End of Shadow War = Lame

I'm in line with those who felt the conclusion was disappointing. Not because it didn't all end in a one big space battle but because it just didn't manage to convince me. I simply didn't buy that the Vorlons and the Shadows would leave like that.

The more I think about it, the more I think it's probably the execution that bothers me (as well as others, it seems). The idea itself is very interesting and works for me on paper - just not on screen.
I think this is largely due to the fact that I find Boxleitner and (even more so) Furlan pretty weak as actors. And to pull off something like this you'd really need somebody like Peter Jurasik or Andreas Katsulas (if you're looking at B5 itself) or Edward James Olmos, Mary McDonnell, Patrick Stewart, or Andrew Robinson, to name a few examples of actors from other shows.

I honestly think that the production problems really aren't important at all. Yes, the help provide understanding for the makers and why things might not have turned out the way they wanted but, in the end, all that really ever counts is what's on screen.

 

I... can't beleive you just said Andy "hold that cue card up so I can read it" Robinson is a better actor than Mira Furlan.

 

^
Mira Furlan IMHO is one of the worst actresses I've seen on tv, straight out of the soap-opera school of (over) acting.
Robinson, on the other hand, is an excellent performer who constantly impressed on DS9 as well as in other roles he played (don't forget his excellent as Scorpio in Dirty Harry, for example).

No contest between the two if you ask me.

 

I think they are both brilliant.

 

I didn't really have a problem with "Into the Fire", though I would have liked a lot more 'big dumb action' thrown in the mix. I certainly would have liked to have seen more then 15 seconds of the First Ones intervening in the battle. But I understand why it went down that way.

One larger problem though, which was systemic of the entire series, was how the villains failed to be characterized as individuals and rather as vague ideological forces. We never had a Shadow as a character, for example, just Morden. We never really saw Clark, just a couple stooges. We never met any of the Vorlon leadership, just the very atypical Kosh and then Ulkesh, who while symbolic of the Vorlon mindset, certainly wasn't the one in charge. Cartagia was really the only leader-villain we ever met and interacted with in the end, isn't he? And Bester, though like Ulkesh, he wasn't the man in charge.

Their departure makes sense within the story, though. Lorien was God to the Shadows and Vorlons. He had forsaken them for millennia, but now he finally came back and said come away with me. Of course they'll agree.

 

In the case of the Shadows, having a "Shadowman" takes away from the mystery and danger that they represent. And how do you represent that? What form do you create an enigmatic race in the guise of one character? Certainly, JMS at least gave us a touchstone with Morden and linking that character to a character that we, the audience, cared about-- Londo Mollari.

Kosh and Ulkesh I thought were a nice way to showcase the two opposing forces within the Vorlon Empire. Kosh being the more "friendly" towards the younger races and Ulkesh being the more "militant."

 

My biggest complaint about the end of the Shadow War was that JMS obviously ripped off the ending of Peter David's TNG novel Strike Zone...

 

I think Morden is a great character. That said, the most character development he ever gets doesn't even happen on screen--it takes place in the novels--and that's a shame. He's mostly a cipher on the series. Which is creepy and effective, but doesn't lend itself to complexity.

The same could be said for Clarke, who never is anything more than a symbol. I never thought the anti-alien sentiment was dramatized very convincingly. It was too easy for our characters to overcome their xenophobia--and most of them didn't have any to get over anyway.

The telepath story, on the other hand, is the complex part of the story that was just getting interesting in season four (and somewhat in season five). A shame it couldn't have been more fully explored (or, to address Byron, better explored).

 

Please try not to reveal people and things we see and don't see in the rest of season four and five. I'm still watching the series for the first time.

 

You lucky thing! Would that I could go back and watch it for the first time! Which episode are you on now? How fast are you watching?

Jan

 

I'm watching "Conflicts of Interest." Several episodes after "Into The Fire," as I'm sure you know. It's been like rebooting the series again. The first reboot was with Sinclaire leaving and Sheridan arriving. Now it's with the end of the war and the new conflict. The thing I'm not liking, right now, is there has been nothing of the Londo storyline in the last several episodes. That's my favorite part of the series. I'm hoping they get back to Londo and Vir soon.

 

^Oh, they will. I had the same frustration when I watched it the first time around. The Londo story does not disappoint.

 

And thus, the course of my favorite series of all time. I too wish I could watch it again for the first time. It is magic, and it especially was magic that first time through, watching the narrative unfold, speculating with your friends...

 

Good point. And one thing about B5 is that there are so many stories that weave in and out of focus that it's easy to forget something. Just another excuse to watch the whole thing again!

Jan

 

This is true. I'm rewatching the X-Files, just started season two, also a landmark show with it's own magic, and I'm feeling it.

I was a latecomer to Buffy/Angel, and I had friends having fun watching me discover it.

I've had much fun introducing friends to Firefly, Farscape, Battlestar Galactica and Doctor Who.

It's good to be a geek.

 

I make a point to do it annually, and occasionally, just popping in some of my fav eps.

Problem doing that, though, is it's hard to resist going onto the next ep, the next ep, the next...