has laid down for his universe. Sometimes, for story's sake you have to push or alter the willing suspension of disbelief to carry it off. If you do it right and well enough, your audience may not even catch it...or if they do, they won't really care much because you didn't make a big deal out of it and it didn't alter the universe forever or because the story was so wonderful that they simply didn't care.

If you want to get technical about it...all SF is beyond reality...so why do you care? Most of it is not possible theoretically. And that which is theoretically possible is centuries from realization, if not millenia. JMS has proven to me that he will make sense of everything he can and that he will repeatedly deliver amazing story and wonderful characters and I will leave his world carrying it with me...and in B5's case, changed forever.


"What is loved...endures. What is built...endures. And Babylon 5...Babylon 5 endures."

Peace,
CE

 

[Sigma]

B5:Rangers was bad because it was cheap and it looked cheap. You can't compare it to the feature. Story was OK - certainly better than in River of Souls or Thirdspace.

KoshN - movie budget is about 50-60mil, MOW only costs about 3-5mil. I'm sure they will pay a LOT more attention to the quality than they did with Crusade or Rangers.

 

[Lord Refa]

No, you're not the only one, I also liked Legend of the Rangers. It was much better then River of Souls, which to my opinion was the only B5 movie that sucked.

I am sure that the B5 feature film will be great, but from reading this thread, I am also convinced many fans will have a hard time enjoying any new B5 movie, miniseries or otherwise.

 

[A_M_Swallow]

Which were rushed episodes, Racing the Night, The Needs of Earth, or The Path of Sorrows? The first two were among the first five shot (the pre-interference episodes that were the last to go through post production, due to TNT), but does that mean they were "rushed?" "Path" was a black-uniform TNT ep., but was generally a very good episode as well.

The Rangers film. That is what you were talking about in the post I replied to.

I'm less likely to cut him some slack on TLaDiS, because he wasn't getting Crusade/TNT-Atlanta-level interference from Sci-Fi, or if he was, he hasn't mentioned it.

 

[Sigma]

Fantastic post CE - i agree 100%. Feature is a feature and MOW is a MOW.

Faith manages!

 

[Lord Refa]

CE, great post!
It's nice to see someone how feels a lot like I do, but who also knows how to put it to words.

 

[KoshN]

As for those of you who I've read on here dogging out JMS...shame on you. Oh ye of little faith.

If you're including me in that, and if I understand your "dogging out" correctly, I'm not trashing JMS. I'm just saying that I wished he'd run each Crusade episode past his JPL technical advisors. From the looks of it, I don't think he did. And if he did, they didn't do their job. That's all.

I'm certain that, even as tired and drained as he was after B5 and at the beginning of CRUSADE, JMS would've delivered another phenomenal series and story with CRUSADE. I was already being drawn into another wonderful and mysterious story with great and well developed characters. I know JMS would've delivered.

I agree. Ditto.

Did you all forget S1 of B5? It was all build-up, exposition, character developement and revelation and story set-up. To a degree most of us didn't realize the first time we saw it. But look at it now...yes there were some weak eps. But look at how much set-up there was in S1. And I could tell from 13 eps just how much set-up he was doing in CRUSADE already.

Again, agreed.

For a pilot, LoTR was wonderful compared to VOYAGER's (or any Trek premiere for that matter) or even THE GATHERING.

I'm with you on all but that last one, THE GATHERING.

I'm certain some things would've been changed and altered for a series. The characters were interesting and I know JMS well enough to know that we were in for massive revelation and mystery and character growth and developement in a series. What you see in a JMS pilot or premiere is rarely what it seems. Have none of you learned that one yet?

Except that unlike THE GATHERING, the B5:LotR pilot was built upon what had gone before, the five years of B5. The jump from B5 to A CALL TO ARMS seemed to line up better than the jump from B5 to the B5:LotR pilot.

This time, it's a feature, not a pilot that has to introduce new characters and set up a series arc. He can concentrate on the story at hand and blowing us away with powerful emotion and passion, which we all know from B5 he's more than capable of doing.

He still has to make the film accessible to fans outside B5 fandom, much like say Chris Carter had to do with the X-Files movie.

"Faith manages" people. Those of you who don't trust JMS or have faith in him are no better than the suits who couldn't see what he did with B5 and realize that they should just get out of the way and let the master create.

After what happened to Crusade and the B5:LotR pilot, I'm just apprehensive and anxious, saying a prayer (hoping there's somebody up there listening), and hoping for the best.

CRUSADE never got the chance to fulfill its promise though the sign of promise was clearly evident.

And that's what kills me about it. It was just starting to come together, and Poof, it's cancelled.

And LoTR never even got beyond its initial introduction to make it promises. You who judge without sight are no better than SG-1 fans I've run into who are already bad-mouthing and writing off SGA before it's even had the chance to hit the air. Shame.

Except that we are basing our criticism upon the B5:LotR pilot, which did air, and which we watched (several times in my case).

Are you a real fan, or a fair weather one? A real fan will stand by it until they have been completely and totally betrayed to the point where it hurts. This is how is was with me and Trek...I felt betrayed and used and no longer respected.

I could never believe JMS would do such a thing. And until he does...my faith and my hopes are in him.

TPTB would never give JMS that much rope.

Oh, and you who pick apart the technobabble details...if technobabble is so important to you...go watch Trek (which is made up shit anyway). The things you mentioned (and I'm a continuity nut) never bothered or even drew my attention to them.

The things I mentioned are not technobabble details. It's not made-up TrekSpeak, but simple, basic, real stuff.

If the story is vast, the characters real and powerful...I could care less about the techno-crap. Do I buy it? That's all that matters. How it works or why is irrelevant, as long as it works and I believe that it works.

The bullet car could go that fast...it doesn't mean that it did always go that fast. It was based on Mag-lev technology. Which yes, has the ability to travel that fast...but in such a short amount of space would rarely have the need or even time to get to such a speed.

Maybe it helps if you don't have a technical background. Then, it makes it easier to "buy it." Again though, I'm not talking about theoretical physics, just the basic stuff, the stuff the average Joe should notice.

CRUSADE was for the most part technically accurate. Much more than any other SF series, including Trek, who just makes up whatever techno-junk they need when they need it, including words and theories.

And that's what makes the parts I mentioned stand out like a sore thumb, to me. And let's not bring up Trek, 'cause B5/Crusade is in a whole different (higher) league.

 

[A_M_Swallow]

Oh, and you who pick apart the technobabble details...if technobabble is so important to you...go watch Trek (which is made up shit anyway). The things you mentioned (and I'm a continuity nut) never bothered or even drew my attention to them. If the story is vast, the characters real and powerful...I could care less about the techno-crap. Do I buy it? That's all that matters. How it works or why is irrelevant, as long as it works and I believe that it works.

The bullet car could go that fast...it doesn't mean that it did always go that fast. It was based on Mag-lev technology. Which yes, has the ability to travel that fast...but in such a short amount of space would rarely have the need or even time to get to such a speed.

We are engineers. If the bullet car does not need to go that fast we will fit a smaller and cheaper engine.

CRUSADE was for the most part technically accurate. Much more than any other SF series, including Trek, who just makes up whatever techno-junk they need when they need it, including words and theories. B5 didn't do that. JMS was as accurate as he could be within the confines of any given story and according to the laws and rules he had and has laid down for his universe. Sometimes, for story's sake you have to push or alter the willing suspension of disbelief to carry it off. If you do it right and well enough, your audience may not even catch it...or if they do, they won't really care much because you didn't make a big deal out of it and it didn't alter the universe forever or because the story was so wonderful that they simply didn't care.

If you want to get technical about it...all SF is beyond reality...so why do you care? Most of it is not possible theoretically. And that which is theoretically possible is centuries from realization, if not millenia. JMS has proven to me that he will make sense of everything he can and that he will repeatedly deliver amazing story and wonderful characters and I will leave his world carrying it with me...and in B5's case, changed forever.


"What is loved...endures. What is built...endures. And Babylon 5...Babylon 5 endures."

Babylon 5 is build able (except for the jump gates). One of the things good SF does is challenge scientists and engineers to build the machine.

It is not accidental that yesterday I posted an article on NASA's proposed space repair robot and a picture of the Babylon 5 maintenance bot. The posting on the Babylon 5 moderated newsgroup meant here is the machine you requested.

 

[KoshN]

Which were rushed episodes, Racing the Night, The Needs of Earth, or The Path of Sorrows? The first two were among the first five shot (the pre-interference episodes that were the last to go through post production, due to TNT), but does that mean they were "rushed?" "Path" was a black-uniform TNT ep., but was generally a very good episode as well.

The Rangers film. That is what you were talking about in the post I replied to.

The stuff I listed was all about Crusade (Post #245921 - 05/02/04 12:39 PM).

Above in Post #245932 - 05/02/04 02:47 PM, I gave a link where JMS specifically said that the Rangers film was not rushed. That's why I thought you were not talking about the Rangers film.

 

[PsionTen]

I am sure that the B5 feature film will be great, but from reading this thread, I am also convinced many fans will have a hard time enjoying any new B5 movie, miniseries or otherwise.

I suppose that depends on whether the B5 movie, miniseries or otherwise is any good or not. Fans shouldn't be expected to enjoy something that they don't think is very good.

As for those of you who I've read on here dogging out JMS...shame on you.

We dog out Berman for Voyager, Lucas for Phantom Menace, and countless others for putting out stuff we don't like, so why is JMS any more sacred than they are?

 

[vacantlook]

<insert breath here>

@ CE

Edit: Just finished reading all the various replies.

<insert even more breaths>

@ everyone else

 

[rangerPHIL]

1. I agree with CE.

2. I don't know about you lot, but a lot of the posts seem to criticise things instead of looking forward to what is to come. We have had some good news recently and all some people seem to want to do is find faults.

COME ON GUYS ( and gals ) !

We should be all now looking forward to B5 TMOS , not looking to the past but looking to the future!