ATTN JMS & ALL: Do NOT despair.
Allen Bryan
than it has.
But it is possible.
Joe: what would it take to get TNT (or anyone) to fund anything more?
If WB, TNT, and SFC all think this show has so much promise, can't we
really give
this a shot? I mean... you really should look at the other job offers
and all... this ship is definitely sinking...
But the one thing you have taught me, through 118 hours of television
shows and movies, is this: Never despair, and never give up hope, not so
long as one speck of possibility remains.
SO: what sort of ratings are we talking about here, to get TNT or anyone
else to fund anything more? When will this be shown, June? Not the best
time for ratings... will they take that into account? If the contracts
are cut at mid-summer, that doesn't give us much time.
If we watch, and NOT despair; if we write a few more letters that hit
them at the same time as the ratings; could we still convince them? If
there really is so much interest in this series, both on the streets and
in the corporate offices, there must be some back door that might
(through a real miracle) allow this show to survive. Some might say that
B5 used up all the miracles you had to get it completed -- I don't
believe miracles can get used up.
A still hopeful fan
Allen Bryan
Alison Hopkins
Allen Bryan wrote in message <36D803FB...@ra.msstate.edu>...
>I know it will be EXTREMELY difficult for Crusade to live any further
>than it has.
>
>But it is possible.
As I have said elsewhere; for those who have long memories, I would refer
you to the story of how the third season of Classic Trek came about. No
'net, no email, nada, but a whole bunch of people - 500K is the runoured
number - who wrote to NBC, campaigned, pestered and generally made a damned
nuisance of themselves. And guess what, third season happened. (Now, it's
quality was questionable, but that's beside the point). If that could happen
in 1965, without the support systems and networks that exist now, just think
what could be achieved in 1999?
Ali
Diane K De
>'net, no email, nada, but a whole bunch of people - 500K is the runoured
>number - who wrote to NBC, campaigned, pestered and generally made a damned
>nuisance of themselves. And guess what, third season happened. (Now, it's
>quality was questionable, but that's beside the point). If that could happen
>in 1965, without the support systems and networks that exist now, just think
>what could be achieved in 1999?
>
>Ali
>
>
wasn't a hit, it was still operating in a three-network world. A "failure"
back then would still have 10 million viewers. Today, because the average
household receives 55 channels, a show is a hit if it has 10 million viewers.
For B5 to generate 500,000 letters seems unlikely. I doubt even 1,000
different people visit this newsgroup and will read this message.
DD
Jms at B5
It takes a large amount of money to hold a cast and crew together while other
options are being sought, and even then options on varoius cast members and
others begin to expire fast.
WB can't keep spending holding money while they're seeking another prospect.
It's a business decision, but a sensible one, given the large amounts of money
involved. Their approach now is to believe in the show enough to get it on the
air, let the ratings speak for themselves, and see what happens.
My only regret is for the cast, who are all uniformly terrific, and who are
caught out in all this.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
Jay Denebeim
Diane K De <dian...@aol.com> wrote:
>For B5 to generate 500,000 letters seems unlikely. I doubt even 1,000
>different people visit this newsgroup and will read this message.
It's actually quite a bit more than that. We've got over 5000
registered posters and the poster to lurker ratio is about 1:10.
Still not close to 500K people though.
Jay
--
* Jay Denebeim Moderator rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* newsgroup submission address: b5...@deepthot.aurora.co.us *
* moderator contact address: b5mod-...@deepthot.aurora.co.us *
* personal contact address: dene...@deepthot.aurora.co.us *
WWS
Jay Denebeim wrote:
>
> In article <19990227184332...@ng142.aol.com>,
> Diane K De <dian...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >For B5 to generate 500,000 letters seems unlikely. I doubt even 1,000
> >different people visit this newsgroup and will read this message.
>
> It's actually quite a bit more than that. We've got over 5000
> registered posters and the poster to lurker ratio is about 1:10.
> Still not close to 500K people though.
Come, now. The vast majority of those posters wandered through here
once and are long gone. By my count, you have had 317 different
posters in the last 30 days. And where do you come up with a 1:10
P to L ratio? I think 1:3 would be extremely generous. Which
would work out about exactly to Diane's estimate of 1,000 readers.
--
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
It's a little known fact that the Dark Ages were caused by the
Y1K problem.
Aubrey W. Adkins
Aubrey
WWS
"Aubrey W. Adkins" wrote:
>
> Them numbers sound an awful lot like statistics.
> Aubrey
Statistics are based on sampling and averages - I got the number
of posters by actually counting them, because my server holds
onto things for 30 days before they expire. Now, it may not
carry every post made - I have no way of knowing that, so that
would introduce a slight error. But not much of one, I don't
think. Statistics based on sampling would have been if I
counted the number of posters for the last 3 days and multiplied
by 10.
The poster to lurker ratio is neither a count or a statistic - it
is just a guess. The reason it's there is to point out that it
is nothing more than a guess, no matter who says it and what number
you use. It is unmeasurable, unknowable. Even if you could measure
"hits", which you can't on a newsgroup, you would have the same
problem as the web pages with hit counters - one person going to
that page 100 times counts exactly the same as 100 people going
once. Which is why advertisers aren't too impressed with hit counters.
I imagine the poster to lurker number changes all the time, as
well - it would be naive to assume that it ever stayed constant.
When there were new shows and people wanted to see what was being
said about them, I'm sure it goes up. With nothing but reruns
going, I doubt only some old regulars bother looking. But who can
measure it? No one. Which means any number used is just as good
as any other. As I said, that was the point I was trying to make
without being so long winded about it. (math is such a nice way
to abbreviate ideas)
Since my server (supernews) hangs onto things so long, I can
watch total activity quite easily - the total number of posts
that are on my server make up what's called a trailing 30 day
average. Just after SiL aired, and throughout December, there
were about 4400 active posts for the previous 30 days. Currently,
I show 1968. That's a 54% decrease in activity. There's been
a flurry of activity with the Crusade news, and there will be
more whenever the 13 eps of Crusade air. New shows or news of
any kind always brings a flurry of posts, and then they die off
on what amounts to an exponential decay.
(I'm not sure if that's statistics or just theory)
I haven't graphed it, but I'm nutty enough to think that would
be kind of fun.
(btw, RASTB5 is down to 1368 - it used to be even with this group.
A.TV.B5 is at about 1000, of which 800 are "White Star vs. Defiant"
posts and its offshoots, still. That is a sad, sad, little group.
For comparison, RAST is at 3741, which is also down from where it was)
Groups such as rec.arts.movies.current-films, which is one that truly
has a huge number of posters and lurkers, usually run about 12,000
to 15,000.
Diane K De
>From: dene...@deepthot.aurora.co.us (Jay Denebeim)
>
>In article <19990227184332...@ng142.aol.com>,
>Diane K De <dian...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>For B5 to generate 500,000 letters seems unlikely. I doubt even 1,000
>>different people visit this newsgroup and will read this message.
>
>It's actually quite a bit more than that. We've got over 5000
>registered posters and the poster to lurker ratio is about 1:10.
>Still not close to 500K people though.
>
>Jay
Thanks for that correction. Didn't the Zocalo have about 8,000 subscribers
before it stopped publishing?
I really wonder how many letters could be mustered.
Personally, I believe those who want to write letters should hold off until the
show airs. It seems your letter would have much more impact if you can prove
you had actually seen the show.
Basically, it's up to Crusade to sell Crusade. TV Critics have to see it and
give it "thumbs up". A little bit of buzz and a few positive reviews in
prominent places wouldn't hurt to send TNT a message. I think they are far
more interested in attracting non-B5 fans to the show than holding onto us.
They know they can pretty much do the latter without even trying.
So, they expect letters from B5 fans. It's letters from non-B5 fans that would
surprise them.
Then there are the ratings. How many people who watch the first episode, will
stick around for the second? That's up to the quality of the show, not the
amount of letters you all write.
DD
Valen
Jms at B5 wrote in message <19990227220027...@ng-cc1.aol.com>...
would it be possible to wait until next year and try again with the sci-fi
channell? and maby make a cinema movie and also get the reruns starting at
season1 and some hype all to happen at pretty much the same time. with the
movie you said before that the ppl in hollywood go for the bashem-smashem
with crusade's setup as apposed to B5 the smashem-bashem factor goes from
groove factor five to the point of engaging the trans-groove drive at
maximum. And the fans get a cinema movie. and you get a whole lotta new fans
Sergey Bukhman
WWS wrote:
> Even if you could measure
> "hits", which you can't on a newsgroup, you would have the same
> problem as the web pages with hit counters - one person going to
> that page 100 times counts exactly the same as 100 people going
> once. Which is why advertisers aren't too impressed with hit counters.
>
Not entirely true. Most good are counters count both impressions and total hits.
Impressions, IIRC, are original hits. That means that no matter how many times a
day I enter the page, I'm counted only once.
--
Sergey
------
Prepare for rhyme - I'll publish, right or wrong:
Fools are my theme, let Satire be my song.
-Byron
Laura M. Appelbaum
>
> Allen Bryan wrote in message <36D803FB...@ra.msstate.edu>...
> >I know it will be EXTREMELY difficult for Crusade to live any further
> >than it has.
> >
> >But it is possible.
>
> As I have said elsewhere; for those who have long memories, I would refer
> 'net, no email, nada, but a whole bunch of people - 500K is the runoured
> number - who wrote to NBC, campaigned, pestered and generally made a damned
> nuisance of themselves. And guess what, third season happened.
Not to throw a wet blanket over your hopes for "Crusade," but more as a
point of historical accuracy .... the infamous story you relate above
never happened. If you read "Inside Star Trek" by Herb Solow and Robert
Justman, you'll see that the entire "letter writing campaign" had very
little to do with actual fan support and everything to do with
Roddenberry's knack for self-promotion. The whole thing, right down to
the "I Grok Spock" bumperstickers, was engineered by Roddenberry to
manipulate NBC executives in a far earlier, far more naive period of
television history. No one in the industry would ever fall for this
kind of stuff today -- they've become too adept at doing it themselves.
LMA
Jenn Dolari
>What you have to understand at this point is that there's really no time
>left. It takes a large amount of money to hold a cast and crew together
>while other options are being sought, and even then options on varoius
>cast members and others begin to expire fast.
>WB can't keep spending holding money while they're seeking another
>prospect. It's a business decision, but a sensible one, given the large
>amounts of money involved. Their approach now is to believe in the show
>enough to get it on the air, let the ratings speak for themselves, and
>see what happens.
Well...if worse comes to worse, why not pull a "War of the Worlds?" In
other words, let Sci Fi get Crusade on next year's budget, and bring back
whomever CAN be brought back at that point. Those that can't can be
written off in the first episode (or even just expositioned away). Much
like the first episode of the second season of WotW?
Sure, we'll lose a lotta cast and a whole year, but we'll still see it...
Jenn
[desperately grasping for any straws here. :) ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHUN LI - SHEEVA - KITANA - SONYA BLADE - MILEENA - SINDEL - CAMMY
ROSE Strength. Beauty. We have no equal in the kingdom. KING
PAI - SAKURA dol...@dragondata.com ANNA - MAI
JADE - ELLIS http://www.dragondata.com/~dolari SOFIA - NINA
HSIEN KO Not all warriors are called "Sir!" MICHELLE
CHAOS - MORRIGAN - CHARLOTTE - NAKORURU - CHAM CHAM - FELICIA - ORCHID
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Molnar
Valen wrote:
> Jms at B5 wrote in message <19990227220027...@ng-cc1.aol.com>...
> >What you have to understand at this point is that there's really no time
> left.
> >It takes a large amount of money to hold a cast and crew together while
> other
> >options are being sought, and even then options on varoius cast members and
> >others begin to expire fast.
> >
> >WB can't keep spending holding money while they're seeking another
> prospect.
> >It's a business decision, but a sensible one, given the large amounts of
> money
> >involved. Their approach now is to believe in the show enough to get it on
> the
> >air, let the ratings speak for themselves, and see what happens.
> >
> >My only regret is for the cast, who are all uniformly terrific, and who are
> >caught out in all this.
> >
> > jms
> >
> >(jms...@aol.com)
> >B5 Official Fan Club at:
> >http://www.thestation.com
>
> would it be possible to wait until next year and try again with the sci-fi
> channell? and maby make a cinema movie and also get the reruns starting at
> season1 and some hype all to happen at pretty much the same time. with the
> movie you said before that the ppl in hollywood go for the bashem-smashem
> with crusade's setup as apposed to B5 the smashem-bashem factor goes from
> groove factor five to the point of engaging the trans-groove drive at
> maximum. And the fans get a cinema movie. and you get a whole lotta new fans
I HAVE heard of a B5 feature movie coming sometime next year.
John Schilling
>Allen Bryan wrote in message <36D803FB...@ra.msstate.edu>...
>>I know it will be EXTREMELY difficult for Crusade to live any further
>>than it has.
>>But it is possible.
>As I have said elsewhere; for those who have long memories, I would refer
>you to the story of how the third season of Classic Trek came about. No
>'net, no email, nada, but a whole bunch of people - 500K is the runoured
>number - who wrote to NBC, campaigned, pestered and generally made a damned
>nuisance of themselves. And guess what, third season happened.
Third season, but not the fourth. The *reason* we got a third season was
that the situation was then absolutely unprecedented, and the network had
no basis for evaluating what would happen next if they did or did not make
another season of "Star Trek".
The subsequent experiment showed, unfortunately, that a massive letter-writing
campaign does not indicate massive ratings if the show in question is renewed,
nor a massive viewer boycott of the rest of the network's schedule when it is
cancelled. Knowing this, the networks generally have not responded to later
such campaigns the way NBC did the first time around.
500K letters worked once, by surprise value. It doesn't work any more. Sorry.
>If that could happen in 1965, without the support systems and networks that
>exist now, just think what could be achieved in 1999?
The "support systems and networks" don't help, because they are taken into
account by the people on the recieving end. What they care about is the
underlying level of commitment, not the raw number of messages. A letter
that someone took the time to write with pen and paper back in 1965,
represents a substantial level of commitment, as does a nationwide
organization created from scratch for the apparent purpose of saving a
TV show. An electronic form letter that someone forwards with a couple
of keystrokes, having recieved it themselves in a mass e-mailing from an
extant fan group, does not.
If you do plan on writing a letter to a netowrk about this (or about any
other issue, or a letter to your congressman about some political issue
you feel strongly about, or whatever), it has to be ink on paper, your
own words at your own initiative, to have any chance at being taken
seriously. Techniques for organizing such campaigns on a large scale,
and minimizing the effort required of the individual participants, are
inherently self-defeating.
--
*John Schilling * "You can have Peace, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * or you can have Freedom. *
*University of Southern California * Don't ever count on having both *
*Aerospace Engineering Department * at the same time." *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * - Robert A. Heinlein *
*661-951-9107 or 805-275-6795 * Finger for PGP public key *
James Buster
John Schilling <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
>The subsequent experiment showed, unfortunately, that a massive
>letter-writing campaign does not indicate massive ratings if the
>show in question is renewed,
That is hardly surprising when the networks foolishly assume that fans
will accept anything, no matter how bad. Even the truly loyal fan can
be turned off by "Spock's Brain".
--
Planet Bog -- pools of toxic chemicals bubble under a choking
atomsphere of poisonous gases... but aside from that, it's not
much like Earth.
John Lorentz
wrote:
>In article <7bhgn4$k6j$1...@spock.usc.edu>,
>John Schilling <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
>>The subsequent experiment showed, unfortunately, that a massive
>>letter-writing campaign does not indicate massive ratings if the
>>show in question is renewed,
>
>That is hardly surprising when the networks foolishly assume that fans
>will accept anything, no matter how bad. Even the truly loyal fan can
>be turned off by "Spock's Brain".
>--
After watching all the episodes again on the Sci-Fi Channel's "Star
Trek Special Edition", I realized that--despite my memory to the
contrary--there were far worse episodes than Spock's Brian.
(The "space hippies" to me was the absolute worst. Even the cast
hated that one.)
--
John
Gary Farber
[. . .]
: After watching all the episodes again on the Sci-Fi Channel's "Star
: Trek Special Edition", I realized that--despite my memory to the
: contrary--there were far worse episodes than Spock's Brian.
: (The "space hippies" to me was the absolute worst. Even the cast
: hated that one.)
It was pretty silly. The final episode, "Turnabout Intruder" was foolish,
however, in a pernicious and offensive way, in that it overtly stated that
women were inherently incapable of commanding a starship.
I remember "And The Children Shall Lead Them" with great pain, and recall
no redeeming qualities for it, unless you count making fun of Melvin Belli
in a ridiculous robe as one.
Then there's the "parallel Earths" conceit, and the E Pleb Neesta.
"The Gamesters of Triskelion" was pretty camp, and so was. . . oh, er,
I've, er, of course, um, *heard* all this stuff, you know. I couldn't
possibly *remember* it, could I?
--
Copyright 1999 by Gary Farber; Web Researcher; Nonfiction Writer,
Fiction and Nonfiction Editor; gfa...@panix.com; B'klyn, NYC, US
Laura M. Appelbaum
>
> In <36dd6e00.61265935@firewall> John Lorentz <jlor...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>
> [. . .]
>
> : After watching all the episodes again on the Sci-Fi Channel's "Star
> : Trek Special Edition", I realized that--despite my memory to the
> : contrary--there were far worse episodes than Spock's Brian.
>
> : (The "space hippies" to me was the absolute worst. Even the cast
> : hated that one.)
>
> It was pretty silly. The final episode, "Turnabout Intruder" was foolish,
> however, in a pernicious and offensive way, in that it overtly stated that
> women were inherently incapable of commanding a starship.
>
> I remember "And The Children Shall Lead Them" with great pain, and recall
> no redeeming qualities for it, unless you count making fun of Melvin Belli
> in a ridiculous robe as one.
>
> Then there's the "parallel Earths" conceit, and the E Pleb Neesta.
>
> "The Gamesters of Triskelion" was pretty camp, and so was. . . oh, er,
> I've, er, of course, um, *heard* all this stuff, you know. I couldn't
> possibly *remember* it, could I?
Yeah, it's pretty scary to think I know ALL 78 titles by heart ... but
the absolute, all-time worst episode, one that has utterly no redeeming
qualities at all (even in a "bad movie" kind of way) HAS to be "Plato's
Stepchildren!" Make-believe S&M, a DWARF, for godsakes, Uhura cowering
in fear, Kirk "reciting" poetry and Nimoy singing! Hard to get much
lower than all that!
LMA
ImRastro
>Yeah, it's pretty scary to think I know ALL 78 titles by heart ... but
>the absolute, all-time worst episode, one that has utterly no redeeming
>qualities at all (even in a "bad movie" kind of way) HAS to be "Plato's
>Stepchildren!"
Aw...come on....you gotta give it a point or two for historic relevance. Isn't
it suppossed to be the first inter-racial kiss on TV? Or is that yet anouther
myth.
BTW, I too know all the episodes. I can't remember the names of seminal case
law in my area of practice, but ask me to quote from almost every Trek
episode....no problem. I can quote lots of Monty Python too. I have found
these talents very useful in life....
Laura M. Appelbaum
>
> Laura wrote:
>
> >Yeah, it's pretty scary to think I know ALL 78 titles by heart ... but
> >the absolute, all-time worst episode, one that has utterly no redeeming
> >qualities at all (even in a "bad movie" kind of way) HAS to be "Plato's
> >Stepchildren!"
>
> Aw...come on....you gotta give it a point or two for historic relevance. Isn't
> it suppossed to be the first inter-racial kiss on TV? Or is that yet anouther
> myth.
That's what they claimed in the Smithsonian exhibit, so who am I to
argue? <G> I'm LMA, that's who! ;D Given that neither person WANTED to
kiss the other seriously diminishes any such import any more than Thomas
Jefferson having children with Sally Hemmings made him an
integrationist.
LMA
Scott Harris
----------
In article <7bhgn4$k6j$1...@spock.usc.edu>, schi...@spock.usc.edu (John Schilling)
wrote:
[snip]
> 500K letters worked once, by surprise value. It doesn't work any more.
Sorry.
[snip]
> seriously. Techniques for organizing such campaigns on a large scale,
> and minimizing the effort required of the individual participants, are
> inherently self-defeating.
I dunno: fan pressure put "The Sentinel" back on UPN for one more season.
If continuing "Crusade" is a matter of cash, has anyone ever considered a fan
subsription to produce a series? How much money are we talking about?
I spend $20 a month on movie channels I seldom watch. Would I send $20 in one
time seed money to JMS? Would a couple-three 100K fans send $5-10-20? Would a
network ignore a series the fans were willing to produce?
These are novel questions for me.
Scott Harris
Saint Albans WV
PITYDER
>
>If continuing "Crusade" is a matter of cash, has anyone ever considered a fan
>subsription to produce a series?
I think that's a darned good idea.
>
>I spend $20 a month on movie channels I seldom watch. Would I send $20 in
>one
>time seed money to JMS? Would a couple-three 100K fans send $5-10-20?
I definitely would, and more.
>Would a
>network ignore a series the fans were willing to produce?
I don't know. But I'd love to find out.
William Hutchens
>>
>>If continuing "Crusade" is a matter of cash, has anyone ever considered a fan
>>subsription to produce a series?
>>Would a
>>network ignore a series the fans were willing to produce?
>I don't know. But I'd love to find out.
I believe that's essentially the concept behind PBS. Of course, in
that case, it's more like the fan money is going to paying for the
station's subscription and not the production, but the two concepts
are not that far apart.
BTW, When I was alot younger, one of the reasons I liked visiting my
grandmother is that the PBS station in her area (WVIA 44,
Scrantion-Wilkes Barre-Hazleton, PA) ran ST:TOS every Saturday at
11:30p -- uncut, no commercials, no talking over or squishing the end
credits). Also, every couple of weeks, they'd have a marathon goiing
the whole night. IIRC, whenever they had pledge time, they said that
ST:TOS was their most heavily supported show.
You know, the more I think of it, the more I like this idea.
Bill
Bill
Remove 'spamless' from reply address to e-mail
WWS
Oh yes, I would love to see Crusade produced on a Dr. Who budget.
Indiana Joe
>Oh yes, I would love to see Crusade produced on a Dr. Who budget.
Better produced on a shoestring budget than not produced at all. Besides,
a well-written and acted production will more than make up for a certain
minimalism in the sets and effects. :-)
--
Joe Claffey | "Make no small plans."
jr...@home.net | -- Daniel Burnham
Tony Naggs
>In article <36E1F65E...@tyler.net>, WWS <wsch...@tyler.net> wrote:
>
>>Oh yes, I would love to see Crusade produced on a Dr. Who budget.
>
> Better produced on a shoestring budget than not produced at all. Besides,
>a well-written and acted production will more than make up for a certain
>minimalism in the sets and effects. :-)
But it would rather be copying Blake's 7 to film Crusade in a chalk
quarry ...
--
"Still . . . no worries, eh?", said Rincewind, somewhere on the Discworld.
Indiana Joe
<a...@ubik.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Indiana Joe <jr...@home.net> enlightened us thusly:
>>In article <36E1F65E...@tyler.net>, WWS <wsch...@tyler.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Oh yes, I would love to see Crusade produced on a Dr. Who budget.
>>
>> Better produced on a shoestring budget than not produced at all. Besides,
>>a well-written and acted production will more than make up for a certain
>>minimalism in the sets and effects. :-)
>
>But it would rather be copying Blake's 7 to film Crusade in a chalk
>quarry ...
Hey, this is the US - we've got granite quarries, and basalt quarries,
and open-pit coal mines... :-)