-
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.
Okay, Straight up!
- Thread starter Morden
- Start date
D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
Should this associate succeed in taking over the planetary market for labeling and data collection software (dream on) we may certainly assume that it would be willing to sponsor something... but that day is unlikely to come. /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif
-----
On a more serious note, I can hope that JMS succeeds in his works, gaining interest from TV stations. Perhaps one day, he has enough reputation to propose making that theatrical movie.
Perhaps before, perhaps after one or more interesting series. Should Babylon 5 disks sell, Crusade might follow. Warner might be convinced that profit is likely in such ventures.
I can hope that IFH will become a blockbuster (and free) space flight simulator, further increasing interest in matters Babylonian.
I can hope that Del Rey notices demand for Babylon 5 novels, and expresses serious interest in having some new books written.
-----
On a more serious note, I can hope that JMS succeeds in his works, gaining interest from TV stations. Perhaps one day, he has enough reputation to propose making that theatrical movie.
Perhaps before, perhaps after one or more interesting series. Should Babylon 5 disks sell, Crusade might follow. Warner might be convinced that profit is likely in such ventures.
I can hope that IFH will become a blockbuster (and free) space flight simulator, further increasing interest in matters Babylonian.
I can hope that Del Rey notices demand for Babylon 5 novels, and expresses serious interest in having some new books written.
KoshN
Super Moderator
For there to be any hope left, you'd have to have faith in Warner Brothers and a network/channel to buy the show. For a network/channel to want to buy the show, you'd need an audience with big enough numbers to make it tempting for that network/channel.
It seems that the audience for a show like a B5 spinoff is too small to return the ratings numbers needed to make it tempting for a network/channel, unless the show can be made extremely inexpensively, and the ratings expectations for anything on that network/channel aren't above say a "2.0."
Right now, it seems like a B5 spinoff is too expensive to make the cut on Sci-Fi, and that Sci-Fi's numbers expectations are a little too major league for a B5 spinoff show. The audience just isn't there. (What can I say? The mainstream audience has no taste.) While the numbers expectations of a smaller channel (say Tech TV) would probably be smaller, the too expensive part would still be a hindrance. Warner Brothers, by losing all of B5's CGI, certainly hurt matters here. By not being able to re-use the existing CGI, and instead of having to remake everything from scratch, Warner Brothers has increased the expense of making a B5 spinoff.
Looking back, I believe that Crusade was our best chance of getting a successful B5 spinoff. It still would be our best chance if networks/channels didn't look at resurrecting Crusade as being the equivalent of planting a replacement tree of the same species in the same hole where the previous tree of the same species died. What they're conveniently forgetting is that the tree didn't die of natural causes, but was tortured and eventually murdered by the network/channel.
It seems that the audience for a show like a B5 spinoff is too small to return the ratings numbers needed to make it tempting for a network/channel, unless the show can be made extremely inexpensively, and the ratings expectations for anything on that network/channel aren't above say a "2.0."
Right now, it seems like a B5 spinoff is too expensive to make the cut on Sci-Fi, and that Sci-Fi's numbers expectations are a little too major league for a B5 spinoff show. The audience just isn't there. (What can I say? The mainstream audience has no taste.) While the numbers expectations of a smaller channel (say Tech TV) would probably be smaller, the too expensive part would still be a hindrance. Warner Brothers, by losing all of B5's CGI, certainly hurt matters here. By not being able to re-use the existing CGI, and instead of having to remake everything from scratch, Warner Brothers has increased the expense of making a B5 spinoff.
Looking back, I believe that Crusade was our best chance of getting a successful B5 spinoff. It still would be our best chance if networks/channels didn't look at resurrecting Crusade as being the equivalent of planting a replacement tree of the same species in the same hole where the previous tree of the same species died. What they're conveniently forgetting is that the tree didn't die of natural causes, but was tortured and eventually murdered by the network/channel.
Joseph DeMartino
Moderator
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
By not being able to re-use the existing CGI, and instead of having to remake everything from scratch, Warner Brothers has increased the expense of making a B5 spinoff.
[/quote]
By a fraction of a percent over 22 or 110 episodes. This issue is really being beaten to death. The big expense of most CGI is not creating models of ships and planets, which need only be done once. It is creating new custom shots and then rendering them. Rendering is time consuming and extremely expensive. Any new series (this was the case with Rangers) would be rendering the CGI for the 1.77:1 HD aspect ratio, and probably at HD resolution to avoid the problems encountered in doing the hi-def masters of the original series. So even any surviving "stock shots" from B5 (station orbit scenes, for the most part) would have to be reworked in wire-frame and re-rendered from scratch. There is virtually no cost difference between doing this from the old CGI files and creating new CGI based on new models.
Finally, most of the stock shots wouldn't be very useful. They were almost all of the station and Epsilon 3. JMS has said repeatedly that he has no interest in doing B5: The Next Generation, so any spin-off will set in the B5 universe will not be set on the station. As with Rangers and Crusade, the new show would visit the station from time to time.
There are probably a hundred obstacles to ever getting a new series set in the B5 universe on the air. The lost CGI is somewhere around number 98.
I don't think the odds of a new series are very great. About the only thing that could interest a network (and an audience) in a new series would be a hit theatrical film. And even that would be iffy, because a theatrical film would feature mostly the original cast, and a new series wouldn't. Unless JMS could introduce new characters and a new situation within a Teep War story who could then be followed into a new series, it would be very difficult to translate even a hit movie to the small screen and bring the audience with it.
Not, ultimately, that it matters. As JMS has said he never really saw B5 as a "franchise". He saw it as one story to tell over five years against nearly impossible odds. Incredibly, he did it. While he still likes to play in that universe (and I like visiting it), the fact remains that any further B5 products are "gravy" - we've already enjoyed the feast.
Life would not lose all meaning for me if there were never another new B5-related product. While I'm curious to find out what would have happened in Crusade, and exactly what was going on with The Hand, etc., in Rangers, I could live without those answers. It isn't like no other show I've liked has ever been cancelled leaving loose ends in its wake. I'd certainly watch such shows or read novels based on them if they happened to come along, but I don't think I'm going to be here ten years from now still trying to get Crusade back. There is a wise old saying, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. There's no point making a damned fool of yourself." /forums/images/icons/smile.gif
Regards,
Joe
By not being able to re-use the existing CGI, and instead of having to remake everything from scratch, Warner Brothers has increased the expense of making a B5 spinoff.
[/quote]
By a fraction of a percent over 22 or 110 episodes. This issue is really being beaten to death. The big expense of most CGI is not creating models of ships and planets, which need only be done once. It is creating new custom shots and then rendering them. Rendering is time consuming and extremely expensive. Any new series (this was the case with Rangers) would be rendering the CGI for the 1.77:1 HD aspect ratio, and probably at HD resolution to avoid the problems encountered in doing the hi-def masters of the original series. So even any surviving "stock shots" from B5 (station orbit scenes, for the most part) would have to be reworked in wire-frame and re-rendered from scratch. There is virtually no cost difference between doing this from the old CGI files and creating new CGI based on new models.
Finally, most of the stock shots wouldn't be very useful. They were almost all of the station and Epsilon 3. JMS has said repeatedly that he has no interest in doing B5: The Next Generation, so any spin-off will set in the B5 universe will not be set on the station. As with Rangers and Crusade, the new show would visit the station from time to time.
There are probably a hundred obstacles to ever getting a new series set in the B5 universe on the air. The lost CGI is somewhere around number 98.
I don't think the odds of a new series are very great. About the only thing that could interest a network (and an audience) in a new series would be a hit theatrical film. And even that would be iffy, because a theatrical film would feature mostly the original cast, and a new series wouldn't. Unless JMS could introduce new characters and a new situation within a Teep War story who could then be followed into a new series, it would be very difficult to translate even a hit movie to the small screen and bring the audience with it.
Not, ultimately, that it matters. As JMS has said he never really saw B5 as a "franchise". He saw it as one story to tell over five years against nearly impossible odds. Incredibly, he did it. While he still likes to play in that universe (and I like visiting it), the fact remains that any further B5 products are "gravy" - we've already enjoyed the feast.
Life would not lose all meaning for me if there were never another new B5-related product. While I'm curious to find out what would have happened in Crusade, and exactly what was going on with The Hand, etc., in Rangers, I could live without those answers. It isn't like no other show I've liked has ever been cancelled leaving loose ends in its wake. I'd certainly watch such shows or read novels based on them if they happened to come along, but I don't think I'm going to be here ten years from now still trying to get Crusade back. There is a wise old saying, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. There's no point making a damned fool of yourself." /forums/images/icons/smile.gif
Regards,
Joe
KoshN
Super Moderator
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
<font color="yellow"> Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino: </font color>
By a fraction of a percent over 22 or 110 episodes. This issue is really being beaten to death. The big expense of most CGI is not creating models of ships and planets, which need only be done once. It is creating new custom shots and then rendering them. Rendering is time consuming and extremely expensive.
[/quote]
Creating the models of ships (including pieces of ships, the debris, etc.), planets, and certain space stations is not easy or inexpensive to do, especially if you're trying to match the look of the models that were lost. Those files were created and refined over the course of five years.
Creating new custom shots and then rendering them, is relatively easy because you're using all the work that you've already put into the models and backgrounds in those shots. The models are just actors on Lightwave's (or whatever other animation software you're using) stage. The background is a part of the set on that stage. You set up the lighting, motion (where the actors hit their marks) and add the effects. Rendering is becoming cheaper all the time, as computers get faster and faster.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
<font color="yellow"> Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino: </font color>
Any new series (this was the case with Rangers) would be rendering the CGI for the 1.77:1 HD aspect ratio, and probably at HD resolution to avoid the problems encountered in doing the hi-def masters of the original series. So even any surviving "stock shots" from B5 (station orbit scenes, for the most part) would have to be reworked in wire-frame and re-rendered from scratch. There is virtually no cost difference between doing this from the old CGI files and creating new CGI based on new models.
[/quote]
IIRC, models are reworked in wireframe, not scenes (animation files). Any Lightwave experts, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Who's talking about stock shots (scenes that were already rendered)? I'm talking about the models. The existing B5 models and backgrounds could have been used as-is, to create new scenes. Then those scenes could be rendered in any resolution you want. It's unlikely that the transition to HDTV would have required much, if any, tweaking to the models (e.g. increased polygon count, redone surface textures, etc.). Still, building upon already existing work is a lot easier and less expensive than re-creating everything from scratch.
Sure, if the existing animation files had been saved, they could have been re-rendered and used in a new series, but that would result in only minimal cost savings, since a new series would not be likely to use many existing stock scenes very much.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
<font color="yellow"> Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino: </font color>
Finally, most of the stock shots wouldn't be very useful. They were almost all of the station and Epsilon 3. JMS has said repeatedly that he has no interest in doing B5: The Next Generation, so any spin-off will set in the B5 universe will not be set on the station. As with Rangers and Crusade, the new show would visit the station from time to time.
[/quote]
Finally, we're in agreement on something. Most of the existing stock shots wouldn't see that much use since the new show would not be based at B5. However, creating any new stock shots without the already existing models would be more expensive because all the models in those scene files would have to be re-created from scratch. This is why we got only a very brief, fuzzy, hardly rotating, far-away look at B5, and no Epsilon 3 in TLaDiS.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
<font color="yellow"> Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino: </font color>
There are probably a hundred obstacles to ever getting a new series set in the B5 universe on the air. The lost CGI is somewhere around number 98.
[/quote]
It depends on how much the fans expect a new series to match up with existing B5 in regards to previously existing models and backgrounds. I suspect it's a bigger obstacle than you think it is. Doing the series inexpensively is of extreme importance given that it the more expensive the series, the greater the ratings it has to get, to justify that expense. Right now, they'd have to make a spinoff for even less money than Crusade or Rangers if they were to have a chance on Sci-Fi or a smaller network, and they can't go the other way to a larger network.
However, after what happened to Crusade and Rangers, I doubt JMS will get the chance to do a third B5 spinoff. It would be better to make a success of one of the existing two, and of those, Crusade is the one that I think has the greater potential to succeed (not that any network/channel will re-start it and give it a chance, of course).
The only thing that could change the current climate is probably record breaking sales of the B5 DVDs.
<font color="yellow"> Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino: </font color>
By a fraction of a percent over 22 or 110 episodes. This issue is really being beaten to death. The big expense of most CGI is not creating models of ships and planets, which need only be done once. It is creating new custom shots and then rendering them. Rendering is time consuming and extremely expensive.
[/quote]
Creating the models of ships (including pieces of ships, the debris, etc.), planets, and certain space stations is not easy or inexpensive to do, especially if you're trying to match the look of the models that were lost. Those files were created and refined over the course of five years.
Creating new custom shots and then rendering them, is relatively easy because you're using all the work that you've already put into the models and backgrounds in those shots. The models are just actors on Lightwave's (or whatever other animation software you're using) stage. The background is a part of the set on that stage. You set up the lighting, motion (where the actors hit their marks) and add the effects. Rendering is becoming cheaper all the time, as computers get faster and faster.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
<font color="yellow"> Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino: </font color>
Any new series (this was the case with Rangers) would be rendering the CGI for the 1.77:1 HD aspect ratio, and probably at HD resolution to avoid the problems encountered in doing the hi-def masters of the original series. So even any surviving "stock shots" from B5 (station orbit scenes, for the most part) would have to be reworked in wire-frame and re-rendered from scratch. There is virtually no cost difference between doing this from the old CGI files and creating new CGI based on new models.
[/quote]
IIRC, models are reworked in wireframe, not scenes (animation files). Any Lightwave experts, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Who's talking about stock shots (scenes that were already rendered)? I'm talking about the models. The existing B5 models and backgrounds could have been used as-is, to create new scenes. Then those scenes could be rendered in any resolution you want. It's unlikely that the transition to HDTV would have required much, if any, tweaking to the models (e.g. increased polygon count, redone surface textures, etc.). Still, building upon already existing work is a lot easier and less expensive than re-creating everything from scratch.
Sure, if the existing animation files had been saved, they could have been re-rendered and used in a new series, but that would result in only minimal cost savings, since a new series would not be likely to use many existing stock scenes very much.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
<font color="yellow"> Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino: </font color>
Finally, most of the stock shots wouldn't be very useful. They were almost all of the station and Epsilon 3. JMS has said repeatedly that he has no interest in doing B5: The Next Generation, so any spin-off will set in the B5 universe will not be set on the station. As with Rangers and Crusade, the new show would visit the station from time to time.
[/quote]
Finally, we're in agreement on something. Most of the existing stock shots wouldn't see that much use since the new show would not be based at B5. However, creating any new stock shots without the already existing models would be more expensive because all the models in those scene files would have to be re-created from scratch. This is why we got only a very brief, fuzzy, hardly rotating, far-away look at B5, and no Epsilon 3 in TLaDiS.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
<font color="yellow"> Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino: </font color>
There are probably a hundred obstacles to ever getting a new series set in the B5 universe on the air. The lost CGI is somewhere around number 98.
[/quote]
It depends on how much the fans expect a new series to match up with existing B5 in regards to previously existing models and backgrounds. I suspect it's a bigger obstacle than you think it is. Doing the series inexpensively is of extreme importance given that it the more expensive the series, the greater the ratings it has to get, to justify that expense. Right now, they'd have to make a spinoff for even less money than Crusade or Rangers if they were to have a chance on Sci-Fi or a smaller network, and they can't go the other way to a larger network.
However, after what happened to Crusade and Rangers, I doubt JMS will get the chance to do a third B5 spinoff. It would be better to make a success of one of the existing two, and of those, Crusade is the one that I think has the greater potential to succeed (not that any network/channel will re-start it and give it a chance, of course).
The only thing that could change the current climate is probably record breaking sales of the B5 DVDs.
Shaal Mayan
Regular
In that case we need to break a sales record for the sales of the dvd cause I beleive that may be the only way to change minds at WB so all I half to say is buy it .Even if season one isn't your favorite it will support the casue .
Joseph DeMartino
Moderator
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I beleive that may be the only way to change minds at WB
[/quote]
WB (the TV studio) isn't and never has been the problem. They produce television series. That is the main way they make their money. They'd be happy to have a half-dozen Babylon 5 universe shows on the air all at once. However, they have to have a network to sell those shows to. If nobody wants a show, they can't make it.
As for the CGI: 1) The "look" of the station in Rangers was the result of too little time (more than money) devoted to the shot because they didn't find out until the fairly late that the original CGI files were gone. If they'd known that from the beginning they would have started on it sooner and done a better job. There was nothing that couldn't have been amortized over the cost of the series. (As would rebuilding some B5 sets for when Liandra put in for visits. This would not have been a major problem or expense, and I'm convinced was not a factor at all in Sci-Fi's decision to pass on the movie. Nor would it be for any other network for any other B5 project. 2) The "look" of any future B5 projects does not have to "exactly match" the look of the original series. If there is any such project, Lord willing, the FX will look better and closer to what JMS originally envisioned. Should the FX for ST:TNG have "exactly matched" those of the original series? Should the movies have "exactly matched" the TV series? Of course not. Let's try not to be too anal about this stuff. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif
Regards,
Joe
I beleive that may be the only way to change minds at WB
[/quote]
WB (the TV studio) isn't and never has been the problem. They produce television series. That is the main way they make their money. They'd be happy to have a half-dozen Babylon 5 universe shows on the air all at once. However, they have to have a network to sell those shows to. If nobody wants a show, they can't make it.
As for the CGI: 1) The "look" of the station in Rangers was the result of too little time (more than money) devoted to the shot because they didn't find out until the fairly late that the original CGI files were gone. If they'd known that from the beginning they would have started on it sooner and done a better job. There was nothing that couldn't have been amortized over the cost of the series. (As would rebuilding some B5 sets for when Liandra put in for visits. This would not have been a major problem or expense, and I'm convinced was not a factor at all in Sci-Fi's decision to pass on the movie. Nor would it be for any other network for any other B5 project. 2) The "look" of any future B5 projects does not have to "exactly match" the look of the original series. If there is any such project, Lord willing, the FX will look better and closer to what JMS originally envisioned. Should the FX for ST:TNG have "exactly matched" those of the original series? Should the movies have "exactly matched" the TV series? Of course not. Let's try not to be too anal about this stuff. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif
Regards,
Joe
KoshN
Super Moderator
TOS to TNG is an 18 year gap (1969 to 1987).
TOS to the first Trek movie was 10 years (1969 to 1979).
B5 to TLaDiS is ~2.6 years (late 1998 to mid-2001).
Unless the next B5 series produced, assuming there is one, is in the 2008 to 2016 timeframe, your trek examples are not applicable.
TOS to the first Trek movie was 10 years (1969 to 1979).
B5 to TLaDiS is ~2.6 years (late 1998 to mid-2001).
Unless the next B5 series produced, assuming there is one, is in the 2008 to 2016 timeframe, your trek examples are not applicable.
Joseph DeMartino
Moderator
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
TOS to TNG is an 18 year gap (1969 to 1987).
TOS to the first Trek movie was 10 years (1969 to 1979).
B5 to TLaDiS is ~2.6 years (late 1998 to mid-2001).
[/quote]
And TNG to the first TNG movie was effectively zero years - but they still scrapped the old Enterprise sets and reworked the FX after that one because they didn't work in feature films. Also FX have changed a lot more in the past ten years than they did in the years between ST:TOS and ST:TMP. They continue to change rapidly, and the rate of change continues to increase. Even within the production span of B5 itself the technology underwent a sea-change, and the S4 & S5 FX shots don't "exactly match" what we saw in the pilot and S1. Crusade was different yet again, as they settled into new software and new hardware to create the CGI, and became comfortable with the new tools. All of this within a shorter span than that separating Crusade from Rangers.
And the philosophical point remains the same: You were arguing that a new show should look like the original. You didn't make any exceptions for the amount of time that had elapsed between them. I say that this is irrelevant, and that the new show should look different if better means are developed to create the effects, even if only six months intervenes between them. JMS has said that hyperspace in Rangers looks more like what he wanted in the first place but was never able to achieve with the original FX systems. Should he have dropped his original vision and stuck with an unsatisfactory compromise when it became possible to do what he wanted? Why, because (some of) the fans wanted it that way? I don't believe that is the way to go, and I know JMS doesn't either. He's had words to say before about creating by committee and giving fans veto power over his shows.
Regards,
Joe
TOS to TNG is an 18 year gap (1969 to 1987).
TOS to the first Trek movie was 10 years (1969 to 1979).
B5 to TLaDiS is ~2.6 years (late 1998 to mid-2001).
[/quote]
And TNG to the first TNG movie was effectively zero years - but they still scrapped the old Enterprise sets and reworked the FX after that one because they didn't work in feature films. Also FX have changed a lot more in the past ten years than they did in the years between ST:TOS and ST:TMP. They continue to change rapidly, and the rate of change continues to increase. Even within the production span of B5 itself the technology underwent a sea-change, and the S4 & S5 FX shots don't "exactly match" what we saw in the pilot and S1. Crusade was different yet again, as they settled into new software and new hardware to create the CGI, and became comfortable with the new tools. All of this within a shorter span than that separating Crusade from Rangers.
And the philosophical point remains the same: You were arguing that a new show should look like the original. You didn't make any exceptions for the amount of time that had elapsed between them. I say that this is irrelevant, and that the new show should look different if better means are developed to create the effects, even if only six months intervenes between them. JMS has said that hyperspace in Rangers looks more like what he wanted in the first place but was never able to achieve with the original FX systems. Should he have dropped his original vision and stuck with an unsatisfactory compromise when it became possible to do what he wanted? Why, because (some of) the fans wanted it that way? I don't believe that is the way to go, and I know JMS doesn't either. He's had words to say before about creating by committee and giving fans veto power over his shows.
Regards,
Joe
KoshN
Super Moderator
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
<font color="yellow"> Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino: </font color>
And TNG to the first TNG movie was effectively zero years - but they still scrapped the old Enterprise sets and reworked the FX after that one because they didn't work in feature films.
[/quote]
With B5 we're talking TV series to TV series, and CGI not sets.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
<font color="yellow"> Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino: </font color>
Also FX have changed a lot more in the past ten years than they did in the years between ST:TOS and ST:TMP. They continue to change rapidly, and the rate of change continues to increase.
[/quote]
I'm not sure what they used in ST:TMP, but it was probably mainly optical effects. B5's use of CGI was a helluva big step. However, over the course of B5 the effects just evolved. The rate of change has been more gradual than the step change between ST:TMP and B5.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
<font color="yellow"> Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino: </font color>
Even within the production span of B5 itself the technology underwent a sea-change, and the S4 & S5 FX shots don't "exactly match" what we saw in the pilot and S1.
[/quote]
That's true for some of the effects, but not all of them. Some of the effects in the pilot and S1 look dated, but others look fine in comparison to S4/S5.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
<font color="yellow"> Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino: </font color>
Crusade was different yet again, as they settled into new software and new hardware to create the CGI, and became comfortable with the new tools. All of this within a shorter span than that separating Crusade from Rangers.
[/quote]
Crusade had some minor differences. e.g. the Jumpgate vortex flashiness (which started in A Call to Arms, btw).
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
<font color="yellow"> Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino: </font color>
And the philosophical point remains the same: You were arguing that a new show should look like the original. You didn't make any exceptions for the amount of time that had elapsed between them. I say that this is irrelevant, and that the new show should look different if better means are developed to create the effects, even if only six months intervenes between them. JMS has said that hyperspace in Rangers looks more like what he wanted in the first place but was never able to achieve with the original FX systems. Should he have dropped his original vision and stuck with an unsatisfactory compromise when it became possible to do what he wanted? Why, because (some of) the fans wanted it that way? I don't believe that is the way to go, and I know JMS doesn't either. He's had words to say before about creating by committee and giving fans veto power over his shows.
[/quote]
He should try to maintain a consistent look, or at least have the changes appear gradually over time, or have the changes somehow explained in the story. There are lots of ways to handle it without introducing jarring changes. Going from pilot to new series is an exception to this. However, going from "established series" (B5/Crusade) to "new pilot movie" in 2.6 years isn't an exception. It's best to try to make things match up where they meet. Crusade to TLaDiS is a jarring change.
e.g. The sharp look of B5 S1 thru Crusade, a B5 hallmark, should have been maintained. In TLaDiS we got the smeary, soft-focus, oil-bath look (Minbar from orbit, the new nebulae, B5's area at the end). It should have been possible to maintain that sharp B5/Crusade look in TLaDiS.
<font color="yellow"> Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino: </font color>
And TNG to the first TNG movie was effectively zero years - but they still scrapped the old Enterprise sets and reworked the FX after that one because they didn't work in feature films.
[/quote]
With B5 we're talking TV series to TV series, and CGI not sets.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
<font color="yellow"> Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino: </font color>
Also FX have changed a lot more in the past ten years than they did in the years between ST:TOS and ST:TMP. They continue to change rapidly, and the rate of change continues to increase.
[/quote]
I'm not sure what they used in ST:TMP, but it was probably mainly optical effects. B5's use of CGI was a helluva big step. However, over the course of B5 the effects just evolved. The rate of change has been more gradual than the step change between ST:TMP and B5.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
<font color="yellow"> Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino: </font color>
Even within the production span of B5 itself the technology underwent a sea-change, and the S4 & S5 FX shots don't "exactly match" what we saw in the pilot and S1.
[/quote]
That's true for some of the effects, but not all of them. Some of the effects in the pilot and S1 look dated, but others look fine in comparison to S4/S5.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
<font color="yellow"> Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino: </font color>
Crusade was different yet again, as they settled into new software and new hardware to create the CGI, and became comfortable with the new tools. All of this within a shorter span than that separating Crusade from Rangers.
[/quote]
Crusade had some minor differences. e.g. the Jumpgate vortex flashiness (which started in A Call to Arms, btw).
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
<font color="yellow"> Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino: </font color>
And the philosophical point remains the same: You were arguing that a new show should look like the original. You didn't make any exceptions for the amount of time that had elapsed between them. I say that this is irrelevant, and that the new show should look different if better means are developed to create the effects, even if only six months intervenes between them. JMS has said that hyperspace in Rangers looks more like what he wanted in the first place but was never able to achieve with the original FX systems. Should he have dropped his original vision and stuck with an unsatisfactory compromise when it became possible to do what he wanted? Why, because (some of) the fans wanted it that way? I don't believe that is the way to go, and I know JMS doesn't either. He's had words to say before about creating by committee and giving fans veto power over his shows.
[/quote]
He should try to maintain a consistent look, or at least have the changes appear gradually over time, or have the changes somehow explained in the story. There are lots of ways to handle it without introducing jarring changes. Going from pilot to new series is an exception to this. However, going from "established series" (B5/Crusade) to "new pilot movie" in 2.6 years isn't an exception. It's best to try to make things match up where they meet. Crusade to TLaDiS is a jarring change.
e.g. The sharp look of B5 S1 thru Crusade, a B5 hallmark, should have been maintained. In TLaDiS we got the smeary, soft-focus, oil-bath look (Minbar from orbit, the new nebulae, B5's area at the end). It should have been possible to maintain that sharp B5/Crusade look in TLaDiS.
Joseph DeMartino
Moderator
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
He should try to maintain a consistent look, or at least have the changes appear gradually over time, or have the changes somehow explained in the story.
[/quote]
Well, I hope you'll let JMS know that he's falling down on the job. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif Just try to understand that the above is a statement of your opinion based on your preferences - not a universal physical law like gravity - which is how you seem to be treating it.
You believe that this kind of consistency is vital because you found the transition from Crusade to Rangers "jarring". I didn't, therefore I view this all as a tempest in an exceedingly small teapot. Which of us is in the majority? I really don't know. But I would hazard a guess that the "who cares" school is at least as big as the "it is a major issue if the FX are different" school.
Personally, I never watched B5 for the FX. In the beginning, I watched it in spite of the FX, which were remarkable given the budget constraints, but were not going to make anybody forget Star Wars or even Star Trek (any version). I watched for the story, and the characters. As far as I'm concerned the FX were a means to an end, and not terribly interesting in and of themselves.
Regards,
Joe
He should try to maintain a consistent look, or at least have the changes appear gradually over time, or have the changes somehow explained in the story.
[/quote]
Well, I hope you'll let JMS know that he's falling down on the job. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif Just try to understand that the above is a statement of your opinion based on your preferences - not a universal physical law like gravity - which is how you seem to be treating it.
You believe that this kind of consistency is vital because you found the transition from Crusade to Rangers "jarring". I didn't, therefore I view this all as a tempest in an exceedingly small teapot. Which of us is in the majority? I really don't know. But I would hazard a guess that the "who cares" school is at least as big as the "it is a major issue if the FX are different" school.
Personally, I never watched B5 for the FX. In the beginning, I watched it in spite of the FX, which were remarkable given the budget constraints, but were not going to make anybody forget Star Wars or even Star Trek (any version). I watched for the story, and the characters. As far as I'm concerned the FX were a means to an end, and not terribly interesting in and of themselves.
Regards,
Joe
KoshN
Super Moderator
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
<font color="yellow"> Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino: </font color>
Well, I hope you'll let JMS know that he's falling down on the job. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif
[/quote]
He knows what I thought of the TLaDiS CGI (I've posted it on rastb5m.), not that it matters, of course. It's just like somebody in Doug Wadleigh's office at WHV might know why I wanted the 1.33:1 version of B5 on DVD, but that doesn't matter either. I'm almost always in the minority, and the minority always loses. I guess I should just sell out and go with the flow, watching/supporting only the most popular shows. I'd need tons of Paxil (sp?) to do that.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
<font color="yellow"> Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino: </font color>
You believe that this kind of consistency is vital because you found the transition from Crusade to Rangers "jarring". I didn't, therefore I view this all as a tempest in an exceedingly small teapot. Which of us is in the majority? I really don't know. But I would hazard a guess that the "who cares" school is at least as big as the "it is a major issue if the FX are different" school.
[/quote]
I wish they'd shown TLaDiS to a few theaters full of people, and then gave them a survey to fill out (alone). Then we'd have a better idea.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
<font color="yellow"> Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino: </font color>
Personally, I never watched B5 for the FX. In the beginning, I watched it in spite of the FX, which were remarkable given the budget constraints, but were not going to make anybody forget Star Wars or even Star Trek (any version). I watched for the story, and the characters. As far as I'm concerned the FX were a means to an end, and not terribly interesting in and of themselves.
[/quote]
I watched B5 for the story, but it got me interested in the FX. So I bought or borrowed, and watched about 30 Lightwave tapes and played around with the program. The change between Crusade and TLaDiS just about made me sick. /forums/images/icons/rolleyes.gif I don't mean the Liandra or the Valen. They looked OK, especially the Liandra. I mean the views of Minbar from orbit, and the view of B5's area at the end. B5 and Crusade were sharp. TLaDiS was slimy, hazy, soft focus. /forums/images/icons/frown.gif
<font color="yellow"> Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino: </font color>
Well, I hope you'll let JMS know that he's falling down on the job. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif
[/quote]
He knows what I thought of the TLaDiS CGI (I've posted it on rastb5m.), not that it matters, of course. It's just like somebody in Doug Wadleigh's office at WHV might know why I wanted the 1.33:1 version of B5 on DVD, but that doesn't matter either. I'm almost always in the minority, and the minority always loses. I guess I should just sell out and go with the flow, watching/supporting only the most popular shows. I'd need tons of Paxil (sp?) to do that.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
<font color="yellow"> Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino: </font color>
You believe that this kind of consistency is vital because you found the transition from Crusade to Rangers "jarring". I didn't, therefore I view this all as a tempest in an exceedingly small teapot. Which of us is in the majority? I really don't know. But I would hazard a guess that the "who cares" school is at least as big as the "it is a major issue if the FX are different" school.
[/quote]
I wish they'd shown TLaDiS to a few theaters full of people, and then gave them a survey to fill out (alone). Then we'd have a better idea.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
<font color="yellow"> Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino: </font color>
Personally, I never watched B5 for the FX. In the beginning, I watched it in spite of the FX, which were remarkable given the budget constraints, but were not going to make anybody forget Star Wars or even Star Trek (any version). I watched for the story, and the characters. As far as I'm concerned the FX were a means to an end, and not terribly interesting in and of themselves.
[/quote]
I watched B5 for the story, but it got me interested in the FX. So I bought or borrowed, and watched about 30 Lightwave tapes and played around with the program. The change between Crusade and TLaDiS just about made me sick. /forums/images/icons/rolleyes.gif I don't mean the Liandra or the Valen. They looked OK, especially the Liandra. I mean the views of Minbar from orbit, and the view of B5's area at the end. B5 and Crusade were sharp. TLaDiS was slimy, hazy, soft focus. /forums/images/icons/frown.gif
KoshN wrote: "I don't mean the Liandra or the Valen. They looked OK, especially the Liandra. I mean the views of Minbar from orbit, and the view of B5's area at the end. B5 and Crusade were sharp. TLaDiS was slimy, hazy, soft focus."
Money & time. And the Valen looked suspiciously like the shuttle you see setting down inside the B5 docking bay in the early S1 episodes. (Can't remember which ones, only the ugly shuttle setting down and being lowered into a bay below.)
Money & time. And the Valen looked suspiciously like the shuttle you see setting down inside the B5 docking bay in the early S1 episodes. (Can't remember which ones, only the ugly shuttle setting down and being lowered into a bay below.)
I disagree - it does not have to look similair - well not how you mean
both b5, crusade and rangers - WERE similair - you did NOT suddenly see star trek cgi did you
- B5 is different to Crusade, Crusade is Different to Rangers - which is as it should be! - and I don't think graphical changes should be mentioned in shows! /forums/images/icons/grin.gif
both b5, crusade and rangers - WERE similair - you did NOT suddenly see star trek cgi did you
- B5 is different to Crusade, Crusade is Different to Rangers - which is as it should be! - and I don't think graphical changes should be mentioned in shows! /forums/images/icons/grin.gif
