SCI FI PICKS UP B5
Pf2144
>From SCI FI Wire:
<<SCI FI Picks Up Babylon 5
The SCI FI Channel has acquired exclusive rights to the Emmy Award-winning SF
series Babylon 5, the cable network announced Monday, April 3. The series will
premiere on SCI FI beginning Sept. 25 and will air Monday through Friday at 7
p.m. ET.
In a deal with Warner Bros. Domestic Pay TV, Cable and Newtork Features, SCI FI
picked up the rights to all 112 hour-long episodes of the series, as well as
four two-hour telefilms based on the show.
"Babylon 5 is one of sci-fi fans' favorite series. We are thrilled to be able
to add it to our schedule," said Bonnie Hammer, executive vice president and
general manager of The SCI FI Channel.
The series, which won an Emmy for visual effects in 1993, was created by J.
Michael Straczynski and was co-executive produced by Straczynski and Douglas
Netter. It stars Bruce Boxleitner, Michael O'Hare, Richard Biggs, Andrea
Thompson, Jeff Conaway, Bill Mumy, Jerry Doyle, Tracy Scoggins and Claudia
Christian.>>
Louise Taylor
> TNT's reign of terror comes to an end....
Saints be praised! I will still have to tape it but at least I get to see
it. :-)
Louise
Cassius81
>
><<SCI FI Picks Up Babylon 5
>
>The SCI FI Channel has acquired exclusive rights to the Emmy Award-winning SF
>series Babylon 5, the cable network announced Monday, April 3. The series
>will
>premiere on SCI FI beginning Sept. 25 and will air Monday through Friday at 7
>p.m. ET.
Hallelujah! Now I can FINALLY get the rest of Season 1 taped without getting up
at seven on a galldarn Saturday.
Let's just hope Sci-Fi doesn't make any crappy commercials for it. We had
plenty of that with TNT, thanks.
Cassius' Quote of the Day:
Gendo Ikari: "We cannot make time run backwards, but we can spur its course
forward with our own hands."
Pelzo63
>SCI FI
>picked up the rights to all 112 hour-long episodes of >the series, as well
>as
>four two-hour telefilms based on the show.
112+4? does this mean that "the gathering" will be split into a 2-parter and
worked into the regular rotation? and any clues as to if it's the re-edit or
original gathering? i missed the re-edit, and don't remember much about the
original.
--Chris AOL/AIM--pelzo63
http://members.aol.com/pelzo63/welcome.html
yay! i can actually play 3D games! now, i want my b5 sim, stupid sierra, does
sci-fi channel have a games department?!
Jms at B5
>worked into the regular rotation?
I suspect it's just a typo.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
(all message content (c) 2000 by
synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
to reprint specifically denied to
SFX Magazine)
C/1Lt. Joe Biles
pretty good.
Shaz
"Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000404201616...@ng-fj1.aol.com...
> >112+4? does this mean that "the gathering" will be split into a 2-parter
and
> >worked into the regular rotation?
>
> I suspect it's just a typo.
>
> jms
Speaking of typos, what does THIS mean?
"In the deal with Warner Bros. Domestic Pay TV, Cable and Network Features,
SCI FI also acquired the rights to produce four two-hour telefilms based on
the show."
From:
http://www.ultimatetv.com/news/TVNewsDaily.html?7946
Surely they mean SHOW rather than PRODUCE, don't they? I mean, the gods
wouldn't smile so brightly as to give us four *more* B5 movies.
Unless there's something you ain't telling us, Joe!
Shaz
Shaz
"Shaz" <hyp...@Dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:8ce4ol$3ah$2...@lure.pipex.net...
Pardon me for answering my own post.
They seem to have corrected this error, and the truth was, sadly, as I
suspected. It now reads:
"In the deal with Warner Bros. Domestic Pay TV, Cable and Network Features,
SCI FI also acquired the rights to four two-hour telefilms based on the
show."
Oh, and they put the other actors in there as well!
Shaz
Jms at B5
>
>"In the deal with Warner Bros. Domestic Pay TV, Cable and Network Features,
>SCI FI also acquired the rights to produce four two-hour telefilms based on
>the show."
Someone doctored that quote along the way; the word Produce does not appear in
the line at the actual site (having just checked it out).
Piers
movies already in existence, i.e., Thirdspace, In the Beginning, etc., not
new ones.
Shaz <hyp...@Dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:8ce4ol$3ah$2...@lure.pipex.net...
>
> "Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000404201616...@ng-fj1.aol.com...
> > >112+4? does this mean that "the gathering" will be split into a
2-parter
> and
> > >worked into the regular rotation?
> >
> > I suspect it's just a typo.
> >
> > jms
>
> Speaking of typos, what does THIS mean?
>
> "In the deal with Warner Bros. Domestic Pay TV, Cable and Network
Features,
> SCI FI also acquired the rights to produce four two-hour telefilms based
on
> the show."
>
> From:
>
> http://www.ultimatetv.com/news/TVNewsDaily.html?7946
>
> Surely they mean SHOW rather than PRODUCE, don't they? I mean, the gods
> wouldn't smile so brightly as to give us four *more* B5 movies.
>
> Unless there's something you ain't telling us, Joe!
>
> Shaz
>
>
>
>
>
David Chapple
filmed" for anyway? : )
Dave
Constance
In the deal with Warner Bros. Domestic Pay TV, Cable and Network Features,
show.
There is nothing about producing in the article... sorry...
Aeryka aka Constance
Shaz wrote in message <8ce4ol$3ah$2...@lure.pipex.net>...
Shaz
> >Speaking of typos, what does THIS mean?
> >
> >"In the deal with Warner Bros. Domestic Pay TV, Cable and Network
Features,
> >SCI FI also acquired the rights to produce four two-hour telefilms based
on
> >the show."
>
appear in
> the line at the actual site (having just checked it out).
>
> jms
<sigh>
In fact the quote wasn't doctored. It was cut and pasted from the ORIGINAL
version that was put on the site. After I had done that and sent it I went
back and saw they'd changed it, adding the other actor's names to the list
at the bottom as well, so presumably someone pointed out to the person
writing the article that they'd screwed up and they put it straight.
I didn't make it up, nor was it taken from anywhere else. They posted an
incorrect report and then corrected it, making me look a liar, of course.
Shaz
Jms at B5
>incorrect report and then corrected it, making me look a liar, of course.
Yeah, that sort of thing happens sometimes. The peculiar thing is that most of
the copy is word for word the same as on the SFC site *except* for the
"produce" thing...so clearly someone there muffed it or tried to make it a
bigger story than it was in that respect.
Mark Maher
>
>
><sigh>
>
>In fact the quote wasn't doctored. It was cut and pasted from
the ORIGINAL
>version that was put on the site. After I had done that and
sent it I went
>back and saw they'd changed it, adding the other actor's names
to the list
>at the bottom as well, so presumably someone pointed out to the
person
>writing the article that they'd screwed up and they put it
straight.
>
posted an
>incorrect report and then corrected it, making me look a liar,
of course.
>
It's okay, Shaz. I saw the original post. You can stop hovering
next to the ceiling now :-)
__!_!__
Gizmo
Shaz
"Mark Maher" <marka...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:%4RG4.37651$pK3.9...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Shaz wrote in message <8cgj2j$2ct$5...@lure.pipex.net>...
<snip>
> >I didn't make it up, nor was it taken from anywhere else. They
> posted an
> >incorrect report and then corrected it, making me look a liar,
> of course.
> >
> >Shaz
>
> It's okay, Shaz. I saw the original post. You can stop hovering
> next to the ceiling now :-)
Thanks, to you and Joe both.
I'm one of those people who has a hard time lying because I'm fundamentally
very honest, and it hurts me when someone makes me look a liar when I'm not.
I guess I should take the words of Rudyard Kipling more to heart 'if you can
bear to hear the truth you've spoken twisted by knaves to make a trap for
fools...' (a quote I was constantly reminded of while watching 'The Illusion
of Truth')
Shaz
Chuck
are doing now to LEXX. Sci-Fi chennel has about as much respect in my house as TNT.
CJW
Pelzo63
>You read that wrong, it reads:
no, shaz read it right. they wrote it wrong, at first, and later issued a
correction(though, apparently made no note that it was a correction)
i saw it too <g>
---Chris AOL/AIM--pelzo63
http://members.aol.com/pelzo63/welcome.html
it was a nice dream though!
Constance
building a website from heck will make me say things wrong... again sowwy...
especially if it sounded crass...
Aeryka aka Constance
Pelzo63 wrote in message <20000406000102...@ng-cu1.aol.com>...
Pelzo63
>Oh... my fault... sowwy... me who has been enclosed in >a small space
>building a website from heck will make me say things >wrong... again sowwy...
>especially if it sounded crass..
but you didn't say anything wrong either! <g> it's all ultimate TV's fault!
they're the ones who made a false statement, then never printed "this is a
correction".
and sorry is *I* was a bit harsh in my reply, there have been several people
here(and in the unmod group) claiming that me(and shaz) were lying in reading
this. but everything's all happy happy now.
---chris AOL/AIM--pelzo63
http://members.aol.com/pelzo63/welcome.html
i hoep my iMac DV has enough power to play the B5 space combat sim from the
newly revived goup of original programmers! www.firstones.com!
Iain Clark
Sounds like the governing rule in most flame wars I've ever observed!
BTW, the news release that Sci-Fi had picked up the repeat rights to
Brimstone and Prey was similarly confusing as to whether they would be
producing more episodes, though not as explicit as the mistake here.
Iain
--
"Signs, portents, dreams...next thing
we'll be reading tea leaves and chicken entrails."
Mac Breck
news:8cgofq$5og$1...@lure.pipex.net...
>
> "Mark Maher" <marka...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:%4RG4.37651$pK3.9...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > Shaz wrote in message <8cgj2j$2ct$5...@lure.pipex.net>...
>
> <snip>
>
> > >I didn't make it up, nor was it taken from anywhere else. They
> > posted an
> > >incorrect report and then corrected it, making me look a liar,
> > of course.
> > >
> > >Shaz
> >
> > It's okay, Shaz. I saw the original post. You can stop hovering
> > next to the ceiling now :-)
>
> Thanks, to you and Joe both.
>
> I'm one of those people who has a hard time lying because I'm
fundamentally
> very honest, and it hurts me when someone makes me look a liar when I'm
not.
> I guess I should take the words of Rudyard Kipling more to heart 'if you
can
> bear to hear the truth you've spoken twisted by knaves to make a trap for
> fools...' (a quote I was constantly reminded of while watching 'The
Illusion
> of Truth')
Or Deconstruction of Falling Stars! How about the loud-mouth, idiotic,
James Carville look-alike/sound-alike, the panel of "experts" (who Delenn
verbally cut to pieces, and shamed with a look)?
To say they (Sheridan and Delenn) did nothing, or were screw-ups!? Gimme a
break! That's a lot like the even-handed news reporting we see today.
Mac
Shaz
"Mac Breck" <macb...@timesnet.net> wrote in message
news:8cl1l7$6...@library2.airnews.net...
> > Thanks, to you and Joe both.
> >
> > I'm one of those people who has a hard time lying because I'm
> fundamentally
> > very honest, and it hurts me when someone makes me look a liar when I'm
> not.
> > I guess I should take the words of Rudyard Kipling more to heart 'if you
> can
> > bear to hear the truth you've spoken twisted by knaves to make a trap
for
> > fools...' (a quote I was constantly reminded of while watching 'The
> Illusion
> > of Truth')
>
> Or Deconstruction of Falling Stars! How about the loud-mouth, idiotic,
> James Carville look-alike/sound-alike, the panel of "experts" (who Delenn
> verbally cut to pieces, and shamed with a look)?
I have to say, those academics shamed me (as an academic) because that is
EXACTLY what is happening in academia at the moment. With the emphasis on
'publish or perish', the amount of drivel that gets published is stunning.
Once upon a time people published because they had something to say. Now
they do so if they can FIND something to say, and that's not the same thing
at all. They read through all the publications looking for something they
can tear to pieces and add to their resume. These academics (in DoFS) had
found what they thought was the perfect vehicle in J&D's mythology. After
all, they believed all the protagonists were dead, so no danger of someone
who was there telling them they were full of shit (I was SO pleased when
Delenn turned up!), and anyone who tried to argue with them based on the
available evidence could be safely dismissed using THEIR interpretations of
the evidence, and a whole load of technobabble (academic journals won't use
a 1 syllable word if a 6 syllable word will fit) to baffle the audience. The
simplicity of the truth they couldn't cope with, so they dress it up and
make it sound more 'erudite'.
> To say they (Sheridan and Delenn) did nothing, or were screw-ups!? Gimme
a
> break! That's a lot like the even-handed news reporting we see today.
>
> Mac
That too.
Shaz
<Three publications to her credit, two nominations for Distinguished
professor, 4 student organised petitions for me to be kept on, and a regular
100% A on student evaluations regarding attitude towards students and
teaching as well as knowledge of subject... and can I get a job? Like hell!>
<not that I'm bitter, you understand :-P >
Mac Breck
So, in other words, they were complete and utter cowards, as well as
low-life scum.
>(I was SO pleased when
> Delenn turned up!)
Me too! Notice how she got *all of them* to lower their eyes? I loved
that! They *knew* they were wrong.
> and anyone who tried to argue with them based on the
> available evidence could be safely dismissed using THEIR interpretations
of
> the evidence, and a whole load of technobabble (academic journals won't
use
> a 1 syllable word if a 6 syllable word will fit) to baffle the audience.
Sounds like they're arguing from a weak, indefensible position, and have to
erect a bluff to prevent anyone questioning their conclusions. More
dishonesty and cowardice. Are these academics or used car salesmen?
> The
> simplicity of the truth they couldn't cope with, so they dress it up and
> make it sound more 'erudite'.
>
> > To say they (Sheridan and Delenn) did nothing, or were screw-ups!?
Gimme
> a
> > break! That's a lot like the even-handed news reporting we see today.
> >
> > Mac
>
> That too.
>
> Shaz
> <Three publications to her credit, two nominations for Distinguished
> professor, 4 student organised petitions for me to be kept on, and a
regular
> 100% A on student evaluations regarding attitude towards students and
> teaching as well as knowledge of subject... and can I get a job? Like
hell!>
Agreed. I just came out of a situation like that. I did the job, and found
and fixed errors of others to produce something of quality. I was a team
player, whose focus was solely on doing the job and producing flawless
output. I'm out of a job, and those whose errors I fixed, who "played the
game" and produced lots of crap output, are still employed. My ex-company
*deserves* the people that are still there.
>
> <not that I'm bitter, you understand :-P >
Yeah, me either. You know, for once, I'd like to see good deeds get
rewarded instead of punished, just for the novelty of it.
Mac
Diane K De
>Date: 4/6/00 3:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <38ECC48D...@bellatlantic.net>
>
>Chuck wrote:
>>
>> No the problem is will Sci_FI cut B5 to shreads like they did to Star Trek
>TOS and
>> are doing now to LEXX. Sci-Fi chennel has about as much respect in my house
>as TNT.
>
>and cable, is already at the minimum show-to-commercial ratio. They
>might make cuts for language; I'm inclined to suggest a letter-writing
>campaign NOW! Point out that, for God's sake, the show was originally
>_made_ for US broadcast television, so any cutting by SFC for the US
>market is guaranteed to make them look, not only like prudes and
>philistines, but like outright doofuses.
>
>--
>-John W. Kennedy
>-rri...@ibm.net
I am not aware of any official "minimum show to commercial ratio". Where can I
find this in writing?
If the Sci-Fi Channel decides to add a few more commercials, there are no
rules, regulations, or authority that I am aware of to stop them.
I repeat..."that I am aware of".
If there is, I'd love someone to point it out to me where I can read these
regulations.
DD
Shaz
"Diane K De" <dian...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000408225200...@ng-cd1.aol.com...
Actually, it was Joe who said it was already at the bare minimum, earlier in
this discussion as I recall, but I may have been dreaming!
Shaz
Iain Rae
yes, I saw the same post.
>but I may have been dreaming!
'hoy....get out of my nightmare :)
Diane K De
>> I am not aware of any official "minimum show to commercial ratio". Where
>can I
>> find this in writing?
>>
>> If the Sci-Fi Channel decides to add a few more commercials, there are no
>> rules, regulations, or authority that I am aware of to stop them.
>>
>> I repeat..."that I am aware of".
>>
>> If there is, I'd love someone to point it out to me where I can read these
>> regulations.
>>
>> DD
>
>Actually, it was Joe who said it was already at the bare minimum, earlier in
>this discussion as I recall, but I may have been dreaming!
>
>Shaz
>
Then maybe he can enlighten me on what regulations he was referring to.
The American Association of Advertising Agencies monitors "non-program content"
and publishes the results of this monitoring on an annual basis.
Not surprisingly, "non-program content" has been rising at a steady rate. It
rose in 1999 vs. 1998. It varies by network and daypart.
There may be voluntary "habits" and "guidelines" that networks use and the
National Association of Broadcasters once had voluntary guidelines for its
members. Syndicators may follow standard principles of the industry at the
time.
A few of my friends are watching "Scarecrow and Mrs. King" on PAX. They are
reporting that entire scenes are being cut to add commercials. That's because
the amount of commercials that was standard for CBS in 1983-87 is well below
what is standard for PAX now.
Over time, the same thing could happen to Babylon 5 or any show filmed at its
time.
DD
Iain Rae
Hmm... How do broadcasters in the US get licensed? in the UK the
government sells franchises which include things like % content for
minority viewers (gaelic/welsh broadcasting) and puts limits on certain
types of programming.
> DD
Mac Breck
> A few of my friends are watching "Scarecrow and Mrs. King" on PAX. They
are
> reporting that entire scenes are being cut to add commercials. That's
because
> the amount of commercials that was standard for CBS in 1983-87 is well
below
> what is standard for PAX now.
>
> Over time, the same thing could happen to Babylon 5 or any show filmed at
its
> time.
This doesn't bode well at all. Pretty soon, a TV showing will be nothing
more than an elaborate trailer for seeing the whole thing on tape or disc.
Mac
WWS
Iain Rae wrote:
> >
>
> Hmm... How do broadcasters in the US get licensed? in the UK the
> government sells franchises which include things like % content
> for minority viewers (gaelic/welsh broadcasting) and puts limits
> on certain types of programming.
I think the accepted procedure is to wave a ridiculous amount
of cash around, making sure all interested parties get the
appropriate percentage (cleverly disguised as "contibutions"
when necessary). When this procedure is complete, the licensee
will be free to do whatever he/she wants as long as they remember
to mouth platitudes about the "viewing public" and "broadcasters
rights" whenever the opportunity arises.
--
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
WWS
More likely, a streaming video over your DSL or cable modem, which
are already widely available and getting more common by the day.
And when this happens, the age of Television programming will be
dead, and the age of Webcasting will begin. (Why do you think
the AOL/Time Warner combination makes so much sense? Companies
are already thinking about this)
I give it about 10 years. 20, max.
--
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
WWS
Shaz wrote:
>
> Shaz
> <Three publications to her credit, two nominations for
> Distinguished professor, 4 student organised petitions for
> me to be kept on, and a regular 100% A on student evaluations
> regarding attitude towards students and teaching as well as
> knowledge of subject... and can I get a job? Like hell!>
>
> <not that I'm bitter, you understand :-P >
You're Overqualified.
--
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
If, on the other hand, your resume read "understands nothing
but kisses ass shamelessly" you'd be hired in a New York
minute.
Jms at B5
hour program, depending on venue. There is one minimum for syndication and
cable, and a slightly higher minimum for network shows.
This is what enables syndicators and cable operations to cut down episodes in
order to cram in more comercials.
B5 ran at the syndication/cable minimum number of minutes as mandated by the
FCC, which can be found in their regs. It cannot be cut further unless the
minimums change or have changed.
Daniel S. Riley
> Diane K De wrote:
> > >> I am not aware of any official "minimum show to commercial
> > >> ratio". Where can I find this in writing?
> >
> > and the National Association of Broadcasters once had voluntary
> > guidelines for its members. Syndicators may follow standard
> > principles of the industry at the time.
There are FCC regulations on the duration of commercials in
children's programming, authorized by USC Title 47 section 303a (b)
(see http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/303a.html):
(b) Advertising duration limitations Except as provided in subsection
(c) of this section, the standards prescribed under subsection
(a) of this section shall include the requirement that each
commercial television broadcast licensee shall limit the duration
of advertising in children's television programming to not more
than 10.5 minutes per hour on weekends and not more than 12
minutes per hour on weekdays.
where "commercial television broadcast licensee" in this context
includes cable operators. I could find no evidence of any similar
statutory or regulatory limit on the duration of advertising in
programming not targeted specifically at young children.
> Hmm... How do broadcasters in the US get licensed? in the UK the
> government sells franchises which include things like % content for
> minority viewers (gaelic/welsh broadcasting) and puts limits on certain
> types of programming.
There are various public welfare requirements placed on broadcast
networks and stations. Some of these limits are justified by the
broadcast stations' use of a limited public resource--the portion
of the EM spectrum they broadcast over--and hence do not apply to
cable networks like SciFi.
--
Dan Riley d...@mail.lns.cornell.edu
Wilson Lab, Cornell University <URL:http://www.lns.cornell.edu/~dsr/>
"History teaches us that days like this are best spent in bed"
Christian McNeill
> The FCC mandates that there must be X minutes of programming per hour or
half
> hour program, depending on venue. There is one minimum for syndication
and
> cable, and a slightly higher minimum for network shows.
>
> This is what enables syndicators and cable operations to cut down episodes
in
> order to cram in more comercials.
>
> B5 ran at the syndication/cable minimum number of minutes as mandated by
the
> FCC, which can be found in their regs. It cannot be cut further unless
the
> minimums change or have changed.
That only applies in the US. Didn't you say something was cut from Sleeping
in Light when it was aired in Australia?
Not to mention that season 2 ad break lead in (or whatever it's called)
--
==========================================
Christian McNeill
One of the Medwar First Ones
Keeper of the "Grrr Arrgh"
Guardian of Mutant Enemy
E-mail: chri...@quicknet.com.au
Web: red.underground.com.au
ICQ: 818458
or 48580607
Diane K De
>Date: 4/9/00 7:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20000409193656...@ng-fg1.aol.com>
>
>The FCC mandates that there must be X minutes of programming per hour or half
>hour program, depending on venue. There is one minimum for syndication and
>cable, and a slightly higher minimum for network shows.
>
>This is what enables syndicators and cable operations to cut down episodes in
>order to cram in more comercials.
>
>B5 ran at the syndication/cable minimum number of minutes as mandated by the
>FCC, which can be found in their regs. It cannot be cut further unless the
>minimums change or have changed.
>
>
Sir,
I believe you are mistaken. Since bringing up this topic, I have
double-checked with other people.
The only thing current FCC regulations specify is the number of minutes
allowable for children's programming.
There are no regulations for other types of programming.
DD
Chat Cat
RE: Re: SCI FI PICKS UP B5
BY: WWS <wsch...@tyler.net>
>More likely, a streaming video over your DSL or cable modem, which
>are already widely available and getting more common by the day.
>And when this happens, the age of Television programming will be
>dead, and the age of Webcasting will begin.
This is great if you live in areas where DSL and cable modems are available.
Neither of them are out here in the country where I live.
cc
Kerry Casey
Didn't you say something was cut from Sleeping
> in Light when it was aired in Australia?
> Not to mention that season 2 ad break lead in (or whatever it's called)
>
Nothing was cut from Sleeping in Light in Australia. Channel 9 ADDED the
season 5 intro between the teaser and act 1, inside of going straight from
one to the other. (When I made a copy without ads, I was so surprised that
SiL was ~44 mins long rather than the usual ~42 minutes. Then I saw jms's
post that explained the extra set of credits :-) )
Channel 9 also kept the season 2 bumper rather than progressing to later
bumpers (the bumper being the logo/music that goes at an ad break, leading
into the ads). This also I didn't realise until I saw jms's post.
I just wish Channel 9 would do what Channel 7 now do, go to black.
Kerry
--
Kerry Casey
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
E-mail kca...@bom.gov.au
John W. Kennedy
> > >From: "John W. Kennedy" jwke...@bellatlantic.net
> > >Date: 4/6/00 3:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> > >Message-id: <38ECC48D...@bellatlantic.net>
> > >
> > >Chuck wrote:
> > >>
> > >> No the problem is will Sci_FI cut B5 to shreads like they did to Star
> Trek
> > >TOS and
> > >> are doing now to LEXX. Sci-Fi chennel has about as much respect in my
> house
> > >as TNT.
> > >
> > >They won't cut for time; B5, having been originally made for syndication
> > >and cable, is already at the minimum show-to-commercial ratio. They
> > >might make cuts for language; I'm inclined to suggest a letter-writing
> > >campaign NOW! Point out that, for God's sake, the show was originally
> > >_made_ for US broadcast television, so any cutting by SFC for the US
> > >market is guaranteed to make them look, not only like prudes and
> > >philistines, but like outright doofuses.
> > >
> > >--
> > >-John W. Kennedy
> > >-rri...@ibm.net
> >
> can I
> > find this in writing?
> >
> > rules, regulations, or authority that I am aware of to stop them.
> >
> > I repeat..."that I am aware of".
> >
> > If there is, I'd love someone to point it out to me where I can read these
> > regulations.
> >
> > DD
>
> Actually, it was Joe who said it was already at the bare minimum, earlier in
> this discussion as I recall, but I may have been dreaming!
He has said it many times over the years.
--
-John W. Kennedy
-rri...@ibm.net
Compact is becoming contract
Man only earns and pays. -- Charles Williams
WWS
In the country where you live? Looks like you live in the USA, HAR HAR!
I do know what you mean - but even as we speak, this access is being
added in all kinds of places, not just major cities anymore. This
spring, SWBell is bringing DSL and fiberoptic lines to just about
every two bit town in East Texas, where I am. Cable already covers
a good percentage of the country as well, and access is being added
by leaps and bounds. (once you experience high speed access, you
can never go back to the old 28.8 modem) Within 10 years, 90% of
the country should have access to high speed linkups of one kind
or another, and those areas that don't should be able to link up
through satellite.
This isn't sci-fi anymore, in a very short time everything that
we assume to be true about television and the entertainment
industry is going to change radically, and change forever.
Now just how is it going to change exactly? Answer me that and
we'll both be millionaires.
--
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
Lisa Coulter
were *wonderful*
Disclaimer: Obviously these opinions are mine! Fortunately, I have tenure, so
there is hope.....
Lisa Coulter
Mac Breck wrote:
> > Shaz
> > <Three publications to her credit, two nominations for Distinguished
> > professor, 4 student organised petitions for me to be kept on, and a
> regular
> > 100% A on student evaluations regarding attitude towards students and
> > teaching as well as knowledge of subject... and can I get a job? Like
> hell!>
>
> Agreed. I just came out of a situation like that. I did the job, and found
> and fixed errors of others to produce something of quality. I was a team
> player, whose focus was solely on doing the job and producing flawless
> output. I'm out of a job, and those whose errors I fixed, who "played the
> game" and produced lots of crap output, are still employed. My ex-company
> *deserves* the people that are still there.
>
> >
> > <not that I'm bitter, you understand :-P >
>
Shaz
"Lisa Coulter" <lcou...@stetson.edu> wrote in message
news:38F20637...@stetson.edu...
> Must say, I am an academic too - and I thought some of the
characterizations
> were *wonderful*
Accurate, certainly, but wonderful? This is a new definition of wonderful
I've not previously encountered. as Delenn said, they didn't want to know,
they merely wished to talk and, frankly, they didn't have much worth
listening to given none of it was the truth.
> Disclaimer: Obviously these opinions are mine! Fortunately, I have tenure,
so
> there is hope.....
Of course.
> Lisa Coulter
Shaz
Chuck
Jms at B5 wrote:
> The FCC mandates that there must be X minutes of programming per hour or half
> hour program, depending on venue. There is one minimum for syndication and
> cable, and a slightly higher minimum for network shows.
>
> This is what enables syndicators and cable operations to cut down episodes in
> order to cram in more comercials.
>
> B5 ran at the syndication/cable minimum number of minutes as mandated by the
> FCC, which can be found in their regs. It cannot be cut further unless the
> minimums change or have changed.
>
> jms
>
> (jms...@aol.com)
> B5 Official Fan Club at:
> http://www.thestation.com
> (all message content (c) 2000 by
> synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
> to reprint specifically denied to
> SFX Magazine)
Forgive me, but I have always been told these were guidelines, not regulations.
The only exception I am aware of is for "Kiddie Show." There is nothing to stop
Sci-Fi or anyone else from cutting the show anyway they see it, or show it in any
episode order they wish (subject to contract constrains). Given what they have
done to shows like Star Trek TOS and what they are doing now to LEXX, I see no
reason to assume they will not do the same to B5. However, I will see wait to see
just what goes on the screen before I jump up and down and start yelling.
CJW
Aubrey W. Adkins
<Snipped for length>
>
> Now just how is it going to change exactly? Answer me that and
> we'll both be millionaires.
>
> --
>
> __________________________________________________WWS_____________
That one is easy old man....for better and worse. Better because
niche producers will more easily find their markets, better because we
will have a larger smorgusboard from which to select (note no dangling
preposition)...worse because with a fractured marked, producing a
presentation movie, etc. will be cost prohibitive since you won't have
the guarenteed large audiences. In the last one I'm particularly
thinking of such thinge as blockbuster movies.
I don't have a clue as to how one can make money in a fractured
market unless it enables wannabe writers like me to reach an audience
without having to convince a publisher that I am the second coming of
Hemmingway or Shakespeare.
Aubrey