I enjoyed that blog. The OP is terrible though.
Babylon 5 is better than Hitler
- Thread starter Mal
- Start date
I will try to check it out.
I can't speak for Dr. Who. I've never seen a single episode. But what's so bad about Babylon 5? It is, after all the single greatest sci-fi series ever made.
Or would be if the Star Trek franchise didn't exist.
As for the link. The essay confused the hell out of me. What does a review of the History channel have to do with either Dr. Who or Babylon 5?
I tend to agree with "Sheldon Cooper" regarding B5. "It fails as drama, science fiction, and it's hopelessly derivative,"
There's little point in comparing two shows as different as Babylon 5 and Doctor Who; and both are excellent in their own way. B5 is classic Space Opera on a par with the best of Star Trek. Contemporary DW is probably the best show on TV right now-- not only is it consistently entertaining, but it's the only show in a long time to embody the "sense of wonder" that is supposed to be part and parcel of SF (at least before the pop culture concept of SF became all dark and gritty and militarized).
The article is very funny. You can't really compare the shows.
In terms of consistensy of plot and storytelling B5 is probably better, but frankly in that respect (from what I remember) B5 is better than just about everything, and a tv show is more than just that.
In terms of consistensy of plot and storytelling B5 is probably better, but frankly in that respect (from what I remember) B5 is better than just about everything, and a tv show is more than just that.
Sheldon Cooper would be pathological if he were real. One of the main aspects of his characterization is his lack of perception. His opinions are supposed to be those of a rabid fanboy. The affection the show has for geeks does not extend to taking such opinions seriously. There's no reason to think the line was a writers' shout out. For instance, what is B5 supposed to be derivative of? It's an inane comment by an inane character.
The essay was a hilarious send up of internet reviews.
The essay was a hilarious send up of internet reviews.
Except for the season 5 debable most of B5 had been planned for years and was based on an existing framework.
On the other hand Doctor Who's system boils down to "make up stuff as you go".
Hell, I love both shows but they're completely different kinds of animals.
On the other hand Doctor Who's system boils down to "make up stuff as you go".
Hell, I love both shows but they're completely different kinds of animals.
Yes he would be and I don't think it was a "shout out" either. It's just an opinion I happen to agree with ( and had prior to seeing that episode) To it I would add the dialog in B5 was very weak (JMS is better at plots) and the acting was uneven, ranging from near amatuer to scenery chewing to excellent.
Well the most often mentioned "inspiration" is Lord of the Rings The characters aren't the most original either. More than one stock character.
so was byron better than hitler?
The Lord of the Rings is not a significant "source" for Babylon 5. Arthurian analogies are not enough. There are no kings in B5 and there are no revolutions in LOTR.
A real "source" would be the Lensman series by Doc Smith, except that comparing it to B5 shows how much more original B5 is. The series was not derivative of any other scifi movie or TV series. Indeed it wasn't very derivative of any TV series at all. It avoided many, many scifi tropes. B5 may have poor dialogue and cheap actors but it just isn't very derivative, extremely so in comparison to other TV shows. Insisting on it just suggests there's some other objection that can't be articulated for some reason.
By the way, it is notable that the gang on Big Bang Theory do not apparently read science fiction. They just read comic books!
Yes. I'm still confused.
As you noted there is more to SF than TV, movies and comics. Avoiding filmed SF tropes doesn't mean it not using influences from other formats. And one doesn't need to be so literal with "inspiration". A work can be inspired/derived from LOTR and never mention the word "king". ( or elf or ring) And I'm not saying B5 is LOTR with different names.( or any singular source)
The Lord of the Rings is not a significant "source" for Babylon 5. Arthurian analogies are not enough. There are no kings in B5 and there are no revolutions in LOTR.
A real "source" would be the Lensman series by Doc Smith, except that comparing it to B5 shows how much more original B5 is. The series was not derivative of any other scifi movie or TV series. Indeed it wasn't very derivative of any TV series at all. It avoided many, many scifi tropes. B5 may have poor dialogue and cheap actors but it just isn't very derivative, extremely so in comparison to other TV shows. Insisting on it just suggests there's some other objection that can't be articulated for some reason.
By the way, it is notable that the gang on Big Bang Theory do not apparently read science fiction. They just read comic books!
It would be nice if they dropped a few literary references into the dialog of TBBT.
What about "Springtime For Hitler" ?
The pilot movie for Babylon 5 impressed me as something in the tradition of classic literary Space Opera. The series retained that tradition, but ultimately was something quite unique, and I was far from disappointed; B5 deserves to remembered as a classic just as much as Lensman.
Similar threads
