Babylon 5, first episodes feedback

[Danoz]

1987

Whether not not this is a model is irrelevant. It looks 100X better.

That's also a poster, made in a high resolution with a great deal of time and detail put in. On-screen, TNG's effects didn't look anything near as good.

I thought that was from the intro...
I don't remember it ever being lower quality than that.

 

[Lindley]

like I'm watching a fan production of trek...

It should come as no surprise that professional efforts from 15 years ago resemble fan efforts from 5 years ago. (More recent Trek fan series, if anything, look better.)

If it's distracting, think of B5 as a stage play on film. That suggestion is usually made to those who complain about the cheap sets, but it kinda works with the CGI angle too, if you think about it. *Particulary* once you see some of the virtual sets they use (another fairly new concept at the time).

 

[DWF]

I thought that was from the intro...
I don't remember it ever being lower quality than that.

ILM did the intro and some of the effects for the pilot but Image G did the rest of the series and some of it was spotty at times compared to ILM's work.

And B5 wasn't the only show at the time doing all CGI effects there was Seaquest and Space Rangers as well and the Foundation made effects for The Hypernauts as well. ILM also made the first CGI Enterprise D in Generations.

 

[Lindley]

I know Seaquest did a bit with CGI. I was under the impression it was significantly less pervasive than B5's usage. Haven't heard of those other shows.

I do know Space: Above and Beyond used CGI, but that was in....'96 or so?

 

[hxclespaulplayer]

Once you get to "signs and portents", you won't give a hoot about sfx, the story will surely have drawn you in after that.

 

[Harvey]

Plus, by the middle of season two, the effects have improved dramatically. And by the time the show really starts doing things ambitious (in season three) they've improved even more.

Of course, The Coming of Shadows is a pretty damned good episode, too

 

[sidious618]

I watched this show when I was twelve and I guess I was so young that I never noticed any bad SFX so it never ended up bothering me then or now.

Anyhow, it's a great show so stick with it.

 

[DWF]

I know Seaquest did a bit with CGI. I was under the impression it was significantly less pervasive than B5's usage. Haven't heard of those other shows.

I do know Space: Above and Beyond used CGI, but that was in....'96 or so?

Yeah SAAB ran one year the 1995-96 season. The Hypernauts also started in 1995.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypernauts

And one frame of it wound up in the third season opener of B5, as the White Star enters hyperspace towards the end of the ep. you can see one frame of footage from The Hypernauts if you slow down the DVD.

Space Rangers didn't last for long but it's visual effects were all CGI.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Rangers_(TV_series)

And one of the stars of it was Marjorie Monaghan.

John Parenteau who was one of the visual effects supervisors on Seaquest later went on to win an Emmy for Voyager's pilot Caretaker and started his own company Digital Muse who worked on both DS9 and Voyager.

As for B5's visual effects they were done for the first three seasons by Foundation who later went on to DS9 and Voyager so I don't understand how people can rave about the visual effects on those show and cut down B5's visual effects. The final two years of B5's effects were done by Netter Digital who later went on the Dune miniseries.

Personally I've always liked the viaual effects on B5, yeah they've been improved upon over the years but I was always impressed by what they came up on B5.

 

[Lindley]

As for B5's visual effects they were done for the first three seasons by Foundation who later went on to DS9 and Voyager so I don't understand how people can rave about the visual effects on those show and cut down B5's visual effects.

Well, easily. The technology was more mature at that point, and not used exclusively.

If you look at "Sacrifice of Angels" you can barely tell the effects are similar in style to "Shadow Dancing"; it's a bit more evident in "Call to Arms".

But all three of those are about three orders of magnitude better than "Midnight on the Firing Line", or the reused sequences from that which shows up throughout season 1.

 

[Harvey]

As for B5's visual effects they were done for the first three seasons by Foundation who later went on to DS9 and Voyager so I don't understand how people can rave about the visual effects on those show and cut down B5's visual effects. The final two years of B5's effects were done by Netter Digital who later went on the Dune miniseries.

(1) Deep Space Nine let the technology develop until it was good enough to stand next to the model work it was doing. And, even then, DS9 stuck to the superior model work unless the CGI was necesarry (I remember them talking at some length about this in a Star Trek The Magazine issue that profiled the work on "One Little Ship"). The company behind it is of no consequence to me--it's the merits of the work that is of consequence.

And a side note about Voyager--sometimes their CGI work wasn't the best. In the very least, Deep Space Nine was the most consistant with the visual effects work (likely due to its continued use of motion control work).

(2) I've always thought that Netter Digital's work was a step down from Foundation's effort. The knowledge that they were behind the visual effects of Frank Herbert's Dune doesn't offer any better an example of their work. I adored that miniseries, but for all its theatricality (including the theatrical background), that still doesn't offer an excuse for the very medicore visual effects (I admit, some shots are better than others).

 

[Kegek]

The question to ask is, if they had waited to adapt CGI until it was a more mature technology.....would it have ever *become* a more mature technology?

Yes. B5 wasn't the only kid tinkering with the new toy. There was Terminator 2: Judgement Day, Jurassic Park, and so on. George Lucas has been vilified for it, but he probably did more for CGI than JMS ever did. True, far less experimentation with it on the small screen, but its use on the big screen would have eventually borne fruit as to its availability elsewhere. It might have taken longer, but I've little doubt it would have happened.

But as I alluded to earlier... the use of CGI allowed B5 to get the shots it wanted on a tighter budget. As the show never had a lavish budget to begin with - and was an epic, interstellar space opera - this was a pretty savvy move, in addition to being a pretty influential one... which doesn't stop Hirogen Alpha from being absolutely right as to the respective merits of DS9 and B5's visual effects.

 

[DWF]

As for B5's visual effects they were done for the first three seasons by Foundation who later went on to DS9 and Voyager so I don't understand how people can rave about the visual effects on those show and cut down B5's visual effects.

Well, easily. The technology was more mature at that point, and not used exclusively.

If you look at "Sacrifice of Angels" you can barely tell the effects are similar in style to "Shadow Dancing"; it's a bit more evident in "Call to Arms".

But all three of those are about three orders of magnitude better than "Midnight on the Firing Line", or the reused sequences from that which shows up throughout season 1.

But all of Foundation's work still has their fingerprints on it and Sacifice Of Angels is a bad example since it was the combined work of Foundation and Digitial Muse they alternated the fleet battle scenes in the first half hour of the ep.

 

[DWF]

The question to ask is, if they had waited to adapt CGI until it was a more mature technology.....would it have ever *become* a more mature technology?

Yes. B5 wasn't the only kid tinkering with the new toy. There was Terminator 2: Judgement Day, Jurassic Park, and so on. George Lucas has been vilified for it, but he probably did more for CGI than JMS ever did. True, far less experimentation with it on the small screen, but its use on the big screen would have eventually borne fruit as to its availability elsewhere. It might have taken longer, but I've little doubt it would have happened.

But as I alluded to earlier... the use of CGI allowed B5 to get the shots it wanted on a tighter budget. As the show never had a lavish budget to begin with - and was an epic, interstellar space opera - this was a pretty savvy move, in addition to being a pretty influential one... which doesn't stop Hirogen Alpha from being absolutely right as to the respective merits of DS9 and B5's visual effects.

ILM's visual effects work on The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles were amazing and greatly underrated since the effects weren't dinosaurs or space ships.

 

[Neroon]

... which doesn't stop Hirogen Alpha from being absolutely right as to the respective merits of DS9 and B5's visual effects.

If you're leaving out the very important factors of the shows respective budgets and overall story design - then of course DS9 comes out ahead. But since those two factors are integral to each show, then it's a wash between them. DS9 had the more consistently fine looking CGI, but by waiting and using a far higher budget it had the much easier road to travel. DS9 should not be penalized for making good use of the excellent resources it had. Yet neither should B5 be penalized for having the balls to to break new ground.

 

[Harvey]

If you're leaving out the very important factors of the shows respective budgets and overall story design - then of course DS9 comes out ahead. But since those two factors are integral to each show, then it's a wash between them. DS9 had the more consistently fine looking CGI, but by waiting and using a far higher budget it had the much easier road to travel.

Budgets were already acknowledged. The story design is a non-issue. As I saw it, this was a conversation about the relative merits of the visual effects.

 

[Neroon]

I am well aware of what was already brought up. My point is that in a discussion of special effects, you cannot leave out those two critical factors in evaluating the two shows efforts. B5's story IS a factor, because as has already been told, it was an epic saga from day one, whereas with DS9... it came much later and there is question as to how soon it was ever thought of. A story on that scale could never be adequately portrayed with the standard techniques at the time. Therefore, they had to take the chance and go with CGI on a much larger scale, while tech itself was still developing.

 

[Kegek]

If you're leaving out the very important factors of the shows respective budgets and overall story design -

I didn't.

 

[Neroon]

You quoted Hirogen who in effect is leaving them out. Moreover, from my perspective that is the only way to allow DS9's effects - stunning though they are - to surpass B5's.

 

[Kegek]

You quoted Hirogen who in effect is leaving them out.

However, nothing he says is incompatible with what either I or you said.

1. B5 made a sensible, budget conscious choice that was also influential on SFX, an influence that its rival DS9 ultimately benefited from - and DS9 benefited from a far more generous budget, allowing it to blow more on the SFX.
2. B5's effects don't look that great and DS9's look a lot better.

These statements do not conflict.

 

[DWF]

However, nothing he says is incompatible with what either I or you said.

1. B5 made a sensible, budget conscious choice that was also influential on SFX, an influence that its rival DS9 ultimately benefited from - and DS9 benefited from a far more generous budget, allowing it to blow more on the SFX.
2. B5's effects don't look that great and DS9's look a lot better.

These statements do not conflict.

DS9 had multiple visual effects houses working on it over the years B5 had two and IMO Foundation's work on DS9 wasn't superior to their work on B5.