SFC management

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Sven Olafsson

unread,
Apr 7, 2002, 3:36:12 PM4/7/02
to
You know the people who run the SF channel, are they actually
interested in SF or just doing their job? Do they understand what
they are selling, or simply examine the balancesheet and make
decisions based on a tinsel-town formula? I refer you to 2000AD, a
British SF comic (home of Judge Dredd), created by people who had
passion for it back in 1977. Pat Mills & John Wagner fought against
odds not disimilar to those JMS has been fighing. 2000AD almost got
closed down a few times, yet they fought on. They had interference
from low-brow managerial types who *wanted* it to fail. The reason
they wanted it to fail was two-fold: playing silly political games
and they didn't understand it.

Even if the readers loved a story, management would bugger it up, tone
it down, remove any overtly political comments or themes.

Why is it, I see the same thing happening to B5+? Same bookie,
different odds?

The beautiful thing about 2000AD is that is got bought by people who
appreciated it; Rebellion. People who had admired it and wanted to
hit the fanbase which was decimated in the 90s (the dark era). It has
become so fantastic of late, I've subscribed to it and their sister
mag. The creators are allowed to think for themselves again and
management backs them (even if there are one or two little squabbles.)

Hence my question: does the SFC management actually *care* about SF?
Anyone know?

Sven.

James Bell

unread,
Apr 7, 2002, 10:37:00 PM4/7/02
to

Sven Olafsson wrote:

> You know the people who run the SF channel, are they actually
> interested in SF or just doing their job? Do they understand what
> they are selling, or simply examine the balancesheet and make

> decisions based on a tinsel-town formula? <snip>


>
> Hence my question: does the SFC management actually *care* about SF?
> Anyone know?

I don't know for certain but I can guess. A small minority of the
management actually care about SF. The majority don't know the difference
between SF and SciFi, nor do they want to.

Jim

Chris Schumacher

unread,
Apr 7, 2002, 11:38:57 PM4/7/02
to
On 7 Apr 2002 12:36:12 -0700, sven_o...@e-mailanywhere.com (Sven
Olafsson) wrote:

>You know the people who run the SF channel, are they actually
>interested in SF or just doing their job? Do they understand what
>they are selling, or simply examine the balancesheet and make
>decisions based on a tinsel-town formula? I refer you to 2000AD, a
>British SF comic (home of Judge Dredd), created by people who had
>passion for it back in 1977.

The funny thing is that it was Warrior, which lasted about two years,
that really ended up changing the world; not 2000AD.

-==Kensu==-

Laura Appelbaum

unread,
Apr 8, 2002, 12:51:39 AM4/8/02
to
"James Bell" <jam...@naxs.com> wrote in message
news:3CB1024B...@naxs.com...

>
> > I don't know for certain but I can guess. A small minority of the
> management actually care about SF. The majority don't know the difference
> between SF and SciFi, nor do they want to.

Well, you might also want to note that the station is actually called the
"Sci Fi Channel" NOT the "SF Channel." So I don't know that it's so much a
question of them caring or knowing about SF or the fact that they've never
claimed to be dedicated to sf -- but to sci fi. (Where all the horror movie
shit comes in to that picture is beyond me, but I'm looking forward to
seeing the rest of the DUNE miniseries, as well as to some of the other
projects they say are in the works -- Amber (don't remember much of it now,
but my oh my, was I in love with Zelazny's stuff twenty years ago when I was
in high school and college), The Left Hand of Darkness, Riverworld, etc.)

LMA

Mac Breck

unread,
Apr 8, 2002, 2:39:15 PM4/8/02
to
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sven Olafsson" <sven_o...@e-mailanywhere.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 3:36 PM
Subject: SFC management


> You know the people who run the SF channel, are they actually
> interested in SF or just doing their job?

The latter, if you assume that their job is to earn more money for their
channel in *any way possible*. Their latest announcements show that they
have the amazing ability to go off half-cocked (reactionary) against
perceived stereotypes, and in doing so make those stereotypes *worse*, and
hurt space-based sci-fi and sci-fi in general, in the long run. However,
they care nothing for the long run, only the short term. So, it will be
band-aid solutions upon band-aid solutions (cheap crap that will generate
profits even if the ratings are poor, sprinkled with a couple high budget
things to not make it look so obvious), instead of trying to make a serious
attempt at space sci-fi (e.g. with Crusade).

It looks like TLaDiS suffered from a lack of time to develop a script, a
lack of resources (the B5/Crusade CGI files), and lack of time to re-develop
the CGI that was lost. They were under time pressure to produce something
before it could be affected by the looming strikes.


> Do they understand what
> they are selling,

No, and they don't care either.

> or simply examine the balancesheet and make
> decisions based on a tinsel-town formula?

That's it!


> I refer you to 2000AD, a
> British SF comic (home of Judge Dredd), created by people who had
> passion for it back in 1977. Pat Mills & John Wagner fought against
> odds not disimilar to those JMS has been fighing. 2000AD almost got
> closed down a few times, yet they fought on. They had interference
> from low-brow managerial types who *wanted* it to fail. The reason
> they wanted it to fail was two-fold: playing silly political games
> and they didn't understand it.

I've always found that the things that management types didn't understand
(just couldn't wrap their brain around), they always classified as
"unimportant." After all, if it was important, they'd understand it. <s>
See if they admitted that they couldn't understand something that was
important, they'd be admiting a weakness, and their value would be
diminished.


> Even if the readers loved a story, management would bugger it up, tone
> it down, remove any overtly political comments or themes.
>
> Why is it, I see the same thing happening to B5+? Same bookie,
> different odds?

Cross-pollination and/or influence of people from TNT?

> The beautiful thing about 2000AD is that is got bought by people who
> appreciated it; Rebellion. People who had admired it and wanted to
> hit the fanbase which was decimated in the 90s (the dark era).

or 1999-2002 for B5.

> It has
> become so fantastic of late, I've subscribed to it and their sister
> mag. The creators are allowed to think for themselves again and
> management backs them (even if there are one or two little squabbles.)
>
> Hence my question: does the SFC management actually *care* about SF?
> Anyone know?

I doubt they care about SF at all. The few good things in their latest
press releases are there probably because they were shiny and sounded good
(like new management catch-phrases in a meeting), or fit the tinsel-town
formula (cheap enough to make back money even if the ratings are dismal).


Mac Breck
------------------------
Vorlon Empire

http://www.scifi.com/b5rangers/ http://www.b5lr.com/


James Bell

unread,
Apr 8, 2002, 3:04:34 PM4/8/02
to

"Laura Appelbaum" <l-app...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ub2867l...@corp.supernews.com...

But that was the question asked.

They don't do a lot of Sci Fi, either, for that matter.

Jim


MediaSavant

unread,
Apr 8, 2002, 5:40:34 PM4/8/02
to
sven_o...@e-mailanywhere.com (Sven Olafsson) wrote in message news:<b60f7059.02040...@posting.google.com>...

Some people may remember the name of Tom Vitale who was mentioned by
JMS when Crusade was shopped to SciFi a few weeks years ago.
Recently, a Farscape website got an interview with him. You should
check it out because the topic of him and other executives being fans
came up:

http://www.farscapeworld.com/interviews/int/scifitom.shtml

At last year's Worldcon, I had a Kaffeklatch with Craig Engler, who
runs scifi.com. I can vouch that he is a fan.

Unless you actually meet and talk to people, I wouldn't make any
assumptions about their backgrounds.

But, let's be real. The main thing that keeps any TV executive in
their jobs is to get good ratings that sell advertising. So, no
matter how much they "care about SF" (whatever that means), it has to
be done within the context of their true objective.

You may want to put on the purest SF you can think of, but if few
people are going to watch it, you can't keep it on for long.

That applies to any network. If you are running ESPN and you love
polo, you still can't put on polo unless enough people watch it.

DD

Jeanne Douglas

unread,
Apr 8, 2002, 8:08:50 PM4/8/02
to
In article <010e01c1df2c$b0a76500$19d5c997@MACBRECK>,
"Mac Breck" <macb...@access995.com> wrote:
> From: "Sven Olafsson" <sven_o...@e-mailanywhere.com>

>
> > or simply examine the balancesheet and make
> > decisions based on a tinsel-town formula?
>
> That's it!

Sorta. Got to remember that all the studios & networks are now part of
huge conglomerates so the ultimate decision-makers are even further away
from the creative process than they were before all the mega-mergers.
The studios always had their bean-counters (who kept the creative types
under some control since the purpose of a business IS to make money,
after all), but the creative people weren't considered the necessary
evil they seem to be thought of today--they were seen as the reason they
were all there, but just needed to have their craziest (& most
expensive) impulses moderated.

Similar thing is happening in other divisions--take, for example, the
Atlanta Braves baseball team since Ted Turner sold out to Time-Warner.
The team was one of the most successful teams in the 90s (they've won 10
division titles in a row--a record in any major league sport in North
America), in large part due to a successful group of scouts to find
future players. Time-Warner bean counters, looking only at the
short-term, forced them to gut their scouting staff to give a boost to
the bottom line. We'll see what effect this has on the team's future as
their stars continue aging and start retiring and they don't have enough
good players to replace them.

Nowadays, the people in control at most corporations don't make a
distinction between a tv show & a widget--it's all product and it all
gets treated as if there were no difference between them.

JD

"I see great things in baseball. It's our game, the American game.
It will repair our losses and be a blessing to us."-- Walt Whitman

Jms at B5

unread,
Apr 9, 2002, 8:54:02 PM4/9/02
to
>It looks like TLaDiS suffered from a lack of time to develop a script, a
>lack of resources (the B5/Crusade CGI files), and lack of time to re-develop
>the CGI that was lost. They were under time pressure to produce something
>before it could be affected by the looming strikes.

Not true.

The script worked fine, the CGI worked fine, the time constraints were not an
issue.

What killed us was the football playoffs. That is a matter of record.

They were hoping the show would do a 2.7 or 2.6 to get picked up. In *every
market* where we weren't up against the highest-rasted football game in ten
years, we pulled those numbers or better, in some places hitting a 3.1, which
is just about unheard of for SFC. Those numbers came in because the show
*worked*.

But we lost the east coast and most of the midwest to the game. When you
averaged it all out, we got a 1.7 or thereabouts. The SFC knows why, we know
why, it's not like that's an issue, and we *gained viewers* as the show went
along, which only happens if the show -- script, CGI, performances -- works.
But in TV, the overall number is the overall number, and it's hard for a
network to get past that, especially in dealing with advertisers.

If we'd aired on any other night of the week, there would be a LoTR series in
prep right now.

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)


Michael J Wise

unread,
Apr 9, 2002, 10:21:50 PM4/9/02
to
Jms at B5 wrote:

> If we'd aired on any other night of the week, there would be a LoTR
> series in prep right now.

Is there any hope of a re-broadcast, or should I break the tab on that
tape, 'cause it's the last time it'll ever see the light of day?

Aloha mai Nai`a!
--
"Please have your Internet License http://kapu.net/~mjwise/
and Usenet Registration handy..."


Kathryn Huxtable

unread,
Apr 9, 2002, 10:44:56 PM4/9/02
to
jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) writes:
> What killed us was the football playoffs. That is a matter of record.

So the real villains are those who perpetrated the massacres of
September 11, since that's what moved the playoffs, right?

-K, who doesn't really like one size fits all villains

Mike Ross

unread,
Apr 10, 2002, 12:28:48 AM4/10/02
to
On 10 Apr 2002 00:54:02 GMT, jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:

snip...


>If we'd aired on any other night of the week, there would be a LoTR series in
>prep right now.

So what Mind of Power made that scheduling decision???!!! Cock-up or
conspiracy? If Sci-Fi had any real interest in Rangers, couldn't they
simply re-screen the show and aggregate the numbers or finagle it
somehow? Or even comission a second pilot, if they really believe in
it, but *must* have better numbers for the advertisers? Hell, Trek:TOS
got two bites at the cherry...

I refuse to accept that Rangers was killed by some dumb frigging
football game.

Mike
http://www.corestore.org
Rangers Catering Corps - 'we boil for the One, we fry for the One'

Jonathan Biggar

unread,
Apr 10, 2002, 2:04:42 AM4/10/02
to
Jms at B5 wrote:
> If we'd aired on any other night of the week, there would be a LoTR series in
> prep right now.

Makes you wonder if someone wanted to sabotage LoTR.

I'm upset because they've only shown LoTR once. Doubly upset because my
daughter screwed up the recording by canceling the program on the
satellite receiver and I haven't had a chance to see LoTR at all.

--
Jon Biggar
Floorboard Software
j...@floorboard.com
j...@biggar.org

Mac Breck

unread,
Apr 10, 2002, 7:58:48 AM4/10/02
to
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kathryn Huxtable" <kat...@kathrynhuxtable.org>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 10:44 PM
Subject: Re: SFC management


> jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) writes:
> > What killed us was the football playoffs. That is a matter of record.
>
> So the real villains are those who perpetrated the massacres of
> September 11, since that's what moved the playoffs, right?

Same guys responsible for the current "problems" with the "Crusade" name.

Mac Breck

unread,
Apr 10, 2002, 11:00:20 AM4/10/02
to
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 8:54 PM
Subject: Re: SFC management

> >It looks like TLaDiS suffered from a lack of time to develop a script, a
> >lack of resources (the B5/Crusade CGI files), and lack of time to
re-develop
> >the CGI that was lost. They were under time pressure to produce
something
> >before it could be affected by the looming strikes.
>
> Not true.
>
> The script worked fine, the CGI worked fine, the time constraints were not
an
> issue.

It looks like it, to me, based upon your comments about W.B. losing the CGI
(which you had to work around), and the things that came out of nowhere,
which as a longtime B5 viewer didn't feel right/felt foreign:

1. The absurdly strict Minbari "We don't break off. Those are the rules. We
follow and we never stop." and "We don't break off from combat, no matter
the reason." The Ranger vessels are not Shadow Battlecrabs, after all. I'd
have loved to hear how that Minbari on the Enfali would have finished his
reply: "No. We can still..."

Still what? Ram a raider fighter? They're much more manueverable, and the
Enfali made no manuevers that we saw. It continued in a straight line and
was a lumbering target, around which the raiders swarmed and fired.
Granted, we don't know the context of the battle, because we're sort of
thrown into the middle of it. Maybe the Minbari would have suggested that
they tail the raiders from a distance.and track them back to their
mothership, ... and what, transmit the info. back to Ranger HQ? Granted,
there could be reasonable explanations given, but on the surface, it looked
rough.

It's as if the "rules" are standing rules, not specific rules for a specific
mission. As standing rules, it makes no sense. It treats the Rangers as an
expendable product, something to be used up to accomplish a purpose, a tool,
not valued lives. It's more in line with how Shadows used Battlecrabs.

As specific rules for a specific mission, it makes more sense, but we're not
given the context in which it would make sense (like we were with Ericsson
in "The Long Night").

It's as if this rule was set up to be knocked down, to create dramatic
tension for David.


2. The Hand, and where they fall among the previous B5 lore (with respect to
Lorien and the First Ones). That G'Kar did not establish this in his
dialogue, felt like he'd forgotten about the Shadows, Lorien and the other
First Ones.

Regarding what I said in the first four lines of this post, I was just
trying to give you what I saw as a "reasonable" benefit of the doubt.


> What killed us was the football playoffs. That is a matter of record.
>
> They were hoping the show would do a 2.7 or 2.6 to get picked up. In
*every
> market* where we weren't up against the highest-rasted football game in
ten
> years, we pulled those numbers or better, in some places hitting a 3.1,
which
> is just about unheard of for SFC. Those numbers came in because the show
> *worked*.

It seemed like it worked best with newbies, not hardcore B5 fans, but that
was because of hardcore fans' expectations. All hardcore B5 fans I know
(admittedly not a large statistical sample), were less than thrilled with
TLaDiS when they first saw it (and we all cringe at the same moments). They
were all much more impressed with the "Racing the Night" episode of Crusade
(too bad it didn't get shown first on TNT). That said, most B5 universe
shows tend to grow on people more over time, with repeated viewings. The
only thing about TLaDiS is that those few "cringe moments" refuse to sand
down (sorry, woodworking term).


> But we lost the east coast and most of the midwest to the game. When you
> averaged it all out, we got a 1.7 or thereabouts. The SFC knows why, we
know
> why, it's not like that's an issue, and we *gained viewers* as the show
went
> along, which only happens if the show -- script, CGI, performances --
works.


I doubt that very many loyal B5 fans switched the channel or stopped their
VCRs. We stuck with it all the way through, out of *loyalty*, and wanting
to see the whole thing. Among non-B5 fans (not anti-B5 people, just "new
people"), it would mean just mean that you gained more viewers than you
lost, right? That is certainly good.


> But in TV, the overall number is the overall number, and it's hard for a
> network to get past that, especially in dealing with advertisers.
>
> If we'd aired on any other night of the week, there would be a LoTR series
in
> prep right now.

It's too bad Sci-Fi didn't resurrect Crusade, because there's pent up demand
for that (here, on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SavCrusade2x/ , on
http://www.b5lr.com/ ). Then again, maybe it's for the best, because they'd
probably have aired that against the football game, and there would be no
second comeback.

<swearing> What does it take for a B5 show to catch a break?


Lastly, I just want to say that I mean no disrespect by anything I've said
above. I'm just trying to present my POV, how it looked to me.


Mac Breck
------------------------
Vorlon Empire

http://www.scifi.com/b5rangers/ http://www.b5lr.com/


Tlsmith1963

unread,
Apr 9, 2002, 10:46:44 PM4/9/02
to
I find this to be extremely unfair. It wasn't Rangers' fault that it got
clobbered. Anything that SFC would have put up against the game would've
failed. I think we should write to Bonnie Hammer & tell her that she made a
huge mistake. TRhis is wrong, wrong, wrong!

Tammy

WRWhite963

unread,
Apr 10, 2002, 2:39:20 PM4/10/02
to

I wrote her in February...

Fat lot of good it did. (It was general comments: like to see a series, yada
yada, make sure to take a proper look at the advertising numbers, yada yada
yada...., thanks for supporting B5, etc.)

I couldn't have been the only one to write as soon as the ratings numbers were
known...

WRW

Jms at B5

unread,
Apr 10, 2002, 6:21:24 PM4/10/02
to
>Makes you wonder if someone wanted to sabotage LoTR.

No. The schedule was set prior to 9/11, and after the events of that day,
sports events got pushed, and the football playoff ended up on the day that had
been set aside for LoTR. Luck of the draw....

John R. Campbell

unread,
Apr 10, 2002, 9:15:46 PM4/10/02
to
On 10 Apr 2002 22:21:24 GMT, Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Makes you wonder if someone wanted to sabotage LoTR.
>
>No. The schedule was set prior to 9/11, and after the events of that day,
>sports events got pushed, and the football playoff ended up on the day that had
>been set aside for LoTR. Luck of the draw....

So, this is something _else_ we can blame Osama for? :-)

Sorry, my free-association mechanism kicked in and I couldn't
resist.

--
John R. Campbell Speaker to Machines so...@jtan.com
- As a SysAdmin, yes, I CAN read your e-mail, but I DON'T get that bored!
Disclaimer: All opinions expressed above are those of John R. Campbell
alone and are seriously unlikely to reflect the opinions of
his employer(s) or lackeys thereof. Anyone who says
differently is itching for a fight!

Voxwoman

unread,
Apr 10, 2002, 4:04:42 PM4/10/02
to
As if we didn't have enough to be pissed off about that event!

Cheryl Martin

unread,
Apr 11, 2002, 12:11:01 AM4/11/02
to
In article <00a901c1e0a0$7f2d29e0$23d5c997@MACBRECK>,

Mac Breck <macb...@access995.com> wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com>
>Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
>Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 8:54 PM
>Subject: Re: SFC management
>
>
>> >It looks like TLaDiS suffered from a lack of time to develop a script, a
>> >lack of resources (the B5/Crusade CGI files), and lack of time to
>re-develop
>> >the CGI that was lost. They were under time pressure to produce
>something
>> >before it could be affected by the looming strikes.
>>
>> Not true.
>>
>> The script worked fine, the CGI worked fine, the time constraints were not
>an
>> issue.

AAGGGHHHGGHH!!! STOP IT!

*pant*pant* Wish I had known this thread would need to be hand moderated.

Cheryl
(irritated)
--
*Moderator: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, soc.personals *
*Associate Moderator: sci.space.moderated *
*Personal: http://www.grumpywitch.org *
*Arizona Polyamory http://www.grumpywitch.org/azpoly.html *

Jonathan Biggar

unread,
Apr 11, 2002, 2:15:28 PM4/11/02
to
Jms at B5 wrote:
>
> >Makes you wonder if someone wanted to sabotage LoTR.
>
> No. The schedule was set prior to 9/11, and after the events of that day,
> sports events got pushed, and the football playoff ended up on the day that had
> been set aside for LoTR. Luck of the draw....

Well, it's not like they didn't have several months to figure out that
they were going to have a conflict and rejigger the schedule. But for
that, I'm willing to chalk it up to incompetence.

Mac Breck

unread,
Apr 11, 2002, 6:40:12 PM4/11/02
to
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Biggar" <j...@floorboard.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: SFC management

> Jms at B5 wrote:
> >
> > >Makes you wonder if someone wanted to sabotage LoTR.
> >
> > No. The schedule was set prior to 9/11, and after the events of that
day,
> > sports events got pushed, and the football playoff ended up on the day
that had
> > been set aside for LoTR. Luck of the draw....
>
> Well, it's not like they didn't have several months to figure out that
> they were going to have a conflict and rejigger the schedule. But for
> that, I'm willing to chalk it up to incompetence.

Fine, it got nailed by a huge football game. Let's say it was outside of
Sci-Fi's control, i.e. they couldn't have moved it to a more favorable slot.
That's when you say there were extenuating circumstances, and you either air
it again, and see how it does, or you give it a chance and take it to series
(especially given JMS's track record for writing good stuff, and considering
the following that B5 has.

At the very least, they could have aired TLaDiS in place of one of the
seventeen billion reruns of Bride of Chucky.

Last night, just for the Hell of it, I checked what Sci-Fi was playing. I
wanted to see if I was missing anything. Nope.

7PM Star Trek (TOS, Errand of Mercy*) I've seen every TOS about a dozen
times. Naah, wouldn't have watched it.

8PM The Outer Limits (The Quality of Mercy* with Robert Patrick), I've seen
about a half dozen Outer Limits eps, and I've seen this one three times on
Sci-Fi. Must be a small rotation.

9PM Robocop3. Saw it. No need to see it again. It was probably "formatted
to fit my screen, and edited six ways from Sunday for time, content, extra
commercials, etc., etc.

11PM Crossing Over with John Edward. I wouldn't be caught dead watching this
dren. I'd rather have bamboo shoots put under my fingernails.

11:30PM Crossing Over with John Edward. See 11PM.

Yep, no room for TLaDiS there. The schedule was just jam packed with new
stuff. <S>

*Must have been "mercy night."

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)


At the very least


Kurt Ullman

unread,
Apr 11, 2002, 7:25:24 PM4/11/02
to
In article <001a01c1e1a9$da61a700$3dd5c997@MACBRECK>, "Mac Breck"
<macb...@access995.com> wrote:
>----- Original Message -----

>9PM Robocop3. Saw it. No need to see it again. It was probably "formatted
>to fit my screen, and edited six ways from Sunday for time, content, extra
>commercials, etc., etc.
>

I stumbled across this one. It was sorta funky at the start seeing Brdley
Whitford (The West Wing) and Jill Hennessey (Law/Order and Crossing Jordan)
when they looked to be about 12 or 13 (g).

------------------------------
"I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe." -Marcus Cole- Babylon 5

Mac Breck

unread,
Apr 11, 2002, 7:33:10 PM4/11/02
to
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kurt Ullman" <kurtu...@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 7:25 PM
Subject: Re: SFC management

> In article <001a01c1e1a9$da61a700$3dd5c997@MACBRECK>, "Mac Breck"
> <macb...@access995.com> wrote:
> >----- Original Message -----
>
> >9PM Robocop3. Saw it. No need to see it again. It was probably
"formatted
> >to fit my screen, and edited six ways from Sunday for time, content,
extra
> >commercials, etc., etc.
> >
> I stumbled across this one. It was sorta funky at the start seeing
Brdley
> Whitford (The West Wing) and Jill Hennessey (Law/Order and Crossing
Jordan)
> when they looked to be about 12 or 13 (g).

Check out "True Lies." Arnold's daughter is Eliza Dushku. Boy has she
grown up. ;) Then there's Alyson Hannigan in "My Stepmother is an Alien."
Check 'em both out on Buffy/Angel.

Kurt Ullman

unread,
Apr 11, 2002, 3:05:12 PM4/11/02
to
In article <3CB5D2B9...@floorboard.com>, Jonathan Biggar
<j...@floorboard.com> wrote:
>Jms at B5 wrote:
>>
>> >Makes you wonder if someone wanted to sabotage LoTR.
>>
>> No. The schedule was set prior to 9/11, and after the events of that day,
>> sports events got pushed, and the football playoff ended up on the day that
> had
>> been set aside for LoTR. Luck of the draw....
>
>Well, it's not like they didn't have several months to figure out that
>they were going to have a conflict and rejigger the schedule. But for
>that, I'm willing to chalk it up to incompetence.
>
Especially since they already had. Wasn't it originally scheduled for 1-2
and then moved around well past 9-11? I know it was originally planned for
right after the first of the year because I remember planning to redo the VCR
programming so I did not record NYE &D's programming and run out of tape d/t
my wife's soaps while on our vacation(g).

Blake Freeburg

unread,
Apr 11, 2002, 6:15:09 PM4/11/02
to
OK, so we got the luck of the draw, but I think that it was also
the 'not developed here' attitude. Wasn't there some WB/USA Studio
type ownership issues that the lack of ratings (short sightedness)
would exhasterbate?

So another slant, couldn't we try to get WB (they still own it,
right?) put it up on the WB (ugh)....

- Blake
--
... esse quam videri
bla...@mrdata.com :email
30.444700 X -97.767200 :ICBM
http://www.mrdata.com/~blakef :web

Lucas Bachmann

unread,
Apr 11, 2002, 12:48:11 AM4/11/02
to

Ironic Legend of the Rangers was put out of its misery by
football, when as I recall Crusade was severely inconvenienced
by a basketball strike.

Lucas

Lucas Bachmann

unread,
Apr 11, 2002, 1:14:43 AM4/11/02
to

Jms at B5 wrote:

> > They were under time pressure to produce something
> >before it could be affected by the looming strikes.
>
> Not true.
>

Were the looming strikes the reason Crusade
wasn't put back together or did scifi really
want Rangers to be it's own story?

>
> The script worked fine,

It was no "A Call to Arms" or "In the Beginning." or even
"The Gathering" (which I very much liked, though some
people here didn't apparently).

> the CGI worked fine,

It gave me a splitting headache, visual continuity
should be worth something for a tv show since B5
has unmatched story continuity.

> Those numbers came in because the show
> *worked*.

The pilot for ST:Voyager did well too.
Lucas

Steve Fenwick

unread,
Apr 12, 2002, 3:57:22 AM4/12/02
to
In article <003c01c1e1b1$3fac9320$3dd5c997@MACBRECK>,
"Mac Breck" <macb...@access995.com> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kurt Ullman" <kurtu...@yahoo.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 7:25 PM
> Subject: Re: SFC management
>
>
> > In article <001a01c1e1a9$da61a700$3dd5c997@MACBRECK>, "Mac Breck"
> > <macb...@access995.com> wrote:
> > >----- Original Message -----
> >
> > >9PM Robocop3. Saw it. No need to see it again. It was probably
> "formatted
> > >to fit my screen, and edited six ways from Sunday for time, content,
> extra
> > >commercials, etc., etc.
> > >
> > I stumbled across this one. It was sorta funky at the start seeing
> Brdley
> > Whitford (The West Wing) and Jill Hennessey (Law/Order and Crossing
> Jordan)
> > when they looked to be about 12 or 13 (g).
>
> Check out "True Lies." Arnold's daughter is Eliza Dushku. Boy has she
> grown up. ;) Then there's Alyson Hannigan in "My Stepmother is an Alien."
> Check 'em both out on Buffy/Angel.

Did anyone else catch "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" on TVLand Wednesday
morning? There's an early TV appearance by a major B5 actor (initials:
B.B.)

Steve

--
Steve Fenwick ab...@w0x0f.com

Voxwoman

unread,
Apr 12, 2002, 8:21:24 AM4/12/02
to
I was suckered into finally watching "Traffic" on Showtime. I wish I was
*ON* the drugs while I had to watch it. Robocop 3 may have been better.
Or maybe even sleep...

(at least there's a new Jeremiah tonite :-)
-Wendy of NJ

Mac Breck

unread,
Apr 12, 2002, 11:28:01 AM4/12/02
to
----- Original Message -----
From: "Voxwoman" <voxw...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 8:21 AM
Subject: Re: SFC management


> I was suckered into finally watching "Traffic" on Showtime. I wish I was
> *ON* the drugs while I had to watch it. Robocop 3 may have been better.
> Or maybe even sleep...

Rented that one. Didn't even finish watching it. Last time I had that
little interest in a movie was when I watched "Dr. T & The Women." *ugh*


Mac Breck
------------------------
Vorlon Empire

"Nothing much good on TV tonight anyway." (Captain Gideon, Babylon 5
Crusade - The Memory of War)

> (at least there's a new Jeremiah tonite :-)

Kurt Tappe

unread,
Apr 12, 2002, 8:43:48 AM4/12/02
to
> let's be real. The main thing that keeps any TV executive in
> their jobs is to get good ratings that sell advertising.
>
> That applies to any network. If you are running ESPN and you love
> polo, you still can't put on polo unless enough people watch it.

But that's just the thing....LotR pulled a 1.7 against wildly popular
competition. It proved that it *would get viewers*. SFC in their
decision not to go forward is in fact pouring money down the drain.
Nobody can convince me that "RoboCop 3" is getting more viewership
than a LotR series would. LotR is potential ad revenue that they seem
not to want. And that's mismanagement, pure and simple.

-Kurt

J. Potts

unread,
Apr 13, 2002, 12:53:28 PM4/13/02
to
In article <20020409205402...@mb-cu.aol.com>,

Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
>What killed us was the football playoffs. That is a matter of record.

>If we'd aired on any other night of the week, there would be a LoTR series in
>prep right now.

That's the part that makes the whole thing so difficult to accept. If it
had not had the ratings on a normal night, then it would be easier to find
consolation and acceptance. But when it is an uncontrolled twist of fate
that scews the bottom line numbers and TPTB won't/can't look at the whole
picture to judge the popularity and viability of a show, it just feels...
wrong.

The problem is, Joe, you did too good a job in creating Babylon 5. We
fell in love with your characters and your stories. And like anything
people love, we want more of it. It's kinda like chocolate. I can have
a chocolate fest and completely pig out on chocolate, loving every minute
of it. I can savor the memory of indulging in all that chocolate and think
that was great, I can live with that memory and never need to experience
that first hand again. Then the next day comes and I'm craving a chocolate
fest again.

I know, I know, how's it feel to want..... <sigh>

--
JRP
"How many slime-trailing, sleepless, slimy, slobbering things do you know
that will *run and hide* from your Eveready?"
--Maureen Birnbaum, Barbarian Swordsperson

John W. Kennedy

unread,
Apr 14, 2002, 1:29:53 PM4/14/02
to
"J. Potts" wrote:
> That's the part that makes the whole thing so difficult to accept. If it
> had not had the ratings on a normal night, then it would be easier to find
> consolation and acceptance. But when it is an uncontrolled twist of fate
> that scews the bottom line numbers and TPTB won't/can't look at the whole
> picture to judge the popularity and viability of a show, it just feels...
> wrong.

If I understand the situation, it's not that SFC can't understand the
situation, but that, willy-nilly, they have to sell the show to
advertisers, and advertisers don't want to listen to excuses.

--
John W. Kennedy
Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!
http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Double%20Falshood.html

J. Potts

unread,
Apr 15, 2002, 7:09:56 AM4/15/02
to
"J. Potts" wrote:
> That's the part that makes the whole thing so difficult to accept. If it
> had not had the ratings on a normal night, then it would be easier to find
> consolation and acceptance. But when it is an uncontrolled twist of fate
> that scews the bottom line numbers and TPTB won't/can't look at the whole
> picture to judge the popularity and viability of a show, it just feels...
> wrong.

In article <3CB9BC7F...@attglobal.net>,


John W. Kennedy <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>If I understand the situation, it's not that SFC can't understand the
>situation, but that, willy-nilly, they have to sell the show to
>advertisers, and advertisers don't want to listen to excuses.


Hence the use of "TPTB" rather than "SFC"......

Alpe97

unread,
Apr 23, 2002, 4:16:34 PM4/23/02
to
In article <a9ece4$o0$1...@flood.xnet.com>, nav...@xnet.com (J. Potts) writes:

>"J. Potts" wrote:
>> That's the part that makes the whole thing so difficult to accept. If it
>> had not had the ratings on a normal night, then it would be easier to find
>> consolation and acceptance. But when it is an uncontrolled twist of fate
>> that scews the bottom line numbers and TPTB won't/can't look at the whole
>> picture to judge the popularity and viability of a show, it just feels...
>> wrong.
>

Is it TOOOOO obvious to just run it again in a FAIR time slot and check the
numbers? It should be maybe 3 months or so from the first airing so it starts
to feel new again. Good numbers should impress the bean counters then.

Mac Breck

unread,
Apr 23, 2002, 4:38:07 PM4/23/02
to
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alpe97" <alp...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: SFC management

Oh, but now Bonnie Hammer says "We have to change the perception that Sci Fi
is a narrow niche that's driven by aliens."

Hammer said Sci Fi plans to rebrand the network around the same time as its
"Taken" debut.

Rebrand it as what, I wonder?


Mac Breck
------------------------
Vorlon Empire

http://www.scifi.com/crusade/ http://www.b5lr.com/

Wesley Struebing

unread,
Apr 23, 2002, 5:59:38 PM4/23/02
to
On Tue, 23 Apr 2002 16:38:07 -0400, "Mac Breck"
<macb...@access995.com> wrote:

<snip>


>
>Oh, but now Bonnie Hammer says "We have to change the perception that Sci Fi
>is a narrow niche that's driven by aliens."
>
>Hammer said Sci Fi plans to rebrand the network around the same time as its
>"Taken" debut.
>
>Rebrand it as what, I wonder?
>

You DON'T want to go there, Mac!

(sigh - anymore I almost look at the skiffy channel as similar to -
for those of you from the midwest - the Chuck Akrie Creature
Feature...)

--
Some work of noble note, may yet be done - Tennyson's "Ulysses"

Wes Struebing
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
str...@americanisp.com
ph: 303-343-9006
home page: http://silicon.americanisp.net/~struebing/

Mac Breck

unread,
Apr 23, 2002, 6:41:20 PM4/23/02
to
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wesley Struebing" <str...@americanisp.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: SFC management

> On Tue, 23 Apr 2002 16:38:07 -0400, "Mac Breck"
> <macb...@access995.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >
> >Oh, but now Bonnie Hammer says "We have to change the perception that Sci
Fi
> >is a narrow niche that's driven by aliens."
> >
> >Hammer said Sci Fi plans to rebrand the network around the same time as
its
> >"Taken" debut.
> >
> >Rebrand it as what, I wonder?
> >
> You DON'T want to go there, Mac!

I'm guessing it'll be called "The Psychic Friends Network" or "The
El-Cheapo, Bad Taste Channel."
By that time, I **hope** all traces of B5 are off the channel.

HrafnWif

unread,
Apr 24, 2002, 11:33:29 PM4/24/02
to
>> >Oh, but now Bonnie Hammer says "We have to change the perception that Sci
>Fi
>> >is a narrow niche that's driven by aliens."
>> >
>> >Hammer said Sci Fi plans to rebrand the network around the same time as
>its
>> >"Taken" debut.
>> >
>> >Rebrand it as what, I wonder?
>> >
>> You DON'T want to go there, Mac!
>
>I'm guessing it'll be called "The Psychic Friends Network" or "The
>El-Cheapo, Bad Taste Channel."
>By that time, I **hope** all traces of B5 are off the channel.
>
>Mac Breck


New sci-fi channel....
**********************************
STV
Speculative Television

Tired of living on your humdrum old planet orbited by your humdrum old sun?
Ever had the feeling you were possessed by a spirit from the astral plain?
Wish some sexy alien would whisk you away?

Watch STV--Speculative Television!! It's a heady mix of spiritualism, space
ships, and the surreal--with a dash of science stirred in--all in an
easy-to-swallow brew. You'll see ghosts, sex, and careful attention to the
scientific issues of our time. Watch STV today!!

--B. H. Simplicio, programming director--

**********************************
......
A-hem!


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages