babylonfan
Regular
You are focussing on a slow rotation when such details as Epsilon 3 seem to be missing altogether?
Still, I liked the movie. Even thought the much critised weapons system was an interesting idea that seemed quite smart.
-
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.
Rangers DVD coming to R1 in March
- Thread starter Joseph DeMartino
- Start date
Still, I liked the movie. Even thought the much critised weapons system was an interesting idea that seemed quite smart.
KoshN
Super Moderator
It doesn't bug me so much. There were quite a few ships seen way off in the distance. I wanted to see ships from B5 and Crusade that we could see up close (like the camera was in among them), featured in the movie, not just as background material. IIRC, the only one of the past ships that we saw up close were the raider delta fighters as they quickly flew by (another trick to use if those models aren't up to snuff). The only ships we saw up close, those that lingered in the shot, were the new ships, the dirty snowflakes, the Valen and the Liandra. Contrast that to what we saw in A Call to Arms. Just look at the second scene of A Call to Arms, and we immediately have a looming Sharlin, a Minbari shuttle, and the Whitestar that all have something to do with the movie, not just as background filler.
Jan quoted a post of mine that JMS answered. Thanks, Jan.
Here's the followup, which I think is needed to sort of bookend the whole thing.
Re: B5:LotR TLaDiS - Some Observations, Questions, etc. (SPOILERS
See, Netter Digital was allowed to keep the files on-hand <u>while a show that needed the CGI was in production</u>, but once Crusade went out of production (Thanks, you MF-ing cretins at TNT-Atlanta!
), all of it had to be returned to Warner Brothers, and they promptly lost it all.The entire thread in rastb5m starts here:
Re: B5:LotR TLaDiS - Some Observations, Questions, etc. (SPOILERS
You can see the reactions to JMS' revelation about the lost CGI starting with post #5.
darth_librarian
Regular
If they came from the jumpgate you would expect it to be there!
i've heard that before about the models, but find it really really sucky.
KoshN
Super Moderator
Joseph DeMartino
Moderator
Just to clarify one point: While JMS initially blamed Sci-Fi's decision not to pick the show up purely on the ratings (and therefore on the football game), he modified that statement when additional facts came to light. USA Networks, Sci-Fi's parent, had recently been acquired by Universal, and was uncer pressure (like all studio affliiated TV entities in the U.S.) to emphasize projects that could be produced in-house or by sister companies over those from outside sources, because with outside projects Universal and its subsidiaries would not normally share in future revenues. Battlestar Galactica is a Universal property. Babylon 5 and its derivatives belong to Warner Bros. You do the math.
Sci-Fi tried to buy an ownership stake in Rangers, but that isn't the way things are usually done between competing studios and WB saw no compelling reason to establish such a precedent - especially since they were on at the pilot stage. It was the ownership issue, far more than the ratings, that killed the show. Granted if the ratings had been record-breaking Sci-Fi would have signed up for a series even with WB owning 100% of the show, because ratings are ratings. And if they had been in the basement nobody would have even considered doing the show. Because the ratings were middling Sci-Fi was in a situation where it would make sense to take a chance on a 13 or even 22 episode order if they owned part of the series, but not otherwise. For WB the question was "do we establish a precedent by sharing ownership of a show - which will weaken our position in dealing with other networks in the future - in order to maybe get a half-season order for a show that might be cancelled after 6 epsiodes anyway?" I can tell you the answer I would have preferred had I been a WB stockholder - because that's who they ultimately report to, the investors that make it possible for the studio to do business year in and year out, not the fans of individual shows.
Regards,
Joe
Sci-Fi tried to buy an ownership stake in Rangers, but that isn't the way things are usually done between competing studios and WB saw no compelling reason to establish such a precedent - especially since they were on at the pilot stage. It was the ownership issue, far more than the ratings, that killed the show. Granted if the ratings had been record-breaking Sci-Fi would have signed up for a series even with WB owning 100% of the show, because ratings are ratings. And if they had been in the basement nobody would have even considered doing the show. Because the ratings were middling Sci-Fi was in a situation where it would make sense to take a chance on a 13 or even 22 episode order if they owned part of the series, but not otherwise. For WB the question was "do we establish a precedent by sharing ownership of a show - which will weaken our position in dealing with other networks in the future - in order to maybe get a half-season order for a show that might be cancelled after 6 epsiodes anyway?" I can tell you the answer I would have preferred had I been a WB stockholder - because that's who they ultimately report to, the investors that make it possible for the studio to do business year in and year out, not the fans of individual shows.
Regards,
Joe
GeoKuutio
Regular
Now that makes much more sense doesn't it? So, after all these speculations and blaming Scifi and almost everyone on-board the project itself, it all came down to this... some petty ownership conflicts. Actually, now that it is explained (thanks Joe!) I must agree with Joe's viewpoint and therefore WB's point of view. Who in their right mind would allow themselves to weaken their position on whole TV area... *sigh*. Sad but true.
Joseph DeMartino
Moderator
Re: Rangers DVD Cover Art and Pre-orders
For anyone who still cares, the cover art for the disc is up at TV Shows on DVD and you can pre-order it at Amazon.com among other locations. (They have a discount bundle if you buy it along with Serenity. )
Regards,
Joe
For anyone who still cares, the cover art for the disc is up at TV Shows on DVD and you can pre-order it at Amazon.com among other locations. (They have a discount bundle if you buy it along with Serenity. )
Regards,
Joe
Joseph DeMartino
Moderator
Re: Rangers DVD Cover Art and Pre-orders
It may be a cut and paste from one of the earlier season boxes. I doubt they did a frame grab from the actual movie just to make the cover.
Regards,
Joe
It may be a cut and paste from one of the earlier season boxes. I doubt they did a frame grab from the actual movie just to make the cover.
Regards,
Joe
vacantlook
Super Moderator
Re: Rangers DVD Cover Art and Pre-orders
It wasn't that they removed "negative TNT comments" it's that they removed the explanation of the truth of what actually happened to bring about Crusade's cancellation.
It wasn't that they removed "negative TNT comments" it's that they removed the explanation of the truth of what actually happened to bring about Crusade's cancellation.
hypatia
Regular
Re: Rangers DVD Cover Art and Pre-orders
And to make it worse...
JMS said to them "use the commentaries or don't, it's up to you", didn't he?
What he didn't mean to be done is to have them edit out what someone in some office didn't like, I think.
I"m sure I'll be corrected if my facts are wrong here.
And to make it worse...
JMS said to them "use the commentaries or don't, it's up to you", didn't he?
What he didn't mean to be done is to have them edit out what someone in some office didn't like, I think.
I"m sure I'll be corrected if my facts are wrong here.
