• 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.

JMS speaks..

  • Thread starter **DONOTDELETE**
  • Start date
Another JMS speaks from the moderated newsgroup:

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>>So JMS, what's next for the world of B5?

Dunno.
>
>I do hope you haven't given up.
>
Given up what?

>By the way - what went wrong?

Dunno...did something go wrong? Did the master tapes of B5 get degaussed or
something?

Not to make light, but you have to look at this from my side...as I said, the main thing was the five years. We got them. Anything else is a bonus. The
finished eps are there, and will be for as long as images are transmitted.
It's there, on the shelf.

Will something else happen with B5 down the road someday? The universe being
as cyclical as it is, almost certainly. But if nothing ever does, *I'm okay
with that*.

I was at a convention a while ago -- one of the last I attended, and you can
put a cause and effect thing there if you want -- and there were all these
actors and people campaigning for their shows to come back, from V to
Battlestar to Lost in Space, you name it...and people kept coming up to me and
saying, with great gentility and real affection, "I hope you get your show back
on again."

And I kept trying to tell them...I ain't here for that. I'm not trying to get
it back on. If that were the case I wouldn't have chosen to end it after five
years in the first place. I was there to celebrate that we'd *done* it, not
that it should come back or that I wanted people to campaign for it. Which is
why I haven't urged writing campaigns or anything else.

I set out to tell the story I wanted to tell, and I told it. If something else
in the B5 universe comes along, terrific, I'm there...but if not, that's okay
too. It's like Zack said in Sleeping in Light, which was meant as a sorta coda
to the production of the show...everything we set out to do, we did, and nobody
can ever take that away. <hr></blockquote>

Sorry for the funky formatting, but I'm heading out the door and don't have much time!!! /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif
 
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Jade Jaguar:
<font color=yellow>
Hypatia, it's not math that's evil, it's mathmeticians. They refuse to feed their parrots. Why else would they say "Polly, no meals!"</font color=yellow><hr></blockquote>
Oh no! It's only 6:30 am. It's too early for bad math puns! /ubbthreads/images/icons/eek.gif
 
Thanks Channe. I missed that one. He certainly has a good attitude about all of this. With so many new projects to juggle I can imagine that he's not chomping at the bit to work on B5 or any old project right now! Or ever. He has plenty else to do.

I just have to decide if I want to double my cable bill and get Showtime.
 
Jeremiah is good. It's really good.

I mean, to expand on what I said in another thread, if Rangers was going to be as good as Jeremiah is turning out to be, Martel would make Kirk eat his dust, Cantrell would put a *lot* of sci-fi women to shame, and Rangers would probably start doing some serious defining-of-genre.

That's not to say I don't have my problems with Jeremiah, but still. /ubbthreads/images/icons/wink.gif
 
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by channe:
<font color=yellow>Jeremiah is good. It's really good.

I mean, to expand on what I said in another thread, if Rangers was going to be as good as Jeremiah is turning out to be, Martel would make Kirk eat his dust, Cantrell would put a *lot* of sci-fi women to shame, and Rangers would probably start doing some serious defining-of-genre.

That's not to say I don't have my problems with Jeremiah, but still. /ubbthreads/images/icons/wink.gif</font color=yellow><hr></blockquote>

I have quite a few problems with Jeremiah. But, it is fiction. <LOL>
 
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>Buffy may use SF elements (although I would argue that things like robots really don't count as SF anymore), but that doesn't make it an SF show, or even partially one <hr></blockquote>

It probably doesn't for you. That doesn't mean that it isn't a sci-fi show to me ... or to others. Take the sci-fi channel's listing of the top SF syndicated shows ... It always lists Buffy as a sci-fi show. No, I'm not saying that list should be taken for anything other than what it is, but some people do see Buffy as a sci-fi show. That's my only point.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr> Any element of supernatural fantasy really moves it out of the SF category, since SF always has an affinity with science, and that affinity should be part of the central idea of the piece<hr></blockquote>

Again, you're just giving me your personal opinion and that's fine. We just happen to share different opinions.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>While I did make the point that the categories aren't that hard and fast, broadly speaking you can say that Buffy and Forever Kinght are primarily supernatural horror shows, while B5 and the various Treks are primarily science fiction shows. <hr></blockquote>

That's why I don't really use categories anymore. I'd say that Buffy is more sci-fi than Forever Knight; Star Trek is more sci-fi than Star Wars; Bladerunner more sci-fi than the Andromeda Strain.... etc.
 
This is what pisses me off the most:

from jms.news.com:
What killed us was the football playoffs. That is a matter of record.

They were hoping the show would do a 2.7 or 2.6 to get picked up. In *every market* where we weren't up against the highest-rasted football game in ten years, we pulled those numbers or better, in some places hitting a 3.1, which is just about unheard of for SFC.

Those numbers came in because the show *worked*.

But we lost the east coast and most of the midwest to the game. When you averaged it all out, we got a 1.7 or thereabouts. The SFC knows why, we know why, it's not like that's an issue, and we *gained viewers* as the show went along, which only happens if the show -- script, CGI, performances -- works.

But in TV, the overall number is the overall number, and it's hard for a network to get past that, especially in dealing with advertisers.

If we'd aired on any other night of the week, there would be a LoTR series in prep right now.

Particularly the last sentence. How can they be so damn short-sighted?? A 3.1! That's HUGE for Sci-Fi! Especially when shows like Spongebob, WWF, and football are pulling in ratings between 4.0 and 6.0.

Let's face it, we were thrown a bone. I don't necessarily believe it would be so hard to convince advertisers that the show will get good ratings, especially when the 3.1 rating is explained to them! Then again, that's judging on the pretense of COMMON SENSE, something corporate-types notoriously lack.
 
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>Then again, that's judging on the pretense of COMMON SENSE, something corporate-types notoriously lack. <hr></blockquote>

Damn I like it when you get pissed. You remind me of a PG-13 version of myself.
 
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>The Star Wars films have even less connection with genuine SF, in the eyes of purists, although it would be hard to explain that to the general public.) <hr></blockquote>

Well, I've seen a couple of attempts at explaining it, classifying it alternatively as fantasy or martial arts (Obviously, it is anything but clear-cut). But the "knights going against the evil emperor and his minions", together with the rather supernatural "force" (Even though Lucas is starting to come up with trekky technobabble to give it a more scientific basis) are standard fantasy fare, whereas fancy swordfighting and acrobatics are standard martial arts fare.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>
Bladerunner*
The Terminal Man
The Andromeda Strain
Jurassic Park
A Boy and His Dog
The Time Machine
1984
The Incredible Shrinking Man
<hr></blockquote>

I largely agree with your selection, though Jurassic Park makes me cringe, being in molecular biology....

BTW, regarding the supernatural, Arthur C. Clarke's "third law" that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic complicates the matter a bit, and I think that JMS used that in B5 quite extensively, to the point where he seriously was stretching the limits once in a while....
 
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by LondosHair:
<font color=yellow>This is what pisses me off the most:

from jms.news.com:
What killed us was the football playoffs. That is a matter of record.

They were hoping the show would do a 2.7 or 2.6 to get picked up. In *every market* where we weren't up against the highest-rasted football game in ten years, we pulled those numbers or better, in some places hitting a 3.1, which is just about unheard of for SFC.

Those numbers came in because the show *worked*.

But we lost the east coast and most of the midwest to the game. When you averaged it all out, we got a 1.7 or thereabouts. The SFC knows why, we know why, it's not like that's an issue, and we *gained viewers* as the show went along, which only happens if the show -- script, CGI, performances -- works.

But in TV, the overall number is the overall number, and it's hard for a network to get past that, especially in dealing with advertisers.

If we'd aired on any other night of the week, there would be a LoTR series in prep right now.

Particularly the last sentence. How can they be so damn short-sighted?? A 3.1! That's HUGE for Sci-Fi! Especially when shows like Spongebob, WWF, and football are pulling in ratings between 4.0 and 6.0.

Let's face it, we were thrown a bone. I don't necessarily believe it would be so hard to convince advertisers that the show will get good ratings, especially when the 3.1 rating is explained to them! Then again, that's judging on the pretense of COMMON SENSE, something corporate-types notoriously lack.</font color=yellow><hr></blockquote>

If I were to get angry, I wouldn't get angry over a lot of "what if's" and "maybes" I don't interpret JMS's statement as saying the show would definitely get picked up if it got a 2.6. I still see it as a "maybe" statement.

Also, the "3.1" statement was very vague. What does "some places" mean? Some tiny places? Some big places? Very vague. I happen to know it means just a few places.
Any TV researcher knows that a few places always get a higher number than the national average....and a few places get a lot lower than the national average.

Also, any TV researcher knows that only 7 markets' ratings in the West Coast were even available when JMS made that statement.

Since you brought up the phrase "common sense", wouldn't common sense tell YOU that ratings pop up and down from one market to the next for any TV show?

By now, the actual regional rating in the Pacific states is available to media buying agencies and SciFi alike. They know what the real FULL REGION number was--not just seven markets spoken of vaguely--and they made their decision accordingly.

However, I never thought ratings were the only determining factor in getting the series picked up, despite all the hype about them(call me a skeptic). I also don't think the ability to convince or not convince advertisers of the rating a series could get was a factor at all.
 
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr> However, I never thought ratings were the only determining factor in getting the series picked up, despite all the hype about them(call me a skeptic). I also don't think the ability to convince or not convince advertisers of the rating a series could get was a factor at all. <hr></blockquote>

Hmm, Dylan Neal certainly thought that ratings were a determining factor.

<a target="_blank" href=http://www.b5lr.com/ubbthreads/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=UBB1&Number=8824&Search=true&Forum=All_Forums&Words=Dylan%20Neal&Match=Username&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Old=allposts&Main=8818>In this post: B5LR.com review of the telemovie</a>

Edited the link to make it shorter. - Kribu
 
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by SavantB5:
<font color=yellow>I don't interpret JMS's statement as saying the show would definitely get picked up if it got a 2.6. I still see it as a "maybe" statement.</font color=yellow><hr></blockquote>

How so? I've been around since the beginning of B5 as well. JMS chooses his words carefully. TOO carefully, in fact, to have overlooked replacing "would be" with "might be" in that last sentence of his usenet post. This leads me to wonder if he might have been given some kind of word BY the network, that if LoTR achieved a certain rating, that something definitely would've become of it. Whether it might have been another TV movie, or a whole series, is unknown.

When I read the entire post, I hear primarily disappointment, but also certainty. At the same time, I get the sense that he's hinting "oh well, let's move on... we've got Jeremiah work to do, and my next ish of Spider-Man is due soon..."
 
Ugh, being the horizontal scroll hater that I am ... can someone edit that post so that the URL isn't so long? That is what the URL tag is for: (without the spaces)

[ url=http://www.blah.com/ ]my url link[ /url ]

or

http://makeashorterlink.com/ /ubbthreads/images/icons/wink.gif
 
Done. /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

Except that I didn't need to horizontal scroll and didn't thus even think of the issue before you pointed it out... you need to get a browser that wraps long URLs like that, Lyta. /ubbthreads/images/icons/tongue.gif /ubbthreads/images/icons/grin.gif
 
And another post from JMS today (and I suggest <a target="_blank" href=http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=20020410085002.10663.00004575%40mb-fo.aol.com>reading the post</a> JMS replied to as well):

<font color=orange>Hoping I'm not too far off base, JMS.

No, that's just about right.

The other thing that needs to be emphasized, in terms of fan letter campaigns, is that the currency of the fan campaign is that it's been in large measure devalued by over-use, at least in terms of how the studios see it (having been told this straight up). These days *any* show that is nominally SF or fantasy, when its time ends, gets a writing camapign to get it back or keep it on the air. Good show, bad show, indifferent...the campaigns come regardless. So it doesn't really carry the same weight it did once.

And I think they've always been of limited impact anyway...it did have some impact on S3 of the original Trek, and if a show is "on the bubble" as they say, bordering between renewal and cancellation...but beyond that, it really doesn't have an impact.

The first ST feature wasn't commissioned because of fan mail, it came because Star Wars came out and did huge bucks and somebody in the Paramount brain trust said, literally, "waitaminnit, don't WE have one of those?" and rushed ST
forward.

It's not passivity on my part as much as just trusting to the forces of history. Sooner or later, what goes around, comes around. My job is to make sure it's done right when it happens.

jms</font color=orange>
 
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Lyta:
<font color=yellow>

JMS about why he seems to be just happy with the current situation of the B5 universe:

It's not passivity on my part as much as just trusting to the forces of history. Sooner or later, what goes around, comes around. My job is to make sure it's done right when it happens.

jms</font color=orange></font color=yellow><hr></blockquote>

Exactly. I agree with him totaly.

I think that the original B5 is of such a high quality that it will be impossible not for the B5 community worldwide to grow and flourish. And sooner or later some exec is gonna notice how many people there are out there that just love B5, and so the Babylonion universe will return to our TV.

It might take a couple of years, but it will probably happen sooner or later. The problem is just that we want it sooner, not later. /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

Well. Look upon it as an exercise in getting more patience! And having patience is a very good thing.
/ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

/Com
 
I think they rebroadcast it twice actually. I think IIRC they rebroadcast it on that same night later and then about a week later.

I hate to admit it, but we can't blame that game for all of the ratings. But of course when it was rebroadcast it was no longer a premier event, so ratings would be expectd to drop. If word of mouth had been really superb, my guess would be the ratings would have reflected it in the later broadcasts.

It seems it just was not meant to be. Yet at least.
 
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by hypatia:
<font color=yellow>I think they rebroadcast it twice actually. I think IIRC they rebroadcast it on that same night later and then about a week later.</font color=yellow><hr></blockquote>
Wasn't it once again the same night and then the next day, not a week later?
So it's still if you missed it that weekend, you missed it. That's it.
 
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Kribu:
<font color=yellow>Wasn't it once again the same night and then the next day, not a week later?
So it's still if you missed it that weekend, you missed it. That's it.</font color=yellow><hr></blockquote>
Maybe it was the next day, I can't remember. Since I wasn't a Nielson family I just taped it the first day and then made sure that the tape came out. I admit I didn't particularly note when the second rebroadcast was.

Perhaps a rebroadcast would help if it got phenomenal ratings. But wouldn’t that be pretty unlikely? And I’d think it would take months to do, since they wouldn’t want to cancel the showing of something else to put Rangers in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 332 (members: 1, guests: 331)

Share this page

Back
Top