Babylon 5 vs Star Trek

If the above comment is about Babylon 5, the answer is an unequivocal yes.
 
Does it get better? Absolutely. You won't have to wait too long either as there are some cracking episodes in an always difficult first series. ("Babylon Squared" and "Signs and Portents" come to mind.)

I still think that this is one of the best things ever to be on TV and doesn't get enough credit for setting the standard for the way for many of our TV series are written today.

I need to watch this series again.
 
You say that, but once you get back into it you barely notice it.

I've recently lent the entire series to someone who has been laid up after an operation. I hope he likes it.
 
Rodders said:
You say that, but once you get back into it you barely notice it.
Click to expand...

I can't agree. The sets and the special effects were off putting to me from the very first time I saw them, and they always lent a "this is pure hokum from a sound stage atmosphere." If the writing hadn't been so good I'm not sure I could have watched it. I kept thinking "What could Spielberg do with a story this good?"
 
Very enjoyably thread. I have not seen B5 before and am now in the season 3.
I love it. As for Trek, liked some more than others.

Rude question alert!!!
Who is the worse actor? Nana Vistor or Bruce Boxleitner???? <evil grin>
 
I've always loved Star Trek but, because of my work patterns when B5 was first aired, I never got around to watching it all on DVD until last year........

The verdict: I am a committed Babylonophile(???). The sweep of the story arc is just truly epic and the quality of the writing and characterisation is just superb (well...except for that episode about the missing level). Season 5 did feel like a rushed afterthought but the rest of it just blew me away.

Now....the crux of the matter....just because I like Babylon 5 doesn't mean that Star Trek is bad (on the contrary) it just means my preferences lean towards the writing of JMS. We are lucky to have both:)
 
B5 is great yet flawed. DS9 is solid all the way through but never dazzles. Forced to choose, I'll take the former.

But seriously, what the heck is wrong with us SF fans? There's a fact we should be shouting from the rooftops but for some reason never do, and its simply this- Bab 5 invented the story arc! Hour long shows were, for all intents and purposes, self contained before Strazcinski came along and worked his magic. Voiceovers saying 'Previously on...' only occured at the start of the second episode oftwo parters.

Lost and The Wire wouldn't exist without B5. I know that might sound crazy but its actually true when you stop and think about it.
 
Agreed. I think that Warner Brothers screwed this up too. I mean, here we are with an epic storyline taking place over 110 episodes and 5 TV movies, yet we never see it on the screens. Why is that. There should also be more books (i know that there's this whole tie in debate on another thread in the book section), but there are just so many stories to tell. Come on WB, why have you squandered this amazing gift that JMS has passed to you?

On another note, my friend got back to work today and couldn't get into it. I've suggested that he start on series two, and also that he watch No surrender, no retreat to get a feel for what the show can really be like.

I have to slightly defend series five and have to say that whilst it was not as good as the others in the arc, there are still quite a few stand alone episodes that are pretty damn good. (Day of the Dead springs immediately to mind, but there were quite a few others). Then there's Sleeping in Light.
 
I agree with everyone here about the strength of the story arc on B5, though the dialogue wasn't always great. I can't comment on DS9, really, since it's been so long since I watched it and I've no idea how the last few seasons played out, but I got the impression that the existence of B5 forced them to up their game on DS9.
 
I said:
Watched an episode from Season 1 of Babylon 5 last night: Believers

The blurb was simple - Doctor Franklin is faced with a patient who will die if not treated - but the treatment is refused by the parents on religious grounds.

Easy to see that such a basic plot set-up could end up nothing better than bash Jehovah's Witnesses.

The great thing about Babylon 5 is that it refused to treat such a storyline in such a contemptuously simple manner.

Instead, we are presented the extremes of science and faith, and shown that both are valid viewpoints to hold - and that to choose one or another is a matter of personal preference.

As Sinclair points out to Doctor Franklin, though he disagrees with the decision, faith gives life meaning, and to take that away makes for a hollow cure.

The characters play out their motives, it's obvious that either viewpoint will lead to tragedy.

To me, the way the story played out shows why Babylon 5 was such a great series (when it was great, at least): the fact that they wouldn't smother the viewer with American idealism (as Star Trek evangelises), but instead allows complex subjects to be treated as complex subjects.

There's real care to keep characters real and have them push stories, rather than have characters as slaves to a plotline.

Babylon 5 touches a lot of deep issues that Star Trek cannot begin to deal with - Babylon 5 is space for grown-ups, after they've grown out of Star Trek.

2 wicked c. :)
Click to expand...

well well well, Hi Brian we have spoken before. Although our last coversation we disagreed about a certain company based in caerphilly i totally agree with you. Babylon was an excellent show. There is hope that in the next few month there could be news about the production of a Big Screen Release

go to all the w's - comicbookresources dot com and
/?page=article&id=28907


lets hope it pans out
 
J-WO said:
B5 is great yet flawed. DS9 is solid all the way through but never dazzles. Forced to choose, I'll take the former.

But seriously, what the heck is wrong with us SF fans? There's a fact we should be shouting from the rooftops but for some reason never do, and its simply this- Bab 5 invented the story arc! Hour long shows were, for all intents and purposes, self contained before Strazcinski came along and worked his magic. Voiceovers saying 'Previously on...' only occured at the start of the second episode oftwo parters.

Lost and The Wire wouldn't exist without B5. I know that might sound crazy but its actually true when you stop and think about it.
Click to expand...

I would love for this to be true, but I suspect it's not. First we could talk about "Hill Street Blues," "Dallas" et. al. Then we could talk about the bane of T.V. "Soap Operas" which carried this arc for decades!! Although I am not sure about this (far beyond my time) I believe that shows like "Flash Gordon" "Clutch Cargo" etc. also followed that line in the 30's in theaters.
 
J-WO said:
Lost and The Wire wouldn't exist without B5. I know that might sound crazy but its actually true when you stop and think about it.
Click to expand...

Which episodes of B5 would we have to live without to make Lost cease to exist?

The lengthy arcs were prevalent in comics, of course, and I suspect JMS was a comics reader. As well, syndication had become more dependable in the 80s, making it a little more certain that stations worldwide would show things in the right order.

Rodders said:
I have to slightly defend series five and have to say that whilst it was not as good as the others in the arc, there are still quite a few stand alone episodes that are pretty damn good. (Day of the Dead springs immediately to mind, but there were quite a few others). Then there's Sleeping in Light.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid my abiding memory of the final season was that there was a lot of talking. The story had, essentially, been completed by the end of the (anticipated) final season, season 4. All that was left was the mopping up - a few essential (perhaps) stories for the sake of completeness. I remember it as being very low-key, low-energy overall, but I'll go back and look at the episodes you recommend.

Has anyone said anything yet about the Rangers spin-off? That looked like it could have been a lot of fun.
 
Parson said:
I would love for this to be true, but I suspect it's not. First we could talk about "Hill Street Blues," "Dallas" et. al. Then we could talk about the bane of T.V. "Soap Operas" which carried this arc for decades!! Although I am not sure about this (far beyond my time) I believe that shows like "Flash Gordon" "Clutch Cargo" etc. also followed that line in the 30's in theaters.
Click to expand...

Dallas had no planned arc and no real end in sight. Soap Operas just keep going until the money dries up. The same went for Hill Street Blues, though it was far more sophisticated than soap as I recall.

As for Flash Gordon etc, they are shorts that, as a story, congeal together to make a roughly hour long self-contained tale.

A lot of it, of course, is that B5 (and all the shows like it) could only exist in an era of video and dvd sales. In fact, shows have become more complex and arc-driven in response to that technology.
 
All this talk of B5 makes me want to watch it over again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Brian G Turner When did Babylon 5 get its weapon upgrades? Babylon 5 6
B Which Series Do You Think is Greater Babylon 5 or Ron Moore's Battlestar Galactica ? General TV Discussion 28
Vladd67 Did Star Trek: DS9 copy Babylon 5? Babylon 5 32
Whitestar Babylon 5 Meets Star Trek: The Next Generation General TV Discussion 5
S Star Trek: Babylon 5 Babylon 5 17

Similar threads


Back
Top