Babylon 5 and the absurdities of the plagiarism charge

For some reason, I've seen more and more people recycling the claim that Deep Space Nine was plagiarized from or otherwise "ripped off" Babylon 5. I'm glad that people are taking more of an interest in B5, and it had more than a few good episodes and should be credited for challenging the look of space combat in science fiction. However, I feel that there needs to be some sort of comprehensive critique of the conspiracy theory.

1. Much seems to hinge on the fact that J Michael Straczynski pitched B5 to Paramount in 1988 or1989. This is not in itself proof of anything: many scripts and pitches are shopped around Hollywood. However, the suggestion seems to be that because JMS had conceived of the narrative of the entire story of B5, that Paramount had it available to them at all times. This is not true. Not all the stories were written, let alone all the scripts. More importantly, JMS admits to hiding and lying about details in the story that he suspected might scare off studio executives. For instance, the series bible said that there were rumors of a coming war that would never happen. It literally says that there would be no war in Babylon 5.
2. JMS borrowed heavily from science fiction and fantasy literature, making it difficult to claim that specific creations were uniquely his. The most glaring examples are the heavy borrowings from Tolkien, which include large narrative threads, character developments, and even names. The number of analogs between B5 and LOTR are extensive, and would clearly overwhelm any commonalities between B5 and DS9. Moreover, it seems absurd to claim that JMS would have some exclusive right to borrow from literature, but then insist that DS9 could not.
3. To that point, many of the so-called similarities are scènes à faire, the generic elements of science fiction that could not on their own be claimed as being unique. Some so-called similarities are really trivial, like fictional names.
4. Many commonalities were things that actually appeared in DS9 first, then Babylon 5, probably inserted by JMS into the stories in order to rile up his supporters. Case in point: Dukhat, a character that appears late in B5's run.
   
5. The conspiracy theorists ignore how Deep Space Nine was still Star Trek: narrative threads were picked up from the previous series and developed, production and writing interests were carried over from TNG to DS9. The Borg and the Bajoran-Cardassian matter were already established: they were not invented for the backstory of DS9. Sisko being a widow was something organic to Star Trek. Moreover, the relationship between Bajor and Cardassia only resembled the Narn and Centauri in that they were occupations. The fact that DS9 embraced some serialization, mostly late in the series, could not be seen as something taken from the B5 bible. It grew out of the frustration of the TNG writers who became DS9 writers over the limitations on character development over more than one episode.
   
6. Conspiracy theorists ignore how many of the same people worked on or influenced the direction of both shows, potentialy influencing the look and execution of both. Case and point: Jeri Taylor did a lot to convince both JMS and Michael Piller to put women more at the center of stories. At the time, TNG was proudly being held up as a guiding light of equality and aspirational politics. Even before DS9 aired, there were conversations about when women would be showed more in prominent positions of authority. Hence Kira and Takashima.
7. Supporters ignore the extensive documentation and interviews that have been made about the making of Star Trek as a whole, not just DS9. Star Trek was such a big enterprise (pardon the pun) that it consumed much of the science fiction world of the 1990s that it overwhelmed genre specific magazines and made many appearances on mainstream magazines. There were numerous interviews of producers and writers describing the development of Star Trek, including DS9.
8. Supporters make it seem as if Berman and Piller were complete amateurs when it came to making television, or that they were completely duped by the studio. There were already responsible for many hours of TNG, had experience with creating locations and situations and races, but they needed to borrow from the Babylon 5 bible (assuming they had it) in order to get DS9 started? I still find that there are more significant similarities between DS9 than the Rifleman, especially in the relationships between Sisko and Jake as well as between Sisko and Quark. JMS claimed that he didn't think Piller and Berman did anything, but that they were influenced by the "studio executives." I think it strains credibility to say that Berman and Piller had that much "guidance."
   
9. There are too many mentions of legal filings and a settlement that never happened and for which there is no reporting. There is a video of Patricia Talmann, wherein she claims that there was a lawsuit that ended up in a settlement, proving that somehow Paramount implicitly admitted to plagiarism or was afraid to have the claim examined in public. There are no records of any legal action from WB or PTEN against Paramount. JMS says that Warner was unwilling to pursue a lawsuit. The video is an outright lie, which is shocking given that Talmann was an executive for JMS's production company for a while.
   
10. JMS clearly resented Star Trek, finding that it frustrated his ability to bring B5 to television. I understand how it must have felt not being able to get the series produced because executives felt that they could not compete with Star Trek, or having to share actors and production facilities with Star Trek. Being the alternative to Star Trek, though, became a rallying cry. He wanted his fans to reject DS9, not just watch his show.
11. Even in the beginning, the two shows were not that similar. DS9 did the TNG thing in its first season before become more character focused. The writing tended to build on what had been accomplished in previous episodes rather than establish a grand narrative. Babylon 5 was very insistent on being a grand narrative, sometimes sacrificing character development in the process. B5 told a more comprehensive story, DS9 presented more comprehensive characters. The things that the two series shared were not important beyond superficial looks.

 

For the most part true, but I still find it amusing that both shows did a story about a flag officer plotting a coup, and both shows cast Robert Foxworth as the flag officer.

 

Also both featured wars against races that were considered gods by other races. And there were rebellions occurring in both series against governments that included Earth (the Maquis/Earth Civil War).

 

None of which is particularly unique to either series, is it? Hague might well have been just another Badmiral, and the existence of advanced elders treated as gods is rather common.

 

To call the Maquis a rebellion against Earth is...well, I'm sure Eddington would eat that right up...

 

The existence and objectives of the maquis were a rebellion against the federation and it's policies. Starfleet was co-operating to a degree with the Cardassians to destroy the maquis.

The maquis refused to be obedient peons.

 

That is always how the metropole characterizes movements for autonomy and self-government, when all the people on the periphery want is to manage their own affairs.

 

Earth is part of the Federation, and from what we know of the treaty, Earth gave the human colonists over to the Cardassians as part of the Federation treaty. So you had a rebellion against a government that Earth was a part of. Either way, in both series you had a rebellion that involved Earth.

 

And?

There is a huge lack of detail in the argument. Even moreso, there isn't any evidence that this was something unique to the mind of JMS. Do you know where you could get it? THE FUCKING NEWS! The late 80s and 90s had lots of stories about what happened to the peoples who were subjected to territorial exchanges following WW2 and what to do with them, especially after the USSR disolved. All one had to do was turn on the TV. There is nothing particular unique to this storyline.

 

I seriously doubt most residents of Earth felt in any way specifically threatened by the Maquis, while the events in B5 directly affected the planet, which was my original point.

 

Remember when they added a permanent starship to the show and then one year later the other show did the exact same thing?!

I actually love it when people bring that up without researching. Even if the Whitestar was first (which it wasn't) is still wouldn't mean jack.

 

The Maquis were not fighting anyone.

They were killing people and destroying property.

That's terrorism.

If you can't fight an army head on, you kill civilians and remove expensive items from the board, making it too costly in lives, resources and money for the army you can't fight fairly, to function, even though you have never actually had to fight it head on, until they falter, and $$$k off.

It's a valid tactic, when the alternative is genocide.

So...

The Maquis would blow up stuff in Cardassian space.

Undefended high value targets.

Then the Maquis would run away and hide in the demilitarized zone, where the Cardassians and the Federation couldn't follow, or to Federation space, where the Cardassians couldn't follow.

The Federation is Treaty bound to hunt down criminals wanted by Cardasdsian legal authorities, or the treaty is broken, and the war starts up again, and the Demilitarized Zone is open season for the Cardassians to wipe clean with planet killers.

So the Maquis is barely ever in Federation Space and they are barely ever breaking any Federation Law.

"Sigh"

 

Once you've established a united Earth that expands out into space, you are already borrowing from Star Trek. Sorry.

 

I'm pretty sure the concept of a united Earth predates Star Trek.

 

True.

 

Honestly I think most of the similarities between DS9 and B5 are the creative writing equivalent of convergent evolution: Both shows were drawing upon tropes from the same genre, and both shows were trying to break out of the boxes established by those prior tropes, and both shows ended up needing to utilize certain narrative devices in order to tell the kinds of stories they needed to tell. Hence, both shows taking place on space stations (a function of needing to set themselves apart from earlier spaceship shows); both shows using serialization to focus on intercultural conflict between a relatively steady number of cultures (because everyone had seen a million planet-of-the-week episodes on spaceship shows by that point); both shows featuring the primary characters holding positions in alien religions (because both shows were trying to distinguish themselves from secular humanistic spaceship shows); both shows featuring conflict within the primary characters' polity (because both shows were reacting against the shiny-happy utopianism of prior spaceship shows); and both shows adding a dedicated spaceship (because both shows needed to be able to get their characters from point A to point B in sets that were large enough for multiple characters, and both shows needed those characters to be able to project force at a large scale at point B).

I mean, the thing is, General Hague and Admiral Leyton are actually opposites. General Hague's thing is, he's leading a rebellion against an illegitimate dictator who has seized power in a coup by secretly assassinating the legitimately-elected president. Admiral Leyton's thing is, he's the guy who wants to overthrow the legitimately-elected president and install himself as dictator in a coup. Leyton is more akin to President Clarke than he is to Hague. Really, if you're gonna accuse DS9 of ripping anyone off in "Homefront"/"Paradise Lost," it's not B5 they ripped off -- it's Seven Days in May.

 

At the same time the people of Earth couldn't help but notice that the planets the federation so cavalierly traded away were mostly Human worlds.

Threatened by the maquis, maybe not.

Threatened by the federation ...

 

This DS9/B5 thing has always interested me - I'm a fan of both although a considerably bigger fan of DS9 since Star Trek is my 'thing'.

Obviously I don't have the in depth knowledge others here have but it's always been my understanding (possibly in error) that JMS proposed B5 to some higher ups at Paramount, those higher ups didn't buy it but liked aspects and that knowledge was directly or indirectly used to nudge DS9's development in certain directions - space station setting perhaps, the nearby jumpgate became a wormhole etc.

 

JMS shopped it around all the studios in 1988-9. They all rejected it. Then he reworked it. Warner bought it on the strength of the CGI demo. There is no evidence that any of the elements that the Paramount people saw of the original pitch were taken five years later.

 

I'll admit, I never watched B5. I just know that whenever the DS9/B5 similarities are brought up, that's included and among the various similarities, that particular one has always amused me. Indeed, I even remember hearing that because of Homefront/Paradise Lost, Foxworth wasn't available to do a B5 episode filming at the same time, leading to goofing around on the B5 sets where there's supposedly a take where one of the actors says "General Hague couldn't make it. He's leading a coup on Deep Space Nine this week."