Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

ATTN JMS: Crusade - how do you think you did?

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Pål Are Nordal

unread,
Apr 18, 2001, 7:43:06 PM4/18/01
to
[ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]

Now that you've had some time to put the battles you fought during the
production behind you, how do you feel what was produced of Crusade
turned out?

What was your strongest episode?

What was your weakest (ignoring War Zone)?

--
Donate free food with a simple click: http://www.thehungersite.com/

Pål Are Nordal
a_b...@bigfoot.com

Jms at B5

unread,
Apr 19, 2001, 2:18:06 AM4/19/01
to
>Now that you've had some time to put the battles you fought during the
>production behind you, how do you feel what was produced of Crusade
>turned out?
>
>What was your strongest episode?
>
>What was your weakest (ignoring War Zone)?

I still think the first five produced were our best of the ones we shot, in
terms of the ones I wrote. The best scripts of mine per se would probably be
the two that didn't get produced but which were made available via
bookface.com, To the Ends of the Earth and End of the Line. I think they
would've kicked over the table and shown where the production, and the story,
was going. They're also the ones I wrote after "Apperances," which is where I
decided, "Fuck it, fuck TNT, fuck the notes, I'm just gonna go back to what I
was doing for the first 5 and write what I want." I got pissed, and sometimes
I write best when I'm angry about something.

Weakest of my scripts...probably The Long Road, which started out as a good
idea, and is still about 70% a good idea, but it's over-written and it
feels...I dunno... stagey, somehow.

You actually happened to hit me with this question on a reflective night, so
I'm taking a bit more time than I normally would with this.

I was talking to a friend recently, and I mentioned that in looking at the
Crusade episodes on SFC, something about them bothers me...not the performers,
who are all great, or the direction, which was generally quite good (with some
lapses), but the writing. They didn't seem to me to have the same level of
energy as B5.

To which I was told, "You want to know the truth of it? I was glad when they
shut down Crusade." Now, as you might expect, I was kind of taken aback by
this, and asked for clarification and what this had to do with my original
statement.

The reply: "You were *exhausted*. You did five years of backbreaking work, you
were averaging 3-4 hours sleep a night if you were lucky, you lost your hair,
your health, and a good-sized chunk of your sanity...you were *tired*. The
best thing would've been if there had been a year break between B5 and Crusade,
to give you a chance to catch your breath. Would it have made a difference to
TNT's decision? No. They changed their mind about the show based on their new
ratings surveys before you ever shot a frame of film. But you wouldn't be
sensing that lack of energy in the episodes now.

"Look at the stuff now: the Rising Stars screenplay is getting fast-tracked,
the studio and the network love (title deleted until press release is issued),
it's some of your best work ever, and Rangers has the energy that B5 always
had, that Crusade didn't. It's still better than 95% of what's out there, but
it's not you writing at the top of your top form."

"So how come you didn't say this at the time?" I asked.

"Because then you couldn't have heard it, wouldn't have listened. Now you
can."

Hearing something like that is very difficult, because we all like to think
we're invulnerable. In retrospect, I think there's a measure of truth to it.
Maybe more than a measure.

Crusade is a good show. It got beaten down after the first five, stayed kind
of beaten down through network notes and my own fatigue fighting fights that I
shouldn't have had to fight, then picked up with the two post-fuck'em scripts
because my energy was gearing up again at that decision. But overall it was a
good show.

Not that it made any difference to Crusade's eventual fate; that had zero to do
with the writing, acting, or directing, and everything to do with an internal
corporate TNT decision about SF in general. Even written at 100% of my energy
level, even if it had been a GREAT show instead of a very good show, it STILL
would've met the fate it met. Of that there is no question.

It was starting to pick up speed again with those last two scripts. I think we
would've eventually progressed in quality to where it needed to be.

But I had just enough energy to get it started, to write and produce it, but
not enough to go through all that AND the day-to-day battles with the network.
Having gone through five years of hell on B5, I could handle any two of those
three, not all three.

And I'm wondering now if, in the long run, maybe it was the best thing that
could have happened. If it had not gone the way it did, I almost certainly
would never have been in a position to do the things I'm doing now...a (still
classified) high-profile and high-budget TV series for one network, a B5 TV
movie that will almost certainly go to a series on SFC, and the Rising Stars
feature film in addition to a bunch of other stuff. And it's all fresh, with
energy, there's fun there, and I think Rangers will have the fun and energy and
cool stuff that is emblematic of B5.

I've always tried to be very forthright in my appraisal of my own work...I know
where my strengths are, but I also know where my failings are, and I think one
needs to be blunt about both. So I tend to be pretty merciless when looking
back at this kind of thing, but I think it's necessary.

It's weird to think that I'm actually in a *better* position now, in terms of
my career and the quality of my work, with Crusade having gone the way it did,
than I would be if it had continued...but there it is.

It's a funny old world, you know...?

jms

(jms...@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2001 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)


E. John Roth III

unread,
Apr 19, 2001, 2:50:45 AM4/19/01
to
Jms at B5 wrote:

>
> It's weird to think that I'm actually in a *better* position now, in terms of
> my career and the quality of my work, with Crusade having gone the way it did,
> than I would be if it had continued...but there it is.
>
> It's a funny old world, you know...?
>
> jms
>
> (jms...@aol.com)
> (all message content (c) 2001 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
> permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
> and don't send me story ideas)

Joe - Still some of the Stuff you did do in Crusade STILL kicked ass. As for "The
Long Road" I LIKED it then, I LIKE it now. As for Well Of Forever and Each Night...
You tore me to shreds with those eps. That was a GOOD thing. As for TNT so days you
get the Tiger some days she gets you - screw 'em.

E. John Roth III
(Still would have like to see that Cool sword though)


Matthew Vincent

unread,
Apr 19, 2001, 8:26:56 AM4/19/01
to
On 18 Apr 2001 23:18:06 -0700, jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:

>"Because then you couldn't have heard it, wouldn't have listened. Now you can."

In a manner of speaking, perhaps you already knew. You wrote the plot
where Franklin was using his work to escape from his inner self, and
you had G'Kar remark about how his imprisonment gave him a chance to
do some soul-searching without the distractions of the outside world.
I can relate a lot of this to myself, and I've got a fair idea of what
might be happening for you, but I won't say any more right now since I
appreciate the need for manners concerning unauthorised scans (so to
speak). In general terms, I'll say that I think people tend to project
their ideal self onto a goal of something they'd like to achieve
(whether in work or relationships), and then feel anxiety at the
thought of not achieving it, sometimes to the point where their life
can lose meaning without it.

I often find myself hit in the face with something I kinda knew
already, but had previously found too inconvenient to accept on its
own terms. Especially when it comes to relationships, actually.

I thought a lot about G'Kar's comments, and I still don't know if
there actually is anything better than doing what you have to do
(work), getting used to it, finding something to indulge in to
convince yourself that you're coping. It's kinda like how
relationships can be a way to escape emotional wounds, but yet this
doesn't mean it's healthy to go without relationships altogether.
Maybe work is the same way - there's nothing better than escaping the
pain, but it's helpful to at least understand our feelings so we don't
take the way we cope with them for granted. Plus to take breaks, to
vary things in order to find different ways of coping, to deal with at
least some of the baggage which is unnecessary.

I hope I'm wrong about this speculation, and I hope one day I discover
or hear that there's a better way. But if my work and stuff is
escapism, then what am I escaping *from*? Fear of my vulnerability, my
inevitable death and progression towards it, my biology and animal
nature? What the heck can I do about that? Is there really something
at the centre of me that can make it all healthy and right, if I just
work it all out? I don't know so much. Well, I know I take some
comfort from viewing humanity as having a future and a path I can
contribute to, as a generalisation of my own individual
life-preserving instinct. Thus the appeal of Deconstruction.

>Hearing something like that is very difficult, because we all like to think
>we're invulnerable.

Yes, and that's been a hard lesson for me also. It's also been a
problem when other people (like my recent ex-girlfriend) give me
feedback, and this feedback is inaccurate due to *them* making
rationalisations out of wanting to think they're invulnerable. I try
so hard to get everything right, and I can't bear it when I stuff up.

I'm constantly aware of being vulnerable, to the point where I can see
many things in a different way. For this reason, I'm determined not to
let myself fall apart in the meantime - although I know that will
happen eventually (as per SiL), one way or the other. For all that you
disliked WZ, there were some scenes in that I really identify with. My
goal in life isn't to avoid falling apart, so much as to make sure I
ground the Drakh ship and release the distress signal before that
happens. That sums up the long-term goals for my career. Ideally, I'd
also like to be happy and enjoy my life while I'm at it, so I know
what I'm fighting *for*. Survival is only temporary, and a means to an
end - the end is doing good things for myself and others.

>Crusade is a good show.

Indeed. It disappointed the heck out of me when TNT canned it. Bunch
of losers. Thinking back to those old cartoons, perhaps a proverbial
canister of TNT needs to be stuck up... I shouldn't be advocating
violence, so I'll stop right there.

>I've always tried to be very forthright in my appraisal of my own work...I know
>where my strengths are, but I also know where my failings are, and I think one
>needs to be blunt about both.

Couldn't agree more. We can maintain most of our strengths (what is
built endures, as Delenn would say) whilst working on improving or
managing our failings.

>It's a funny old world, you know...?

All too well. Sometimes my cynicism parallels Galen's, but sometimes I
feel like there is a design out there and that things have happened in
my life for a reason - even the highly inconvenient experiences. It
all seems to fit too well. Or perhaps I'm just imagining this out of a
subconscious avoidance of the reality that it's all temporary and that
my consciousness could disappear at any time. Who knows? But either
way, as long as I still exist then I have a destiny: Life.

Matthew


Brian Stinson

unread,
Apr 19, 2001, 8:42:28 AM4/19/01
to
After hearing all that, I guess it's good that Crusade ended when it did.

But having said that, when I watched Crusade I compared it to B5 season one,
and found that it compared very favorably. I was very excited to see where
the story was going. Watching it again on Sci-Fi, I just shake my head and
wonder what TNT was thinking when they found it unsatisfactory.


James Bell

unread,
Apr 19, 2001, 8:46:19 AM4/19/01
to
Did anyone else catch this part as significant?:

"Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010419021712...@ng-de1.aol.com...
> a B5 TV
> movie that will *almost certainly* go to a series on SFC,

It hasn't even filmed yet and it has already gone from a "maybe" to an
"almost certainly"!!!

Woo Hoo!

Jim


Andrew Timson

unread,
Apr 19, 2001, 1:16:16 PM4/19/01
to
"Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010419021712...@ng-de1.aol.com...

<snip>

> ...sometimes


> I write best when I'm angry about something.

That doesn't explain SiL, though.

<snip>

> You actually happened to hit me with this question on a reflective night,
so
> I'm taking a bit more time than I normally would with this.

We're here to listen.

<snip>

> "...The


> best thing would've been if there had been a year break between B5 and
Crusade,

> to give you a chance to catch your breath..."

Yes, but then you'd have had a year of us bugging you to tell us what
Crusade was about...

> "...the studio and the network love (title deleted until press release is
issued)..."

Grr...

> "Because then you couldn't have heard it, wouldn't have listened. Now you
> can."

Just because JMS can listen doesn't mean that he will. See B5, and the
comments made at the beginning - "You're nuts." "It'll never finish."
"You're insane." Did he listen? No. At least in that case we're the better
for it.

<snip>

> It was starting to pick up speed again with those last two scripts. I
think we
> would've eventually progressed in quality to where it needed to be.

With the two scripts, IMHO it was *exactly* where it needed to be.

I'm just thankful that Legions of Fire 2 resolves the cliffhanger...

> But I had just enough energy to get it started, to write and produce it,
but
> not enough to go through all that AND the day-to-day battles with the
network.
> Having gone through five years of hell on B5, I could handle any two of
those
> three, not all three.

Would Crusade have taxed you as much as B5 once it got going? You said that
the arc wouldn't be as tight, meaning that you could probably bring in some
outside or staff writers.

You probably won't answer (directly), but did you have a SiL-type episode
planned for Crusade (tear-jerker finale)? Or something more along the lines
of if Endgame was B5's last episode?

> And I'm wondering now if, in the long run, maybe it was the best thing
that
> could have happened. If it had not gone the way it did, I almost
certainly
> would never have been in a position to do the things I'm doing now...a
(still
> classified)

I know that Lucasfilm installs anti-spoiler implants (OK, so they're really
non-disclosure agreements, but it's an on-going joke that spoilers blow up
the one giving them) in the writers of the new arc-based Star Wars novels.
Do TV executives install implants in their writers, too?

> high-profile and high-budget TV series for one network, a B5 TV
> movie that will almost certainly go to a series on SFC

D'oh! I don't *have* the budget to buy cable, but I'm going to have to.

> and the Rising Stars
> feature film in addition to a bunch of other stuff.

Which would you recommend for a newbie - comics then movie or movie then
comics? I haven't been able to find the trade paperback (I'm still
searching!), so if I don't find it soon I may hold off until the movie if
that's what you recommend.

> And it's all fresh, with
> energy, there's fun there, and I think Rangers will have the fun and
energy and
> cool stuff that is emblematic of B5.

Nice...

> I've always tried to be very forthright in my appraisal of my own work...I
know
> where my strengths are, but I also know where my failings are, and I think
one
> needs to be blunt about both. So I tend to be pretty merciless when
looking
> back at this kind of thing, but I think it's necessary.

I'm the same way - looking back on my writing, I say "This is bad. That
needs to be rewritten. Out the window this part goes." I never compliment
myself on anything.

<snip>

> It's a funny old world, you know...?

Too well... too well...

Andrew Timson
==================================================
Well, Ambassador, what *do* you want? It's impolite to just tell me "They
aren't for you," and run off...


Jessica L. Price

unread,
Apr 19, 2001, 6:23:49 PM4/19/01
to

"Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010419021712...@ng-de1.aol.com...

| Crusade is a good show. It got beaten down after the first five, stayed

<snip>


|
| It's weird to think that I'm actually in a *better* position now, in terms
of
| my career and the quality of my work, with Crusade having gone the way it
did,
| than I would be if it had continued...but there it is.

Maybe I'm reading to much into this. I can't quite be sure, but does this
sound to anyone else like he's fairly certain that Crusade is definitely
done for?

OTOH, he does say "Crusade *is* a good show" rather than "Crusade *was* a
good show."

<sigh> I'm really starting to get into it, and counting down the remaining
episodes like this is really depressing.


Pål Are Nordal

unread,
Apr 19, 2001, 7:23:34 PM4/19/01
to
"Jessica L. Price" wrote:
>
> Maybe I'm reading to much into this.

I think so.

> I can't quite be sure, but does this
> sound to anyone else like he's fairly certain that Crusade is definitely
> done for?

He's been very consistent in saying otherwise ever since the production
stopped, and I don't think that's changed.

Jessica L. Price

unread,
Apr 19, 2001, 7:33:35 PM4/19/01
to

"Pål Are Nordal" <a_b...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:3ADF7370...@bigfoot.com...

| "Jessica L. Price" wrote:
| >
| > Maybe I'm reading to much into this.
|
| I think so.

Good.

webmaster

unread,
Apr 19, 2001, 8:24:23 PM4/19/01
to

"E. John Roth III" <jr...@oklahoma.net> wrote in message
news:3ADE8AE1...@oklahoma.net...

I agree. The Long Road was great - it just shouldn't have appeared as the
second episode. It turned alot of people off because of the Golden Dragon
thing.
I liked the thoughtful nature of Crusade - "The Path of Sorrows" was
unbelievable.

Nathan
www.livefromspace.tv

>
>
>

TN...@aol.com

unread,
Apr 19, 2001, 9:17:19 PM4/19/01
to
In article <J%AD6.470$dM6.1...@nnrp3.sbc.net>, Brian <blee...@swbell.net>
wrote:

>After hearing all that, I guess it's good that Crusade ended when it did.
>But having said that, when I watched Crusade I compared it to B5 season

>one,and found that it compared very favorably. I was very excited to see

where
>the story was going. Watching it again on Sci-Fi, I just shake my head
>and wonder what TNT was thinking when they found it unsatisfactory.

I agree. Actually, I couldn't get into B5 Season 1 at all. It took seeing a
number of episodes in either Season 2 or 3 to get me hooked. With Crusade, I
started out with little interest and before the end of the 13 episodes was
totally hooked. It sucked me into the characters/mystery much faster than B5
did. When it ended, I was disappointed in a way I never expected to be (so
disappointed I actually wrote a letter to the Sci-Fi channel on Crusade's
behalf -- not the kind of thing I normally do).

Joe, I think your friend was way too hard on the show. I loved it and am
convinced that if TNT had given it a chance it would've had a big audience.

TNW

Jon Green

unread,
Apr 19, 2001, 9:17:21 PM4/19/01
to
On 18 Apr 2001 23:18:06 -0700, jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:

> I still think the first five produced were our best of the ones we shot, in
> terms of the ones I wrote. The best scripts of mine per se would probably be
> the two that didn't get produced but which were made available via
> bookface.com, To the Ends of the Earth and End of the Line.

Joe --

Now that bookface.com has folded, is there anywhere else we can buy
these scripts?

Thanks in advance,

Jon
--
SPAM BLOCK IN OPERATION! Replace 'deadspam' with 'pobox' to reply in email.
Spammers: please die now and improve the mass-average IQ level.
Want a deadspam email auto-responder? http://www.deadspam.com/deadspam.html

Carl N. Hoff

unread,
Apr 19, 2001, 9:17:56 PM4/19/01
to
Hello JMS,

Thanks for the longer then usual note. A couple quick questions:

(1) You mention "The best scripts of mine per se would probably be


the two that didn't get produced but which were made available
via bookface.com, To the Ends of the Earth and End of the Line."

Is there any chance at all of these being made available again in
some format in the future?

(2) I take the tone of your email to imply that there is ZERO chance
of Crusade ever making a come back. Is Crusades truly dead?
Or is there still a glimmer of hope someplace?

Later,
Carl

Andrew Timson

unread,
Apr 19, 2001, 9:30:50 PM4/19/01
to
"Jon Green" <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:6tltdtkpu2va48a45...@4ax.com...

> On 18 Apr 2001 23:18:06 -0700, jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:
>
> > I still think the first five produced were our best of the ones we shot,
in
> > terms of the ones I wrote. The best scripts of mine per se would
probably be
> > the two that didn't get produced but which were made available via
> > bookface.com, To the Ends of the Earth and End of the Line.
>
> Joe --
>
> Now that bookface.com has folded, is there anywhere else we can buy
> these scripts?

Not right now, at least.

Andrew

Mike Ventrella

unread,
Apr 19, 2001, 10:24:35 PM4/19/01
to
I just wanted to comment about how nice it is to have jms post here and give
his comments. It means a lot to us fans out here. Thanks again!

Jms at B5

unread,
Apr 19, 2001, 11:29:37 PM4/19/01
to
>I take the tone of your email to imply that there is ZERO chance
> of Crusade ever making a come back. Is Crusades truly dead?
> Or is there still a glimmer of hope someplace?
>

It doesn't have anything to do with that one way or t'other.

Joe Biles

unread,
Apr 19, 2001, 11:56:51 PM4/19/01
to
Good, because I just sent Sci-Fi Channel two more letters encouraging
them to order more episodes. Of course, the only time I did it
previously was prior to the July something '99 deadline for renewing
cast and crew contracts, so it's not like I've been the most devoted
"Crusade" advocate. As far as the previous poster's first question,
which JMS didn't answer, I hope we'll be able to see "To the Ends of
the Earth" and "End of the Line" again--this time as full 45-minute
length TV episodes.

Joe

Matthew Vincent

unread,
Apr 20, 2001, 1:11:43 AM4/20/01
to
On 19 Apr 2001 19:24:35 -0700, ventr...@aol.com (Mike Ventrella)
wrote:

>I just wanted to comment about how nice it is to have jms post here and give
>his comments. It means a lot to us fans out here.

Indeed. :)

Matthew


Dave Thomer

unread,
Apr 20, 2001, 2:41:10 AM4/20/01
to
I always wondered how much fatigue might have factored into Crusade,
particularly once things got hairy. Thanks for sharing this. It does raise
one question: how the heck are you going to stop it from happening again? I
know you've brought up the Sorkin and Kelley examples, but they don't get as
closely involved with every element of the show as you tend to do. And I
have to think that planning and attention to detail is part of what produced
the budget efficiency you mentioned in B5. I mean, if you think you have
all this great stuff in you, I want to see it -- but it boggles my mind to
even THINK about two or three series plus comic book assignments, move
scripts and who knows what else. I mean, I HOPE you won't be requiring
yourself to get massively ticked off just for the adrenaline's sake. :)
Take care.

Dave Thomer
This Is Not News - www.notnews.org
Philosophy, public affairs, and pop culture

Tammy Smith

unread,
Apr 19, 2001, 11:52:39 AM4/19/01
to
Joe (JMS), sometimes we have to pull back & rest, even when we don't
want to. I had to do this a few years ago. I didn't want to--I wanted
to keep fighting my battles. If I had continued fighting, though, I
honestly don't know if I would still be alive today. I was depressed,
exhausted, & ready to end it all. I finally just had to give up the
battle & try to heal. This is something I had to do on my own--no one
could've told me to do it because of my stubborn nature. You know what?
It was tough at first, but after that, I felt alive again, & things are
pretty good now. Things actually can work out in the end.

Tammy


Pål Are Nordal

unread,
Apr 20, 2001, 7:48:08 AM4/20/01
to
Dave Thomer wrote:
>
> I always wondered how much fatigue might have factored into Crusade,
> particularly once things got hairy. Thanks for sharing this. It does raise
> one question: how the heck are you going to stop it from happening again?

He isn't as close to the stories as he was with B5, and they aren't as
meticulously planned. I trust there will be a writing staff on both shows.

Kenneth Keller

unread,
Apr 20, 2001, 9:40:50 AM4/20/01
to
TN...@aol.com is believed to have wrote:
> In article <J%AD6.470$dM6.1...@nnrp3.sbc.net>, Brian <blee...@swbell.net>
> wrote:

> I agree. Actually, I couldn't get into B5 Season 1 at all. It took seeing a
> number of episodes in either Season 2 or 3 to get me hooked. With Crusade, I
> started out with little interest and before the end of the 13 episodes was
> totally hooked. It sucked me into the characters/mystery much faster than B5
> did.

What do you expect, he had the experience of B5 under his belt. I'm sure
he learned something in 5 years. :)

Ken
-=====================================================================-
ZOG!

Kimball, Robert

unread,
Apr 20, 2001, 9:41:01 AM4/20/01
to
So does that mean crusade might get revived or no? :) Whether it was as
strong as the B5 work or not (and I can see how it was corporated some)
with the cast and the overall story as great as it was, it moved us all.
And we would really like to see the rest. Isn't it nice to see the fruits
of your inspiration be so adored?. :)

Rob


If you have received this e-mail in error or wish to read our e-mail disclaimer statement and monitoring policy, please refer to http://www.drkw.com/disc/email/ or contact the sender.

--
Posted from mailsweeper2.dresdner.com [12.3.94.41]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Dylan Hankel

unread,
Apr 20, 2001, 9:45:05 AM4/20/01
to
.....there is even less of a chance for Crusade to get revived by Sci Fi? I
mean, just in light of the fact that you seem a bit less enthusiastic about
it now after having what can now be viewed from the ordeal as a very needed
rest period for you. If Sci Fi came up to you and said they were so pleased
with the ratings from the Crusade re-run that they'd like to revive the show
would you wholeheartedly agree and hand it over to Fiona Avery and your
other trusted associates or do you think one new B5 related series (TLoTR)
is as much as you AND Sci Fi could handle (I just get this feeling trying to
think what goes on in a suit's mind that they'd unfortunately somehow view
LoTR AND Crusade fully alive again on the channel at the same time as
"oversaturating" their channel with B5 shows. I hope that's not the case.)?
I hope you're not too tired to also see Crusade float back to the stars
where it belongs IMHO with the Ranger series so we can see how you would
have blown both us and yourself away with the two scripts that you feel
would have helped make yourself feel even better about the direction the
core 5 episodes had. Anyways, glad things are going so well for you now
with all the new projects and that you can look back on the trial as a
valuable renewal process. I definitely know how that feels myself.

Dylan H.

Brandon Wolgast

unread,
Apr 20, 2001, 9:45:27 AM4/20/01
to
I hate to say this, but I really believe it has been painfully obvious
Crusade has been gone for good since it was originally stopped. While I
agree I would love to see it come back, it simply will not do so, and I
never thought it would. I think this, among other things, is JMS
"confirming" that.

Brandon

Mac Breck

unread,
Apr 20, 2001, 10:01:36 AM4/20/01
to
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dylan Hankel" <dyl...@ndak.net>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: So, jms, does this mean that.....


> .....there is even less of a chance for Crusade to get revived by Sci Fi?
I
> mean, just in light of the fact that you seem a bit less enthusiastic
about
> it now after having what can now be viewed from the ordeal as a very
needed
> rest period for you. If Sci Fi came up to you and said they were so
pleased
> with the ratings from the Crusade re-run that they'd like to revive the
show
> would you wholeheartedly agree and hand it over to Fiona Avery and your
> other trusted associates or do you think one new B5 related series (TLoTR)
> is as much as you AND Sci Fi could handle (I just get this feeling trying
to
> think what goes on in a suit's mind that they'd unfortunately somehow view
> LoTR AND Crusade fully alive again on the channel at the same time as
> "oversaturating" their channel with B5 shows. I hope that's not the
case.)?

I don't know if it's "possible" to oversaturate the channel with B5 related
series. :-)

Besides, who knows how long they're going to run B5 without a break?

> I hope you're not too tired to also see Crusade float back to the stars
> where it belongs IMHO with the Ranger series so we can see how you would
> have blown both us and yourself away with the two scripts that you feel
> would have helped make yourself feel even better about the direction the
> core 5 episodes had.

Me too. I'd *love* to see To the Ends of the Earth" and "End of the Line"
produced. I'd also love to see "Hidden Agendas" (the short story) get into
B5:LotR. Fun times could be ahead!
:-)


Mac Breck
----------------
Vorlon Empire
Defender of Marcus and Lennier

Watch "CRUSADE"
8 PM on The Sci-Fi Channel
Mon-Thurs. in April 2001, beginning 4/9


James Bell

unread,
Apr 20, 2001, 10:05:47 AM4/20/01
to
I'd personally be happy with a wrap-up of Crusade through a series of 2-hour
movies. It would be nice to see the series go on but *any* sort of closure
would be better than nothing.

Jim

"Dylan Hankel" <dyl...@ndak.net> wrote in message
news:tdusq0h...@corp.supernews.com...

James Bell

unread,
Apr 20, 2001, 10:12:53 AM4/20/01
to
So when Joe posts this:

>>>I take the tone of your email to imply that there is ZERO chance of
Crusade ever making a come back. Is Crusades truly dead?
> Or is there still a glimmer of hope someplace?
>
It doesn't have anything to do with that one way or t'other.
jms>>>

What is he confirming? If Joe wasn't holding out some hope of finishing the
story, he would have said so long since in clear and precise language. He
has refused to do so even in vague generalities. You are free to read
between the lines all you like but there is nothing to support the
contention that jms doesn't intend to finish his story.

Now, chances have always been slim-to-none that Crusade gets renewed.
However, the chances are better now than they have ever been and if there
was ever a time for hope, this is it.

Jim


"Brandon Wolgast" <bwol...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:RXKD6.38687$o9.82...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...

Mac Breck

unread,
Apr 20, 2001, 10:36:43 AM4/20/01
to
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Bell" <jam...@naxs.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: ATTN JMS: Crusade - how do you think you did?


> So when Joe posts this:
>
> >>>I take the tone of your email to imply that there is ZERO chance of
> Crusade ever making a come back. Is Crusades truly dead?
> > Or is there still a glimmer of hope someplace?
> >
> It doesn't have anything to do with that one way or t'other.
> jms>>>
>
> What is he confirming? If Joe wasn't holding out some hope of finishing
the
> story, he would have said so long since in clear and precise language. He
> has refused to do so even in vague generalities. You are free to read
> between the lines all you like but there is nothing to support the
> contention that jms doesn't intend to finish his story.
>
> Now, chances have always been slim-to-none that Crusade gets renewed.
> However, the chances are better now than they have ever been and if there
> was ever a time for hope, this is it.
>
> Jim

Agreed. JMS is just saying that the tone of his post and Crusade's chances
for revival are unrelated. Crusade's chances for revival *are* related to
what Nielsen Numbers it gets on Sci-Fi, and "probably" how many letters
Sci-Fi gets asking for more (as in NEW) episodes of Crusade after the last
episode airs on 4/30.

Andrew

unread,
Apr 20, 2001, 10:37:50 AM4/20/01
to
"Pål Are Nordal" <a_b...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:3AE021E2...@bigfoot.com...

> Dave Thomer wrote:
> >
> > I always wondered how much fatigue might have factored into Crusade,
> > particularly once things got hairy. Thanks for sharing this. It does
raise
> > one question: how the heck are you going to stop it from happening
again?
>
> He isn't as close to the stories as he was with B5, and they aren't as
> meticulously planned. I trust there will be a writing staff on both shows.

My wish list (for a staff shared between both shows): Fiona Avery, Peter
David, Kathryn M. Drennan, Harlan Ellison, *maybe* D.C. Fontana, and
Lawrence G. DiTilitio.

Plus, of course, the half or so of each series written by JMS...

Andrew
==================================================
Well, Ambassador, what *do* you want? It's impolite to just tell me "They

aren't for you," and walk off...


Rob Scott

unread,
Apr 20, 2001, 10:50:47 AM4/20/01
to
"James Bell" <jam...@naxs.com> wrote in message
news:9bpfnn$f0a$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu...

> I'd personally be happy with a wrap-up of Crusade through a series of
2-hour
> movies. It would be nice to see the series go on but *any* sort of
closure
> would be better than nothing.

That's not a bad idea. It also might be possible to have "crossover"
episodes within the Rangers series and bring back the Crusade crew for a
while.

BTW, I hope this does not approach a story idea in any way, since I did not
suggest a story line for such an episode.

- Rob Scott


Tammy Smith

unread,
Apr 20, 2001, 11:47:49 AM4/20/01
to
I doubt that JMS would just completely abandon Crusade. He set up the
whole premise, so why would he just discard it without finishing it?
It's part of the whole B5 saga. I think he just needed time away from
the pressures of TV for awhile. He doesn't hate Crusade--he just hated
the battles he had with TNT.

I hope that JMS will be able to have fun now with his various
projects--he deserves it!

Tammy


Mac Breck

unread,
Apr 20, 2001, 11:53:54 AM4/20/01
to
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tammy Smith" <gka...@webtv.net>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 11:47 AM
Subject: Re: So, jms, does this mean that.....

> I doubt that JMS would just completely abandon Crusade. He set up the
> whole premise, so why would he just discard it without finishing it?
> It's part of the whole B5 saga. I think he just needed time away from
> the pressures of TV for awhile. He doesn't hate Crusade--he just hated
> the battles he had with TNT.


I don't know how they were able to produce as good of a show as they did
with Crusade, given the awful working environment it had to be for JMS.

Pål Are Nordal

unread,
Apr 20, 2001, 11:59:45 AM4/20/01
to
James Bell wrote:
>
> I'd personally be happy with a wrap-up of Crusade through a series of 2-hour
> movies. It would be nice to see the series go on but *any* sort of closure
> would be better than nothing.

I strongly disagree. If you do a token "wrap-up" Crusade, that will be
all there is. Without it, there is what could have been...

Jessica L. Price

unread,
Apr 20, 2001, 12:12:04 PM4/20/01
to

"Mac Breck" <macb...@access995.com> wrote in message
news:022e01c0c9a7$862a3b90

| > So when Joe posts this:
| >
| > >>>I take the tone of your email to imply that there is ZERO chance of
| > Crusade ever making a come back. Is Crusades truly dead?
| > > Or is there still a glimmer of hope someplace?
| > >
| > It doesn't have anything to do with that one way or t'other.
| > jms>>>
| >
| > What is he confirming? If Joe wasn't holding out some hope of finishing
| the
| > story, he would have said so long since in clear and precise language.
He
| > has refused to do so even in vague generalities. You are free to read
| > between the lines all you like but there is nothing to support the
| > contention that jms doesn't intend to finish his story.
| >
| > Now, chances have always been slim-to-none that Crusade gets renewed.
| > However, the chances are better now than they have ever been and if
there
| > was ever a time for hope, this is it.
| >
| > Jim
|
|
|
| Agreed. JMS is just saying that the tone of his post and Crusade's
chances
| for revival are unrelated. Crusade's chances for revival *are* related to
| what Nielsen Numbers it gets on Sci-Fi, and "probably" how many letters
| Sci-Fi gets asking for more (as in NEW) episodes of Crusade after the last
| episode airs on 4/30.

In addition, there *was* the tantalizing:

">I heard a rumor that the main reason there won't be any new Crusade
>episodes is that the cast can't be reassembled.

Untrue.

>I doubt this is the
>reason, since SFC will probably want to wait for the ratings breakdowns
>first, see how things are going to go, then crank up new episodes if it
>looks good.

That would certainly be the more logical approach.


jms"

Pål Are Nordal

unread,
Apr 20, 2001, 12:20:46 PM4/20/01
to
Andrew wrote:
>
> My wish list (for a staff shared between both shows): Fiona Avery, Peter
> David, Kathryn M. Drennan, Harlan Ellison, *maybe* D.C. Fontana, and
> Lawrence G. DiTilitio.

There are pretty decent writers out there who haven't worked on B5 yet, y'know...

(And you should remember that being on staff at a show is a different
beast than being a freelancer, and someone doing one of them may not be
interested in doing the other).

Joseph DeMartino

unread,
Apr 20, 2001, 12:34:29 PM4/20/01
to
And when asked if the "Rangers" deal meant that Sci-Fi was no longer
interested in "Crusade" JMS made the point that "Rangers" was a "B5" project
based on "B5"'s ratings, while "Crusade" was its own project and hadn't
even aired (at that point) on Sci-Fi. So the one had no impact on the
other. If ever there was a chance for throwing cold water on the idea of a
"Crusade" revival, that was it and JMS didn't take it.

Even before "B5" debuted on the Sci-Fi Channel it was clear that a) Sci-Fi
was interested in the whole "B5" universe and future projects from JMS and
b) that there was a plan in place for testing "B5", etc. "on their air."
Finally it was clear that Sci-Fi was going to take a one-step-at-a-time
approach to the whole thing.

They bought the rights to the "B5" reruns but pointedly did *not* buy the
"Crusade" rights at the same time. JMS "predicted" a time-line when this
happened: Sci-Fi would run "B5" all the way through to see what the ratings
were like, then they'd acquire to "Crusade" and see how *it* did, and after
that anything was possible. He also noted (in mid-2000) that even if Sci-Fi
wanted to revive "Crusade" time table for airing both sets of reruns and the
logistics of putting the show back together probably meant that it couldn't
go back into production any sooner than the Spring of 2002.

That means that "Crusade" season two (or a completed season one depending on
how they handle things) could be set in 2267 and would debut in the Fall of
2002 - along with the second season of "Rangers" If the "Rangers" pilot is
set in late 2265 and the first season in 2266, season two would likely be
set in 2267. I don't think any of this is a coincidence. Rather I think it
is typical JMS contingency planning, which I don't think he'd bother with if
*he* had written off any chance of "Crusade" returning.

He's just not going to say anything until there is something concrete to say
something *about*. But I'm sure that further "Crusade" stories have been
part of the conversations between JMS and Sci-Fi *from the beginning*, since
they very much wanted both the "B5" reruns and "Crusade" back in 1999, and
that "Crusade" is still an option.

One of the arguments against reviving "Crusade" is that it is "damaged
goods" - a failure on another network. Of course, if Sci-Fi launches an
original "Rangers" series and it is successful, then "Crusade" could be sold
as simply another "new" "B5" spin-off, removing much of this patina of
"failure."

Regards,

Joe

Pål Are Nordal

unread,
Apr 20, 2001, 12:53:21 PM4/20/01
to
Joseph DeMartino wrote:
>
> One of the arguments against reviving "Crusade" is that it is "damaged
> goods" - a failure on another network.

Like Sliders and Poltergeist: The Legacy?

E. John Roth III

unread,
Apr 20, 2001, 1:11:56 PM4/20/01
to
Jms at B5 wrote:

Joe were the Oracle of Delphi in a former life?

Lisa Coulter

unread,
Apr 20, 2001, 3:37:18 PM4/20/01
to
In article <3ae049c8$0$12829$1dc6...@news.corecomm.net>, Andrew says...
>
>"P=E5l Are Nordal" <a_b...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message

>news:3AE021E2...@bigfoot.com...
>> Dave Thomer wrote:
>> >
>> > I always wondered how much fatigue might have factored into Crusade,
>> > particularly once things got hairy. Thanks for sharing this. It doe=

>s
>raise
>> > one question: how the heck are you going to stop it from happening
>again?
>>
>> He isn't as close to the stories as he was with B5, and they aren't as
>> meticulously planned. I trust there will be a writing staff on both sho=

>ws.
>
>My wish list (for a staff shared between both shows): Fiona Avery, Peter
>David, Kathryn M. Drennan, Harlan Ellison, *maybe* D.C. Fontana, and
>Lawrence G. DiTilitio.
>
>Plus, of course, the half or so of each series written by JMS...
>
>Andrew


Neil Gainan! Neil Gainan! Neil Gainan!

(Did I say I loved Day of the Dead? Sure you'd never guess ;-) )

I know he is a mainline SF / fantasy author, but if he'd do 1 - 2 eps per
season....whoa!

Lisa
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Andrew Timson

unread,
Apr 20, 2001, 3:49:53 PM4/20/01
to
"Lisa Coulter" <lisa_c...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:zd0E6.4624$D4.4...@www.newsranger.com...

> In article <3ae049c8$0$12829$1dc6...@news.corecomm.net>, Andrew says...
> >
> >"P=E5l Are Nordal" <a_b...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> >news:3AE021E2...@bigfoot.com...
> >> Dave Thomer wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I always wondered how much fatigue might have factored into Crusade,
> >> > particularly once things got hairy. Thanks for sharing this. It
doe=
> >s
> >raise
> >> > one question: how the heck are you going to stop it from happening
> >again?
> >>
> >> He isn't as close to the stories as he was with B5, and they aren't as
> >> meticulously planned. I trust there will be a writing staff on both
sho=
> >ws.
> >
> >My wish list (for a staff shared between both shows): Fiona Avery, Peter
> >David, Kathryn M. Drennan, Harlan Ellison, *maybe* D.C. Fontana, and
> >Lawrence G. DiTilitio.
> >
> >Plus, of course, the half or so of each series written by JMS...
> >
> >Andrew
>
>
> Neil Gainan! Neil Gainan! Neil Gainan!
>
> (Did I say I loved Day of the Dead? Sure you'd never guess ;-) )
>
> I know he is a mainline SF / fantasy author, but if he'd do 1 - 2 eps per
> season....whoa!

It'd be easier for him to be a freelancer and do that, but I wouldn't mind
his return.

Oh, and it's Neil Gaiman, not Gainan.

Andrew
==================================================

Andrew Timson

unread,
Apr 20, 2001, 4:00:00 PM4/20/01
to
"Pål Are Nordal" <a_b...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:3AE061CC...@bigfoot.com...

> Andrew wrote:
> >
> > My wish list (for a staff shared between both shows): Fiona Avery, Peter
> > David, Kathryn M. Drennan, Harlan Ellison, *maybe* D.C. Fontana, and
> > Lawrence G. DiTilitio.
>
> There are pretty decent writers out there who haven't worked on B5 yet,
y'know...

I have yet to see the TV work of one of them, with the exception of Chris
Carter (who's a tad busy right now).

> (And you should remember that being on staff at a show is a different
> beast than being a freelancer, and someone doing one of them may not be
> interested in doing the other).

True, although five of the six were already regular workers (and for four,
writers) on a show (Avery was on Crusade, PD had his own show with Bill
Mumy, Ellison... did something on B5, and Fontana and DiTilitio were both
story editors). So it's not too much of a stretch for them. Ms. Drennan, on
the other hand, has written three scripts, period. She is probably unlikely
to be a staff writer.

Please note, though, that it was called a wish list. As in what I want. Not
what is likely.

Andrew Timson

unread,
Apr 20, 2001, 4:01:24 PM4/20/01
to
"Pål Are Nordal" <a_b...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:3AE05CEA...@bigfoot.com...

> James Bell wrote:
> >
> > I'd personally be happy with a wrap-up of Crusade through a series of
2-hour
> > movies. It would be nice to see the series go on but *any* sort of
closure
> > would be better than nothing.
>
> I strongly disagree. If you do a token "wrap-up" Crusade, that will be
> all there is. Without it, there is what could have been...

How about 47 2-hour movies and 1 3-hour movie?

Matthew Vincent

unread,
Apr 20, 2001, 8:57:04 PM4/20/01
to
On 20 Apr 2001 06:45:27 -0700, "Brandon Wolgast" <bwol...@cfl.rr.com>
wrote:

>I hate to say this, but I really believe it has been painfully obvious
>Crusade has been gone for good since it was originally stopped. While I
>agree I would love to see it come back, it simply will not do so, and I
>never thought it would. I think this, among other things, is JMS
>"confirming" that.

I try not to ignore the truth when it's inconvenient, and I can
appreciate where you're coming from. However, perhaps your pessimism
is unwarranted in this particular situation. JMS would tell us if it
was over as a certainty - I fully believe that. He has said it could
go either way, so let's stick with that until we hear otherwise. JMS
tends to work on multiple projects at once, and often leaves them for
a while with the intention of maybe returning to them later (like the
City of Dreams). He likes to leave his options open and not burn
bridges. Right now, he's too busy with Legend of the Rangers to turn
his attention to Crusade, but it's not beyond possibility that he
might try a 2nd season of Crusade in the future, especially now that
things are going well due to the Sci-Fi channel. The previous episodes
of Crusade were clearly written with this possibility in mind. Let's
not jump to conclusions - it could still go either way.

Matthew


Duggy (Paul A Duggan)

unread,
Apr 20, 2001, 9:25:37 PM4/20/01
to
On 20 Apr 2001, James Bell wrote:

> I'd personally be happy with a wrap-up of Crusade through a series of 2-hour
> movies. It would be nice to see the series go on but *any* sort of closure
> would be better than nothing.

What about crossovers with B5LR in a few years time...

---
- Dug.
---
The E-mail of the species is more deadly than the mail.
---


Lisa Coulter

unread,
Apr 20, 2001, 9:59:41 PM4/20/01
to
In article <3AE05CEA...@bigfoot.com>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E5l?= Are Nordal
says...
>
>James Bell wrote:
>>=20
>> I'd personally be happy with a wrap-up of Crusade through a series of 2=
>-hour
>> movies. It would be nice to see the series go on but *any* sort of clo=

>sure
>> would be better than nothing.
>
>I strongly disagree. If you do a token "wrap-up" Crusade, that will be
>all there is. Without it, there is what could have been...
>
>--=20

>Donate free food with a simple click: http://www.thehungersite.com/
>
>P=E5l Are Nordal
>