<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>One that I noticed all the time while I still had Windoze running was in the Menus. Open a window and click on the first menu (File). If you watch closely, you may notice that TWO Menus get drawn in most Windoze.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Windows (pardon me if I don't follow your childish misspelling) has an option that allows you to either list all the menu choices or just the most recently used ones (which produces shorter, faster loading menus.) Short menus are the default. The long ones don't appear unless you run the cursor over a little arrow that appears at the bottom of the menu list.
This option only works with MS applications, as far as I know. I
suppose that it is possible, if you're running a slow enough machine, that the short menu could appear first and then "adjust" itself. But only in the early implementation of this feature. It certainly doesn't happen on my Win2000 machine, and it didn't on my Win98 box. I had "full menus" set as the default on both. Of course, it is also possible that you had the default "short" menus selected, and didn't realize that the "full" menus didn't appear until you moved the mouse. In other words, "it's not a bug, it's a feature."
I'll leave your elaborate conspiracy theories for those better versed in
The X-Files than I am, and for any Oliver Stone fans in the house.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Would B5 extras really be that costly to add?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes. Much of the material that would go into such supplements either belongs to other people or would have to be created from scratch. For instance, while
B5 itself is the property of Warner Bros., the "behind the scenes" documentaries shot for The Sci-Fi Channel, TNT and the unaired Sci-Fi
SciOgraphy segment on the show belong to the network that shot them, not to WB.
If they want new on camera interviews they have to pay a director and camera crew to conduct them, editors to cut them together, and possibly some of the participants for their time. (SAG is pushing hard to have actors compensated for this kind of work, and Arnold S. just signed a huge, precendent setting deal to record a commentary track for one of his films.)
Audio commentary tracks require screening room time and a recording engineer, as well as DVD mastering time and, again, possible payments to the participants.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>The BBC manage to stick loads of great extras on the Dr Who DVD's <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But BBC presumably made any
Who documentaries itself, and therefore owns them already. And American union rules simply do not allow for people to do exta work for nothing. Aside from salaried studio personnel who might be assigned to a project, everybody who works on it would get paid. (From an accounting standpoint, even the salaried employees' time would be charged to the
B5 DVDs, so it would affect the break-even point for the set. Those people could have been assigned to other work, so it becomes important to track which projects incurred which expenses.)
Finally, Warner Home Video is a separate corporate entity than Warner Bros. Television. So their costs, including extras mastering, menu creation, producing the supplements, all have to be caculated separately. BBC Home Video is probably a department within the parent company, and costs are calculated differently.
I wouldn't count on any bloopers, by the way. Aside from one or two that were released to the Dick Clark
Bloopers TV show, they aren't really under Warner Bros. control, either. The actual, edited bloopers, with the associated music tracks, were produced each season for the private amusement of the cast and crew. And nearly all of them would have to be paid for their use, per union rules.
They have been exhibited "privately" at conventions as a kind of treat for the fans. But WB doesn't
own them in their finished form. They would have to get all of the participants to agree to their release, an according to JMS several actors have already vetoed the idea. In addition, WB would have to pay for the rights to the music used on them, which would be very expensive.
Finally, most of the copies floating around out there have been dubbed multiple times, or played to death, or both (from what I
hear) and are not in very good shape. I'm not sure a version survives that could be used on DVD, where the increased resolution and better sound tend to
magnify flaws in the source material.
Warner Bros. probably
could, if the original footage still survives, edit a brand new version of the bloopers, but they'd probably still have to pay the actors for using it. Also I tend to doubt that the same studio that lost all the ship, planet and background CGI files from the series, and let water and rats get to the original negative of
The Gathering has managed to preserve the blooper footage all these years.
Sorry, but this is one extra that I don't think is going to happen.
Regards,
Joe
------------------
Joseph DeMartino
Sigh Corps
Pat Tallman Division
joseph-demartino@att.net
