Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Sci-Fi Media Movies

Babylon 5 Theatrical Movie Falls Through 244

Posted by Zonk from the only-the-shadow-knows dept.
duck2ducks writes "According to a post from JMS, the Babylon 5 feature film has been cancelled. This is sad news indeed for all fans of one of the best sci-fi stories ever produced." From Straczynski's post: "In the end, however, the deal could be put together, and it did not look as if that was going to change at any point in the foreseeable future. So the option has reverted, and to all intents and purposes, the project has dead ended."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Babylon 5 Theatrical Movie Falls Through More

Babylon 5 Theatrical Movie Falls Through

Comments Filter:

  • NP: (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Gubbe ( 705219 )
    Christopher Franke - Babylon 5 soundtrack - Sleeping in Light - End Titles

  • Huh? (Score:3, Funny)

    by bconway ( 63464 ) * on Saturday February 26, 2005 @02:57PM (#11788693) Homepage
    This is sad news indeed for all fans of one of the best sci-fi stories ever produced.

    I really don't see what this has to do with Firefly.
    • common, get real and be honest and true to the truth... firefly is very good ... but its not *great*.

      Sure had a shot at being great thou.

      • firefly is very good ... but its not *great*.

        It's small, and broken, but it's still good : )

      • Re:Huh? (Score:2)

        by fm6 ( 162816 )
        When you say it's not "great" you probably mean it doesn't have all the corny, overdone thud and blunder of B5. A point in its favor.

    • Re:Huh? (Score:2)

      by fm6 ( 162816 )
      It's funny how B5 fans sneer at Firefly, and Firefly fans love to make fun of B5. As soon as I saw "best sci-fi stories ever produced" I started imagining the whole scene described in the usual Straczynski/Ellison overblown, overhyped, corny prose:
      Since the down of time, the struggle between evil studio moguls and the forces of righteous entertain...
      Naw, I just can't do it. Makes me nauseous. But you know what I mean.

      • Re:Huh? (Score:2)

        by jnik ( 1733 )
        > It's funny how B5 fans sneer at Firefly, and
        > Firefly fans love to make fun of B5.
        Funny; I love both. Look forward to Serinity and was looking forward to TMoS. Maybe someday...

  • I blame Rick Berman! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 26, 2005 @02:59PM (#11788706)
    It's the Enterprise Effect.

    1. Enterprise gets very low ratings.
    2. Enterprise is sci-fi.
    3. B5 is sci-fi.
    4. B5 will get low ratings (attendance)

    Behold, I have become Rich Berman, the destroyer of sci-fi.
  • Around here it aired at 12:05 am on tuesday nights/ wednesday mornings.

    I loved it, too-clean spaceships and cheap-looking interiors and all, until I saw the secret of the Vorlons, and I just didn't want to be watching a show about space angels. Good makeup though, and the psy sidestory was quite enjoyable.

    But did they really have a good enough story for a feature film, or were they banking on fanboys alone?

    • Theyy were NOT space angels! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Quiet_Desperation ( 858215 ) on Saturday February 26, 2005 @03:19PM (#11788833)
      It wasn't space angels, which would be dumb. It was advanced aliens trying to convince people they were space angels for the advanced alien's own selfish ends, which is cool. :)

      The big missed oppurtunity was, when they were granted a 5th season, to do the Psi war on Earth. That would have been a good season.

      I'm not a fanboy, but I was sufficiently entertained by the thing. You know what I liked the most about B5? It was so NOT the Trek universe of no money and everyone performing in string quartets in their free time. In B5 there was an economy, and trading, and the conflicts arising from such things. The telepaths were licensed and it was a professional position. One character watched old Daffy Duck cartoons in his spare time, and was building a motorcycle in his quarters. There were prejudices and factions and ill will from bulkhead to bulkhead. Space travel was a large and involved endeavor requiring complicated instrumentality.

      And best of all, at least some of the aliens were not bipedal. Hell, I'd take space angels over the bumpy forehead of the week rut that trek got stuck in.

      • It was advanced aliens trying to convince people they were space angels for the advanced alien's own selfish ends, which is cool. :)

        No, it's not.
        It's not like I didn't get the whole Aliens planting the idea of angels story, it'ms that I think it is quite lame. Slight difference.
        I might have felt different if the aliens didn't see them as angels with bumpy foreheads.

        You know what I liked the most about B5? It was so NOT the Trek universe [...]
        And best of all, at least some of the aliens were not bipedal.
      • It wasn't space angels, which would be dumb.

        No, it wouldn't be dumb. I think an SF series featuring space angels would be really awesome, especially if it also involved robots and perhaps a penguin, although it would probably have a rather confusing ending.

        Someone really ought to make such a series; if they put in two or three highly marketable female characters, they could probably keep selling memorabilia to obsessive fanboys for years to come.

    • I loved it, too-clean spaceships and cheap-looking interiors and all, until I saw the secret of the Vorlons, and I just didn't want to be watching a show about space angels.

      Too bad you didn't keep watching. The Vorlons are the bad guys.

      But did they really have a good enough story for a feature film, or were they banking on fanboys alone?

      That's a good point... probably would've been a disappointment, because there's not really much they could do with only a couple hours.

  • I'm sorry, I just don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jfengel ( 409917 ) on Saturday February 26, 2005 @03:05PM (#11788738) Homepage Journal
    A friend of mine has loaned me B5 on DVD, and I keep at it, but I'm not entirely sure why.

    The most interesting thing about it is the long story arc. There's a lot good to be said about it, though I've seen others do it better. The costuming and sets are nicely done.

    But other than that I just can't find anything to like. The acting is generally incompetent; it looks for all the world like the actors are only barely off book. Or maybe it's because the dialogue is so stilted nobody could make it sound good. A few of the regulars manage to carry it off; one or two even mange to look good.

    But many of the regulars, nearly all of the non-famous guest stars, and even a few very talented guests sound completely incompetent. I just watched an episode with the hugely talented Michael York, and he chewed his way through the scenery as though it were chocolate.

    I'm an actor and director myself. It's hard to separate out blame in the finished product without being on set, but it seems to be the fault of the writing and directing even more than the actors themselves. But I've heard people praise Straczynski's writing to the high heavens. I just don't get it. I don't care about the cheesy CG effects or corny music; it's the parts between the interstitials that set my teeth on edge.

    Yeah, I already skipped through most of the first season. I'm now well into the third season, which was supposed to be pretty good. If it weren't for the fact that I'm trying to figure out why it's so important that it makes the front page of Slashdot, I'd long have given up.

    So I don't believe I'm trolling when I ask: can somebody explain to me why I shouldn't consider the failure of this to become a movie anything other than a benefit to mankind?
    • A friend of mine has loaned me B5 on DVD, and I keep at it, but I'm not entirely sure why.

      Have you tried watching it sleep-deprived?

      Or watching a DS9 ep to give you a sense of perspective about how other sci-fi shows taking place on space stations have fared in the same timeframe?

      If all else fails, find a drinking game to make it worthwhile ;-)

    • If you don't get it, you don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SpooForBrains ( 771537 ) on Saturday February 26, 2005 @03:19PM (#11788831)
      ... it's understandable, it's 2005 now, B5 is OLD. So much has come after it. In a world that contains Farscape and Firefly, B5 does look childish, dated and a bit hackneyed. However, you have to remember that when this first came out it really was groundbreaking sci-fi. Most of what came after owes it a big debt.

      So, you probably won't get it now. It's too late. If you'd watched it in 1994, you'd get it.
    • So I don't believe I'm trolling when I ask: can somebody explain to me why I shouldn't consider the failure of this to become a movie anything other than a benefit to mankind?

      Well, that's a very tunnel-visioned, self-centered approach, isn't it? Whether you find it enjoyable or not Bablylon 5 is clearly of value to many people. Are you seriously suggesting your opinion on what is and isn't good should determine what others are allowed to enjoy?

      I mean, exactly how is it a benefit to mankind that peop

    • Re:I'm sorry, I just don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dhalgren ( 34798 ) on Saturday February 26, 2005 @03:20PM (#11788840)
      I like the story and ideas, and the production is secondary to me. I recognize that a lot of the acting is pretty bad, and the dialogure isn't great in a lot of spots, but that's just not what I'm watching for.

      I'd rather see good ideas poorly portrayed than bad ideas expertly portrayed.
      • "I recognize that a lot of the acting is pretty bad, and the dialogure isn't great in a lot of spots, but that's just not what I'm watching for."

        In that case, they should hurry up and make this movie, because it will make a ton...see "Mean Girls". I didn't watch it for the acting or dialogue either.

    • Re:I'm sorry, I just don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Coryoth ( 254751 ) on Saturday February 26, 2005 @03:24PM (#11788860) Homepage Journal
      I'm guessing it's a matter of expectations. Pause for a moment and consider every other science fiction TV series you've ever seen. In fact, we could probably throw in science fiction films too. There are some exceptions (and they are generally wildly popular, relatively speaking), but for the most part none of them sport acting or dialogue the least bit better than Babylon 5. Many are, in fact, far worse. In that respect B5 is par for the course for science fiction TV shows with regard to the issues of acting, writing and directing. And then you have that long 5 season story arc, which makes it stand out from the others. That's enough to gain serious attention from the sort of people (slashdot readers for instance) who will watch anything branded as sci-fi that comes on the television.

      In essence B5 used that long arc (and the resulting back references to episodes from a season or more before) to provide a sense of character development (the characters to actually change through the course of the 5 seasons), and more importantly character depth through context (i.e. through all those back references). No, this sort of character depth is not a substitute for good per episode writing and good acting, but the relative depth and context was something that no other science fiction show was offering at the time. It is no surprise it developed a following (amongst geeks).

      Jedidiah.

    • Spoiled by trek (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jhoger ( 519683 )
      If you want good acting, and good writing, ignore B5 and go straight to the DS-9 box sets.

      I wanted to like B5 and couldn't get into it for the exact same reasons you lay out. The acting and dialogue is absolutely abysmal. The B5 stories are very good, but not good enough to make the show watchable (for me).

      -- John.
    • Or maybe it's because the dialogue is so stilted nobody could make it sound good.

      I think that's unlikely; Harrison Ford once told Lucas "George, you can write this stuff, but you can't say it." I reckon a good actor can do a lot with duff dialogue.
    • I've heard people praise Straczynski's writing to the high heavens. I just don't get it. I don't care about the cheesy CG effects or corny music; it's the parts between the interstitials that set my teeth on edge.

      Yeah, I already skipped through most of the first season. I'm now well into the third season,

      So... you didn't see most of the first season, and aren't even finished with the third. B5's story spans all five seasons and is the best thing about the show that casual and diehard fans name time a
      • Well, that's one answer: I can't judge until I've invested 40 minutes * 24 episodes/season * 5 seasons = 80 hours. Unfortunately, I really don't have that kind of time to devote. Generally, I expect series television to reward the journey, not just the end.

        No, I'm not in the IMDB; I'm a stage actor. I've performed in New York City, but you still wouldn't have heard of me. Still, after six years of training and several dozen shows I have some experience that lets me try to prise apart the differences be
    • JMS is great in the sense that he came up with a simply fantastic story. But as a script writer, he leaves a lot to be desired. Too often in B5, characters explain their actions through ackward, un-natural sounding dialogue that really drags the show down at times.

      As for the acting, some of the actors have been terrific, and others have just been awful. Most have been decent.

      Still, I love the show and I do think it is probably the best Sci-Fi that has come around in many, many years, and to that end I
    • So I don't believe I'm trolling when I ask: can somebody explain to me why I shouldn't consider the failure of this to become a movie anything other than a benefit to mankind?

      Because others feel different about the series, of course.

      I remember watching part of the first season and finding it unremarkable. So I stopped watching until I think late in season two -- and then I got completely hooked. I still believe seasons three and four of B5 is some of the best TV I've seen. It certainly beats hyped movies

    • Most people who see for the first time 10 years after B5 started are suitably unimpressed. It is not surprising. B5 does not have a lot of staying power. The writing is only marginal. The best characters were the supporting characters, like Ivanova and Molari, but even they got a bit bogged down.

      However, it is an historiacally important show. It broke the SciFi TV standard of using models, and instead went to CGI. It did what few shows have ever done and tried to get the physics right. For instance

    • We respect your opinions (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mblase ( 200735 ) on Saturday February 26, 2005 @05:28PM (#11789666)
      Believe it or not, Slashdot is a forum where readers are occasionally allowed to disagree. :-)

      To appreciate "Babylon 5", it perhaps helps to have been there when it first aired. This was ten years ago, when ST:TNG was an uncategorical success by any measure, ST:DS9 was well underway with plenty of funding, and studios were jumping on the sci-fi bandwagon left and right.

      After several years of ST:TNG, we get B5 -- a somewhat gritty, dirtier version of the future which resembles our present world a heck of a lot better than Roddenbery's universe. The aliens are more alien. The technology follows the known laws of physics (well, aside from hyperspace). And the effects? Well, they may look substandard today, but at the time that was cutting-edge CGI and it was being used on a weekly television program. In fact, JMS was proud of saying that his show would come in consistently under budget because of the cost savings over model-based special effects.

      It was a breath of fresh air for sci-fi fans who were tired of the sanitized Star Trek universe and wanted something more realistic now. On top of that, it employed a multi-season story arc which, despite the kinks thrown in by actors leaving and the fifth season almost getting cancelled, worked incredibly well and was a radical approach to television. (To look at it another way, of course, is to say the departing actors and near-death of season 5 illustrates exactly why television shows usually approach each season open-ended.)

      And what a story -- it looked like just aliens fighting it out diplomatically and Earth getting caught in the middle. Instead we get galactic-scale alien civilizations stretching millenia back into time, alien religious prophecies coming true, a conspiracy to take over Earth's government and implement fascism in its stead, telepaths running their own plan for controlling everything, all while this little tin can orbiting Epsilon 3 at the @$$-end of space is dealing with union strikes, budgetary constraints, refugees from alien wars, and the occasional drug bust.

      Simply put, it was the kind of thing we knew we'd never see in Star Trek. DS9 came close to it (partly because it was, intentionally or not, borrowing heavily from JMS's ideas), but B5 was there first. Roddenberry's edict was basically that Starfleet and humanity in general appear pristine and perfect to project hope for the future; JMS declared that humans in the future would be just like humans today, and despite that (or because of it) we'd still grow to be masters of the galaxy in the millenia to come.

      Oh, and there's also Ivanova. Regardless what you think about the acting, it's impossible not to like Ivanova.

      Oh, and as a postscript: despite what I said about respecting others' opinions, and regardless of your experience in the field, if you think Andreas Katsulas as G'Kar is an ineffective actor, you're just not paying attention.
    • My needs were simpler I guess... B5 for me was the first Sci-Fi series to 'get' space. Ships didn't need wings unless they wanted to work within a planets atmosphere. Ships could turn without redirecting their movement (aka they could turn and fly 'backwards').

      Space as space is meant to be. That is what addicted me to B5. Alot of Sci-Fi still gets it wrong today.

      The story though was intricate, and made the second reason I liked it... It wasn't random plots like most SF of the day it had a course that spun
    • Keep working through it, "Endgame" in season four still brings tears to my eyes. Babylon 5's schtick is that it was so different at the time compared to what was out there. It taught the L.A. T.V. producers that there is an audience willing to follow a longer story arc. Shows like 24 would never have been made had it not been for Babylon 5 really showing the way.

      As for DS9, it only got good once B5 aired against it and showed what good sci-fi should be like. Sure, the production was comparitvely cheap, but
    • Acting/dialogue: The human crew was boring, but the alien ambassadors (Londo, G'Kar and Delenn) were brilliant! If you can't see that, I refuse to believe to believe in your stated credentials.

      Production value: The special effects were great for the time, and for the rest the show managed to produce something comparable to the ST of the time for half the price not bad.

      But even though I believe the alien ambassadors and the CGI alone should make B5 remembered, that is not what made B5 a phenomen. It is

  • B5 no more :( (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 26, 2005 @03:05PM (#11788740)
    The nice thing about Babylon 5, was that it had a complete story line before the first movie was even made. That means a completely intermixed story. The exact opposite from most other sci-fi shows that were out there at the time. Something that happens in the first episode actually means something, in one of the last episodes. (Londo's dream of how he will die.) And that is just the most obvious link. I for one had hoped that Crusade would have picked up where B5 left off, but it died a rather quick death. The movies were always good and it would have been great to see a new addition to the line.
  • Link to the damn post! I followed the only link in the body and got royally confused by it.

    Yeah, I figured it out quickly enough, but without a real link isn't this just hearsay?
    • the 'has been cancelled' part of the link is a seperate link :)

      confused me at first too !

    • JMS post #1 (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 26, 2005 @03:20PM (#11788839)

      The rule of thumb in Hollywood is that for every thousand scripts that get written, only a few dozen get into development, and out of those, only one will ever get made...if that.

      A little over a year ago, I was approached by a company that wanted to make a Babylon 5 movie. They optioned the rights, and commissioned a script. (It's worth mentioning that I, not WB, own the rights to a B5 movie. When we were negotiating the original B5 deal -- by whose terms I will never see a dime in profit -- the one thing they did let me have were the movie rights, figuring they'd never be worth anything in the long run.)

      Anyway...on December 27th of 2003, the script for "The Memory of Shadows" was turned in, and the process began of trying to make the deal work with all the various forces involved. It is, to say the least, a very difficult process on any movie where the studio does not directly take the financial reins. In terms of B5, Warner's position was esssentially, "We only do big-budget movies with big names, so you're on your own." If there were big-name movie actors in the film, they'd get behind it; without that, things become very problematic, especially as far as the financing was concerned. You much have to put together a consortium of international interests and business plans rivaled in complexity only by the Allied invasion of Normandy Beach.

      Nonetheless, every attempt was made by the people involved to get this deal in place. This was not being done by Doug or myself, but rather by the company/individuals who approached us and optioned the rights. At times, it seemed we were inches away from a deal...stages were reserved at Elstree, actors were contacted, a director was in place, the script went through many revisions, a few key staff were hired, again not by me...it was really a year-long roller coaster ride. During that time, the people involved, with every good intention, tried very hard to pull the necessary pieces together on the deal. The option expired in late December 2004, but I renewed it without cost, to give those involved more time to try and make things work.

      In the end, however, the deal could not be put together, and it did not look as if that was going to change at any point in the foreseeable future. So the option has reverted, and to all intents and purposes, the project has dead ended. Nor do I think this particular incarnation will arise again at any point in the future, though prognostication has always been a tricky art, especially if you have to do it without the benefit of hindsight.

      This was not the first time someone's taken a run at a B5 feature film, and it will not be the last. Eventually it will happen, because such things are simply inevitable. If they can do a Brady Bunch movie, you can be sure that sooner or later, somebody's going to do a B5 movie. The only thing I can say without equivocation is that when that day comes, as the rights-holder, I will make darned sure that it's done right, because I'd rather have no B5 movie than one that doesn't live up to what fans and I myself would want to see.

      To that end...I can wait.

      Anyway, just thought you should know the story.

      jms

    • JMS post #2 (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      > No wonder WB likes B5 -- they don't have to pay you anything for it.
      > Kind of puts a different light on buying the DVDs and stuff, knowing
      > we're just supporting some fat-ass studio execs and not the actual
      > talent.

      That's the great irony of the situation. The criteria told to us right up front while we were producing B5 was that each of the series on PTEN had to show a profit *in that year* in order to stay on the air and be renewed. So we'd have these meetings with studio heads wh

    • You must be new here. ;)
  • I loved the B5 series and miss it. But given the [poor] quality of the B5 spinoff series (Crusade) and telemovies (Call to Arms, Legend of the Rangers), is this really so bad? Sorry, but this had to be said.

    • Re:This is a bad thing? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Drakino ( 10965 ) on Saturday February 26, 2005 @04:10PM (#11789139) Journal
      I loved the B5 series and miss it. But given the [poor] quality of the B5 telemovie (Legend of the Rangers), is this really so bad?

      Actually, Legend of the Rangers did decently ratings wise on SciFi, in markets where it did not air alongside the final NFL playoff game before the Super Bowl. Basicially, some crazy people flew some planes into buildings around september 2001, and thus the NFL season was delayed a bit. Normally the movie would have aired on an otherwise uneventful weekend, but none of the execs at SciFi moved it off the date after the attacks.

      The ratings were good enough that JMS would have been given a green light for the series.

      Of course, with SciFi crapping all over Farscape, the series would have probably been canned when it got out of the season one rut major story arc series have.
    • Glad to know that I'm not the only person who found himself thinking "oh thank god."

      The middle three seasons of B5 were some of the best storytelling I've seen on TV or for that matter any other medium. But let's face facts: Straczynski burnt himself out writing all the episodes of season 3 and 4 without any help, and by the time S4 ended, he really had nothing more to say. But still the show plodded on through the lackluster final season and the inevitable spinoffs, seemingly more out of a sense of cont

  • on sci-fi movies (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Zapraki ( 737378 ) on Saturday February 26, 2005 @03:11PM (#11788785)
    So, now the Babylon 5 movie is dead, and with Enterprise's demise the chance of another Star Trek movie anytime soon is slim.

    What's a sci-fi movie geek to do??

    Ok, we got Episode III coming out, but I don't think I'm alone in saying that my expectations for Star Wars have been decidedly jaded in recent years.

    I guess it'll have to be all about stuff like War of the Worlds, which I personally have very high hopes for after seeing some preview stuff, and moreover, Hitchhiker's Guide, which will either be the greatest sci-fi comedy since Space Balls (if not, dare I say, better?) or else it will be despised and insulted to levels of previously untold fury. I mean, it's the same problem faced by Peter Jackson for LotR. You have such a truly great literary work, and you have to turn it into film, carefully balancing the unwashed masses who've never read the book on one side, and the die-hard purists who've memorized it line-by-line on the other.

    • Re:on sci-fi movies (Score:5, Informative)

      by Scrameustache ( 459504 ) on Saturday February 26, 2005 @03:25PM (#11788866) Homepage Journal
      What's a sci-fi movie geek to do??

      We have a splendid year of sci-fi movies ahead of us! A star wars movie that MIGHT include the death of Jar Jar (hey, I can dream!), A Scanner Darkly [yahoo.com], Serenity, 2 (count 'em, TWO!) War of the Worlds adaptations, and this decade is the one that finally features the big screen adaptation of the Hitch Hiker's Guide. Not to mention the superhero revival is still going strong, Brian Singer is busy pissing off Fox by making a Superman movie, we have a great looking Batman origin flick coming out this summer.
      And the future holds even more wonders, a Logan's Run [scifistorm.org] remake... THAT movie deserves a remake, the story is great, the flick was AWEFULL, though highly quotable ("Run! Runner!", "Fish, plankton, seagreens! And proteins from the sea!").

      As a sci-fi cinema geek, I'm thrilled!
      • And the future holds even more wonders, a Logan's Run remake... THAT movie deserves a remake, the story is great, the flick was AWEFULL, though highly quotable ("Run! Runner!", "Fish, plankton, seagreens! And proteins from the sea!").

        Let me guess.. The 1st time you saw "Logan's Run" was on some "Afternoon Matinee" when you were in high school a few years ago ? It was the mid 70's when that movie was done, put it into perspective. It was the same level of acting as Star Wars had at the time.

        If you rea

        • "Logan's Run" [...] was the same level of acting as Star Wars had at the time.

          Seriously, they are one year appart. Check Logan's Run's sfx and models, and check out Star Wars. They aren't on the same footing.
    • ... also due this year
  • b5: in the beginning was a great movie. the best b5 movie so far and one of the best sf movies at all.

    can't see how jms could top his masterpiece
  • In canceling Enterprise, the powers that be eliminated a great source of suckiness. Now, to balance that, a great source of anti-suckiness must also be eliminated.

  • It wouldn't be the same anyway... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by USCG ( 842203 ) on Saturday February 26, 2005 @03:21PM (#11788845) Homepage
    Since Richard Biggs is dead [imdb.com], any new Babylon 5 production wouldn't quite have the same aura as the TV series. Dr. Franklin was a strong supporting character, whose presence would be sorely missed.
  • After The Legend of the Rangers, is there really any question why the film didn't get greenlit?
    • Am I the only one who expected "Legend of the Rangers" to be about the original Rangers (started, if I recall correctly, by the first captain after he went back in time) only to discover myself watching "90210 in Space"?

  • darn (Score:3, Informative)

    by Ranger ( 1783 ) on Saturday February 26, 2005 @03:37PM (#11788940) Homepage
    Too bad the new B5 movie got cancelled. Well, at least we got the theatrical version of Firefly and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy to look forward to.

  • Check the end of the message! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Karellen !-P ( 717831 ) on Saturday February 26, 2005 @03:41PM (#11788959) Homepage
    (message content (c) 2005 by Synthetic Worlds, Ltd. Rights to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine)

    I love JMS!

  • What's the point of a B5 movie? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rudy_wayne ( 414635 ) on Saturday February 26, 2005 @03:47PM (#11788992)
    Having been previously burned by the Start Trek:Next Generation movies (ie, they sucked enormously) I have trouble getting excited about a B5 movie, no matter how great the original TV series may have been.

    A typical 1 hour TV show minus commercials is about 42-45 minutes. And a typical movie is around 90 minutes. So, A B5 movie would be approximately the same length as a 2 part TV episode. So what is the point of 2 more B5 episodes?

    Now, if he was trying to put together a 6-8 part TV mini-series, that would be pretty cool. With a TV series you can take your time and develope a story over several episodes, and if one of those episodes sucks, so what, you just move on to the next one.

    But a B5 movie is pretty much guaranteed to suck simply because they have to try to cram as much as possible into this one movie, since there's no telling when there might be another one.

  • Dark Horizons' story... (Score:4, Informative)

    by antdude ( 79039 ) on Saturday February 26, 2005 @04:01PM (#11789088) Homepage Journal
    Read here [darkhorizons.com].
  • No wonder I heard a bunch of nerds screaming in unison earlier in the IT division at college.. Ears are still ringing.

  • Sad. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Grendel Drago ( 41496 ) on Saturday February 26, 2005 @04:18PM (#11789184) Homepage
    I came to Babylon 5 rather late, after it had originally aired. I remember seeing individual episodes from the first season, and thinking that, meh, the effects were pretty spiffy but I really didn't know who anyone was.

    I watched the whole thing last year and came to a somewhat different conclusion. jms ruined me for lesser SF. I can no longer stand most TNG or DS9 episodes. (Though I may yet watch DS9 as a whole---maybe it's good that way.)

    jms made a five-year novel-for-television. We shall not see one man's vision so clearly transferred to the small screen for a long, long time, if ever again.

    This is just a final middle-finger from the industry to jms. Punks.

    --grendel drago
  • It seems like Star Trek's problem was that it was a Paramount property
    and was at the mercy of corporate decision-making, which means having
    a "creative vision" is just a luxury that can be dispensed with. B5's
    problem was that it never really had corporate backing therefore JMS
    was at the mercy of the problems that come from limited financing.
    You basically have to eat sh*t in hollywood when you don't have enough
    backing and you're just at people's mercy to finance you. B5 was
    successful but never quite success
  • ...but I'm going to come right out and say I'm n ot a B5 fan. Give me any Star Trek movie over a B5 movie any day. That's not saying much as the last few Trek movies have been pretty bad. Hmmm... I wonder if there will be a Star Trek Voyager movie... ;P
  • Now it's time to do it ourselves.

    Take 2 [b5tv.com]

    WB wouldn't do it, so two independent producers without any credits to their names got involved trying to make it work. How about the fans hiring some people on their own and financing the production? It's a high-risk enterprise, and they would absolutely need to hire industry professionals. But they might be able to see some of the gross income that way.

  • And I just blew my money ... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Skapare ( 16644 ) on Saturday February 26, 2005 @05:48PM (#11789849) Homepage

    And I just blew my money on a new 100 GB hard drive to hold the digital theater version of it.

  • Faith Manages (Score:2, Funny)

    by munrom ( 853142 )
    Even if it takes a thousand years, we will have our movie :)
  • Have you noticed the effects and camera work were lifted right out of B5? Especially 'Call to Arms' and Crusade. The 'jerky then focus' in combat scenes is almost a B5 trademark.

    Also a lot of the political stuff from just before the secession of B5 from Earth almost mirrors the post-911 mood in the US and the puppet newscasters practically scripted FOX News.

  • How many people have actually followed the series on TV? How many of those would go to the movie? It's far less than any Star Trek franchise, so it won't happen.

    I suspect only two good possibilities can come out of B5...

    1. The SciFi channel buys the rights to air whole series, runs it, and then produces an original movie or mini-series to finish it off.
    2. The producers/writers for the movie just make a book based on the plot of the movie. Doing so leaves the characters and the special effects to the im

Slashdot Top Deals

Nothing is rich but the inexhaustible wealth of nature. She shows us only surfaces, but she is a million fathoms deep. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Close