Babylon 5 VS The Rest of Sci-Fi Television

[Amuro]

I'd long heard that Babylon 5 was the cream of the crop among sci-fi television series, that it "raised the bar so high that no other series has been able to compare," so I borrowed the first season on DVD..

My reactions are mixed.. I can see why people might prefer it to Star Trek, but the difference is relatively miniscule. I hardly think that the concepts of "realistic technology," "an overeaching plot," and "flawed characters" had been present in the US long before B5 (Robotech, 2001: A Space Odyssey, anyone?).

I do realize that 2001 was a movie, whereas B5 was viewed as being remarkably "realistic" for a series. However, I find it difficult to call the series truly "realistic." If we assume that the technology employed by the various alien races is supposed to be "unrealistic" by human standards and only look at the Earth Alliance's tech, we're left with the "Starfury" fighter, the various EA battlecruisers, and the Babylon stations themselves..

The Starfury is supposed to be realistic simply because it's not designed to be aerodynamic. Even so, it's X-foil design can easily be traced back to Star Wars' X-Wing, so I think that the fans who view it as a revolutionary design are simply turning a blind eye to some facts. The design is given a heck of a lot more credibility by the fact that NASA allegedly plans to adapt it into a repair craft for the International Space Station. However, as a fighter craft, it seems quite silly that the Starfury's cockpit is stuck right in front like a big bullseye for enemies..

Among battlecruisers, I've only had a chance to observe the Hyperion in the show, but it seems that it's very similar in design to the Magellan and Salamis-class ships from Gundam, which are arguably unrealistic in that they also have an exposed bridge and a set of "naval-esque" cannons placed at their top (which doesn't seem practical for a 3-dimensional battle).

As for the Babylon 5 station itself.. well.. I don't quite understand whether it's supposed to be a self-sufficient agricultural colony like Mobile Suit Gundam's. It seems that this wasn't well thought out on the part of the designers, as the majority of the sets are distinctly "starship-like" whereas we ocasionally get an establishing shot of a sweeping Gundam-like landscape of fields and houses during but never actually see these up close. It seems hard to understand the relation between the two and fairly likely that part of the production crew wasn't overly familiar with the O'Neil cyllinder design and thus designed sets stereotypical of what they felt a space-station would look like (Star Trek-esque, if you will), whereas the part of the crew that was familiar with the O'Neil design tried to pepper in the "fields-and-houses" shots that we're familar with from Gundam..

I don't know.. Overall, it just seems like the series was an interesting, if unrefined, idea on paper, but a fumbled one in execution..

I'd probably be more likely to become a hardcore B5 fan than a hardcore ST fan under different circumstances, and B5, due to its serialized nature, is the series that I would be more likely to purchase. However, it's not unique enough to be deemed "revolutionary," in my opinion..

Any thoughts? How do you think B5 compares with the various other sci-fi series we'd seen before and since?

[Neo0tak0n]

I like LEXX over Bablyon 5 any day.

[Ikari Warrior]

My basis for comparison for B5 was Star Trek: Deep Space 9, since both shows prominently took place on a space station near a warp-type anomaly nearby (DS9's wormhole vs. B5's jumpgate; one "natural" the other "artificial"). I'd never heard B5 deemed "realistic" before your original post. When compared to Sci-fi in general, B5 is spectacular. Revolutionary? maybe. Realistic? No.

As a matter of fact, I find the contrary to be true. It's not only not realistic, but it combines the magic of fantasy and the sciency-ness (for lack of a better word) of sci-fi in a very unique way. There is talk of souls, and prophesies, death and rebirth. It is all rather mythical in its scale. The only real comperable element that I can find between gundam and B5 is the political intrigue. Gundam's bored me, but I appreciated B5's elaborate perspective.

B5 had the benefit of consistent writing and staff, versus Deep Space 9, which went through various writers, causing the series to feel disjointed. B5 manages to stretch its theme across five seasons, where DS9 tends to lose its way around season 4, and then magically brings it all together in the last ep of season 7.

As far as best sci fi series ever? There is so much out there that is so diverse that it's impossible to compare one series to it all. It largely depends on personal preference, and I will always love my Star Trek: The Next Generation.

[Amuro]

I'd never heard B5 deemed "realistic" before your original post.

Hm, really? I've repeatedly heard the Starfury mentioned as the most realistic starfighter in a sci-fi series ever and have heard people give great credit to Babylon 5 for using a "real" rotating space station design rather than having "artificial gravity generators" and the like..
Plus it seems that a big deal was made out of the show's use of physics. i.e. emphasis is placed on the ships' intertia--that it takes time to decelerate. I haven't paid too much attention to the movement of the ships, but I noticed that when the Hyperion jumped through the jumpgate, it only fired its engines for a moment to give itself a push (without air resistance, friction, gravity, etc. there's technically no need for a starship to keep its engines on continuously as they often do in, say, Star Wars). *shrug*

I suppose that when you compare it to Star Wars or Star Trek, you can build a decent argument for B5 being "realistic." However, I think that, at the very least, Star Trek's phaser array seems more "practical" if not necessarily "technologically realistic" than the cannons seen on ships in SW, Gundam, and B5.

[Ikari Warrior]

It seemed to me that the "realistic" human technology was there as a foil against the alien space tech, specifically the Minbari. Human space cruisers had the giant rotating thing in the middle for gravity, versus the Minbari who did have artificial gravity generators. And when I first saw the show, I did remark that the Star Furies did have to have some kind of maneuvering rockets on the sides in order to rotate and change trajectory. I never really deemed that "realistic", I suppose you could say it's real-ish, but the nature of sci-fi dicatates (to me at least) that you throw realism out the window.

[Leader Desslock]

I don't think B5 was anything near realistic. I agree with Shadowcast that the reason for human technology to visibly adhere to the laws of physics (sometimes) was to give the impession that humans were a less technically advanced race.

I wouldn't necessarily call B5 revolutionary, and I certainly wouldn't say that it raised any bar so high that nothing could touch it. It had a refreshing approach (an established and finite series plot) and good writing. There were several very good actors who put in solid performances from the first episode (Londo Mollari was always my favorite), where most sci-fi shows take a year or more to work out the kinks.

As far as the social commentary, underlying themes, etc. - I didn't see anything particularly deep, profound or enlightening. It was a good show that could be watched on a few levels, but it's hardly the only such show to have aired.

I don't think a truly realistic space/combat show will ever air on TV, myself. Real space combat would be fairly boring. Any kind of beam weapon would presumably have range greater than a pilot could make out his target, and would probably employ targeting devices that would reduce space battles to pushing a button from the control room. The most effective weapon would not be a craft-based blaster (since a craft can be shot down), but instead a cloud of small, dense debris scattered in the path of an oncoming vessel. Any vessel running into a stationary cloud of debris at a speed that would make interplanetary travel worthwhile would be perforated.

[Amuro]

Heh. Personally, I'm fine with well thought-out internal logic (such as Gundam's use of the Minovsky Particle to explain the need for visual-range combat, not that Gundam's internal logic is flawless either)

[Soluzar]

I'd long heard that Babylon 5 was the cream of the crop among sci-fi television series, that it "raised the bar so high that no other series has been able to compare," so I borrowed the first season on DVD...
I very much enjoyed Babylon 5. However, I wouldn't call it realistic, and I wouldn't call it revolutionary. I would call it an excellent narrative, the execution of which was deeply flawed, and at times, almost unbearably laden with mawkish sentimentality. I liked it in spite of its many flaws, though. It has a solid enough underlying narrative to shine through despite the distinct lack of polish.

Much blame is due to whomever oversold the series to you, though. It is good, and it is worth persisting with, but much like Evangelion, it suffers from an excessive amount of hype, which it does not entirely deserve.

My reactions are mixed.. I can see why people might prefer it to Star Trek, but the difference is relatively miniscule. I hardly think that the concepts of "realistic technology," "an overeaching plot," and "flawed characters" had been present in the US long before B5 (Robotech, 2001: A Space Odyssey, anyone?).

First of all, I'm going to have to say that I think you are comparing apples to oranges in the case of Robotech, and the comparison in the case of 2001: A Space Odyssey is even less apt. Neither of those was an attempt to unfold a narrative of such scope and ambition as Babylon 5, although you are right to say that they (and other works) have a prior claim to much of that with which Babylon 5 is often improperly credited.

While the comparison to Star Trek is much more apt, I can't say that I feel any series from that franchise other than Deep Space 9 even begins to have the same level of complexity that Babylon 5 can claim by the end.

I'm going to give you what I consider to be a "warts and all" assesment of Babylon 5, by a fan who loves it enough to occasionally hate it. If you know what I mean.

I found that the acting ranged from the sublime to the ridiculous. I still consider it to be a crime that Bruce Boxleitner was ever cast in the role of John Sheridan. However, Peter Jurassik (Londo Mollari) and Andreas Katsulas (G'Kar were simply magnificent, as was Jerry Doyle, in his role as Michael Garibaldi.

In fact, the best thing about the series for me was that those three actors in particular simply improved the quality of their performance constantly through the series. By the end, I thought that Jurassik and Katsulas deserved to win every award known to man, but sadly Doyle was capable of putting in the occasional lazy performance on cruise control.

I can also find much to praise about many of the other performances in the show. All of them tended towards serving large slices of ham, with a side order of cheese, but most of them accomplished it with style and aplomb. An honourable mention must go to Ed Wasser, for his portrayal of Mr. Morden.

If we assume that the technology employed by the various alien races is supposed to be "unrealistic" by human standards and only look at the Earth Alliance's tech, we're left with the "Starfury" fighter, the various EA battlecruisers, and the Babylon stations themselves.
I'd have to agree with everyone else who has posted saying that if I were to list the virtues of B5, realism wouldn't be anywhere on the list. Technology takes a back seat, for the most part. There is very little of the type of technological deus ex machina for which Star Trek is properly reviled in some quarters. That is of course not to say that the series avoids the device of deus ex machina entirely, but the writers have the decency to look elsewhere than technology for hooks upon which to hang such devices, for the most part.

As for the Babylon 5 station itself.. well.. I don't quite understand whether it's supposed to be a self-sufficient agricultural colony like Mobile Suit Gundam's.
Nothing of the sort. Although you could correctly argue that the design was not entirely consistent, the Babylon 5 station was not conceived as an outpost which would be self-sufficient. It was designed primarily as a place where those of different species might interact peacefully, and as a forum for diplomatic negotiations. It is primarily a space station, not a colony. I don't think it's even close to being the size proposed for an O'Neil colony.

I don't know.. Overall, it just seems like the series was an interesting, if unrefined, idea on paper, but a fumbled one in execution...I would expect that you would say this after having seen the first season. It wasn't great. If I could convince you to watch the second season, I'm sure that you would be hooked. The improvement in quality is simply unbelievable. Everything that you say is true of the earlier episodes, but I cannot emphasize enough the degree of improvement that takes place starting with the second season.

I'd probably be more likely to become a hardcore B5 fan than a hardcore ST fan under different circumstances, and B5, due to its serialized nature, is the series that I would be more likely to purchase. However, it's not unique enough to be deemed "revolutionary," in my opinion...Do yourself a favour and watch more. If your friends have the second season boxset, then you should watch that. If you still aren't convinced by the end of that season, you probably never will be.

[Amuro]

Do yourself a favour and watch more.
Yes, I plan to borrow the second season and possibly beyond when I have the chance. However, I was planning to watch only the "key" episodes and not the mainly-filler ones. I realize that I'm missing out on character development, but I don't think I'm enough into this show to sit through the whole thing without doing any skipping. Depends on how much free time I have when I get around to watching it..

[Leader Desslock]

^ I would recommend you watch them in order. The global narrative is not told through just the big events; it moves forward with hints as subtle as news broadcasts in the background of the current scene. Even the 'filler' episodes generally have their place in the larger narrative.

At least start watching the second season in order. If you absolutely hate it, then skip to the highlights.

[Bernard_Monsha]

The thrid and fouth season are the best. B5 is head and shoulders above DS9 and Voyager. Even TNG suffers from WTF did I like this show so much when I was in high school syndrome, not B5 though. Plus it has Tron baby, Tron!

[Soluzar]

^ I would recommend you watch them in order. The global narrative is not told through just the big events; it moves forward with hints as subtle as news broadcasts in the background of the current scene. Even the 'filler' episodes generally have their place in the larger narrative.

At least start watching the second season in order. If you absolutely hate it, then skip to the highlights.
I agree with the blue dude. At least start watching the second season in order. You just won't get the full benefit by watching only "key episodes". If you do that, you'll miss out on everything that makes this show special. You'll miss out on the gradual evolution of the narrative through small, seemingly inconsequential events which lead forward to larger and more important events.

The third and fouth season are the best. B5 is head and shoulders above DS9 and Voyager. Even TNG suffers from WTF did I like this show so much when I was in high school syndrome, not B5 though. Plus it has Tron baby, Tron!
I couldn't agree more. There are a few good episodes of TNG, but it for the most part it is not something I would watch again.

[DEMON212]

Older brother was a huge fan. I think I enjoyed maybe 30 seconds of one episode. Hated the show.

[The Million Dollar Prons]

Is it just me or do you guys seriously watch SCIENCE FICITON for REALISM? And I thought I was the dumb one!

[Leader Desslock]

^ Not really. It impresses me on those extremely rare instances when I see outer space depicted realistically (Dark Star, Spaceballs), but I'm cool with imaginative flgiths of fancy as well.

[Soluzar]

Is it just me or do you guys seriously watch SCIENCE FICITON for REALISM? And I thought I was the dumb one!
Amuro is the only one who's really given "realism" a serious mention, while the rest of us have all shared your attitude. Realism in sci-fi is pointless. Plausibility, now, that's something else.

Besides, this is Amuro... the next time I agree with him about anything will be the first. :P

[The Million Dollar Prons]

Amuro thinks you should get on AIM!

Edit: Wait, there's an Amuro on AN that isn't me? WHAT'S GOING ON?!

[Amuro]

I couldn't agree more. There are a few good episodes of TNG, but it for the most part it is not something I would watch again.

I don't know.. I still find TNG plots-of-the-day consistantly enjoyable..
If only the "plots-of-the-day" of series that have good over-reaching plots such as Lost, Gundam, or B5 were as good.

The fact that the Star Trek universe exists in stasis makes it appeal less to me, since I'm interested in the development of large-scale stories, but, along with Friends, it's one of my "comfort shows." No matter what episode I'm tuning into, I know I'll understand what's going on and that all my favorite characters will be there, along with the luxurious starship corridors and handy gagetry..

I'm surprised that no one brought up shows like the new Battlestar Galactica, Stargate, Farscape, Andromeda, etc. for comparison. That's sort-of what I was going for with this thread (as the title implies).

Personally, the only series among those that I ever cared for were BSG and Andromeda. BSG, however, got a bit weary to me. I'm not that fond of the gritty over-sexed atmosphere, and it doesn't seem like there's anything all that interesting going on. With Andromeda, I love the concept and visual design.. it was like Star Trek but carried an energy that I hadn't seen from Trek since The Original Series, plus there was a continuous plot. I realize that it gets a lot of bad rep for flat acting and characters, but I think that this was equally true of many of the Trek series and find myself enjoying the characters. Andromeda's just "fun" for me, whereas BSG was sometimes-enjoyable "work." B5 falls somewhere in between: it's never been a pain to watch yet, but it hasn't gotten me really immersed yet either.

[Daishikaze]

I'm drawn more the E.E. Smith style space operas, so none of those shows really appeal to me very much.

Classic Dr. Who is the exception for some reason, I really enjoy that show, especially the Troughton/Pertwee/Baker years.

[333jeffery]

B5 has something that most sci-fi shows don't: continuity. The characters and the storylines are very carefully interconnected. What happens in an earlier episode has a big impact on later episodes. Little bits of important info are sprinkled throughout the episodes. As others here have said, you should watch more of the show. It builds steadily until the fourth season, where many of the storylines are resolved. The fifth season just wraps things up. The "Shadows" make quite interesting bogeymen.....

[Samurai Drifter]

A better thread would be "Battlestar Galactica vs. the rest of sci-fi television." It would probably win, second perhaps only to Star Trek.

I've never actually seen B5, strangely. I've heard some excellent things about it so I should probably check it out.

[333jeffery]

Zathras makes the show worth watching (only fans will get this).....

[Sauron]

...it's one of my "comfort shows." No matter what episode I'm tuning into, I know I'll understand what's going on and that all my favorite characters will be there, along with the luxurious starship corridors and handy gagetry..

I'm surprised that no one brought up shows like the new Battlestar Galactica, Stargate, Farscape, Andromeda, etc. for comparison. That's sort-of what I was going for with this thread (as the title implies).


Of all the shows you mentioned, Babylon 5 is the only one that was planned to be 5 seasons and then end (although, things get a little wonky due to the uncertainty at the time of whether or not it would be canceled). I think what you mentioned about "comfort shows" comes into play - I don't think you can approach B5 in the same way (at least through a good chunk of it).

Of the shows you mentioned, Battlestar Galactica is the only one that I just stopped watching. The others were shows that, like your comfort shows, I would enjoy watching but wouldn't be too upset if I missed a show or when they aren't terribly exciting I'll do something else with them on in the background. B5 is the only one of them I scheduled things around, and if I couldn't watch it due to the timing, I would tape it.

[Jatz]

My basis for comparison for B5 was Star Trek: Deep Space 9, since both shows prominently took place on a space station near a warp-type anomaly nearby (DS9's wormhole vs. B5's jumpgate; one "natural" the other "artificial"). I'd never heard B5 deemed "realistic" before your original post. When compared to Sci-fi in general, B5 is spectacular. Revolutionary? maybe. Realistic? No.

The wormhole in DS9 was artificial too.

[Soluzar]

The wormhole in DS9 was artificial too.
Yeah, but unlike in the case of B5, none of the central characters actually knew that to begin with. The difference is that the Jump Gate in B5 was a piece of mass-produced technology. There is a network of Jump Gates all over the galaxy.

[DEMON212]

Is it just me or do you guys seriously watch SCIENCE FICITON for REALISM? And I thought I was the dumb one!

Are you telling me that you can't just pick up your cell, say to a fat Scotsman "beam me up" and be beamed to where you want to be?

Loser.

[Bernard_Monsha]

A better thread would be "Battlestar Galactica vs. the rest of sci-fi television." It would probably win, second perhaps only to Star Trek.

I've never actually seen B5, strangely. I've heard some excellent things about it so I should probably check it out.

I am done with the new Battlestar Galactica, everytime they are going to put in an interesting plot twist they worm out of it at the last minute. It is as original as a new Rocky movie.



Zathras makes the show worth watching (only fans will get this).....

I thought you would have said the Pimp praying mantis who lives in down below.

[Amuro]

Amuro is the only one who's really given "realism" a serious mention
:P I never called anything realistic--I said that Babylon 5 has been sold to me as "the most realistic sci-fi series"..

Naturally, I don't think there has been a truly "realistic" sci-fi series, and whether it's possible or not depends on your definitions of "realistic," "sci-fi," and so on..

However, It seems to me that a lot of people tend to settle on what piece of sci-fi is their favorite for a small reason like "They got the fact that there's no sound in space right" or some other possibly-silly tidbit like that, and I'm perfectly fine with that and the sort of discussion that it invites..
And, as I said, I'm personally more fond of plausible "internal logic" rather than strict "real-world realism."

On a related note, I've also seen Babylon 5 compared to Legend of the Galactic Heroes by some fans of that particular anime. Any thoughts there?

[Soluzar]

On a related note, I've also seen Babylon 5 compared to Legend of the Galactic Heroes by some fans of that particular anime. Any thoughts there?
I'd compare it more to a sci-fi version of Lord of the Rings, if I had to make any comparison. It shares at least as much in common with the heroic fantasy genre as with sci-fi, when viewed as a whole.

[Amuro]

The things that generally make me cringe are the silly alien designs and poor attempts at shoving in ethnic background/humour ("I should've expected to lose, I'm Russian." "I'm used to unpleasant environments, I'm Russian." and so on..)

But, seriously, what were they thinking with the aliens? I don't think the show itself is taking most of the alien characters seriously.. they're just there for comic relief. With Star Trek and Star Wars, I could look past the special effects and accept the fact that such creatures existed in the series' fictional universe, but, with B5, it seems like the series doesn't want us to take the aliens seriously.

All of "TKO" was somewhat upleasant to my tastes..

[Bernard_Monsha]

Wait until the Centauri and Narn seriously start going at it and the Shadows start giveing the beatdown on everyone. The entire series takes an entirely darker tone for the second half of season two to the end of season 4. If anything B5's aliens are much more empathetic than the stick a spoon on their head alien of the week from Star Trek.

[Leader Desslock]

The things that generally make me cringe are the silly alien designs and poor attempts at shoving in ethnic background/humour ("I should've expected to lose, I'm Russian." "I'm used to unpleasant environments, I'm Russian." and so on..)
As opposed to Star Trek, which had Chekov sport such lines as "perhaps you are unfamiliar with Russian epic of Cinderella. If the shoe fits, ..."

-or-

"Quadrotriticale? Yes. It was inwented by Russian scientist in..."

-or-

"Excuse me, I am looking for the nuclear wessels in Alameda, California..."

Granted, Ivanova's lines got a bit old at time, but it's not like I can hold that against B5.

If anything B5's aliens are much more empathetic than the stick a spoon on their head alien of the week from Star Trek.
Actually, I liked Gul Ducat. ^_^ The Horta was a bit over the edge, though.

[Soluzar]

The things that generally make me cringe are the silly alien designs and poor attempts at shoving in ethnic background/humour ("I should've expected to loose, I'm Russian." "I'm used to unpleasant environments, I'm Russian." and so on..)
I can't exactly pretend that everyone likes the show, nor would I even if I could. You might just not enjoy it. It would help some if I knew exactly which alien designs you thought were the most silly, because I could tell you to what degree they recur in laters seasons. As for Ivanova, I can only tell you that her heritage is a part of the character which I didn't find to be tacked on. Admittedly those quotes are not her finest hour, but I did find her to be a strong character. Certainly not the best, because Claudia Christian took far longer to grow into the role than most of the cast.

But, seriously, what were they thinking with the aliens? I don't think the show itself is taking most of the alien characters seriously.. they're just there for comic relief.As far as I'm concerned, you are wasting your time trying to assess this show based on the first season. The writing was tragically uneven, and only about a third of it is anywhere near to Straczynski's true vision, much less his "A material". I can't be sure, but I think that several writers who worked on the first season didn't return, and one thing that I know for sure is that JMS began writing more of the scripts personally as time went on.

There is a progression in these characters which you simply aren't seeing. If you are referring to any of the main characters who are aliens, you need to watch the second season. I'm telling you, as plainly as I can, that the faults you perceive are all faults that we all perceived. I gave up on the show after the first five episodes for many of the same reasons, but I was pursuaded to return for the second season. I was sold.

I had to catch up with reruns as best I could, but I was still sold.

With Star Trek and Star Wars, I could look past the special effects and accept the fact that such creatures existed in this universe, but, with B5, it seems like the series doesn't want us to take the aliens seriously.I never found it to be an issue. Some of them are strange-looking, but if you're willing to look past that, I can promise you that some of the alien races are to be taken far more seriously than they look. I can also tell you that the SFX department do calm down somewhat after the first season. Yeah, some of them are weird-looking, but isn't that better than a universe in which almost every alien race just looks like a human with different coloring, and a slightly altered chin, forehead, or ears?

Weren't you the one who once said regarding Gundam that you preferred Wing at least in part because the Mobile Suits were distinctively different from each other? Then have a little faith in the rectitude of your own beliefs, and watch the season that actually sold me on the series. Then decide.

All of "TKO" was somewhat upleasant to my tastes..
Well it's kinda supposed to be somewhat uncomfortable viewing. If you want to remain in your comfort zone, then far be it from me to try to pursuade you otherwise, but I would never want to do the same. All I can say in answer to this is to tell you that roughly 80% of B5 will probably fit inside your comfort zone. As for the rest, it's nothing extraordinary, but it's not afraid to deliver the punches either. I'd say that there's nothing else which is directly comparable to TKO, but I can think of a few scenes that might upset one
with delicate sensibilities.

If you're asking for something that won't challenge your established ideas, that won't blur lines, and that will shield you from the unpleasant realities of life, then I suggest that Star Trek might be more to your tastes.

Personally I prefer the type of entertainment in which the bad guys are not easily recognisable by their black hats, but that's just me. I've strayed a little wide of the issue raised by your comment, which was about brutal bare-knuckle fighting. You won't see that again, in quite the same way. However I can't promise you that everything else you see will be lollypops and rainbows either. People die, people get hurt... in every sense of the word.

The purpose of 'art' (I use the world in the loosest sense) is to hold a mirror to life. For this reason, I prefer my entertainment to not filter that which is distasteful, if it has a place in the story. The place which TKO has in the overall story is perhaps negligable. However, this was a point I wanted to make.

[Amuro]

I can think of a few scenes that might upset one
with delicate sensibilities.
Actually, I was mentioning TKO more as an example of what looks like cringe-worthy "corny" writing to me. The whole Rabbi bit was painfully corny and forced to my eyes (and ears..), and the fighting tournament itself seemed like a "let's repackage The Karate Kid: Part 2 in alien flavor." Why would an alien martial art be a straightforward knock-off of asian martial arts, down to the uniforms. Sure, Star Wars sort-of did the same thing with Jedi, but that was an alternate universe that combined elements of our own..
I can't help but feel like B5 is just doing the whole "let's transplant our world into space, with each alien race representing a foreign country and the earth government representing the United States" thing that Star Trek did, except more transparently (I'm ashamed to say that I never made a connection between Klingons and Russians until someone mentioned it to me.. Then again, that was when I was perhaps.. 12 years old?).

I definitely believe you when you say that the series gets better with the second season. I know that to be the case with most of my favorite shows.

So far, my introduction to Babylon 5 has been similar to any introduction to a relatively niche series that's been off the air for a while.. There are the hardcore fans who swear that it's a flawless work of genius, and then there are the people who have never heard of it..
Star Trek is a bit easier for me to get a vibe for because it seems to me that anyone that lived during the golden days of either the TOS or TNG considers ST to be a "great show," even if it isn't one of their personal favorites.

Perhaps Futurama is the true successor to Star Trek.. :P

[Soluzar]

Actually, I was mentioning TKO more as an example of what looks like cringe-worthy "corny" writing to me. The whole Rabbi bit was painfully corny and forced to my eyes (and ears..), and the fighting tournament itself seemed like a "let's repackage The Karate Kid: Part 2 in alien flavor."Hmm, I was assuming that you just object to any kind of violent content. My apologies for that. B5 as I said is not excessively violent, but it can be challenging in some ways. There are definitely some scenes which will pull you violently out of your comfort zone. One in particular really made an impact on me, but I wouldn't want to spoil you, and I know just how hard it is to resist the temptation of reading even tagged spoilers.

All I can tell you on that score is that it's been a hell of a time since I last saw TKO. I do still watch some episodes from the first season, but considering that it's my least favourite season, only less than half of them qualify to be seen again. I didn't find it to be the way you found it at all, though. By the time I watched B5, I already had forgotten the sequels to The Karate Kid, so I don't know if that's really a valid comparison. I'll say this, though. B5 is often badly acted, as I've said before. There are the good actors, and then there are the ones who somehow manage to struggle along.

Mind you, for my money, Star Trek was appallingly acted too.

I just don't consider Star Wars a valid comparison for anything, by the way. It's a trilogy (the other three don't exist) that did everything wrong, and still worked. Everything about those movies is terrible... except that it's not. If you know what I mean...

Why would an alien martial art be a straightforward knock-off of asian martial arts, down to the uniforms.Because we as humans have nothing other than human martial arts to base the fictitious alien ones on, if we don't want them to look completely fake. Yeah, that's a crappy answer, but it's the one that works for me. I'll definitely say that you're right about the uniforms. They could have taken the trouble not to just borrow a Karate uniform. I don't really remember for myself, though.

I can't help but feel like B5 is just doing the whole "let's transplant our world into space, with each alien race representing a foreign country and the earth government representing the United States" thing that Star Trek did,
Prepare to be surprised, if you continue watching. You really could not be any more wrong. I'd be a fool to deny that there are historical paralels, but the image you have in your mind is skewed so badly...

I can understand why you'd think that at this point, maybe. That doesn't change the fact that you have a desperate need to open your mind a little. Not everything that you watch is going to go in the same directions as something else you've watched, just because there's a superficial similarity. What the hell happened to make you so cynical about entertainment?

except more transparently (I'm ashamed to say that I never made a connection between Klingons and Russians until someone mentioned it to me.. Then again, that was when I was perhaps.. 12 years old?).
Ya know, I still say it's a forced analogy. I don't really see that most of the material produced regarding the Klingons over the 40 years that Star Trek has been a going concern has any direct relevance to the Russia/America situation of the latter part of the 20th century. I won't deny there's been a little bit of that, but I could offer you any number of aspects of the portrayal of Klingons that just doesn't fit with that theory. In short, I see that it's not entirely a fallacious description of the Klingons, but nor is it as applicable as some fans would have you believe.

It sure sounds like the kind of theory a Star Trek fan would advocate, though, sure enough. I like some of the series, but damned if I'll ever let anyone say I'm a Star Trek fan. The worst thing about that series is some fans. Present company not necessarily included. :naughty:

I definitely believe you when you say that the series gets better with the second season. I know that to be the case with most of my favorite shows.Then I will stop harping on about it.

So far, my introduction to Babylon 5 has been similar to any introduction to a relatively niche series that's been off the air for a while.. There are the hardcore fans who swear that it's a flawless work of genius, and then there are the people who have never heard of it...
Where do I fit into that statement, then? I'm sure that I've described it as having some serious, major flaws... :naughty:


Star Trek is a bit easier for me to get a vibe for because it seems to me that anyone that lived during the golden days of either the TOS or TNG considers ST to be a "great show," even if it isn't one of their personal favorites.
O RLY?

I regard DS9 as being the part that I like the best. The rest of Star Trek is something I would never describe as great. I enjoy the universe, but many of the actual stories are something I wouldn't inflict upon my worst enemy. I'd probably describe about 25% of the overall franchise as being "good", and maybe 1.5% as being "great". Some of the authorized fanwanks (novels) were pretty good for fanfiction though. I even preferred some of them to the series. The same goes for Star Wars. :P

Perhaps Futurama is the true successor to Star Trek.. :P
Futurama is comedy gold. I regard it as being far better as a comedy than Star Trek (or B5) could ever dream of being as a sci-fi. :D

[Amuro]

Futurama is comedy gold. I regard it as being far better as a comedy than Star Trek (or B5) could ever dream of being as a sci-fi. :D
Well, it's going for the same kind of universally-applicable social commentary, if you ask me, except that taking a comedic approach arguably makes it more viable in today's marketplace.

[Soluzar]

Well, it's going for the same kind of universally-applicable social commentary, if you ask me, except that taking a comedic approach arguably makes it more viable in today's marketplace.
I don't agree. I don't feel that social commentary was ever something that Star Trek or B5 accomplished to any great degree, nor was it something that most of the scripts were going for. In the case of B5, the more the story progresses, the less applicable it becomes to our own society, and in the case of Star Trek, they simply prefer simple moralising of the 'saturday morning cartoon' variety to any real attempts at social commentary for the most part. They did have a couple of attempts at social commentary, but for the most part it seemed something that they properly avoided.

I also feel that raw situational comedy and pop culture reference was preferable to social commentary for the Futurama writers. The Simpsons was far more of a social commentary, though.

[RPGQueen]

Lexx is definitely the best sci-fi series.

[Amuro]

I'm curious as to how many people here have seen Legend of the Galactic Heroes. I was originally disappointed by it when I first watched it earlier this year, since I had, yet again, been led to believe that it was "the greatest series ever concieved by mankind." However, rewatching the first few eps soon after Babylon 5, I found that it compares quite favorably not only to B5 but to sci-fi series in general. So while it might not be the greatest work of fiction in human history, it probably deserves to be among the top 5 sci-fi series (at least if you count the heavy-hitter franchises like Gundam and Star Trek as single series) and almost definitely among the top 5 sci-fi anime.

[Soluzar]

LoGH is one of those shows that I've been planning to watch for quite some time. I find it entirely plausible that I'll esteem it higher than Star Trek or Gundam. I believe it would find B5 a tough act to follow though.

[Amuro]

LoGH is one of those shows that I've been planning to watch for quite some time. I find it entirely plausible that I'll esteem it higher than Star Trek or Gundam. I believe it would find B5 a tough act to follow though.
Ah, I wasn't sure how your opinion of B5 compared with your opinion of Gundam.. I guess you just answered that..
I'm surprised, as you seemed to have a fair amount of criticism for B5.. what about it do you find preferable to Gundam? Just to clarify, I don't mean to flame or anything, just curious.. I know that I enjoyed B5 in a different way from Gundam, and it's not like Gundam is flawless either, so I see them as valid competitors, just wondering about the specifics..

[Soluzar]

Ah, I wasn't sure how your opinion of B5 compared with your opinion of Gundam.. I guess you just answered that..
I'm surprised, as you seemed to have a fair amount of criticism for B5.. what about it do you find preferable to Gundam?
I love Gundam. I really, really do. However, B5 has a lot of things about it that I think make it a better quality production as a whole. They aren't directly comparable, since there are a lot of themes that B5 will explore that Gundam probably never will, and vice-versa. The obvious example would be aliens, but it's not the only one. B5 was never very big on one-on-one combat, which is something that has always been strong point for Gundam.

The primary difference is that Gundam is fairly uneven in quality, whereas B5 maintains a fairly constant level, after a bad star. Even within the UC timeline, one Gundam anime is not always as good as the last. B5 takes a while to get going, but once the second season starts, I'd say that it keeps right on going until the end, with only minor fluctuations in quality.

Another difference is that B5 tells a story with a consistent cast of character through the course of five years. Through the whole of the Amuro/Char era, UC Gundam did something similar, but not quite to the same extent. It's entirely valid that each new Gundam anime introduces a fresh cast of characters, but for me it cannot compare to the satisfaction of seeing through a whole narrative with a single cast of characters.

Finally, I'd point to the incomplete nature of the UC Gundam universe. It's been something that I've found ever more frustrating since I've watched more and more Gundam. The individual series are often excellent, but towards the latter end of the timeline, the work is not complete. The key events are sketched in, rather than drawn in the rich detail of MSG, or Zeta.

When you hold that up against the universe of Babylon 5, which concludes the narrative effectively, leaving only a bare minimum of loose ends, I just can't help but find it less satisfying. When looking at UC Gundam as a whole, I find myself thinking that maybe about 60% of the story has been effectively conveyed to us, while much of the remaining 40% is either not yet animated, or available only as novels which I simply cannot read. Then there are the parts which aren't animated as well as they might have been, like F91, or Double Zeta. On the other hand, I get the feeling that Straczynsky managed to successfully convey about 85% of the story he had to offer us.

As a side-note, I might point out that during the original run of B5, Straczynsky made a point of posting regularly on usenet to answer the questions posed to him by the fans. For that reason, it is often very clear what his intentions were, and how close he came to achieving them. Where there might be a part of the story he was forced to abandon, the fans tend to know about it. Much the same applies if something was not accomplished to his satisfaction. Those discussions are archived on the web, or at least the most informative parts are archived.

I love Gundam. However, it could have been so much more. It is a deeply, and tragically flawed work of classic sci-fi. I love Babylon 5, and it was very nearly all that it might have been. Given the chance, I would change some of the actors. Given the chance I would throw out a few scripts, and rewrite a very small number of lines of dialogue. It's not perfect, but it's better than most.

[Daishikaze]

What about Votoms, Soluzar? how does it stack up in your opinion?

[Soluzar]

What about Votoms, Soluzar? how does it stack up in your opinion?
I never got a chance to see Votoms. I believe it just recently had a re-release on DVD, and it looks like it would probably be my kind of thing. There's quite a lot of mecha anime I've still not seen, really. I like too many different genre for my own good. >_<

Since we're talking about sci-fi, tell me about it. Tell me what you think of it, why I should see it, what it does right, and what it does wrong.

For the last couple of years, my mecha viewings have been largely dictated by the desire to see the anime that feature in Super Robot Wars. Considering how many there are, and how long some of them are, it's hard to find time for others. Especially when some series are really hard to find, and I still want to keep watching other types of anime.

[Bernard_Monsha]

whereas B5 maintains a fairly constant level, after a bad start.


Sorry but the 5th season blew chunks

[Soluzar]

Sorry but the 5th season blew chunks
Ya, well... I can't say I agree with you, but I can see why you say that. It actually has some bits in it that I really like, some of my favourites. Plus it does at least put some kind of an ending on the series as a whole, which is nice.

Yeah, OK. You've got a point. A lot of fans would agree with you, even if I'm not willing to do so.

[Amuro]

Well, personally, I see why you'd want to compare B5 with the whole UC saga, or even the whole Gundam saga, but, personally, I tend to draw comparisons with individual series, most specifically MSG, since it's my favorite of the "traditional" Gundam series. I view MSG as a complete story that was nearly 100% told and, except for a few fumbles here and there, told relatively masterfully. Sure, Zeta started introducing plot elements like the Jupiter Empire that never seemed to get the exposure that they were promised, but that's just part of the reason why I think the story might have been better off ending with MSG..

I know that you prefer the original Japanese component series to Robotech, so I'm wondering how you think those compare to the series we've been discussing. Admittedly, the comparison becomes weaker because Robotech attempted to have this huge galaxy-spanning plot involving multiple alien races in conflict with one another that was never told completely (except in the novels, i suppose) whereas each individual series was generally a smaller-scale drama. In any case, I think Southern Cross might in a sense be the best comparison to something like B5 because it was intended to be a western-style military sci-fi epic, despite being toned down severely due to cancellation.

[CrossboneGundam]

I know that you prefer the original Japanese component series to Robotech, so I'm wondering how you think those compare to the series we've been discussing. Admittedly, the comparison becomes weaker because Robotech attempted to have this huge galaxy-spanning plot involving multiple alien races in conflict with one another that was never told completely (except in the novels, i suppose) whereas each individual series was generally a smaller-scale drama. In any case, I think Southern Cross might in a sense be the best comparison to something like B5 because it was intended to be a western-style military sci-fi epic, despite being toned down severely due to cancellation.

The backstory of the Macross universe is a lot more epic than the frankenstein's monster that is Robotech.

The Protodeviln in Macross 7 were responsible for the Supervision Army which the Zentradi had been fighting in a 400,000 year long war.

[Amuro]

The backstory of the Macross universe is a lot more epic than the frankenstein's monster that is Robotech.

The Protodeviln in Macross 7 were responsible for the Supervision Army which the Zentradi had been fighting in a 400,000 year long war.

Point taken, but, as with Gundam, I'm predisposed to comparing single series, meaning that Babylon 5 and the other previously discussed sci-fi series would be going up against only the original Macross series.

In defense of my statement about Robotech, Longman Dictionary defines epic as "telling a long story about brave actions and exciting events," which, while perhaps a somewhat shaky defenition, applies more to Robotech than to its component series simply because Robotech is longer, if nothing else.