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 Historical content remains viewable.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

The Legend of the Rangers - To Live and Die in Starlight: my review

1 view
Skip to first unread message

jph...@aol.com

unread,
Jan 24, 2008, 11:55:19 PM1/24/08
to
TV Movie, a pilot for a prospective spinoff, that became one of the
most derided bits of B5 since the glory days of "Infection." While
not really as bad as all that, it's not hard to see why this telefilm
was destined to go precisely nowhere.


THE PLOT

The Minbari are troubled. A Ranger scout ship has discovered a new
race, and sent back images of this unknown race's war ships - the last
transmission the ship ever made, as it was destroyed seconds later.
The Grey Council calls in G'Kar to investigate the matter, counting on
his considerable will and reputation to lead him to "consider any
closed door... an open one." G'Kar discovers that this race comes from
another dimension - a force that has been outcast from this universe,
and is giving its followers "toys" in exchange for help in finding its
way back in.

G'Kar's mission is entrusted to the Anla'shok's latest flagship, "The
Valen." The flagship has one escort - "The Liandra," a vessel with a
reputation for being cursed. Also carrying a reputation is "The
Liandra's" newest commander, the human Ranger David Martell (Dylan
Neal), who has been given his first command after narrowly avoiding
expulsion for breaking off from a hopeless combat. When "The Valen" is
destroyed, Martell is given the opportunity to prove himself by
completing the mission. But first he'll have to outmaneuver the far
superior, utterly unknown technology and intelligence of the enemy...


THE GOOD

If nothing else can be said for "Legend of the Rangers," then there is
at least one reason to be happy for this film's existence. This film
gives viewers one last exposure to Andreas Katsulas' G'Kar. Not that
Katsulas or G'Kar get their best showing here. Still, both character
and actor remain fun to watch, and even reduced to a secondary level -
in both role and quality of material - it is evident that Katsulas'
performance is a notch (or several) above any of the other actors
involved in this telefilm.

The film actually does offer some bits of potential for an
entertaining series. Though it would never have been as good a series
as "Babylon 5," there are some good elements here. Dylan Neal displays
limited range, but he's quite likable as a young lead. I genuinely
enjoyed the banter between Martell and his first officer, Dulann (Alex
Zahara), and it would have been fun to have seen the friendship
between these two be tested as the series developed. Na'Feel, the Narn
engineer, is also a rather entertaining character, which makes up for
the weakness of Myriam Sirois, who - though passably attractive -
displays little real acting ability in her role as Sarah, the ship's
weapons officer.

Once the set-up has been completed, the main story is largely a
variation on "The Enemy Below," which was itself recycled for the
excellent original series "Star Trek" episode "Balance of Terror."
The story of a submarine/ship trying to outthink and outmaneuver a
superior opponent isn't nearly as well-executed here as in either of
the aforementioned classic titles, but it's a situation that carries
inherent dramatic value. Despite some script weaknesses, much of that
tension still seeps through.

J. Michael Straczynski maintains a good balance between humor,
character interaction, and tension throughout, which makes the film
easy enough to watch with lowered expectations - particularly once the
viewer gets past the dreadful opening. This is "Babylon 5" as Jerry
Bruckheimer would have done it - fast, straight-ahead, dumb, but with
lots of action. Taken for what it is, rather than dismissed for what
it isn't, it's actually fairly entertaining. Certainly, I would take
the cheerful hack work of "Legend of the Rangers" over the
pretentiously dour "Thirdspace" any day of the week. It's tripe... but
at least it's entertaining tripe.


THE BAD

Unfortunately, entertaining tripe is still basically tripe. This
narrative has holes in it that could accommodate a star liner, with
room to spare.

First off is the reinvention of the Rangers as the "crack suicide
squad" from "Monty Python's Life of Brian." That the Rangers are
willing to sacrifice their lives, if needed, has been demonstrated in
the series. That Martell is in disgrace for not throwing away his ship
and the lives of his crew pointlessly - and to no effect, given that
in the tactical situation presented it is unlikely that he would even
be able to get within ramming distance of a single Raider - is
ludicrous. In any reasonable (or, indeed, realistic) military
organization, an officer who insisted on throwing away valuable
manpower and equipment stupidly would be in far more trouble (assuming
his survival) than an officer who chose to avoid a suicide charge that
would accomplish nothing. Since so much of this movie hinges on buying
that intelligent, rational individuals would believe that Martell
should suffer some penalty for making the only reasonable decision,
the movie manages to start itself off squarely on the wrong foot.

The solution to this problem is obvious: Make the situation in the
precredit sequence less absolute and clear-cut. If Martell had
retreated/refused to pursue in circumstances where it could be
conceivable that his ship might have actually done some good, then the
implications that others believe him to be a coward might actually be
believable. If the audience was given reason to believe that Martell
had experienced a moment of cowardice, then it would also have lent a
bit more tension to the otherwise tension-free climax of the piece. An
opportunity wasted all-around. As it stands, one is left to conclude
that the Rangers only want officers with I. Q.'s smaller than their
waistlines; and the same problem that plagues the opener dramatically
destroys the climax, which would have benefited greatly from seeding a
few doubts in the minds of the audience as to Martell's character.

The movie does recover from this misstep, about the time that Martell
and Dulann are energetically bantering aboard the disaster area that
is "The Liandra." Unfortunately, just as things seem set to roll
along nicely, more problem areas emerge. The biggest of these is the
weapons system, which appears to be modeled after "Mortal Kombat,"
with Sarah doing somersaults, grunting, and pumping her fists forward
in order to fire on the enemy. The effect is unintentionally comical,
and completely obliterates any excitement that the action sequences
might otherwise develop.

Ultimately, though it's definitely in the lower tier of "Babylon 5"
lore, I can find no hate in my heart for "Legend of the Rangers." At
the time of its airing, with expectations running high, along with
hopes that it might lead to a new series, this relatively slight film
carried a heavy burden. Inevitably, the movie's flaws combined with
its slightness to cause massive disappointment. Divorced from that
context, and just taken as another telefilm, it's an inoffensive, even
reasonably entertaining diversion. Weak when compared with the parent
series, of course - but fun to watch on its own terms, and perhaps
deserving of more consideration than it tends to get from fandom.


My Final Rating: 5/10. Nowhere near as bad as its reputation, but
still too flawed to merit any higher a rating.


jph...@aol.com

unread,
Jan 26, 2008, 2:14:19 AM1/26/08
to
Oh, and lest I forget... after any viewing of this movie, you will
never want to hear the phrase, "We live for the one, we die for the
one," ever, ever, EVER again. It sounds suitably dramatic the first
time or two it is intoned. By the fifth or sixth time a character
rote-recited the phrase in this 89-minute piece, I would have thrown
rotten vegetables at the screen had any been on-hand.

I'm not sure how I missed noting that in the actual review, but I
thought I'd add it in after-the-fact.

T.Milke

unread,
Jan 26, 2008, 10:42:10 AM1/26/08
to
In article
<7ba22d31-a500-46d6...@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
<"jph...@aol.com"> wrote:

I always found it interesting, that Zathras was the only one who ever
got the phrase right. "We live for the one, we would die for the one".
You are correct. I too was very tired of that phrase by the time this
movie was over. I was kind of glad when the movie was over too. None
of the characters really grabbed my attention. Was it bad acting, or
the way they were written? Thankfully, my memory on this has faded.

The early advertising for the movie went something like "These guys
used to beat up the shadows for their lunch money". (regarding the new
enemy) I thought all the first ones went away? It's tough when little
bits of plot ruin a good story. If this little piece of B5 history
went away and was forgotten, I doubt many people would care

-T.Milke


Jan

unread,
Jan 27, 2008, 1:08:00 PM1/27/08
to
In article <226e82f1-3d13-4336...@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
jph...@aol.com says...

>
>TV Movie, a pilot for a prospective spinoff, that became one of the
>most derided bits of B5 since the glory days of "Infection." While
>not really as bad as all that, it's not hard to see why this telefilm
>was destined to go precisely nowhere.

I've enjoyed your reviews no end but this one has got several points I disagree
with.

>
>The film actually does offer some bits of potential for an
>entertaining series. Though it would never have been as good a series
>as "Babylon 5," there are some good elements here.

Hmmm...and from 'The Gathering' you could tell that Babylon 5 would turn out
anywhere near as good as it was? I think not. *Especially* not the original
version.

>
>Once the set-up has been completed, the main story is largely a
>variation on "The Enemy Below," which was itself recycled for the
>excellent original series "Star Trek" episode "Balance of Terror."

Sigh. I'll bet there are many other up-against-superior (or perceived to
be)-forces stories long before that. Probably dating back to cave paintings.

>
>J. Michael Straczynski maintains a good balance between humor,
>character interaction, and tension throughout, which makes the film
>easy enough to watch with lowered expectations - particularly once the
>viewer gets past the dreadful opening. This is "Babylon 5" as Jerry
>Bruckheimer would have done it - fast, straight-ahead, dumb, but with
>lots of action. Taken for what it is, rather than dismissed for what
>it isn't, it's actually fairly entertaining. Certainly, I would take
>the cheerful hack work of "Legend of the Rangers" over the
>pretentiously dour "Thirdspace" any day of the week. It's tripe... but
>at least it's entertaining tripe.

How many other action-adventures are anything other than entertaining? I have
to conclude that you've fallen for the fallacy I often see expressed that
everything JMS does has to be a huge saga or have some deep significance and/or
story arc. Everything he does doesn't have to be, *shouldn't* be like the last
thing. Why not just have a show just for fun?

>
>First off is the reinvention of the Rangers as the "crack suicide
>squad" from "Monty Python's Life of Brian." That the Rangers are
>willing to sacrifice their lives, if needed, has been demonstrated in
>the series. That Martell is in disgrace for not throwing away his ship
>and the lives of his crew pointlessly - and to no effect, given that
>in the tactical situation presented it is unlikely that he would even
>be able to get within ramming distance of a single Raider - is
>ludicrous.

While I'll grant that it's somewhat weak, what I think you miss is that the
Minbari have been portrayed as being extremely tradition-bound and
narrow-thinking throughout the series. Original thinkers like Dukhat and Delenn
are extremely rare in Minbari culture. Added to the fact that the Rangers only
in the past few years (storytime) become an actual fighting force rather than a
covert spying operation, I was able to accept the premise of a hide-bound Ranger
Council without too much trouble.

>
>The movie does recover from this misstep, about the time that Martell
>and Dulann are energetically bantering aboard the disaster area that
>is "The Liandra." Unfortunately, just as things seem set to roll
>along nicely, more problem areas emerge. The biggest of these is the
>weapons system, which appears to be modeled after "Mortal Kombat,"
>with Sarah doing somersaults, grunting, and pumping her fists forward
>in order to fire on the enemy. The effect is unintentionally comical,
>and completely obliterates any excitement that the action sequences
>might otherwise develop.

Yeah, but the space scenes around her were breathtaking. FWIW, I think this is
one time when Mike missed with his ability to bring what JMS was thinking to the
screen. The description in the script is far different.

>Ultimately, though it's definitely in the lower tier of "Babylon 5"
>lore, I can find no hate in my heart for "Legend of the Rangers." At
>the time of its airing, with expectations running high, along with
>hopes that it might lead to a new series, this relatively slight film
>carried a heavy burden. Inevitably, the movie's flaws combined with
>its slightness to cause massive disappointment. Divorced from that
>context, and just taken as another telefilm, it's an inoffensive, even
>reasonably entertaining diversion. Weak when compared with the parent
>series, of course - but fun to watch on its own terms, and perhaps
>deserving of more consideration than it tends to get from fandom.

I've sometimes been dismayed that the fans seem to think that every new offering
from the B5 universe is somehow magically going to have the weight of a 'Severed
Dreams' about it with no background built up to sustain it. If the fans had
unreasonable expectations, that's *not* the fault of the movie, it's the fault
of the fans.

But weak? What job did it fail to accomplish as a pilot? Introduce the
characters? Check. Introduce the basic universe that it would be playing in?
Check. Leave hints and clues of what kinds of stories might come in the future?
Check. Create a different and new feel apart from the original show? Check.
So what part of it failed as a pilot for a series never intended to resemble
it's parent?

And as to your follow-up post, yeah, "We live for the One, we die for the One"
was repeated a couple of times too often. I really loved how G'Kar turned it
back on the Council, though.

Jan


--
We see what we look for and we look for what we think we will see.
--jms

robin...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 27, 2008, 6:42:10 PM1/27/08
to
On Jan 27, 6:08 pm, Jan <janmschroe...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <226e82f1-3d13-4336-b830-d9891036c...@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,

It failed to be any good.

Sorry to be flippant. :^)

jph...@aol.com

unread,
Jan 27, 2008, 7:04:35 PM1/27/08
to

> I've enjoyed your reviews no end but this one has got several points I disagree


> with.
>
>
> >The film actually does offer some bits of potential for an
> >entertaining series. Though it would never have been as good a series
> >as "Babylon 5," there are some good elements here.
>
> Hmmm...and from 'The Gathering' you could tell that Babylon 5 would turn out
> anywhere near as good as it was? �I think not. *Especially* not the original
> version.


No... but "The Gathering" (the original version of which was the first
B5 I ever saw, and was good enough to keep me interested long enough
to get hooked) offered was much that was good, or at least
interesting, and much that showed potential. Londo, Garibaldi, and -
even underneath the ridiculous makeup - Delenn instantly showed
potential, and Sinclair had some strong character moments in the
second half. The universe established was intriguing, and clearly had
been very well thought-out. There were big problems, including some
poor dialogue, an overabundance of exposition, and a plot that takes
more than half the movie to actually start (note that I also gave The
Gathering a 6/10, which I've since adjusted downard to a "5"), but I
would say there is more in "The Gathering" promising a strong series
than there is in "Legend of the Rangers."

I'd also point out that I did state that there was potential in
"Rangers" for a decent series, and that there were good elements - the
Martell/Dulann interaction, in particular.


> >Once the set-up has been completed, the main story is largely a
> >variation on "The Enemy Below," which was itself recycled for the
> >excellent original series "Star Trek" episode "Balance of Terror."
>
> Sigh. �I'll bet there are many other up-against-superior (or perceived to
> be)-forces stories long before that. �Probably dating back to cave paintings.
>

Well, I'd argue that there are "similar stories" and "another version
of the same story." Seriously - watch "Balance of Terror" back-to-
back with "Legend of the Rangers." They have an awful lot in common.

I'd also note that the mention of Enemy Below and Balance of Terror
was hardly a criticism - I believe I filed it under "THE GOOD."
Lifting story ideas from previous works and putting a new spin on it
is something that all writers do. Odd how you didn't seem to take
issue with literary comparisons that were seeded through previous
reviews, while this one is somehow a sticking point.

>
> >J. Michael Straczynski maintains a good balance between humor,
> >character interaction, and tension throughout, which makes the film
> >easy enough to watch with lowered expectations - particularly once the
> >viewer gets past the dreadful opening. This is "Babylon 5" as Jerry
> >Bruckheimer would have done it - fast, straight-ahead, dumb, but with
> >lots of action. Taken for what it is, rather than dismissed for what
> >it isn't, it's actually fairly entertaining. Certainly, I would take
> >the cheerful hack work of "Legend of the Rangers" over the
> >pretentiously dour "Thirdspace" any day of the week. It's tripe... but
> >at least it's entertaining tripe.
>
> How many other action-adventures are anything other than entertaining? �I have
> to conclude that you've fallen for the fallacy I often see expressed that
> everything JMS does has to be a huge saga or have some deep significance and/or
> story arc. �Everything he does doesn't have to be, *shouldn't* be like the last
> thing. �Why not just have a show just for fun?

You do realize that you're answering a bit of praise ("it's dumb, but
fun") rather than a criticism here? Nowhere in the review do I state
that this should be, or is aiming to be, "a huge saga" with "deep
significance." My exact words - to repeat what is above - are, "Taken


for what it is, rather than dismissed for what it isn't, it's actually

fairly entertaining." I'm not sure why you're taking me to task
here. The actual criticisms (other than an aside about Miryam Sirois'
poor acting) only came after this point in the review.


> >First off is the reinvention of the Rangers as the "crack suicide
> >squad" from "Monty Python's Life of Brian." �That the Rangers are
> >willing to sacrifice their lives, if needed, has been demonstrated in
> >the series. That Martell is in disgrace for not throwing away his ship
> >and the lives of his crew pointlessly - and to no effect, given that
> >in the tactical situation presented it is unlikely that he would even
> >be able to get within ramming distance of a single Raider - is
> >ludicrous.
>
> While I'll grant that it's somewhat weak, what I think you miss is that the
> Minbari have been portrayed as being extremely tradition-bound and
> narrow-thinking throughout the series. Original thinkers like Dukhat and Delenn
> are extremely rare in Minbari culture. �Added to the fact that the Rangers only
> in the past few years (storytime) become an actual fighting force rather than a
> covert spying operation, I was able to accept the premise of a hide-bound Ranger
> Council without too much trouble.

As I said, I would be able to accept it a lot better if the situation
had been open to some interpretation. If there had been some chance
that Martell could have actually done some damage to the Raiders,
rather than just flying on to die pointlessly, then the controversy
among the Minbari would have rung far more true. More to the point,
it would have created the possibility of some tension at the climax,
rather than the audience simply waiting for Martell's crew to catch up
with him. I had trouble buying this bit throughout (there's a
difference between "hide-bound" and "stupid"), and by allowing no
doubt in the the minds of the audienced that Martell had only one
option, this struck me as a dramatic misstep.


> >The movie does recover from this misstep, about the time that Martell
> >and Dulann are energetically bantering aboard the disaster area that
> >is "The Liandra." �Unfortunately, just as things seem set to roll
> >along nicely, more problem areas emerge. The biggest of these is the
> >weapons system, which appears to be modeled after "Mortal Kombat,"
> >with Sarah doing somersaults, grunting, and pumping her fists forward
> >in order to fire on the enemy. The effect is unintentionally comical,
> >and completely obliterates any excitement that the action sequences
> >might otherwise develop.
>
> Yeah, but the space scenes around her were breathtaking. �FWIW, I think this is
> one time when Mike missed with his ability to bring what JMS was thinking to the
> screen. �The description in the script is far different.

Well, it's good to know that it was better-described in the script.
I'm actually hopeful that eventually JMS might put out scriptbooks for
the movies, as well as the TV series. However, my review is of what
ended up on-screen... and the sight of Sarah pumping her fists,
kicking her legs, and doing cartwheels is simply not conducive to
tension-building. I stand by my opinion that a misjudged effect that
renders virtually ever combat scene in the film laughable is a
significant problem in an action/adventure movie.

I'll add, though, that just as JMS changed Delenn's makeup to
something more suitable between pilot and series for B5, I'm quite
sure that he would have "tweaked" the weapons system into something
more suitable for an eventual series here.


> >Ultimately, though it's definitely in the lower tier of "Babylon 5"
> >lore, I can find no hate in my heart for "Legend of the Rangers." �At
> >the time of its airing, with expectations running high, along with
> >hopes that it might lead to a new series, this relatively slight film
> >carried a heavy burden. Inevitably, the movie's flaws combined with
> >its slightness to cause massive disappointment. Divorced from that
> >context, and just taken as another telefilm, it's an inoffensive, even
> >reasonably entertaining diversion. Weak when compared with the parent
> >series, of course - but fun to watch on its own terms, and perhaps
> >deserving of more consideration than it tends to get from fandom.
>
> I've sometimes been dismayed that the fans seem to think that every new offering
> from the B5 universe is somehow magically going to have the weight of a 'Severed
> Dreams' about it with no background built up to sustain it. �If the fans had
> unreasonable expectations, that's *not* the fault of the movie, it's the fault
> of the fans.

Again, that's more or less exactly what I said - divorced from the
context of expectations, it is entertaining and I can't find it in
myself to hate it at all.


> But weak? �What job did it fail to accomplish as a pilot? �Introduce the
> characters? Check. �Introduce the basic universe that it would be playing in?
> Check. �Leave hints and clues of what kinds of stories might come in the future?
> Check. �Create a different and new feel apart from the original show? �Check.
> So what part of it failed as a pilot for a series never intended to resemble
> it's parent?

I'm not reviewing it as a potential pilot. As a potential pilot, I
agree that it does everything it *needs* to do. But I'm reviewing it
as a work unto itself - just as I did with The Gathering, which *was*
a pilot, and to which I gave pretty much the same rating as this one.

Judged as its own movie, I think there are significant weakensses
here: one major character (Sarah) is played by an actress who in my
opinion is quite weak; the lead is adequate but demonstrates no real
range (how many times in the film does he flash that exact same
smile? Fair enough, he'd grow into the role in the series... but
again, I'm just reviewing *this movie*); a major effect is horribly
misjudged; and there are some script gaffes which have nothing at all
to do with any potential series, but which do hurt this as a film.
Yes, some of these would have been fixed for series - Dylan Neal would
have grown into the part, just as Michael O'Hare grew into Sinclair by
mid-Season One, just as Patricia Tallman grew into Lyta; the weapons
system would likely have been given a rethink; Siriois might have
improved, or might even have been discarded - but just because these
elements would have gotten better doesn't mean they aren't problems
*here,* just as O'Hare's woodenness was a problem in "The Gathering"
and some early Season One episodes before he improved.


All told, I think I was quite fair. In fact, while writing this
review I thought I was being reasonably kind to an overly-maligned
work. I hardly panned it by referring to it as "entertaining on its
own terms," or by giving it a score of "5" - a score I equate with
just a little below-average. But even taken on its own terms, I
believe this *is* a decidedly flawed movie, I believe it could have
been and *should* have been better, and I stand by my rating of it.
It's not terrible as a simple entertainment, but it's not quite good,
either.


> And as to your follow-up post, yeah, "We live for the One, we die for the One"
> was repeated a couple of times too often. �I really loved how G'Kar turned it
> back on the Council, though.
>

G'Kar was delightful, as ever. A shame this is the last we'll see of
Katsulas in the role. *sniffle*

Joseph DeMartino

unread,
Jan 28, 2008, 1:18:24 PM1/28/08
to
On Jan 27, 7:04 pm, "jph...@aol.com" <jph...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jan 27, 11:08�am, Jan <janmschroe...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Yeah, but the space scenes around her were breathtaking. FWIW, I think this is
>> one time when Mike missed with his ability to bring what JMS was thinking to the
>> screen. The description in the script is far different.
>
>
> Well, it's good to know that it was better-described in the script.
> I'm actually hopeful that eventually JMS might put out scriptbooks for
> the movies, as well as the TV series. However, my review is of what
> ended up on-screen... and the sight of Sarah pumping her fists,
> kicking her legs, and doing cartwheels is simply not conducive to
> tension-building.

Unfortunately it proved impossible to build what JMS had described in
the script on the buget provided - the estimates were way off. And
since WB and Sci-Fi were arguing about ownership of the film and any
subsequent series, neither side was willing to cough up the extra cash
to do the thing right. (The actual weapons system would have been a
little bit like the one in "The Last Starfighter". Sarah was supposed
to drop into the display sphere chair and all, and spin through the
all directions view firing at targets using conventional chair-mounted
controls, not her fists and feet.) JMS was determined to do something
more interesting than the usual "guy pushes button on bridge console
weapons system", and the FX people were already working on the "inside
the ball" views for the battle scenes. And nobody was offering to pay
to scrap that work and start over (even if the set-in-stone airdate
had allowed that.) So when plan "A" fell apart JMS had to improvise a
plan "B" in a hurry. Which he did, literally on the soundstage a few
days before shooting shooting started. He noticed a "Peter Pan" style
flying rig and used it to salvage the situation.

Was it a wonderful effect? No.

Would it have survived had the project gone to series? No.

Was it the best that could have been done under the circumstances? I
suspect so.

Granted any critic has to deal with the film *as made*, but there is a
giant gap between "JMS came up with a really stupid weapons system
what the heck is wrong with him" and "the exigencies of production
forced JMS into a bad compromise at the last minute." I'm inclined to
cut the guy a little slack, myself. <g>

Regards,

Joe

Wayne Dernoncourt

unread,
Jan 27, 2008, 8:22:50 PM1/27/08
to
[ The following text is in the "iso-8859-15" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "ISO-8859-1" character set. ]
[ Some special characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 19:04:35 -0500, jph...@aol.com wrote
(in article
<2b8fc324-f41e-4236...@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>):

> On Jan 27, 11:08ï¿?am, Jan <janmschroe...@aol.com> wrote:
>> In article
>> <226e82f1-3d13-4336-b830-d9891036c...@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
>> jph...@aol.com says...

>>> The film actually does offer some bits of potential for an


>>> entertaining series. Though it would never have been as
>>> good a series as "Babylon 5," there are some good
>>> elements here.

I was willing to give it the benefit of the doubt for at least a season.

>> Hmmm...and from 'The Gathering' you could tell that Babylon 5
>> would turn out anywhere near as good as it was? I think not.
>> *Especially* not the original version.

I thought "The Gathering" was another shoot 'em up in space. It
took a friend of mine a year and half or two years to get me to
watch the series.

> G'Kar was delightful, as ever. A shame this is the last we'll see of
> Katsulas in the role. *sniffle*

Yes, so sad.

cmulder

unread,
Jan 27, 2008, 8:05:34 PM1/27/08
to
I am actually very curious what JMS thinks of that part of his work.

He usually is pretty open with his thoughts on the things he has done
well at and the things that didn't turn out like he had hoped. It
would be nice if he gave a candid review of LoTR.

I felt it might have made a decent series, but i really couldn't see
it living up to either Babylon 5 or Crusade.

Overall the characters felt uninteresting and the enemy they were
setting up did sound all that great.

Now i have a lot of faith in JMS. Even going back and looking at
early work (capt. power anyone) i found a lot to like about it. I
just didn't get the same feeling for LoTR. I know ultimately it was
financing that killed the projects (a mix of low ratings on the east
coast and the fact the show would have been owned by WB and not NBC
+Universal). But i can't help but feel the quality was one of the
nails in the projects coffin.

Amy Guskin

unread,
Jan 29, 2008, 8:35:49 AM1/29/08
to
>> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:05:34 -0500, cmulder wrote
(in article
<6c18c82a-4683-452a...@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>):

> I am actually very curious what JMS thinks of that part of his work.<<

Top-posting, _and_ not snipping any of the entire original, long message?
You're killin' me, seriously.

Amy
--
"In my line of work you gotta keep repeating things over and over and over
again for the truth to sink in, to kinda catapult the propaganda." - George
W. Bush, May 24, 2005

Matt Ion

unread,
Jan 29, 2008, 1:37:21 PM1/29/08
to
T.Milke wrote:

> The early advertising for the movie went something like "These guys
> used to beat up the shadows for their lunch money". (regarding the new
> enemy) I thought all the first ones went away? It's tough when little
> bits of plot ruin a good story.

This is the one complaint that's inevitably brought up that always
annoys me, as it shows a complete lack of thought on the complainer's part.

It isn't too hard a concept, really: the only place anyone in the show
claims that "The Hand" are more powerful and nasty than the
recently-departed First Ones is the warnings given by Kafka.

Is it such a stretch to IMMEDIATELY think that he could be either lying,
or have been deceived himself? I know MY first thought, as he was
telling everyone how he was going to benefit from his servitude of them,
was that this guy was talking out of his ass (wherever on his body it
may be).

It's not really a new concept, even in sci-fi... baddies with some fancy
tricks up their sleeves pretending to be more than they are, convincing
a bunch of misguided flunkies to do their bidding and subvert others to
their "cause"?


Joseph DeMartino

unread,
Jan 29, 2008, 9:50:46 PM1/29/08
to
On Jan 29, 1:37 pm, Matt Ion <soundy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> T.Milke wrote:
> > The early advertising for the movie went something like "These guys
> > used to beat up the shadows for their lunch money". (regarding the new
> > enemy)  I thought all the first ones went away?  It's tough when little
> > bits of plot ruin a good story.  
>
> This is the one complaint that's inevitably brought up that always
> annoys me, as it shows a complete lack of thought on the complainer's part.

It also shows a complete lack of respect for JMS and a lack of
familiarity with his work. There is an (apparent) anomaly in the
script and instead of thinking "Oh, this probably isn't what it
appears to be, it is some kind of misdirection" some people think "Oh,
JMS has suddenly become a moron and forgotten everything he's ever
known about writing." Especially given how fond JMS has *always* been
of setting up a seeming cliche or easily sovled puzzle only to turn
the whole thing upside down later. The guy has made a *carreer* out
of confounding the expectations of his audience and messing with their
heads, yet half the audience takes the whole "Hand" thing at face
value and accuses JMS of lacking imagination. This is the same kind
of thinking that led people to declare that there would be no suspense
in "Crusade" because we already knew the plague was cured. Like they
thought *JMS* didn't know that didn't have a plan for dealing with
it.

Every new project the same things get said. It has been the same
since "The Gathering" and it really does get old after awhile.

Regards,

Joe

Jeffrey Kaplan

unread,
Jan 29, 2008, 11:16:43 PM1/29/08
to
Previously on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, Joseph DeMartino said:

> It also shows a complete lack of respect for JMS and a lack of
> familiarity with his work. There is an (apparent) anomaly in the
> script and instead of thinking "Oh, this probably isn't what it
> appears to be, it is some kind of misdirection" some people think "Oh,
> JMS has suddenly become a moron and forgotten everything he's ever
> known about writing." Especially given how fond JMS has *always* been
> of setting up a seeming cliche or easily sovled puzzle only to turn
> the whole thing upside down later. The guy has made a *carreer* out
> of confounding the expectations of his audience and messing with their
> heads, yet half the audience takes the whole "Hand" thing at face
> value and accuses JMS of lacking imagination. This is the same kind

I just had an evil thought: Didn't Sheridan once have a Kosh-given
vision that told him, "You are the hand"? And, didn't Sheridan beat up
the Shadows for their lunch money? :)

--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled Send personal mail to gordol

"If I am ever the Hero top 100 list: #68. I will not trust a being with
an inordinate number of tentacles.

Matt Ion

unread,
Jan 29, 2008, 11:16:25 PM1/29/08
to

Quoted in full, because I couldn't have said it better myself.

Brian Harvey

unread,
Jan 29, 2008, 11:39:11 PM1/29/08
to
Jeffrey Kaplan <nom...@gordol.org> writes:
>"If I am ever the Hero top 100 list: #68. I will not trust a being with
>an inordinate number of tentacles.

You're afraid that if it has an inORDINATE number of tentacles it must be
a Preying MANTISsa?


Jan

unread,
Jan 30, 2008, 7:37:08 AM1/30/08
to
In article <83036b44-185d-4e71...@l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Joseph DeMartino says...

>
>
>It also shows a complete lack of respect for JMS and a lack of
>familiarity with his work. There is an (apparent) anomaly in the
>script and instead of thinking "Oh, this probably isn't what it
>appears to be, it is some kind of misdirection" some people think "Oh,
>JMS has suddenly become a moron and forgotten everything he's ever
>known about writing."

THANK You!!! I've often wondered if some of the complainers watched the same
series as I did. And the strange thing is, many times the ones doing the
complaining were the same ones who spent all sorts of skull sweat during B5
trying to suss out the hidden, deeper meaning of Sheridan using his napkin at
dinner.

Nicely said, Joe.

0 new messages