JMS - Non-update update

[Recoil]

I think that there is no way in HELL that this is a computer game.

First off, I don't think JMS would make such a big deal about it.
Second, there wouldn't be all this secrecy surrounding it like there is.
Third, JMS writing a SCRIPT and a second DRAFT all for a computer game?

No.

 

[Kaleb]

I think that there is no way in HELL that this is a computer game.

First off, I don't think JMS would make such a big deal about it.
Second, there wouldn't be all this secrecy surrounding it like there is.
Third, JMS writing a SCRIPT and a second DRAFT all for a computer game?

No.

Dude, Im sitting here praying for a B5 mmorpg, I could spend all my time doing B5. But then again I would quite like to pass my degree, maybe get a job, and such a thing would prevent all but walking to the fridge or the toilet. And even then Id probably get a catheter and a minifridge.

 

[Flounder]

Game legality

I agree with you that freeware B5 games and game mods don't fit "fair use" completely. The games being free makes it better, but I still think WB would have prevailed in a lawsuit.

(steal a kiss)

That's the meaning that would most closely fit, IMHO. Taking and appropriating implies denying the rightful owner to use a thing. Would you care if I copied your car? What if I copied all but the number plates?
Copyrights, patents and (not so much) trademarks are time-limited monopolies granted by lawmakers to stimulate creativity, innovation and correct identification. I think violating that is "stealing" only in a figurative sense, although they may cause the loss of very real dollars.
I have saying (ahem): It's not "sharing", it's not "stealing", it's violating the rights of others!

Speaking of announcements: I'm guessing we'll hear it tomorrow. You know, after the Oscar hangovers have passed. Did "Return of the King" win the award for best documentary, as I predicted?

 

[sleepy_shadow]

stealing
intransitive senses
1 : to take the property of another wrongfully

A) There was no taking. Only creating something of notable similarity. This is not stealing. I must continue to insist that you employ terms suitable to describe intellectual property.

B) Whether it was wrongful... is not determined. You merely claim it to be wrongful. I claim the opposite.

Sorry, but we do in fact use the term "stealing" in the field of intellectual property.

Sorry, but "we" do not. You do.

Wrong again. It most certainly does deprive the owner of something: income.

Incorrect. Prove the loss of income, or show a mechanism by which is occurs. I will prove the opposite -- namely that fan fiction (and games like IFH) actually contribute to Warner's income from B5.

I'm absolutely certain I have more knowledge of intellectual property than you, because otherwise you'd know that "fair use" has absolutely no bearing on this situation.

I am relatively certain of the opposite. While your experience in copyright issues may be good, mine is by no measure poor.

Fair use has bearing here -- from the viewpoint of fan fiction and freeware games being non-profit. If someone challenges alleged copyright infringement... establishing that profit motive existed is frequently important to making a successful case.

However, this remains a moot point. I actually mentioned in my post that you *might* successfully argue for IFH exceeding fair use.

My counter-argument would be Warner's awareness of both fan fiction, fan art and fan-made software... and their silent acceptance of it, despite full rights to challenge its existence.

If the very owner of the property does not challenge what you depict as a serious offense... I must express some serious reservations about your reasoning (and it having any bearing on current reality).

Warner does not *appear* to consider themselves particularly infringed against. Appearances are often deceptive, but I have some degree of trust in IFH developers mentioning that Warner has *not* contacted them, not to speak of requesting them to cease their actvity.

Neither you nor I have any idea whether or not Warner's general counsel

Perhaps the only matter in which I can agree with you. However, both of us read appearances... and speculate what moves below. I merely consider it peculiar that we arrive at such contradictory conclusions.

my opinion is based on fact, and knowledge of intellectual property law. What's yours based on?

Fact, knowledge of intellectual property... and common sense.

It is, however, theft, and if you have no compunction about stealing from JMS, you're welcome to do so for as long as you can.

It is your prerogative to consider it theft, while factually it cannot be.

Regarding compunctions... despite not pirating anything personally... avoiding commercial software where possible (and instead supporting open-source freeware)... I have relatively limited compunction about piracy occurring. Sometimes, in nonsensical situations created by other factors, one can even argue it benefits society.

As for sleep... worry not about me losing any. I often like debate, but rarely lose sleep over one.

 

[AnlaShokGrey]

Re: Game legality

I agree with you that freeware B5 games and game mods don't fit "fair use" completely.

No, that would have been phrased better as "I agree with you that freeware B5 games and game mods _completely_ don't fit "fair use."

There is a popular misconception that "fair use" has only to do with _how much_ of a copyrighted property is being used. That is only _half_ of the equation: the rest of it is, in _what_ is it being used. "Fair use" does not enter the equation at all when you are talking about _anything_ commercial. "Fair use" exists solesly for the purposes of critique and commentary (i.e. reviews), and education (face-to-face teaching situations; not books or videos - although it includes distance learning via closed circuit or satellite hookups).

A game or a game mod, whether being sold or given away, does not qualify for an exemption under fair use, no matter how little of the copyrighted material is encompassed in their product.

Would you care if I copied your car?

That isn't comparable. If I invented a new kind of car, and you stole the plans and used them to make another new kind of car (using however much of my technology), that's a comparable situation. And it's still stealing. Stealing of intangible, nonetheless valuable property.

Copyrights, patents and (not so much) trademarks are time-limited monopolies granted by lawmakers to stimulate creativity, innovation and correct identification. I think violating that is "stealing" only in a figurative sense, although they may cause the loss of very real dollars.

The bit that everyone seems to miss is this: infringement of this nature in fact causes the loss of very real dollars, because the infringers neglected to obtain and pay for a license. I'm completely bypassing the issue of whether or not such a freeware game impinges on the owner's ability to sell their own game: I'm talking _only_ about the freeware game itself. And if the game maker fails to get a proper license from the copyright owner, they have in fact denied that copyright owner of a licensing fee. But more importantly, they have denied that copyright owner the ability to make a decision for themselves as to whether or not they wanted to allow this game to even exist.

Speaking of announcements: I'm guessing we'll hear it tomorrow. You know, after the Oscar hangovers have passed. Did "Return of the King" win the award for best documentary, as I predicted?

D'Oh! :-D

Aisling

 

[Jade Jaguar]

All along, I've thought that a TV miniseries is more likely than a theatrical feature. With Colony Earth's talk of a three picture deal, something crossed my mind -- A&E cable channel's Horatio Hornblower series, which I think has been rather successful. It is a series in the sense that it started with three films, each stand-alone, but each building on characters, and having an arc, as a series. I believe that they have a bigger budget than TV series EPs, and can share some of the costs of the basics, like sets and costumes. I think this would be a near perfect format for JMS! I wonder if that could be what we're (hopefully) getting?

 

[sleepy_shadow]

Re: Game legality

A game or a game mod, whether being sold or given away, does not qualify for an exemption under fair use, no matter how little of the copyrighted material is encompassed in their product.

Despite fair use *not* being the point of my arguments, I must nitpick here. Fair use has no exception against computer games. Actually, while format and media do matter, they matter relatively little. Selling or giving away... is much more likely to matter.

The process of consideration employed to determine fair use generally measures four parameters: 1) purpose of use 2) nature of original work 3) extent of use and 4) effect on the original work. Therefore, lest there be confusion about how things are -- extent of use does matter, in many situations.

The bit that everyone seems to miss is this: infringement of this nature in fact causes the loss of very real dollars, because the infringers neglected to obtain and pay for a license. I'm completely bypassing the issue of whether or not such a freeware game impinges on the owner's ability to sell their own game: I'm talking _only_ about the freeware game itself. And if the game maker fails to get a proper license from the copyright owner, they have in fact denied that copyright owner of a licensing fee. But more importantly, they have denied that copyright owner the ability to make a decision for themselves as to whether or not they wanted to allow this game to even exist.

The bit you appear to miss:

A) Where no profit is made, and no official game competed with, clearly there cannot be loss.

B) Lack of license fee is not always loss. A non-profit development effort could not pay a license fee anyway. It has no income. It is non-commercial to avoid infringing on the owner's exclusive right to derive profit.

C) By allowing fan fiction/art/games to exist, the copyright holder has actually received benefit -- from more people taking more interest in their works.

D) The copyright owner has still received an opportunity to choose -- since the game maker publicly admitted that their game derives from B5.

As such, they knowingly set themselves up as an easy target for "cease and desist". Which has not been requested until now.

Therefore the owner of the property has, by inaction, decided. The informal nature of inaction grants them full right to revise their choice of non-interference... but then again, who would expect the opposite?

Non-profit derivative works small in extent compared to the original work (in case of B5: fan fiction, CGI models, freeware games, screen savers, whatnot) are almost never formally licensed, since that would cause more hassle than it is worth.

Yet generally, while they accept no profit (and refrain from competition with the owner) they are not legally challenged either. Unless someone does cause them loss, copyright owners generally leave such forms of expression alone. They would never sign a contract to guarantee that... but in reality, they do.

Your argument completely disregards this practise, which though not universal, is not limited to Warner. You should accept that choices not formalized... are choices too. This field of human activity does not, in current reality... rely on previous contract.

Instead it relies on acknowledging the copyright of another, promising to stop if requested... and pursuing the derivative venture as to benefit and not harm the copyright holder.

 

[darth_librarian]

Re: Game legality

Right, i'm no lawyer (thankfully, couldnt stand the hours). But fan-fic and game mods are bread and butter on the net, and are not being closed down all the time.
Head over to firstones.com and you'll find that one or two old members of the into the fire development team have given their support to 'ive found her', as an outstanding achivement.

Another case is star wars, lucasfilm fanatically protects its IP. but star wars mods are a dime a dozen. Some are closed down when they resemble lucasarts products too closely, but most are accepted by lucasfilm/arts. Why, free advertising!

i know next to nothing about law, and realise that copyright law in the UK is different to that in the US, but i do know that what happens in practice and actual definition are two seperate things.

Please keep this up though guys, i'm loving a good debate!

 

[GaribaldisHair]

Re: Game legality

When the licence for the original B5 CCG (Precedence?) ran out and was not renewed, I am fairly certain I recall a post from JMS stating that WB would be granting no more product licences. Period. Now that was a while ago, and could have changed in the meantime, but if that is still the case it is hard to argue (however legally accurate it may be) that the release of a freeware PC game without a licence is costing WB anything - although it could be argued that it may deprive them of some future income should they choose to begin granting product licences again.

At this point in time, with the B5 "franchise" dormant, things like this could be said to be a positive for WB. You have to assume that WB know about IFH, as it has been all over the net since the prequel campaign was released, and if they do why have they chosen to remain silent and not kick up a fuss?

Perhaps they see the benefit of the game creating a buzz and keeping fans talking about the show, particularly in the run up to a new project being announced/released. If the new project were a massive success and gave rise to other spin-offs, such as an official game, there is a massive amount of room to manouevre in producing a game to appeal to those who have already got IFH.

Especially bearing in mind that IFH is a "realistic space combat simulator", with screeds of controls required just to play the damn thing and a huge (and very steep) learning curve for beginners. Not the kind of thing the casual gamer (like me) is going to spend money on, so IMO of limited commercial value as a product.

I don't know enough about IP law to comment on the legal niceties of all this, but my common sense tells me that the owners of a dormant TV product, with little or no officially new stuff for the fans to talk about, will likely look on these things in a significantly different way to the owner of a current, active and vibrant TV product.

Kind of like another of my interests, which is the remaking of classic computer games from the 80s and 90s. IP laws apply to these products as much as any other, and it is an established principle that a remaker will ask permission from the original author.

A certain world famous console software house started life as a maker of classic games for the ZX Spectrum in the UK. These games were fantastic at the time and well worth bringing up to date, but all requests for permission are ignored. Why?

Legally, they choose not to give permission (as their lawyers won't let them offically endorse them) but it is said that they are extremely flattered that fans want to remake their games and won't stop them.

In and of itself, IP law may be straightforward, but the implications of it are not, especially where the owners of the property are concerned.

Just my $0.02, for what it's worth.

Cheers,

 

[colonyearth]

Re: Game legality

And on and on we drone! Oh...my...GOD! In the old thread we got off into semantics, now we're off into the land of copyright law (a rather dry and arrid place to be I might add). Oh well, at least I didn't start it this time.

 

[darth_librarian]

Re: Game legality

i thought it was fun. Honest!!

 

[Flounder]

Semantics!

Quick! Let's get back to semantics!
Or more to the point: Are we there yet?
I see a great trilogy of three to five pictures reaching out of the silver screen.
And just because I'm tired, I'll admit it: I was more excited by AotC than I was by Star Wars ANH itself. Maybe because I wasn't born when it came out, and first saw it (original edition) on TV. I'll certainly see epIII.
I think I even saw B5 before I knew what Star Wars was. My first sci-fi/skiffy was the animated les Mondes Engoutis (Spartacus and the sun beneath the sea).
/me walks over to the "other TV and movies" form, but falls asleep.

 

[KoshN]

We're making this into a real morass. Sorry folks. This has to be a record, Recoil.

As I said above, by the time S4 had been shot, a good deal of the reason for having a Season 5 had vanished.

Ah, but there was more arc to tell.

And that's why I said "a good deal of the reason..."

As for the dysfunction of the various subsidiaries...TNT wasn't a walk in the park either.

True, but I was referring to relations between Warner Brothers branches, not within a specific one of those branches.

S5 was also so successful that TNT wanted a spin-off, thus CRUSADE.

B5, as a whole, was successful and popular enough that TNT wanted a spin-off, CRUSADE.

B5 was still doing quite well in the ratings...for a cable show with a no name start, B5 was a huge success story. And was Sci-Fi's top rated syndicated rerun for a long time.

That doesn't prove that "S5 was also so successful that TNT wanted a spin-off, thus CRUSADE."

It is JMS who pulled the plug

Let's see. JMS was working for Warner Brothers, who was working for (supplying a product to) TNT. TNT didn't like the product (CRUSADE), and JMS refused to compromise the quality of the product by making CRUSADE the "Baywatch Meets Wrestling in Space" that TNT wanted. So, TNT pulled the plug. This happened because TNT was finding out that people who tuned in to see B5 and CRUSADE were not sticking around to watch their other stuff (wrestling, sports, etc.), and the people who tuned to see their regular stuff, were not watching B5 and CRUSADE. That's why TNT wanted out of CRUSADE. It didn't fit their audience.

Actually, the plug had been pulled before CRUSADE even hit the air.

That's because TNT started finding out about the bad fit B5 had with their audience during B5 Season 5, which was before CRUSADE hit the air. The trend just continued throughout Crusade. TNT not liking the first five [1] had little to do with the content of the first five, and was just an excuse to dump it. They didn't like CRUSADE because they knew it was not going to do well on their network, and when they tried to "sleaze it up" so it would do well on their network, JMS balked, and so TNT pulled the plug (refused to fund any more eps., tried to get out of funding the ones that had already been shot, and tried to prevent the completion of the first five [1] in post.).

So the lead-in audience wasn't an issue until later.

Lead-in audience was an issue during Babylon 5 Season 5 on TNT, and it continued throughout Crusade. People were tuning in for B5 and Crusade and tuning out for TNT's regular fare, and vice-versa. Their audience was polarized.

And for a show that was already dead coming out of the starting gate...on a cable channel, those weren't bad ratings (Enterprise is pulling those numbers now and look at it's origins.

And Enterprise is considered a failure at its current ratings level.

...Crusade's would've been better and presumably would have gone up if the series had lasted.)

The "split-audience" factor probably would still have existed. TNT wanted something that appealed to its entire audience, or at least the vast majority of it. The audience may have homogenized a bit, but I can tell you that just because TNT was airing Crusade, there was no way it was going to entice me to watch basketball and wrestling. I tuned in for B5 and Crusade (and it was sometimes not easy to find), and tuned out immediately after B5 and Crusade.

Same reason that I hated wrestling (which very often ran randomly long) preceding CSI on TNN/Spike, I hated having to see any of wrestling just to get the start of CSI. Same reason I hated to see any likeable show (e.g. Crusade, SG-1, ... even Tremors the Series) butted up against crap on Sci-Fi (e.g. Scare Tactics). It was like oil and water, ...actually more like pouring water on acid. I couldn't reach the remote fast enough.

JMS's refusal to cheapen the show to what the Atlanta TNT execs were telling him is what caused the end of the show.

The root cause was that B5 and Crusade did not match up with TNT's core audience. They found that out before Crusade hit the air, back when the first five [1] were in production.

There is no B5 universe without JMS, that's in his contract with WB.

I can't say this for sure because I've never actually seen his contract. I don't think he's ever said precisely what you said here.

If he walked...it was over.

At one point during Crusade, he did walk, but was convinced to come back, I think by Netter and Copeland, for the sake of the cast and crew.

What's not generally known ...
Excerpt:
What's not generally known is that at one point, I walked off Crusade. It was when the worst of the notes came in, and I told Doug, and I told WB...I'm gone. I can't do what they're asking me to do, it's wrong, find somebody who will.

They prevailed on me to come back, and the main tool for this was "What about the crew and the cast? If you walk, what happens to them?" Reluctantly, after several days, I came back...and this led to the big notes meeting with TNT where I told them I couldn't/wouldn't do what they were asking on moral, ethical and creative grounds.

But either way, CRUSADE was dead before it hit the air...

No doubt about it.

on CRUSADE, which actually did fairly well in the ratings

Whaaaaat?

TNT CRUSADE Airings, Ratings, Comments:
War Zone, 06/09/1999, 1.9
The Long Road, 06/16/1999, 1.4 (1st game of NBA finals)
The Well of Forever, 06/23/1999, 1.2 (4th game of NBA finals)
The Path of Sorrows, 06/30/1999, 1.1 (NBA Draft, so Crusade started at Midnight)
Patterns of the Soul, 07/07/1999, 1.3
Ruling from the Tomb, 07/14/1999, 1.3
The Rules of the Game, 07/21/1999, 1.0 (JFK Jr. plane crash)
Appearances and Other Deceits, 07/28/1999, 1.3
Racing the Night, 08/04/1999, 1.2
The Memory of War, 08/11/1999, 1.3
The Needs of Earth, 08/18/1999, 1.5
Visitors from Down the Street, 08/25/1999, 1.3
Each Night I Dream of Home, 09/01/1999, 1.4


Wouldn't a decent rating for TNT be about a 3 or a 4? Pre-emptions and the TNT-FUBARed airing order didn't help, either.

Again, look at what they were up against. Those are not bad ratings for an SF cult show spin-off that was dead coming out of the gate up against the NBA which carries much of the same demographic.

Against? Crusade was on the same network as the NBA. If it carried the same demographic, the NBA on TNT and Crusade should have helped each other. Instead, there was a polarization. Crusade fans saw their show get pushed out of the way by the NBA, postponed from January to June, and then get pushed around by the NBA in June.

despite that fact that fans knew ahead of time that there were only 13 episodes

Fans knew, in June through September 1999, that there were only 13 episodes, because we were following things on the net (rastb5m, JMSNews, etc.).

(this was mainly because fans wanted SciFi to pick up the show for its completion

Wait a minute. What are you saying "this was mainly because...."? In April 2001, fans who watched Crusade on Sci-Fi, knew that there were only 13 episodes. Crusade's ratings on TNT were not very good for TNT. Crusade's ratings on Sci-Fi were as follows:

CRUSADE Sci-Fi Airings, Ratings:
Racing the Night, 04/09/2001, 1.1
The Memory of War, 04/10/2001, 1.0
The Needs of Earth , 04/11/2001, 0.9
The Path of Sorrows, 04/12/2001, 0.9
Visitors from Down The Street, 04/16/2001, 0.8
War Zone, 04/17/2001, 0.8
The Long Road, 04/18/2001, 0.7
The Well of Forever, 04/19/2001, 0.7
Each Night I Dream of Home, 04/23/2001, 0.7
Ruling from the Tomb, 04/24/2001, 0.7
The Rules of the Game, 04/25/2001, 0.7
Patterns of the Soul, 04/26/2001, 0.6
Appearances and Other Deceits, 04/30/2001, 0.6

...and not very good, even for Sci-Fi. The main reason was probably because fans knew that there were only the 13 episodes and no more.

Ok, there was talk when CRUSADE first aired on TNT about shopping the idea somewhere else, possibly SciFi. So many fans tuned in to make sure the ratings looked promising in order to help push CRUSADE's sellability to another network...again, presumably SciFi...not to mention the rather large "Save Crusade" campaign that went on aimed at SciFi. It was the no-sharing-of-ownership by WB that was the final death knell to CRUSADE.

I knew that (except the "So many fans tuned in to make sure the ratings looked promising in order to help push CRUSADE's sellability to another network."part of it). I didn't know which set of Crusade ratings you thought were so successful. And to be honest, I've forgotten what your point was.

The idea about shopping Crusade to Sci-Fi came about when JMS was getting fed-up with TNT's notes.

So to say that B5 was nominally successful is actually not true...it was enormously successful, not only domestically but in syndication and worldwide.

No, not enormousely successful. It was fairly successful in spite of many stumbling blocks placed in its path.

Is was because of those stumbling blocks and yet it's ever increasing ratings numbers that made it a great success. I remind you that B5 was on the forefront of the change that is now SOP in TV...the story arced series (that doesn't count soaps, nighttime or otherwise). It was due to this success that JMS was named as one of the top 40 most influential writers in Hollywood.

You're talking about it being "influential." I'm talking about it being "successful" (i.e. ratings numbers). "Enormousely successful" would be B5 getting CSI-level ratings on one of the big three, or getting say between 7 and 10 on TNT, or between 5 and 7 on Sci-Fi.

And now, arc shows are starting to fall out of favor, because a network can't air them in random fashion during syndication. TNT Lands 'Alias' Repeats on the Cheap

WB can see that TREK's film franchise (and TREK in general) is in deep s*%t,

Which probably serves to make WB more nervous, as they probably see this as a lack of interest in sci-fi in general.

Not so....they will see the vacuum. Anyone with a brain can see why Trek is failing. B5 has a sturdy and visionary person at the helm, JMS -- unlike Trek with Berman and his cronies.

"Not so....they will see the vacuum." ??? That takes courage and vision, and WB is notoriously lacking in those departments. Witness the timidity with which they entered the DVD market with B5 (one, no-frills, not cleaned up, "test the waters" disc), and the effort they put into cleaning up the B5 DVD transfers for dust, scratches, water damage, etc. See, a company that had courage and vision would had faith in their franchise and started out STRONG with a season set that was as perfect as they could make it, a showpiece to WOW everybody, something to get a real positive buzz going. A company that had courage and vision would not have lost all the CGI files, and would have stored the film more carefully, instead of allowing rats and water have their way with it.

SW is about to be done with the pre-quels

Stick a fork in SW, they're done. Ep. I & II stunk. I'm not going to go see Ep. III, rent it when it comes out on DVD, or probably even watch it when it airs on broadcast TV. Ptui!

You may not have liked them...but the SW films have made a s*@tload of money. I didn't much care for them either, but they have been very successful.

Something tells me the box office for Episode III will be disappointing, at least compared to Episode I (which benefitted from the coat tails of Episode VI.).

Not to mention LOTR (which Hollywood lumps SF and Fantasy into the same boat).

I don't think that "Lord of the Rings" film success translates into the easing of WB trepidation re. future B5-universe projects.

and SF in general seems to be on the upswing.

??? It is? Evidence? Trek is in decline. SW is in decline. Andromeda is awful. Tru Calling is probably a goner. Angel is cancelled. Jake 2.0 is gone. And it seems to me that SG-1 is getting tired. Where is this "upswing" that you speak of?

Back up and look. SW is successful, though many of the fans of the originals aren't happy.

SW is going down the tubes, and Lucas looks like a has-been.

SG-1 has a new spinoff series that's all the buz.

New series/different actors. Could be in for a rough time if it doesn't make SG-1 numbers from the get-go. Hope Skiffy has patience with it. I won't know because Comcast deleted Skiffy from my cable package, and moved it to digital.

Andromeda always sucked

True, but less so in the beginning, before Sorbocules took over.

...and I never count anything much from UPN...and while Trek is in decline you can rest assured Paramount, though they may give it a rest, isn't done with that franchise.

A rest looks like pulling away from the genre.

Angel gone, yes....and I don't count Tru Calling. I'm talking your good ole SF space fans.

If you count Angel, you've got to count Tru Calling.

Dr. Who is about to return revamped and back in a big way....

Over here in the US?

Stargate: Atlantis launches this summer, with one more season of SG-1 to go.

Yes, you mentioned Stargate: Atlantis further up the post.

Taken and the Dune mini-series both did very well.

Taken had the Spielberg name plastered all over it. Its success is not necessarily viewed as interest in the sci-fi genre, but rather interest in a Spielberg project.

Dune had the Herbert name attached to it.

Success for those does not necessarily translate to success for a B5 project with the Straczynski name attached to it.

Battlestar Galactica, though some didn't like it, did very well and is about to launch as a new series as well.

Hope Sci-Fi doesn't goo too cheap on them, and screw it up.

There's talk of bringing Farscape back to end the series (which wouldn't have been heard of a few years ago).

...as a movie, a one shot thing to satisfactorily wrap things up.

SF always goes through a lull every few years...and it's due for its upswing. There are a lot of SF projects in the works which means Hollywood is expecting the upswing.

I hope you're right.

Oh, and GL also has announced the SW EU (Expanded Universe), which at this point is in early stages of talks on the next SW trilogy (all of the original cast has signed on -- although GL will only EP, thank GOD!)

Can't he just let it mercifully die , and let there be room for other space SF? Does SW have to drag on, forever?

"which at this point is in early stages of talks on the next SW trilogy (all of the original cast has signed on " What????? VII, VIII, and IX ????? They're going to do 'em? I thought Lucas scuttled that idea, and I viewed the scuttling as a good thing.

No, it's great timing to be on the crest of the next wave!

If only WB will have the guts to do it. <fingers crossed>



[1]
The First Five (grey/red uniform eps.):
101 The Needs of Earth
102 The Memory of War
103 Racing the Night
104 Visitors from Down the Street
105 Each Night I Dream of Home

 

[KoshN]

since it usually ends up causing me to yell at the TV or newspaper or whatever something to the effect of, "It's as plain as day, you morons! GOD! They're missing out on such a huge opportunity!" or something like, "You idiot! Don't you see what's going to happen if you do this?! GOD! Morons everywhere in power...why can't someone with a little common sense make some decisions every now and then?!" or, "That's not the story you should tell, dipshit! What were you thinking?!"

You have a mic. in my house? I mean, there you go again, plagiarizing my words.

 

[colonyearth]

Re: Semantics!

Quick! Let's get back to semantics!

Bite your tongue you young scallywag! Afore I remove it for ye!

I see a great trilogy of three to five pictures reaching out of the silver screen.

A trilogy of three to five? Are you living in Doug Adam's head? That's the only place I've ever known where a trilogy of five can exist.

Wait a minute... are trying to get us back onto the whole semantics and proper usage of the English language thing again!?

 

[colonyearth]

since it usually ends up causing me to yell at the TV or newspaper or whatever something to the effect of, "It's as plain as day, you morons! GOD! They're missing out on such a huge opportunity!" or something like, "You idiot! Don't you see what's going to happen if you do this?! GOD! Morons everywhere in power...why can't someone with a little common sense make some decisions every now and then?!" or, "That's not the story you should tell, dipshit! What were you thinking?!"

You have a mic. in my house? I mean, there you go again, plagiarizing my words.

Plagiarism is a very strong accusation...besides, how did you find that mic? I thought I hid it really well.

KoshN...funny thing in all of our previous postings back and forth to each other (and taking up a great deal of word space in this thread ) I would have to say that we're both arguing almost the same points. Some minor facts are off, but we're both seeing the same side of the coin. Difference is, I'm looking at things from a positive side...perhaps a bit too sunshiny ...and you're being conservative in your hopes. Bottom line is we both are hoping for the same thing.

From my point of view, B5, no matter what it is -- one film or three -- will make WB a lot of money. Because, if for no other reason, I know that the fans will want it to succeed. I have watched the up and down swing of SF for many years now. We've been in a lull more or less for a few years now. The indication by all of the buzz and activity is that SF is on the upswing. The reason to bring LOTR into it is because the industry lumps fantasy with SF. So by some form of proxy, LOTR has and will help the SF genre as well. Like I said, you and I aren't happy with the new SW films...I'm with you there, but like them or not, they've made gobbs of moola for GL. The one thing I will say positively for the next trilogy is that GL will have nothing more to do with them except to EP them.

Other signs of SF coming back...Riddick is one example of a big film...and no on Dr. Who here (at least not yet), but BBC-1 is bringing it back with one of Britain's top show runners at the helm, Russell T. Davies. It will end up over here...when and how God only knows. I'm merely showing you a trend. There's more new SF, than there is dieing SF. The new B5 project included.

Like I've said before, I have this curse of being able to see a larger canvas and see things on the horizon. I'm not always right, but in this case it seems like I'm more apt to be.

Anyway, we're both agreeing, just in an extremely odd manner.

CE

 

[Recoil]

Holy long freakin post Batman!

How many hours did it take you to type and organize that sucker? I'm guessing at least 2.

 

[Kaleb]

Nah, Im guessing hes just written soem kind of post-bot.

 

[colonyearth]

Nah, Im guessing hes just written soem kind of post-bot.

Bot acknowledged. Upload in progress. Post structure set to maximun word usage. Beep, beep, beep.



Nah, I just think and type really, really fast.

 

[PillowRock]

Crusade was on the same network as the NBA. If it carried the same demographic, the NBA on TNT and Crusade should have helped each other. Instead, there was a polarization.

In terms of basic demographics, sports (including the NBA) and SF (including Crusade) tend to be looking at the same audiance. Both audiances tend to skew male and relatively young. You might argue that often they are not the same young males (though there is definite overlap). The fact remains, however, that if you break the two audiances down into male vs.female and 18-35 vs 36-55 vs 56-up you would end see much more similarity between Crusade and the NBA than between either and JMS' earlier employer "Murder She Wrote" (for example).

Also note that originally Crusade and Witchblade were supposed to hit the air together. That would probably have been a much better fit for both of them than schedules that both eventually got after Witchblade was delayed for a year or more (I don't remember exactly how long it was.)