What kind of show will "Rangers" be?

bakana · Jun 4, 2001

Re: What kind of show will \"Rangers\" be?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> JMS said that the Excalibur would eventually go rogue like Babylon 5 did. So there’s also the idea that I that the Rangers crew would be involved in tracking down the Excalibur and in a sense becoming the bad guys on Crusade. Having the good guys on one show be the bad guys on another show is such a mind-bending idea that it’s the sort of thing JMS might do. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From what we know about Why the Excalibur would go "rogue" it would be rebelling against EarthGov, not the alliance. Ther'd be no reason for the Rangers to consider them bad guys. Unless, of course, EarthGov lied like hell about it. Having their Own history of dealing with EarthGov's lies, Sheridan & Delenn would certainly want to hear the Excalibur's side of the story before taking any action.

Once they Did hear the full story, they'd be more likely to come down on the Excalibur's side. Particularly since the issue that would be causing the problem is a violation of the agreement between the Alliance and all member worlds.

<table bgcolor=black><tr><td bgcolor=black>Spoiler:</td></tr><tr><td> For those who don't already know: The most likely reason for the Excalibur to go Rogue is that EarthGov is still funding a black project to develop warships based on Shadow Tech. One of the prototype ships from this effort is the ship that Destroyed Gideon's former ship and left him stranded. That was when Galen resued him. This was revealed in one of the unfilmed Crusade scripts that JMS posted a while back. </td></tr></table>

------------------
Yes, I like cats too.
Shall we exchange Recipes?

Joseph DeMartino · Jun 4, 2001

Re: What kind of show will \"Rangers\" be?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>A lot of the investment is recovered when the show goes into syndication<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not in the case of B5 or (I believe) Crusade. JMS's deal with Warner Bros. was always that the shows would be made inexpensively enough to turn a profit during their first run. WB wasn't interested in running up the kind of deficits Paramount did with Trek because they didn't see the kind of "built-in" syndication audience that Trek had. (Everyone keeps forgetting that the original series was a failure in prime time, cancelled for low ratings after 2 1/2 years, and that it didn't start attracting a large audience until it hit syndication in the early 1970s.)

That's why B5 had to make due with a budget about half of what the contemporary Trek series had (less than half in the case of the later seasons of DS9 and all of Voyager. The Voyager pilot alone cost about as much as a full season of B5.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Crusade would have to go through major recaststing for that to happen, since I doubt you'd get them all to move to Canada. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For less than six months a year, and it isn't like they couldn't fly back to Los Angeles to do guest shots on other shows. The X-Files shot in Vancouver for most of its existance, and this only became a problem when Ducovney married an actress who had to stay in Los Angeles to get work of her own. The Lone Gunmen also shot there, as do many U.S. TV movies. I hear Vancouver is a lovely place.

A far bigger problem would be the "Canadian content" laws. If not enough of the original cast could pass muster on this point there might be a problem. (Of course, for all I know they could all be Canadians. That's the problem we've always had with "Canadian infiltrators" - they're hard to spot because they look and sound just like us. Sneaky bastards,

)

Of course, given that the earliest that cameras could start rolling on a revived Crusade is the spring of 2003, major recasting is apt be necessary anyway. The odds of reassmebling the entire original cast probably decline by the month, which may be one more reason that Sci-Fi decided to go with a new show first. It makes it easier to start over from scratch on Crusade if need be.

Regards,

Joe

------------------
Joseph DeMartino
Sigh Corps
Pat Tallman Division
joseph-demartino@att.net

drakh · Jun 4, 2001

Re: What kind of show will \"Rangers\" be?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by bakana:
Simple question: are any of the major actors comitted to another series at this moment?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Marjean Holden is on Beastmaster, but has apearnly made special arangements with the producers to let her elope should Crusade start up again.

Gary Cole has a pilot that's awaiting news on pickup. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Or a movie? (it takes about a year, total time, to film the average movie.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Think you're exagartaing a bit here. A major film may take that long, but not the average one. Besides, only the stars would be present all that time. And none of the Crusade actors are in that league.

Joseph DeMartino · Jun 4, 2001

Re: What kind of show will \"Rangers\" be?

It takes about a year to produce a movie, from pre- through post-production, but the actors don't have to be around for that whole time. Depending on the complexity of the film and the number of locations, principle photography can take anywhere from 40 to 80 days, with the marjority of films probably coming in between 45 and 60 days. (TV production companies work faster - 6 to 8 days to shoot a 42 minute episode. The Rangers pilot will probably take between three and four weeks to shoot.)

Actors for features may have to come back months later to loop lines or pick up extra shots, but for the most part they aren't tied up every day for more than two or three months at a time.

Basically the odds of all of them being available when the production is ready to start are certainly not great. Also they may decide that salvaging the existing episodes and continuing on from there is not the best way to go and starting over is. In that case any actors who are not available when they start shooting are apt to be replaced.

Even if they create new characters it is hardly fair to hire someone as a regular on a series and then fire them when another actor becomes available. And they can't just add regulars because they feel like it. Both the budget and the amount of time you can devote to each character mean you have to limit the number of regulars in your cast. B5 was really pushing the limit on this one with something like 12 major characters. Crusade you'll notice, didn't have as many, nor is Rangers likely to.

I'm not saying that they should recast the show, or even that Sci-Fi and Warner Bros. are likely to. I'm just pointing out that this is an option - one they may have to seriously consider when and if the time comes.

Regards,

Joe

------------------
Joseph DeMartino
Sigh Corps
Pat Tallman Division
joseph-demartino@att.net

bakana · Jun 4, 2001

Re: What kind of show will \"Rangers\" be?

Given the length of time it takes to start up a series, (or restart, in this case) I suspect the windows of avalability for various actors are pretty good. Except in the case of someone signing for a different Series. Given the odds in Hollywierd, The odds are that would affect Two people at the most. There is also the "Run over by a truck" type unavailability, too. But that's a lot less likely than the Series.

As far as scrapping the previous episodes, I doubt JMS would do that. Good, bad, they happened and everyone knows it. Easier to explain cast/crew changes as transfers to other duties and other ships.

Besides, even with TNT's interference, JMS did get Most of what he wanted into those scripts. They do the needed job of setting things up for what will happen later.

They just could have been Better if the MBAs hadn't been pissing on the table.

------------------
Yes, I like cats too.
Shall we exchange Recipes?

Chris Springob · Jun 4, 2001

Re: What kind of show will \"Rangers\" be?

--------------------------------------------
A far bigger problem would be the "Canadian content" laws.
--------------------------------------------

What are "Canadian content" laws?

--------------------------------------------
Of course, given that the earliest that cameras could start rolling on a revived Crusade is the spring of 2003, major recasting is apt be necessary anyway.
--------------------------------------------

Why spring of 2003? No chance that it could happen as early as fall 2002?

--------------------------------------------
From what we know about Why the Excalibur would go "rogue" it would be rebelling against EarthGov, not the alliance. Ther'd be no reason for the Rangers to consider them bad guys. Unless, of course, EarthGov lied like hell about it. Having their Own history of dealing with EarthGov's lies, Sheridan & Delenn would certainly want to hear the Excalibur's side of the story before taking any action.
--------------------------------------------

When I said that the Excalibur would go rogue, I was referring to what JMS said in an interview last year. I'll give you the exact quote. The following spoiler reveals a lot about the future direction that Crusade would have taken:

<table bgcolor=black><tr><td bgcolor=black>Spoiler:</td></tr><tr><td>
JMS: “End of the Line” is one of two scripts that act as bookends. That one was the season finale, and the other one (“To the Ends of the Earth”) would upped the ante midway through the season. We discover that there’s a much broader problem even than the plague – it had to do with Earth using Shadow technology in ways they shouldn’t be doing, and who was responsible for the destruction of captain Gideon’s ship. Suffice it to say that – through a series of incidents – the Excalibur crew would have been considered traitors and have to basically be on the run. Further, the cure that Earth would have believed to be the right one would not in fact work as they think it would have worked. Our guys would find out about this, and no one would have believed them. As things unravel, it’s a larger conspiracy, so basically – after the second year – the show you think Crusade is would be a whole different show, with much more depth to it, more political, more controversial in some ways, and would deal with the impact of technology on society, would cast our characters as renegades and loners without port, and turn the whole series upside-down. The whole plague thing was really just a way to get the thing going and give them something to do in the beginning while we establish the characters before we pull the plug and change the whole nature of the show into something I think would probably have been revolutionary… but we never got that far. You can see the hints of it in those two scripts that are up on bookface.com.
</td></tr></table>

(I got this from http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/35904p1.html and I highly recommend this article to anyone who read the above spoiler.)
Anyway, that quote sure makes it sound like the Excalibur would be on its own, and not in good standing with the ISA.

------------------

Jomar · Jun 4, 2001

Re: What kind of show will \"Rangers\" be?

Canadian content laws have absolutely nothing to do with filming. They deal entirely with the amount of American or foreign programming that can be shown on Canadian networks.

The Canadian networks must show a certain percentage of Canadian programming during prime time and over a 24 hour period. They get rid of part of that by showing it in the middle of the night

The critical part is deciding which shows have Canadian content

That is decided by the amount of Canadian crew that is involved even more than Canadian actors. I might say the whole situation is extremely irritating to the Canadian viewer which is why so many of them/us has gone to Sattelite.

We have a number of series which are made here and never shown in Canada because the US producers bring in their own cast and crew and simply use the sound stages, etc.

------------------

Joseph DeMartino · Jun 5, 2001

Re: What kind of show will \"Rangers\" be?

Jomar:

Thanks for explaining that. Obviously I misunderstood the whole concept of "Canadian content." As it stands, it is even less rational than I thought.

(Requiring that folks coming into your country employ as many of your citizens as possible makes sense. Keeping the work that such folks produce off your television networks doesn't. Doing the first eliminates the need to do the second, and ensures that more of the money remains in your country when the producers leave.)

Regards,

Joe

------------------
Joseph DeMartino
Sigh Corps
Pat Tallman Division
joseph-demartino@att.net

Jomar · Jun 5, 2001

Re: What kind of show will \"Rangers\" be?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino:
Jomar:

Thanks for explaining that. Obviously I misunderstood the whole concept of "Canadian content." As it stands, it is even less rational than I thought.

Regards,

Joe

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As usual in any political situation there are TPTB behind the scenes who have their own reasons for what they do. We are fortunate that we do get the big five networks locally, ABC, NBC, CBS, UPN and Fox, so we see most of the popular shows. Most of what we don't see are those shown on pay tv such as TNT and SCIFI. In the end, of course, we get them when they go into syndication. The whole subject is extremely frustrating to Canadian viewers.

------------------

bakana · Jun 5, 2001

Re: What kind of show will \"Rangers\" be?

Well, it might not be That hard to reassemble most of the Crusade cast.

A. They all Like working for JMS.

B. Although at any one time, various members are unavailable, they would really only need 3 or 4 of them to get started, the others could rejoin the cast as other commitments cleared up. The odds of the majority of them being comitted to other _Series_ all at teh same time are small. That's just the way Hollywierd works. Most actors spend less than 10% of their time Acting, at least as regulars in movies or TV series. They fill in the rest in short term live theater, public appearances and guest shots on other shows. If Skiffy decides to go again with Crusade, I think most of the cast will become available, sooner in most cases than later.

Simple question: are any of the major actors comitted to another series at this moment?
Or a movie? (it takes about a year, total time, to film the average movie.)

------------------
Yes, I like cats too.
Shall we exchange Recipes?

drakh · Jun 5, 2001

Re: What kind of show will \"Rangers\" be?

If you look at the ending credits of American shows produced in Canada, you'll often see refrences to the "Canadian televison fund" or something like that, so I'm pretty sure there are aditional carrots for shows that have enough Candaian content.

bakana · Jun 5, 2001

Re: What kind of show will \"Rangers\" be?

Probably the one thing we can say about the sort of show Rangers will be is an Ensemble show. JMS seems to prefer not to put "all his eggs in one basket" when it comes to depending on actors.

For instance, if William Shatner had taken off or gotten run over by a truck halfway through the first season, the show would probably have folded.

With an ensemble arrangement, OTOH, you can Deliberately kill off a major character if it makes a good story. And JMS has. It allows for more freedom and serves as insurance.

I'd also be tempted to make a list of "Things You'll Never See Happen on a TV Show."

Because JMS loves to DO those things.
Telling him "It can't be done" is like waving a flag at a bull.

------------------
Yes, I like cats too.
Shall we exchange Recipes?

RW7427 · Jun 6, 2001

Re: What kind of show will \"Rangers\" be?

I am not really sure exactly what kind of show Rangers will be, but from what I know about the Rangers from watching B5, it should be an exciting show filled with lots of action and drama.

------------------
Sheridan to Bester:
And I could nail your head to the table, set fire to it, and feed your charred remains to the Pak'ma'ra.

Joseph DeMartino · Jun 6, 2001

Re: What kind of show will \"Rangers\" be?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>For instance, if William Shatner had taken off or gotten run over by a truck halfway through the first season, the show would probably have folded.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure about this, because the show was about the "voyages of the Starship Enterprise", not about James T. Kirk. Essentially the same premise had been shot with three different casts by the time the series got on the air, and cast changes continued as it went along. It isn't until Star Trek III: The Search for Spock that the original series storyline decisively veered away from its first premise and became the story of that particular group of friends, rather than the story of the ship and its mission. (As David Gerrold noted in his analysis of the movies.)

I think Trek could have survived a new captain far more easily than a lot of other shows could survive the loss of a leading actor. Shatner may be something of a cultural icon (or cliche) now, but back then he was one of dozens of good-looking actors of reasonable talent and very little visibility. There were any number of others who could have stepped onto the bridge of the Enterprise and been accepted by the audience.

Regards,

Joe

------------------
Joseph DeMartino
Sigh Corps
Pat Tallman Division
joseph-demartino@att.net

**DONOTDELETE** · Jun 6, 2001

Re: What kind of show will \"Rangers\" be?

It isn't until Star Trek III: The Search for Spock that the original series storyline decisively veered away from its first premise and became the story of that particular group of friends, rather than the story of the ship and its mission.

I'm somewhat new here, but you seem awfully sure of yourself and frankly, I disagree. You seem to be making an opinion, but it sounds like you're trying to state a fact. In any case, I disagree. I think that "a particular group of friends" WAS in fact a part of what the series was all about

------------------

Zoriah · Jun 6, 2001

Re: What kind of show will \"Rangers\" be?

Urrm, Joe D. is a very respected contributor here.

I personally have always enjoyed his posts, they are informative, courteous and interesting.

[This message has been edited by Zoriah (edited June 06, 2001).]

**DONOTDELETE** · Jun 6, 2001

Re: What kind of show will \"Rangers\" be?

Fine. I simply don't think anyone can state as fact what trek was all about except Gene Roddenbury.

------------------

Joseph DeMartino · Jun 6, 2001

Re: What kind of show will \"Rangers\" be?

I don't think I stated anything "as fact." The post is full of qualifiers.

In making the comments about the series and the movies I am quoting Gene Rodennberry (who, exactly, do you think wrote, "These are the voyages of the Starship Enterprise" That's hisdefinition of his series, not mine.) Also I make it clear that I'm agreeing with the analysis (that is, opinion supported by facts and observation) of David Gerrold, a leading Star Trek writer and the man Gene R. entrusted with the job of writing the "series bible" for Star Trek: The Next Generation. (The idea of keeping the captain on the bridge - where he belongs - and beaming an "away team" into dangerous situations was Gerrold's, although he would have kept the First Officer out of it and put a regular character who was a junior officer in charge surrounded by expendable extras who would regularly have been "expended")

I said that "I'm not sure" about bakana's take on this, not that it was wrong as a matter of fact. I also took the trouble to explain why I wasn't sure, rather than simply saying "Well, I disagree."

Regards,

Joe

------------------
Joseph DeMartino
Sigh Corps
Pat Tallman Division
joseph-demartino@att.net

[This message has been edited by Joseph DeMartino (edited June 06, 2001).]

PsionTen · Jun 6, 2001

Re: What kind of show will \"Rangers\" be?

Not to be disagreeable, but shouldn't this battle of "Mr. Know-It-Alls" be moved moved to another string? It certainly isn't about the Rangers anymore.

------------------

bakana · Jun 6, 2001

Re: What kind of show will \"Rangers\" be?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Not to be disagreeable, but shouldn't this battle of "Mr. Know-It-Alls" be moved
to another string? It certainly isn't about the Rangers anymore. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, it started out as a discussion of Why JMS would probably go with an Ensemble structure where the actors would essentially Take Turns being the "Lead" character in the stories instead of allowing one person to become a "required" character in almost every scene.

I mentioned Shatner because, according to the other actors from the old series, he was the actor who most often demanded and GOT script changes that ensured that Kirk always had center stage.

Roddenberry may have said it was a story about the Ship, but Shatner did his best to make it about His Character.

That is the type of behaviour JMS has a habit of preempting by making sure his scripts spread the action around.

Among other things, it makes for a much better working environment when no one has a chance to start feeling "indispensable".

With JMS calling the shots, they all _Know_ that "Anyone can Die, at Any Time."

------------------
Yes, I like cats too.
Shall we exchange Recipes?

What kind of show will "Rangers" be?

Beyond the rim

Moderator

Regular

Moderator

Beyond the rim

Regular

Beyond the rim

Moderator

Beyond the rim

Beyond the rim

Regular

Beyond the rim

Super Moderator

Moderator

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

Beyond the rim

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

Moderator

Regular

Beyond the rim

Share this page

We value your privacy

DONOTDELETE

DONOTDELETE