crofootski
Regular
To PsionTen:
*I* liked Voyager. (Maybe I'm not your average Trek fan, though. Whatever...)
*I* liked Voyager. (Maybe I'm not your average Trek fan, though. Whatever...)
-
The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.
A new JMS message and hint 4/29
- Thread starter Jan
- Start date
crofootski
Regular
To Elenopa:
I also liked "Grail" and "River of Souls", although I didn't really care too much for "Grey 17 is Missing" (the Marcus/Neroon part was good, however).
I also didn't particularly like Thirdspace, either.
I also liked "Grail" and "River of Souls", although I didn't really care too much for "Grey 17 is Missing" (the Marcus/Neroon part was good, however).
I also didn't particularly like Thirdspace, either.
Sindatur
Regular
The thing with the B5 Proper, episodes that had a weakness in them, is that all the B5 episodes had at least an A and a B story, even when the A stories weren't that good (Grey 17, and TKO) is that the B stories were very good.
The only B5 related episode/Movie I didn't appreciate was LotR. 3rd Space had it's moments, the two episodes lsted above had great B stroies, plus Walker's "Watch your Back Mikey". I don't think I've ever seen LotR all the way through, (Seen bits and pieces about 3 or 4 times, though) so perhaps that's why I'm not fond of it
The only B5 related episode/Movie I didn't appreciate was LotR. 3rd Space had it's moments, the two episodes lsted above had great B stroies, plus Walker's "Watch your Back Mikey". I don't think I've ever seen LotR all the way through, (Seen bits and pieces about 3 or 4 times, though) so perhaps that's why I'm not fond of it
vacantlook
Super Moderator
"TKO"
Shaal Mayan
Regular
Well I also liked Grail,River Of Souls and Grey 17 is missing and even TKO and more the hated Infection which I think has it's good points.Rangers I also would have made an excellant series had it been given half and chance to be given the go ahead.
While waiting for that slow site to load, I thought posting the dates and subjects of messages at www.JMSnews.com, where JMS hints at this project:
07-30-2003 - Re: ATTN. JMS - Crusade dead for good?
08-29-2003 - Jerry Doyle hopeful of B5 revival
09-27-2003 - update from jms
11-30-2003 - RE: attn. JMS: Update?
01-29-2004 - Re: JMS New Babylon 5 related project
02-26-2004 - jms update v1.0
03-19-2004 - quick note
04-29-2004 - from jms
I believe these are all the messages where hintes were given.
Note that talks about the feature film probably started in July 2003!!
KoshN
Super Moderator
JMS said that wasn't a problem.
From: Subject: Re: SFC management - 04/09/2002 04:54 PM
KoshN (It was my question.): "It looks like TLaDiS suffered from a lack of time to develop a script, a lack of resources (the B5/Crusade CGI files), and lack of time to re-develop the CGI that was lost. They were under time pressure to produce something before it could be affected by the looming strikes."
JMS: "Not true."
JMS: "The script worked fine, the CGI worked fine, the time constraints were not an issue."
Think about In the Beginning; how many people just thought is was the greatest movie ever made...
Well, it was (ItB - the best B5 movie ever made). ACtA came in second.
My issues with LotR were "concerns" not "complaints." The thing was done and filmed before I ever saw it, so complaining wouldn't do any good. But the concerns I had were that JMS was either not soliciting, or not listening to, advice (because anyone could have told him about the overuse of the "we live for one one..." line and most would have been able to tell him the weapons control system was silly as used). It is natural that JMS canot see his own work in persepctive - it is his work, after all, and he is human. However, for those kinds of things to go un-noticed by anyone else tells me that JMS needs badly to have someone who can tell him when something isn't working.
I was heartened by CE's confidence that there will be a powerful movie-style director on this project. I hope that such a collaberation will bring out the best in both scripting and visuals, and that my concerns as raised by TLotR will prove unfounded.
I was heartened by CE's confidence that there will be a powerful movie-style director on this project. I hope that such a collaberation will bring out the best in both scripting and visuals, and that my concerns as raised by TLotR will prove unfounded.
And that's my point.
"Not that bad" doesn't mean "good." "Not that bad" is what you say when (for whatever reason) you're trying to spare somebody's feelings. "Not that bad" is the ultimate backhanded compliment. "Not that bad" is a show you forget almost as soon as you watch it. "Not that bad" is the kind of show we wouldn't even be talking about right now if it weren't for the fact that JMS made it. "Not that bad" is half the shows on UPN. "Not that bad" is a gunshot wound that doesn't hit vital organs. "Not that bad" is what a doctor says before he jams a needle in your arm....
I liked parachute pants.
Jade Jaguar
Regular
I found Rangers entertaining and enjoyable, much more than most TV dramas, and showing promise for the future, if it had been picked up as a series. But, it wasn't JMS's best work by any means. From what I have seen of JMS's work, he needs time to get it up and rolling, because he tells epics, not short stories. That is a hard way to play in TV today, which cancels things very quickly. But, I would hope that at least we fans would understand that about JMS, and stick with him, given the chance, while he develops, and not totally dismiss based on a single show, like LotR.
P.S. to Kosomot: I also checked the IMDb tech specs pages for the other two LOTR films, and found no mention of Panavision there either. Both shot in Super 35, 2.35:1, but with a bigger variety of lenses. Panavision is not Super 35, and requires Panavision lenses, I believe, unless CE knows better. Though other Co.s make similar lenses, to advertise something in Panavision, they would have to use Panavision lenses, and pay Panavision for the rights to do so. Perhaps your source was using Panavision as sort of a generic term for the wide aspect ratio, as many so use Cinemascope, even though that too is a trademark, and refers to a particular version of the tech. These days I believe that 2.35:1 films are commonly refered to as "scope films" in the industry, whether or not they are actually Cinemascope.
P.S. to Kosomot: I also checked the IMDb tech specs pages for the other two LOTR films, and found no mention of Panavision there either. Both shot in Super 35, 2.35:1, but with a bigger variety of lenses. Panavision is not Super 35, and requires Panavision lenses, I believe, unless CE knows better. Though other Co.s make similar lenses, to advertise something in Panavision, they would have to use Panavision lenses, and pay Panavision for the rights to do so. Perhaps your source was using Panavision as sort of a generic term for the wide aspect ratio, as many so use Cinemascope, even though that too is a trademark, and refers to a particular version of the tech. These days I believe that 2.35:1 films are commonly refered to as "scope films" in the industry, whether or not they are actually Cinemascope.
PsiOnTen: Do you have anything positive to mention in reaction to JMS's good news? We already know you didn't like Rangers, so why do you keep bringing it up? You don't hear anyone else talking about the millions of mistakes made in the B5 series.
Oh, and stop bringing up Star Trek, it has absolutely nothing to do with B5, and therefore cannot be used as comparison material.
You know, I really LOVED the gunnery pod in Rangers, and I think we may get to see it in the Feature film. If not, JMS will find another way to put up his middlefinger to all you suckers!
Oh, and stop bringing up Star Trek, it has absolutely nothing to do with B5, and therefore cannot be used as comparison material.
You know, I really LOVED the gunnery pod in Rangers, and I think we may get to see it in the Feature film. If not, JMS will find another way to put up his middlefinger to all you suckers!
KoshN
Super Moderator
You know, I really LOVED the gunnery pod in Rangers, and I think we may get to see it in the Feature film. If not, JMS will find another way to put up his middlefinger to all you suckers!
Only if he wants to shoot himself in the foot with this:
30mm, ~4000 round/min. cannon off an A-10 Warthog.
Everyone's entitled to their own opinion. You're not right and you're not wrong. That's in the nature of opinions. However, what is needed now is cheerleading, not nitpickery.
I myself didn't care for TKO, Grail, Grey 17, Thirdspace or River of Souls. But I bought (or will buy, in the case of those not yet out) the DVD for each, and I watched the shows avidly (including the commercials which paid for them). Babylon 5 was the best science fiction ever made for television, and if there is a feature film or (please God!) a new series, I will catch every episode.
So you, Mr. Advertiser, or Ms. Financier, please pay JMS and crew lots of money to bring back our beloved B5!
I myself didn't care for TKO, Grail, Grey 17, Thirdspace or River of Souls. But I bought (or will buy, in the case of those not yet out) the DVD for each, and I watched the shows avidly (including the commercials which paid for them). Babylon 5 was the best science fiction ever made for television, and if there is a feature film or (please God!) a new series, I will catch every episode.
So you, Mr. Advertiser, or Ms. Financier, please pay JMS and crew lots of money to bring back our beloved B5!
Yes, it was in my first post ... so do I get a cookie now?
I don't keep bringing it up. I'm replying to others who keep bringing it up. That's typically how places like this work ... someone posts something and others respond, it's a neat little system.
Actually, there have been some posts about that, but I was specifically responding to comments made about Rangers.
I'm hardly the only one here that's brought up Trek. Your outrage seems somewhat selective.
I never even mentioned the kickboxing gunnery pod, but now that I do, it was pretty damn silly to be honest.
colonyearth
Regular
Such a reason is why I feel strongly that JMS must find a good, visionary feature director. It is the melding of visions that create the best films oftentimes. Especially when a director has such an incredible talent and vision to work with like JMS and B5. It can do nothing less than to inspire.
colonyearth
Regular
I feel like we keep coming back to this. In this day and age, the term Panavision is for the type of camera, not an aspect ratio. There are 16mm, 35mm, super35mm, 70mm Panavision cameras. Arriflex and other manufacturers (like Panavision) all can shoot in any aspect ratio. That has to do with lenses and framing. Most 2.35:1 films are shot on super 35 or 70mm (which looks fantastic but is very expensive). If you've ever noticed the term "anamorphic widescreen" that is in reference to the process. You see, film does not automatically shoot in 2.35:1. 35 and super 35 shoot usually in 1.85:1 ratio with a slight cropping going on...it's in the framing. However, "scope" is acheived by the lense. It basically takes a vista that wide and through lense magic, squeezes it down to fit onto the super35 stock. Then when it's projected, the projector uses another lense to un-squeeze the image. That is were the term "anamorphic" comes from...that is the process. Film stock is not large enough to get a natural 2.35:1 aspect ratio...unless you framed it that way and "zoomed" and "cropped" which would basically accentuate the grain of the stock...which is bad. I believe there may be another process to acheive scope, but since I've not been using film stocks for some time, I'm a bit out of practice on certain processes. The standard, however, is anamorphic.
You can probably do a web search for "anamorphic widescreen" if you wish to learn more.
Feature's that don't use any lensing effects, show up as the 1.85:1 ratio.
Hope that helps...
CE
PS: I also found Rangers entertaining and enjoyable. I liked all but one of the actors and liked the characters. I felt they had promise. As for the mystery of The Hand, I'm sure in a universe that JMS has mapped out 1 million yrs in either direction and 1000 yrs in either direction in detail, he knew who they were and how they fit in. I don't get the impression they were a new creation necessarily...but something we just either hadn't seen yet that JMS had planned, or were something we had seen and the mystery was yet to be revealed as to just who they were(which, knowing JMS, would've been a moment when we all collectively gasped in revelation).
rangerPHIL
Beyond the rim
I still go with my original opinion of James Cameron on the directors issue.
I can't quite figure out why - something in my blood just tells me that he is the one.
I can't quite figure out why - something in my blood just tells me that he is the one.
I have to agree with PsionTen here. DeMartino's post was the first I've heard of Rangers' quality not being what JMS intended. Whether or not JMS wants to avoid burning bridges we have to take what he says at face value and he does seem to indicate that the script we saw was what he wanted. From previous contraversies JMS seems more likely to not comment on something than lie and put a pretty face on a situation to sell his stuff.
It is completely reasonable to ask where Joe got the idea that Rangers had the same kind of difficulties from missmanagement that Crusade had.
A general consensus often comes about about works of art/pop culture. For Rangers it seems to be that it was not all that good. That does not mean it applies for everyone. I personally did not like Moby Dick, I found Ishmael to be an unsympathetic jerk and the endless minutiae about whaling tedious and superfulous.
It is completely reasonable to ask where Joe got the idea that Rangers had the same kind of difficulties from missmanagement that Crusade had.
A general consensus often comes about about works of art/pop culture. For Rangers it seems to be that it was not all that good. That does not mean it applies for everyone. I personally did not like Moby Dick, I found Ishmael to be an unsympathetic jerk and the endless minutiae about whaling tedious and superfulous.
