SF Nielsen Ratings (November 4-10)
Seung Ho Chung
tlh153 wrote:
> SYNDICATED Ratings: October 28-Nov 3(two weeks ago)
> SHOW Rating
> 12 Xena 5.5%
> 14 Hercules 5.2%
> 15 Deep Space Nine 5.0%
> -- Babylon 5 not listed in Top 25^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That sucks. Babylon 5 is the best sci fi show, ever.
I hear somewhere that the ratings of Babylon5 is relative to the
educational level of viewers. More educated viewers are, higher the rating.
Is this why B5 is so popular in Europe while nobody watches B5 in the US?
That is pretty sad.............. America's going down the drain..........
tlh153
rec.arts.sf.tv, alt.tv.x-files, alt.tv.lois-n-clark,
rec.arts.startrek.current, alt.tv.xena,
rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
NETWORK Ratings:
Weekly
NBC 11.2
CBS 9.8
ABC 9.7
Fox 8.2
UPN 4.0
WB 2.9
PRIME-TIME Ratings: November 4-10(Mon-Sun)(last week)
SHOW Net/Rating/Share
17 The X-Files FOX/11.1% /16%
58 Millenium FOX/ 8.1% /14%
62 Lois & Clark ABC/ 7.8% /12%
65 Profiler NBC/ 7.5% /14%
82 Sliders FOX/ 6.1% /11%
83 Dark Skies NBC/ 6.0% /11%
87 Voyager UPN/ 5.6% / 9% (no syndicated markets)
-- The Burning Zone UPN/ pre-empted
SYNDICATED Ratings: October 28-Nov 3(two weeks ago)
SHOW Rating
12 Xena 5.5%
14 Hercules 5.2%
15 Deep Space Nine 5.0%
-- Babylon 5 not listed in Top 25
Notes:
- (R) means rerun
- 1 Rating point equals 970,000 homes/97 million homes total
- Share is the percentage of all TVs currently turned on.
Ratings History:
Lois X Dark Mill Pro Slide VOY DS9 Her Xen B 5
9/02 ---- (R) ---- ---- --- (R) *5.9 (R) (R) (R) (R)
9/09 ---- (R) ---- ---- --- (R) 5.2 (R) (R) (R) (R)
9/16 *7.7 (R) *8.1 ---- *9.2 *5.6 4.3 (R) (R) (R) (R)
9/23 8.5 (R) 7.4 ---- 8.5 5.6 5.1 (R) (R) (R) (R)
9/30 9.4 *13.2 --- ---- --- 7.2 4.3 *5.3 *4.8 *4.3 *3.0
10/07 7.8 11.9 --- ---- --- 6.5 4.7 5.6 5.8 5.3 3.6
10/14 8.3 11.3 5.7 ---- 7.8 6.3 (R) 6.0 5.4 5.6 3.1?
10/21 7.2 11.7 4.7 *11.9 6.6 --- (R) 5.7 5.8 5.4 ???
10/28 --- 12.3 6.2 8.1 8.0 5.9 4.6 5.0 5.2 5.5 ???
11/04 7.8 11.1 6.0 8.1 7.5 6.1 5.6
Troy-...@psu.edu (age 24) http://www.hyperion.com
._____________________________________________________________________.
: Buck Rogers Battlestar Galactica Twilight Zone V Star Trek :
: Heinlein Asimov Star Wars 2001 TNG Quantum Leap The X-Files :
: Babylon 5 DS9 seaQuest Earth2 TekWar Ben Bova Sliders :
`---------------------------------------------------------------------'
lcr...@aol.com
anybody know a site that has the SYNDICATED ratings?
Theron Fuller
tlh153 <tlh...@r02a01.cac.psu.edu> wrote in article
<56i827$v...@r02n01.cac.psu.edu>...
Where's the sudden increase in Babylon 5's ratings that Joe
Straczynski says has Warner Bros. suddenly so interested in a fifth
season?
Regards,
Theron Fuller
deb...@anlsrs.msd.anl.gov
In <56i827$v...@r02n01.cac.psu.edu>, tlh...@r02a01.cac.psu.edu (tlh153) writes:
>
>SYNDICATED Ratings: October 28-Nov 3(two weeks ago)
>SHOW Rating
>12 Xena 5.5%
>14 Hercules 5.2%
>15 Deep Space Nine 5.0%
>-- Babylon 5 not listed in Top 25
>
>Notes:
>- (R) means rerun
>- 1 Rating point equals 970,000 homes/97 million homes total
>- Share is the percentage of all TVs currently turned on.
>
>Ratings History:
> Lois X Dark Mill Pro Slide VOY DS9 Her Xen B 5
> 9/02 ---- (R) ---- ---- --- (R) *5.9 (R) (R) (R) (R)
> 9/09 ---- (R) ---- ---- --- (R) 5.2 (R) (R) (R) (R)
> 9/16 *7.7 (R) *8.1 ---- *9.2 *5.6 4.3 (R) (R) (R) (R)
> 9/23 8.5 (R) 7.4 ---- 8.5 5.6 5.1 (R) (R) (R) (R)
> 9/30 9.4 *13.2 --- ---- --- 7.2 4.3 *5.3 *4.8 *4.3 *3.0
>10/07 7.8 11.9 --- ---- --- 6.5 4.7 5.6 5.8 5.3 3.6
>10/14 8.3 11.3 5.7 ---- 7.8 6.3 (R) 6.0 5.4 5.6 3.1?
>10/21 7.2 11.7 4.7 *11.9 6.6 --- (R) 5.7 5.8 5.4 ???
>10/28 --- 12.3 6.2 8.1 8.0 5.9 4.6 5.0 5.2 5.5 ???
>11/04 7.8 11.1 6.0 8.1 7.5 6.1 5.6
Wow! Am I hallucinating? With ratings like that Babylon5 may
go where NoWhere Man went--to the dustbin next season. Its
amazing that suberbly written and directed shows are shunned by
the American tv audience. Bizarre that we can look forward to
Lois and Slide (sheese!) while B5 (and NoWhere Man which has
already vanished) will always be up in the air.
deBrown --- If I do not respond, I have been erased.
Len Leshin
tlh153 wrote:
> PRIME-TIME Ratings: November 4-10(Mon-Sun)(last week)
> SHOW Net/Rating/Share
> 17 The X-Files FOX/11.1% /16%
> 58 Millenium FOX/ 8.1% /14%
> 62 Lois & Clark ABC/ 7.8% /12%
> 65 Profiler NBC/ 7.5% /14%
> 82 Sliders FOX/ 6.1% /11%
> 83 Dark Skies NBC/ 6.0% /11%
> 87 Voyager UPN/ 5.6% / 9% (no syndicated markets)
OK, but Voyager is syndicated in some areas of the ocuntry that don't
have UPN yet (like my city). What about those numbers?
--
Len L.
lle...@davlin.net
jjka...@aol.com
In article <328BA4...@student.ucr.edu>, Seung Ho Chung
<chun...@student.ucr.edu> writes:
>
> That sucks. Babylon 5 is the best sci fi show, ever.
Its as good as any ever on. ST didnt do well till it showed up in reruns
years later. Maybe when B5 pops up in reruns years after it is canceled
it will be a huge hit. And then watch for B5 the Next Generation. And all
those B5 movies. Directed by BILLY MUMMY.
John J. Kachmar
Techno-Fantasy SuperFan
JJKa...@aol.com
Invid fan
In article <19961116003...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, for...@aol.com
wrote:
> "Theron Fuller" <tfu...@moon.jic.com>
> :Where's the sudden increase in Babylon 5's ratings that Joe
> :Straczynski says has Warner Bros. suddenly so interested in a fifth
> :season?
> It was called "The World Series".
>
Hmm. So you're saying that B5 got all the FOX viewers who didn't want to
watch baseball? If anything, B5's ratings should have gone down. I know
which one I would have taped and watched later had there been any conflict.
> However once that passed B5 is back where it's always been.
>
>
> Somewhere in either the lower 20's or mid 30's in the syndication market.
>
Which has been good enough so far, so that's no problem. Hell, it looks
like TNT is pushing for side projects.
>
> JMS as you might have noticed isn't always the most credible source of
> unbiased info when it comes to B5 rathings.
>
I'd say that he gets the numbers right, but natualy sees them in the best
light. You don't survive in the entertainment industry without learning to
put the best spin on everything related to your work.
--
"Say, Rose? Do you believe in Magic?" ! Chris Mack
"Not really, no. But that's NOT what you're asking me." ! 'Invid fan'
"It's not?" !
"Nope. What you're asking me is, do I believe in weird !
shit? And the answer is yes. Of course I do. I'd be !
crazy not to. I've had a weird shit life." _______!
- Rose and Carla, THE SANDMAN: THE KINDLY ONES ! In...@localnet.com
for...@aol.com
"Theron Fuller" <tfu...@moon.jic.com>
Newsgroups:
rec.arts.sf.tv,alt.tv.x-files,alt.tv.lois-n-clark,rec.arts.startrek.curren
t,alt.tv.xena,rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5
:Where's the sudden increase in Babylon 5's ratings that Joe
:Straczynski says has Warner Bros. suddenly so interested in a fifth
:season?
:Regards,
:Theron Fuller
It was called "The World Series".
However once that passed B5 is back where it's always been.
Somewhere in either the lower 20's or mid 30's in the syndication market.
JMS as you might have noticed isn't always the most credible source of
unbiased info when it comes to B5 rathings.
for...@aol.com (Ford A. Thaxton)
David Hines
If I may make a suggestion: it's hard to tell how B5's ratings are
fluctuating, because rank is a hard thing to go on. One week a 3.2
may be good enough to rank in the top 20, another week a 3.4 or 3.5
might be necessary. Maybe if Troy could put something in that indicates
what gets a ranking, we could track the show's ratings better. That
is, if the lowest-ranked show that week gets a 3.1, and B5 isn't listed
in the rankings, then the B5 ratings column would read <3.1, or something
like that.
It's not much, but it'd be a little more to go on.
David Hines
dzh...@midway.uchicago.edu
Bad Boy Troy
In article <19961115183...@ladder01.news.aol.com> lcr...@aol.com writes:
>Path: news3.cac.psu.edu!howland.erols.net!portc02.blue.aol.com!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
>From: lcr...@aol.com
>Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv
>Subject: Re: SF Nielsen Ratings (November 4-10)
>Date: 15 Nov 1996 18:37:03 GMT
>Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) (1.10)
>Lines: 1
>Sender: ne...@aol.com
>Message-ID: <19961115183...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>References: <56i827$v...@r02n01.cac.psu.edu>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com
>X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader
>anybody know a site that has the SYNDICATED ratings?
I just posted them, but if you want more detail:
Troy-Heagy
In article <19961115224...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
jjka...@aol.com writes:
> In article <328BA4...@student.ucr.edu>, Seung Ho Chung
> <chun...@student.ucr.edu> writes:
>
> >
> > That sucks. Babylon 5 is the best sci fi show, ever.
>
> Its as good as any ever on. ST didnt do well till it showed up in reruns
> years later. Maybe when B5 pops up in reruns years after it is canceled
> it will be a huge hit. And then watch for B5 the Next Generation. And all
> those B5 movies. Directed by BILLY MUMMY.
I just read one of JMS' messages where he says that he has history
worked out for Babylon 5 1000 years into the past and 1000 years into
the future. He also says he has a detailed plot for 100 years into the
past and 100 years into the future.
So, it's very possible that we could see a continuation of the B5 story
set sometime within the next 100 years. OR given a few years off, JMS
could probably work out the story for the next Shadow War 1000 years
hence.
Troy-...@psu.edu (age 24) http://www.hyperion.com
Troy-Heagy
In article <19961116003...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
for...@aol.com writes:
> :Where's the sudden increase in Babylon 5's ratings that Joe
> :Straczynski says has Warner Bros. suddenly so interested in a fifth
> :season?
>
> :Regards,
> :Theron Fuller
>
>
> It was called "The World Series".
>
> However once that passed B5 is back where it's always been.
>
>
> Somewhere in either the lower 20's or mid 30's in the syndication market.
>
>
> JMS as you might have noticed isn't always the most credible source of
> unbiased info when it comes to B5 rathings.
>
> for...@aol.com (Ford A. Thaxton)
No, I hadn't noticed. Tell you what. The next time JMS makes a
mistake, let me know.
(P.S. I have a feeling I'll be waiting for a while before that happens)
Troy-Heagy
In article <E0y73...@midway.uchicago.edu>
dzh...@midway.uchicago.edu (David Hines) writes:
I tried that once (I said, B5: less than 3.0), but then I was
criticized for inaccurate reporting. :( But tell you what, looking
back over the past few weeks, here are Babylon 5's ratings:
3.0 Walkabout
3.6 Grey 17 Is Missing
3.1 (from JMS) And the Rock Cried Out
4.3 (probably less) Shadow Dancing
3.5 (probably less) Z'ha'dum
Stephen
Theron Fuller wrote:
> Where's the sudden increase in Babylon 5's ratings that Joe
> Straczynski says has Warner Bros. suddenly so interested in a fifth
> season?
>
> Regards,
> Theron Fuller
>
B5 NIELSON RATINGS
Last week's Variety, (dated Oct 28 - Nov 3) announced the Nielsen ratings for
first-run syndicated programs for the week of Oct 6 - Oct 13. Among them,
Babylon 5 came in at #5!
1. Journeys of Hercules 5.8
2. Star Trek: DS9 5.6
3. Xena 5.3
4. Baywatch 4.2
5. Babylon 5 3.6
Some weeks B5 does well, other weeks it seems to do not as well. B5 is doing
better than Voyager, which is prety damned impressive for a non-trek show.
Oh, and Theoron, Hercules kicks DS9's butt on a regular basis. It would
appear that Xena has begun drop-kicking DS9 as well.
David Thiel
>Last week's Variety, (dated Oct 28 - Nov 3) announced the Nielsen ratings for
>first-run syndicated programs for the week of Oct 6 - Oct 13. Among them,
>Babylon 5 came in at #5!
>1. Journeys of Hercules 5.8
>2. Star Trek: DS9 5.6
>3. Xena 5.3
>4. Baywatch 4.2
>5. Babylon 5 3.6
These appear to be numbers for syndicated action hours only--JEOPARDY, WHEEL
OF FORTUNE and OPRAH, all of which regularly gather significantly higher
ratings than HERCULES or DS9, are conspicuously absent.
>Some weeks B5 does well, other weeks it seems to do not as well. B5 is doing
>better than Voyager, which is prety damned impressive for a non-trek show.
VOYAGER's network rating for the week of Oct. 28 was 4.6. I'm not certain
whether this figure includes syndicated markets, but I suspect that it
doesn't.
>Oh, and Theoron, Hercules kicks DS9's butt on a regular basis. It would
>appear that Xena has begun drop-kicking DS9 as well.
Actually, if you follow the ratings from week to week, you'll find HERCULES,
XENA and DS9 in what amounts to a three-way tie. Some weeks, XENA or
HERCULES is ahead; other times, DS9 prevails--but all three hover
between a 5 and 6 rating. Two-tenths of a ratings point is statistically
insignificant, and doesn't equal "butt-kicking" by any standard.
David Thiel / Champaign, Illinois 1:1
E-mail: d-t...@uiuc.edu
WWW: http://www.prairienet.org/~drthiel/homepage.html
Franklin Hummel
In article <56knoa$s...@r02n01.cac.psu.edu>,
Troy-Heagy <Troy-...@psu.edu> wrote:
>
>I just read one of JMS' messages where he says that he has history
>worked out for Babylon 5 1000 years into the past and 1000 years into
>the future. He also says he has a detailed plot for 100 years into the
>past and 100 years into the future.
>So, it's very possible that we could see a continuation of the B5 story
>set sometime within the next 100 years. OR given a few years off, JMS
>could probably work out the story for the next Shadow War 1000 years
>hence.
a 200-year long BABYLON 5 series!
-- Franklin Hummel [ hum...@world.std.com ]
--
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
* NecronomiCon. 3rd Edition: The Cthulhu Mythos Convention *
August 15-17, 1997 - Providence, Rhode Island
Gordan Miller
Seung Ho Chung (chun...@student.ucr.edu) wrote:
: tlh153 wrote:
:
: > SYNDICATED Ratings: October 28-Nov 3(two weeks ago)
: > SHOW Rating
: > 12 Xena 5.5%
: > 14 Hercules 5.2%
: > 15 Deep Space Nine 5.0%
:
: That sucks. Babylon 5 is the best sci fi show, ever.
:
: I hear somewhere that the ratings of Babylon5 is relative to the
:
: Is this why B5 is so popular in Europe while nobody watches B5 in the US?
:
: That is pretty sad.............. America's going down the drain..........
Babylon 5!! What IS it with these people? It's one of the
worst-acted shows on TV, I can frequently finish lines of dialogue before
the performers do, and the productions value manage to occasionally rise
very slightly above the "cheesy" level. Look, I am not totally oblivious
to the appeal of the show, which lies in the Big Plan, the plots and
counterplots, and the foreshadowing of Things to Come. But...."if you
don't like it, you're stupid"?? I think NOT. B5 is exactly where it
belongs-- as a cult show with a small, but all-too-rabid following.
Not to mention that saying anything is "the best scifi show ever" is
like saying "the greatest professional wrestling match I ever saw" or "the
1910 Fruitgum Company's best tune." Sure, it's better than Lost in
Space, Land of the Giants, or Battlestar Galactica....but what is THAT
really saying, eh?
Nelson Lu
>Some weeks B5 does well, other weeks it seems to do not as well. B5 is doing
>better than Voyager, which is prety damned impressive for a non-trek show.
If I remember right, isn't Voyager in the 5s as far as the network rating is
concerned?
John Switzer
In article <19961115224...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
<jjka...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <328BA4...@student.ucr.edu>, Seung Ho Chung
><chun...@student.ucr.edu> writes:
>
>>
>
>years later. Maybe when B5 pops up in reruns years after it is canceled
>it will be a huge hit. And then watch for B5 the Next Generation. And all
>those B5 movies. Directed by BILLY MUMMY.
And maybe by then it'll be written by someone who doesn't confuse
"vague" and "ambiguous" with "deep" and "meaningful" as JMS continually
does.
--
John Switzer | It's depressing to realize that given a choice
| between competence and friendliness, most people
jswi...@aimnet.com | would choose friendliness.
*** Access the Congressional Record at http://thomas.loc.gov ***
John Rose
(Somebody) wrote:
> > - Share is the percentage of all TVs currently turned on.
Of course the ratings have little to do with what people would like to
watch.
I would _like_ to watch Bab5, (saw about three episodes) but I can't get
it with my basic cable service.
Also, I watch XF every week, but I don't get FOX - I watch it on an
independant.
There's all kinds of things that can skew the numbers.
The J and the R
Seung Ho Chung
Gordan Miller wrote:
> Babylon 5!! What IS it with these people? It's one of the
> worst-acted shows on TV,
You have not seen Babylon 5. I can tell that.
> I can frequently finish lines of dialogue before
> the performers do, and the productions value manage to occasionally rise
> very slightly above the "cheesy" level. Look, I am not totally oblivious
> to the appeal of the show, which lies in the Big Plan, the plots and
> counterplots, and the foreshadowing of Things to Come. But...."if you
> don't like it, you're stupid"??
FYI, Babylon 5 won the Hugo award for the best Sci Fi show a month ago.
If you don't undertand Babylon 5 storyline, that is because you lack
the
mental capacity to do so. Europians are generally better educated than
Americans, so they enjoy Babylon 5 far more than Americans do.
In Star Trek, everything is obvious. You just sit back and watch the
Fed starships
and Klingon Crusiers shooting phasers at eash other. You don't have to
think at
all to enjoy the show. In Babylon 5 you have to think and put puzzles
and
prophecies that were shown over the years together by yourself to
understand
what is happening. This task is often too challenging for average
viewers,
so they tune out B5.
I agree that B5 storyline was kind of cheezy during the first year,
but things
has gotten better during the second season. Now Babylon 5 had the best
and most
complex story line I have ever seen in a Sci Fi show during the third
season. I
hope the fourth season can match the standard set by the third
season.
> I think NOT. B5 is exactly where it
> belongs-- as a cult show with a small, but all-too-rabid following.
Yea, and that is why NASA engineers are dumping ST and starting to
watch
Babylon 5 instead.
>
> Not to mention that saying anything is "the best scifi show ever" is
> like saying "the greatest professional wrestling match I ever saw" or "the
> 1910 Fruitgum Company's best tune."
Average people don't understand why highly educated people pay good
money to see
plays, operas, and art exhibitions.
Patrick Coleman
Seung Ho Chung <chun...@student.ucr.edu> wrote:
> If you don't undertand Babylon 5 storyline, that is because you lack
>the
> mental capacity to do so. Europians are generally better educated than
> Americans, so they enjoy Babylon 5 far more than Americans do.
That's a pretty obnoxious generalization there pal. Especially from
someone going to college in the US. Now I can't help but wonder why
so many European, and Asia, African, and South American nationales
decide to come to the States for their formal education..? (Tasting
the sole of your shoe yet?)
>> I think NOT. B5 is exactly where it
>> belongs-- as a cult show with a small, but all-too-rabid following.
> Yea, and that is why NASA engineers are dumping ST and starting to
>watch
> Babylon 5 instead.
Hmm, more "Stupid" Americans? Don't see to many other nations flags
on the moon, eh?
> Average people don't understand why highly educated people pay good
>money to see
> plays, operas, and art exhibitions.
Finally, a point I'd almost agree with. But I think it has far more
to do with one's CULTURAL schooling, not their academics.
Discrimination and bias based on one's intellectual capacity is no
less obscene than that based on one's ethnicity. And I thought that
most "highly educated" people were also enlightened and open-minded.
Thanks for proving me wrong. I needed the reality check.
PRC
M.Levi
> Babylon 5!! What IS it with these people? It's one of the
>worst-acted shows on TV, I can frequently finish lines of dialogue
before the performers do, and the productions value manage to
>occasionally rise very slightly above the "cheesy" level. Look, I am
>not totally oblivious to the appeal of the show, which lies in the Big
>Plan, the plots and counterplots, and the foreshadowing of Things to
>Come. But...."if you don't like it, you're stupid"?? I think NOT.
>B5 is exactly where it belongs-- as a cult show with a small, but
>all-too-rabid following.
You OBVIOUSLY quit watching B5 sometime during the first two seasons or
have tuned in to irregularly, catching a few duds here and there. I
would have said much the same myself based on occasional viewing in the
past. But B5 has hit the mark more times than not in the past several
months, and I'm not talking about episodes that are passable or
interesting, but sustained plot development that builds and builds and
builds to an extraordinary degree of dramatic tension. I wouldn't go
as far as to say that "if you don't like it, you're stupid," but, let's
face it, there's no question that B5 viewers are brainier than Voyager
types. Hell, even the people who MAKE Voyager are dumb -- the Jeri
Taylor interview I read shows that they went out of their way to
recruit an intellectual featherweight. Voyager's the ultimate quota
show -- actors chosen to represent slices of the American demographic
and no-brainer plots spiced with plenty of car chases, explosions, and
cleavage to appeal to Mr. IQ 100. Name one thing, ONE thing, that
Voyager actors have said or done that couldn't be predicted before the
conclusion of an episode... and then consider Z'Ha Dum. Even when jms'
foreshadowing repeatedly warned us what was going to happen, it came as
a total shock.
I grant you, DS9 is better, but the "dumbing down to appeal to the
largest possible audience" factor is underfoot at DS9, too. I'm sorry
to see it because DS9 has talented writers and actors, but they are not
allowed to experiment and grow and to take chances. It's a pity.
James M. Politte
In article <328EC9...@student.ucr.edu>, Seung Ho Chung
<chun...@student.ucr.edu> wrote:
<SNIP>
> If you don't undertand Babylon 5 storyline, that is because you lack
> the
> mental capacity to do so. Europians are generally better educated than
> Americans, so they enjoy Babylon 5 far more than Americans do.
Dangerous ground, my friend. I enjoy Babylon 5 quite a bit and love the
intricasies of plot, but painting everybody who does NOT like the show as
being ignorant and uneducated is inviting serious admonishment from other,
not quite so forgiving individuals on this newsgroup. Not to mention it
goes back that annoying European conceit that gets most "red-blooded
American" folks' hackles up.
> Average people don't understand why highly educated people pay good
> money to see
> plays, operas, and art exhibitions.
Once more, intellectual snobbery will only result in ill-will. I grasp
the analogy and acknowledge its validity, but please play nice.
I'll take B5 over ST any day of the week and would much rather go see the
symphony than Hulk Hogan. :)
Monica E. Barry (college educated, no less)
ne...@smartnet.net
M.Levi
>> I think NOT. B5 is exactly where it
>> belongs-- as a cult show with a small, but all-too-rabid following.
Those of us who watched TOS in the 60's will recognize the irony of
this comment. You younger viewers who grew up with Star Trek may not
realize that the original Star Trek flopped in the ratings. It was a
cult show with a small band of ardent viewers, whom the network
authorities regarded as unrepresentative of mainstream America. I
remember quite vividly trying to get people interested in the original
show without success. The average joe couldn't follow all this stuff
about phasers and photon torpedos and transporters and Klingons. He
was into Peyton Place -- not Star Trek. Star Trek got to where it is
now because the cult refused to die even when critics sneered at the
show and told the fans over and over that they were an inconsequential
minority. It's the same phenomenon one sees now with B5 -- the
enthusiasm in the air of viewers who have experienced a new type of
intellectual engagement. Once you glimpse the untapped potential of a
genre for the first time, it's hard to go back to contenting oneself
with a show that doesn't try to stretch. That's what motivated people
to keep pushing for Star Trek's return all those years. For a while
TNG and DS9 delivered on the dream. But then the franchise pulled
back and started playing it safe, giving us gloss and sparkle and reams
of formula but no new territory, culminating with Voyager. That's why
the old Trek spirit has begun to migrate to B5. Sure, sometimes B5
produces a clunker episode and some of the actors could use a few
lessons. But when B5s hot, it's hot like NOTHING on Trek. Check it
out for yourself and you'll soon be singing a different tune.
Gabe White
: > Babylon 5!! What IS it with these people? It's one of the
: > worst-acted shows on TV,
: You have not seen Babylon 5. I can tell that.
What a little snot. I have seen B5.
It's a pretentous joke. It's boring. The acting is just a tad worse than
Barney and Friends. It looks cheap.
: FYI, Babylon 5 won the Hugo award for the best Sci Fi show a month ago.
Wow. Big deal. I don't care what the little pointed head, no-lifer, sci-fi
geeks say.
: If you don't undertand Babylon 5 storyline, that is because you lack
: the
: mental capacity to do so. Europians are generally better educated than
: Americans, so they enjoy Babylon 5 far more than Americans do.
Ugh. How do I answer this? You know, some of us don't want to understand
the B5 storyline - Especially if it turns us into people like you.
: In Babylon 5 you have to think and put puzzles
: and
: prophecies that were shown over the years together by yourself to
: understand
: what is happening. This task is often too challenging for average
: viewers,
: so they tune out B5.
Yeah. Then the go on the newsgroup and to find out what *really* happened
in the last episode.
: I agree that B5 storyline was kind of cheezy during the first year,
: > I think NOT. B5 is exactly where it
: > belongs-- as a cult show with a small, but all-too-rabid following.
: Yea, and that is why NASA engineers are dumping ST and starting to
: watch Babylon 5 instead.
Yeah. All my buddies at NASA are switching over... But, uh, what's your
point? B5 is still a cult show with a avid following. I thought you guys
liked it like that...
: Average people don't understand why highly educated people pay good
: money to see plays, operas, and art exhibitions.
Yeah, and the "highly educated people" don't understand why the "average"
people pay $150 for a football ticket.
You know, buddy, you really make B5 fans look bad.
--
When you come back again... Would you bring me something from the fridge?
Heard a rumor that the end is near... But I just got comfortable here.
-Newsboys (Lost the Plot)
Franklin Hummel
In article <56n5ac$f...@login.freenet.columbus.oh.us>,
Gabe White <gwh...@freenet.columbus.oh.us> wrote:
>: > I think NOT. B5 is exactly where it
>: > belongs-- as a cult show with a small, but all-too-rabid following.
who was worth answering.
Stephen
David Thiel wrote:
>
> In article <328E1D...@psu.edu> Stephen <sec...@psu.edu> writes:
>
> >Last week's Variety, (dated Oct 28 - Nov 3) announced the Nielsen ratings for
> >first-run syndicated programs for the week of Oct 6 - Oct 13. Among them,
> >Babylon 5 came in at #5!
>
> >1. Journeys of Hercules 5.8
> >2. Star Trek: DS9 5.6
> >3. Xena 5.3
> >4. Baywatch 4.2
> >5. Babylon 5 3.6
>
> These appear to be numbers for syndicated action hours only--JEOPARDY, WHEEL
> OF FORTUNE and OPRAH, all of which regularly gather significantly higher
> ratings than HERCULES or DS9, are conspicuously absent.
And Friends, ER, and Seinfeld, beat both all them. That is why I posted the "First
Run Syndicated" ratings. Pay attention to what is posted.
> >Oh, and Theoron, Hercules kicks DS9's butt on a regular basis. It would
> >appear that Xena has begun drop-kicking DS9 as well.
>
> Actually, if you follow the ratings from week to week, you'll find HERCULES,
> XENA and DS9 in what amounts to a three-way tie. Some weeks, XENA or
> HERCULES is ahead; other times, DS9 prevails--but all three hover
> between a 5 and 6 rating. Two-tenths of a ratings point is statistically
> insignificant, and doesn't equal "butt-kicking" by any standard.
Theoron was saying that DS9 almost always beats Herc and Xena with new eps. He was
quite wrong. I am merely pointing this out.
BTW, if B5 is doing so badly, in some people's opinion, why has TBS asked for two
B5 TV movies, and why is a spin-off series called "Crusaders" in the works? B5 is
not only holding its own, but is making a name for itself. Star Trek in the 60's
had poor ratings and was canned after three years. Now Trek is a huge franchise,
making Paramount huge piles of cash. B5 has modest ratings, and WB could be using
B5 to make the next "Trek" phenomeon.
David Thiel
<Newsgroups line changed to delete a few off-topic groups>
In article <328F3C...@psu.edu> Stephen <sec...@psu.edu> writes:
>David Thiel wrote:
>> These appear to be numbers for syndicated action hours only--JEOPARDY, WHEEL
>> OF FORTUNE and OPRAH, all of which regularly gather significantly higher
>> ratings than HERCULES or DS9, are conspicuously absent.
>And Friends, ER, and Seinfeld, beat both all them. That is why I posted the "First
>Run Syndicated" ratings. Pay attention to what is posted.
I did...let's get some terms straight:
"First run syndicated" refers to a show that is sold or bartered on a
station-by-station basis, and that has not previously run on another broadcast
or cable outlet. This includes not only DS9, B5 and HERCULES, but also
JEOPARDY, WHEEL OF FORTUNE, OPRAH and many other dramatic, magazine, game and
talk shows.
Another distinction often made in the broadcast trades is that of "syndicated
action hours," referring to the subset of the above programs that are 1) an
hour in length, and 2) in the general category of action-adventure. This again
includes DS9, B5 and HERCULES, but not JEOPARDY or OPRAH.
The numbers you referred to could not have been for all "first run syndicated"
programs, because the syndicated WHEEL OF FORTUNE typically gets about an 11
rating, and shows such as JEOPARDY and OPRAH hover in the 9 range. All of them
regularly beat any syndicated action hour by a wide margin.
Therefore, B5 is not ranked 5th among "first run syndicated" shows, only among
similar action shows. It's an important distinction, and if you're going to
quote Nielsen figures, it's worth understanding the difference.
>Theoron was saying that DS9 almost always beats Herc and Xena with new eps.
>He was quite wrong. I am merely pointing this out.
Actually, you referred to "butt-kicking," which isn't any more accurate.
>BTW, if B5 is doing so badly, in some people's opinion, why has TBS asked for two
>B5 TV movies, and why is a spin-off series called "Crusaders" in the works?
Didn't say it was doing badly. Apparently, it seems to be bucking the general
decline in syndicated action hours, and congratulations appear to be in order.
However, you made several claims that aren't justified by the Nielsen figures.
>Now Trek is a huge franchise, making Paramount huge piles of cash. B5 has
>modest ratings, and WB could be using B5 to make the next "Trek" phenomeon.
Um, wasn't that exactly what *wasn't* supposed to happen with B5?
Theron Fuller
Stephen <sec...@psu.edu> wrote in article <328F3C...@psu.edu>...
> David Thiel wrote:
> >
> > In article <328E1D...@psu.edu> Stephen <sec...@psu.edu>
writes:
(Stuff Deleted)
> > Actually, if you follow the ratings from week to week, you'll
find HERCULES,
> > XENA and DS9 in what amounts to a three-way tie. Some weeks, XENA
or
> > HERCULES is ahead; other times, DS9 prevails--but all three hover
> > between a 5 and 6 rating. Two-tenths of a ratings point is
statistically
> > insignificant, and doesn't equal "butt-kicking" by any standard.
>
> Theoron was saying that DS9 almost always beats Herc and Xena with
new eps. He was
> quite wrong. I am merely pointing this out.
Actually, I don't remember saying anything of the kind.
I really don't give a happy rat's ass where any of the three's
ratings are in relation to one another.
The thing some Babylon 5 fans don't seem to comprehend is that,
syndicated-series ratings-wise, all three shows are in a different
category than Babylon 5.
And The X Files is in a completely different category than all four
series.
> BTW, if B5 is doing so badly, in some people's opinion, why has TBS
asked for two
> B5 TV movies, and why is a spin-off series called "Crusaders" in
the works?
Well, the latest word I heard was a rumor floated by Joe Straczynski
that Warner Bros. was so impressed with Babylon 5's increased ratings
that they were considering renewing Babylon 5 for a fifth season, and
were talking about a couple of movies and a spin-off series based on
the Rangers. Has this gotten beyond the rumor stage?
Besides, Time-Warner owns both TBS and Warner Bros. Studios. Having
TBS order movies from WB Studios is a marvelous way for accountants
to transfer money between divisions of the same corporation. Sort of
like paying your kid to mow the family lawn. And it may not be
necessary, or even desirable, for the TBS division to show a profit
on the deal. Indeed, the accountants may want both WB Studios and
TBS to show some paper losses.
>B5 is not only holding its own, but is making a name for itself.
So is O.J. Simpson, for that matter.
Babylon 5's ratings bounce around in the mid-3s What's your point?
>Star Trek in the 60's had poor ratings and was canned after three
years.
Supporters of Richard Nixon can make approximately the same claim
about his second term as U.S. President.
>Now Trek is a huge franchise, making Paramount huge piles of cash
Now Richard Nixon is dead.
>. B5 has modest ratings, and WB could be using B5 to make the next
"Trek" phenomeon.
Believe me, if Joe Straczynski and the suits at Warner Bros. could
figure out how Chris Carter did it with X files, Babylon 5 would be
the premiere show on the Warner Bros. Network; and a giant poster of
Michigan J. Frog would be hanging over Garibaldi's bed.
Regards,
Theron Fuller
Londo Mollari
"Theron Fuller" <tfu...@moon.jic.com> wrote:
> Where's the sudden increase in Babylon 5's ratings that Joe
> Straczynski says has Warner Bros. suddenly so interested in a fifth
> season?
I guess Fuller has missed the postings of info and statements from
_Variety_, _Electronic_Media_, _Broadcasting_&_Cable_, and _Media_Week_
recently.
Gee, if not making the top-20 for the first time in a *VERY* long time
is not an increase, I don't know what you would call an increase.
If not making the top-10 for both Men 18-49 and (very surprisingly)
Adults 18-49 demos which a series such as B5 are usually aimed at
is not important, than I don't know what could be to you.
If _Broadcasting_&_Cable_ saying that B5 is off to a "good start" this
season is not evidence to you than nothing probably is. Maybe you
missed that _Media_Week_ has said that TNT is talking about having
two made-for-cable B5 movies and that WB is considering the B5
sequel series? Logic would indicate that if they are considering
the sequel series, etc. than they would have to be considering
the fifth season which is needed for them and is quite a bit less
of a risk than making the sequel series. But logic probably does
not make a dent.
And a note to Ford: NO EMAIL REPLIES.
Mike
--
"There is surprisingly little difference between
the DNA found in humans and that found in the
other species such as H. Ross Perot."
- Dave Barry
Londo Mollari
for...@aol.com wrote:
> "Theron Fuller" <tfu...@moon.jic.com>
> Newsgroups:
> rec.arts.sf.tv,alt.tv.x-files,alt.tv.lois-n-clark,rec.arts.startrek.curren
> t,alt.tv.xena,rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5
I guess that someone has yet to figure out how to edit....
> :Where's the sudden increase in Babylon 5's ratings that Joe
> :Straczynski says has Warner Bros. suddenly so interested in a fifth
> :season?
>
> It was called "The World Series".
>
> However once that passed B5 is back where it's always been.
>
> Somewhere in either the lower 20's or mid 30's in the syndication market.
Gee Ford, you were gloating last season when you gave figures
(which were correct then) about B5 being in the 40's and 50's.
And JMS mentioned when "Grey 17" was listed by _Variety_ that
B5 has been as low as the 60's.
> JMS as you might have noticed isn't always the most credible source of
> unbiased info when it comes to B5 rathings.
And as a mentioned to my post to Fuller, loads of independent sources
are showing that JMS is quite correct in his recent claims.
And you changed your email box yet again. I will have to update my
kill file again. And no email replies, for _any_ reason.
Daniel Silevitch
In article <56n5ac$f...@login.freenet.columbus.oh.us>,
Gabe White <gwh...@freenet.columbus.oh.us> wrote:
>: money to see plays, operas, and art exhibitions.
>
> Yeah, and the "highly educated people" don't understand why the "average"
>people pay $150 for a football ticket.
You can say that again. I've never understood where the thrill is in sitting in
a frigid stadium watching over-muscled men repeatedly run into each other.
I doubly don't understand where the thrill is in watching the same event
on TV; I'd much rather go down to the local library and read a good book.
-dms
Matthew Murray
On 17 Nov 1996, Theron Fuller wrote:
> Believe me, if Joe Straczynski and the suits at Warner Bros. could
> figure out how Chris Carter did it with X files, Babylon 5 would be
> the premiere show on the Warner Bros. Network; and a giant poster of
> Michigan J. Frog would be hanging over Garibaldi's bed.
Would you mind qualifying this statement? What proof do you have
to support this?
===============================================================================
Matthew A. Murray - n964...@cc.wwu.edu
Over 170 computer game reviews, Babylon 5 links, and more on my home page:
http://www.wwu.edu/~n9641343
===============================================================================
Windows 95 - From the Makers of EDLIN!
===============================================================================
Troy-Heagy
> Gordan Miller wrote:
>
> > Babylon 5!! What IS it with these people? It's one of the
> > worst-acted shows on TV,
>
> You have not seen Babylon 5. I can tell that.
>
> > the performers do, and the productions value manage to occasionally rise
> > very slightly above the "cheesy" level. Look, I am not totally oblivious
> > to the appeal of the show, which lies in the Big Plan, the plots and
> > counterplots, and the foreshadowing of Things to Come. But...."if you
> > don't like it, you're stupid"??
>
>
> the
> mental capacity to do so. Europians are generally better educated than
> Americans, so they enjoy Babylon 5 far more than Americans do.
Nice insult...
Let me tell you something...when you are trying to convert people over
to your side, telling them they are stupid does not win them
over...instead you make them defensive and scare them off. To win
someone over to your side, you need to use candy not a bat. You need
to tell them that you understand their point of view and respect their
opinions. In other words, BE POLITE.
Troy-...@psu.edu (age 24) Renew Babylon 5! http://www.hyperion.com
Londo Mollari
Stephen <sec...@psu.edu> wrote:
> David Thiel wrote:
> >
> > In article <328E1D...@psu.edu> Stephen <sec...@psu.edu> writes:
> >
> > >Last week's Variety, (dated Oct 28 - Nov 3) announced the Nielsen
ratings for
> > >first-run syndicated programs for the week of Oct 6 - Oct 13. Among them,
> > >Babylon 5 came in at #5!
> >
> > >1. Journeys of Hercules 5.8
> > >2. Star Trek: DS9 5.6
> > >3. Xena 5.3
> > >4. Baywatch 4.2
> > >5. Babylon 5 3.6
> >
> > These appear to be numbers for syndicated action hours only--JEOPARDY, WHEEL
> > OF FORTUNE and OPRAH, all of which regularly gather significantly higher
> > ratings than HERCULES or DS9, are conspicuously absent.
>
> And Friends, ER, and Seinfeld, beat both all them. That is why I posted
the "First
> Run Syndicated" ratings. Pay attention to what is posted.
Actually Mr. Thiel was right. You should said "ratings for syndicated
action hours." Any other language and you are pretty much in the wrong.
There were a number of "first run" shows ahead of B5 that week that you
did not list: _Entertainment_Tonight_, etc. etc. You also failed to
list _The_Outer_Limits_ which was tied with B5 that week. Your listings
quite deceptive, unintentionally deceptive, but deceptive nether-the-less.
> > >Oh, and Theoron, Hercules kicks DS9's butt on a regular basis. It would
> > >appear that Xena has begun drop-kicking DS9 as well.
> >
> > Actually, if you follow the ratings from week to week, you'll find HERCULES,
> > XENA and DS9 in what amounts to a three-way tie. Some weeks, XENA or
> > HERCULES is ahead; other times, DS9 prevails--but all three hover
> > between a 5 and 6 rating. Two-tenths of a ratings point is statistically
> > insignificant, and doesn't equal "butt-kicking" by any standard.
>
> Theoron was saying that DS9 almost always beats Herc and Xena with new
> eps. He was quite wrong. I am merely pointing this out.
DS9 nine beats them most of the time, though you are correct in
saying "almost always" is wrong. DS9 was not on top at the start of
the season, though the last few weeks it has been.
> BTW, if B5 is doing so badly, in some people's opinion, why has TBS asked
> for two B5 TV movies, and why is a spin-off series called "Crusaders" in
> the works? B5 is not only holding its own, but is making a name for
> itself. Star Trek in the 60's had poor ratings and was canned after three
> years. Now Trek is a huge franchise, making Paramount huge piles of cash.
> B5 has modest ratings, and WB could be using B5 to make the next "Trek"
> phenomeon.
B5 is NOT doing badly, if anything the trades say it been doing quite
well as of late. And though WB is clearly taking about the "Crusaders"
I would not even begin to say it is a sure thing. Lots of stuff gets
talked about, but it does not mean too much until WB signs it on the dotted
line, gives a firm go, and actively markets it to the stations.
Troy-Heagy
In article <56mtdu$8...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>
m.l...@ix.netcom.com(M.Levi) writes:
> >> I think NOT. B5 is exactly where it
> >> belongs-- as a cult show with a small, but all-too-rabid following.
>
>
> Those of us who watched TOS in the 60's will recognize the irony of
> this comment. You younger viewers who grew up with Star Trek may not
> realize that the original Star Trek flopped in the ratings. It was a
> cult show with a small band of ardent viewers, whom the network
> authorities regarded as unrepresentative of mainstream America. I
> remember quite vividly trying to get people interested in the original
> show without success. The average joe couldn't follow all this stuff
> about phasers and photon torpedos and transporters and Klingons. He
> was into Peyton Place -- not Star Trek.
Peyton Place? Is that anything like Melrose Place? :) The more things
change, the more they stay the same.
Joshua Jasper
In article <56ldhp$q...@sol.towson.edu>,
>:
>: > SYNDICATED Ratings: October 28-Nov 3(two weeks ago)
>: > SHOW Rating
>: > 12 Xena 5.5%
>: > 14 Hercules 5.2%
>: > 15 Deep Space Nine 5.0%
>: > -- Babylon 5 not listed in Top 25^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>:
>: That sucks. Babylon 5 is the best sci fi show, ever.
>:
>: I hear somewhere that the ratings of Babylon5 is relative to the
>: educational level of viewers. More educated viewers are, higher the rating.
>:
>: Is this why B5 is so popular in Europe while nobody watches B5 in the US?
>:
>: That is pretty sad.............. America's going down the drain..........
>
>the performers do, and the productions value manage to occasionally rise
>very slightly above the "cheesy" level. Look, I am not totally oblivious
>to the appeal of the show, which lies in the Big Plan, the plots and
>counterplots, and the foreshadowing of Things to Come. But...."if you
>belongs-- as a cult show with a small, but all-too-rabid following.
As a 'rabid' B5 fan, I honestly think the show is right up there
with the current greats such as Millennuim, the X-Files, ER, and NYPD
Blue. The later 2 shows I don't watch much because I'm not fond of cop
shows or hospital dramas. As for the production, it's a far cry better
than anything else sci-fi on TV today. As for the 'big plan' well, if you
don't like it, thats more a matter of taste, like me not liking ER. In
the US a show like maried with children out-Nielsens B%, which is rather
sad.
>
> Not to mention that saying anything is "the best scifi show ever" is
>like saying "the greatest professional wrestling match I ever saw" or "the
>1910 Fruitgum Company's best tune." Sure, it's better than Lost in
>Space, Land of the Giants, or Battlestar Galactica....but what is THAT
>really saying, eh?
It's also as good as Max Headroom, and certainly as good as the
Star Wars movies, _miles_ better than Star Trek. SF has a rather long
history. Sure some of it's crap, but some of most things are crap. Take a
look at what occupies the rest of TV. Shows like Maried With Children,
The Wyans Brothers, Rosane, etc... Alot of TV is rather anti-intelectual.
B5 is manifestly aa cerebral show. Sure there are fight scenes, and
humor, but it also deals alot with realy intetresting issues other shows
are never going to touch.
Sinboy
Bamfer
:
: : > Babylon 5!! What IS it with these people? It's one of the
: : > worst-acted shows on TV,
:
: : You have not seen Babylon 5. I can tell that.
:
: What a little snot. I have seen B5.
: It's a pretentous joke. It's boring. The acting is just a tad worse than
: Barney and Friends. It looks cheap.
Gee, you know, I didn't like his post either, but I wouldn't even dis
Voyager by comparing it to "Barney and Friends". The acting on B5 is now
up to Trek show level, IMHO. It was *real* dodgy in B5's first season,
but has improved enormously. And cheap ain't necessarily bad, especially
considering they don't have a Trek size budget. Which is all besides the
point. B5 doesn't look cheap anymore like it sometimes did in it's first
season. Well, hell, I watch British SF shows like "Doctor Who" and
"Blake's 7", where you have to conciously overlook things like SF/X
in order to enjoy those shows (and it's worth it). SF/X isn't the end-all
be-all of good SF on TV.
"Barney and Friends"??? I don't think anyone can take your rebuttal
seriously after that.
Sonja
--lans...@scf.nmsu.edu bam...@acca.nmsu.edu
"There are worlds out there where the sky's burning, and the sea's asleep,
and the rivers dream; people made of smoke and cities made of song. Somewhere
there's danger. Somewhere there's injustice. Somewhere else the tea's getting
cold. Come on, Ace. We've got work to do!" -- Doctor to Ace, "Survival"
Gabe White
Franklin Hummel (hum...@world.std.com) wrote:
: In article <56n5ac$f...@login.freenet.columbus.oh.us>,
: Gabe White <gwh...@freenet.columbus.oh.us> wrote:
: >: > I think NOT. B5 is exactly where it
: >: > belongs-- as a cult show with a small, but all-too-rabid following.
:
: Oh, it's just Gabe White. I thought it might have been someone
: who was worth answering.
Aw, shucks.
Morgan Dhu
man...@internetland.net (James M. Politte) wrote:
>I'll take B5 over ST any day of the week and would much rather go see the
>symphony than Hulk Hogan. :)
>Monica E. Barry (college educated, no less)
>ne...@smartnet.net
I absolutely refuse to miss either Babylon 5 *or* the two Star Trek
series... and I absolutely refuse to choose between them. Both have
strong and weak points, both are enjoyable science-fiction television
shows...
But I would rather go the symphony than see Hulk Hogan... but if we
were talking Olympic class Greco-Roman wrestling, I'd probably try to
squeeze them both in... <g> and it would be even more difficult if we
were talking high-level martial arts competition...
Morgan Dhu (also college educated, as if it really makes any
difference...)
~~~Cave ab homine unius libri~~~
Ted McCoy
In article <56mnv5$l...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
M.Levi <m.l...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Name one thing, ONE thing, that
>Voyager actors have said or done that couldn't be predicted before the
>conclusion of an episode...
How about Tom Paris and Janeway giving birth to a bunch of salamanders? Even
as it was happening, I still could hardly believe my eyes.
Ted
Franklin Hummel
In article <56n5ac$f...@login.freenet.columbus.oh.us>,
> You know, buddy, you really make B5 fans look bad.
Troy-Heagy
In article <19961116003...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
for...@aol.com writes:
> "Theron Fuller" <tfu...@moon.jic.com>
> Newsgroups:
> rec.arts.sf.tv,alt.tv.x-files,alt.tv.lois-n-clark,rec.arts.startrek.curren
> t,alt.tv.xena,rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5
>
>
> :Where's the sudden increase in Babylon 5's ratings that Joe
> :Straczynski says has Warner Bros. suddenly so interested in a fifth
> :season?
>
>
> Somewhere in either the lower 20's or mid 30's in the syndication market.
>
>
> JMS as you might have noticed isn't always the most credible source of
> unbiased info when it comes to B5 rathings.
> for...@aol.com (Ford A. Thaxton)
Now that I think of it, I have confirmed at least one of JMS' postings.
JMS stated that Babylon 5 received a 3.6 for "Grey 17 Is Missing." Lo
and behold, two weeks later, I was able to confirm that rating from
Weekly Variety. So, YES, JMS is a credible source of ratings info.
PLEASE email me...I'm anxious to see your reply. :)
Troy-...@psu.edu (age 24) Renew Babylon 5! http://www.hyperion.com
Robert Holland
Stephen wrote:
>
> David Thiel wrote:
> >
> > In article <328E1D...@psu.edu> Stephen <sec...@psu.edu> writes:
> >
> > >Last week's Variety, (dated Oct 28 - Nov 3) announced the Nielsen ratings for
> > >first-run syndicated programs for the week of Oct 6 - Oct 13. Among them,
> > >Babylon 5 came in at #5!
> >
> > >1. Journeys of Hercules 5.8
> > >2. Star Trek: DS9 5.6
> > >3. Xena 5.3
> > >4. Baywatch 4.2
> > >5. Babylon 5 3.6
> >
> > These appear to be numbers for syndicated action hours only--JEOPARDY, WHEEL
> > OF FORTUNE and OPRAH, all of which regularly gather significantly higher
> > ratings than HERCULES or DS9, are conspicuously absent.
>
> And Friends, ER, and Seinfeld, beat both all them. That is why I posted the "First
> Run Syndicated" ratings. Pay attention to what is posted.
>
> > >appear that Xena has begun drop-kicking DS9 as well.
> >
> > Actually, if you follow the ratings from week to week, you'll find HERCULES,
> > XENA and DS9 in what amounts to a three-way tie. Some weeks, XENA or
> > HERCULES is ahead; other times, DS9 prevails--but all three hover
> > between a 5 and 6 rating. Two-tenths of a ratings point is statistically
> > insignificant, and doesn't equal "butt-kicking" by any standard.
>
> Theoron was saying that DS9 almost always beats Herc and Xena with new eps. He was
> quite wrong. I am merely pointing this out.
>
> B5 TV movies, and why is a spin-off series called "Crusaders" in the works? B5 is
> not only holding its own, but is making a name for itself. Star Trek in the 60's
> had poor ratings and was canned after three years. Now Trek is a huge franchise,
> making Paramount huge piles of cash. B5 has modest ratings, and WB could be using
> B5 to make the next "Trek" phenomeon.
There is MUCH more sci-fi tv competition today than in the 60's and
70's, when Trek
found its audience. B5's survival depends on its success in the
syndicated market,
mainly on how the reruns grab and grow an audience. That it's doing
break-even
business today gets images onto film, but how it does in 1998 and beyond
will
determine if it can grow into a franchise.
If TBS runs B5 once or twice and can't sell it to other outlets, then
the show
will sit on a shelf somewhere, hauled out now and again for special
occasions
(those are occasions where someone figures to make a buck from airing
the
show).
There are a lot of changes coming to the tv biz, and it may well prove
beneficial to the health and life of Babylon 5. There will be a hunger
for
"software" that fits into the niche markets that are blossoming out of
the fractured network tv markets. Straczynski may have been shrewd
enough
to create a show that will get many years of play through small
channels.
--RH
The_Doge
In article <56o42t$h...@mathserv.mps.ohio-state.edu>,
mc...@math.ohio-state.edu (Ted McCoy) wrote:
I think Ted's got ya there. >:-{)> Granted, it was just about he goofiest
thing I'd ever seen on an SF TV show, but at least it wasn't predictable.
Ludicrous, but not prdictable.
Of course, I'm on public record as pointing out how over-rated
"unpredictability" is as a measure of anything of significance in any
case.
--
<*> ObQuote: "If the world were a logical place, men would ride side-saddle."
-- Rita Mae Brown
======================================================================
<*>The_Doge of St. Louis
Stage, screen, radio
http://www.pobox.com/~thedoge/
Aethe...@worldnet.att.net
Morgan Dhu wrote:
>
> >Babylon 5
> But I would rather go the symphony than see Hulk Hogan...
I have two questions;
What the heck is Babylon 5?
And just which symphony concerts would you go to rather than see Hulk
Hogan? I can think of one or two programmes I've paid for that were
much less enjoyable than seeing Hulk jump up and down on an opponent's
tummy :-)
Mike Barklage
d-t...@uiuc.edu (David Thiel) writes:
>Another distinction often made in the broadcast trades is that of "syndicated
>action hours," referring to the subset of the above programs that are 1) an
>hour in length, and 2) in the general category of action-adventure. This again
>includes DS9, B5 and HERCULES, but not JEOPARDY or OPRAH.
You obviously missed Disgruntled Postal Worker Week on Jeopardy...
...not to mention the touching "Timothy McVeigh Meets the Survivors of the
Oklahoma City Bombing" episode of Oprah...
Mike Barklage
bark...@ucsu.colorado.edu ----- Chir...@aol.com ----- MSTie #19634 -----
For MiSTings and Ed Wood items, link to http://rtt.colorado.edu/~barklage
"Once again the trousers of evil are yanked down by the mocking hands
of justice!" -- Earthworm Jim
leigh...@aol.com
In article <328CEE...@davlin.net>, Len Leshin <lle...@davlin.net>
writes:
>> PRIME-TIME Ratings: November 4-10(Mon-Sun)(last week)
>> SHOW Net/Rating/Share
>> 17 The X-Files FOX/11.1% /16%
>> 58 Millenium FOX/ 8.1% /14%
>> 62 Lois & Clark ABC/ 7.8% /12%
>> 65 Profiler NBC/ 7.5% /14%
>> 82 Sliders FOX/ 6.1% /11%
>> 83 Dark Skies NBC/ 6.0% /11%
>> 87 Voyager UPN/ 5.6% / 9% (no syndicated markets)
>
>OK, but Voyager is syndicated in some areas of the ocuntry that don't
>have UPN yet (like my city). What about those numbers?
>
>
Would be a whole lot better if L&C were even were it was the end of the
second season and was in second place ranking in the low 30s under
X-Files. Heaven help L&C if Fox should ever decide to move X-Files back to
8 p.m. to capture the younger viewers who find 9 p.m. too late for a
weeknight.
Leigh Raglan
leigh...@aol.com
leig...@aol.com
http://member.aol.com/lcmetclub/lcmc.html
Bryan P Chu
Morgan Dhu (moo...@inforamp.net) wrote:
: I absolutely refuse to miss either Babylon 5 *or* the two Star Trek
: series... and I absolutely refuse to choose between them. Both have
: strong and weak points, both are enjoyable science-fiction television
: shows...
Personally I prefer Babylon 5, and would take it over any of the new
current Trek shows anyday.... But if people are gonna bring the WWF (or
is that WCC?) into this, me and the Hulkster go waaaaaay back. Who need
symphony when we have "Hulkamania?" :)
But then again, I've been a fight/martial arts fan since I was a weee
tike. And yes, I have found out that Pro Wrestling (at least in the
States) isn't real. But that doesn't mean I don't enjoy it when they grab
the steel chair.... (ah, nostalgia)
So who would win in a Xena versus Hulk Hogan (after he turned bad)
superfight?
Later
Bryan Chu (one of the millions of little Hulkamaniacs)
BTW: have the Animaniacs parodied this yet?
:
: But I would rather go the symphony than see Hulk Hogan... but if we
:
Londo Mollari
the...@pobox.com (The_Doge) wrote:
> In article <56o42t$h...@mathserv.mps.ohio-state.edu>,
> mc...@math.ohio-state.edu (Ted McCoy) wrote:
>
> >In article <56mnv5$l...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
> >M.Levi <m.l...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>Name one thing, ONE thing, that
> >>Voyager actors have said or done that couldn't be predicted before the
> >>conclusion of an episode...
> >
> >How about Tom Paris and Janeway giving birth to a bunch of salamanders? Even
> >as it was happening, I still could hardly believe my eyes.
>
> I think Ted's got ya there. >:-{)> Granted, it was just about he goofiest
> thing I'd ever seen on an SF TV show, but at least it wasn't predictable.
> Ludicrous, but not prdictable.
>
> Of course, I'm on public record as pointing out how over-rated
> "unpredictability" is as a measure of anything of significance in any
> case.
In other words it is easy to be unpredictable (or at least it should
be easy to be) if one totally ignores continuity, story logic, and
how things really work.
Mike
Michael J. Hennebry
In article <328EC9...@student.ucr.edu>,
Seung Ho Chung <chun...@student.ucr.edu> wrote:
: FYI, Babylon 5 won the Hugo award for the best Sci Fi show a month ago.
To be precise, the episode "The Coming of Shadows" won.
: If you don't undertand Babylon 5 storyline, that is because you lack
:the
: mental capacity to do so. Europians are generally better educated than
: Americans, so they enjoy Babylon 5 far more than Americans do.
I think it has more to do with the fact that Europeans get Babylon 5 at
regular reasonable times.
--
Mike henn...@plains.NoDak.edu
"Well, before my sword can pass all the way through your neck, it has
to pass *half way* through your neck. But before it can do *that*, it
has to first pass *one-fourth* of the way through your neck. And
before it can do *that*...." -- Ray Radlein quoting Zeno, Warrior Princess
John D. Powers
Troy-Heagy wrote:
> Europians are generally better educated than Americans, so they enjoy > Babylon 5 far more than Americans do.
If Europeans are so smart, why did we have to bail them out of *two*
world wars? :-)
-- JDP
Roving Reporter
That's easy -- it doesn't take an education to fight. It's the diplomacy
that requires knowledge...so we provided the cannon fodder to back 'em up
while the diplomats went at negotiations. Of course the American presidents
had to be involved just to save face too. (-;
**********************************************************
* Therese Shellabarger - tls...@concentric.net *
* http://www.concentric.net/~tlshell/ "Roving Reporter" *
* XENA: http://www.concentric.net/~tlshell/xena.html *
**********************************************************
* Usually bare feet, but if cold then in polyfleece! *
**********************************************************
* See if I care about your opinion, the life I've led -- *
* each dawn I go forth with sword in hand, to sweep scum *
* from the decks of my battleship. Revenge at last, and *
* it be sweet, too, 'cuz now I get the girl, _not you_. *
**********************************************************
* Sim shalom tovah uv'rachah, chein va'chesed v'rachamim *
* aleynu v'al kol y'ra-ay sh'mecha, sim shalom. *
**********************************************************
Finger: use tls...@finger.concentric.net
TMB
troll, troll, troll your boat....
--
TMB
Spammers used to bother me, until I started using "whois" and "nslookup".
now I report and sometimes prosecute!
John D. Powers <doug....@turner.com> wrote in article
<3290A1...@turner.com>...
Ray Radlein
[Since, presumably, everyone on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5 already know
this, and rec.arts.startrek.current is no longer relevant, I'm trimming
headers a little here.]
"Babylon 5" is a first-run syndicated science fiction drama created by
J. Michael Straczynski. It is syndicated through Warner Brothers to most
of the domestic markets, as well as Europe, Australia, et cetera. While
not the ratings success that Hercules and Xena and DS9 are, it has a
following very reminiscent of the early Trek fandom -- or, for that
matter, like Xena fandom in ways.
It takes place primarily on a 23rd century space station (and for what
it's worth, the series concept clearly predates DS9; call it parallel
evolution, or "great minds think alike," and avoid unnecessary flamage),
built and run by humans for primarily diplomatic purposes, and populated
by a variety of races (five major -- the Minbari, Narns, Centauri,
Humans, and the ancient and enigmatic Vorlons -- and numerous minor).
The show itself has several features to commend it. Among the most
notable of these is the fact that the entire series was planned out in
some detail in advance by Straczynski before the pilot episode was ever
filmed. Once the first episode aired, Straczynski could have told you
with fair accuracy when the last episode -- number 110 -- would air (as
it is, we already know its title: "Sleeping in Light"). The result of
having the whole thing planned out in advance has been a remarkable
built-in continuity. B5 almost never falls prey to the dreaded "Trekian
Reset-to-Zero Switch," which results in the status (and apparent
knowledge) of all charcters at the end of each episode being exactly the
same as at the begining ("Voyager" has had some particularly egregious
examples of this). If a character is injured in one episode, for
instance, they will most probably take several episodes to recover.
Likewise, characters rarely do that whole "find the girl, get the girl,
lose the girl" arc in one episode. Those characters who have developed
relationships have grown into them over the course of months; and if the
relationships do not work out, the effects are seen for months.
Another result of this is that the characters have grown and developed
during the course of the series. Ambassador G'Kar of the Narn, for
instance, first seemed to be a hotheaded and devious member of a violent
race; however through the crucible of action in the series, he has
gradually become the resolute and courageous leader of an embattled
people. Ambassador Molari of the Centauri seemed at first to be comic
relief; the nearly-alcoholic representative of an impotent race. His
actions, however, have resulted in a great evil, which he is struggling
to cope with, as he wrestles with despair about his ability to control
the forces he has set in motion. In one sense, he is the villain of the
show; in another, he is merely the first victim of that evil. His
diplomatic attache, Vir, also seemed at first to be comic relief; a
bumbling innocent. Again, over the course of three years, we have seen
him grow and develop something of a spine, and the willingness to try to
do the right thing.
Perhaps the best part of having the entire show plotted out in advance
is the way it enables Straczynski to make use of foreshadowing. There
are scenes we have seen in prescient visions, dreams, and time travel
thingummies since the very begining of the show, which are only now
being explained (and others whose explanations will probably have to
wait until the end of the series). For one example, there was a scene
that was part of a dream in the very first episode which finally
happened just the other week -- three full years later. Straczynski has
been making marvelous use of this ability.
And it *has* been Straczynski making use of these things. He wrote most
of the episodes in the first two seasons; however, he has written
*every* episode of seasons three and (so far) four himself. Since he is
also the Producer, this means that his vision is making it to the screen
in a very nearly unadulterated form.
And then there are also the little touches: The constant inside-jokes
(naming alien races after Neil Gaiman and Whitley Streiber) and
references to classic written science fiction (having a telepathic cop
named Alfred Bester, for instance!); the little slice-of-life details
absent from most televised SF (uniforms that don't fit right, cafeteria
food that isn't all that great, actual scenes set in restrooms -- yes,
people really *do* still urinate in the future!); spaceships that
actually obey Newton's Laws of motion, et cetera.
In my humble opinion, with the possible exception of "The Prisoner," B5
is simply the finest SF series ever. My wife and I still watch -- and
tape -- every episode of Trek(s), X-Files, and so forth; but for Babylon
5, we get up at 5:00 AM, and use SuperVHS tapes.
- Ray R.
PS - Okay, so the acting in the pilot was pretty lame; some of the
actors hadn't yet gotten a feel for their characters, and others were
simply jettisoned before the first episode. And some of the first season
episodes were also kinda lame. But overall -- and especially since the
midpoint of last season -- wow!
--
*********************************************************************
"Well, before my sword can pass all the way through your neck, it has
to pass *half way* through your neck. But before it can do *that*, it
has to first pass *one-fourth* of the way through your neck. And
before it can do *that*...." - Zeno, Warrior Princess
Ray Radlein - r...@learnlink.emory.edu
homepage coming soon! wooo, wooo.
*********************************************************************
Stephen
Parrothead wrote:
>
> "John D. Powers" <doug....@turner.com> wrote:
>
> >Troy-Heagy wrote:
> >> Europians are generally better educated than Americans, so they enjoy > Babylon 5 far more than Americans do.
>
> >If Europeans are so smart, why did we have to bail them out of *two*
> >world wars? :-)
Oh yea, it was all America. Just forget about the fact that the Soviets
killed/captured more germans in one battle than America ever faced in
WWII.
Parrothead
"John D. Powers" <doug....@turner.com> wrote:
>Troy-Heagy wrote:
>> Europians are generally better educated than Americans, so they enjoy > Babylon 5 far more than Americans do.
>If Europeans are so smart, why did we have to bail them out of *two*
>world wars? :-)
>-- JDP
I hadnt realized that being more educated equated to being more
barbaric . We had to bail out the Europeans because America was just
as decadent as the germans. The love of weaponry and killing. The
inate racism ( after all mass genocide against the american indian is
no different then what Hitler did to the Jews. And lets not even get
started on what we have done to the blacks). Education has nothing to
do with it.
Parrothead
Phillip Sral
In article <3291EB...@psu.edu>, sec...@psu.edu says...
>
>Parrothead wrote:
>>
>> "John D. Powers" <doug....@turner.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Troy-Heagy wrote:
>> >> Europians are generally better educated than Americans, so they
>> >> enjoy Babylon 5 far more than Americans do.
>>
>> >If Europeans are so smart, why did we have to bail them out of *two*
>> >world wars? :-)
>
>killed/captured more germans in one battle than America ever faced in
>WWII.
Fact 1: As far as WWI is concerned, we did practically nothing. The
Germans knew they were defeated, and it was VERY close to over
by the time our troops joined the fight. Also, in the few
battles that Americam troops fought in, they got their asses
thoroughly kicked; and also had a HIGH rate of dissertion among
the ranks.
Fact 2: We didn't "bail" Europe out of WWII. We joined as a result of
the Pearl Harbor attack; and if that had not occured, I believe
that we would either not have participated in WWII at all, or
have entered near the end. If you look at history, Europe was
fighting for close to 4 years before we entered the fray.
Remember, when France fell to the Axis powers, we STILL stayed
out of it, so don't think that the situation would have changed
without some sort of direct attack on the U.S. Also, the
majority of our ground forces were involved in our
island-hopping Pacific campaign, and although we had forces in
Europe, the majority of the actualunits fighting in Europe were
in fact European.
I was born a United States American, and I'm damn proud of this country
too. However, I get sick of the people who, when they can't come up with
an intelligent reply, resort to the -
"We kicked/bailed out your ass at: <insert war/military incident here>"
I think some people need to grow up and realize that war itself is a BIG
waste.
Well, I'm starting to pontificate, so I better end it here.
-Phillip Sral
--
she...@primenet.com * Co-Founder of SHERBERT PRODUCTIONS *
(aka: Phillip Sral) (a fan dubbing group)
We specialize in english-parody dubs
of Japanese Anime!
SHERBERT PRODUCTIONS Web Page:
+===============================================+
| http://www.primenet.com/~sherbie/shrbhome.htm |
|-----------------------------------------------|
\ Some of our Works include: /
\===========================================/
| RANMA 1/2 - "Summer Vacation" |
| & |
| NINJA TEAM GATCHAMAN (Part 1) |
| "7-Zark-7 Must Die!" |
+-----------------------------------------+
Joshua Jasper
In article <328FEA...@worldnet.att.net>,
>
Oooh, someone who hasn't seen it yet. Well it's a sci-fi show put
out by WB, and is IMO, the best on TV today. Try checking a video store
for the premier, which is puut out in a made for TV movie form, and aany
oyher episodes you can if you're interested in good sci-fi. Then check
out the newsgroups for the FAQ which should have an episode history.
Check your TV listings for what time it's on. If you aren't in the US, or
UK (if you are in the UK, how the heck did you miss it? it's huge over
there) try satelite TV.
Sinboy
Max Exter
Stephen (sec...@psu.edu) wrote:
: > >> Europians are generally better educated than Americans, so they enjoy > Babylon 5 far more than Americans do.
: Oh yea, it was all America. Just forget about the fact that the Soviets
: killed/captured more germans in one battle than America ever faced in
: WWII.
When in doubt, deflect the issue to Russia.
But seriously, education in Europe is not necessarily better than the U.S.
I'm sure it is better in several areas, but everything has it's strong
points. The problem with the U.S. is under-funding to their schools. I
don't know much about the European situation, at least beyond people that I
correspond with.
Besides, education has little to do with school. Education requires
experience, and no matter how much most schools try, they can offer very
little of that.
Regardlessly, this is a pointless dispute. I like B5, and I like DS9. To a
mild extent, I even like Voyager. So do many Americans, Canadians and
Europeans. This doesn't reflect intelligence. It simply replects upon what
we as individuals find entertaining.
- ME -
ste...@usit.net
Stephen <sec...@psu.edu> wrote:
>Parrothead wrote:
>>
>> "John D. Powers" <doug....@turner.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Troy-Heagy wrote:
>> >> Europians are generally better educated than Americans, so they enjoy > Babylon 5 far more than Americans do.
>>
>> >If Europeans are so smart, why did we have to bail them out of *two*
>> >world wars? :-)
>Oh yea, it was all America. Just forget about the fact that the Soviets
>killed/captured more germans in one battle than America ever faced in
>WWII.
Agreed. It was the Soviets that pulled our fat out of the fire by
tying down > 50 divisions in the East.
-Steve
MAIL: ste...@usit.net
WWW: http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1131/index.html
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, §227,
any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
TUFFY LANGENBERGER
I dunno about everyone else, but I'm capable of enjoying more than 1 TV
show. My week just isn't complete without DS9, B5, Millennium and X-Files.
I like em all for different reasons and if you don't, I don't care.
That's why TVs have different channels, folks.
Mark Christopher
In article <56susa$a...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>,
>>>
>>> "John D. Powers" <doug....@turner.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Troy-Heagy wrote:
>>> >> Europians are generally better educated than Americans, so they
>>> >> enjoy Babylon 5 far more than Americans do.
>>>
>>> >If Europeans are so smart, why did we have to bail them out of *two*
>>> >world wars? :-)
>>
>>Oh yea, it was all America. Just forget about the fact that the Soviets
>>killed/captured more germans in one battle than America ever faced in
>>WWII.
>
>
>Fact 2: We didn't "bail" Europe out of WWII. We joined as a result of
> the Pearl Harbor attack; and if that had not occured, I believe
> that we would either not have participated in WWII at all, or
> have entered near the end. If you look at history, Europe was
> fighting for close to 4 years before we entered the fray.
> Remember, when France fell to the Axis powers, we STILL stayed
> out of it, so don't think that the situation would have changed
> without some sort of direct attack on the U.S. Also, the
> majority of our ground forces were involved in our
> island-hopping Pacific campaign, and although we had forces in
> Europe, the majority of the actualunits fighting in Europe were
> in fact European.
>
>I was born a United States American, and I'm damn proud of this country
>too. However, I get sick of the people who, when they can't come up with
>an intelligent reply, resort to the -
>
>"We kicked/bailed out your ass at: <insert war/military incident here>"
>
>I think some people need to grow up and realize that war itself is a BIG
>waste.
>
you get the "almost 4 years" above. Germany invaded Poland in September
'39, and Pearl was December '41. While we did give immense material
assistance to both the USSR and GB, I also see in WWII the European war as
secondary to our "real" enemy, the Japanese.
-Markus
--
--Mark Christopher--markus@shore.net--http://www.shore.net/~markus--<*>
"Information causes change, and if it doesn't, it's not information.
You're sitting in a seat: that's not information. The person next to
you has a communicable disease: now that's information." -James Burke
Bob Luthardt
With the help of an infinite number of monkeys, "John D. Powers"
<doug....@turner.com> wrote:
-->"Troy-Heagy wrote:
-->"> Europians are generally better educated than Americans, so they enjoy > Babylon 5 far more than Americans do.
-->"
-->"If Europeans are so smart, why did we have to bail them out of *two*
-->"world wars? :-)
-->"
-->"-- JDP
While it's not exactly a strong argument, I thought I'd point out that
Americans bathe on a regular basis, while Europeans tend to bathe on
thier birthday.
TMB
Just a correction or two on some of the points below:
--
TMB
Spammers used to bother me, until I started using "whois" and "nslookup".
now I report and sometimes prosecute!
Phillip Sral <she...@primenet.com> wrote in article
<56susa$a...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>...
> In article <3291EB...@psu.edu>, sec...@psu.edu says...
> >
> >Parrothead wrote:
> >>
> >> "John D. Powers" <doug....@turner.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Troy-Heagy wrote:
> >> >> Europians are generally better educated than Americans, so they
> >> >> enjoy Babylon 5 far more than Americans do.
This is an opinion.
> >> >If Europeans are so smart, why did we have to bail them out of *two*
> >> >world wars? :-)
Nope. We were a significant force, but it cannot be said that it would
have
turned out differently. That is an opinion.
> >Oh yea, it was all America. Just forget about the fact that the Soviets
> >killed/captured more germans in one battle than America ever faced in
> >WWII.
Not all American. I would like to know what battle you're referring to.
Kursk? Stalingrad?
> Fact 1: As far as WWI is concerned, we did practically nothing. The
> Germans knew they were defeated, and it was VERY close to over
> by the time our troops joined the fight. Also, in the few
> battles that Americam troops fought in, they got their asses
> thoroughly kicked; and also had a HIGH rate of dissertion among
> the ranks.
Depends on what you consider anything. Lend lease was a major point.
D-day would not have happened when it did without American manpower.
As far as ass kicking goes: Bastonge, the battle of the bulge itself,
Sicily.
And since you can't cut out parts of a World War (no matter how much you
want too
they still all inter-relate at some level) Midway, Aluetians, North Africa.
Actually, the best way to put it would be that all major combatants won
some, and
all combatants lost even more.
> Fact 2: We didn't "bail" Europe out of WWII. We joined as a result of
> the Pearl Harbor attack; and if that had not occured, I believe
> that we would either not have participated in WWII at all, or
> have entered near the end. If you look at history, Europe was
> fighting for close to 4 years before we entered the fray.
> Remember, when France fell to the Axis powers, we STILL stayed
> out of it, so don't think that the situation would have changed
> without some sort of direct attack on the U.S. Also, the
> majority of our ground forces were involved in our
> island-hopping Pacific campaign, and although we had forces in
> Europe, the majority of the actualunits fighting in Europe were
> in fact European.
We were already participating before Pearl Harbor with the Lend lease, and
if we had continued that, we would have been drawn in sooner or later.
Also, the majority of our forces who were island hopping was only the
majority
at certain points during the war, towards the middle. Nothing much at the
start,
and the Europe first ideal swung it back around towards the letter stages.
> I was born a United States American, and I'm damn proud of this country
> too. However, I get sick of the people who, when they can't come up with
> an intelligent reply, resort to the -
>
> "We kicked/bailed out your ass at: <insert war/military incident here>"
>
Same here
> I think some people need to grow up and realize that war itself is a BIG
> waste.
>
Agreed
>
> Well, I'm starting to pontificate, so I better end it here.
Agreed
>
> -Phillip Sral
> --
BMF sig deleted
TMB
JCM
Joshua Jasper wrote:
>
> In article <56ldhp$q...@sol.towson.edu>, Gordan Miller wrote:
> >Seung Ho Chung (chun...@student.ucr.edu) wrote:
> >: tlh153 wrote:
> >:
> >: > SYNDICATED Ratings: October 28-Nov 3(two weeks ago)
> >: > SHOW Rating
> >: > 12 Xena 5.5%
> >: > 14 Hercules 5.2%
> >: > 15 Deep Space Nine 5.0%
> >: > -- Babylon 5 not listed in Top 25^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >:
> >: That sucks. Babylon 5 is the best sci fi show, ever.
> >:
> >: I hear somewhere that the ratings of Babylon5 is relative to the
> >: educational level of viewers. More educated viewers are, higher
> >: the rating.
Actually this is only the case where a person's sole source of
intellectual stimulation is their television. There are those of us who
actually read a book occasionally and think for ourselves and turn to the
televison only for a laugh or other pure entertainment.
> >:
> >: Is this why B5 is so popular in Europe while nobody watches B5 in
> >: the US?
Could be.
> >: That is pretty sad.............. America's going down the > >: drain..........
> >
America may be going down the drain, but if you think the most telling
barometer of this are B5's ratings, you're in no intellectual position to
judge.
> As a 'rabid' B5 fan, I honestly think the show is right up
>there with the current greats such as Millennuim, the X-Files, ER, and
>NYPD Blue. The later 2 shows I don't watch much because I'm not fond of
>cop shows or hospital dramas. As for the production, it's a far cry
>better than anything else sci-fi on TV today. As for the 'big plan'
>well, if you don't like it, thats more a matter of taste, like me not
>liking ER. In the US a show like maried with children out-Nielsens B%,
>which is rather sad.
>
Of course it does. As does ER, Seinfeld, NYPD BLue, and any number of
other shows that have a much broader appeal than B5. Doesn't science
fiction, by it's nature, have a narrowly defined audience? Are you going
to tell me that every show in every other industrialized country that has
a higher rating than B5 is much more intellectually stimulating, and the
reverse being true for shows that are rated lower?
BTW, I think "Seinfeld" is ten times better than your list of so called
"greats," a debatable label at best. It doesn't intellectually stimulate
me, but it cracks me up!
> >
> > Not to mention that saying anything is "the best scifi show ever"
> >is like saying "the greatest professional wrestling match I ever saw"
> >or "the 1910 Fruitgum Company's best tune." Sure, it's better than
> >Lost in Space, Land of the Giants, or Battlestar Galactica....but what
> >is THAT really saying, eh?
>
> It's also as good as Max Headroom, and certainly as good as the
> Star Wars movies, _miles_ better than Star Trek. SF has a rather long
> history. Sure some of it's crap, but some of most things are crap. Take
> a look at what occupies the rest of TV. Shows like Maried With
> Children, The Wyans Brothers, Rosane, etc... Alot of TV is rather
> anti-intelectual. B5 is manifestly aa cerebral show. Sure there are
> fight scenes, and humor, but it also deals alot with realy intetresting
> issues other shows are never going to touch.
> Sinboy
I don't know how you define an intellectual show, but I can't imagine how
Max Headroom would qualify. Also, though ST:TNG took a lot of scientific
liberties to say the least, it explored social issues as well as B5 does.
As for Rosanne, The Wayans Bros., and Married w/ Children (none of which
I ever watched regularly) they're obviously not trying to appeal on an
intellectual level. Does everything on TV have include hard science,
history, or math to be enjoyable or worthwhile in your eyes? Isaac
Asimov saw fit to mention how much he enjoyed "Laverne and Shirley"
(hardly an intellectual program) in his autobiography, and you'd be hard
pressed to call him uneducated.
There's a whole world outside of B5 and televison in general for that
matter. You should check it out.
outta here....
JCM
Robert Holland
Yeah, but this is the *B5* newsgroup. Love it or leave it!
Har!
--RH
Mark S. Han
On Tue, 19 Nov 1996 ste...@usit.net wrote:
> Stephen <sec...@psu.edu> wrote:
>
> >Parrothead wrote:
> >>
> >> "John D. Powers" <doug....@turner.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Troy-Heagy wrote:
> >> >> Europians are generally better educated than Americans, so they enjoy > Babylon 5 far more than Americans do.
> >>
> >> >If Europeans are so smart, why did we have to bail them out of *two*
> >> >world wars? :-)
>
> >Oh yea, it was all America. Just forget about the fact that the Soviets
> >killed/captured more germans in one battle than America ever faced in
> >WWII.
>
> Agreed. It was the Soviets that pulled our fat out of the fire by
> tying down > 50 divisions in the East.
> -Steve
>
Here's another interesting piece of trivia. Japan and Germany received
much of the loans they used to beef up their military from European and
U.S. financial institutions. Many of the strategic resources were also
bought from the allies. (Japan bought the elevated train tracks from NYC
and proceeded to make warships and munitions from them. E. E. Cummings
wrote a poem about Pearl Harbor and the return of the "Nipponized-el".)
The USSR was funded by the U.S. for their war materials. We sent them
parts for bombers, fighters, guns, etc. The British were given entire
fleets of ships, guns, etc. Without the U.S. industrial and economic
might, WWII would have been a lot smaller. :)
Before people start flaming, (geesh, some people just take newsgroups just
*way* too seriously!) this isn't a bitch or a flame, just trivia.
christopher blue
In article <3290A1...@turner.com>,
John D. Powers <doug....@turner.com> wrote:
>Troy-Heagy wrote:
>> Europians are generally better educated than Americans, so they enjoy > Babylon 5 far more than Americans do.
>
>If Europeans are so smart, why did we have to bail them out of *two*
>world wars? :-)
Thank you for reminding me why I stick to the moderated B5
newsgroup nowadays. Please limit this thread to the appropriate groups. I
found it on alt.tv.lois-n-clark where it is as irrelevant as it was on the
Xena and X-Files newsgroups it was also crossposted to.
Later,
--Blue!
----------------------------------- |-| *
|-| _ * __
Those fools on the Science Council--THEY LAUGHED AT ME! |-| | * |/'
They said I was MAD...that my theories wouldn't work! |-| |~*~~~o~|
But I'll show them--I'LL SHOW THE ENTIRE WORLD!!! |-| | O o *|
/___\ |o___O__|
David G. Homerick
On Mon, 18 Nov 1996, John D. Powers
: Troy-Heagy wrote:
: > Europians are generally better educated than Americans, so they enjoy
> Babylon 5 far more than Americans do.
: If Europeans are so smart, why did we have to bail them out of *two*
: world wars? :-)
They got us to bail them out, didn't they? That strikes me as pretty smart.
-- David
David L. Jessup
In article <56susa$a...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>,
she...@primenet.com (Phillip Sral) wrote:
[ And, yea, there was much snippage and gnashing of teeth.... ]
>Fact 2: We didn't "bail" Europe out of WWII. We joined as a result of
> the Pearl Harbor attack; and if that had not occured, I believe
> that we would either not have participated in WWII at all, or
> have entered near the end. If you look at history, Europe was
> fighting for close to 4 years before we entered the fray.
> Remember, when France fell to the Axis powers, we STILL stayed
> out of it, so don't think that the situation would have changed
> without some sort of direct attack on the U.S. Also, the
> majority of our ground forces were involved in our
> island-hopping Pacific campaign, and although we had forces in
> Europe, the majority of the actualunits fighting in Europe were
> in fact European.
Where do you get this datum that the majority of our ground forces were in the
Pacific? I seem to recall hearing figures indicating that 90% of our war
effort in 1942 was concentrated in Europe (though how this was measured I do
not recall --- perhaps if it's measured in dollars, it could be due to
Lend-Lease). Just FMI, since your assertions seem to contradict what I've
previously come across....
--- Dave Jessup
Morgan Dhu
myc...@netset.com (David L. Jessup) wrote:
>Where do you get this datum that the majority of our ground forces were in the
>Pacific? I seem to recall hearing figures indicating that 90% of our war
>effort in 1942 was concentrated in Europe (though how this was measured I do
>not recall --- perhaps if it's measured in dollars, it could be due to
>Lend-Lease). Just FMI, since your assertions seem to contradict what I've
>previously come across....
>--- Dave Jessup
Would you mind trimming newsgroups for this post, which is being sent
to a number of tv oriented newsgroups... I'm replying from
alt.tv.xena, which I have edited out of the newsgroups field, because
I really don't want to see any more replys... we tend to prefer
warfare with swords and bows in this ng.
THank you.
--Morgan Dhu
Ruth Ballam
John D. Powers wrote:
>
> Troy-Heagy wrote:
> > Europians are generally better educated than Americans, so they enjoy > Babylon 5 far more than Americans do.
>
> If Europeans are so smart, why did we have to bail them out of *two*
> world wars? :-)
>
Oh Pleeeeezzee !
Before you know it you'll be arguing about Hitler.
Stop now, while you still can, while you still have what's left of your
sanity !
Ruth
"The US was late for the last two world wars, so they're making damned
sure they'll be on time for the next one !" :)
Wayne Gordon
> >>
> >> "John D. Powers" <doug....@turner.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Troy-Heagy wrote:
> >> >> Europians are generally better educated than Americans, so they
> >> >> enjoy Babylon 5 far more than Americans do.
> >>
> >> >If Europeans are so smart, why did we have to bail them out of *two*
> >> >world wars? :-)
> >
> >killed/captured more germans in one battle than America ever faced in
> >WWII.
This may or may not be true numbers-wise, but you must remember that the
nature of the warfare on both fronts was quite different. Hitler saw the
battle with Russia as a death-struggle of conflicting ideologies, and
refused
to retreat ever, even tactically, with a few minor exceptions. Moreover,
the depth and breadth of the eastern front was neccesarily much greater.
>
> Fact 1: As far as WWI is concerned, we did practically nothing. The
> Germans knew they were defeated, and it was VERY close to over
> by the time our troops joined the fight. Also, in the few
> battles that Americam troops fought in, they got their asses
> thoroughly kicked; and also had a HIGH rate of dissertion among
> the ranks.
Yeah as far as WWI is concerned, you're right. Both sides were almost
literally bled
white by the time we arrived. It was a stalemate more or less.
>
> Fact 2: We didn't "bail" Europe out of WWII. We joined as a result of
> the Pearl Harbor attack; and if that had not occured, I believe
> that we would either not have participated in WWII at all, or
> have entered near the end. If you look at history, Europe was
> fighting for close to 4 years before we entered the fray.
> Remember, when France fell to the Axis powers, we STILL stayed
> out of it, so don't think that the situation would have changed
> without some sort of direct attack on the U.S. Also, the
> majority of our ground forces were involved in our
> island-hopping Pacific campaign, and although we had forces in
> Europe, the majority of the actualunits fighting in Europe were
> in fact European.
Four years? Depends on when you say it started! Most say September 1,
1939
when Poland got invaded. Others say the Pacific part started in '37 when
Japan
went into Manchuria. Question of interpretation. We entered the European
conflict
when Germany declared War on us a few days after Pearl Harbor - due to
the tripartite
pact. You also fail to take into account all of the lend-lease and other
aid we
gave, both to England and to Russia following Barbarossa. Lastly, the
majority
of units fighting in the western front of Europe were American, that's
why
Eisenhower was CIC of ETO rather than Montgomery.
>
> I was born a United States American, and I'm damn proud of this country
> too. However, I get sick of the people who, when they can't come up with
> an intelligent reply, resort to the -
>
> "We kicked/bailed out your ass at: <insert war/military incident here>"
Yes. this a refuge of last resort for silly little arguments. Just glad
this person isn't arguing with someone from Vietnam.
>
> I think some people need to grow up and realize that war itself is a BIG
> waste.
>
>
> Well, I'm starting to pontificate, so I better end it here.
>
Wayne Gordon
> >>
> >> "John D. Powers" <doug....@turner.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Troy-Heagy wrote:
> >> >> Europians are generally better educated than Americans, so they enjoy > Babylon 5 far more than Americans do.
> >>
> >> >If Europeans are so smart, why did we have to bail them out of *two*
> >> >world wars? :-)
>
> >Oh yea, it was all America. Just forget about the fact that the Soviets
> >killed/captured more germans in one battle than America ever faced in
> >WWII.
>
> tying down > 50 divisions in the East.
> -Steve
The Soviets were happy to let Nazi Gemany attack the capitalist west, as
they put it.
The only reason they scrapped with the Nazis was because they were
attacked first.
They "tied down" greater forces in large part due to the depth and
breadth of the front.
Theron Fuller
Londo Mollari <lo...@uoknor.edu> wrote in article
<londo-17119...@news.uoknor.edu>...
> "Theron Fuller" <tfu...@moon.jic.com> wrote:
> I guess Fuller has missed the postings of info and statements from
> _Variety_, _Electronic_Media_, _Broadcasting_&_Cable_, and
_Media_Week_
> recently.
>
> Gee, if not making the top-20 for the first time in a *VERY* long
time
> is not an increase, I don't know what you would call an increase.
Apparently Babylon 5 made it into a three-way tie for 19th place in
the syndicated ratings with a 3.6 rating. In 1994, according to t
Joe Straczynski quote, which I think was the last time Babylon 5 made
it into the top 20, it's rating was 5.2. So, the series has lost
almost 1 1/2 million viewers in two years.
> If not making the top-10 for both Men 18-49 and (very surprisingly)
> Adults 18-49 demos which a series such as B5 are usually aimed at
> is not important, than I don't know what could be to you.
Well, I haven't seen any figures on the demographics. Whose figures
are you quoting? The top ten of all first-run syndicated series, or
the top-10 of first-run, hour-long, syndicated dramas? Just how many
hour-long, first-run, syndicated dramas are there, anyway?
> If _Broadcasting_&_Cable_ saying that B5 is off to a "good start"
this
> season is not evidence to you than nothing probably is.
Well, the "final four" of season 3 bounced around in the mid-low 3s.
That's the same range the series was in when Warner Bros. was
considering canceling it last year and Joe Straczynski was urging
everyone to write their stations and urge them to renew it.
>Maybe you missed that _Media_Week_ has said that TNT is talking
about having
> two made-for-cable B5 movies and that WB is considering the B5
> sequel series?
And Joe Straczynski apparently told the Washington Times that the two
movies was just a rumor. Why don't you ask Joe Straczynski over on
rastb5.RomperRoom to confirm or deny the rumor? Perhaps give some
solid information on when the production of the movies and the
derivative series is scheduled to start. And what exactly is the
status of that spin-off series? Has it gone beyond Netter
Entertainment putting out a press release about the possibility of
producing such a series?
> Logic would indicate that if they are considering
> the sequel series, etc. than they would have to be considering
> the fifth season which is needed for them and is quite a bit less
> of a risk than making the sequel series. But logic probably does
> not make a dent.
Well yeah. Logic would indicate that if a frog had wings, he
wouldn't bump his ass so much. But I haven't seen any posts
indicating Warner Bros. or any of the Time-Warner divisions had given
any indication of buying a fifth season of Babylon 5. Or that
anybody in Time-Warner has gone beyond "talking about" two movies and
a derivative series. I've been reading about Kevin Costner making a
"Prisoner" movie for 2-3 years now. Haven't seen it advertised in
the movie section of my newspaper though. What solid information are
you basing your "frog-wings" logic on?
>
> And a note to Ford: NO EMAIL REPLIES.
>
Shucks, Ford. Post your observations here.
Regards,
Theron Fuller
Ruth Ballam
James M. Politte wrote:
>
> In article <328EC9...@student.ucr.edu>, Seung Ho Chung
> <chun...@student.ucr.edu> wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
> > Europians are generally better educated than
> > Americans, so they enjoy Babylon 5 far more than Americans do.
>
> intricasies of plot, but painting everybody who does NOT like the show as
> being ignorant and uneducated is inviting serious admonishment from other,
> not quite so forgiving individuals on this newsgroup. Not to mention it
> goes back that annoying European conceit that gets most "red-blooded
> American" folks' hackles up.
>
Can we say TROLL ?
I thought we could :)
If you would please note that the person who posted that statement has a US education
email address. It wasn't one of us Eropeans ... and watch it with the "conceit"
comment, it's a common condition which your nation is hardly short on.
hugz,
Ruth
John D. Powers
Phillip Sral wrote:
> However, I get sick of the people who, when they can't come up with
> an intelligent reply, resort to the -
> "We kicked/bailed out your ass at: <insert war/military incident here>"
I also find tiresome the refusal of some lurkers to note the ":-)" at
the end of good-natured jabs.
Myself (sadly) included, I know why so many spend so much time on the
net as opposed to at parties. Self-imposed social exile. Get over
yourself.
I have a PhD in history. I don't need you to explain US 20th century
foreign relations to me.
Look for the ":-)" label in the future before you appoint
change your name to John Paul and don a pointy hat.
Have a nice day. :-)
-- JDP
The_Doge of St. Louis
TUFFY LANGENBERGER (lang...@itlabs.umn.edu) wrote:
: I dunno about everyone else, but I'm capable of enjoying more than 1 TV
: show. My week just isn't complete without DS9, B5, Millennium and X-Files.
: I like em all for different reasons and if you don't, I don't care.
: That's why TVs have different channels, folks.
I'm sorry, but if you insist on taking this sort of rational attitude towards
these "my show can beat up your show" wankfests, we're going to have to
ask you to leave.
We have a *tradition* to uphold here, dang it! >:-{)>
---
The_Doge of St. Louis
Stage, screen, and radio
http://www.inlink.com/~thedoge/
---
:
Stephen
Theron Fuller wrote:
> > If _Broadcasting_&_Cable_ saying that B5 is off to a "good start"
> this
> > season is not evidence to you than nothing probably is.
>
> Well, the "final four" of season 3 bounced around in the mid-low 3s.
> That's the same range the series was in when Warner Bros. was
> considering canceling it last year and Joe Straczynski was urging
> everyone to write their stations and urge them to renew it.
No offence Theron, but I believe professional trade magazines more than an anti-B5
ranter such as yourself. Face it, you are still upset about B5 getting a fourth
season. You were wrong then, so why should anyone listen to a thing you say now?
> >Maybe you missed that _Media_Week_ has said that TNT is talking
> about having
> > two made-for-cable B5 movies and that WB is considering the B5
> > sequel series?
>
> And Joe Straczynski apparently told the Washington Times that the two
> movies was just a rumor. Why don't you ask Joe Straczynski over on
> rastb5.RomperRoom to confirm or deny the rumor? Perhaps give some
> solid information on when the production of the movies and the
> derivative series is scheduled to start. And what exactly is the
> status of that spin-off series? Has it gone beyond Netter
> Entertainment putting out a press release about the possibility of
> producing such a series?
Poor baby, not only is B5 doing well, but is posibly going to spin off. Look at
the bright side, this will give you two shows to whine about.
> > Logic would indicate that if they are considering
> > the sequel series, etc. than they would have to be considering
> > the fifth season which is needed for them and is quite a bit less
> > of a risk than making the sequel series. But logic probably does
> > not make a dent.
>
> Well yeah. Logic would indicate that if a frog had wings, he
> wouldn't bump his ass so much. But I haven't seen any posts
> indicating Warner Bros. or any of the Time-Warner divisions had given
> any indication of buying a fifth season of Babylon 5. Or that
> anybody in Time-Warner has gone beyond "talking about" two movies and
> a derivative series. I've been reading about Kevin Costner making a
> "Prisoner" movie for 2-3 years now. Haven't seen it advertised in
> the movie section of my newspaper though. What solid information are
> you basing your "frog-wings" logic on?
Just keep repeating that Theron. You may eventually believe it.
Question, are you and Ford related? You guys sound like broken records.
What did JMS do to get you two so upset? Why does B5's success make you get so
wound up? Why does every sign of B5's popularity make you start screaming? Did
JMS call you a bad name and make you cry? Are you trek fans who are against any
new sci-fi? Why do you act like a whipped crybaby when any good news about B5
comes out? Just deal with the fact that B5 is a fairly successful new sci-fi show
that is probably going to make it all five years and may even spin off into a new
show before it finishes. The trek domination of TV sci-fi is cracking, and new
shows are slipping through into the light of day. This is a *good* thing for
sci-fi fans.
I suggest that you relax and try not to let the success of others upset you so
much. Turn your attention to Voyager if you want to vent on a show that deserves
it.
Londo Mollari
"Theron Fuller" <tfu...@moon.jic.com> wrote:
> Londo Mollari <lo...@uoknor.edu> wrote in article
> > "Theron Fuller" <tfu...@moon.jic.com> wrote:
>
> > I guess Fuller has missed the postings of info and statements from
> > _Variety_, _Electronic_Media_, _Broadcasting_&_Cable_, and
> _Media_Week_
> > recently.
> >
> > Gee, if not making the top-20 for the first time in a *VERY* long
> time
> > is not an increase, I don't know what you would call an increase.
>
> Apparently Babylon 5 made it into a three-way tie for 19th place in
> the syndicated ratings with a 3.6 rating. In 1994, according to t
> Joe Straczynski quote, which I think was the last time Babylon 5 made
> it into the top 20, it's rating was 5.2. So, the series has lost
> almost 1 1/2 million viewers in two years.
As you well know, the ratings of syndicated shows in general is down
considerably. But B&C says that B5 is up 12% from last year.
> > If not making the top-10 for both Men 18-49 and (very surprisingly)
> > Adults 18-49 demos which a series such as B5 are usually aimed at
> > is not important, than I don't know what could be to you.
>
> Well, I haven't seen any figures on the demographics. Whose figures
> are you quoting? The top ten of all first-run syndicated series, or
> the top-10 of first-run, hour-long, syndicated dramas? Just how many
> hour-long, first-run, syndicated dramas are there, anyway?
_Electronic_Media_ published the figures and they are for ALL syndicated
shows, not just action hours.
> > If _Broadcasting_&_Cable_ saying that B5 is off to a "good start"
> this
> > season is not evidence to you than nothing probably is.
>
> Well, the "final four" of season 3 bounced around in the mid-low 3s.
> That's the same range the series was in when Warner Bros. was
> considering canceling it last year and Joe Straczynski was urging
> everyone to write their stations and urge them to renew it.
Last renewal season, JMS really did the least amount of urging that
he did for any season and it was mostly in replies to specific questions
from other posters. And just for your information, I spent a few minutes
in DejaNews and found some of the rankings for last season.
12-31 - 60
01-07 - 47
01-28 - 54
02-04 - 38
02-11 - 43
02-18 - 39
02-28 - 38
03-17 - 47
I could probably find more if I spent a few hours looking, but I think
I made my point. By your very numbers you just cited not to mention
the recent #19 tie for "Grey 17" B5 has improved its households.
A new episode in Feb. sweeps was 43.
> >Maybe you missed that _Media_Week_ has said that TNT is talking
> about having
> > two made-for-cable B5 movies and that WB is considering the B5
> > sequel series?
>
> And Joe Straczynski apparently told the Washington Times that the two
> movies was just a rumor. Why don't you ask Joe Straczynski over on
> rastb5.RomperRoom to confirm or deny the rumor? Perhaps give some
> solid information on when the production of the movies and the
> derivative series is scheduled to start. And what exactly is the
> status of that spin-off series? Has it gone beyond Netter
> Entertainment putting out a press release about the possibility of
> producing such a series?
No actual agreement has actually been made on the movies or the
possible new series as of yet -- I never claimed there was.
But Ford, et. al. has been calling JMS a liar on saying that
was in consideration asking for an independent source. Well
_Media_Week_ is not JMS's private newletter.
> > Logic would indicate that if they are considering
> > the sequel series, etc. than they would have to be considering
> > the fifth season which is needed for them and is quite a bit less
> > of a risk than making the sequel series. But logic probably does
> > not make a dent.
>
> Well yeah. Logic would indicate that if a frog had wings, he
> wouldn't bump his ass so much. But I haven't seen any posts
> indicating Warner Bros. or any of the Time-Warner divisions had given
> any indication of buying a fifth season of Babylon 5. Or that
> anybody in Time-Warner has gone beyond "talking about" two movies and
> a derivative series. I've been reading about Kevin Costner making a
> "Prisoner" movie for 2-3 years now. Haven't seen it advertised in
> the movie section of my newspaper though. What solid information are
> you basing your "frog-wings" logic on?
Listen carefully. _If_ WB ordered the sequel series, it would make
no sense to a sequel to a uncompleted story. Not to mention that spin-off
series VERY rarely get the ratings that their parent series do. So
a spin-off series is a considerable risk. Doing a fifth season
of B5 would be far less less risky not to mention the fact that a fifth
season would make B5 a better prospect its cable reruns when the series
ends. If they cancelled B5 early to do a B5 sequel, they would have
to be ********VERY********* stupid.
> > And a note to Ford: NO EMAIL REPLIES.
> >
> Shucks, Ford. Post your observations here.
He has a tendency to email virtuall all replies even when the people have
asked him not to do so. It is a case of unethical behavior.
--
"There is surprisingly little difference between
the DNA found in humans and that found in the
other species such as H. Ross Perot."
- Dave Barry
Robert S. Jenkins
>
> I think some people need to grow up and realize that war itself is a BIG
> waste.
>
You mean like N. Korea, Iraq?? Good luck! Don't hold your breath
Robert
--
Robert S. Jenkins
>
> Fact 1: As far as WWI is concerned, we did practically nothing. The
> Germans knew they were defeated, and it was VERY close to over
> by the time our troops joined the fight. Also, in the few
> battles that Americam troops fought in, they got their asses
> thoroughly kicked; and also had a HIGH rate of dissertion among
> the ranks.
>
>
> Fact 2: We didn't "bail" Europe out of WWII. We joined as a result of
> the Pearl Harbor attack; and if that had not occured, I believe
> that we would either not have participated in WWII at all, or
> have entered near the end. If you look at history, Europe was
> fighting for close to 4 years before we entered the fray.
> Remember, when France fell to the Axis powers, we STILL stayed
> out of it, so don't think that the situation would have changed
> without some sort of direct attack on the U.S. Also, the
> majority of our ground forces were involved in our
> island-hopping Pacific campaign, and although we had forces in
> Europe, the majority of the actualunits fighting in Europe were
> in fact European.
>
You should get your facts straight. Up until the surrnder of Germany, the
majority of combat troops in the pacific was the MARINES(which has always
been a smaller than the army in size). The majority of the Army was in
Europe and they fought in more than a *few* battles and yes we got whipped
at Kasserine Pass but we won the batlle: Kasserine Pass II: The return :)
we even managed to hold on at the Bulge where the entire Allied Forces(not
just the U.S. Army was caught sleeping through the winter) As for the
"high rate of desertion"(which this is the first I have heard of or READ)
would you care to show some FACTUAL NUMBERS?
Until you learn History, why don't you stick to FICTION( you may get that
wrong, but WHO CARES????)
Robert
--
Steve Patterson
In article <32924083...@news.adnc.com>, luth...@sequoia.dsr.com (Bob Luthardt) says:
>
>While it's not exactly a strong argument, I thought I'd point out that
>Americans bathe on a regular basis,
It's true. They bathe once a month, whether they need it or not.
The rest of the time they wear whichever cologne/perfume they can find which
smells closest to turpentine and use it in weapons-grade concentrations.
(Americans must be nose-blind; otherwise, how can all those muggings
occur against people armoured with a couple of liters of cheap Chanel
No. 5 ripoff?)
------------------------------------------------------------
Steven J. Patterson spatt...@wwdc.com
W.O.R.L.D.'S....S..L..O..W..E..S..T....W...R...I...T...E...R
"Men may move mountains, but ideas move men."
-- M.N. Vorkosigan, per L.M. Bujold
Jamin A Brown
In article <3290A1...@turner.com>, doug....@turner.com wrote:
> Troy-Heagy wrote:
> > Europians are generally better educated than Americans, so they enjoy
> Babylon 5 far more than Americans do.
>
> If Europeans are so smart, why did we have to bail them out of *two*
> world wars? :-)
>
> -- JDP
Because we were the Brawn to thier Brain... ;)
Noelle aka not jamin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Noelle LeLacheur and Jamin Brown jbro...@maine.maine.edu
De Castellvi Jaime M
Theron Fuller (tfu...@moon.jic.com) wrote:
: Apparently.... <yadda yadda yadda snipped>
: So, the series has lost
: almost 1 1/2 million viewers in two years.
ROTFLMAO!
Ooooh... Theron.
See any pink elephants lately?
Have a nice day,
Jaime
--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> Jaime M. de Castellvi ^ <<
>> 3c...@qlink.queensu.ca ^ 'That is not what I meant at all. <<
>> http://qlink.queensu.ca/~3cjmd ^ That is not it, at all.' (T.S.E.) <<
>>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\^//////////////////////////////////////<<
>> 'When my uncle saw the note, he tugged out the flag of his <<
>> handkerchief and blew such a hubbub of trumpets that the plates on <<
>> the dresser shook. "It's the same every year," he said. And then he <<
>> looked at me. "But this year it's different..." ' (D.T.) <<
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
De Castellvi Jaime M
Aethe...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
: I have two questions;
: What the heck is Babylon 5?
I have one question:
What the heck are you doing in rastb5 if you don't know what the heck
Babylon 5 is? Got yourself missplaced while endeavouring to sur the
labyrinthine waves of u-net? Not cool, man. Stop flopping your pitiful
pecker all over our screens and close your fly until you're gone. You
won't find any Xenas here.
Oh, and check your newsgroup line so it doesn't cross-post to places that
make you feel lost and confused.
Have a nice day!
christopher blue
In article <56sghd$i...@camel1.mindspring.com>,
Parrothead <don...@atl.mindspring.com> wrote:
>I hadnt realized that being more educated equated to being more
>barbaric . We had to bail out the Europeans because America was just
>as decadent as the germans. The love of weaponry and killing. The
>inate racism ( after all mass genocide against the american indian is
>no different then what Hitler did to the Jews. And lets not even get
>started on what we have done to the blacks). Education has nothing to
>do with it.
Speaking as a person who is half black and half Native American,
allow me to state that the above statement has got to be the most insipid
piece of horse hockey I've ever seen on Usenet. You clearly have no
knowledge or understanding whatsoever of history.
I submit, however, that your "handle" is quite apropos.
Later,
--Blue!
******************************************************************************
C. Blue, Starving Writer "From childhood's hour I have not been
bl...@kes.cc.uakron.edu As others were; I have not seen
and other various and sundry places As others saw; I could not bring
Sphinx on IRC, MUC, & MUD My passions from a common spring..."
Watch this .sig --E. A. Poe
g...@cctimes.com
In Article<01bbd6d9$6d18a6c0$1114...@tfuller.jic.com>, <tfu...@moon.jic.com>
writes:
> And Joe Straczynski apparently told the Washington Times that the two
> movies was just a rumor. Why don't you ask Joe Straczynski over on
> rastb5.RomperRoom to confirm or deny the rumor?
he has been asked, and he did reply. (as you probably know, but
are pretending not to know). And his reply, to paraphrase (as
you no doubt already know) was that Warner Bros. in recent
weeks has initiated discussions on multiple occasions about
the aforementioned sequel(s) TV movie(s), etc.
Straczinski also has stated (as you, i am confident, already
know, but are pretending not to know) that during the summer,
the WB people figured they would pull the plug on the show after
four seasons, since PTEN was going away--not because the ratings
were too weak. After all, since the show was renewed, the
ratings were evidently just fine. because if they weren't good
enough, the show obviously would not have been renewed (if i'm
typing too fast for you, let me know).
More recently, according to straczinski, since the ratings since
mid-october into the november sweeps are better than WB had
expected, a growing number of people in the WB camp seem to be
willing to approve a fifth season. (but i'm sure you already
know that this has been posted). Yet, according to the producer,
WB has not made a decision on season 5. or on followup projects.
It's just that the door, according to the postings, is a bit
more open as we talk in late November than they were only two
months ago.
As i've suggested before, your opinions the last year or 2
rival the weight of a passenger pigeon's feather.
but when you are more disingenuous than usual, a reply can be
in order.
Best,
George Avalos
Joshua Jasper
In article <329253...@uwyo.edu>, JCM <jmi...@uwyo.edu> wrote:
>Joshua Jasper wrote:
>
>> As a 'rabid' B5 fan, I honestly think the show is right up
>>there with the current greats such as Millennuim, the X-Files, ER, and
>>NYPD Blue. The later 2 shows I don't watch much because I'm not fond of
>>cop shows or hospital dramas. As for the production, it's a far cry
>>better than anything else sci-fi on TV today. As for the 'big plan'
>>well, if you don't like it, thats more a matter of taste, like me not
>>liking ER. In the US a show like maried with children out-Nielsens B5,
>>which is rather sad.
>>
>
>Of course it does. As does ER, Seinfeld, NYPD BLue, and any number of
>other shows that have a much broader appeal than B5. Doesn't science
>fiction, by it's nature, have a narrowly defined audience? Are you going
>to tell me that every show in every other industrialized country that has
>a higher rating than B5 is much more intellectually stimulating, and the
>reverse being true for shows that are rated lower?
>
No, I've avoided the whole nationalistic weenie wagging.
>BTW, I think "Seinfeld" is ten times better than your list of so called
>"greats," a debatable label at best. It doesn't intellectually stimulate
>me, but it cracks me up!
>
Actualy, Seinfeld has some fairly highbrow humor. At least it
dosn't fall into the 'intelectuals are here to be mocked' category shows
like 'cheers', 'family matters' and others do. Alot of TV humor is aimed
at smart and/or educated people.
>> >
>> > Not to mention that saying anything is "the best scifi show ever"
>> >is like saying "the greatest professional wrestling match I ever saw"
>> >or "the 1910 Fruitgum Company's best tune." Sure, it's better than
>> >Lost in Space, Land of the Giants, or Battlestar Galactica....but what
>> >is THAT really saying, eh?
>>
>> It's also as good as Max Headroom, and certainly as good as the
>> Star Wars movies, _miles_ better than Star Trek. SF has a rather long
>> history. Sure some of it's crap, but some of most things are crap. Take
>> a look at what occupies the rest of TV. Shows like Maried With
>> Children, The Wyans Brothers, Rosane, etc... Alot of TV is rather
>> anti-intelectual. B5 is manifestly aa cerebral show. Sure there are
>> fight scenes, and humor, but it also deals alot with realy intetresting
>> issues other shows are never going to touch.
>> Sinboy
>
>I don't know how you define an intellectual show, but I can't imagine how
>Max Headroom would qualify.
Why wouldn't it?
> Also, though ST:TNG took a lot of scientific
>liberties to say the least, it explored social issues as well as B5 does.
B5 (IMO) does it beter, and explores the issues deeper. It also
takes more risks with social issues, which deserves some respect even if
you don't think it's as intelectualy stimulating.
>As for Rosanne, The Wayans Bros., and Married w/ Children (none of which
>I ever watched regularly) they're obviously not trying to appeal on an
>intellectual level. Does everything on TV have include hard science,
>history, or math to be enjoyable or worthwhile in your eyes?
No, but I happen to like sf/fantasy alot. I also enjoy mystery
novels/shows, but I fail to see any decent ones out there, so I content
myself to watching old Bogart movies and Piorot re-runs on PBS. Cop shows
like NYPD Blue and Homicide just dont't do it for me. I can see that they
are well done shows, but I just don't enjoy them. I prefer sci-fi.
> Isaac
>Asimov saw fit to mention how much he enjoyed "Laverne and Shirley"
>(hardly an intellectual program) in his autobiography, and you'd be hard
>pressed to call him uneducated.
>
True, I love Maad About You as well, not intelectual, but I like
it.
>There's a whole world outside of B5 and televison in general for that
>matter. You should check it out.
>
No, realy? Just because I like a show, and tend to defend it when
people say it sucks dosn't mean I live my life for it, which you imply I
do.
Sinboy
>
>outta here....
>JCM
Christopher Morton
On Mon, 18 Nov 1996 12:47:27 -0500, "John D. Powers"
<doug....@turner.com> wrote:
>Troy-Heagy wrote:
>> Europians are generally better educated than Americans, so they enjoy > Babylon 5 far more than Americans do.
>
>If Europeans are so smart, why did we have to bail them out of *two*
>world wars? :-)
If we're so smart, why did we DO it... TWICE???
Just thank god we don't have the sort of Eddie Haskell/Beaver Cleaver
relationship that the Brits and the Commonwealth countries have. The
former seem to have an utterly uncanny ability to gull Aussies and
Canucks into walking calmly into well sited machineguns, screened by
concertina.
"Being raped is not enough to justify killing someone." - I Johnston (ia...@tattoo.ed.ac.uk)
Christopher Morton
>"John D. Powers" <doug....@turner.com> wrote:
>
>>Troy-Heagy wrote:
>>> Europians are generally better educated than Americans, so they enjoy > Babylon 5 far more than Americans do.
>
>>If Europeans are so smart, why did we have to bail them out of *two*
>>world wars? :-)
>
>>-- JDP
>I hadnt realized that being more educated equated to being more
>barbaric . We had to bail out the Europeans because America was just
>as decadent as the germans. The love of weaponry and killing. The
>inate racism ( after all mass genocide against the american indian is
>no different then what Hitler did to the Jews. And lets not even get
>started on what we have done to the blacks). Education has nothing to
>do with it.
I'm part Apache and wish the Indians had won, but the idea that there
was even a slight resemblance between US Indian policy and German
Jewish policy is utter nonsense.
There was NEVER a US government policy of EXTERMINATING the Indians.
If you want to make a REAL analogy, Japanese colonial policy in Korea
makes infinitely more sense. Indians and Koreans were both the
victims of CULTURAL destruction, but there was never any official
policy that there would be NO Indians or Koreans.
There were Indian troops in the US Army. There were Korean troops in
the Japanese army. How many Jewish troops were there in the Wehrmacht
or SS... that either KNEW about?
PS - Letting Hitler win would have been the NON-barbaric course of
action?
Maybe if you aren't Jewish, Black, gay or mentally handicapped....
Christopher Morton
On 20 Nov 1996 00:24:41 GMT, sac5...@saclink3.csus.edu (David G.
Homerick) wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Nov 1996, John D. Powers
>(doug....@turner.com) announced to the world:
>: Troy-Heagy wrote:
>: > Europians are generally better educated than Americans, so they enjoy
> > Babylon 5 far more than Americans do.
>
>: If Europeans are so smart, why did we have to bail them out of *two*
>: world wars? :-)
>
>They got us to bail them out, didn't they? That strikes me as pretty smart.
Not unlike the wife beater who keeps coaxing his spouse back...
Christopher Morton
On Tue, 19 Nov 1996 12:17:08 -0500, Stephen <sec...@psu.edu> wrote:
>Parrothead wrote:
>>
>> "John D. Powers" <doug....@turner.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Troy-Heagy wrote:
>> >> Europians are generally better educated than Americans, so they enjoy > Babylon 5 far more than Americans do.
>>
>> >If Europeans are so smart, why did we have to bail them out of *two*
>> >world wars? :-)
>
>Oh yea, it was all America. Just forget about the fact that the Soviets
>killed/captured more germans in one battle than America ever faced in
>WWII.
Of course the Soviets also supplied the Germans with strategic
materials up to within hours of the invasion, sent the German
communists back to Hitler, and killed more Soviets in the purges and
famines than the Germans did in WWII.
But other than that, they were perfect little angels....
Christopher Morton
On 19 Nov 1996 11:39:06 -0700, she...@primenet.com (Phillip Sral)
wrote:
>In article <3291EB...@psu.edu>, sec...@psu.edu says...
>>
>>Parrothead wrote:
>>>
>>> "John D. Powers" <doug....@turner.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Troy-Heagy wrote:
>>> >> Europians are generally better educated than Americans, so they
>>> >> enjoy Babylon 5 far more than Americans do.
>>>
>>> >If Europeans are so smart, why did we have to bail them out of *two*
>>> >world wars? :-)
>>
>>Oh yea, it was all America. Just forget about the fact that the Soviets
>>killed/captured more germans in one battle than America ever faced in
>>WWII.
>
>
>Fact 1: As far as WWI is concerned, we did practically nothing. The
> Germans knew they were defeated, and it was VERY close to over
> by the time our troops joined the fight. Also, in the few
> battles that Americam troops fought in, they got their asses
> thoroughly kicked; and also had a HIGH rate of dissertion among
> the ranks.
Hmmm, those are the kind of "facts" one usually sees presented by the
Holocaust revisionist movement. My great uncle who started out
fighting with the French would be greatly surprised to learn that he
"lost". So would the Marines and soldiers in the Argonne and Belleau
Wood.
You might also want to ask around for Germans who happened to be
stationed at rail terminuses when the US Navy railway guns started
turning them into smoking bogs.
>
>
>Fact 2: We didn't "bail" Europe out of WWII. We joined as a result of
> the Pearl Harbor attack; and if that had not occured, I believe
> that we would either not have participated in WWII at all, or
> have entered near the end. If you look at history, Europe was
Your belief is incorrect as we had been covertly fighting the Germans
on both sides of the Atlantic for quite some time before Pearl Harbor
was attacked. You must have missed last week's special on the sinking
of the Bismarck, where they interviewed the American naval officer who
located the Bismarck the last time, while ILLEGALLY (under orders)
flying in a Lend Lease PBY.
> fighting for close to 4 years before we entered the fray.
> Remember, when France fell to the Axis powers, we STILL stayed
> out of it, so don't think that the situation would have changed
> without some sort of direct attack on the U.S. Also, the
We had a pretty wierd way of staying out of it, given that aircraft
were hurriedly pulled from US stocks and "sold" to the French.
> majority of our ground forces were involved in our
> island-hopping Pacific campaign, and although we had forces in
> Europe, the majority of the actualunits fighting in Europe were
> in fact European.
How many divisions were in each theater?
>
>I was born a United States American, and I'm damn proud of this country
>too. However, I get sick of the people who, when they can't come up with
>an intelligent reply, resort to the -
>
>"We kicked/bailed out your ass at: <insert war/military incident here>"
To a certain extent we did. Certainly without US supplies the British
and Soviets would have been in deep shit.
>
>I think some people need to grow up and realize that war itself is a BIG
>waste.
As big a waste as letting Hitler win?
>
>
>Well, I'm starting to pontificate, so I better end it here.
Pontificating is ok... as long as you have some facts to back you up.
To paraphrase the Ralley's commercial, "You're a little shy".
Christopher Morton
On Tue, 19 Nov 1996 19:00:07 GMT, ste...@usit.net wrote:
>Stephen <sec...@psu.edu> wrote:
>
>>Parrothead wrote:
>>>
>>> "John D. Powers" <doug....@turner.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Troy-Heagy wrote:
>>> >> Europians are generally better educated than Americans, so they enjoy > Babylon 5 far more than Americans do.
>>>
>>> >If Europeans are so smart, why did we have to bail them out of *two*
>>> >world wars? :-)
>
>>Oh yea, it was all America. Just forget about the fact that the Soviets
>>killed/captured more germans in one battle than America ever faced in
>>WWII.
>
>Agreed. It was the Soviets that pulled our fat out of the fire by
>tying down > 50 divisions in the East.
>-Steve
Of course had Stalin not massacred his own army, those 50 divisions
would never have been in the east to begin with....
Londo Mollari
3c...@qlink.queensu.ca (De Castellvi Jaime M) wrote:
> Theron Fuller (tfu...@moon.jic.com) wrote:
>
> : Apparently.... <yadda yadda yadda snipped>
>
> : So, the series has lost
> : almost 1 1/2 million viewers in two years.
>
> ROTFLMAO!
>
> Ooooh... Theron.
>
> See any pink elephants lately?
Theron was actually correct here in his basic assertion -- though
he could not figure out what to do with it if his life depended on
it. More people did watch B5 in 1994 than in 1996. But in 1994
there was no such thing as UPN, there was no WB Network, there were fewer
cable networks, and in general much less competition for prime time
slots for syndicated shows. Since B5 premiered the _Hercules_/_Xena_
franchise has become a mega-hit, the _Outer_Limits_ appeared in
syndication and via its name has gotten some pretty good ratings
(better than B5 far more often than not). In general the ratings
for syndicated shows substantially down for what syndicated shows
could expect to get only two years ago.
But the good news is that B5 has better ratings than it did a year ago
though it is not up to what it had two years ago. (And I know this
from sources that have _nothing_ to do with J. Michael Straczynski.)
And not only are the actually ratings up, but B5 doing better in
a relative sense. Last season to think that B5 might break into
the top-20 syndicated shows was completely ridiculous. This season
it has done so (though it was for one week). But in any event
for B5 to buck the trend of diminished syndicated ratings is an
accomplishment.
Jay Denebeim
> No offence Theron, but I believe professional trade magazines more
> than an anti-B5 ranter such as yourself. Face it, you are still
> upset about B5 getting a fourth season. You were wrong then, so why
> should anyone listen to a thing you say now?
He's wrong every year. He's been doing this since the end of the
first season. Next year, about this time, he'll start ranting about
there *WILL* be a sixth season, and how jms is breaking his promises
etc. Most of us got tired of all this and left the newsgroup last
April.
> Poor baby, not only is B5 doing well, but is posibly going to spin
> off. Look at the bright side, this will give you two shows to whine
> about.
I'd say 'almost certainly' at this point. I'll betcha the final five
of the fifth season of B5 will be saved as a lead-in for 'The
Crusaders.'
>What did JMS do to get you two so upset?
jms called him a 'mind fucker' four years ago, he's had his panties up
in a wad about it ever since.
Jay
--
* Jay Denebeim, Moderator, rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* newsgroup submission address: ras...@solon.com *
* moderator contact address: rastb5-...@solon.com *
* personal contact address: dene...@4u.net *