To Babylon 5 Fans, here's something for you to ponder upon.

[RandyS]

I think RandyS is referring to why Clark would want to kill Santiago so badly, as we hadn't really seen much of Clark's personality or Clark at all beforehand. We also didn't know why Clark wanted to turn Earth into an Orwellian State to begin with or why he thought it was a good idea.

Yeah, that's what I was referring to. The implication we got from the series was that he hated aliens, but I've always wanted to know WHY he hated aliens so badly that he turned his government into a totolitarian state. I've always been disapointed that this wasn't explored in greater detail. I was hoping for a Lost Tales on the subject, but it looks like that won't happen either.

Maybe JMS can be talked into writing a book about it.

 

[RandyS]

Babylon 5 was a show about the process of how things happen. How Earth ended up controlled by Clark. How Sheridan ended up forming and leading the Army of Light. How the other worlds wer influenced by the Shadows and ended up fighting each other. How Lyta ended up being a Resistance Leader. It's not just about what happened, it's about how and why things happened.

Jan

Not in Clark's case. It was always just hinted at, never actually shown. Santiago too, for that matter. Both characters should have been explored in more detail.

 

[Jan]

Yeah, that's what I was referring to. The implication we got from the series was that he hated aliens, but I've always wanted to know WHY he hated aliens so badly that he turned his government into a totolitarian state. I've always been disapointed that this wasn't explored in greater detail. I was hoping for a Lost Tales on the subject, but it looks like that won't happen either.

I doubt that Clark hated aliens at all. What they were to him was a boogy man that he could use to instill fear in the people so that it became possible for him to declare Martial Law.

Not in Clark's case. It was always just hinted at, never actually shown. Santiago too, for that matter. Both characters should have been explored in more detail.

Clark and Santiago weren't on the Station, therefore it was beyond the scope of the show to explore them in detail. We were told what we needed by ISN.

Here's an interesting post by JMS about the Martial Law scenario

Jan

 

[JoeD80]

You need to establish a) who Santiago is and his policies and b) who wants him dead and why before you can kill him. It'd be hard to do that subtly in a single episode.

Unfortunately, while the "who" was established, the "why" never was.

Eh, what? Psi Corps wanted Santiago dead so they could have a person in power that they could manipulate. That seemed pretty clear in the show, and especially comes to the fore when William Edgars tells Garibaldi that "Clark doesn't matter. It's Psi Corps that has the power."

We also didn't know why Clark wanted to turn Earth into an Orwellian State to begin with or why he thought it was a good idea.

Yeah, that's what I was referring to. The implication we got from the series was that he hated aliens, but I've always wanted to know WHY he hated aliens so badly that he turned his government into a totolitarian state.

He didn't declare martial law because he hated aliens; he did it because the evidence about his involvement in Santiago's assassination was going to come out and Sheridan had just destroyed one of the Shadow vessels at Ganymede. Clark was already involved with Morden & the Psi Corps at that point.

 

[Joe Washington]

Ending the first episode with Santiago's death would give President Clark's tyrannical rule more time to develop and give the show's beginning a big kickoff that would have the audience glued to the screen, waiting for the next following episode. And, for those worrying about such a thing ruining the introduction phase of the story which the first season covers, you could have something shocking like that happen in the beginning of a series while the first season sets up the characters and their world. Like how Lost began with the plane crash and how Six Feet Under began with the death of the father.

 

[Reverend]

I think all of season 2 and half of season 3 was sufficient to establish Clark's tyranny and there's no point killing Santiago from the offset since then the audience has no idea what kind of president he was and why they should care that he's dead. Throughout season 1 we get a picture of Santiago through his decisions and policies (via ISN.) We hear about him moving towards greater cooperation with the alien governments, we hear how important B5 was to him and his goals, we even hear how he's unwilling to bring the hammer down on the Mars Rebellion. Without that, there's no contrast to Clark's diametrically opposite policies and priorities and thus the gradual slide from a democracy to a police state is rendered meaningless.

On top of that, the reason such a shocking event was put in at the end of the season was precisely to give the audience time to settle in to the world and the story before completely turning it on it's head at the moment of maximum impact.

 

[Candlelight]

I think all of season 2 and half of season 3 was sufficient to establish Clark's tyranny and there's no point killing Santiago from the offset since then the audience has no idea what kind of president he was and why they should care that he's dead. Throughout season 1 we get a picture of Santiago through his decisions and policies (via ISN.) We hear about him moving towards greater cooperation with the alien governments, we hear how important B5 was to him and his goals, we even hear how he's unwilling to bring the hammer down on the Mars Rebellion. Without that, there's no contrast to Clark's diametrically opposite policies and priorities and thus the gradual slide from a democracy to a police state is rendered meaningless.

On top of that, the reason such a shocking event was put in at the end of the season was precisely to give the audience time to settle in to the world and the story before completely turning it on it's head at the moment of maximum impact.

What he said. Plus it gave Douglas Netter a cameo.

 

[glindros]

I think it was important to not have Santiago killed off early season one. B5 was a whole new universe. We needed to get a sense of what normal was before everything goes all to hell.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Ending the first episode with Santiago's death would give President Clark's tyrannical rule more time to develop and give the show's beginning a big kickoff that would have the audience glued to the screen, waiting for the next following episode. And, for those worrying about such a thing ruining the introduction phase of the story which the first season covers, you could have something shocking like that happen in the beginning of a series while the first season sets up the characters and their world. Like how Lost began with the plane crash and how Six Feet Under began with the death of the father.

The problem is that the assassination of President Santiago isn't the jumping off point into the series -- it's Babylon 5, and the Babylon Project, going online that leads us in to the story.

In Lost, the plane crash initiates the story. In Six Feet Under, Nathanial Fisher, Sr.'s death initiates the story allowing for his eldest son to take over the business. More importantly, these weren't "shocking" or "big kicks," but beginnings that start off at the highest point of conflict. The Oceanic 815 survivors are now lost with little chance of rescue. Nathanial Fisher must take over his father's business despite having spent years running away from his family and his obligations to them.

Battlestar Galactica (new and old). The destruction of the colonies, as shocking as they may be, was the "in" to the story and the highest point of conflict.

Does Babylon 5 start at the highest point of conflict? Yes, but not with the assassination of President Santiago.

The highest point of conflict is the arrival of the last ambassador to the station. Why? Because Kosh's arrival signals that the Babylon Project may actually have a chance at fulfilling its promise of "a galaxy without war, where different species can work side-by-side peacefully." There are those who don't want to see it succeed. The stakes -- all out interstellar war.

That's the "in" to the story. Not the [Santiago] assassination, which is a complication to the story not a beginning to the story.

JMS used a more traditional novelistic approach to the storytelling of Babylon 5, where the story had a slow burn to the event that changed the lives of the characters forever.

As Reverend pointed out without seeing Santiago's support or influence on the Babylon Project, then his death is rendered without context. He's just a president assassinated. But at the end of the season, he is much more than that -- he was the last, best hope. And his death now has meaning to us the audience.

 

[Kira Nerys]

The first ep was about introducing some of the characters and of course the arc.