Interesting take. Thank you for Sharing
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
Interesting take. Thank you for Sharing
My two cents on Babylon 5:
- Production is notably worse than DS9 on basically every level, from sets to VFX.
- Acting is way, way worse. That's not to say that the acting is all bad by any means. Some of the performances were stellar - like Andreas Katsulas as G'Kar, and Peter Jurasik as Londo. Most of the other regulars were...fine...but some were pretty bad. As were many of the guest stars.
- While JMS did have a five-year plan for the show, it wasn't properly realized for several reasons. In order to "prove his chops" regarding the show, he was forced to have a mostly episodic Season 1, which his heart wasn't in. Not to mention the original lead for the show didn't work out, and wasn't good on the first season either. So season 2 was almost a reboot, and things built to greatness by Season 3. But then Season 4 was rushed, because they got word of cancelation, meaning JMS shoved the planned plot arc for two seasons into a single season. And then there was a surprise fifth season, when the story had already been told, and some of main cast had left, leaving it another semi-episodic afterthought.
- This is a matter of taste, but I really prefer the looser, character-based storytelling arcs of DS9 to the "big plot" style of Babylon 5. Part of this may be because a lot of the story of Babylon 5 really seems to be Tolkien in space.
Did Spock pass on his gayness to McCoy in Star Trek III, or more specifically his green blooded admiration for Jim's strong arms?
Steve Shives makes a lot of entertaining videos, and this one is no exception. I personally don't believe that Kirk and Spock are gay (or bi, for that matter), but I totally get why some fans do. If you don't see yourself reflected in media, you often go to subtext, whether it's intentional or not.
But IMO some folks can get carried away with insisting that Kirk and Spock are so close with each other that they simply MUST be gay. Every time I hear that, I think "Heterosexual male friendship is still a thing that exists."
For all the superficial similarities, I found them very different shows and I love them both. But, as a whole, I think DS9 is a bit better.
I'm at the point where I don't see much point in comparing them anymore, other than they were both shows that took place primarily on space stations that aired around the same time. I can watch and enjoy both, the same way I can watch and enjoy Homicide: Life on the Street and NYPD Blue. (Although I love HLOTS way more.)
I'm surprised to hear this and not surprised at the same time. This seemed pretty common in the '90s.
This part I did know about, though. They wrapped everything up, then found out they were having a Season 5. Oops! This actually reminds me of what happened with Breaking Bad where, at the end of Season 4, Hector blew himself up with Gus, Heisenberg blew up the lab, then makes the call to Skyler saying, "It's over." Aaaaand then we get Season 5!
Hmmm.
.
.
.
As far as the effects and production values: I'm not going to be hard on it. It was made in the '90s and it wasn't Star Trek. There was only going to be so much of a budget.
Missed this before, so I'd like to comment.
I personally think that B5's lighting, makeup, and costumes were consistently better than TNG and DS9's. With the sets, yeah, the tight budget showed more. And the computer graphics, though impressive at the time, have unfortunately not aged well. Nothing ages faster than CGI.
The acting of some of the guest stars was variable, but I thought most of the regulars were great. Bruce Boxleitner, Claudia Christian, Mira Furlan, Bill Mumy, Richard Biggs, Peter Jurasik, Stephen Furst, Andreas Katsulas, Jason Carter, Jeff Conaway and others... I loved them all. Michael O'Hare could be rather dry and I thought Tamlyn Tomita had problems in the pilot movie (largely owing to her redubbing the part). Sometimes Jerry Doyle's lack of experience came through. The worst major guest star I can remember was Robin Atkin Downes as Byron. He just didn't have the charisma the part called for.
Yeah, JMS got more than his share of hardships in the show, and the seams tended to show when he had to write out one actor/character and insert another one in their place to perform more or less the same plot function. The middle seasons of the show, S2-4, are undeniably the best ones, I think. S5 was pretty disappointing, because the padding was obvious, the departed regulars were greatly missed, and a couple of the character arcs had random, WTF endings.
I hope JMS gets a chance to do the reboot he's been trying to get off the ground. I'd be neat to see a version of B5 that hopefully goes more according to plan.
I think the big advantage B5 had over DS9 was you could really tell they knew where they were going, to the point that you could look back at B5 episodes from a year or two before and see bits of foreshadowing that went over your head the first time. DS9 tended to lurch into one direction for 6-8 episodes, then go, "Well, that was fun. Let's do something else now" and then change course for the next few episodes.
Last edited:
Lord Garth...
I will say this... I am a huge fan of both B5 and DS9. Both are very different but also very similar shows at the same time. Both did incredible world building for their shows, especially showing the politics of their main races. Each had outstanding character arcs with certain characters. (As this is a first watch for you, I will avoid saying who so you can judge on your own, despite the series being about 30 years old.)
Along with FARSCAPE and THE TWILIGHT ZONE (1959), I put both DS9 and B5 in my four shows I use as a barometer on how I judge if another series is great or not. (All for different reasons, as each excelled in different areas.)
I can say with confidence that you will not be losing by watching both shows at once.
I truly do look forward to your comparative views on these shows, as I've found we agree on multiple things in STAR TREK and we are the same age.
I will say this... I am a huge fan of both B5 and DS9. Both are very different but also very similar shows at the same time. Both did incredible world building for their shows, especially showing the politics of their main races. Each had outstanding character arcs with certain characters. (As this is a first watch for you, I will avoid saying who so you can judge on your own, despite the series being about 30 years old.)
Along with FARSCAPE and THE TWILIGHT ZONE (1959), I put both DS9 and B5 in my four shows I use as a barometer on how I judge if another series is great or not. (All for different reasons, as each excelled in different areas.)
I can say with confidence that you will not be losing by watching both shows at once.
I truly do look forward to your comparative views on these shows, as I've found we agree on multiple things in STAR TREK and we are the same age.
I totally agree with this. And I always thought it was petty of JMS to stoke the idea among Babylon 5 fans that Paramount "stole" his ideas to create DS9, which from everything I have ever read about the creation and production of DS9 was just not true.
In a rewatch of B5, one thing that really stuck out about the writing was the tendency of JMS to turn every scene into a character giving a long-winded speech, either that's supposed to be really deep and meaningful or sarcastically witty. And sometimes actors like Peter Jurasik and Andreas Katsulas can really pull that off great, and sometimes the c-list actors in the scenes seem really goofy and cringe doing it.
People have argued, after Discovery, that Trek works better when it's NOT heavily serialized. I've always thought it interesting that Babylon 5 seems to have the exact opposite problem. It worked well within that planned 5-year serialized structure, but every time JMS has tried to expand on it (e.g., Crusade, Legend of the Rangers, etc.) to make it more episodic and a more Trek-like universe, the result is never as good.
I rewatched DS9 and B5 alongside each other a while back and it was nice to confirm that they're both great shows, among my favourites of all time... but DS9 season 1 does not benefit from the comparison, especially if you know that the show has its own big story arcs coming eventually. There's nothing wrong with it not being serialised, Babylon 5's first season is also very episodic, but B5 wastes no time planting mysteries and hints that interesting things are coming, while DS9 starts off feeling like a series with no purpose and nowhere to go. (It gets better).
One other issue I had watching the two shows simultaneously: B5 has five seasons and DS9 has seven. Though I suppose you could just watch the first 3 seasons together, then give B5 a break until it's time to watch the last 2 seasons. That way you can properly feel the pain UK viewers felt when we had to wait 43 weeks for season 4
One other issue I had watching the two shows simultaneously: B5 has five seasons and DS9 has seven. Though I suppose you could just watch the first 3 seasons together, then give B5 a break until it's time to watch the last 2 seasons. That way you can properly feel the pain UK viewers felt when we had to wait 43 weeks for season 4
O'Hare was perhaps the most wooden lead I've ever seen on a show. I know he was suffering from mental health issues (hence his quitting after a single season) but he was a black hole of charisma. Richard Biggs also was extremely limited in range. Jerry Doyle played Garabaldi with a very "everyman" vibe that I think worked within the show, but it clashed pretty heavily with some of the more actorly presences on the show.
Again, I could watch Lando and G'Kar verbally spar for ages. It's a real shame that the rest of the cast didn't climb to quite that level. But the thing is - comparing it to DS9, nearly everyone was at that level in terms of acting chops. Only Cirroc Lofton and Terry Farrell were around the acting level of the bulk of the Babylon 5 cast. Arguably Alexander Siddig near the start too, but he improved so massively over the first few years.
Different topic, but: This is a trope I actually do like a whole lot and wish would come back!
Like, having a character that consistently has a different view on most topics than the actual lead characters (and by extension the writers). Often advocating for the wrong, aggressive, obvious solution. But who is still firmly a "good guy" main character, and sometimes right. And who (and who's opinion) is always treated with respect, and who respects and follows the decisions of others.
On DIS it often felt the characters were arguing while always agreeing with each other. But it helps SO MUCH to include actually different opinions on a show, of nothing else then simply to engage honestly with different view points.
I personally wouldn't go so far as to call Michael O'Hare "wooden." I think "dry" and "restrained" covers it well.
But I definitely think JMS was overstating it in the early days of Babylon 5 when he said that O'Hare had a similar sort of presence to Sean Connery. (JMS could occasionally get carried away when he was hyping B5.)
When did TNG show Worf to be right with Picard and Riker being wrong? I honestly can't think of any examples off the top of my head.
I'm fine with Worf having a different POV from the other characters on the show. I just think they should've showed him as being correct more often than they did, just for variety's sake if nothing else. Him being wrong every time out just made him look incompetent and hotheaded.
Yup, I agree with Bill on this one. I thoroughly enjoy the characters a lot, and a lot more of them on B5 than Deep Space Nine.
One argument that I remember the people involved with Deep Space Nine made for why they didn't specifically address the normalcy of homosexuality and same-sex relationships when they did "Rejoined," and used a Trill taboo as a metaphor, is that by not specifying anything significant about same-sex relationships in depicting it is a statement in-and-of itself.
That, similar to how no one hardly ever acknowledges racial and gender differences because Star Trek exists in a future where humanity has overcome those social issues, the fact none of the characters think it strange, weird, or have a reaction to Dax considering a relationship with a woman speaks to the normalcy of a spectrum of sexuality in the 24th century, in the same way no one ever specifically is amazed by a Black man being the captain of a starship/space station or a woman being in charge of Voyager to point it out.
I do wonder if you could make the argument that maybe in the 23rd and 24th centuries the "flexibility" of sexual preferences may have expanded to the point that no one would be surprised by bisexuality? I do think the franchise overall usually assumes the heterosexuality of the characters (i.e., you never see an attractive man come on-board the Enterprise and any of the male characters show interest in a way that it has been implied to the female characters). I know Russell T. Davies made that a part of the Doctor Who universe with the Jack Harness character, where The Doctor specifically mentions that human culture in the future has become one where specific sexual preferences have become a more antiquated notion.
I do remember when Star Trek Beyond came out, and depicted the Kelvin Universe version of Sulu in a same-sex relationship, George Takei made news when he stated that he felt the TOS version of Sulu was straight because that's what Roddenberry intended and that's how he played the character.
I will give him this, JMS has never claimed Berman or Piller specifically knew or stole any B5 ideas with DS9.
"I have never, *ever* felt, or believed, or thought, that Berman or Pillar EVER saw or knew about the B5 information. Had anyone suggested anything of a less than straightforward nature, they would have refused; of that I have no doubt." (JMSNews 6/19/1995)
It's more of a general, well I had an idea to do the western first, but the other studio decided to do their own version of a western. I mean I can understand his frustration seeing his idea be rejected, and similar ideas used in something else imperiling your own show's viability, but you can't claim the entire space station genre any more than Star Trek can lay claim to every version of a "starship traveling in space" dramas.
JMS also claims that they stole his ideas for the new Ghostbusters movie. Whatever.
Well, you're right, but also not exactly what I meant.
When Worf was pitted directly against Picard or Riker, he was usually wrong (season 1 often cartoonishly so, later more subtle).
However - there were often times where Worf conciously took the choice the others disagreed with (e.g. that stupid pain ceremony, leaving the Federation to fight in the Klingon civil war, his spine operation), simply because it's the choice during to his values and opinion.
And lastly, Worf is often enough the focus point for episodes where the episodes follow his choices (e.g. the Romulan/Klingon prisoners colony), and his choices are both in line with his character but also treated as "right".
So, while I agree with your second point, I still think he's a well rounded character that works by giving the alternative, "wrong" opinion some serious weight, because of and without losing his hero status. And while yes, it becomes a trope that he's usually wrong, it's also a much better solution than having all the characters always agree with eachother & the writers, or having an evil/stupid character (like Stargate's Senator Kinsey) being the wrong one - in both cases the viewpoint opposite to the writers often is glossed over/misrepresented/strawmanned. Having Worf there, means the opposing argument is (in theory at least) acknowledged and given serious consideration. It COULD be the right solution after all.
Also, there's this:
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
