Face the fact - B5 is dead

[Enlightened_GKar]

The statement "Babylon 5" is dead -- as most of us have stated -- is semantical. Babylon 5 told its story and lived its term. It "died" because J. Michael Strazcynski had planned it to end that way many years prior to its "death."
I feel that ended is a much more preferable word to "died."

As for the Babylon 5 franchise itself, I believe it is sorely dry of inspiration and practice. Crusade ended harshly; Rangers ceased even more abruptly. Crusade is easily blamable due to its lack of interest in science fiction of all mediums. Rangers, on the other hand, was brought to the screen via the Sci-Fi Channel.

"All I can say for now is that, like Oliver Stone's project for TNT, Witchblade, we have found that TNT (known primarily for westerns, historical dramas and wrestling) is not SF-friendly in terms of really getting what SF is about, and it may not entirely reconcile with what their core audience expects from them...and that a new, more SF friendly venue is being explored." -J. Michael Straczynski, wish listing after Crusade's cancellation

The true defeat in The Legend of the Rangers unsucessful debut is that the Sci-Fi Channel -- the television haven of science fiction -- turned its back on the Babylon 5 franchise. For whatever shallow, ill-suited reason, LotR got the plug pulled. Despite the strong praise garnered from Babylon 5, Crusade and Legend of the Rangers halted rapidly and disgracefully as well. Such a swift final to two potentially breathtaking series is demoralizing, at best, for its creater.

J. Michael Straczynski appears to have placed his focus on other projects (Jeremiah, Polaris, and Spider-Man among others). I do not know the man, so I could not say if he has moved beyond the Babylon 5 franchise and all the sorrow that came with it. I do not know enough about writing, nor do I know enough about J. Michael Straczynski's devotion to his science fiction creation. I do not know these things, but what I do know is that if you want something, you have to create it.

It has been nearly seven years since "Sleeping in Light" (11/25/98) premiered. Furthermore, it has been over three years since Legend of the Rangers (01/19/02). Entil'zha Ivanova -- and J. Michael Straczynski through her -- said it and said it well: "It [Babylon 5] taught us we have to create the future, or others will do it for us."

If you want the future, this legacy, to continue, then create it. Make it happen. Make it real.

"I'm looking forward to seeing what other writers can do in the B5 universe." -J. Michael Straczynski on his plans to write less for Crusade

What is so powerful about the quote above is that it also shines as a mandate.

 

[tlsmith1963]

What interview is that? Your phrasing seems to indicate that you feel JMS is avoiding writing more B5 when what he says is that if somebody comes to him with a cool idea and can make it work, he's there. The proof is that he *did* write the script for TMoS when the rights were optioned. The main story he wanted to tell, that he needed to tell, though has been told. The rest would be lagniappe for him.

Key parts of that paragraph is ...if somebody comes to him...

He's being passive about things in the B5 universe. He's not going out to others but is depending upon others to come to him. With respect to things in the B5 universe, after Crusade, the B5:Legend of the Rangers pilot, Babylon 5: The Memory of Shadows, and the blown opportunity for new B5 universe novels, I SERIOUSLY doubt that ANYbody is going to come to him with a new idea for something in the B5 universe.

The situation just infinitely SUCKS.

Meanwhile, Battlestar Galactica gets all the press like it created the concept of "complex human stories" and "well-constructed and dramatic and emotional" stories in sci-fi TV, and Bonnie Hammer is treated as some kind of authority who champions the cause of sci-fi.
Sci-fi seeks critical mass

Bonnie Hammer?
> "There is this horrible misconception that science fiction is for
> somebody else, not for me," says Bonnie Hammer,
> president of Sci Fi Channel and > USA, who campaigns
> daily to convince skeptics that today's TV genre
> encompasses more than space and special effects.
> "It's speculative fiction, it's the imagination, it's anything
> outside what we know to be true, it's the not-quantifiable,"
> she says. In her seven years overseeing Sci Fi
> programming, its series have been repositioned not as
> fantastic adventures but relatably soul-driven dramas.

Well, she talks the talk, but often doesn't walk the walk.

This from the woman delivered <utter sarcasm>such gems </utter sarcasm>
as "Crossing Over With John Edward," "Dream Team With Annabelle and
Michael," "In Search Of..." (Mitch Pileggi) and "Scare Tactics?"

This from the woman who is over The Sci-Fi Channel and who backed
"Bloodsuckers" a show about intergalactic vampires, and passed on
"Polaris", because Sci-Fi has deemed "Polaris" (the new J. Michael
Straczynski project, which Sci-Fi/Universal *could* own) as "too
science-fictiony." Yes, you heard right, "TOO SCIENCE-FICTIONY" for
The Sci-Fi Channel. See:
http://www.hill-kleerup.org/blog/mtarchive/003417.html

This from the woman who airs such utterly bad original movies that they
are strictly Mystery Science Theater 3000 fodder? (e.g. Mansquito,
Snakehead Terror, Interceptor Force, Interceptor Force 2, Pythons,
Anaconda, etc.)


This from the woman who said in 2002:

**************************************************
Sci Fi president Bonnie Hammer said the network will broaden its program
scope to bring in a wider audience, adding more fantasy-themed shows and
paring down some of its space-and-alien-themed action fare.

"We have to change the perception that Sci Fi is a narrow niche that's
driven by aliens," she said. '
**************************************************

The above attitude results in "human-only" shows (Battlestar Galactica, Firefly), and a look-down-the-nose sneer towards any shows that dare to show "aliens" and fans who like such shows.


The ONLY reason The Hammer took a chance on "Battlestar Galactica"
(2003+), a show that featured <shudder><S> spaceships, was because it
was a UNIVERSAL (Studios) property.

Actually, BSG is a good show. I didn't expect it to be, but it is. Does Hammer have anything to do with how good it is? I doubt it. I still wish they would get rid of her.

Tammy

PS--Unfortunately, I came across the film Mansquito one night. Yes, it would have fit in perfectly on MST-3000. I feel sorry for the people who were in it. Yes it probably paid the bills, but what an embarassing thing to have on your resume.

Tammy

 

[RW7427]

The true defeat in The Legend of the Rangers unsucessful debut is that the Sci-Fi Channel -- the television haven of science fiction -- turned its back on the Babylon 5 franchise. For whatever shallow, ill-suited reason, LotR got the plug pulled. Despite the strong praise garnered from Babylon 5, Crusade and Legend of the Rangers halted rapidly and disgracefully as well. Such a swift final to two potentially breathtaking series is demoralizing, at best, for its creater

Well said!

 

[KoshN]

**************************************************
Sci Fi president Bonnie Hammer said the network will broaden its program
scope to bring in a wider audience, adding more fantasy-themed shows and
paring down some of its space-and-alien-themed action fare.

"We have to change the perception that Sci Fi is a narrow niche that's
driven by aliens," she said. '
**************************************************

The above attitude results in "human-only" shows (Battlestar Galactica, Firefly), and a look-down-the-nose sneer towards any shows that dare to show "aliens" and fans who like such shows.


The ONLY reason The Hammer took a chance on "Battlestar Galactica"
(2003+), a show that featured <shudder><S> spaceships, was because it
was a UNIVERSAL (Studios) property.

Actually, BSG is a good show. I didn't expect it to be, but it is.

I don't think I've ever said that "Battlestar Galactica" (2003+) wasn't a good show. Mind you, I've only seen the miniseries (Saw it on Sci-Fi and bought the DVD.), but I doubt the show went to hell since then. Some of the better respected people on r.a.s.t. seem to like it, and I plan on getting the Season 1 DVD set, though which one, I don't know. I'll probably wait for the general release version, but I'm really tempted to get the Best Buy set that comes out on July 26th.


I just object to Bonnie Hammer's tendency to downplay shows that include aliens (like B5), all the while producing tons of horrid, MST3K-able movies, using money that could be better spent on much better sci-fi like a <u>Crusade</u> restart.

Does Hammer have anything to do with how good it is? I doubt it. I still wish they would get rid of her.

Hammer might have been somewhat responsible for bringing "Battlestar Galactica" (2003+) to fruition, and IMHO, that's a good thing. It's just that it seems to be fashionable now to do "all-human" sci-fi shows (Battlestar Galactica (2003+), Firefly, etc.), and look down upon shows that feature aliens, and that bodes ill for shows set in my favorite universe of all time, the B5 universe.

 

[A_M_Swallow]

Hammer might have been somewhat responsible for bringing "Battlestar Galactica" (2003+) to fruition, and IMHO, that's a good thing. It's just that it seems to be fashionable now to do "all-human" sci-fi shows (Battlestar Galactica (2003+), Firefly, etc.), and look down upon shows that feature aliens, and that bodes ill for shows set in my favorite universe of all time, the B5 universe.

Do not despair too quickly. There are lots of aliens in the latest series of Doctor Who. It was a top 10 show in Britain, up against the soap operas.

 

[KoshN]

Hammer might have been somewhat responsible for bringing "Battlestar Galactica" (2003+) to fruition, and IMHO, that's a good thing. It's just that it seems to be fashionable now to do "all-human" sci-fi shows (Battlestar Galactica (2003+), Firefly, etc.), and look down upon shows that feature aliens, and that bodes ill for shows set in my favorite universe of all time, the B5 universe.

Do not despair too quickly. There are lots of aliens in the latest series of Doctor Who. It was a top 10 show in Britain, up against the soap operas.

[to the music of "I want my MTV."] I want my B5 Crusade.

 

[JonLaidlow]

Okay the big difference between Rangers and BSG is that by the time Sci-Fi were willing to do BSG they were willing to throw money at it. Rangers looks cheap and probably was cheap. Cheapness has always been B5's curse. Much as we love it it's hard not to wish budgets hadn't been bigger and better actors hired I think the success of BSG is really positive. Networks are thinking once again that they can pay serious money for an SF show and have a genuine hit. Alright so BSG is human-centred, but that just means it hasn't got a cheaply-done alien with a silly forehead...

J

 

[Quagmire]

Also Rangers had some serious flaws. Maybe they would have been worked out but there you go.

 

[hypatia]

I had no problem whatsoever with the actors hired for Rangers. Most of them actually grew on me in a very short period ot time. I hate to admit this, but it was the writing I didn't like so much in Legend of the Rangers.

 

[Galahad]

I've no idea what Rangers was like, not having seen it.

A reasonable solution to the "recasting" issue, would be to not confine Babylon 5 spin offs to the era of Sheridan and Delenn.

OK, what I've just said to some people may seem like blasphemy, but hold on.

This way you could cast who the heck you liked in a role without treading on anyone's toes.

One story I'd liked to have seen is the final years of Earth's rebuilding post-burn. It's pertinent to today, it's about civilisation rebuilding in the wake of disaster there are also a lot of questions raised by the scenario.

Firstly, one must assume there are rangers patrolling Earth space preventing aliens from landing an introducing themselves before humanity has been restored to a point where ready.

There's also the implication that new rangers are being recruited from Earth inhabitants as time wears on.

Finally there's the notion of human profiteers from surviving colonies trying to get to earth and set themselves up as people of influencing using their advanced technology.

An arc set against the interaction of these factions (as well as Earth people) would be good to watch.

OK you can start throwing the rotten eggs and vegetables now!

 

[darth_librarian]

I've no idea what Rangers was like, not having seen it.

A reasonable solution to the "recasting" issue, would be to not confine Babylon 5 spin offs to the era of Sheridan and Delenn.

OK, what I've just said to some people may seem like blasphemy, but hold on.

This way you could cast who the heck you liked in a role without treading on anyone's toes.

One story I'd liked to have seen is the final years of Earth's rebuilding post-burn. It's pertinent to today, it's about civilisation rebuilding in the wake of disaster there are also a lot of questions raised by the scenario.

Firstly, one must assume there are rangers patrolling Earth space preventing aliens from landing an introducing themselves before humanity has been restored to a point where ready.

There's also the implication that new rangers are being recruited from Earth inhabitants as time wears on.

Finally there's the notion of human profiteers from surviving colonies trying to get to earth and set themselves up as people of influencing using their advanced technology.

An arc set against the interaction of these factions (as well as Earth people) would be good to watch.

OK you can start throwing the rotten eggs and vegetables now!

No need my friend.. I think is a potentially great concept, much better than LOTR, which from what I have seen of it, was somewhat sucky. Like Hyp I liked the actors, but had issues with the script, plotting and production values, amongst other things..

Were it a show running now, based on the evidence of the pilot (and i know that is not all that much..) it would not hold a candle tothe new BSG. IMHO, of course...

Back to 'Deconstruction of falling stars'! in some way it played like the 'simpsons spin-off spectacular!' testing new ideas based on the show.

Starting again a thousand years hence, or whatever would be great, and add a truely epic sweep to the B5 universe, much like the collected works of the Silmarillion does to Tolkiens more popular works.

 

[Galahad]

I've no idea what Rangers was like, not having seen it.

A reasonable solution to the "recasting" issue, would be to not confine Babylon 5 spin offs to the era of Sheridan and Delenn.

OK, what I've just said to some people may seem like blasphemy, but hold on.

This way you could cast who the heck you liked in a role without treading on anyone's toes.

One story I'd liked to have seen is the final years of Earth's rebuilding post-burn. It's pertinent to today, it's about civilisation rebuilding in the wake of disaster there are also a lot of questions raised by the scenario.

Firstly, one must assume there are rangers patrolling Earth space preventing aliens from landing an introducing themselves before humanity has been restored to a point where ready.

There's also the implication that new rangers are being recruited from Earth inhabitants as time wears on.

Finally there's the notion of human profiteers from surviving colonies trying to get to earth and set themselves up as people of influencing using their advanced technology.

An arc set against the interaction of these factions (as well as Earth people) would be good to watch.

OK you can start throwing the rotten eggs and vegetables now!

No need my friend.. I think is a potentially great concept, much better than LOTR, which from what I have seen of it, was somewhat sucky. Like Hyp I liked the actors, but had issues with the script, plotting and production values, amongst other things..

Were it a show running now, based on the evidence of the pilot (and i know that is not all that much..) it would not hold a candle tothe new BSG. IMHO, of course...

Back to 'Deconstruction of falling stars'! in some way it played like the 'simpsons spin-off spectacular!' testing new ideas based on the show.

Starting again a thousand years hence, or whatever would be great, and add a truely epic sweep to the B5 universe, much like the collected works of the Silmarillion does to Tolkiens more popular works.

Agreed, and there are so many interesting facets in that era. Religion is obviously playing an important role in the rebuilding process (or at least the rangers are using it as a cover for their own agenda, which is a storyline in itself)

 

[Sindatur]

I've no idea what Rangers was like, not having seen it.

A reasonable solution to the "recasting" issue, would be to not confine Babylon 5 spin offs to the era of Sheridan and Delenn.

Your idea is a good idea, as many others people have discussed, but, the key issue with a Theatrical release, is that JMS wanted to reward the Series actors with a theatrical release. So, it was exactly his intention to put a theatrical release in their time period, so they could be in it.

Don't get me wrong, I would love "another story" in the B5 universe, that didn't center on the characters we know, and one day, I hope something more does come from the universe, either with or without those characters.

But to be honest, it doesn't even need to be in an alternate time, it could just be a story that doesn't involve the characters we already know and love. In the Pilot for Rangers G'Kar was the only character we know, and in Crusade, Captain Lochley was the only character we know (Well, except for Dr. Franklin's guest spot).

 

[KoshN]

....but, the key issue with a Theatrical release, is that JMS wanted to reward the Series actors with a theatrical release.

The trouble is that's diametrically opposed to getting a feature film out of Warner Brothers.


1. JMS wants to reward the TV Series actors.
2. Warner Brothers does not back movies with TV Series actors.
3. Warner Brothers has the rights to Babylon 5 and Crusade.

Therefore, Catch-22.

 

[Jan]

BUT...if WB ever decides that they *do* want to do a B5 movie, they have to go through JMS who holds those rights.

Jan

 

[hypatia]

BUT...if WB ever decides that they *do* want to do a B5 movie, they have to go through JMS who holds those rights.

Jan

What I've never had answered is: just what rights does JMS have? Is WB's legal requirement to tell JMS they are making a B5-related project? Do they have to listen to his input?

 

[Sindatur]

Thanks for asking for the clarification, Hyp.

Yea, it seems WB can't do it without JMS' blessing, JMS can't do it without WB blessing, except for sometimes?

 

[Jan]

What I've never had answered is: just what rights does JMS have? Is WB's legal requirement to tell JMS they are making a B5-related project? Do they have to listen to his input?

Joe DeM? Are you around? Check me on this, okay?

What JMS has posted before is that he would have to be "involved" in any spin-off or sequel. What exactly the level of involvement (and what veto powers he'd have) would be, I'm sure, spelled out in the original contract. He's also stated that he has consultancy rights for any merchandise which sounds like he can advise but might not have veto rights (for instance, as I recall, he *requested* that the shot glass not be manufactured past the first ones made, he couldn't dictate that). He also said in February that he holds the movie rights. Per the WGA contract, he also owns the physical scripts to the episodes he wrote and can sell or publish them as he likes. If he wants to use any likenesses of characters and/or the Station or logos, he'd need permission from WB.

WB owns all of the characters and trademarks and the shows themselves and anybody wanting to use them for any purpose would have to have a license from WB to do so. For instance, when the short stories were coming out, I asked JMS if he'd had to get permission from WB for them and he answered that he had. From all of the above, I think that WB would have to pay JMS if they wanted to make a movie but he'd (or whoever optioned it) have to pay WB if they wanted to.

From what I've read, licenses and rights (and the fees for them) are something negotiated and the licenses are for set periods. As I recall, a lot of the licenses for trading or CCG cards weren't renewed back when Rangers might have become a series and speculation was that WB may have been hoping to be able to negotiate higher license fees if it did. We also know that the option to make TMoS was from 12/27/2003 for one year and that JMS extended that for a few weeks without charge.

That's the best I can do from memory and a few quick checks of the archives of JMS's posts. Hopefully I didn't confuse things more.

Jan

 

[hypatia]

No, that makes a lot of sense, thanks a lot Jan.

No one really knows the details other than WB execs and JMS. That also makes sense. But I have always wondered just how much JMS would have a kind of "no-go" veto option is WB itself were going to make a B5 movie (not outside producers purchasing the rights from WB).

 

[Jan]

But I have always wondered just how much JMS would have a kind of "no-go" veto option is WB itself were going to make a B5 movie (not outside producers purchasing the rights from WB).

I don't know. But in his message about TMoS dead-ending, JMS did write:

If they can do a Brady Bunch movie, you
can be sure that sooner or later, somebody's going to do a B5 movie.
The only thing I can say without equivocation is that when that day
comes, as the rights-holder, I will make darned sure that it's done
right, because I'd rather have no B5 movie than one that doesn't live
up to what fans and I myself would want to see.

JMS doesn't make promises lightly or that he doesn't feel that he can keep and that reads like a promise to me. So as Garibaldi said in 'Deconstruction', "Rest easy, friends."

Jan