What now - And What Went Wrong?
webmaster
I do hope you haven't given up.
By the way - what went wrong?
Jms at B5
Dunno.
>
>I do hope you haven't given up.
>
Given up what?
>By the way - what went wrong?
Dunno...did something go wrong? Did the master tapes of B5 get degaussed or
something?
Not to make light, but you have to look at this from my side...as I said, the
main thing was the five years. We got them. Anything else is a bonus. The
finished eps are there, and will be for as long as images are transmitted.
It's there, on the shelf.
Will something else happen with B5 down the road someday? The universe being
as cyclical as it is, almost certainly. But if nothing ever does, *I'm okay
with that*.
I was at a convention a while ago -- one of the last I attended, and you can
put a cause and effect thing there if you want -- and there were all these
actors and people campaigning for their shows to come back, from V to
Battlestar to Lost in Space, you name it...and people kept coming up to me and
saying, with great gentility and real affection, "I hope you get your show back
on again."
And I kept trying to tell them...I ain't here for that. I'm not trying to get
it back on. If that were the case I wouldn't have chosen to end it after five
years in the first place. I was there to celebrate that we'd *done* it, not
that it should come back or that I wanted people to campaign for it. Which is
why I haven't urged writing campaigns or anything else.
I set out to tell the story I wanted to tell, and I told it. If something else
in the B5 universe comes along, terrific, I'm there...but if not, that's okay
too. It's like Zack said in Sleeping in Light, which was meant as a sorta coda
to the production of the show...everything we set out to do, we did, and nobody
can ever take that away.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2002 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)
webmaster
"Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020410005135...@mb-fi.aol.com...
<snip>
people kept coming up to me and
> saying, with great gentility and real affection, "I hope you get your show
back
> on again."
>
> And I kept trying to tell them...I ain't here for that. I'm not trying to
get
> it back on. If that were the case I wouldn't have chosen to end it after
five
> years in the first place. I was there to celebrate that we'd *done* it,
not
> that it should come back or that I wanted people to campaign for it.
Which is
> why I haven't urged writing campaigns or anything else.
>
I think that we all understand that Crusade and Rangers are different shows
set in the B5 universe. That is what we want. We are hoping for a return to
that universe in a way that finishes that new stories. (Nothing will take B5
away from you Joe).
Okay forget B5. What about Crusade in its own right. Why isn't that worth
fighting for just as B5 was worth fighting for? Why isn't five years of that
show just as important as the completed five year arc of B5?
Just wondering....
Oh... by the remark what went wrong - I meant what went wrong with
Rangers....
Nathan
Jan
<<Why isn't that worth fighting for just as B5 was worth fighting for? Why
isn't five years of that show just as important as the completed five year arc
of B5?>>
I'm not JMS but I can guess maybe.
B5 was the dream. JMS' masterpiece, if you will, in the old sense of the word
where one particular work was what demonstrated to his peers that he was worthy
of the title Master Craftsman.
He fought for 5 years to get the show on the air at all and then fought for 5
more to keep the show on the air and to keep it of the highest quality. And he
accomplished that by putting aside any life outside of Babylon 5. He
accomplished his dream and he still loves the B5 universe well and may still
have things to say there, TV gods willing.
But the masterpiece is out there for all to see and there are other stories to
tell in other universes so why fight again for it when anything more is just
icing on the cake? If B5 showed us anything, it's that JMS enjoys stretching
his writing muscles and trying new things. New things don't have to be in the
B5 universe and eventually could stifle his creativity.
Hoping I'm not too far off base, JMS.
Jan
Mac Breck
From: "Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 12:51 AM
Subject: Re: What now - And What Went Wrong?
> >So JMS, what's next for the world of B5?
>
> Dunno.
> >
> >I do hope you haven't given up.
> >
> Given up what?
>
> >By the way - what went wrong?
>
> Dunno...did something go wrong? Did the master tapes of B5 get degaussed
or
> something?
>
> Not to make light, but you have to look at this from my side...as I said,
the
> main thing was the five years. We got them. Anything else is a bonus.
The
> finished eps are there, and will be for as long as images are transmitted.
> It's there, on the shelf.
>
> Will something else happen with B5 down the road someday? The universe
being
> as cyclical as it is, almost certainly.
But will the cycle come around when anybody's in a position to actually make
it happen? After Crusade and TLaDiS, the odds aren't good if all we do is
wait. As more and more time goes by, the chances of being able to complete
the Crusade story get worse. Right now, the Technomage trilogy is out and
people have had a chance to read it (People are thinking of Galen.), and B5
is still on the air on Sci-Fi. Now would be the time to campaign for
Crusade. As more time goes by, things cool off and people forget.
> But if nothing ever does, *I'm okay
> with that*.
>
> I was at a convention a while ago -- one of the last I attended, and you
can
> put a cause and effect thing there if you want -- and there were all these
> actors and people campaigning for their shows to come back, from V to
> Battlestar to Lost in Space, you name it...and people kept coming up to me
and
> saying, with great gentility and real affection, "I hope you get your show
back
> on again."
>
> And I kept trying to tell them...I ain't here for that. I'm not trying to
get
> it back on. If that were the case I wouldn't have chosen to end it after
five
> years in the first place. I was there to celebrate that we'd *done* it,
not
> that it should come back or that I wanted people to campaign for it.
Which is
> why I haven't urged writing campaigns or anything else.
It is possible to celebrate what 's been done (B5), and at the same time
campaign for the continuation of a story that was prematurely cut off
(especially Crusade, but also Rangers).
> I set out to tell the story I wanted to tell, and I told it. If something
else
> in the B5 universe comes along,
Without some evidence of demand from the B5 fan end of things (e.g. a letter
writing campaign), it won't "come along." Without some leadership from your
end of the business (not necessarily "you," but from someone inside the
business who could better focus the effort), a letter writing campaign has a
much smaller chance of success. Passivity (If it happens, it happens. If it
doesn't, it doesn't. *shrug*) on your end of the business is not going to
get it done.
Mac Breck
------------------------
Vorlon Empire
http://www.scifi.com/b5rangers/ http://www.b5lr.com/
ReverendVader
Well...
I am probably as die-hard a Babylon 5 fan as exists. Well, maybe not... but I
lvoe the show.
The Rangers movie, while interesting in parts, as a whole disappointed me. And
I'm really not sure I can put my finger on why...
I loved B5. And I enjoyed Crusade immensely. But Rangers seemed... forced.
The Hand, references to B5 mythos... just didn't "work" for me.
And, I guess, if I was disappointed in part (being the rabid B5 fan that I am),
I guess I shouldn't have been surprised that non-B5 fans didn't bite.
My 4 cents.
Thanks.
Jason
James Bell
"ReverendVader" <revere...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020410121956...@mb-cg.aol.com...
There was nothing wrong with the fans in the Rangers situation. It just so
happened it was scheduled to air on probably the worst night of television
possible. A Saturday night up against one of the most amazing NFL Playoff
games ever. On the west coast when it aired without the competition of the
game, it did quite well, almost excellent. Rangers isn't gone due to lack
of fans.
Jim
Jms at B5
No, that's just about right.
The other thing that needs to be emphasized, in terms of fan letter campaigns,
is that the currency of the fan campaign is that it's been in large measure
devalued by over-use, at least in terms of how the studios see it (having been
told this straight up). These days *any* show that is nominally SF or fantasy,
when its time ends, gets a writing camapign to get it back or keep it on the
air. Good show, bad show, indifferent...the campaigns come regardless. So it
doesn't really carry the same weight it did once.
And I think they've always been of limited impact anyway...it did have some
impact on S3 of the original Trek, and if a show is "on the bubble" as they
say, bordering between renewal and cancellation...but beyond that, it really
doesn't have an impact.
The first ST feature wasn't commissioned because of fan mail, it came because
Star Wars came out and did huge bucks and somebody in the Paramount brain trust
said, literally, "waitaminnit, don't WE have one of those?" and rushed ST
forward.
It's not passivity on my part as much as just trusting to the forces of
history. Sooner or later, what goes around, comes around. My job is to make
sure it's done right when it happens.
Mac Breck
From: "Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 6:20 PM
Subject: Re: What now - And What Went Wrong?
snip
Then there's *nothing* that can be done??? All we can do is wait?
Mac Breck
------------------------
Vorlon Empire
http://www.scifi.com/crusade/ http://www.scifi.com/b5rangers/
http://www.b5lr.com/
"Nothing much good on TV tonight anyway." (Captain Gideon, Babylon 5
Crusade - The Memory of War)
AndrSwllw
at B5) writes:
>
>Dunno...did something go wrong? Did the master tapes of B5 get degaussed or
>something?
>
Is it the same as the Dr Who tapes at the BBC? They
ran out of room so they simply wiped/discarded half
the tapes.
I assume that no one insured the tapes for $1,000,000?
Not so much to pay for the replacements but so
that security sends a man round to ensure that they
are still there. If no one officially places a value on
the tapes then the bureaucracy assumes that they have
no value.
I have seen this happen with magnetic tapes
containing computer programs. The contract
with the bureau finished so the tapes were left
at the back of the cupboard. Three years later
some of the tapes were unreadable. The missing
programs had to be rewritten. To prevent it
fading magnetic media needs boosting every
year.
Andrew Swallow
beejmartin
Thank you for succinctly explaining it... I wrote similar sentiments
last week ("Time to Let Go") and was somewhat lambasted for it.
But the journey and hard work was accomplished... let us relish that.
Someday you will be able to return to the well... and when that moment
happens, we'll be there for you.
For now, I look forward to your new projects both with Joe's Comics,
comics in general (congrats on the Eisner nomination BTW!) and your
on-screen stuff -- Jeremiah is good thought-provoking television.
Enjoying being able to be part of your audience in the years to come...
Much thanks and love,
-- Beverly Martin
Jms at B5 wrote:
--
º°`°º¤o¤º°`°º¤o¤º°`°º¤o¤º°`°º¤o¤º°`°º¤o¤º°`°º¤o¤º°`°º
"No matter where you go...there you are." -- B. Banzai
Voxwoman
haven't seen 1 show up yet...
Reminds me of the blueprints for the Saturn V rocket. The government
didn't want to pay the contractor to store them anymore, so they
destroyed them. the only way to make another one is to reverse engineer
the last existing Sat V sitting (laying on its side, actually) at the
Rocket Park in Hunstville Alabama...
Chris Adams
>Reminds me of the blueprints for the Saturn V rocket. The government
>didn't want to pay the contractor to store them anymore, so they
>destroyed them. the only way to make another one is to reverse engineer
>the last existing Sat V sitting (laying on its side, actually) at the
>Rocket Park in Hunstville Alabama...
There are actually two others (one in Florida and one in Texas), but the
one here in Huntsville is the only "flight hardware" remaining (if there
had been additional Apollo flights, this one would have gone up). It
isn't in real good condition (after all, they were designed to go to the
Moon after standing on the pad for a week or so, not lay in the Alabama
sun for 25 years), but they're working on raising money to restore it.
--
Chris Adams <cma...@hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
Kathryn Huxtable
> Once upon a time, Voxwoman <voxw...@hotmail.com> said:
> >Reminds me of the blueprints for the Saturn V rocket. The
> >government didn't want to pay the contractor to store them anymore,
> >so they destroyed them. the only way to make another one is to
> >reverse engineer the last existing Sat V sitting (laying on its
> >side, actually) at the Rocket Park in Hunstville Alabama...
>
> There are actually two others (one in Florida and one in Texas), but the
> one here in Huntsville is the only "flight hardware" remaining (if there
> had been additional Apollo flights, this one would have gone up). It
> isn't in real good condition (after all, they were designed to go to the
> Moon after standing on the pad for a week or so, not lay in the Alabama
> sun for 25 years), but they're working on raising money to restore it.
I think that if we were to go back to the moon, we wouldn't do it with
Saturn V rockets. We'd collect fuel at the space station and leave
from there. The vehicle(s) would likely be assembled from pieces in
orbit, much like the ISS itself. The main bulk of the Saturn V was
needed to lift the entire Apollo assembly out of much of the Earth's
gravity well. The requirements to get to the Moon from low Earth orbit
are rather lower.
-K
webmaster
>
> <<Why isn't that worth fighting for just as B5 was worth fighting for? Why
> isn't five years of that show just as important as the completed five year
arc
> of B5?>>
>
> I'm not JMS but I can guess maybe.
>
> accomplished his dream and he still loves the B5 universe well and may
still
> have things to say there, TV gods willing.
> But the masterpiece is out there for all to see and there are other
stories to
> tell in other universes so why fight again for it when anything more is
just
> icing on the cake? If B5 showed us anything, it's that JMS enjoys
stretching
> his writing muscles and trying new things. New things don't have to be in
the
> B5 universe and eventually could stifle his creativity.
Missing the point. B5 is done.
Crusade is incomplete. Rangers fell flat on it face despite being good!
Why isn't Crusade worth completing?
Why isn't Crusade worthy of being one of JMS's Masterpeices? We know B5 is
out there and it was a wonderful job. Crusade was different! It told a
different story.
Why isn't that story worth fighting for? Why isn't it worth completing?
Nathan
Daniel O. Miller
> Reminds me of the blueprints for the Saturn V rocket. The government
> didn't want to pay the contractor to store them anymore, so they
> destroyed them.
This is an urban legend. You should also know that the rocket was a joint
product of almost every manufacturer in the aerospace industry.
Daniel O. Miller
"Does this look familiar? Do you know what it is? Neither do I! I made
it last night in my sleep. Apparently I used gindrogac - highly unstable!
I put a button on it, yes? I wish to press it, but I'm not sure what will
happen if I do..." - Gune
Daniel O. Miller
> I think that if we were to go back to the moon, we wouldn't do it with
> Saturn V rockets. We'd collect fuel at the space station and leave
> from there.
Nope. Several reasons. First, you have to boost all that fuel to the
station in the first place, which gains you nothing. Second, the station
is in a highly inclined orbit so the Russians can reach it. Boosting
across to that orbit and then back down to the Moon's inclination would
waste vast amounts of fuel. Third, the station has no planned fuel
storage capacity besides the small amount it needs for maneuvering.
Fourth, the very completion of the station is in doubt; Republican
presidents aren't going to support it beyond letting it sit and stew.
Fifth, there's no need to go back to the Moon.
The only reason to go to the station now, or to make it a stop on your
way, is to try and prove that the hamster-tube-in-space has a use other
than as a laboratory - which it doesn't, unless you count it as a
political tool. Not that such a place isn't needed, but it's
inappropriate to consider it a St. Louis to Space.
If we go to Mars it makes far more sense to skip low Earth orbit entirely
and boost right out of the Earth's gravity well before slowing down. It's
cheaper in fuel, complexity, and money to go right out and skip entirely
any monkeying around in LEO.
Michael J Wise
> The other thing that needs to be emphasized, in terms of fan letter
> campaigns, is that the currency of the fan campaign is that it's been
> in large measure devalued by over-use, ...
So we should all go out and buy Tivo's?
> It's not passivity on my part as much as just trusting to the forces
> of history. Sooner or later, what goes around, comes around. My job
> is to make sure it's done right when it happens.
You've got the script for the Telepath War feature-film all written and
sitting in a vault somewhere, don't you?
Aloha mai Nai`a!
--
"Please have your Internet License http://kapu.net/~mjwise/
and Usenet Registration handy..."
CaptJosh
> >Hoping I'm not too far off base, JMS.
>
> And I think they've always been of limited impact anyway...it did have
some
> impact on S3 of the original Trek, and if a show is "on the bubble" as
they
> say, bordering between renewal and cancellation...but beyond that, it
really
> doesn't have an impact.
>
> The first ST feature wasn't commissioned because of fan mail, it came
because
> Star Wars came out and did huge bucks and somebody in the Paramount brain
trust
> said, literally, "waitaminnit, don't WE have one of those?" and rushed ST
> forward.
>
the other big push. One movie got Paramount figuring that the appetite for a
science fiction film had been satisfied, but then the other came along and
shoed them there was a continuing market for it.(Read Judith and Garfield
Reeves Stevens' book _Star Trek: Phase II - The Lost Series_. It explains
better.) Just a little detail I thought might clarify the events leading
into the production of the Worst Star Trek Movie Ever Made. That said, it
was still Star Trek and it fed a Trek starved demographic.
CaptJosh
CaptJosh
news:Pine.SOL.3.95.102041...@owens.ridgecrest.ca.us...
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Kathryn Huxtable wrote:
>
> > I think that if we were to go back to the moon, we wouldn't do it with
> > Saturn V rockets. We'd collect fuel at the space station and leave
> > from there.
>
> Nope. Several reasons. First, you have to boost all that fuel to the
> station in the first place, which gains you nothing. Second, the station
> is in a highly inclined orbit so the Russians can reach it. Boosting
> across to that orbit and then back down to the Moon's inclination would
> waste vast amounts of fuel. Third, the station has no planned fuel
> storage capacity besides the small amount it needs for maneuvering.
> Fourth, the very completion of the station is in doubt; Republican
> presidents aren't going to support it beyond letting it sit and stew.
> Fifth, there's no need to go back to the Moon.
>
haven't exploered even a fraction of the surface, and there might be raw
materials there that could be used to fabricate spacecraft parts and maybe
even rocket fuel. Your assertion is baseless and foolish.
Daniel O. Miller
> Just a little detail I thought might clarify the events leading into the
> production of the Worst Star Trek Movie Ever Made.
I think that honor is shared by the horrid fifth and forgettable ninth
movies, in comparison to which the first and third are quite acceptable.
Daniel O. Miller
> "Daniel O. Miller" <dmil...@ridgenet.net> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.3.95.102041...@owens.ridgecrest.ca.us...
> > Fifth, there's no need to go back to the Moon.
>
> Of course we need to go back. We haven't exploered even a fraction of
> the surface, and there might be raw materials there that could be used
> to fabricate spacecraft parts and maybe even rocket fuel. <insults
> deleted>
What's to explore? It's a rock. Mining operations in 1/6g and vacuum,
half a million miles from rescue, would be prohibitive. Much better would
be finding a smaller rock and putting it in LEO. It would be even easier
to send raw materials up the cable. The only possible material attraction
is He3 for fusion reactors, which don't seem to be progressing past
power-sucking research toys. The world political community hates to see us
putting up RTGs, and would have a conniption if we put up something that
is even remotely related to an H-bomb.
If you want to explore, look at Europa and Titan. They at least have
possibilities.
Chibi-Light
<dmil...@ridgenet.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, CaptJosh wrote:
>
>> Just a little detail I thought might clarify the events leading into the
>> production of the Worst Star Trek Movie Ever Made.
>
>I think that honor is shared by the horrid fifth and forgettable ninth
>movies, in comparison to which the first and third are quite acceptable.
Which one's the fifth film? the one with spock's brother looking for
god? and I assume the ninth is that TNG one where they go to that
planet where people with blue faces do bad things.
CL
Mac Breck
From: "CaptJosh" <capt...@phantos.subspacelink.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 1:09 AM
Subject: Re: What now - And What Went Wrong?
>
No, Star Trek V didn't come until *much* later. *g*
pluther
> Joe,
>
> Thank you for succinctly explaining it... I wrote similar sentiments
> last week ("Time to Let Go") and was somewhat lambasted for it.
I dunno if you count my "I'll let go when I'm dead" post as lambasting,
but it really wasn't meant to be, despite how it might sound.
I wrote my letter to SciFi, not as part of any letter-writing campaign,
but because I simply wanted them to know I wanted Rangers. Maybe it's just
an ego thing, but I like to think my vote counts for something once in
a while :-)
> But the journey and hard work was accomplished... let us relish that.
Oh, I do. I loved it. Hell, I even remember that monster that Garibaldi
shoots on Grey 17 fondly! :-) (Well, in a funny sort of way.)
But I still want more.
JMS: I wouldn't be at all surprised if you get the question for the rest
of your life: when are we getting more B5? It's only because we love you.
You know, you wouldn't have this problem if you sucked.
> For now, I look forward to your new projects both with Joe's Comics,
> comics in general (congrats on the Eisner nomination BTW!) and your
> on-screen stuff -- Jeremiah is good thought-provoking television.
>
> Enjoying being able to be part of your audience in the years to come...
>
> Much thanks and love,
>
> -- Beverly Martin
"Me, too!" on all of this!
-Pat
--
Pat Luther -- pluther at usa dot net -- http://www.cs.pdx.edu/~pluther
Mac Breck
From: "webmaster" <webm...@livefromspace.tv>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Subject: Re: What now - And What Went Wrong?
Exactly!
Crusade IS worth completing. Sci-Fi should realize this, should have
realized this LONG AGO.
> Why isn't Crusade worthy of being one of JMS's Masterpeices? We know B5 is
> out there and it was a wonderful job. Crusade was different! It told a
> different story.
The fact that Crusade got left at the point where it was after 12
episodes[1] had been aired, is like the first half of a cliffhanger. It
demands resolution. So what does Sci-Fi do? They leave us hanging. How
about if they commissioned three episodes to be made:
"Value Judgements"
"To the Ends of the Earth"
and
"End of the Line"
...and then aired them in with the existing 12 episodes[1]
> Why isn't that story worth fighting for? Why isn't it worth completing?
It IS, and I wish somebody at Sci-Fi would realize that, while we're all
remotely young.
[1] excluding War Zone.
Pelzo63
>>I think that honor is shared by the horrid fifth and forgettable ninth
>>movies, in comparison to which the first and third are quite acceptable.
i quite enjoyed the 9th, the 7th on the other hand...
in the 9th, i was given an actual feeling of tension about the film, in the
7th, i kept wondering "just shoot the damn planet surface and get it over with"
or "just wait for the missile, and shoot it down"*
*yes, i know the missile was depicted as impossibly fast in the movie.
...Chris
Richard Tibbetts
<voxw...@hotmail.com> wrote on Thu, 11 Apr 2002 02:03:10 GMT:
> I hope this post goes through. I've sent about 15 of them today, and
> haven't seen 1 show up yet...
>
> Reminds me of the blueprints for the Saturn V rocket. The government
> didn't want to pay the contractor to store them anymore, so they
> destroyed them. the only way to make another one is to reverse engineer
> the last existing Sat V sitting (laying on its side, actually) at the
> Rocket Park in Hunstville Alabama...
I thought it was part of the deal done between Congress and Nasa to
get the shuttle that the plans were destroyed, effectively at Nasa's
cost, so that the program could never be revived.
BICW.
--
Richard Tibbetts
http://www.primepeace.ltd.uk/
Chris Schumacher
<macb...@access995.com> wrote:
>Then there's *nothing* that can be done??? All we can do is wait?
>
>
>Mac Breck
>------------------------
>Vorlon Empire
I don't think even waiting would help. Back in the days when it was in
syndication, the belief was that Babylon 5 would find its audience in
reruns, and become a phenomenon like Star Trek. That never happened;
and JMS even stated during Season 5 that he doubted it ever would. The
most it could hope for was a fringe cult following like The Prisoner.
Which is exactly what it's got.
-==Kensu==-
We few, we proud, we band of brothers...
Voxwoman
ago, when I got to go to the "grownup" version of Space Camp ;)
-Wendy
Voxwoman
sworn reading about it in the Times when it happened). And while every
manufacturer in the aerospace industry conrtibuted to it, there was
*one* main contractor to oversee that everyone followed specs, wasn't
there? Did I not work for RCA for 5 years building Aegis cruiser radar
systems, learning how government contracts work? And I do remember the
discussions around the coffee pot when it was all going on...
-Wendy of NJ
Voxwoman
And I don't see much difference (in the mining/rescue scenario) between
being in 1/6 G and 0 G (as on a small rock in LEO) except that 0-g
mining is perhaps MORE difficult... and another thing... If small
countries are concerned about space based weapons systems, how are they
going to feel about "rocks" in LEO, that can be then dropped onto their
little countries, wiping them off the map like so many Narns?
-Wendy of NJ
Voxwoman
to dry. The did it with other series. I know "Sliders" should have been
put to sleep long before it did (like when John Reese Davies left the
show), but the last episode was a cliffhanger, meant to get you to come
back to see the next season that was never filmed.
Face it. The networks don't care if we get closure with Crusade (or any
series, for that matter). and in retaliation, I will NEVER buy a
Bowflex! Hear that, SFC?! Nyah, nyah.
So, I would really appreciate a Crusade novel/trilogy/whatever that
WOULD give me closure.... dammit...
Pål Are Nordal
>
> You've got the script for the Telepath War feature-film all written and
> sitting in a vault somewhere, don't you?
I don't think jms has the time to write it unless WB was interested
enough to pay him to do it, and so far, we've only heard that they had
him write an outline.
Mac Breck
From: "Voxwoman" <voxw...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Subject: Re: What now - And What Went Wrong?
> I don't think it bothers them [SFC] in the least to leave us hanging out
> to dry. The did it with other series. I know "Sliders" should have been
> put to sleep long before it did (like when John Reese Davies left the
> show), but the last episode was a cliffhanger, meant to get you to come
> back to see the next season that was never filmed.
I know it's the answer to a dangerous question, but don't you think we
should tell Sci-Fi what we want?
> Face it. The networks don't care if we get closure with Crusade (or any
> series, for that matter). and in retaliation, I will NEVER buy a
> Bowflex! Hear that, SFC?! Nyah, nyah.
They'll hear it only if you send it to them as snail mail.
Tell 'em what you want.
Here are some addresses:
Ms. Bonnie Hammer, President
The Sci-Fi Channel
1230 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020-1513
Mr. Thomas Vitale
Senior V.P. of Acquisitions, Scheduling and Programming Planning
The Sci-Fi Channel
1230 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020-1513
> So, I would really appreciate a Crusade novel/trilogy/whatever that
> WOULD give me closure.... dammit...
As would I.
Pål Are Nordal
>
> I don't think it bothers them [SFC] in the least to leave us hanging out
> to dry. The did it with other series. I know "Sliders" should have been
> put to sleep long before it did (like when John Reese Davies left the
> show), but the last episode was a cliffhanger, meant to get you to come
> back to see the next season that was never filmed.
Actually, SciFi wanted to renew Sliders. It's just that they figured the
show was doomed with all the cast changes, and committed to 3 seasons of
First Wave. So even though Silders season 6 was beating First Wave in
the ratings, they didn't have to money to renew it.
(And the producers knew that they were being renewed... They just
decided to do a cliffhanger in the hopes of "forcing" SciFi to fund more
episodes.)
Daniel O. Miller
> Daniel O. Miller wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Voxwoman wrote:
> >
> >>Reminds me of the blueprints for the Saturn V rocket. The government
> >>didn't want to pay the contractor to store them anymore, so they
> >>destroyed them.
> >
> > This is an urban legend. You should also know that the rocket was a joint
> > product of almost every manufacturer in the aerospace industry.
>
> Ok, I'll have to check on the urban legend status (because I could have
> sworn reading about it in the Times when it happened). And while every
> manufacturer in the aerospace industry conrtibuted to it, there was
> *one* main contractor to oversee that everyone followed specs, wasn't
> there? Did I not work for RCA for 5 years building Aegis cruiser radar
> systems, learning how government contracts work? And I do remember the
> discussions around the coffee pot when it was all going on...
The blueprints belong to NASA, and are kept at MSFC. Info on the urban
legend: http://www.urbanlegends.com/science/saturn_v_blueprints.html
Info on the Saturn:
http://www.astronautix.com/
The main engines were built by Rocketdyne, some smaller engines were built
by Aerojet, the first stage was built by Boeing, the second stage was
built by North American, the third stage was built by Douglas, the LEM was
built by Grumman, the command and service modules were made by North
American, with a whole galaxy of subcontractors for minor systems.
Daniel O. Miller
> I thought there was a lot of aluminum on the moon.
Aluminum is the most plentiful metal in the Earth's crust. By the time we
need to mine for it elsewhere we'll be so far beyond the Moon the heart
flutters to think.
> And I don't see much difference (in the mining/rescue scenario) between
> being in 1/6 G and 0 G (as on a small rock in LEO) except that 0-g
> mining is perhaps MORE difficult...
It's closer.
> and another thing... If small countries are concerned about space based
> weapons systems, how are they going to feel about "rocks" in LEO, that
> can be then dropped onto their little countries, wiping them off the map
> like so many Narns?
The concept is deplorable, but certainly nothing that, say, a few thousand
nuclear weapons can't do already.
Pelzo63
>I don't think even waiting would help. Back in the days when it was in
>syndication, the belief was that Babylon 5 would find its audience in
>reruns, and become a phenomenon like Star Trek. That never happened;
>and JMS even stated during Season 5 that he doubted it ever would. The
>most it could hope for was a fringe cult following like The Prisoner.
>Which is exactly what it's got
just out of curiosity, why does everyone insist on comparing B5, 4 years after
going off the air(or 3 months, depending how you look at it), to trek, 10 yrs
after going off the air?
to paraphrase....we have not yet begun to wait.
...Chris
Mac Breck
From: "Pelzo63" <pel...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 5:32 PM
Subject: Re: What now - And What Went Wrong?
> to paraphrase....we have not yet begun to wait.
Don't say that. Don't even think that. [Eek!]
Mac Breck
------------------------
Vorlon Empire
http://www.scifi.com/crusade/ http://www.scifi.com/b5rangers/
Joseph DeMartino
No more calls, please. We *have* a winner. <g>
Joe
Tlsmith1963
unfair, so I plan to work to get B5 back on-track. It annoys me that I had no
say in the fates of Crusade & Rangers. What happened in no way proves that B5
isn't popular anymore.
Oh, & JMS, when people say to you that they are sorry about B5, I think they
mean the entire saga, not just the original series. They are talking about
what happened to Crusade & Rangers.
Tammy
CaptJosh
news:20020411035509...@mb-fs.aol.com...
were in the middle of a battle!
CaptJosh
news:001c01c1e12a$c1d82ad0$61d5c997@MACBRECK...
<snip>
> > Not to be overly picky, but it wasn't just Star Wars. Close Encounters
was
> > the other big push. One movie got Paramount figuring that the appetite
for
> a
> > science fiction film had been satisfied, but then the other came along
and
> > shoed them there was a continuing market for it.(Read Judith and
Garfield
> > Reeves Stevens' book _Star Trek: Phase II - The Lost Series_. It
explains
> > better.) Just a little detail I thought might clarify the events leading
> > into the production of the Worst Star Trek Movie Ever Made.
>
>
> No, Star Trek V didn't come until *much* later. *g*
>
the pilot to a TV show, so you don't have that. It wasn't recycled plot(For
ST:TMP think of the Trek ep "The Changeling"). In fact, if it hadn't been
labeled as Star Trek, it would have been perfectly acceptable. Sure it has
its flaws. For example, you do not introduce a sudden change into the life
of a well established character, e. g. a half brother for Spock, who was
also a firstborn for Sarek who suddenly with no previous hints has an
ex-wife. This is bad writing. Shatner needed a few classes there. He has
done much better with his Tekwar series. Even the writing in his Star Trek
books is better than his writing for Star Trek V. Even so, it still is
better than TMP on several levels. Though I can't say i cared for them
having so many problems with the Enterprise A. It just wasn't believable
unless the ship wasn't finished yet in the first place when they got it at
the end of STIV. Anyway,. that's enough for now.
CaptJosh
CaptJosh
news:Pine.SOL.3.95.102041...@owens.ridgecrest.ca.us...
>
> > I thought there was a lot of aluminum on the moon.
>
> Aluminum is the most plentiful metal in the Earth's crust. By the time we
> need to mine for it elsewhere we'll be so far beyond the Moon the heart
> flutters to think.
Who told you they make spacecraft out of aluminum. That's just stupid. You
can't make them out of aluminum because aaluminum would not stand up to the
heat of rocket boosters.
> > And I don't see much difference (in the mining/rescue scenario) between
> > being in 1/6 G and 0 G (as on a small rock in LEO) except that 0-g
> > mining is perhaps MORE difficult...
>
> It's closer.
Closer is irrelevant. At least there's gravity on the moon so people can
actually work.
> > and another thing... If small countries are concerned about space based
> > weapons systems, how are they going to feel about "rocks" in LEO, that
> > can be then dropped onto their little countries, wiping them off the map
> > like so many Narns?
>
> The concept is deplorable, but certainly nothing that, say, a few thousand
> nuclear weapons can't do already.
>
Asteroids would do it without fallout. Duh!
CaptJosh
news:3CB580AD...@hotmail.com...
> Ok, I'll have to check on the urban legend status (because I could have
> sworn reading about it in the Times when it happened). And while every
> manufacturer in the aerospace industry conrtibuted to it, there was
> *one* main contractor to oversee that everyone followed specs, wasn't
> there? Did I not work for RCA for 5 years building Aegis cruiser radar
> systems, learning how government contracts work? And I do remember the
> discussions around the coffee pot when it was all going on...
> -Wendy of NJ
>
The ship in question is an Arleigh Burke class destroyer that uses the AEGIS
computerized control system. This system is even capable of running all
functions necessary to combat on its own when placed in the correct mode.
The radar aboard an Arleigh Burke Destroyer is 4 flat panel model SPY-2A
arrays, sensitive enough to get a true silhouette of an object within a
certain distance when at full power.It carries two Sea Comanche scout light
attack helocopters on board, with a variety of weapons and
ASW(Anti-Submarine Warfare) equipment for them.
*end of rant*
CaptJosh
Pelzo63
>They couldn't shoot it. there was shield around first of all.
the sheild generated by such a small weapon built by hand should not have been
able to stand up to bombardment from full phaser banks, if you mean the shield
on the ground...a simple rock arch was enough to create a hole in the shield.
a hemispheric sheild should have cut into the rock all the way till it
completed a full hemisphere, a spherical one should have cut in to form a full
sphere.
> Secondly,
>they
>were in the middle of a battle!
with a decrepit bird of prey that should have been vaporized in 30 seconds.
the only reason the movie even received a bit of success was because they did
what they call in the wrestling business "cheap pops"*. the movie was full of
these, kirk and picard together, kirk's death, showing the Ent B(the only Ent
never previously shown) data's emotion chip, death of Ent D(which i was
impressed by), death of Lursa and Bator(the cleavage sisters). point being,
the movie was nothing but a series of "moments", a good story is about the time
between the moments, and how those moments occured, Trek 7 gave us none of
this, we just jumped from moment to moment, it reminded me a lot of SW Ep 1,
but at least Ep 1 TRIED to tell a story(and more emphasis on palpatine would
have deinately improved the story). an exaple of the same thing from books
woud be Foundation and Earth, by asimov. the only point of that book seemed to
be to simply show the spacer worlds from the robot books.
*Cheap Pop is what you call it when a famous person on tour says "i love
<hostcityhere>!" or when a "famous person/thing" does something that
"everyone's always wanted to see". and unless you follow it up with
substance(or lead into it with substance), it stays as a one-time thing, and
falls flat on successive viewings.
Richard Tibbetts
<capt...@phantos.subspacelink.com> wrote on Thu, 11 Apr 2002 22:16:48
-0700:
> "Daniel O. Miller" <dmil...@ridgenet.net> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.3.95.102041...@owens.ridgecrest.ca.us...
> > On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Voxwoman wrote:
[...]
>
> > > and another thing... If small countries are concerned about space based
> > > weapons systems, how are they going to feel about "rocks" in LEO, that
> > > can be then dropped onto their little countries, wiping them off the map
> > > like so many Narns?
> >
> > The concept is deplorable, but certainly nothing that, say, a few thousand
> > nuclear weapons can't do already.
> >
> Asteroids would do it without fallout. Duh!
Without "nuclear" fallout, perhaps, but the long term climate changes
might be nearly as effective for making a planet uninhabitable for as
long.
Richard Tibbetts
Tibbetts <ric...@primepeace.ltd.uk> wrote on Thu, 11 Apr 2002
09:10:53 +0100:
And was ;-)
Voxwoman
CaptJosh wrote:
> "Daniel O. Miller" <dmil...@ridgenet.net> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.3.95.102041...@owens.ridgecrest.ca.us...
>
>>On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Voxwoman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I thought there was a lot of aluminum on the moon.
>>>
>>Aluminum is the most plentiful metal in the Earth's crust. By the time we
>>need to mine for it elsewhere we'll be so far beyond the Moon the heart
>>flutters to think.
>>
>
> Who told you they make spacecraft out of aluminum. That's just stupid. You
> can't make them out of aluminum because aaluminum would not stand up to the
> heat of rocket boosters.
By that argument, cars can't be made out of plastic, because you can't
make an engine block out of plastic.
Most metals don't stand up to the heat of rocket boosters. That's why
they cool the engines with the LOX before burning it.
>
>
>>>And I don't see much difference (in the mining/rescue scenario) between
>>>being in 1/6 G and 0 G (as on a small rock in LEO) except that 0-g
>>>mining is perhaps MORE difficult...
>>>
>>It's closer.
>>
>
> Closer is irrelevant. At least there's gravity on the moon so people can
> actually work.
>
>
>>>and another thing... If small countries are concerned about space based
>>>weapons systems, how are they going to feel about "rocks" in LEO, that
>>>can be then dropped onto their little countries, wiping them off the map
>>>like so many Narns?
>>>
>>The concept is deplorable, but certainly nothing that, say, a few thousand
>>nuclear weapons can't do already.
>>
>>
> Asteroids would do it without fallout. Duh!
*my* point here, is countries who are *already* objecting to space-based
weapons systems of any sort will not be any happier with asteroids moved
into LEOs so we can mine them. (And I haven't even touched the
environmentalist's objections to disturbing an asteroid's orbit because
that will affect all the other asteroids, possibly causing one to come
crashing down someplace on earth, or worrying about atmospheric
expansion causing the rocks to leave orbit and fall down. Although they
wouldn't be too big a political force to actually stop large
corporations or governments from doing whatever they wanted to.)
>
>
>
>
Voxwoman
office. That was the vessel that we installed the first system on.
And we tracked Skylab when it fell to earth with the Aegis radar system
from its test bed in the cornfields of NJ.
Jon S Green
wrote:
>CaptJosh wrote:
>
>> Who told you they make spacecraft out of aluminum. That's just stupid. You
>> can't make them out of aluminum because aaluminum would not stand up to the
>> heat of rocket boosters.
>
>By that argument, cars can't be made out of plastic, because you can't
>make an engine block out of plastic.
Nor out of aluminium, either. Blocks are usually steel; only the
heads are ally. That's mostly because of plasticity, thermal
conductivity and coefficient of expansion under heat, though.
I take your point, CJ's right. If you want to see what high
temperatures -- but lower than you'll get from engine boosters -- do
to ally, take a look at the sinking of the HMS Sheffield in the
Falklands conflict.
Think magnesium, but burning hotter and more vigorously.
Point being, you don't want ally *anywhere* near a rocket booster, nor
anywhere near the potential disaster zone if a booster goes pop and
blows out the side of the spacecraft, in the presence of oxygen from
ruptured feeds. (And chemical-drive spacecraft carry *lots* of LOX.)
Also, ally's crap at radiation shielding. If you're spending much
time at all in space, you're going to be glad the designers included
plenty of shielding. Or dead, in short order, whichever. There are
times when only high density will do!
Jon
--
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! Replace 'deadspam' with 'green-lines' to reply in email.
Want a free solution to email spam? Try http://www.deadspam.com/
(Declaration of interest: I own/run the domain.)
Mac Breck
From: "CaptJosh" <capt...@phantos.subspacelink.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 1:12 AM
Subject: Re: What now - And What Went Wrong?
> "Mac Breck" <macb...@access995.com> wrote in message
> news:001c01c1e12a$c1d82ad0$61d5c997@MACBRECK...
> <snip>
> > > Not to be overly picky, but it wasn't just Star Wars. Close Encounters
> was
> > > the other big push. One movie got Paramount figuring that the appetite
> for
> > a
> > > science fiction film had been satisfied, but then the other came along
> and
> > > shoed them there was a continuing market for it.(Read Judith and
> Garfield
> > > Reeves Stevens' book _Star Trek: Phase II - The Lost Series_. It
> explains
> > > better.) Just a little detail I thought might clarify the events
leading
> > > into the production of the Worst Star Trek Movie Ever Made.
> >
> >
> > No, Star Trek V didn't come until *much* later. *g*
> >
> Actually, Star Trek V is a better movie.
? Star Trek V was PAINFUL to watch is a LOT of places. I wish it had been
entirely about their campout in Yosemite. That may have been interesting.
Sybok, and Uhura singing on that dune were HORRID. As a movie, I'd say Star
Trek V was a BOMB. I'd give ST:TMP one star out of four.
> It wasn't designed originally as
> the pilot to a TV show, so you don't have that.
Nevertheless, Star Trek V was awful.
> It wasn't recycled plot(For
> ST:TMP think of the Trek ep "The Changeling").
Yes, I know.
> In fact, if it hadn't been
> labeled as Star Trek, it would have been perfectly acceptable. Sure it has
> its flaws. For example, you do not introduce a sudden change into the life
> of a well established character, e. g. a half brother for Spock, who was
> also a firstborn for Sarek who suddenly with no previous hints has an
> ex-wife. This is bad writing. Shatner needed a few classes there. He has
> done much better with his Tekwar series. Even the writing in his Star Trek
> books is better than his writing for Star Trek V. Even so, it still is
> better than TMP on several levels.
Well, I can bear to sit through ST:TMP (barely, if I could stay awake) but I
wouldn't watch ST:V if you paid me.
Mac Breck
From: "Joseph DeMartino" <jdem...@bellsouth.net>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Subject: Re: What now - And What Went Wrong?
> > Then there's *nothing* that can be done??? All we can do is wait?
>
> No more calls, please. We *have* a winner. <g>
>
> Joe
That's the attitude of someone who has given up and is ready and willing to
lie down and die, or someone who is apathetic, or someone with a really slow
metabolic rate who thinks they're going to live forever, or someone who can
go into hibernation and have his automatic systems wake him up if and when
Sci-Fi or some other network ever gets interested in the show again.
If you can do that, good for you, but I can't. I'm not wired that way.
Daniel O. Miller
> This is bad writing. Shatner needed a few classes there. He has done
> much better with his Tekwar series.
Uh... didn't anyone tell you about those? He didn't write them.
Mac Breck
From: "Mac Breck" <macb...@access995.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Subject: Re: What now - And What Went Wrong?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joseph DeMartino" <jdem...@bellsouth.net>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 1:47 AM
> Subject: Re: What now - And What Went Wrong?
>
>
> > > Then there's *nothing* that can be done??? All we can do is wait?
> >
> > No more calls, please. We *have* a winner. <g>
> >
> > Joe
>
> That's the attitude of someone who has given up and is ready and willing
to
> lie down and die, or someone who is apathetic, or someone with a really
slow
> metabolic rate who thinks they're going to live forever, or someone who
can
> go into hibernation and have his automatic systems wake him up if and when
> Sci-Fi or some other network ever gets interested in the show again.
>
> If you can do that, good for you,
You know, after a little more consideration, that's not good or A-OK.
I'd rather you were rowing with the rest of us. Right now, it's like we're
rowing and the rest of you are just sitting there, benefiting from any
success we may have, and all the while putting us down for rowing, and
saying that we shouldn't bother.
Daniel O. Miller
> "Daniel O. Miller" <dmil...@ridgenet.net> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.3.95.102041...@owens.ridgecrest.ca.us...
> > On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Voxwoman wrote:
> >
> > > I thought there was a lot of aluminum on the moon.
> >
> > Aluminum is the most plentiful metal in the Earth's crust. By the time we
> > need to mine for it elsewhere we'll be so far beyond the Moon the heart
> > flutters to think.
>
> Who told you they make spacecraft out of aluminum.
> You can't make them out of aluminum because aaluminum would not stand up
> to the heat of rocket boosters. <insults deleted>
It's in fact quite common. It's only the inside of the engine that has to
take the heat.
> > > And I don't see much difference (in the mining/rescue scenario) between
> > > being in 1/6 G and 0 G (as on a small rock in LEO) except that 0-g
> > > mining is perhaps MORE difficult...
> >
> > It's closer.
>
> Closer is irrelevant.
It takes days rather than hours and far more delta-v to get to the moon,
or back from the moon, if something goes wrong.
> At least there's gravity on the moon so people can
> actually work.
It'd still be far easier to take our rock and spin it.
> > > and another thing... If small countries are concerned about space based
> > > weapons systems, how are they going to feel about "rocks" in LEO, that
> > > can be then dropped onto their little countries, wiping them off the map
> > > like so many Narns?
> >
> > The concept is deplorable, but certainly nothing that, say, a few thousand
> > nuclear weapons can't do already.
> >
> Asteroids would do it without fallout. <insult deleted>
Do you honestly think that a little radiation is going to make much
difference in the ensuing nuclear winter?
John W. Kennedy
>
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, CaptJosh wrote:
>
> > Just a little detail I thought might clarify the events leading into the
> > production of the Worst Star Trek Movie Ever Made.
>
> movies, in comparison to which the first and third are quite acceptable.
I'm willing to forgive the fifth everything (except the sloppy editing)
for the One Brief Shining Moment of "What does God want with a
starship?" I wanted to stand up in the theater and shout, "Yes! Yes!
Yes!"
--
John W. Kennedy
Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!
http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Double%20Falshood.html
John W. Kennedy
> Why isn't that story worth fighting for? Why isn't it worth completing?
Do you want a scheme that will work? Fine. All we have to do is get
enough fans together to raise some $5-$10 million and make the Sci-Fi
Channel an offer they can't refuse. (I am assuming, of course, that SFC
will continue to run commercials, and that the first season will achieve
ratings sufficient to allow further seasons an ad rate sufficient to pay
for the show.)
Or we could raise a billion or so and start our own channel, running B5,
B5LotR, "Crusade", and, as they become available, "The Dick Van Dyke
Show", "The Prisoner", "The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin", "The
Twilight Zone", and the complete works of Dennis Potter. And fill in
the rest with reruns of "Playhouse 90", "Your Show of Shows", and all
the other stuff from when television was actually good. And a _good_
set of the complete works of Shakespeare, none of that artsy-fartsy
stuff they did in the 70's.
And JMS and my wife can take turns penning episodes of "Tales From The
Pantry" (If you're from LA, and you don't know this remarkable eatery at
9th and Figuroa, why not?).
--
John W. Kennedy
I cannot help but notice the strange coincidence that B5LotR was shot
down as an indirect effect of the second terrorist attack on the WTC,
just as the original B5 was significantly threatened by the first.
Anna Hayward, Alien Visitor
>Or we could raise a billion or so and start our own channel, running B5,
>B5LotR, "Crusade", and, as they become available, "The Dick Van Dyke
>Show",
I will *never* forgive Dick Van Dyke for that faux-Cockney accent in
"Mary Poppins". Are we to believe there were no genuine Cockney actors
(or even a genuine Londoner actor) around at the time?
> "The Prisoner", "The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin",
B5 didn't get where it is today by fans raising a billion or so.
--
Anna Hayward, Alien Visitor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I could have been a great pianist if I'd ever taken piano lessons" -
My grandfather.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRWhite963
>for the One Brief Shining Moment of "What does God want with a
>starship?" I wanted to stand up in the theater and shout, "Yes! Yes!
>Yes!"
>
I'm a bit confused - that "Brief, Shining Moment" - was it because it was
incredibly effective at pointing out how incredibly stupid that entire movie
was? If so, you have a curious taste indeed; and if not, and you're saying it
was actually *good*, in some objective sense, then your taste is even more
curious.....
WRW
Daniel O. Miller
> B5 didn't get where it is today by fans raising a billion or so.
Maybe not directly...
WRWhite963
>wouldn't watch ST:V if you paid me.
>
Have you seen the Director's Edition DVD of ST:TMP? If not, I think you'll be
pleasantly surprised (personally, I find the movie holds up a lot better,
anyway, with time) - it really is tighter.
For years I rated TMP as the worst (then the abominable Trek V came along)...
but now, after going back, I'm actually rather fond of the film. Not as good
as Trek II, that goes without saying; or VI, which is where Kirk should have
left it, with a nice send-off.
Yet, after the Director's Edition, I find myself just as ready to sit and watch
TMP as Trek IV (which I actually don't find that enjoyable with repeat viewings
- the challenge with most humor is, when you know the punchline, the joke grows
stale...yet good drama will only grow old when the human condition changes), or
Trek III.
WRW
Dave Thomer
> You know, after a little more consideration, that's not good or A-OK.
>
> I'd rather you were rowing with the rest of us. Right now, it's like
we're
> rowing and the rest of you are just sitting there, benefiting from any
> success we may have, and all the while putting us down for rowing, and
> saying that we shouldn't bother.
The only problem with your metaphor is that *you're not actually rowing.*
You may be sitting in a boat, you may be moving the oars, but the boat is
still tied to the dock and the oars aren't touching the water. If that
makes you feel better, go right ahead and do it. But realize that you're
just fooling yourself, and you're not one iota closer to your goal. That
was the whole point of the JMS message you responded to in the first place.
All the actions people have talked about will do nothing to demonstrate that
there is a wide public demand for B5, Crusade or Rangers. They will
demonstrate that there is a small, devoted group of fans who are the tiniest
fraction of the audience the show would need to be successful. But
*everyone already knows that.*
This is not a matter of apathy, or not caring, or whatever. It's a matter
of understanding the situation and knowing what tactics will or will not be
effective, and when a situation is out of our hands.
--
Dave Thomer
This Is Not News - www.notnews.org
Philosophy, public affairs, and pop culture
Anna Hayward, Alien Visitor
>> B5 didn't get where it is today by fans raising a billion or so.
>
>Maybe not directly...
That was a Reggie Perrin joke. CJ (Reggie's boss at Sunshine Desserts)
always says "I didn't get where I am today by..." (repeats end of last
sentence).
James Bell
news:SQGt8.222$Ks.41...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
I am not sure any situation is ever out of our hands. Maybe that is too
idealistic or optimistic but there is always something one can do.
Jim
Dave Thomer
news:a97enf$e5m$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu...
> > This is not a matter of apathy, or not caring, or whatever. It's a
matter
> > of understanding the situation and knowing what tactics will or will not
> be
> > effective, and when a situation is out of our hands.
>
> I am not sure any situation is ever out of our hands. Maybe that is too
> idealistic or optimistic but there is always something one can do.
I can appreciate this, and in a sense it's a philosophy I share. But I
think there's also a level of pragmatism to be applied with regard to
specific situations like this. It's one thing to say 'There's always
something we can do.' It's another to say exactly what that thing is.
I mean, I'm gonna keep talking about B5 to friends. When DVDs come out,
I'll write reviews of them at my web site. I'll try to spread the word a
bit and see if I can grow the audience for B5 by one or two or five people.
And at some point, if WB or someone decides to do something else with B5,
maybe that effort will result in a small increase in the audience for that
new project. But as to the very specific question of persuading a network
to buy a show or a production company to make a show, everything I've ever
read about the industry indicates to me that the initiative has to start
with them.
Mac Breck
From: "WRWhite963" <wrwhi...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: What now - And What Went Wrong?
> >Well, I can bear to sit through ST:TMP (barely, if I could stay awake)
but I
> >wouldn't watch ST:V if you paid me.
> >
>
> Have you seen the Director's Edition DVD of ST:TMP? If not, I think
you'll be
> pleasantly surprised (personally, I find the movie holds up a lot better,
> anyway, with time) - it really is tighter.
I'll have to see if I can find it to rent on DVD (e.g. at Giant Eagle,
Blockbuster).
> For years I rated TMP as the worst (then the abominable Trek V came
along)...
> but now, after going back, I'm actually rather fond of the film.
I find it hard to understand how anybody could be fond of Trek V. It's
fingernails on the blackboard territory for me.
> Not as good
> as Trek II, that goes without saying; or VI, which is where Kirk should
have
> left it, with a nice send-off.
>
> Yet, after the Director's Edition, I find myself just as ready to sit and
watch
> TMP as Trek IV (which I actually don't find that enjoyable with repeat
viewings
> - the challenge with most humor is, when you know the punchline, the joke
grows
> stale...yet good drama will only grow old when the human condition
changes), or
> Trek III.
I still like Trek IV's jokes.
WRWhite963
>> For years I rated TMP as the worst (then the abominable Trek V came
>along)...
>> but now, after going back, I'm actually rather fond of the film.
>
>I find it hard to understand how anybody could be fond of Trek V. It's
>fingernails on the blackboard territory for me.
>
I was referring to TMP! Do NOT make that mistake! Please! Trek V does NOT
exist in my universe! The horror... the horror......
>I still like Trek IV's jokes.
I like 'em too, but it does tend to make the films a bit... off. Unbalanced.
And it also makes them less repeatedly viewable. I prefer to have the humor be
a bit more subtle, and plot-contained - Trek II was perfect. Nice little
one-liner from Kirk to McCoy ("Well, then, this is your chance to get away from
it all."), the little bits with Saavik and Spock ("But he's so... human." "No
one is perfect, Saavik.") Subtle.
And Trek IV had some pretty bad elements to it, plot-wise: Things were *way*
too quickly done with figuring out the transmissions could only be answered by
whales; You had to go to the book to even find out what the heck the probe was
in the first place; And why go to the tail end of the 20th century? Because
they needed to film there, of course, but really - it would have made more
sense to go back to when there were more whales about. Heck, they could have
saved the Dodo while they were at it.
Not that it isn't enjoyable - but you do have to work to maintain the willing
suspension of disbelief with Trek IV. In that respect, I suppose all the humor
is necessary - to distract you from the plot holes.
WRW
Mac Breck
From: "Dave Thomer" <da...@notnews.org>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: What now - And What Went Wrong?
You know, you're probably right. It'd be easier to just give up and
**forget all about** Babylon 5, Crusade, and Rangers, and just wait for the
morons, cretins, fools, and mind-blowing imbeciles at the Sci-Fi Channel to
stumble upon the right thing to do.
It's certainly the low-stress approach. The trouble is that I keep getting
this damnable, little spark of hope. It's this *nasty* little thing that
refuses to extinguish. I haven't found a way to kill it yet, but I'm
looking for one.
Mac Breck
From: "WRWhite963" <wrwhi...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: What now - And What Went Wrong?
> >
> >> For years I rated TMP as the worst (then the abominable Trek V came
> >along)...
> >> but now, after going back, I'm actually rather fond of the film.
> >
> >I find it hard to understand how anybody could be fond of Trek V. It's
> >fingernails on the blackboard territory for me.
> >
>
> I was referring to TMP! Do NOT make that mistake! Please! Trek V does
NOT
> exist in my universe! The horror... the horror......
Whew!
> Not that it isn't enjoyable - but you do have to work to maintain the
willing
> suspension of disbelief with Trek IV. In that respect, I suppose all the
humor
> is necessary - to distract you from the plot holes.
No, Catherine Hicks in that white sweater did that for me. ;-)
Dave Thomer
> You know, you're probably right. It'd be easier to just give up and
> **forget all about** Babylon 5, Crusade, and Rangers, and just wait for
the
> morons, cretins, fools, and mind-blowing imbeciles at the Sci-Fi Channel
to
> stumble upon the right thing to do.
>
> It's certainly the low-stress approach. The trouble is that I keep
getting
> this damnable, little spark of hope. It's this *nasty* little thing that
> refuses to extinguish. I haven't found a way to kill it yet, but I'm
> looking for one.
Don't get me wrong. I have hope too. That's why I bought the B5 DVD, for
example, and hope to buy more soon -- to do something to demonstrate my
desire for more B5 in a way that translates into dollars. I think your
decision to drop Sci Fi is a similar action. And JMS doesn't sound like
he's given up hope either -- just that he's waiting for the right
opportunity to act. That's all I'm talking about here. Waiting is not
apathy. Waiting is not giving up.
Mac Breck
From: "Dave Thomer" <da...@notnews.org>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: What now - And What Went Wrong?
> "Mac Breck" <macb...@access995.com> wrote in message
> news:023801c1e269$845dfc80$5fd5c997@MACBRECK...
> > You know, you're probably right. It'd be easier to just give up and
> > **forget all about** Babylon 5, Crusade, and Rangers, and just wait for
> the
> > morons, cretins, fools, and mind-blowing imbeciles at the Sci-Fi Channel
> to
> > stumble upon the right thing to do.
> >
> > It's certainly the low-stress approach. The trouble is that I keep
> getting
> > this damnable, little spark of hope. It's this *nasty* little thing
that
> > refuses to extinguish. I haven't found a way to kill it yet, but I'm
> > looking for one.
>
> Don't get me wrong. I have hope too.
The difference is that I truly wish that I didn't have hope. Hope is
nothing but a tease. It's purpose is to raise you up, so that you can be
dashed. In a way, it's like Potential Energy.
> That's why I bought the B5 DVD, for
> example, and hope to buy more soon -- to do something to demonstrate my
> desire for more B5 in a way that translates into dollars.
And that will probably look like a tiny group of dedicated fans that are
supporting it out of loyalty.
> I think your
> decision to drop Sci Fi is a similar action.
Not that they'll notice, of course. Actually my decision to drop Sci-Fi
came about because I was noticing more and more that there was absolutely
nothing that I wanted to watch on The Sci-Fi Channel anymore, and there was
a larger and larger percentage of stuff that I wouldn't be caught dead
watching. Note that I can watch B5 any time I want, by popping in a tape or
Laserdisc, and the fidelity of the latter is *incredible*. So, I no longer
had the need for The Sci-Fi Channel.
I must admit that it felt good to "fire" them. ;-)
> And JMS doesn't sound like
> he's given up hope either -- just that he's waiting for the right
> opportunity to act. That's all I'm talking about here. Waiting is not
> apathy. Waiting is not giving up.
It is for me.
WRWhite963
>> Don't get me wrong. I have hope too.
>
>The difference is that I truly wish that I didn't have hope. Hope is
>nothing but a tease. It's purpose is to raise you up, so that you can be
>dashed. In a way, it's like Potential Energy.
>
Well, that's rather depressing, isn't it? I mean, the trick is to make sure
the potential energy is released in a productive way, and not wasted by letting
it dissipate uselessly by giving up too soon.
And Good Things Do Happen (occasionally) - if hope were nothing but a tease,
nothing would *ever* come of it.
I like the tact the B5 space-sim people have taken - beat us down, and we'll
stand up again anyway. Refuse to fund the game we want so badly, and we'll
write it anyway. Refuse to fund the full production of it, and we'll search
for other ways, other means....
As Sinclair explained to Delenn - they can knock it down, blow it up, steal it
by time-travel.... and we build another one. We keep on building again, and
again, until it stays.
So Sci-Fi has apparently passed on "Legend of the Rangers" - sooner or later,
the tale of those years between Objects at Rest and the end of Crusade will be
told - because Joe's already planned those stories, and I fully expect they
won't let him have peace until he tells them. I base this belief on the
knowledge that the guy has characters that *talk* to him, for crying out loud.
Joe's busy with Jeremiah at the moment, anyway - and I'm one of those who
*does* think Joe's stretching himself too thin. Let Joe have his success with
Jeremiah, getting enough rest along the way (I hope), and if he needs to finish
his story, he'll do it.
Really - the person you need to convince is Joe. Not Sci-Fi. Not TNT, not the
studios, not a bunch of suits - because Joe's proven, when he wants to get
something done, it gets done. Rangers grew out of (I believe) wanting to
finish what was begun with Crusade, in a sneaky way. So convince Joe, and
it'll get done. He's good that way. Five years of Babylon 5 proves it.
And the one thing everyone can do, all the time - choose quality. Let those
whose work you admire know it, and why. Let those establishments who produce
quality know you appreciate it. A letter takes 10 minutes at most to put
together - make it a habit. (Something we should do for everyone we intersect
the lives of, anyway.)
Do I want this stuff now? Yes! I'm still stinging from the whole B5 space-sim
Shakespearean experience. Yet losing hope helps no one - does it make the game
get done? Does it make the show get produced? Does it even help my enjoyment
of what I've already got? It does nothing good. So let it go. Keep hope, but
temper expectation. Keep appreciation, and temper desire. Keep active, but
direct that action. Battles do not determine wars.
WRW
Dave Thomer
> The difference is that I truly wish that I didn't have hope. Hope is
> nothing but a tease. It's purpose is to raise you up, so that you can be
> dashed. In a way, it's like Potential Energy.
Well, I'm more of a Shawshank Redemption, hope-is-a-good-thing kind of guy.
The trick is marrying hope with patience and intelligent action. And if
disappointment sometimes results . . . well, ya pay your money and ya take
your chances.
> > That's why I bought the B5 DVD, for
> > example, and hope to buy more soon -- to do something to demonstrate my
> > desire for more B5 in a way that translates into dollars.
>
> And that will probably look like a tiny group of dedicated fans that are
> supporting it out of loyalty.
I'm sure to some extent it will. On the other hand, it's something tangible
and direct. And it's something that benefits me as well, even if nothing
further comes of it.
> > And JMS doesn't sound like
> > he's given up hope either -- just that he's waiting for the right
> > opportunity to act. That's all I'm talking about here. Waiting is not
> > apathy. Waiting is not giving up.
>
> It is for me.
Well, I wish you'd expand your definition a little bit, especially if you're
going to call other people's actions into question. Things aren't nearly as
black and white as you make them out to be.
Pål Are Nordal
>
> Joe's busy with Jeremiah at the moment, anyway - and I'm one of those who
> *does* think Joe's stretching himself too thin. Let Joe have his success with
> Jeremiah, getting enough rest along the way (I hope), and if he needs to finish
> his story, he'll do it.
Well, he'll be done with the 1st season soon. Production is scheduled to
wrap at the end of the month.
> Really - the person you need to convince is Joe. Not Sci-Fi. Not TNT, not the
> studios, not a bunch of suits - because Joe's proven, when he wants to get
> something done, it gets done. Rangers grew out of (I believe) wanting to
> finish what was begun with Crusade, in a sneaky way.
Rangers grew out of SciFi seeing the ratings for the B5 reruns and
asking jms to create something for them.
Kathryn Huxtable
> John,
> >Or we could raise a billion or so and start our own channel,
> >running B5, B5LotR, "Crusade", and, as they become available, "The
> >Dick Van Dyke Show",
>
> I will *never* forgive Dick Van Dyke for that faux-Cockney accent in
> "Mary Poppins". Are we to believe there were no genuine Cockney
> actors (or even a genuine Londoner actor) around at the time?
But what about Van Dyke's physical comedy in the movie? I agree the
accent is atrocious. It's no variety of English spoken before on the
Earth, and rarely since, thank the gods. But his acting was fine.
And the Dick Van Dyke show was great! No objections will be heard by
me.
-K
Chris Schumacher
<macb...@access995.com> wrote:
>But will the cycle come around when anybody's in a position to actually make
>it happen? After Crusade and TLaDiS, the odds aren't good if all we do is
>wait. As more and more time goes by, the chances of being able to complete
>the Crusade story get worse. Right now, the Technomage trilogy is out and
>people have had a chance to read it (People are thinking of Galen.), and B5
>is still on the air on Sci-Fi. Now would be the time to campaign for
>Crusade. As more time goes by, things cool off and people forget.
But I'm thinking that it's impossible. Why?
As far back as during the initial crisis, there have been rumblings
from the underground about there being monolithic anti-Babylon 5
figures in the halls of power of the Sci-Fi channel. They were the
ones who wouldn't allow more than a certain amount of money to be
spent on Crusade (since it was a show which was owned by another
company, a company which expected them to foot the production costs),
thus ensuring that it was lost. They were also the people who waffled
and didn't allow Sci-Fi to pick up Crusade before the original
contract broke. (As you remember, these was a time when it was not
only possible, but probable, that Crusade could resume production; but
that was back in the summer of '99). They were also the ones who made
Sci-Fi wait to option the rights for the Crusade reruns.
As Sci-Fi attempted to continue the world of Babylon 5, it was these
shadowy forces who stated that they wouldn't option a series on the
strength of the finished pilot. They were the ones who cheered when it
pulled in subpar ratings.
Even though this might have been lionized down through the years, I
think we've all gotten the impression that there are elements in the
Sci-Fi hierarchy who hate Babylon 5 and all it stands for.
As long as the future of Babylon 5 remains in the hand of Sci-Fi,
there will be no future.
-==Kensu==-
Who really wishes that the Counter Sci-Fi channel would finally pop
up. Just where the hell is it, anyway?
Mac Breck
From: "Chris Schumacher" <kensu...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 11:04 PM
Subject: Re: What now - And What Went Wrong?
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 10:36:52 -0400, "Mac Breck"
> <macb...@access995.com> wrote:
>
> >But will the cycle come around when anybody's in a position to actually
make
> >it happen? After Crusade and TLaDiS, the odds aren't good if all we do
is
> >wait. As more and more time goes by, the chances of being able to
complete
> >the Crusade story get worse. Right now, the Technomage trilogy is out
and
> >people have had a chance to read it (People are thinking of Galen.), and
B5
> >is still on the air on Sci-Fi. Now would be the time to campaign for
> >Crusade. As more time goes by, things cool off and people forget.
>
> But I'm thinking that it's impossible. Why?
> As far back as during the initial crisis, there have been rumblings
> from the underground about there being monolithic anti-Babylon 5
> figures in the halls of power of the Sci-Fi channel.
It seems like there are some of these people at Warner Brothers as well. It
can't be coincidence that all of the CGI was lost. They can't be *that*
inept.
Jason E. Schaff
>
> Ok, slight nitpick here. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN AEGIS CRUISER.
> The ship in question is an Arleigh Burke class destroyer that uses the AEGIS
> computerized control system. This system is even capable of running all
> functions necessary to combat on its own when placed in the correct mode.
> The radar aboard an Arleigh Burke Destroyer is 4 flat panel model SPY-2A
> arrays, sensitive enough to get a true silhouette of an object within a
> certain distance when at full power.It carries two Sea Comanche scout light
> attack helocopters on board, with a variety of weapons and
> ASW(Anti-Submarine Warfare) equipment for them.
>
There is very well such a thing as a Aegis cruiser: the
Ticonderoga class (CG47 - CG73). The Ticos use either the
SPY-1A (47-58) or SPY-1B (59-73) phased array radar and
Aegis battle management system same as the Burkes (except
that the Burkes use a slightly newer radar, the SPY-1D). I
suspect you might be confusing the two classes when saying
that there is no such thing as an Aegis cruiser. The Ticos
were originally to have been designated as destroyers, and
CG47 was originally commissioned as DDG47, which leads to no
end of confusion when discussing these issues.
(all data per _Jane's Fighting Ships_ 1997-98 edition)
Jason
--
---------------------------------------------------------
Jason E. Schaff
If you do not want it known that you have
said something, don't say it.
-- Klingon proverb
---------------------------------------------------------
Zathrus
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "CaptJosh" <capt...@phantos.subspacelink.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 1:12 AM
> Subject: Re: What now - And What Went Wrong?
>
>
> > <snip>
> > > > Not to be overly picky, but it wasn't just Star Wars. Close
Encounters
> > was
> > > > the other big push. One movie got Paramount figuring that the
appetite
> > for
> > > a
> > > > science fiction film had been satisfied, but then the other came
along
> > and
> > > > shoed them there was a continuing market for it.(Read Judith and
> > Garfield
> > > > Reeves Stevens' book _Star Trek: Phase II - The Lost Series_. It
> > explains
> > > > better.) Just a little detail I thought might clarify the events
> leading
> > > > into the production of the Worst Star Trek Movie Ever Made.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > Actually, Star Trek V is a better movie.
>
> ? Star Trek V was PAINFUL to watch is a LOT of places. I wish it had
been
> entirely about their campout in Yosemite. That may have been interesting.
> Sybok, and Uhura singing on that dune were HORRID. As a movie, I'd say
Star
> Trek V was a BOMB. I'd give ST:TMP one star out of four.
>
>
> > It wasn't designed originally as
> > the pilot to a TV show, so you don't have that.
>
> Nevertheless, Star Trek V was awful.
>
>
> > It wasn't recycled plot(For
> > ST:TMP think of the Trek ep "The Changeling").
>
> Yes, I know.
>
>
> > In fact, if it hadn't been
> > labeled as Star Trek, it would have been perfectly acceptable. Sure it
has
> > its flaws. For example, you do not introduce a sudden change into the
life
> > of a well established character, e. g. a half brother for Spock, who was
> > also a firstborn for Sarek who suddenly with no previous hints has an
> > ex-wife. This is bad writing. Shatner needed a few classes there. He has
> > done much better with his Tekwar series. Even the writing in his Star
Trek
> > books is better than his writing for Star Trek V. Even so, it still is
> > better than TMP on several levels.
>
> Well, I can bear to sit through ST:TMP (barely, if I could stay awake) but
I
> wouldn't watch ST:V if you paid me.
>
>
>
> ------------------------
> Vorlon Empire
>
> http://www.scifi.com/crusade/ http://www.scifi.com/b5rangers/
> http://www.b5lr.com/
>
> "Nothing much good on TV tonight anyway." (Captain Gideon, Babylon 5
> Crusade - The Memory of War)
>
The only good thing about TMP was the use of Graphics and the Star Trek
name. It was only meant as a ploy to make money off of the Fans. There was
no ST type plot and made very bad use of the Original Cast. ST V was almost
as bad. Except for the sing-a-long.
Paul McElligott
> I hope this post goes through. I've sent about 15 of them today, and
> haven't seen 1 show up yet...
>
> Reminds me of the blueprints for the Saturn V rocket. The government
> didn't want to pay the contractor to store them anymore, so they
> destroyed them. the only way to make another one is to reverse engineer
> the last existing Sat V sitting (laying on its side, actually) at the
> Rocket Park in Hunstville Alabama...
>
The plans for the Saturn V are safe and sound in Huntsville. The
problem is that many of the smaller sub-contractors are long-since out
of business, taking with them the tooling necessary to build parts for
the Saturn. To recreate all of the infrastucture necessary would cost
about as much as designing a new, better rocket from scratch.
Zathrus
"WRWhite963" <wrwhi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020412173028...@mb-ms.aol.com...
> I like 'em too, but it does tend to make the films a bit... off.
Unbalanced.
> And it also makes them less repeatedly viewable. I prefer to have the
humor be
> a bit more subtle, and plot-contained - Trek II was perfect. Nice little
> one-liner from Kirk to McCoy ("Well, then, this is your chance to get away
from
> it all."), the little bits with Saavik and Spock ("But he's so... human."
"No
> one is perfect, Saavik.") Subtle.
>
base already established in the Space Seed.
Which also says that it had a GREAT VILLAIN, and actor, to go with it.
Paul McElligott
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Voxwoman wrote:
>
> > Reminds me of the blueprints for the Saturn V rocket. The government
> > didn't want to pay the contractor to store them anymore, so they
> > destroyed them.
>
> product of almost every manufacturer in the aerospace industry.
>
>
Probably is, because I heard the same basic thing, only with a
different story behind it. The UL that I heard said that the plans
still exist, only stored in obsolete computer systems that no one can
access. This is almost certainaly wrong, too, because:
a) The moon program came years before computer drafting and...
b) Someone can always find a way to interface two supposedly
"incompatible" system. Give a hacker enough time and he could
probably access an ENIAC with an Xbox.
Kay Shapero
says...
> Not to make light, but you have to look at this from my side...as I said, the
> main thing was the five years. We got them. Anything else is a bonus. The
> finished eps are there, and will be for as long as images are transmitted.
> It's there, on the shelf.
>
What I want to know is when it'll be on MY shelf in DVD... :->
--
Kay Shapero
kaysh...@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~kayshapero/index.htm
Jere Lull
[ Your display is set for the "ISO-8859-1" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
Voxwoman wrote:
> ... and in retaliation, I will NEVER buy a Bowflex! Hear that, SFC?!
> Nyah, nyah.
GAWD! We time-shift on SFC to AVOID that abomination. Doing that right
now with Farscape. Can't STAND that gawd-awful commericial. We'll watch
Farscape in about 2 hours, after Jeremiah, skipping that garbage attempt
at a commercial all the while.
--
Jere Lull
Xan-a-Deux ('73 Tanzer 28 #4 sailing from Tolchester, MD)
Xan's Pages: http://members.dca.net/jerelull/X-Main.html
Our BVI FAQs (290+ annotated pics) http://members.dca.net/jerelull/BVI.html
Richard Tibbetts
Visitor" <An...@ratbag.demon.co.uk> wrote on Fri, 12 Apr 2002 19:25:32
+0100:
> John,
> >Or we could raise a billion or so and start our own channel, running B5,
> >B5LotR, "Crusade", and, as they become available, "The Dick Van Dyke
> >Show",
>
> I will *never* forgive Dick Van Dyke for that faux-Cockney accent in
> "Mary Poppins". Are we to believe there were no genuine Cockney actors
> (or even a genuine Londoner actor) around at the time?
{going waaaaay off topic}
Are there any Cockneys left? I notice from my local paper this week
that the oldest Pearly King (who was commenting on the Queen Mum's
funeral) lives in Raynes Park, London SW20!! I doubt the sound of Bow
Bells would carry that far!
--
Richard Tibbetts
http://www.primepeace.ltd.uk/
Anna Hayward, Alien Visitor
>{going waaaaay off topic}
>
>Are there any Cockneys left? I notice from my local paper this week
>that the oldest Pearly King (who was commenting on the Queen Mum's
>funeral) lives in Raynes Park, London SW20!! I doubt the sound of Bow
>Bells would carry that far!
I don't know about Pearly Kings and Queens, and I was born a little way
from the sound of Bow Bells (only by a couple of miles), but a lot of
people were born within the sound of Bow Bells and more talk with a
Cockney accent. Right guv?
Tlsmith1963
hate to tell you this, though, Mac--tonight's Farscape was *excellent*! If
they keep this up, you might have to get Sci-Fi back! :)
Tammy
Mac Breck
From: "Tlsmith1963" <tlsmi...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 1:07 AM
Subject: Re: What now - And What Went Wrong?
Well, I just sent two more letters to Sci-Fi, one to Bonnie Hammer and an
identical one (same body) to Thomas Vitale, in an attempt, in all
probability foolish and useless, to get them to resurrect Crusade if they're
not going to pick up Rangers.
John W. Kennedy
>
> >I'm willing to forgive the fifth everything (except the sloppy editing)
> >for the One Brief Shining Moment of "What does God want with a
> >starship?" I wanted to stand up in the theater and shout, "Yes! Yes!
> >Yes!"
> >
>
> I'm a bit confused - that "Brief, Shining Moment" - was it because it was
> incredibly effective at pointing out how incredibly stupid that entire movie
> was? If so, you have a curious taste indeed; and if not, and you're saying it
> was actually *good*, in some objective sense, then your taste is even more
> curious.....
It pointed out that _characters_ (some of them), and, with them,
altogether too much of the audience, had allowed themselves to be taken
in by a classic bad-SF cliché. Kirk pointed out that the emperor had no
effing clothes, and I loved it.
--
John W. Kennedy
Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!
http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Double%20Falshood.html
John W. Kennedy
>
> John,
> >Or we could raise a billion or so and start our own channel, running B5,
> >B5LotR, "Crusade", and, as they become available, "The Dick Van Dyke
> >Show",
>
> I will *never* forgive Dick Van Dyke for that faux-Cockney accent in
> "Mary Poppins". Are we to believe there were no genuine Cockney actors
> (or even a genuine Londoner actor) around at the time?
I don't know that there was a great Cockney song-and-eccentric-dance man
of the right age at the time. The music halls were dead, and hadn't yet
undergone the partial rebirth they since have due to nostalgia. (A
friend of mine once played Archie Rice in "The Entertainer" for four
weeks. By the end of it, he looked like a stroke victim.) For that
matter, in the US, Dick Van Dyke was born out of his time; it was mere
chance that he had mastered what was already a dead art. His accent may
be bad, but his performance is brilliant, and I can't think of anyone
who could have equaled him. (The merits of the movie, both as a whole,
and as a realization of Travers, are yet other issues, on which much can
be said on either side.)
At any rate, most US TV critics and fans will agree that "The Dick Van
Dyke Show", of the early 1960's, is one of the two or three greatest US
situation comedies ever, although it may have dated a little from a
feminist perspective. It's the only TV show that ever had me
_literally_ rolling on the floor in helpless laughter. (The flashback
episode about bringing Ritchie home from the hospital. When [name
deleted] walked in the door.)
John W. Kennedy
> a) The moon program came years before computer drafting and...
Not altogether. I saw computer drafting being done (granted, it was at
Bell Labs) in '65-'66.
> b) Someone can always find a way to interface two supposedly
> "incompatible" system. Give a hacker enough time and he could
> probably access an ENIAC with an Xbox.
Medium problems are something else. It's getting very hard to read IBM
7-track tapes, and other formats of the era probably actually are lost.
Voxwoman
American accents...
-Wendy of NJ
Voxwoman
early engineering carreer, and with all the brain cell killing I've done
in the interim, I thought I could have made a mistake.
-Wendy of NJ
Voxwoman
customer who had a parrot. Apparently, the previous owner would leave
the TV on all day to entertain the parrot. One day, he came home and the
critter kept saying: "The Bow.... The Bow... The Bow..."
-wendy of NJ
Richard Tibbetts
Visitor" <An...@ratbag.demon.co.uk> wrote on Sat, 13 Apr 2002 11:25:47
+0100:
> Hi,
> >{going waaaaay off topic}
> >
> >Are there any Cockneys left? I notice from my local paper this week
> >that the oldest Pearly King (who was commenting on the Queen Mum's
> >funeral) lives in Raynes Park, London SW20!! I doubt the sound of Bow
> >Bells would carry that far!
>
> I don't know about Pearly Kings and Queens, and I was born a little way
> from the sound of Bow Bells (only by a couple of miles), but a lot of
> people were born within the sound of Bow Bells and more talk with a
> Cockney accent. Right guv?
I suddenly realise *I* have nothing to say about accents, coming from
the Midlands, home of the least fashionable (with some reason, IMO)
accent in the UK. I've tried to lose it, I almost always say "barth"
and "parth", but some words catch me out....
How do *you* say the word "tooth"???
Voxwoman
SciFi channel is moving Farscape to the 10-11PM slots on Friday... so
now I have to agonize over what do I tape - FS or Jeremiah? Or do I just
bite the bullet and get the TiVo?
Kathryn Huxtable
> I suddenly realise *I* have nothing to say about accents, coming
> from the Midlands, home of the least fashionable (with some reason,
> IMO) accent in the UK. I've tried to lose it, I almost always say
> "barth" and "parth", but some words catch me out....
>
> How do *you* say the word "tooth"???
Speaking from Kansas, I pronounce it with an almost pure vowel, albeit
nasal. A long "u", rather like the "ou" sound in French. The initial
"t" is aspirated and the final "th" is voiceless.
The main awful thing about the midwest US accent is the nasalization
of almost everything. It's stronger in Nebraska and Iowa than in
Kansas. Kansas tends towards a twang, but I don't do that much, except
when trying to.
Of course, with the exception of New York City and possibly Boston,
most regional accents in the US cover a lot more territory than the
accents in the UK.
-K
Kathryn Huxtable
> Oh, and to add to the annoyance factor...
> SciFi channel is moving Farscape to the 10-11PM slots on Friday... so
> now I have to agonize over what do I tape - FS or Jeremiah? Or do I
> just bite the bullet and get the TiVo?
Or a second VCR. They're cheap these days.
-K