>I don't know if you've ever said, but just "approximately," how much did
>each Crusade episode cost to produce?
>
>IIRC, B5 was around $1 million per episode. I guess the Crusade cost was
>about the same as B5??? Farscape was supposedly around $1.4 million per
>episode, and new Trek is around $2 million per episode.

Yes, Crusade was about the same as B5, a tick under $1M per episode. We did it
by long-term planning and having scripts well ahead of time, the same thing
that has helped put Jeremiah under-budget in its first season.

jms

(jmsatb5@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2003 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)

>On the contrary, it is a observable fact that the psi corps trilogy has
>one tiny mistake in it - putting the Icarus incident and Mind war at the
>same time. The Centauri Trilogy has a whole host of minor timeline
>problems, like putting five months between the fall of Centauri Prime
>and Objectsd at rest. The "In the Beginning" Novelization gives all
>of Coplann's lines to Morann, (not to mention basically the whole
>technomage trilogy), but my point is made with the few previous examples.
>
>So then, where is the quality control?


So let me get this straight...based on those tiny errors, which creep in
because perfection is much to be strived for but rarely ever achieved,
especially when you're bringing in all kinds of different people into the
process, on tha basis of a few months difference here and there, which 99.9% of
the population wouldn't even notice unless they did a real dig-out of the
dates...which only a rather obsessive kind of personality would do in the first
place...based on THAT you dismiss the books out of hand? That they have "no
quality control?"

And on top of that, as a newcomer here, you go around dissing people and
insulting them because they disagree with you?


>Understanding someone elses opinon makes it easier to show
>how they are wrong. Spare me your version of singing Kum-by-yah, I'll
>deal with facts.

Does the phrase "ill-mannered boob" ring a bell with you?

Just checking, because I suspect you're either going to hear it a lot, or you
already have.

jms

(jmsatb5@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2003 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)

>I don't value other peoples opinions because
>the vast majority of the time they are ill-informed,
>and lack any thought or logic behind them - is not my problem
>nor does it fall under the scope of manners. It does however fall
>under the scope of politically incorrect, and if anything that must
>mean I'm more right than I thought.

1) You have just defined the very meaning and the psychology of a troll better
than anything I have read online in the last ten years.

2) If you place no value on other peoples' opinions, then you cannot possibly
derive anything from your company on this group, since it is contingent upon
that premise. Nothing anyone here says can mean anything to you since you do
not value their opinions.

As stated: a troll who only comes in to cause furors and annoy people for his
own amusement without any interest in a real conversation.

Hey, Jay...can somebody introduce this guy to the workings of a moderated
group?

He may not like it much, but the thing about not valuing other peoples'
opinions is that it gives them the right not to value yours.

Troll.

jms

(jmsatb5@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2003 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)