Would you like looks, uniforms and such re-imagined?
- Thread starter gamer1
- Start date
Saying, unequivocally, that Babylon 5's VFX were "bad" presumes that there's some all-encompassing standard when it comes to how the qualify of VFX are judged, which, to my knowledge, isn't something that actually exists. It's also a false equivalency to try and compare B5's VFX to those of Star Trek because the way said VFX were being generated was entirely different.
B5's effects were bad when compared to Star Trek show produced at the same time. And it is not false equivalency. That they used different methods does not change the fact that one looks superior. It is like saying that you cannot compare razor resulting a better shave than a lawnmower, because different methods were used.
^ Yes. I would agree that B5's space effects were objectively bad in comparison to televised Trek from the same years. By what standard? By the standard of what looks like real physical objects to the human eye.
I'm glad they didn't go with that.
Kor
I'm glad they didn't go with that.
Kor
B5's effects were better than Trek's by some standards - often more dynamically staged and more imaginative. DS9's battles consisted of stacking a bunch of little ship elements in the frame and moving them from right to left; B5 did better than that on almost a weekly basis.
By "the standard of what looks more like real physical objects to the human eye," the TV series Mama's Family is objectively better than the entire comic book run of The Fantastic Four. Not everyone would agree.
B5's effects look like animation, it's true, and animation is an art form in itself. Trek's effects look like real objects - they look like real models of spaceships. Neither are realistically convincing simulations of what they're supposed to represent.
By "the standard of what looks more like real physical objects to the human eye," the TV series Mama's Family is objectively better than the entire comic book run of The Fantastic Four. Not everyone would agree.
B5's effects look like animation, it's true, and animation is an art form in itself. Trek's effects look like real objects - they look like real models of spaceships. Neither are realistically convincing simulations of what they're supposed to represent.
I honestly just find old graphics to be stylistic these days - years of playing 16 bit games long after their time, etc, just makes me look at pixel art as a choice rather than limitation - modern games that use it (say Hyper Light Drifter) look beautiful.
When I watch TOS I see the sets and bright colours as being like some sort of impressionistic style and just accept what they are trying to represent.
When I watch B5, which sometimes had far more dynamic and epic space scenes than any other show I can think of, I don't really see the CGI.
It would be nice if people accepted retro TV like retro video games. I recommended someone a TOS episode yesterday - The Devil in the Dark, because I felt it symbolised Trek at its best - but fellow fans told me it was a poor choice. To me, the imagination is left to do work - the Horta looks alien and strange - the mining colony evokes an exotic locale.
When I watch TOS I see the sets and bright colours as being like some sort of impressionistic style and just accept what they are trying to represent.
When I watch B5, which sometimes had far more dynamic and epic space scenes than any other show I can think of, I don't really see the CGI.
It would be nice if people accepted retro TV like retro video games. I recommended someone a TOS episode yesterday - The Devil in the Dark, because I felt it symbolised Trek at its best - but fellow fans told me it was a poor choice. To me, the imagination is left to do work - the Horta looks alien and strange - the mining colony evokes an exotic locale.
I love retro TV from the fifties and sixties; I absolutely live for that stuff.
But for the most part I have hardly any interest at all in retro TV from the seventies through the nineties.
Kor
Looking at some of B5's space scenes now, and understanding more about how video/TV/film is produced, I would say that the worst thing about them is the weird soap opera frame-rate.
Kor
The other thing is they kind of pioneered simulated shaky-cam and evening-news rack-zooms which was copied for nuBSG and everything since. I kind of accepted that style with B5 since it was new at the time but now it just feels like a (hopefully passing) fashion-trend ala bell bottoms and big lapels.
You mean besides shows like MASH, Hill Street Blues, and St. Elsewhere?
ETA: Also, you seem to confuse "Shaky Cam" with hand-held work. This is a bit of a pet peeve of mine.
Last edited:
I think Scotty sums up my feelings on the B5 comparisons. It might have been a revolutionary thing, it might not have been. Either way it looked cheap. Most of B5 did. Trek in it's worst hour looked boring, but never cheap.
My opinion of B5 is generally pretty low in that most of is, as Pegg says, shit. However, even now, I think the Nightwatch trilogy is the high-point of space-based TV since season 1 of TOS--nuBSG, Expanse, Firefly, etc. all included.
And yet, it's easy to be pulled-out of one of the most intense and dramatic space battles ever because Bruce McGill's rickety chair looks like it's going to collapse under his own weight.
There's nothing cheap about a Ferengi! (unless he's tipping)
Sadly, yes :/ It was a weird one. I really liked the era of the cast in different places, G'Kar losing an eye etc - but even it's hard not to put it in the same visual category as Lexx.
I was talking about the cringeworthy alien planet set complete with cheesy fog FX. It looks cheaper than a 1960's Lost In Space set.
I wonder what the emblem is for. Tholian division?
I suppose the simplest assumption it's just the new command.
I suppose the simplest assumption it's just the new command.
Similar threads
