My score: 59.
I'm sorry I wish I could score it better, but the quality of this movie in some parts is very poor.
If you care to read on there may be some spoilers for those who haven't seen it yet...
First of all, If I was not a B5 fan I would view this show as sort of "cheesy". After all how many times do we have to hear the phrase "We live for the One, we die for the One"? I know how the rangers are willing to die for the cause, but you can really overuse a catch phrase like that.
Then there's the "running away from battle" and the other rangers being mad at David for doing that. Isn't this premise a little weak? At the end of the movie we saw how David didn't need weapons to defeat the enemy, so he redeemed himself in the view of his fellow rangers. But, I kept thinking to myself, I agree with David's "we don't have to die stupidly" remark. So why try to please an organization that has foolish rules about not retreating and saving your entire crew's life? It sounds like John Sheridan's mantra "don't start a fight, but always finish one"--macho talk, but not always practical.
That brings me to the cheesiness (is that a real word?) of this movie. It seems to me that JMS must of wrote this movie quickly while sitting on the toilet. Too many rehashing of phrases like G'kar's "no one here is exactly what they appear" comment. What relevance is that to the plot? The "survivor's guilt" in prominent characters, already used in Sinclair, Marcus, Gideon and now David. Also a "seemingly undefeatable enemy", in "The Hand". Funny, they don't seem to last by the time Crusade started two years later!
I guess I am disappointed in the way that B5 has become as formulaic as other sci-fi shows. The original B5 had sense of intrigue and wonder. Even Crusade had a premise that a viewer could pull for--all life on Earth being threatened.
What does LOTR have? Does it focus on the mysterious "legend" of the rangers? No, instead its appears to be another spacehip adventure with special effects gimmicks plus several bad LA actors to round it out. Does it have a story arc that will make a viewer want to come back for more? This show seemed to be a mix of a pilot and a movie, doing neither well (remember "Thirdspace" and "River of Souls"?--poor movies but at least they were self-contained, not a half-hearted attempt of a pilot). Who are "the Hand"? Who are those dead people on the ship? What is the doorway in the abandoned city? Why should we really care?
I for one wouldn't care because the cast is a bore. JMS is wonderful in characterization, but in LOTR the actors are annoying for the most part. G'kar is good, as always. I enjoyed the David/ Dulann (similiar to Kirk/ Spock) relationship. David is excellent as a captain and likeable. Dulann has character depth and humor for a Minbari. But who else? Sarah--terrible, especially in the weapon scenes. Kitaro--he is a real dope. Na'feel--not a likeable character. Malcolm--okay, yet we haven't seen much of him. I liked Tirk and the Minbari doctor, but there wasn't much depth.
Overall, why would we want LOTR to become a series? Would it pull me in? With a cast change and a finely tuned arc it certainly could. I love B5 and I guess I would watch regardless. Yet a series in the B5 universe could be so much better. To me, Crusade had a lot of potential, good storyline, good cast, I would prefer that Crusade would finish instead of LOTR starting.
------------------
Thanks for reading my comments.