As the old line goes, the Queen thinks everywhere except her own palaces smells of fresh paint...
Babylon 5
- Thread starter Kail
- Start date
Turhan didn't need a crest to accompany his status, everyone already knew who he was.
I think it was also a subtle allusion (if that's the right word) into his character. He was humble, even while being emperor, and so would be less worried about pride and "saving face" - willing to admit when his people were in the wrong - such as with the Centauri's treatment of the Narn people.
^^ You know, I was going to say the same thing. I have a pretty clear memory of it, but that doesn't mean I didn't make it up. I do have a pretty vivid imagination.
Well, actors get most of the glory. Writers might as well have the fun.I suspect the actors were just cat toys to the writers sometimes.
FWIW, JMS mentioned it a few times over the years so you may have already pictured it many times.
I'm wondering if they filmed the scene for the Crusade episode "The Needs of Earth". I'll have to go check. I may be some time... 
Nope, not that one.
Nope, not that one.
Last edited:
I don't think she was a Centauri, was she? ;-) (deliberately left as a sideways smiley in view of the episode...)I'm wondering if they did actually film it for the Crusade episode "The Needs of Earth". I'll have to go check. I may be some time...
There were a couple of actors that I think were female -- one looked to be human; the other seemed to have a white skin make-up applied and a big hair piece. I don't know if the second one was intended to be an hermaphrodite Centauri, perhaps. There was no obvious tentacle action and we never did get to see exactly how the Pak'ma'ra had been technologically assisted. It's not the sort of "art form" that exists in the Star Trek universe, as far as I'm aware, but then it has holosuites and holodecks.
I'm more curious exactly how they persuaded a pak'ma'ra to even participate. The only way one would be interested in a human or Centauri female's body is if it'd been dead for a few days.
Would it even have the slightest clue what was going on? I mean don't they reproduce asexually?
Would it even have the slightest clue what was going on? I mean don't they reproduce asexually?
Last edited:
If the organs in question not used for reproduction, I'd argue that the more correct term should be cloacae (singular cloaca; Latin for "sewer"). I wonder if the pak'ma'ra can use their cloacae for respiration while immersed in water in a similar way to some turtles or sea cucumbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloaca#Cloacal_respiration_in_animals
I like the Angler fish suggestion but I don't recall this being established onscreen. Was it mentioned in one of the novels or short stories?
IIRC that's an idea that was kicked around, but they never really followed up on it. It does seem to be alluded to however by the bartender in season 4.
An interesting and purely speculative way to reconcile the two versions would be to say the asexual version was based on pre-ISA data (appropriate since IIRC DiTillio wrote it during season 2's production) and it wasn't until Franklin started his comprehensive medical study of the member races that they discovered the fused "mate" in the hump. Most races were secretive about their biology before that point and with the pak'ma'ra people mostly didn't even want to know.
I'm doing a rewatch of Star Trek Deep Space Nine right now, which has led to contemplation about Babylon 5 and whether there's any actual validity to the oft-bandied-about rumor/theory that the producers of Star Trek stole the idea for DS9 from JMS, and, to be honest, I grow less and less convinced that there are as many similarities between the two series as perception says there are, and figured it'd be interesting to see if my fellow B5ers agree or disagree with me.
Babylon 5's defining characteristic, at least for me, has always been the fact that it was conceived of as a "novel for television" with a clear beginning, middle, and end and a slow and steady narrative progression from one point to the next, with ever-escalating and expanding conflicts that are interwoven throughout the entirety of the series from its first episode to its last, and while DS9 certainly comes to do something similar, I would argue that it does so in an entirely different fashion that sets it apart from B5 and makes it its own thing.
I would also argue that, conceptually, Babylon 5 and DS9 are two very different things. Babylon 5, with its explicit influences from The Lord of the Rings and its repeated references to stuff like Arthurian lore and Judeo-Christian philosophy and beliefs, is essentially a cross between Epic High Fantasy and Science Fiction, whereas Deep Space Nine clearly deliniates itself as being more of a "Western in Space", especially in the beginning.
I'm sure some people will point to the fact that both series end up dedicating a good chunk of their narrative to a massive war as an argument for why the one is a ripoff of the other, but if you actually look at the way those two storylines end up unfolding in relation to one another, I feel like a few key differences emerge.
The Shadow War is much more similar, IMO, to the War of the Ring from The Lord of the Rings in the way that it erupts along a clear 'delineation' line separating good from evil, whereas the Dominion War and the conflicts that precede it feel like and are structured more like three real-life conflicts: the War of 1812, the Civil War, and World War I, with all of the moral and ethical complications and quandaries associated with those conflicts.
Another thing that I know people will end up pointing to as evidence to support the "DS9 is a rip-off of Babylon 5" argument is that both series involve a major character turning out to be a "Christ figure" for a species other than their own, but I've always seen Sinclair as much more of a "Gandalf" archetype than a "Christ" archetype, which is the angle that I feel DS9's producers were always going for with Sisko, and that automatically makes the two characters very different.
I can't fault people for buying into the notion that the two series may have inspired and influenced one another in the broadest of contexts, but if you delve a bit deeper beneath the surface and analyze the two series, I feel like the notion that they're blatant rip-offs of each other starts to disappear and diminish.
Thoughts on this idea? Rebuttals? I await them all.
Babylon 5's defining characteristic, at least for me, has always been the fact that it was conceived of as a "novel for television" with a clear beginning, middle, and end and a slow and steady narrative progression from one point to the next, with ever-escalating and expanding conflicts that are interwoven throughout the entirety of the series from its first episode to its last, and while DS9 certainly comes to do something similar, I would argue that it does so in an entirely different fashion that sets it apart from B5 and makes it its own thing.
I would also argue that, conceptually, Babylon 5 and DS9 are two very different things. Babylon 5, with its explicit influences from The Lord of the Rings and its repeated references to stuff like Arthurian lore and Judeo-Christian philosophy and beliefs, is essentially a cross between Epic High Fantasy and Science Fiction, whereas Deep Space Nine clearly deliniates itself as being more of a "Western in Space", especially in the beginning.
I'm sure some people will point to the fact that both series end up dedicating a good chunk of their narrative to a massive war as an argument for why the one is a ripoff of the other, but if you actually look at the way those two storylines end up unfolding in relation to one another, I feel like a few key differences emerge.
The Shadow War is much more similar, IMO, to the War of the Ring from The Lord of the Rings in the way that it erupts along a clear 'delineation' line separating good from evil, whereas the Dominion War and the conflicts that precede it feel like and are structured more like three real-life conflicts: the War of 1812, the Civil War, and World War I, with all of the moral and ethical complications and quandaries associated with those conflicts.
Another thing that I know people will end up pointing to as evidence to support the "DS9 is a rip-off of Babylon 5" argument is that both series involve a major character turning out to be a "Christ figure" for a species other than their own, but I've always seen Sinclair as much more of a "Gandalf" archetype than a "Christ" archetype, which is the angle that I feel DS9's producers were always going for with Sisko, and that automatically makes the two characters very different.
I can't fault people for buying into the notion that the two series may have inspired and influenced one another in the broadest of contexts, but if you delve a bit deeper beneath the surface and analyze the two series, I feel like the notion that they're blatant rip-offs of each other starts to disappear and diminish.
Thoughts on this idea? Rebuttals? I await them all.
Only one thought: It's an over-twenty-five-year-old controversy. Let it go.
But if you must revisit it, at least start from the original items - the only items that JMS ever said were points of similarity. And before it comes up, he's said numerous times that he never thought that Berman/Pillar would have ever done anything dishonorable. That if there was any steering, it was from the people in the development area of the studio. http://jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-21068
Somebody ping me when this is over....
But if you must revisit it, at least start from the original items - the only items that JMS ever said were points of similarity. And before it comes up, he's said numerous times that he never thought that Berman/Pillar would have ever done anything dishonorable. That if there was any steering, it was from the people in the development area of the studio. http://jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-21068
Somebody ping me when this is over....
Really? Are my fellow B5 fans so sensitive about the issue, real or perceived, that there's nothing to be gleaned in the way of conversation beyond "it's a 25-year-old controversy that doesn't deserve to be brought up and that, if there's any validity to it, Paramount executives are to blame"?
As a fan of both series, I felt confident that this would be a subject that could be discussed civilly and would generate some interesting back-and-forth, and it's disappointing that the first response I get basically amounts to "be quiet and move on".
A - Don't ever put quotes around something I didn't say. [Ivanova] Are we perfectly, crystal clear?[/Ivanova]
B - At least some of your fellow B5 fans have sat through dozens of said discussions and we're simply sick of them. Sensitive? Try bored to tears.
I gave my thoughts as suggested and then provided some facts if the subject was going to be discussed anyway. What's the problem?
Yup.
Similar threads
