• 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.

Tracking the campaign against recasting

Well, I agree that there isn't any evidence to hang your hat on, but the whole jist of the rumor is that original TV characters are going to be recast with name actors, even though, as I pointed out earlier, no one has seen a casting call for any original characters except Galen. I think that is what most of the fuss has been about.
 
But that is *THE* great contradiction, and I think the reason why so many doubt the validity of these "rumors"

On one hand there is this rumor you are talking about, in regards to the original cast being re-cast.

On the other hand, you have the plot rumor with Diane Baker, the Colonel, Galen and Lochley. There have even been sites linked to posts requesting people to tryout for those parts with character outlines.

So if rumor #1 is true...then why on those sites was there NO MENTION of the original cast AT ALL?

Those 2 rumors completely contradict each other, and thats the problem. Something is very amiss.
 
the whole jist of the rumor is that original TV characters are going to be recast with name actors
Click to expand...
Which, if it were true, would guarantee the movie would bomb like Fat Man and Little Boy.

I just won't believe that WB would recast the originals. It would be colossally stupid and the fans would never accept it. I for one would definitely not go see a recast original crew. I don't care if they plastered the B5 logo all over the theater, that would NOT be B5, and that's why I don't have any faith in that rumor.

The one that's got me semi-worried is the whole Diane Baker/Lochley/Galen/Tyrell/etc. cast. Only one recognizable face (Lochley) since Galen won't be Woodward. I still think it's most likely total bunk, and I don't plan on writing any letters about it.

I think if WB wanted to totally destroy a B5 movie in this way, then JMS would have nothing to do with it and would withdraw from the project. Even if he couldn't speak of the details of it, he could at least announce that he's off the project.

Personally, I'm leaning toward ALL this being a giant smokescreen.
 
I think if WB wanted to totally destroy a B5 movie in this way, then JMS would have nothing to do with it and would withdraw from the project. Even if he couldn't speak of the details of it, he could at least announce that he's off the project.
Click to expand...

I have written a couple of letters, simply on the basis that it can't do any harm to do so. However, re-casting the original TV characters does seem an awfully strange thing to even consider at this stage ... but I wouldn't put anything past TV execs who think they know better.

As far as JMS is concerned, he possibly has a wider issue at stake here. My understanding is that JMS is allowed final approval on B5 stuff by WB ... but that they do not have to honour that in the long run as they effectively own B5 lock, stock and barrel.

Hence Babylonian Productions/Netter Digital were not even allowed to retain copies of all the CGI models when production ceased, so when WB lost them they were gone for good.

I'm sure I also recall JMS stating that WB could have elected to do a sixth season of the show without him if they had wanted to.

The problem is if JMS jumps ship on this project and WB proceed without him, it is unlikely he would ever be able to regain any control of his creation from WB, unless he could afford to buy it from them (unlikely). Especially if the movie was to be a huge success - let's not forget that there is probably a large potential audience out there for a good SF movie who currently don't know the show and don't give a fig for the original actors.

On that basis, if JMS is convinced that WB will proceed with or without him then (as undesirable as it may be) he may feel that his best course of action is to stay with it and make the best of it, so that he at least retains some control/influence over B5 into the future.

Unfortunately life is never simple - particularly where B5 is concerned.

:rolleyes:
 
the whole jist of the rumor is that original TV characters are going to be recast with name actors
Click to expand...
Which, if it were true, would guarantee the movie would bomb like Fat Man and Little Boy.

I just won't believe that WB would recast the originals. It would be colossally stupid and the fans would never accept it. I for one would definitely not go see a recast original crew. I don't care if they plastered the B5 logo all over the theater, that would NOT be B5, and that's why I don't have any faith in that rumor.

The one that's got me semi-worried is the whole Diane Baker/Lochley/Galen/Tyrell/etc. cast. Only one recognizable face (Lochley) since Galen won't be Woodward. I still think it's most likely total bunk, and I don't plan on writing any letters about it.

I think if WB wanted to totally destroy a B5 movie in this way, then JMS would have nothing to do with it and would withdraw from the project. Even if he couldn't speak of the details of it, he could at least announce that he's off the project.

Personally, I'm leaning toward ALL this being a giant smokescreen.
Click to expand...

me too

:D
 
Gee whiz. First, everyone is panicking and going full tilt on the letter-writing campaign. Then after a few days, I finally send in a letter (the first time I've ever done that kind of thing), and all of a sudden everyone is skeptical about the problem and rationalizing that everything is probably okay afterall.

This is some kind of elaborate joke to make me look stupid, isn't it? Curses, foiled again. ;)
 
I dont think "everyone" is skeptical, and I dont think "everyone" was panicking.

Check the two threads, you will notice posts from different people who were urging the letter writing campaign, from those above who are skeptical...
 
This is some kind of elaborate joke to make me look stupid, isn't it?
Click to expand...
Not nearly.

Having sent my letter... I have merely taken all the precautions I considered feasible.

They know what I want... and what would disappoint me. Whether they read or discard my opinions... I cannot influence. Their turn. I wait now.
 
I've done many things i regret, but i'm pretty sure that if the rumors turn out to be false, then sending a letter or two to some random movie execs will not be one of them.

I'm with Sleepy, sending a letter can do no harm, and if the rumors are true, it could do a lot of good.

It's also a good way of showing early support for a movie at what could be a critical phase, regardless of what is happening over cast etc...

So no harm, and lots of potential good. It's worth doing anyway. Just in case. ;)
 
I agree with all the people who are enthusiast about sending letters and showing our will....

It will be no harm at all. And if we have enough letters, perhaps, the WB Feature division could be so impressed, that this could even increase possibility to finance another B5 Feature Film....Hopefully the Telepath war.. having the whole original cast...... What do you think about that?.....Wouldn´t be worth sending letters???
;) ;) ;)
 
Just send them Happy New Year cards saying that you hope to see your favourite actors in a Babylon 5 film. This works both ways.

It produces physical proof that there is demand for the film. When spending millions of dollars on the understanding that if the film flops you are fired such a pile is very reassuring.
There are rumours that the studio is looking for outside finance. When the banker asks if the product is likely to sell the suits can just show the pile of cards/letters. This increases the chances that the film will actually get made.
The mention of the original actors makes using other actors’ look risky.
 
The mention of the original actors makes using other actors’ look risky.
Click to expand...

Excellent point.

Another point I forgot to mention is that we should keep on writing letters because this can show fan base loyalty. This can make a difference. Just think about how participative are the Star Trek fans. That´s why Paramount not even thought about recasting Spock, Captain Kirk, Uhura, etc... And probably that´s why Star Trek world is still on TV.

Keep on sending letters people. And we could have even more surprises regarding B5 world.

Regards,

Cadu
Zahadum
 
The main reason I think there is something up is that JMS in the past has very quickly squashed baseless rumors. IT was rather eerie reading his 'unfortunately, I can't comment at this time' post in his moderated group.

He has not hesitated to say "No" when a wild rumor has come out in the past. So, whatever is going on, it tends to make me suspect it isn't a completely wild rumor, at the very least.

And those in the business might know: just how long does it take to announce a project like this? The every-delayed promised official announcement seems a bit odd to me, but perhaps it is s.o.p. in the business, I don't know.

My only regret is forgetting to put in my personal information when I mailed my letter. :p
 
I renewed call for letters will be coming this weekend folks! Look to Jan for an announcement tonight or tomorrow! We will be calling for the fans to participate like never before!

CE
 
I renewed call for letters will be coming this weekend folks! Look to Jan for an announcement tonight or tomorrow! We will be calling for the fans to participate like never before!

CE
Click to expand...

Noted.

Lets review the evidence.

a. What have we got written proof of?

The US casting call
http://www.thegalacticgateway.com/ggnews.htm
Being made by JMS and Warner Brothers.
Filming in April 2005
Called Babylon 5: The Memory of Shadow
Elizabeth Lochley is present.
Galen is present but may be recast.
New characters Diane Baker, Colonel Joss Morgan, Tyrell

b. What supporting evidence do we have?

c. What supporting evidence is missing?

d. What should be present but is not?
Casting Call for Lochley.
Casting Call for other existing Crusade/Babylon 5 characters.
Conformation from the Babylon 5 actors that they will be in Britain in April.

e. What is present but should not be?

f. What anonymous verbal evidence do we have?

g. What anonymous verbal evidence is missing?

h. What can we logically deduce?

i. What can we not logically deduce?

j. What has happened that should not have happened?

k. What has not happened that should have happened?

l. What does experience say?

m. What does experience not say?

n. What does emotion/gut feeling say?

o. What does emotion/gut feeling not say?

p. What have we guessed?

g. What have we not guessed?
 
People,

I have confirmation from a friend of mine that CHILE is also contributing with one letter (actually four, since is sending to all four addresses recommended in the page web www.keepb5alive.com)

Regards,

Cadu
Zahadum
 
a. What have we got written proof of?
Click to expand...

Not a damned thing. We have one rumor published on a Canadian News site (Hollywood North) and bogus "casting calls" clearly derived from the original Hollywood North report and posted on sites that are designed to separate unwary would-be actors from their money. So we have an unsubstantiated rumor exploited by crooks and some people treat that as "fact" while CE, Amy, Jan, Michael and I get called names and challenged to produce "evidence".

Technically those anybody not on the War Council knows nothing whatsoever. Because your sources are either suspect or known to be fraudulent. At least those of us on the War Council know who we've communicated with, can judge their level of knowledge and their integrity. How good a news source is Hollywood North. Even if they're generally pretty good, and even if the reporter really believes the blind item he ran, that doesn't meant the underlying information is good. Here's an example that'll piss people off: Up until the occupation of Iraq every single intelligence service in the world, including the French, Russian, German, Egyptian and Syrian believed that Saddam Hussein was hiding stockpiles of WMD. So did our CIA. None of these folks LIED about that belief, they were just wrong. There's a difference. So the HN reporter might have gotten hold of an old script, or been fed a line by someone connected with the film or WB who had a reason for leaking (or inventing) selected "facts". We've seen nothing official to confirm any of it. And the scam-artist sites stealing from HN and from each other do not constitute "confirmation".

People who leak anonymously always have an agenda. Sometimes they want to advance their own goals, sometimes they want to scuttle the plans of rivals. The folks who are talking to us have been very up-front about their agenda - they want to convince the suits to use the original actors if humanly possible. That means at least offering them the parts. Even assuming the part descriptions and partial plot summary that are out there are real (and forgetting whatever other information may have been accidentally or deliberately omitted), we're still left with the question of why someone chose to make that oddly selective leak when they did. And I'm not prepared to assume that the stuff is real in the first place.

So in terms of actual evidence, we have some we cannot share. You have none at all.

Regards,

Joe
 
Joe, let me say right up front, I believe you. I trust your sources. I've sent two letters, one with B5 Bucks. And since they're calling for the Winter-Storm-of-the-Century-of-the-Week here in the South, I might have time cooped up in the house this weekend to work up one or two more. So, my next few questions I'm asking out of curiosity, not doubt (just wanting to make sure there's no confusion)...

Have the inside sources said which roles they are wanting to re-cast? Is it all of the roles, half the roles, just one or two? Are there certain characters that are more at risk of being re-cast than others? For instance, if the character Vir is not in the movie, then there are no Stephen Furst re-casting worries.

Is the re-casting split up? For instance, could they be happy with AK and PJ playing G'Kar and Londo but at the same time wanting to get someone else for Sheridan and Delenn?

Are there certain characters that are confirmed to be absent from the script altogether (aside from the obvious one, Franklin).

Part of the reason I'm asking is I'm wondering if it would help at all to focus our efforts. For instance, if Galen is the only Crusade character in the script, how much do we need to mention Crusade, in general, in our letters?

I've mentioned, by name, Bruce, Mira, Jerry, Claudia, Andreas, Peter Jurasik, Peter Woodward, and Gary Cole in both letters, and Stephen Furst in my 2nd one. I feel bad that I haven't mentioned, by name, Pat Tallman, Bill Mumy, Tracy Scoggins, Jeff Conaway, or anyone else from Crusade. I wanted to keep the "name-dropping" portion of my letters brief and focus on the bigger names, but if I do a third letter, should I focus on the support characters specifically? What about Kim, Brooks, Holden, and Dobro from Crusade?

Also, depending on where the movie falls in the timeline--and whether or not there are any flashbacks--would Pat Tallman or Bill Mumy's characters even be alive to be in the movie at all?

Somehow, I'm guessing that this information is either unknown or too secret to reveal, but it doesn't hurt to ask.

One last question... Who is the War Council? Is that you and a few others here, or is it the secret contacts? Sorry if that was made obvious earlier, but I didn't catch it.

Thanks for doing such a good job spearheading the campaign.
 
The problem is answering some of these questions (and in asking them of those who may have direct information) is that the entire situation is inherently delicate, and doubly so because of the controversy.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that JMS's script calls for four major new speaking parts, three existing characters in similar major roles and eight characters from the original series (or Crusade) in a scene or two each. Now let's say that Warner Bros. has made it clear that it intends to recast every existing character in the B5 universe who is going to appear in the film. JMS, Doug Netter and the other guys on the creative end object. What happens?

1) Paralysis. The first thing that happens is - nothing. No moves can be made regarding any of the original characters - not agents can be contacted, no auditions held, no discussions take place - until the impasse is overcome and a decision made. Because it wouldn't be fair to any actor to approach him or her about a role it may not be in your power to offer. You don't want actors turning down other work on the chance you might be able to use them in a film. That's one reason why even if what Hollywood North reported almost two months ago was accurate, it tells us nothing about the characters who aren't mentioned - because none of that would be settled vis a vis the existing characters.

2) Even assuming we convince WB to give the original actors the right of first refusal, that's all we reasonably can ask - and some of the actors may turn the film down for one reason or another, or be unavailable. At that point JMS has to decide whether to write the part out of the film entirely or consider casting a new actor for this film and possible future films. Remember, continuity of personnel is less of an issues for movies than for a weekly TV series, and an actor refusing a role is different than one being unavailable due to health or, as in Rick Biggs's case, death.

3) It may even be that WB and JMS will reach some kind compromise - put one "established" actor the WB especially favors in one of the core roles in exchange for JMS getting to cast the rest as he sees fit.

BTW, for those arguing based on the HN report and the "casting notices" that the original characters are just going to do cameo appearances and the main roles are all going to be new faces - why would WB care if a bunch of older, broken down TV actors played a bunch of older, broken down political and business types? If the starring roles were all going to the new charactes, and they could cast whoever they wanted in those parts, why screw around with the originals? To the degree that people buy movie tickets based on who is in the film to begin with (which I think is much less than the industry assumes) they don't do so based on which actors have five minute cameos. Yet some of us know that WB wants to recast such original characters as are slated to appear in the movie. Why?

Regards,

Joe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 470 (members: 0, guests: 470)

Share this page

Back
Top