Revisiting Babylon 5...

[Warped9]

Last year I picked of B5's 1st season on dvd. Man, it was wonderful to revisit this series which I haven't seen for many years. And last week I picked up the 2nd season and spent this past weekend on a B5 marathon of that season. Again wonderful.

I was reminded of why I loved this show. The first half dozen episodes of 1st season are a bit rocky, but it quickly gets its legs, particularly in the second half of the season. And then the 2nd season just flows beautifully.

I re-experienced all those moments that made me smile from watching a good show, enjoying the characters, the stories, the writing. I laughed again at the wonderful use of humour that kept things grounded. And even though I knew what was coming I still felt myself react appropriately in all the right places.

When I first got into B5 it was because I'd found a show that generally wasn't predictable, but I was assured that I knew it would be a good ride.

One oddity is watching the episodes back-to-back. When I watched the show initially I saw it weekly, of course. A few days later I'd get together with friends to discuss it over dinner. We'd speculate on what we saw and where things might go. And between episodes there was the illusion that things were happening in the B5 universe between the high points of the episodes. It was great. Seeing the episodes back-to-back, though, you kind of lose that illusion.

Still, it's great revisiting this again. And this week I'll be picking up seasons 3, 4 and 5 on dvd to continue my little marathon. Then I'll just have to collect the B5 made-for-TV movies to make the collection complete.

The original Star Trek remains my overall favourite science fiction series, but Babylon 5 is a very close second.

 

[Tulin]

I remember Joe saying writing B5 was like going up to the station's windows, peaking in and then running away to quickly write down what he saw. So your statement about things seeming to go on between episodes feels right.

For me, B5 was as real a "place" as a fictional setting for a tv show could be. Those characters had a reality to them that no other show's characters did.

It was a good time, watching the show back in the mid-nineties, for the first time and I don't know if anything will ever be like that again.

 

[RoJoHen]

The B5 movies have their own box set, FYI. You'd probably have to buy it online, though. I don't think I've ever seen it in stores.

 

[stonester1]

B5 is still my favorite, though the new Battlestar Galactica is a close second.

 

[FordSVT]

The wife and I watched the series last year. It was the first time she'd seen it, and I hadn't watched since its original run.

It was a bit rocky, but good. Lots of memorable characters, the best being the Londo/G'Kar relationship. They made this show, IMO. Some of the acting is just..... bad. Like they didn't always have the time (or money) for a second take. And sometimes the dialogue... you know when you write something that is supposed to sound spontaneous and instead it feels really forced? Happened all the time, takes me out of the moment. Ivonova's "I am death" speech is highly regarded for some reason, I thought it was incredibly overwrought and melodramatic and it makes me cringe. I didn't like Michael O'Hare as Sinclair, I thought Boxleitner as Sheridan was a far superior leader and character. It always felt like Sinclair was just there to take up space so that he could show up later in the series as Valen.

So she liked it, and I liked it, but I wouldn't put it in my top five series.

We watched DS9 earlier this year, she hadn't seen it before either, and she liked it MUCH better than B5. When B5 was over she said "that was good". When DS9 was over she was actually depressed there wasn't more. Like B5 though, we both thought the show was at it's best when dealing with the conlfict and its effect on the characters. To be honest, I liked DS9 more after I watched it this time (third maybe?) than I ever have before, forced me to bring out some of my relaunch novels.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I just got finished watching this series for the first time. It was enjoyable, with some memorable characters and performances, and an epic storyline, but I often felt like the characters suffered, taking a back seat to the plot. Londo and G'Kar were easily the most well-developed characters in the series, while others got seriously shortchanged. Sheridan rarely seemed like a genuine character; he came off more as a plot device, leading the series into whatever direction the story required. The buildup to his relationship with Delenn came off as very forced to me, which is a shame, because I know JMS intended to treat romantic relationships in a mature fashion on this show. Once they were together, it was quite believable, but the process of getting there felt phony, somehow.

I'm also not a fan of Garibaldi being used by Bester to set up and capture Sheridan. The way Bester described his brainwashing was ambiguous enough to all but absolve Garibaldi of any responsibility for his actions. For a show that often dealt in shades of gray, it's interesting to me that no one who opposed Sheridan's civil war was portrayed as credible or honorable, other than a few throwaway characters who lamented that it wasn't the job of the military to influence policy or initiate regime change. That came off more as hand-wringing than genuine conviction in opposition of Sheridan's agenda.

Don't get me wrong, I think Sheridan was right to fight Clark, but surely there must have been people who were legitimately suspicious of his motives and willing to step up against him on that basis, rather than just being fascist assholes who supported Clark's despotic rule. Garibaldi was the only person who expressed such misgivings with any elaboration, and he turned out to be brainwashed! The implication is troubling: "Only brainwashed dupes and slaughterers of civilians could oppose Sheridan!"

That said, I appreciated the slow burn of the early seasons, culminating in the Shadow War and the Earth Civil War. With Morden, you could tell Londo was biting off more than he could chew, and would only realize he was in too deep once it was too late. The price he paid in season 5 is a fine finale to his arc, as far as I'm concerned.

G'Kar's evolution was more subtle, as he was always a fairly philosophical guy, but he learned to become more thoughtful overall, even when it came to the Centauri. I appreciated his difficulty in getting other Narns to see his side of things without canonizing him--you could see all the hints of a violent, repressive religion coming out of the distortions of his writings. In that sense, I consider him a tragic character, as the lessons he intended to teach fell on deaf ears focused primarily on revenge and military superiority.

So, those were the two most interesting character arcs, to me. After that would have to be Kosh, who was often enigmatic, but through his actions demonstrated a deep affection for the younger races, and humans in particular. He was, after all, willing to reveal himself to save Sheridan, and died--twice!--in defense of Sheridan. For a character who spoke so little, you could sense the contrast between Kosh and Ulkesh almost immediately. It would not surprise me if Kosh felt some level of guilt over the manipulation of the younger races, specifically the creation of telepaths, given his attachment to Lyta.

Speaking of Lyta, after her return she was given some very strong motives, which continued to develop through the remainder of the series. You always knew why she was doing what she did, even when you didn't agree with it. Driven to desperate measures and all that. It was also interesting to watch her explore her abilities, which even she didn't know the full extent of. My only gripe is that we never got to see what became of her after she departed with G'Kar.

So, on to the characters that I don't think were as well-developed:

Ivanova -- Tough-as-nails CO with a soft side. We've seen it a million times before. Neither Christian's performance nor the details of her character's background made her very interesting to watch. It's a shame, because I think they could've gotten a very interesting character out of her, and we got hints of it from time to time, but she feels like a wasted opportunity to me.

Winters -- Really, what was the point of Talia, other than to stand in for Lyta until Tallman came back? Talk about shortchanged. Even JMS admits Winters was just a replacement for Tallman, and she became redundant as soon as Lyta became a permanent fixture again.

Franklin -- Other than his stim addiction storyline, which was alternately handled both very well and very badly, he was usually there just to play the role of the noble healer. The climax of his addiction storyline, which involved him facing up to a manifested version of his own demons, was surreal, to say the least. I appreciate the effort, but it just didn't work for me. It was just weird. It might be because B5 played it straight with just about everything else, so having any of those "mindfuck" elements show up really comes out of left field.

Delenn -- She was softened as a character by becoming half-human, but through the course of the series, her personality didn't change much. She was always even-handed, but willing to wreck tradition with abandon when she felt she was right. I get the feeling she existed primarily to "tame" Sheridan and be a symbol for human-Minbari cooperation.

Marcus -- Defined chiefly by his unrequited love for Ivanova, his death didn't have much impact on me. He added levity to dark situations, and it was nice to have a Ranger in the main cast, but did he really add much, or exist as a fully-defined character?

Vir -- For the thankless task of trying to talk Londo out of all the stupid things he ended up doing anyway, he got to become Emperor. Enough said.

Lennier -- Another character whose principal motivation is unrequited love. Yikes. Is JMS trying to tell us something? His last-minute "betrayal" of Sheridan rang false in so many ways, I don't even know where to begin. It was like, "oh, shit, Lennier's supposed to betray the Rangers, how do we cram that into our penultimate script?!" I don't object to the notion itself, just the way it was done. It seems a bit cruel to assassinate his character at the last minute like that, and then not even have him in the series finale, so you don't know what came of it.

Garibaldi -- A decent guy with some serious problems, who was all but assassinated by that ridiculous Bester brainwashing storyline. I'm happy with where he ended up, but I feel like we wasted almost an entire season on things he did that he wasn't responsible for.

Lochley -- Not much to say here. A one-season replacement for Ivanova. The actress did a pretty good job given her limited screen time, but here is another person defined by their relationship with Sheridan.

Overall, I consider B5 a good series with some flaws. It's clear to me that the characters played second fiddle to the epic story JMS was telling. It stands in sharp contrast to DS9, which was usually character-focused and often kicked any ongoing plot concerns into the background if it meant telling a good character piece. I'm not sure which is better, since they had different goals. I personally prefer DS9, but that's likely because my bias is toward character analysis rather than plot dissection.

Whew, that was a lot of typing. Sorry if I tl;dr'ed any of you.

 

[Scotty]

^^ Well said. I watched B5 for the first time last year. I really wanted to like it but just didn't because none of the characters felt real to me.

 

[FordSVT]

Overall, I consider B5 a good series with some flaws. It's clear to me that the characters played second fiddle to the epic story JMS was telling. It stands in sharp contrast to DS9, which was usually character-focused and often kicked any ongoing plot concerns into the background if it meant telling a good character piece. I'm not sure which is better, since they had different goals. I personally prefer DS9, but that's likely because my bias is toward character analysis rather than plot dissection.

Babylon 5 is ten times the show Heroes is, but without bringing up quality I think they have something in common. Too many of the characters feel like cardboard cut outs that simply exist to move the plot line. Too often they do what they do because the plot says one of them has to do it, and so you end up with:

1) situations where people do things really out of character or suddenly contract bi-polar disorder.

2) really transparent and predictable situations and actions leading to a lack of drama.

The writers didn't say "here's a situation and here are our characters, how would they react given their histories and personalities", they said, "this is the story we have to tell, how can we shoe-horn these arch types into the situation we need them to be in". They are fundamentally opposing methods of storytelling and can both be handled well or very poorly, but I prefer the character driven stories as well.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Overall, I consider B5 a good series with some flaws. It's clear to me that the characters played second fiddle to the epic story JMS was telling. It stands in sharp contrast to DS9, which was usually character-focused and often kicked any ongoing plot concerns into the background if it meant telling a good character piece. I'm not sure which is better, since they had different goals. I personally prefer DS9, but that's likely because my bias is toward character analysis rather than plot dissection.

Babylon 5 is ten times the show Heroes is, but without bringing up quality I think they have something in common. Too many of the characters feel like cardboard cut outs that simply exist to move the plot line. Too often they do what they do because the plot says one of them has to do it, and so you end up with:

1) situations where people do things really out of character or suddenly contract bi-polar disorder.

2) really transparent and predictable situations and actions leading to a lack of drama.

The writers didn't say "here's a situation and here are our characters, how would they react given their histories and personalities", they said, "this is the story we have to tell, how can we shoe-horn these arch types into the situation we need them to be in". They are fundamentally opposing methods of storytelling and can both be handled well or very poorly, but I prefer the character driven stories as well.

I think this reveals the weakness of JMS' "trapdoor" strategy. Every character is a replaceable cog. If someone wants off the show, they're gone--JMS has a backup handy. And yet, the course of the story doesn't change. The way it is told is altered somewhat by shuffling the characters around, but in the end, the characters serve the story, rather than the other way around, and the story doesn't unfold substantially differently.

I prefer my storytelling to be a bit more organic, I think, where the story emerges from the interactions of the characters.

That said, B5 was epic science fiction on a limited budget, and it pioneered CGI for sci-fi TV series. It is a landmark no matter how you slice it, and I give JMS the props he deserves for pulling that off, against the odds. I just think a lot of fans might cut B5 too much slack because of its underdog/dark horse status. It is certainly not without its problems.

 

[Harvey]

I have certainly been critical of aspects of the series in the past, but in the end, it's an important series in the pantheon of science fiction television, and I'm happy to own it on DVD. I'm less thrilled by the spin-offs and movies set in the same universe. I find them to be more academic footnotes than television that I'll return to regularly. But I'm a completest at heart.

 

[Warped9]

I'm sad how Crusade turned out...or didn't actually. I saw potential there. Just as I find B5 far more enjoyable and better than DS9 I think Crusade (if done well) could have wasted VOY, ENT and TNG as good space adventure.

I really liked A Call To Arms when it aired and I'm anxious to see it again.

In many ways I think B5 is the real spiritual successor to TOS than any of the official spinoffs.

I disagree that many of the characters had no purpose. One thing I liked about B5 is that it mirrored reality in that people come and go in our lives and we don't always know much of them when they arrive or much of what happens to them after they leave.

And while there were obviously soap opera aspects to the show I thought most of it related to the unfolding events of the story. This is in contrast to the soap opera aspects of other shows where what's happening often has nothing to do with the unfolding events. I suppose it's a matter of which you prefer.

 

[Warped9]

I'm generally not a fan of aborted shows. But Crusade was an exception. Candidly I couldn't stomach Galen the technomage much, but it had real potential. I'd have liked to see how it might have evolved and worked out its kinks.

 

[JoeD80]

Garibaldi was the only person who expressed such misgivings with any elaboration, and he turned out to be brainwashed! The implication is troubling: "Only brainwashed dupes and slaughterers of civilians could oppose Sheridan!"

The brainwashing was not Bester implanting thoughts out of whole cloth in Garibaldi; It was based on Garibaldi's actual feelings, just "enhanced" by Bester. It wasn't a reprogramming (as even stated by the Psi Cop, "shouldn't we do a full reprogramming?" "No", Bester says) -- it was an intensifying of emotions so that Garibaldi would react more, but it's still based on what Garibaldi actually felt.

 

[Mistral]

I prefer to watch the show without putting it under the microscope. Was it perfect? No. Is it fun? Hell yes. And that is good enough for me.

 

[Warped9]

I prefer to watch the show without putting it under the microscope. Was it perfect? No. Is it fun? Hell yes. And that is good enough for me.

For me one of the tests is: does it do more right than wrong? In B5's case, hell yeah!

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Garibaldi was the only person who expressed such misgivings with any elaboration, and he turned out to be brainwashed! The implication is troubling: "Only brainwashed dupes and slaughterers of civilians could oppose Sheridan!"

The brainwashing was not Bester implanting thoughts out of whole cloth in Garibaldi; It was based on Garibaldi's actual feelings, just "enhanced" by Bester. It wasn't a reprogramming (as even stated by the Psi Cop, "shouldn't we do a full reprogramming?" "No", Bester says) -- it was an intensifying of emotions so that Garibaldi would react more, but it's still based on what Garibaldi actually felt.

That's what Bester said, but after he freed Garibaldi of the conditioning, Garibaldi never expressed misgivings about Sheridan again.

 

[Warped9]

Garibaldi was the only person who expressed such misgivings with any elaboration, and he turned out to be brainwashed! The implication is troubling: "Only brainwashed dupes and slaughterers of civilians could oppose Sheridan!"

The brainwashing was not Bester implanting thoughts out of whole cloth in Garibaldi; It was based on Garibaldi's actual feelings, just "enhanced" by Bester. It wasn't a reprogramming (as even stated by the Psi Cop, "shouldn't we do a full reprogramming?" "No", Bester says) -- it was an intensifying of emotions so that Garibaldi would react more, but it's still based on what Garibaldi actually felt.

That's what Bester said, but after he freed Garibaldi of the conditioning, Garibaldi never expressed misgivings about Sheridan again.

Hmm... That sort of experience could change someone's perspective.

 

[Reverend]

It wasn't a full reprogram, but the implanted suggestions did increase and crystallise over time, as Bester described. It was cumulative and subtle to the point where you couldn't tell when the "true" Garibaldi was fully submerged. Remember Bester said he could still feel the real Michael, buried and beating at the inside of his skull.

 

[Warped9]

I've just started in on 3rd season and just finished the first disc with one of my favourite B5 episodes, "Passing Through Gethsamane."

One of the things I really liked about B5 are many of its guest characters are just as good as the main cast. Many of them seem able to convey so much with mostly so little. Wonderful. I really liked Brother Theo.

 

[Warped9]

I just finished watching Season 4. I love the humour in this series, the way it grounds the characters and makes more three dimensional.

I've just started Season 5 and hit the first stinker, "The Very Long Night Of Londo Mollari." The first B5 episode I've ever encountered that threatened to put me to sleep.

One of the things I liked about the end of Season 4 and beginning of Season 5 is it made me think about how the UFP in Star Trek could have gotten started. I certainly prefer it to what was shown in ENT. B5 also made me think about what the early to mid 22nd century in Trek could have been more like.