A Niner Watches Babylon 5 (NO spoilers, please)
- Thread starter TheGodBen
- Start date
Check this out...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X13r...720474CB&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=59
Especially check out the 2:43 mark.
Holy shit. That might be one of the coolest things I've ever seen...on YouTube.
I think that's a pretty fair assessment of the first season and I'm reasonably sure JMS had some similar thoughts as few if any of the above mentioned mistakes are repeated...often. 
I'm actually reading the new making of Crusade book and the first interview with JMS is just around the time they went into full production and he mentions how they were trying to avoid making the same mistakes they made back in B5's first season and judging by what we ended up with (not to spoil anything) the average was defiantly better.
As for the DS9/B5 rivalry, I'm not sure what's worse; Trekkies who insist on comparing every episode of B5 to something they've seen in the 100's of hour of Star Trek, or the B5 fans who insist their favourite show is superior in all conceivable ways. Neither group does either show, or indeed themselves any favours by thinking that way.
Fortunately, most people on this board have a reasonable perspective in that regard.
I'm actually reading the new making of Crusade book and the first interview with JMS is just around the time they went into full production and he mentions how they were trying to avoid making the same mistakes they made back in B5's first season and judging by what we ended up with (not to spoil anything) the average was defiantly better.
As for the DS9/B5 rivalry, I'm not sure what's worse; Trekkies who insist on comparing every episode of B5 to something they've seen in the 100's of hour of Star Trek, or the B5 fans who insist their favourite show is superior in all conceivable ways. Neither group does either show, or indeed themselves any favours by thinking that way.
Fortunately, most people on this board have a reasonable perspective in that regard.
I think that's a pretty fair assessment of the first season and I'm reasonably sure JMS had some similar thoughts as few if any of the above mentioned mistakes are repeated...often.
I'm actually reading the new making of Crusade book and the first interview with JMS is just around the time they went into full production and he mentions how they were trying to avoid making the same mistakes they made back in B5's first season and judging by what we ended up with (not to spoil anything) the average was defiantly better.
Agreed. As good as B5's first season was, or how much promise it showed, Crusade was shaping up to be better in both.
Except they needed to ditch that Chen guy and bring Franke back to do the music.
S
Stone_Cold_Sisko
Guest
You'll have to get used to that and temper your expectations a little bit. It's most devoted fans have a tendency to ascend B5 to the high heavens, and imo exaggerate it. I really do like B5 as a whole, I think it's by far one of the better sci-fi shows, particularly from the 90s, but it's also just as much because there's been so few other great ones. With the advent of shows like Firefly, Farscape, BSG, it somehow feels a little less special over time... my thoughts on Season 1 is pretty much in line with your thoughts from your graph-post, and i found it to be a remarkably objective (subjectively objective
) look at the individual episodes. I'd grade it a solid 6 out of 10. One thing I will say is that there's a stretch from aobut mid-S2 all the way through early S4, which contains a some really genuinely powerful moments. In those (somewhat rare) moments, the series actually lives up to the mega-hype that the B5 evangelists give to it. But all around it, there's also a lot of corny acting (that fans insist is Emmy-worthy), really bad humor, and cringing dialogue. I give the whole show a solid B, as one of the seminal genre shows of the 90s for me (along with Buffy and DS9).
In my opinion, the best episodes of Season 1 aren't the best because they're shocking or exciting like you might expect from a more recent show. They're the best because of how important they are to the future arc of the show as a whole. I remember being fairly underwhelmed by episodes like "Signs and Portents" and "Chrysalis," thinking that really amazing and exciting things would happen (this is, of course, because these episodes had been hyped up around here, so I had really high expectations). In retrospect, they are very important episodes, but like most of Season 1, they are really just there to lay the groundwork for stuff that hasn't happened yet.
I think it takes Season 2 a few episodes to get going, but once it did, I couldn't stop watching. I blew through Seasons 2-4 in about a week.
I think it takes Season 2 a few episodes to get going, but once it did, I couldn't stop watching. I blew through Seasons 2-4 in about a week.
Exactly. I loved season one, as this episodic look into what was obviously a HUGE science fiction universe unlike anything I had seen before.
But later, after we got into the other seasons, it was clear that season one had been the equivalent of farmers out planting seeds en masse.
The subsequent seasaons? Harvesting crops.
But later, after we got into the other seasons, it was clear that season one had been the equivalent of farmers out planting seeds en masse.
The subsequent seasaons? Harvesting crops.
Me too. I admit, the first time I saw Babylon 5 I thought it had COMPLETELY ripped off DS9, but it wasn't long before I came to love it for what it is: good sci-fi television.
Except for that damn Byron, of course.
I never noticed. I loved both shows, loved them both from the beginning.
I heard some allegations of ripoffs, but I never gave a damn.
I think both shows stand as some of the very finest of science fiction storytelling.
I heard some allegations of ripoffs, but I never gave a damn.
I think both shows stand as some of the very finest of science fiction storytelling.
I'm of the same mind. However, to be fair there a few legions of Trek fans who feel that their particular favorite Trek show (or the entire franchise for that matter) is be all to end all of science fiction entertainment, over all others, not just B5. I can understand why each side may feel one "ripped off" (gah! how I hate that overused term!
), based on what is known. But what does it profit anyone to persist in such childish behavior? If you're predisposed one way or the other, you will find plenty of "evidence". Like that matters anymore. 
AMEN for that!!!
Even the most "evangelistic" of each here takes that reasonable approach.
The shows ran concurrently, more or less, so it stands to reason there'd be some naturally occurring competition. Even so, this is part of why I like seeing reviews such as TGB's - to see the thought processes which come out in the course of the reviews of either show.
Last edited:
Well, like I said, I thought B5 ripped off DS9 so except for The Gathering I didn't watch it during it's first run. I didn't catch up with the series until 1999. I don't know if there was any direct competition between them, but I heard that the argument between fans got to the point that Majel Barret's apperance was a direct result of it. Of course, JMS was my source for this, so, like much of what Roddenberry claimed about Star Trek, it could have just been hyperbole.
If there was any influence, it probably went the other way since B5 was in development a lot longer than DS9. I suspect any such influence was minimal and only affected things in broad strokes, though, which seems to be the rational viewpoint with the advantage of hindsight.
I can understand how such theories arose at the time, though. If nothing else, the visual of a space station sitting next to a big blue swirly thing is pretty striking.
Quite. The only viable 'B5 ripped off Star Trek' vibe would actually come from TNG and TOS (and this was a fairly frequent accusation if the old JMS posts arguing against this or that influence are any point to the matter.)
But then, no matter. JMS shamelessly and extremely obviously 'borrows' from 1984 and Lord of the Rings, and it's not something he ever considered noteworthy.
A character on "Jeremiah" even quoted a passage from "1984" in one episode. Orwell surely had a profound impact on JMS... just like Tolkien.
Wasn't that in the episode about the librarian who couldn't read? That wasn't a JMS episode; it was the one Sam Egan episode I actually liked.
Jan
One or two direct quotes notwithstanding, the Tolkien influence is I think, very much overstated. From what I gather, H.P. Lovecraft, Rod Sterling, Norman Corwin, Alfred Bester (duh) and Ray Bradbury have been much more significant influences.
Merely non-spoilerly off the top of my head, the Minbari are very strongly and very obviously influenced by Tolkein's elves, with the idea that Draal presents of them setting out onto the sea of stars having rather unsubtle echoes of the Grey Havens, and I think JMS himself said that a new character arriving in season two bore a very strong resemblance to Aragorn (that character's placeholder name was actually Strider.)
There's nothing overstated about it; Babylon 5 is Lord of the Rings In Space.
To be fair, LotR is Greek Mythology In Medieval Briton. JMS often says that was his source more so than Tolkien (such as in a long rant he did here following a S4 episode).
Similar threads
- Poll
