• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

So, Babylon 5 on FX (UK), why not?

Where did Lou Welch disappear to?

One of the books actually addresses that, although I don't recall which one.

Legions of Fire. Book two, I believe. The character you refer to doesn't have much of a role. In fact.

As I recall, Welch shows up to do some investigative work, and is pretty quickly killed off by the Drakh.
 
^That's what I mean. What happened between that and season 2?
Not that I actually mind or anything, it's just an example of one of many untold stories who's absence doesn't detract for the main arc.

While Kosh is certainly more open minded and "liberal" than most other Vorlons like Ulkesh, I'd hardly call him an adventurous hippy.

He is for a Vorlon.

:techman:

Not really. They actually cared about him, and Ulkesh at least respected him. At worst they considered him to be a little "soft".
 
^That's what I mean. What happened between that and season 2?
Not that I actually mind or anything, it's just an example of one of many untold stories who's absence doesn't detract for the main arc.

While Kosh is certainly more open minded and "liberal" than most other Vorlons like Ulkesh, I'd hardly call him an adventurous hippy.

He is for a Vorlon.

:techman:

Not really. They actually cared about him, and Ulkesh at least respected him. At worst they considered him to be a little "soft".

?

To say that Kosh was a hippy is NOT to say the other Vorlons disliked him. It's to say he was a HIPPY, full stop, the end.
 
So, "Believers". When I first watched Babylon 5, this was the episode that really raised the bar for me. It broached a serious ethical problem from a fairly complex standpoint, had a knockout downer of an ending (a surprising twist to me, who was so used to the often pat Trek solution), and showed that by god, that Richard Biggs guy could really carry an episode.
Everything you said was true for me as well :techman:. Going through the show for the first time maybe 5 years ago now, I was REALLY on the fence until "Believers" came up. Your comment on pat Trek solutions is right on the nose. This was when I first realized B5 was going to be something different.

The only problem was the pretty terrible Ivanova vs. the Raiders sub-plot, since 1. like many Trek A/B plot structures, the B story hugely stole the momentum of the A plot, and 2. it takes place when I don't think Christian was a very strong actress yet. Out of all the main cast, she took by far the longest to grow on me until I finally warmed up to her in late season 4. Bad timing on my opinion's part, though. :(
 
^That's what I mean. What happened between that and season 2?

IIRC, Garibaldi said Lou was tapped to be part of President Clark's security detail, and that's why he left Babylon 5. Lou resigned during the Civil War, and opened up his investigative business.
 
I go back and forth on Believers, but I hate Survivors. An important guest character never mentioned or seen again? Check. Garibaldi's alcohol problem treated lightly and resolved with a pat ending by episode's end? Check.

Not my favorite. Not at all.

I still consider Believers to be one of the best episodes at having an energized discussion that crosses a great many boundaries - science, religion, medical ethics, etc. And I don't need to repeat why, in my own case. ;)

As for Survivors, it certainly is not one of even S1's stronger episodes, for much of the reasons cited. However, regarding
at first I was shocked at how easily it seemed to be dismissed. Yet... it is addresses in passing and integrally in future episodes, such as GROPOS, where he turns down Dodger's offer of a drink. Then in season 5 it becomes a vital part of the story, due to what Bester does to him.
 
As for Survivors, it certainly is not one of even S1's stronger episodes, for much of the reasons cited. However, regarding
at first I was shocked at how easily it seemed to be dismissed. Yet... it is addresses in passing and integrally in future episodes, such as GROPOS, where he turns down Dodger's offer of a drink. Then in season 5 it becomes a vital part of the story, due to what Bester does to him.
Oddly enough, I found that part realistic.
That's not an unusual circumstance for an alcoholic to 'slip' and recover, sometimes for years. I know that the writer ended up unhappy that there were some humorous aspects while Garibaldi was drunk but the binge and recovery itself wasn't unrealistic.
Not that anybody said that it was...

Jan
 
Jan, I definitely agree with you, as I actually know people who have experienced similar cycles.
 
Seconded. I've even known an alcoholic to bring it under control to a level where he can drink "regularly" without loosing his grip (so far.) Of course I'd rather he didn't at all, but I'm not his mum, so what can you do?

As for Garibaldi, I think there's a bit in 'TKO' where he's out drinking with Walker Smith and doesn't get blitzed, but most people tend to skip that episode so it's easy to miss.
 
I've actually developed a bit of a soft spot for that episode (to my partial horror) though mostly due to how surprisingly well conceived and realised allot of the often overlooked background material is. In retrospect not THAT surprising when you see who wrote the episode. ;)
 
As for Garibaldi, I think there's a bit in 'TKO' where he's out drinking with Walker Smith and doesn't get blitzed, but most people tend to skip that episode so it's easy to miss.

Garibaldi tells him he'll only have water, and Walker thinks it a little strange but accepts it.
 
As for Garibaldi, I think there's a bit in 'TKO' where he's out drinking with Walker Smith and doesn't get blitzed, but most people tend to skip that episode so it's easy to miss.

Garibaldi tells him he'll only have water, and Walker thinks it a little strange but accepts it.

Thanks for posting that. I couldn't recall the exact dialogue from that scene, but I was pretty sure it had to do with Garibaldi drinking water.
 
I now bump my thread with a complete lack of shame. Why did it go dormant? I had recording difficulties with By Any Means Necessary (i.e. it didn't record and then I got lazy); but eventually I got back to this and now shamelessly plug my own thread for random observations from.. well, 3x16, "War Without End." Better I bloviate here then waste valuable space in someone else's thread, anyway.

It occurs to me upon rewatching another key to B5's devoted cult audience is this: It rewards geekiness. If you're the sort of geek who picks up and catalogues the little details and makes a note of the alien of the week; the show may make a passing reference to such a detail or even expand upon it. Here I mean the very little things like the Brecari or whatever they're called, who are mentioned several times in the second season before getting a speaking role in the third, and so on. One would almost expect a line noting the White Star had the name of a starship mentioned in the first season, B5 is so self-aware of the little things in its universe.

Further, and more spoilery,
Kosh that wily manipulator. He's quite the paternalist, literally so - forget appearing as angels to everybody, he appears as the Father to both G'Kar and Sheridan. While plenty of comments are cryptic just because they're left unelaborated (the new Kosh commenting on a 'closed circle' smacks of a bad joke more than anything else) the old Kosh's conversation with Sheridan regarding that he would no longer be there is probably the only Vorlon conversation with actual psychological depth, or so I'd prefer to read it: For once, Kosh holds back because he doesn't want sympathy for him to alter Sheridan's plan; he recognizes it as the right one but probably also knows that if Sheridan knew that the plan would cost Kosh's life he would not demand it. For a guy who spent two years on gibberish, Kosh ends with a sort of human compassion. Which is nice.

Of the rest, well, for me the show has always been the long dance of Londo Mollari and G'Kar. Each rewatch pretty much confirms that - I find so much fault with a lot of the show's stilted dialogue, flat exposition and occasionally unsubtle 'the universe and all morality according to JMS' slant; but Londo Mollari's story is
a straight up classic tragedy rather well told; with two mirrors: Vir as a Londo motivated chiefly by conscience; Refa as a Londo without any conscience, and Londo himself as the most tortured and sleepless human in the middle. You can yak all day about the army of light and how touching you find Sheridan/Delenn's romance; bah humbug I say. This is Londo's story, and Peter Jurasik sells so much about him. It's nice that in "The Long Twilight Struggle", we get one of the very few cinematic scenes in the entire series: Londo watching the bombing of Narn. For once, no exposition, no dialogue, just a tortured face and the death raining from above. A wise call to put that in the S3 credits, eh?

And speaking of tragedies, why not crib from MacBeth and use Majel Barrett to do it? This may be a better use of her then she was ever given in Star Trek, if I may be so bold.

And Franklin. Principled bastard but I do like the guy. Bester gets better from around his third appearance on; the moment he feels comfortable enough with the Babylon 5 team to exchange idle gibes coated in menace he becomes an infinitely more entertaining character, and definitely in retrospect the show's most interesting telepath. I find myself tolerating Talia more with each rewatch, but was never a fan.

Final random note:
I wasn't keen on the idea that the beings who resided at Sigma 957 could basically be neeener-neeener-neeneered into joining the Great War. What happened to the giants who we seemed like ants, if they're so easily arouse dat such a petulant gesture? I recognize the series needs humour but eh, that I didn't care for. But then it reminds me of this other plot point about the First Ones I'm not fond of... but this later.

Despite the complexity or interesting characteristics of some of the show's villains (where Sheridan's perpetual smiles feel awkward, Morden's are always slimy and creepy), there are also far too many straw men in the audience for my liking. The problem with them is their speeches don't sound like anything in their position would say, they sound like someone cariacaturing and clearly loathing their position would say.

This just gets annoying, and I've agreed with Temis elsewhere that JMS seems a little intent to make his bad guys seem small and weak compared to his heroes. It seems to fit his worldview to a point; goodness wins out, it's innately stronger; badness is weak and washed away. All well and good but when badness isn't allowed to shine it's annoying - even the occasionally unsubtle (just to remind people he's evil) Bester is better than most of the guest villains.
 
Last edited:
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top