More accurately, based on what Sebastian told us about Vorlons having been everywhere and visiting Earth centuries ago, angels are Vorlons.
Essentially, angels...are Kosh, not vice-versa. 
A Niner Watches Babylon 5 (NO spoilers, please)
- Thread starter TheGodBen
- Start date
More accurately, based on what Sebastian told us about Vorlons having been everywhere and visiting Earth centuries ago, angels are Vorlons.
Essentially, angels...are Kosh, not vice-versa. 
I think the mistake some people make is that seeing a Vorlon is depended on an individual's belief or mytho-historical background. Not true. The Vorlons project this image and the races and cultures they visit, by and large build up their own mythos around them. A Hindu person for example wouldn't see a blue guy with four arms, they'd see exactly what Sheridan saw.
Why a Centauri wouldn't see it at all is another matter.
Perhaps Centauri don't have any secondary sacred beings? Kosh didn't appear as any of the actual deities so if all the Centauri have are gods, perhaps there was no secondary entity for Kosh to appear as?
Jan
One of the best theories I've heard about why Londo didn't see anything was that the Centauri were never visited, guided or influenced by the Vorlons, because they were not considered worthy of that.
"They are alone. They are a dying people. We should let them pass."
"Who? The Narn or the Centauri?"
"Yes."
BTW quoting seems to be the best way of telling something without actually spoiling the plot.
"They are alone. They are a dying people. We should let them pass."
"Who? The Narn or the Centauri?"
"Yes."
BTW quoting seems to be the best way of telling something without actually spoiling the plot.
One of the best theories I've heard about why Londo didn't see anything was that the Centauri were never visited, guided or influenced by the Vorlons, because they were not considered worthy of that.
"They are alone. They are a dying people. We should let them pass."
"Who? The Narn or the Centauri?"
"Yes."
BTW quoting seems to be the best way of telling something without actually spoiling the plot.
I just assumed the Vorlons lost interest in the Centauri (for whatever reason, I'm sure we could think of several) and no longer care to present the illusion of the angelic being of light to them- too much bother for too little gain. Or maybe Kosh was deliberately spiting Londo, leaving him out of the collective experience of a "good omen" that has everyone else so amazed, so as to underscore his displeasure- or his government's displeasure- with Londo's actions?
Cart before the horse. Read my previous posts.
One of the best theories I've heard about why Londo didn't see anything was that the Centauri were never visited, guided or influenced by the Vorlons, because they were not considered worthy of that.
"They are alone. They are a dying people. We should let them pass."
"Who? The Narn or the Centauri?"
"Yes."
BTW quoting seems to be the best way of telling something without actually spoiling the plot.
I just assumed the Vorlons lost interest in the Centauri (for whatever reason, I'm sure we could think of several) and no longer care to present the illusion of the angelic being of light to them- too much bother for too little gain. Or maybe Kosh was deliberately spiting Londo, leaving him out of the collective experience of a "good omen" that has everyone else so amazed, so as to underscore his displeasure- or his government's displeasure- with Londo's actions?
Didn't mean to kick off another spoiler conversation, I was trying to be deliberately obfuscatious to avoid exactly that!
Anyway, according to JMS...
"...the Vorlons had a very minimal affect on the Centauri, they never were able
to get a really strong foothold there.
jms"
So engineering the "Nephilim" to harvest and develop the telepath gene was an entierly separate process to imprinting the whatever conditioned mechanism make people see a holy being of light rather than a bioluminescent Elder Thing. Which would imply that the latter is a much more recent than the former, which if you think about it makes sense since the genetic tampering goes back (initially, at least) about a million years, while the whole "Chariots of the Gods" routine only need come into play once a given race has reached a certain stage of civilisation, which in most cases is within the last 10,000 years or so.
to get a really strong foothold there.
jms"
So engineering the "Nephilim" to harvest and develop the telepath gene was an entierly separate process to imprinting the whatever conditioned mechanism make people see a holy being of light rather than a bioluminescent Elder Thing. Which would imply that the latter is a much more recent than the former, which if you think about it makes sense since the genetic tampering goes back (initially, at least) about a million years, while the whole "Chariots of the Gods" routine only need come into play once a given race has reached a certain stage of civilisation, which in most cases is within the last 10,000 years or so.
Signs and Portents had a plot about Sinclair and the Minbari too.
I don't see how anyone can claim that the first season wasn't dominated by Sinclair's experiences at the Battle of the Line, it was brought up frequently and had at least one episode completely devoted to it. It was a huge mystery, and the answer as it currently stands was underwhelming for me.Yeah, the Shadows really don't seem to be such bad guys at this point, the only reason I have to believe that they are evil is that the Vorlons say they are, and the Vorlons have just outed themselves as expert manipulators. The Shadows could really be the good guys that are just trying to stop Vorlon racism against them.
Then I stand corrected.
But I can hope people can understand why I'm disappointed that such an important event was only mentioned in passing. Show, don't tell, and all that.So when I watched The Coming of Shadows I should have held off on saying how awesome it was until I saw the rest of the war?
I'm sorry, but that argument doesn't hold much water with me.If more comes of these issues later then so be it, I will judge those revelations as they happen, but I will not let that stop me from judging the revelations I have been given so far.
Okay, think about it like this: Sheridan is "falling" to his death, Kosh is forced to act, he opens his suit and reveals that he is... a leprechaun!
Can I laugh now?
I was raised a catholic, so I used to believe in angels, although that doesn't mean much because I also used to believe that Brent Spiner was an actual android. I long ago came to the conclusion that if angels exist they don't look like humans with giant wings, that's an absurd image. To me, that image is as silly as leprechauns, fairies or Santa Clause. I do not expect to see any of those things on this otherwise intelligent sci-fi show, so why would I expect to see literal angels?
Yes, Arthur C Clarke's third law, minus the "sufficiently". Of course, then there's Gehm corollary to that law "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced".
I fully admit that I only learned these quotes from a Discworld book.
You wouldn't, which was rather the point. Leprechauns aside, an Angel is about the last thing you'd expect to jump out of that suit. But then of course, as was stated in the episode that's not exactly what he looks like, just the image they project to younger races. It will be further addressed later on down the road.
Always remember with Babylon 5, knowone is exactly what they appear.
Last edited:
I'd like to believe that there's a scientific explanation for most of the strange creatures in Earth's mythology - aliens, extinct animals or genetic mutations (a snake with two heads would be considered a dangerous monster a few thousand years ago).
I'm with you there, so don't feel too lonely. I watched the first four seasons a year or so ago and while I enjoyed it, I also didn't find any of it quite as awesome as other do. I'm not too sure what inspires such lavish, unconditional praise from other posters. But hey, I know I have my favourite shows that other people like but find overrated too.
I've lurked this thread since it started, since I like review threads. I just don't have the energy to be argued against every time I'd have a major, minor, or very minor objection to something in the show, so I haven't posted yet.
Signs and Portents had a plot about Sinclair and the Minbari too.
No, the name of the first season is Signs And Portents, ultimately the first season is the set up for the rest of the show. the season names are as follows:
Season one: Signs And Protents
Season two: The Coming Of Shadows
Season three: The Point Of No Return
Season four: No Retreat, No Surrender
Season five: The Wheel Of Fire
No we've seen that Londo doesn't have the beliefs as even Vir does, it's more than alittle odd that he didn't see anything at all.
So? As I've already pointed out, the mystery of Sinclair's appointment to B5 was a part of the episode called (say it with me) Signs and Portents. Did you honestly come away from the first season thinking "Gee, all that stuff about Sinclair at the Battle of the Line doesn't seem important"? It was a HUGE mystery during the first season, and it was one of the mysteries my sister used to entice me to watch the show. Was the Shadow stuff a big mystery? Yes, but that doesn't mean that the Sinclair stuff wasn't also a big mystery.
The clues to what really happened is there in the first season, but all that and so much more will be made clear after you see the third season.
I'd call it an out and out strange one. Any show that I spent as much time trying to run down, I certainly wouldn't call myself a "fan". I'd generally be someone who dislikes the show.
And I wouldn't spend nearly so much time with it. The only comparable phenomenon I've seen are fans of the original Battlestar Galactica. A small but vocal part of that fandom is OBSESSED with RDM's version and stayed with it to the end, hating the whole time.
I say, and this is me, not speaking for you, I say, if you don't enjoy it, why spend so much time with it, talking about it?
I mean, you nitpick the HELL out of it. To the point where it's annoying.
Just what I've noticed.
Just to be fair, I'm willing to put cash money down that my "complaining about the complaining" posts are probably outnumbered by the complaining posts, by a pretty good margin, in fact.
I mean, if it's ok to complain, surely it's not out of line to say something about the complaining, if you think it's not entirely fair?
Just sayin'...
Let's just say I don't think Kegg is anywhere near as bad as you seem to think he is. You can only say how great something is so many times; sooner or later it becomes more interesting to point out the flaws. I think that's where he is right now, and I don't think that's a problem.
Similar threads
- Poll
