Hi i just finished season one of babylon 5 and am waiting on season 2 i started this thread because i heard that the cammander is replaced in season 2 with sheridan so i am wondering who people counsider a better cammander?
I love both, but I prefer Sinclair. A more interesting and unique commander for the space station, a man of peace dealing with PTSD. Yeah, I would've loved to have seen a B5 with Sinclair all the way through, but honestly, Spoiler: Character Fates his eventual fate as finding peace within himself and becoming Valen fits Sinclair better while marrying a mortal Delenn and having a son, which WOULD have been Sinclair's fate, fits the Sheridan archetype better so I don't regret that we have both characters.
Sheridan, definitely. I like Sinclair's story, but Sheridan was a more charismatic character, and I'm not sure Sinclair could have ensured the independence of the station as well as Sinclair did.
At the time I got the sense that Boxleitner was just a much better actor. In retrospect, and knowing more now, I think it just comes down to me preferring the Sheridan character over Sinclair. Sheridan's charismatic, Sinclair's haunted. I gravitated towards Sheridan. I have to say, in hindsight and numerous re-viewings of the series later, I've come to appreciate MoH/Sinclair a hell of a lot more than I did the first time around. People who simply dismiss either the actor or the character, I can kind of understand where they're coming from, but I don't buy into it, they're just an acquired taste.
Sheridan is better in every possible way. He's funny, charming, charismatic, fun, more intense, a better actor, a better character, a better leader, a better warrior...
Sheridan was the kind of commander the situation called for. Sinclair was more of a front line soldier you'd definitely want on your side when shit hits the fan.
after watching some episodes in season 2 my opinion is that sheridan is a much better cammander then sinclair. for some reason sinclairs acting always seemed cheesy but that could just be because season one was bad.
Sinclair by far, preferred his tortured persona to Sheridan's chirpy boy-scout leader. Michael O'Hare is sorely missed.
I think Sinclair works a lot better in retrospect than he does when you're dealing with him for the first time. I prefer Sheridan and certainly think he's the more charismatic and generally likeable individual, and I agree with what was said above that for the events that ended up occurring Sheridan seems like what was needed. But I'm curious as to what Sinclair could have become if we'd had more time with him...and especially if we could have seen him after some of his issues resolve. I think in some ways Sinclair's intensity is both his most and least attractive quality. It engenders curiosity in me, but a guy who never seems to lighten up can become very taxing in the long-term. I'm not comfortable voting on this particular situation because I feel both characters have strengths and weaknesses and it doesn't seem fair to say one is worse simply because I personally don't care for them as much. Especially when we had much more exposure to one than the other.
When first started watching Babylon 5, I had been spoiled about the change in commanders after season one. At the time, I got the impression that a lot of people on the internet preferred Sheridan to Sinclair, but I never had any problems with Sinclair. I liked exploring the mystery of what had happened to him at the battle of the line, and at the time I was disappointed with how the transition between the two was handled at the start of season 2. At the same time, it took me a while to warm up to Sheridan. At first, I found him far too chipper and a bit too much of a typical space opera leading man. He grew on me, though, and by "War Without End" I preferred him to Sinclair. It's been a while since I've done a rewatch, though, and I could easily change my mind. Anyway, in the end, I'm glad they were both part of the story.
I voted for Sinclair. While I think Bruce Boxleitner did a great job in his role, I loved the subtlety that Michael O'Hare gave to Sinclair. Jan
Babylon 5 Season 1 has one of the best opening title sequences in TV history, largely due to O'Hare's narration. Boxleitner's narration for Season 2 was fucking terrible.
I think a lot of people, who dislike S1 and think Sinclair was played woodenly, either didn't see The Gathering or just plain didn't understand the whole "There is a hole in your mind" and Sinclair's survivor's guilt. I seen, many, many people complain that O'Hare played Sinclair wooden. But, IMHO, it wasn't wooden, it was Conflicted, incomplete and Survivor's Guilt, and I think he did a fantastic job of playing the part to portray that. This is one problem with skipping The Gathering, which many people think is horrible, or skipping all or part of Season 1. You just don't fully understand who Sinclair was. Boxleitner, at first, I thought he was just too happy and chipper, and when ep 2.01 Points of Departure first aired, and I found out that Sinclair was gone, and Boxleitner had been cast to run the station, I remember groaning about them having replaced Sinclair with Scarecrow from Scarecrow and Mrs. King. But, again, that was chipperness was all part of his arc. The man we see Sheridan as at the end, is far different than the one who came to the station so fresh faced and innocent. Boxleitner (And JMS) did a fantastic job of taking Sheridan down that road. Both men did an outstanding job playing their roles, and both characters were fantastic and had great arcs.
While I love Boxleitner's portrayal of Sheridan, I generally think that O'hare gets a bum rapp from most B5 watchers. I don't think Sinclair was well served by many of the S1 scripts either. That said, I do think that the Sheridan character in general had a wider range of stories to be told with than Sinclair, so the change was probably for the best in the long run. Of course, given what we now know about O'hare, his departure is even sadder than it was at the time.
Bit of an unfair contest since we only got one season (and change) of Sinclair while Sheridan had over 4 seasons to fully develop. Plus when we first meet Sinclair he was already a character haunted by his past. By contrast, Sheridan started off almost happy-go-lucky (dead wife not withstanding.) It actually took him 4 years to get to the place Sinclair started from. So yeah, I voted Sinclair for personal preference.
My votes for Sinclair every time . He was a much more interesting character and O'Hare a more interesting actor. I really took him to heart. I wouldn't call O'Hares acting as 'wooden' at all but his portrayal of a battle worn Sinclair with a hole in his mind. Micheal O'Hare and first Na'Toth Caitlin Brown leaving the show almost put me off watching it. Though the story and other characters kept me interested i wonder how it could have been if only. Such a shame they had to leave.
I loved both but Sharidan was developed more. I remember watching War Without End and I was excited for the twist. I wish Sinclair was in more episodes after he left the regular slot.
I think the point of Garibaldi's clownishness works well with Sinclair. The fool is a purposeful persona to get past Sinclair's mask. With Sheridan, Garibaldi just seems a laid back dude. I like both Sheridan and Sinclair but if I could have only one for the whole run I'd chose Sinclair.
Actually, I would say once Sheridan came onboard Garibaldi became more serious and less clownish. Firstly because he'd been shot in the back and that made him more distrustful, secondly because the CO and one of his best friends was suddenly gone and someone he didn't know was in Sinclair's place. Later on, of course, we're not quite seeing the real Garibaldi and he grows even more humorless.