• 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.

Hey SavantB5 / MediaSavant!!!

N

newscaper

Member
[Sysop - I know this isn't a topic per se, but I don't know of any other way on this site to shout for somebody's attention.]

MS, I never saw where you posted about your personal opinion about B5:LOTR as a movie.

I'd be quite interested to know what you think (here or point me to where you've posted before). Me? I had some real problems with it, although no one single thing was fatal. I'd certainly give a series a chance, but if it didn't improve significantly...

I saw your comment on the Farscape BB at SciFi about production values of 3-21 versus LOTR. I also saw where Zathras_Scorpius was upset with you <g>.

Thanks.

------------------
newscaper,
from the SciFi Channel Farscape BB
 
With B5LR, I've taken the position of not posting my own review but compiling impressions from a broad range of other people, including yourself.

That includes more than a dozen reviews written by professional TV critics in both general magazines and genre ones.

It includes hardcore B5 fans who would be biased in a positive fashion. It includes people on non-B5 websites and bb's who just happened to watch the movie but are SF fans generally. (those are people that a potential series would hope to attract beyond B5 fans)

This is just a personal observation, but your opinion pretty much describes the general consensus when you mesh them all together.

Others can certainly dispute me on that. Impressions can vary.

As for Farscape 321, I was really jazzed after seeing it. It's probably the best episode of any TV series I've seen in a long, long time. I think I'd have to go back to how I felt after seeing Z'Ha'Dum for the first time to equal how I felt seeing Farscape 321. When my emotions get tweeked, I can be pretty demonstrative.

------------------
 
Thanks fo rthe reply.

I probably understated my generally negative opinion up above.

Right after I watched LOTR I could describe my reaction as fighting feelings of disappointment, trying to dismiss them. There *were* after all some things to really like in the midst of the various groaners, but then I got online and saw a lot of the same criticisms I had. I actually got a bit angry about it -- I'd been making excuses in my own mind then discovered it was NOT just me.

Not a Trekkie, I'd been hopeful about Enterprise braking out of the Trek rut back in the fall. I quit watching after about seven episodes. I had some harsh criticism for it, dismissing the "they're just getting started" excuses with comparison to Crusade as a follow-on to B5. JMS's team pretty much hit the ground running with Crusade and I felt B&B should have been ablt to do better out of the gate with Enterprise.

So once I saw LOTR I was mortified to have many of the same criticisims for it. I *refused* to draw a double-standard just because I was a partisan B5 fan.

Before the movie came out I'd actually been hoping that a DVD would be released fairly soon, like with Dune. Afterward ... yawn ... not interested.

Thanks again for the reply. I guess you decided that it was more politic to avoid your own purely subjective views since you have caught some grief in the past for supposedly having an ax to grind, being a heretic, etc. I guess I can't blame you.

------------------
newscaper,
from the SciFi Channel Farscape BB
 
I'm intrigued by the question of "will it be a series or won't it".

Ironically, the opinions that really seemed to have mattered aren't even in reviews.

They are the opinions of potential viewers who decided not to watch it at all or even tape it if they wanted to watch football.

Millions of people were exposed to the advertising over a period of months. Was their something about the concept that just didn't compell them to watch it?

Beyond the obvious of the football game, was there something else about going on that may be a factor?

When non-B5 fanatics read the description or saw the commercial did it seem like "just another movie about people on a spaceship with things blowing up"?

I honestly don't know, but that's what I've been wondering since the ratings came in. It's actually unfortunate that the football game was there. If it wasn't, we might actually be discussing questions like that.

We are exposed to ads for movies and TV shows all the time. How do we as a group decide, "this is what I'm going to watch and this is what I'm not going to watch".

Two films can be advertised the same amount. One gets millions to attend its opening weekend. The other wallows and disappears. It's not just all about the amount of advertising.

------------------
 
I was really, really intrigued by the ISA debriefings, and the story-plot dangling, but I was *not* impressed with the regular commercials. They seemed entirely too derivative and made the show seem like any other space-opera...

------------------
channe@[url="http://cryoterrace.tripod.com"]cryoterrace[/url] | "Last one to kill a bad guy buys the beer." -lost in space
 
Hello SavantB5,

Since you work in the business, did you see (or believe there was) much of a discrepancy in the numbers between the East and West Coast? We know the average was 1.7. Do you feel that both feeds on a average were close to this average (1.7) . For example, 1.9 average for the West Coast and 1. 5 average for the East Coast. Since you have more insight into the numbers, just wanted your opinion. Also, if there is a significant discrepancy between the East and West Coasts, outside the football game, what would you attribute this to.

Channe, I also agree with you that the ISA debriefings were much better and more intriguing than the regular commercials.


Thanks,

Cerberus


------------------
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by channe:
I was really, really intrigued by the ISA debriefings, and the story-plot dangling, but I was *not* impressed with the regular commercials. They seemed entirely too derivative and made the show seem like any other space-opera... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Me too. Unfortunately, I never saw the ISA transmissions except on SciFi Channel during B5 and Crusade. I don't watch too many other shows on SciFi (or the other stations they were airing commercials) so I can't say for certain that it was only on SciFi during B5/Crusade. Still, it is unfortunate that the general public probably never saw them unless they happened to be flipping channels during that 15 second promo.
frown.gif


------------------
Monica Hübinette | Abyss : B5 | Rangers Sponsor List
Words are magical. Intellectual banquets. Orgies of ideas. --Anaïs Nin
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cerberus:
Hello SavantB5,

Since you work in the business, did you see (or believe there was) much of a discrepancy in the numbers between the East and West Coast? We know the average was 1.7. Do you feel that both feeds on a average were close to this average (1.7) . For example, 1.9 average for the West Coast and 1. 5 average for the East Coast. Since you have more insight into the numbers, just wanted your opinion. Also, if there is a significant discrepancy between the East and West Coasts, outside the football game, what would you attribute this to.

Thanks,

Cerberus
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm in a tough position because, believe it or not, I have to respect both JMS's and SciFi's right to release that information or not release that information as they desire.

Generally, speaking I'll say this about what is available to Nielsen customers.

The regular overnight ratings system(referred to in SciFi wire by its software name "Galaxy") doesn't provide regional rating information. It gives you national numbers only.

To regular customers who subscribe to a service called CNAD (cable national audience demographics), regional data will be released in March.

It *is* possible for a customer to get it sooner, but they have to pay extra for a "special report".

The local information that is available earlier comes from the 45 top markets that have household meters. These are the markets referred to when you see people talk about the "major market overnights".

Of the 45 markets, only seven are in the West Coast feed: Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Seattle, Sacramento, Las Vegas, and Portland.

The San Diego data most of you have seen comes from this Nielsen service.

One should note that even if you saw those seven numbers, they don't represent the entire West Coast feed. Markets such as Fresno, Bakersfield, and Spokane exist out there as well.

I personallyy won't have access to the real regional data until March.

For what it's worth, I do believe there will be a higher number in the Pacific feed. I just don't even want to guess what the size of difference will be.

Regardless, I'm going to respect JMS's and SciFi's rights here.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that there are regional skews to the appeal of different TV shows. Going all the way back to its syndication roots, B5's ratings varied greatly from one market to the next based on how prominent its timeslot was. It's likely awareness of the show rises and falls based on that as well.

Advertising levels vary. We know the movie theatre campaign had market skews.


------------------
 
Savant,
Your question about the (in)effectiveness of advertising or other factors in terms of people watching it, or not, in the first place is an interesting one.

I've had a few possibly relevant discussions with with some others online.

Difficculties may lie not just in the football game or in ad content or placement.

My own personal opinion is that the core concept of the show may have a subtle weakness. I think it does for me. It goes something like this:

A significant, but perhaps subliminal, part of the appeal of B5 (and Crusade) compared to some other TV SciFi was that things were clearly to tied to Earth, the human, with various kinds of institutions and behaviors still recognizable: politicians, military, traders, criminals. This fairly strong sense of connection to us, in our time, really added to the sense of realism.

But the Ranger-centric concept as portrayed in the Pilot (which is source material for the ads) virtually breaks this connection.

JMS' previous efforts had simple, relevant at-first-glance concepts:

B5 had Earth making its mark out in the galaxy. And the station itself took a microcosm of Earth out there.

Crusade had the basic notion: save the Earth from an alien plague.

Legend of the Rangers at first glance (to the unwashed)? OK, some humans in strange costumes and some aliens fighting and flying around, blowing $hit up. What is their connection to me? Why should I care?

If someone had been just a casual viewer of B5, the relatively peripheral role of the Rangers -- apart from the person of Marcus -- makes for a weak pull. For the general public it is totally meaningless.

Trek has always had a much weaker tie to Earth (and us) but since the cult succes of the TOS the brand has become so big, with such a large footprint in the popular culture, that it has its own momentum it feeds off of.

Andromeda, which is much further out there, still benefits from the Trek connection of the Rodenberry name, and a widely known star in Sorbo.

Farscape inherits from no franchise, and is also totally "out there", but for the one link of John Crichton -- who nonetheless has a strong draw because not only is he human (even though the only one) but he is from our time, he is totally one of us.

OTOH, LOTR is "out there", has the weaker pull with the public of the B5 franchise, and has no recognizable stars.

Maybe THAT is the problem, totally apart from the actual problematic quality of the product, which as you say, was moot WRT the larger problem of those who never tuned in.

------------------
newscaper,
from the SciFi Channel Farscape BB
 
Wow.

This is the kind of discussion that has been wanting around here.

I've always noticed when I discuss seeing a movie, two common questions come up about it.
You hear people ask you, "Who's in it" and/or "what's it about?"

I always thought this was relevant back in 1998 when River of Souls and A Call to Arms ran about six weeks apart, but the ratings were markedly different. River of Souls, the only B5 movie that didn't have Bruce Boxleitner and/or Mira Furlan, but *starred* Tracy Scoggins, got the worst ratings of any of the 4 B5 movies run on TNT.

The basic plot was a bit inaccessible, I think, to casual viewers. It was cerebral and had little to do with Earth.

Later, Call to Arms surprised everyone with very good ratings. Bruce Boxleitner was back. The plot was very relevant to Earth--Earth was being attacked and about to be destroyed.

To investigate the "What's it About" theory, I was intrigued that "Epoch", an unheralded film did that 2.3 rating for SciFi without so much as an ad in TV Guide.

However, the TV Guide listing read, "When the Earth is menaced by a mysterious rock that bursts suddenly form the ground after billions of years, it falls to a diplomat's aide (David Keith) to save the planet. Ryan O'Neal"

I don't even know if the movie was very good because I didn't know it was on, but I think that description gives people a pretty identifiable idea of what the movie was about and, if your hypothesis is correct, it had some relevance to them.

Very interesting hypothesis, Newscaper.

------------------
 
Addendum:

What you said about Farscape is one of the keys to its success, IMO.

Even in a ship full of aliens, Farscape is extremely successful because John Crichton is not only from our time, but he can throw around hip cultural references and comes off as a regular guy.

He can do impressions of Bill Murray in Caddyshack, talk about Baywatch and the Discovery Channel, and even compare himself to Captain Kirk.

It really helps make the show different from shows set in the future.

------------------
 
There will be a second chance to see what level of attraction B5:LR has when it is shown in Britain. Although someone will have to buy it first.

If it comes in the stations top 30 the ratings will be revealed by BARB.

British Ratings

------------------
Andrew Swallow


[This message has been edited by A_M_Swallow (edited February 15, 2002).]
 
Same can be said for the B5 series itself. Much of the 3rd and 4th seasons dealt with Earth's transformation under Clark and the Civil War. While the 5th season moved it's focus on the Alliance and the Centauri.

Could this be one of the reasons seasons 3 and 4 are fan favourite, while the 5th season is considered sub par (other reasons being the shadow/civil war being resolved half a season too quickly, etc)?

Also, Stargate SG-1 has a very down to earth lead (Jack O'neil), and a present day militarised setting, which the audience can definately relate to. This could aslso be attributed to the shows ratings success (well as much as a SCI-Fi show can succeed).

As for Farscape, John is the underdog, which people love to root for. While on TREK, the Federation is usually the righteous powerhouse.

I wonder how this theory could be apllied to Jeremiah (before and after we see how it performs) ...

And alittle off topic, but i'm starting to have my suspicions, in light of this thread, that Whedon's "Firefly" setting of a post US Civil War restoration -like era, was chosen for a reason.
Every American student (i presume) gets to study the Civil War in school, so every potential viewer has a better chance to identify with this show, then let's say with Andromeda, or Trek.



------------------
"I walk, i shop, i sneeze. I'll be a fireman when the floods roll back. There's trees in the desert since you moved out ... and i don't sleep on a bed of bones."
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TriggerHappy:
Same can be said for the B5 series itself. Much of the 3rd and 4th seasons dealt with Earth's transformation under Clark and the Civil War. While the 5th season moved it's focus on the Alliance and the Centauri. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not too sure about this -- I think the weakest part of season 5 in many people's eyes was the telepath crisis, which was very earth-and-human based. And late season 3 was all about the alien worlds, and that was some of the strongest stuff.

I admit, I don't really remember much of the Rangers ads, other than, "Cool, Rangers ads." But I think the main characters were personable and likable and identifiable enough to make people feel at home watching them, and I think that counts more than whether the show is sufficiently 'Earth-based.'

------------------
Dave Thomer
This Is Not News
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by A_M_Swallow:
There will be a second chance to see what level of attraction B5:LR has when it is shown in Britain. Although someone will have to buy it first.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sure someone will eventually buy it. I saw the movie listed in a list of programs/movies offered up by Warner Brothers International Distribution at the recent NATPE convention in the U.S.

So, at least we know they are trying to sell it.

------------------
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TriggerHappy:
Same can be said for the B5 series itself. Much of the 3rd and 4th seasons dealt with Earth's transformation under Clark and the Civil War. While the 5th season moved it's focus on the Alliance and the Centauri.

Could this be one of the reasons seasons 3 and 4 are fan favourite, while the 5th season is considered sub par (other reasons being the shadow/civil war being resolved half a season too quickly, etc)?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would certainly explain why I was bored for most of S4 and far prefer S5 - without the teep arc, which I wouldn't have minded if Byron hadn't annoyed me quite so much and if it had been shorter by a couple of episodes, I would probably consider S5 my favourite of all of B5.
tongue.gif


It's just so individual. The parts of B5 that were dealing with humans and Earth were among the least interesting for me. I suppose it's because everything else but scifi deals with humans and Earth anyway.

But I guess that if you say the general public prefers shows concentrating on humans and Earth, there's probably some truth to it.

In any case, it seemed to me that most of the Rangers ad campaign attempted to draw more attention to the *humans*.

As far as characters go, the spotlight in ads was IMHO on David and Sarah, far less on Dulann (and Tirk), and even the majority of the "trading cards", four out of seven, were of the human characters. The whole ad-campaign seemed even a bit too human-centric to me, but of course, I'm biased.
laugh.gif


------------------
"There are things out there beyond imagination, and I have a rather healthy imagination." - G'Kar, B5: Rangers
Kribu's Lounge | kribu@ranger.b5lr.com | Kribu.net
 
As a number of writers on the subject of TV have noted, all series, whatever their settings, are really about the culture that produces them. Star Trek may have been set in the future, but it was really about 1960s America in space - which explains the mini-skirted female yeomen and the like. TNG was similarly 1980s America in space, although an idealized version, purged of what the producers saw as humanity's flaws and weaknesses.

But Bonanza was equally about the 1960s rather than the 1860s, and the same applies to most other "exotic" shows. Even Gilligan's Island dealt more with the kind of situations that people deal with in everyday life than with the realities of struggling to survive on a deserted island.

The audience needs to be able to identify with the characters in drama, especially in a series that you want them to return to week after week. You might be able to get away with a feature film that shows the Middle Ages as they really were, but you couldn't do the same for 22 weeks a year, not if you wanted to stay on the air.

So I expect that, allowing for some "SF" touches here and there, a Rangers series would also largely tell its stories from the perspective of contemporary American, or at least Western, culture. The Human characters, influenced by EarthGov culture, will be the audience's window into the more exotic people and places they encounter. It doesn't matter that they aren't literally dealing with Earth. They often weren't on B5 and seldom were on any of the Treks. But we always new that Captain Kirk's Federation was really the good ol' US of A under the SF patina.

The pilot contains hints that a part of what the series would be about is the new folks, led as always by the Humans, and their impact on the stodgy, thousand-year-old organization called the Rangers. They have a new mission now, and the time will probably come when the Minbari are a minority, even though the group is based on Minbari beliefs and traditions. The Rangers "culture" will survive, but will probably be changed, and the period of the series would coincide with many of these changes. There are parallels with the immigration debates currently going on in the U.S. and several Western European countries.

So I think the "identification" factor could be stronger in a series than was evident in the pilot, and may be less of an issue that it appears.

Regards,

Joe

------------------
Joseph DeMartino
Sigh Corps
Pat Tallman Division
joseph-demartino@att.net
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> Star Trek may have been set in the future, but it was really about 1960s America in space - which explains the mini-skirted female yeomen and the like. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. Even at the time, it was pretty obvious.
The Federation was the Virtuous USA.
The Klingons were the blustery Russian Bear.
The Vulcans were the inscrutable Japanese.
The Romulans were the Vulcans' long lost cousins, the inscrutable Chinese.

The attitudes of each reflected, in a sort of caricature, the general perception many Americans had of those countries at the time.


------------------
Do not ascribe your own motivations to others:
At best, it will break your heart.
At worst, it will get you dead."
 
Sorry for being MIA, guys.

Trying to clarify my last post a bit, my main point (which may have been muddled since it all came together on the fly) was how that sense of connection to the familiar (if not actually *about* the familiar), and "relevance" (for want of a better word), help interest potential viewers -- along with other factors, of course.

It's about that immediately understandable and intriguing sound-bite version of the concept. LOTR's 'Rangers helping to restore peace & order to the worlds of the InterStellar Alliance in the aftermath of the Shadow War' means almost *nothing* to Joe Public, even SciFi-receptive folks who don't know much about B5.

In the absence of a known star(s) or a truly powerful brand that TV Guide blurb -- or impression frm the commercials -- becomes even more important. And the visible tie to our Earth -- even though centuries in the future, adds some more interest, some seriousness which may be more important to snaring that marginal, occasional SF viewer who is not particularly a genre fan and may be prone to finding SF silly.

Part of my comments were colored by my personal preferences, but they shouldn't obscure the points above.

Now back to *me*, I enjoy plenty of SciFi that is "out there", and I've even enjoyed quite a few of the classics of the SF literature that were told from an entirely alien POV, perhaps w/o even a single human in the mix. (Does anybody remember *books*? -- not crappy tie-ins either)
But the fact is that when a story does have a stonger connection that builds up the sense of a real future by showing *we* are part of its history -- that's a nice bonus, that for me makes the story somehow more solid.

I loved Heinlein's "Future History". And I appreciated Asimov's Foundation universe even more after reading The Stars Like Dust and Pebble in the Sky -- even though neither is particularly a classic of his.

"Star Wars" is, of course, totally "out there", no connection to Earth at all. Of course Ep. IV retold one of the classic stories but that didn't matter, wasn't known, before the first people saw it.

But I will never forget my sense of awe when, in 5th grade, I think, I saw the Star Wars trailer on the big screen several months before it came out, before a showing of "Silver Streak" no less. If you pack a big enough WOW factor all other concerns are moot.

So I will consider it the exception that proves the rule.

------------------
newscaper,
from the SciFi Channel Farscape BB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 332 (members: 1, guests: 331)

Share this page

Back
Top