In a SF/F TV series what is more important to you How it looks or Story telling??? Sometimes I hear people complain that if it doesn't look good they won't watch it and others say a show looks great but the story telling sucks. Of course a balance always help...but not many shows or even movies can pull this off...something usually suffers. Example: Smallville, looks great but sometimes the story telling is often horrible at times...not always...some might say always. I don't have an example of something that looks awful and the stories are great, but I am sure one of you will come up with something.
Story. Every single time. TNG never spent a huge amount on effects but had the best stories on TV. That's why it's my favourite show of all time. Looking back at it now, Babylon 5's effects look horribly dated but do I care ? No. I'm planning to watch it through again because the story is amazing.
Story every time. Special effects are nice, but they only have to be good enough to convey what's going on. Examples of story over effects: Sapphire and Steel, the earlier seasons of Doctor Who, Blakes 7. I'm not saying these shows look awful because that wouldn't be true - the visual design work, sets, costumes, etc, is frequently very good indeed - special effects might be a bit basic at times though, but like I say, it doesn't matter - the story and the acting sell it. You don't go to the theatre and complain about the special effects - because it's about the performance, creating the illusion. I don't see why TV should be considered any differently. Sometimes of course, you get both - brilliant stories and brilliant effects: say hello to Space: 1999.
Why? Are the special effects artists also the scriptwriters such that attention to one detracts from the other or something?
^ Sometimes the writers want things that don't fit within budget...and sometimes directors and producers could care less about story and just want eye candy.
I wouldn't undervalue effects (I predict with confidence a torrent of posts extolling story). Poor effects can make suspension of disbelief more difficult, or directly run against whatever the story is trying to convey - we can be told something is wonderful or bizarre or strange or unique, but it's up to the prop guys and the model/CGI people to actually sell us that conceit. Good or at least imaginative SFX can be integral to a sci-fi or fantasy TV series. But yeah, I would watch something more inclined to the writing than just for the visuals. But I can go both ways here - truthfully the big appeal of The Clone Wars for me is how nice it looks, for example.
Story. Any fan of Blake's 7 will tell you that horrible effects don't detract from fascinating characters and great plot-lines. Even when they are really, REALLY horrible effects.
Without a story, a show has nothing. I'd put story, acting and premise as the indispensible top three. If a show can't afford good SFX, they should choose a premise that doesn't require it, so I wouldn't say bad SFX is excusable. Maybe someone else can think of something but I sure can't think of any currently airing show that that's true for - good story/acting/premise, bad SFX? The old stuff doesn't count - we know why the SFX sucks. I don't care how good a show looks, if the basics aren't there, it's not worth watching.
I'll echo the fact that TNG's effects were very expensive. Also, you may only be thinking of B5's SFX (which were stunning for the time but do seem a bit dated today). You're probably forgetting about the excellent set designs and make-up (which also qualify as special effects).
Story is most important but since the mid 90s shows shouldnt have an excuse to have bad fx. If I rate a show it will be on the basis of the whole show...production, writing, acting and yes FX. So one or two could bring down the others. As for shows with good writing, good/decent acting and poor FX: Old Dr Who: often had good stories and poor FX; Blake's 7: this show often used 2d paper photos for FX; TOS, decent FX for the time, but they don't really hold up, the stories are another matter all together; Outer Limits 1960s: one ofthe best pure SF shows of any kind but most of the FX were very basic. RAMA
The B5 FX always looked kind of plastic. That's why the bigger budgeted ST shows did not use CGI regularly until the technology matured. Wise decision, aswe now see. RAMA
Babylon 5 revolutionized CGI for television, and it allowed them to do a lot of thing that weren't possible previously. Those space battles were a lot more interesting than of the model equivalents of the time. My bigger point, though, was that they had some great special effects in other areas (sets, make-up, etc.).
A good movie can accomplish both. There's no excuse otherwise, especially with today's leaps in tech and prices.
It revolutionized technique and equipment, the results for the time however, were criticized even then. In terms of tech though, it really did pave the way for Foundation Imaging's later work, and everything that followed. I never liked B5's sets much but its makeup was great!!
Characters and story. I know you didn't ask about characters, but if I don't care about the characters, I won't care about the story or the SpFX.
There were also people praising it. I remember science magazines talking about the amazing work Babylon 5 was doing in this area. NASA, in particular, marveled at the realism in the way fighters maneuvered. On a personal level, I remember being blown away by the space battles. It was no longer just two stationary objects shooting beams of light at each other.