DS9 War?
Christopher Johnson
would really apreciate it if someone would get me up to speed. It'll
probanly make me mad because it's likely a B5 rip-off. But, then again,
Paramount did get the idea for DS9 by ripping off B5 to begin with.
-Christopher Johnson
Elton John Tucker
: I read a posting by JMS concerning a war on DS9. I don't watch DS9 and I
Umm.... something to the effect of the Klingons and the
Federation have some kind of lovers' quarrel. Pretty good sign
that the goobers at paramush have been listening to the focus
groups again.
* Elton Tucker ejtu...@acs.ucalgary.ca *
* http://www.ucalgary.ca/~ejtucker *
*"The Babylon Project was our last, best hope for peace. It failed. But,*
* in the Year of the Shadow War, it became something greater: our last, *
* best hope for... victory. The year is 2260. The place: Babylon 5." *
Peronet Despeignes
: I read a posting by JMS concerning a war on DS9. I don't watch DS9 and I
: would really apreciate it if someone would get me up to speed. It'll
: probanly make me mad because it's likely a B5 rip-off. But, then again,
: Paramount did get the idea for DS9 by ripping off B5 to begin with.
: -Christopher Johnson
It involves an advanced and authoritarian power from the Gama Quadrant
called the Dominion (led by an elite
of shapeshifters called the Founders), discovered at the end of the
last season by the DS9 crew. The Founders infiltrate several top
positions in the Federation and Starfleet and are manipulating things to
incite a war in the Alpha Quadrant. Current speculation is that tensions
are incited to disrupt the-so-far stable detente that has existed between
the Federation and the Klingon Empire since ST VI (Undiscovered Country).
From second hand news reports I've read over the 'net it looks like this
was a very abrupt change in plot direction made just a few months ago (at
the latest). It seems to be motivated by growing discouragement with DS9,
Voyager and the strong following of b5....but that's just speculation.
Perry D.
Peronet Despeignes
: Peronet Despeignes (desp...@fas.harvard.edu) wrote:
: : Christopher Johnson (cjoh...@puffin.Marymount.EDU) wrote:
: : It involves an advanced and authoritarian power from the Gama Quadrant
: : called the Dominion (led by an elite
: : of shapeshifters called the Founders), discovered at the end of the
: : last season by the DS9 crew. The Founders infiltrate several top
: : positions in the Federation and Starfleet and are manipulating things to
: : incite a war in the Alpha Quadrant. Current speculation is that tensions
: : are incited to disrupt the-so-far stable detente that has existed between
: : the Federation and the Klingon Empire since ST VI (Undiscovered Country).
: Actually there have been hot flashes since ST VI.
True (Yesterday's Enterprise comes to mind).
: The "abrupt change in plot direction" has been brewing ever since the
: Dominion was first discovered, at the beginning of this season. Something
: has to be done with them.
: As far as a war brewing. Come on, it seems likely that something will start
: but it will be resolved as the Federation defeats the plans of the nefarious
: Founders. I don't see this as an attempt to copy B5.
: Why the hostility? They are all good shows (ST-V, ST-DS9, B5).
Not hostility, just discouragement. As a Trek enthusiast (soon to be read
"former Trek enthusiast) I'm pretty upset
at the way things have been going since TNG's fifth season. You hardly
see any any episodes anymore of the caliber of Yesterday's Enterprise,
BOBW, Sarek, etc. The writing has become ossified and stale. I really
hope that things get better and that this so-called "war" doesnt turn out
to be yet another in a series of gimmicks that get brushed aside in an
episode or two without any deep exploration into the characters.
Perry D.
Keeping hope on life support.
ujdd...@cc.memphis.edu
> Peronet Despeignes (desp...@fas.harvard.edu) wrote:
> : Christopher Johnson (cjoh...@puffin.Marymount.EDU) wrote:
> : : probanly make me mad because it's likely a B5 rip-off. But, then again,
> : : Paramount did get the idea for DS9 by ripping off B5 to begin with.
> : : -Christopher Johnson
>
> : called the Dominion (led by an elite
> : of shapeshifters called the Founders), discovered at the end of the
> : last season by the DS9 crew. The Founders infiltrate several top
> : positions in the Federation and Starfleet and are manipulating things to
> : incite a war in the Alpha Quadrant. Current speculation is that tensions
> : are incited to disrupt the-so-far stable detente that has existed between
> : the Federation and the Klingon Empire since ST VI (Undiscovered Country).
>
> Actually there have been hot flashes since ST VI.
>
> : was a very abrupt change in plot direction made just a few months ago (at
> : Voyager and the strong following of b5....but that's just speculation.
>
> but I had the impression that it was touch and go for renewal. Hell, I mean
> The Adventures of Hercules beat out B5, DS9 is at the top of it's catagory.
>
> The "abrupt change in plot direction" has been brewing ever since the
> Dominion was first discovered, at the beginning of this season. Something
> has to be done with them.
>
> As far as a war brewing. Come on, it seems likely that something will start
> but it will be resolved as the Federation defeats the plans of the nefarious
> Founders. I don't see this as an attempt to copy B5.
>
> Why the hostility? They are all good shows
when he originally pitched the show called it _FIRST AND FOREMOST_ "Action
Packed!" and "a Wagon Train to the stars!" The original cast was _out there_,
they were _into_ things! They _BOLDLY_ went places! Sometimes they'd really
pull a pooch screw, and sometimes everything would come out okay. But when
they screwed up, there would be _serious_ consequences! Whole populations
would live or die depending on how the well trained crew of the Enterprise
reacted to different situations! Yeah, alright, sometimes the original series
got cheesy (Let's not even go into the_Spock's Brain_debacle), but sometimes
it really shined managing to tie an ever so subtle societal comment into an
intricately woven plot! That's what I_LOVED_about the original TREK series,
and that's what I love about Babylon 5 today!
As I see it, the problem with DS9 is that they don't actually _GO_ anywhere.
Even with their "Gadabout" class shuttles and the Starship "Deliverence".
(Sorry, that was a cheap shot and there's no place for it in this post) <GRIN>
This was a problem that I _thought_ Bablyon 5 would have, but B5 managed to
evercome this problem by _bringing_ hell to frogtown! DS9 also tends to rely
_quite_ heavily on the 'alternate reality/temporal distortion' plotline.
Whether it's in the 'Mirror, Mirror' universe or in Dr. Bashir's (sp?) head,
the obstacles faced and overcome by the characters really don't affect their
lives or anyone elses. The episode just wraps up with "Whew, well that was
close!" I really resent 'ar/td' plotlines because they're a cop out! No
consequences and no development of the characters! And with the infinate
possibilities of the Star Trek universe, they are absolutely and 100%
unnecessary!
Do I dislike DS9 _solely_ because I'm a B5 fan? No. Truth be known I really
didn't like the pilot for B5, and I literally had to be held down and forced to
watch my first B5 episode. I dislike DS9 because it let me down. It promised
to show the darker side of the Trek universe and it failed miserably! I
thought it would be "Action Packed" and it wasn't (by and large)! Now I know
that every true DS9 fan will point to the "{Something} and Consequences"
episode and say "SEE! It's got Action! They're not all 'ar/td' episodes, and
you're an idiot for saying they are!" (I feel qualified to respond for the DS9
crowd because _last_ time I posted a message to this effect I got flamed in
about 20 personal mail messages saying that I suck, and that I don't know what
I'm talking about.) But "{Something} and Consequences" isn't the series as a
whole, is it? Now I understand that there are budget constraints and deadlines
and only so much that one can do, but I'm not going to accept that as an
excuse. Action doesn't have to be synonomous with 'expensive'.
And maybe DS9 isn't meant to be 'Action Packed'. Maybe it is _meant_ to be a
human drama, or a triumph of the human spirit kind of show. If that's the case
then IMHO they might want to get a better cast, and maybe steal some of B5's
writers!
Now Voyager's a whole different animal! I was _really_ jazzed about Voyager!
I even had a "Voyager" send off party for the series premier, and I _really_
liked it! It looked like we were getting right back into the swing of things!
We're chasing bandits through a ripple thingie and *BOOM* we get transported to
another quadrent of space! We've been here all of half an hour and _already_
we've managed to piss off a big powerful race, _AND_ close off our only
possible way home! We've got a crew that should be at each other's throats,
limited supplies, the _other_ cool guy from TV's 'Benson', and a holographic
doctor that's actually _MORE_ Kermudgidy than Bones! I was excited, I was
intriegued, I was HAPPY!
Week 2: Voyager flies through a temporal anomoly and...oh, fuck....Hang it up,
Star Trek is _Officially_ out of ideas! Not only that, but the Maquis (sp?)
tension is _not_ a week to week subplot, but only seems to come up when it's
convenient...villins aren't _BAD_ necessarialy, but just misunderstood (a theme
which _DIDN'T_ work for ST:TMP, ST V, OR ST VII:Generations)...whoever that big
race was that they pissed off in week 1 has apparently decided that "It wasn't
_THAT_ bad" and has elected to leave the Voyager alone...the "Invasion of the
Organ Snatchers" (which I thoght was okay, but nothing I'd like to see again)
has reoccured TWICE in one short season...and what about Scarecrow's Brain!!!
Hell, I got a little more in to this than I had originally intended. Think
I'll go grab a donut and calm the hell down.
{time passes}
Okay, I'm better now. My point (Yes, I had one <smirk>) is this: I really
wanted to give DS9 and Voyager a chance! I tried! I sat throught the mediocre
stories in the hopes that better ones were on the way, but I was dissappointed!
To paraphrase Malcolm McDowell: Don't go see it [Generations] just because
it's Star Trek! If it sucks, let them know by -not- going to see it!
That's it...that's all I wanted to say!
Thanks for the opportunity (At least Congress didn't take away my right to
bitch!)
Yours,
--jd
Paul J. Mackin
Why the hostility? They are all good shows (ST-V, ST-DS9, B5).
: Perry D.
Paul Mackin, Speaking for myself.
--
"Just mention that the rolls were good, the beer was good | Paul J. Mackin
and cold, local wildlife nicely eccentric, the bar singer | EDA Instruments
the best in the known universe, and that's about it. | 416-425-7800
Doesn't need much." - Ford Prefect. | pa...@eda.com
Eric Elias
Hi Chris.
On DS9, Odo, who is part of the Dominion(the big power on the other side
of the wormhole) decided that he was not going to be a part of their
doings. Meanwhile, the Tau-Shiar(Romulus' military elite) and the
Obsidian order(the Cardassian military elite) banded together to
voyage to the other side of the wormhole to destroy Odo's and the
Dominion's supposed homeworld. Both military powers were lead into a
trap and they were effectively destroyed by changeling 'spies' or
'plants' in both Romulan and Cardassian military personnel.
The most notable quote from that two parter was when a changeling told
Odo that with the Tau Shiar and Obsidian order neutralized, the only
powers that would be left would be the Klingon and Federation. And he
said that their power would be taken care of.
Many parallels can be made to the B5 story line, but I like to think
of them seperate.(Pers, I think DS9 'was' copied...)
Both shows have good character development and good story-lines.
I JUST WANT TO SEE THOSE LAST FOUR EPISODES!!!!!!!
Sorry. :)
I hope helps. If you need more, please feel free to mail me back!
Respectfully,
Eric E
I never met a chocolate I didn't like
> I read a posting by JMS concerning a war on DS9. I don't watch DS9 and I
> would really apreciate it if someone would get me up to speed. It'll
> probanly make me mad because it's likely a B5 rip-off. But, then again,
> Paramount did get the idea for DS9 by ripping off B5 to begin with.
> -Christopher Johnson
NOT!!!!! DS9 is going into season 4, B5 is going into season 3. Doing
some simple math suggests DS9 appeared on television a year befoe B5.
Get it?
Bernard HP Gilroy
The problem with simple math is that, well, it's too simple.
You make an unjustified assumption: that the initial airdate is a good
indicator of when an idea originated. As has been said on this group
many times, JMS pitched B5 to Paramount _long_ before they came up
with DS9. He was told they weren't interested. What followed was a
long and hard struggle to find _someone_ to produce the show -- a tale
sure to become the modern American epic. :)
Now, once Paramount had decided on doing DS9, it was a virtual
snap of the fingers for them to make it. Funding, prestige, etc.,
were all on their side. Meanwhile, JMS was trying to sell an epic,
intelligent multi-year story ... it took a while.
I for one am _not_ someone who believe DS9 was stolen from
JMS, or vice versa. I think it's an accidental similarity. But if
anything was stolen from someone, the evidence points to JMS being the
victim.
Bernard HP Gilroy -- gil...@leland.stanford.edu -- <b|Hp|g>
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~gilroy
"...there was always a minority afraid of something, and a great
majority afraid of the dark, afraid of the future, afraid of the past..."
from _The Martian Chronicles_ by Ray Bradbury
Ronald
> Hi Chris.
>
> On DS9, Odo, who is part of the Dominion(the big power on the other side
> of the wormhole) decided that he was not going to be a part of their
> doings. Meanwhile, the Tau-Shiar(Romulus' military elite) and the
> Obsidian order(the Cardassian military elite) banded together to
> voyage to the other side of the wormhole to destroy Odo's and the
> Dominion's supposed homeworld.
Minor nit-pick:
The Tau-Shiar & the Obsidian Order are both MUCH closer to being
"spook services" than military elite.
The respective militaries have little or no control over what they do.
Ron
******************************************************************************
Ron Jennings urjen...@cc.memphis.edu * Not everyone in Memphis
Electronic Engineering Technology * is a
The University of Memphis * tight-assed postal inspector.
******************************************************************************
I've got duct tape & I'm not afraid to use it.
******************************************************************************
Ronald
> In article <Pine.3.89.9506151...@puffin.marymount.edu>, Christopher Johnson <cjoh...@puffin.Marymount.EDU> writes:
>> I read a posting by JMS concerning a war on DS9. I don't watch DS9 and I
>> would really apreciate it if someone would get me up to speed. It'll
>> probanly make me mad because it's likely a B5 rip-off. But, then again,
>> Paramount did get the idea for DS9 by ripping off B5 to begin with.
>> -Christopher Johnson
>
>
> NOT!!!!! DS9 is going into season 4, B5 is going into season 3. Doing
> some simple math suggests DS9 appeared on television a year befoe B5.
> Get it?
Um.....
You math works, but that's about it....
Check the B5 FAQ, Kenny.
JMS _began_ work on B5 around 87 & pitched it to Paramount (among others) in
(I _think_) 89; LONG before any documentation on DS9 existed.
DS9 made it to tv first because of the clout ST.* has at Paramount
(which probably also explains why they didn't bag B5).
Berman & Co. didn't have to shop "their idea" around for producer/distributer;
JMS did.
J.M.Egolf
>>Christopher Johnson <cjoh...@puffin.Marymount.EDU> writes:
>>> I read a posting by JMS concerning a war on DS9. I don't watch DS9 and I
>>> would really apreciate it if someone would get me up to speed. It'll
>>> probanly make me mad because it's likely a B5 rip-off. But, then again,
>>> Paramount did get the idea for DS9 by ripping off B5 to begin with.
>>> -Christopher Johnson
>>
>>
>In article <1995Jun17.191157.1@stosc>, ke...@stsci.edu (I never met a
>chocolate I didn't like) writes:
>> NOT!!!!! DS9 is going into season 4, B5 is going into season 3. Doing
>> some simple math suggests DS9 appeared on television a year befoe B5.
>> Get it?
>
Ronald <urjen...@cc.memphis.edu> wrote:
>Um.....
>You math works, but that's about it....
>Check the B5 FAQ, Kenny.
>
>JMS _began_ work on B5 around 87 & pitched it to Paramount (among others) in
>(I _think_) 89; LONG before any documentation on DS9 existed.
>
>DS9 made it to tv first because of the clout ST.* has at Paramount
>(which probably also explains why they didn't bag B5).
>Berman & Co. didn't have to shop "their idea" around for producer/distributer;
>JMS did.
Let it be noted (for what it's worth) that _DS9_ was not announced until
after Roddenberry's death. Only couple of weeks after, as I recall, but
afterwards. I remember thinking at the time that the timing was *very*
strange.
--
***************
J.M. ("Jamie") Egolf
jeg...@mcs.com
<*> "We find meaning where we can." <*>
KAREN CUSHING
> I never met a chocolate I didn't like (ke...@stsci.edu) wrote:
> : In article <Pine.3.89.9506151...@puffin.marymount.edu>, Christopher Johnson <cjoh...@puffin.Marymount.EDU> writes:
> : > I read a posting by JMS concerning a war on DS9. I don't watch DS9 and I
> : > would really apreciate it if someone would get me up to speed. It'll
> : > probanly make me mad because it's likely a B5 rip-off. But, then again,
> : > Paramount did get the idea for DS9 by ripping off B5 to begin with.
> : > -Christopher Johnson
>
>
> : some simple math suggests DS9 appeared on television a year befoe B5.
> : Get it?
>
> was pitched to Paramount before DS9 was conceived. GET IT!
>
Get a grip on reality! Saying DSN is a rip-off of B-5 is like saying ER
is a rip-off of St Elsewhere. They both are drama shows filmed in a hospital
setting. DSN and B-5 are science fictions shows filmed on space stations.
GET IT@!!!
I never met a chocolate I didn't like
What pisses me off is people who slam DS9 and who obviously don't even
watch it. People who post asking for a season synopsis, then saying it's
a ripoff and probably sucks anyway. DS9 has done some damn fine episodes.
Try it, ya might like it. Don't be so friggin close-minded. I like both
B5 and DS9, but I like DS9 better, and I'm tired of seeing it reamed by
folks who don't watch it.
FWIW, It took me two years to even begin to like B5; I fell asleep trying
to get through the pilot episode on two different occasions.
Greg Godwin
: Let it be noted (for what it's worth) that _DS9_ was not announced until
: afterwards. I remember thinking at the time that the timing was *very*
: strange.
A minor note on the above quote, Roddenberry was opposed to making DS9
when Berman (or whoever) brought it up.
Mark Murray
I watch it every now and then. One time it actually started to get good. It
wasa two part episode about the Dominion. Some of the main people died. It
turned out in the end to have been a group mind altered dream by Odo's race.
Yep. another dream. I guess the creators of DS9 thought that if Dallas could
do it and get away with it, then they could. DS9? No, thanks, I'll take B5
every time.
Every time that I watch DS9, I see a nice clean Space station with no grit,
grime, or lowlifes anywhere. Maybe in Trek future, they have eliminated all
that and Space Stations don't have those places. At least in B5 we get a
sampling of different aspects of life, from the captains quarters with real
water showers to down below with grit and grime.
B5 has managed to ravel plots within plots and make it work. DS9 usually has
only one plot per episode (sometimes two) but rarely can you say that you are
waiting to see the next episode of DS9 to find out how things are going, to
see if more hidden secrets are revealed, to find out what's happened to a
character that wasn't seen in a while, etc. No, DS9's episodes mainly begin
and end in an hour or two. Things are usually all tidied up by the end of the
episode.
Do you ever think that a character in DS9 will turn out to be a vilain? turn
up dead? B5 has characters who could be hidden spies, a Doctor that ran an
underground railroad for psi's on the run, Garibaldi's second in command shot
Garibaldi, Sinclair was transferred, etc. What would you say is a little more
realistic (as far as realism on tv goes)?
DS9 or B5?
huh, no question.
ever
B5
Mark
Christopher Novosad
I never met a chocolate I didn't like <ke...@stsci.edu> wrote:
>In article <Pine.3.89.9506151...@puffin.marymount.edu>, Christopher Johnson <cjoh...@puffin.Marymount.EDU> writes:
>> probanly make me mad because it's likely a B5 rip-off. But, then again,
>> Paramount did get the idea for DS9 by ripping off B5 to begin with.
>> -Christopher Johnson
>
>
> NOT!!!!! DS9 is going into season 4, B5 is going into season 3. Doing
>some simple math suggests DS9 appeared on television a year befoe B5.
>Get it?
WHOA THERE! Don't go slamming without educating yourself bub! Parasite
(aka Paramount) has and continues to do SHADY things. Here are some
brief facts:
1) "The thinking on B-5 goes back to 1986, when I began to work out in my
head the series' basic chronology. In 1987, I took it to Doug Netter and
John Copeland... and knew them as guys who respected science fiction. We
then agreed to get the show on the air." J. Michael Straczynski,
_Starlog_ (the Parasite rag) #182, September 1992.
2) "The show's been in development for over four years and there are over
200 pages written by me for the five-year storyline." J. Michael
Straczynski, _Cinefantastique_ February 1993.
3) "...Straczynski and Netter took the project to a science fiction
friendly studio, Paramount, future home of DEEP SPACE NINE, like BABYLON
5, set on a space station. 'The development executives read the
treatment, the bible, and the screenplay and saw the artwork, and they
went nuts for this stuff,' said Straczynski. 'They said, 'We'd love to
do it but we have a space show in progress called THE NEXT GENERATION.
Maybe someday we can do a show like this.' Our next stop was Warners...'"
_Cinefantastique_ February 1993.
If you wish to enlighten youself futher, the Lurker's Guide to B5 (on the
Web) has a production history of B5.
It really pisses me off that a company can get away with blatant
plagarism. And not just JMS and his whole concept. Don't let their
propaganda fool you. There's something festering at the Parasite
studios.
. . o o O O O O @ O O O O o o . .
VOLTAYRE - Homeworld for Sale -
The Technomage Slightly Used
--------------------------------------------------------------------
(Christopher Novosad) volt...@actlab.utexas.edu
Encyclopedia Xenobiologia - a Guide to B5's aliens!
http://www.actlab.utexas.edu/~voltayre/enc-xeno.html
. . o o O O O O @ O O O O o o . .
And it ain't the cheese.
Andy Eagleson
: In article <Pine.3.89.9506151...@puffin.marymount.edu>, Christopher Johnson <cjoh...@puffin.Marymount.EDU> writes:
: > would really apreciate it if someone would get me up to speed. It'll
: > -Christopher Johnson
: NOT!!!!! DS9 is going into season 4, B5 is going into season 3. Doing
: some simple math suggests DS9 appeared on television a year befoe B5.
: Get it?
NO do this math. Babylon 5 had been in the makings for alot of years. It
strac...@genie.geis.com
pilot aired within weeks of one another. The difference is that the DS9
series followed the very next week, while we had to wait for word on our
pickup. But DS9 did not hit air a year before B5.
jms
Arlene Ogden
:
: What pisses me off is people who slam DS9 and who obviously don't even
: watch it. People who post asking for a season synopsis, then saying it's
: a ripoff and probably sucks anyway. DS9 has done some damn fine episodes.
: Try it, ya might like it. Don't be so friggin close-minded. I like both
: B5 and DS9, but I like DS9 better, and I'm tired of seeing it reamed by
: folks who don't watch it.
: FWIW, It took me two years to even begin to like B5; I fell asleep trying
: to get through the pilot episode on two different occasions.
Why, pray tell do you bother to read this group then? I watch both B5
and DS9. B5 has real stories that are not easily wrapped up in under
50 minutes. B5 has original ideas and imperfect main characters. I've
yet to see an imperfect DS9 character. I'm not dising DS9. For a trek
show it is very good. TNG was good, but its female characters definately
needed work (Commander Cleavage for on (coining neat-o term from a previous
post). DS9 has done much better with that, but so has B5. Take a chill
pill if you don't like folks putting DS9 down. Many that now watch B5
used to watch Trek until the repeat episode of the sphincter of the week
got old. Go post in Star.Trek.Current if you don't like it here.
Cheers,
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
! Arlene Ogden aka Callistra Moonshadow ! Please continue your !
! EMAIL: st...@bayou.uh.edu, st...@jetson.uh.edu ! petty bickering. I !
! EMAIL: bbs: AOg...@F6824.N106.Z1.Fidonet.org ! find it most !
! ! intriguing.-Data,stng !
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
eni...@news.dorsai.org
: I watch it every now and then. One time it actually started to get good. It
: wasa two part episode about the Dominion. Some of the main people died. It
: turned out in the end to have been a group mind altered dream by Odo's race.
: Yep. another dream. I guess the creators of DS9 thought that if Dallas could
: do it and get away with it, then they could. DS9? No, thanks, I'll take B5
: every time.
: Every time that I watch DS9, I see a nice clean Space station with no grit,
: grime, or lowlifes anywhere. Maybe in Trek future, they have eliminated all
: that and Space Stations don't have those places. At least in B5 we get a
: sampling of different aspects of life, from the captains quarters with real
: water showers to down below with grit and grime.
This is one thing that I believe seperates B5 fans from Trek fans. For
some reason unknown to me, B5 fans insist that a space station should be
dirty grimy and have homeless people and criminals running around.
If the crew of B5 can't control their station and it's population (and
can't afford to hire a cleaning crew) that's there problem. But I don't
know for the life of me why a space station should have all the crap that
I can see any day on NYC streets. I don't think think I'll ever hear
myself saying..
"Hey cool, DS9 has homeless people living in it that no one seems to be
concerned about. It's so nice to know that 400 years in the future people
still won't give an shit."
If you like your real world with povery, grime, and homeless people;
great. But I prefer a better neighborhood.
Victor
Michael A Shivik
: : What pisses me off is people who slam DS9 and who obviously don't even
: : watch it. People who post asking for a season synopsis, then saying it's
: : a ripoff and probably sucks anyway. DS9 has done some damn fine episodes.
: : Try it, ya might like it. Don't be so friggin close-minded. I like both
: : B5 and DS9, but I like DS9 better, and I'm tired of seeing it reamed by
: : folks who don't watch it.
: : FWIW, It took me two years to even begin to like B5; I fell asleep trying
: : to get through the pilot episode on two different occasions.
: Why, pray tell do you bother to read this group then? I watch both B5
: and DS9. B5 has real stories that are not easily wrapped up in under
: 50 minutes. B5 has original ideas and imperfect main characters. I've
: yet to see an imperfect DS9 character. I'm not dising DS9. For a trek
: show it is very good. TNG was good, but its female characters definately
: needed work (Commander Cleavage for on (coining neat-o term from a previous
: post). DS9 has done much better with that, but so has B5. Take a chill
: pill if you don't like folks putting DS9 down. Many that now watch B5
: used to watch Trek until the repeat episode of the sphincter of the week
: got old. Go post in Star.Trek.Current if you don't like it here.
Amen Arlene.
In B5, technology exist in a universe. In Trek (now a sad show) the
*technology* is the show. Trek allways looses in this respect--charecter
always escape by *techno-Bull-sh*ting* a solution (the technology saves the day)
Long live B5 (or for at least the 5 seasons it's schedueled for)
John Pietrzak
>Mark Murray (mmu...@slis.lib.uoknor.edu) wrote:
>
>: Every time that I watch DS9, I see a nice clean Space station with no
>: grit, grime, or lowlifes anywhere. Maybe in Trek future, they have
>: eliminated all that and Space Stations don't have those places. At
>: least in B5 we get a sampling of different aspects of life, from the
>: captains quarters with real water showers to down below with grit and
>: grime.
>
>This is one thing that I believe seperates B5 fans from Trek fans. For
>some reason unknown to me, B5 fans insist that a space station should be
>dirty grimy and have homeless people and criminals running around.
Yes, it should! Especially if you're attempting to represent the
future, and you're spending all your time within the space station.
You shouldn't just focus on the priviledged people.
>If you like your real world with povery, grime, and homeless people;
>great. But I prefer a better neighborhood.
And _this_ is the thing that truly scares me about Trek utopia: both my
and your _real_ world _are_ filled with poverty, grime, and homeless
people. Sure, you can build walls around yourself to keep from seeing
them, but that doesn't make it any less true. Trek promotes an
unhealthy disrespect for people who aren't perfect in every way.
John
--
Babylon 5 -- a surfboard riding the Tsunami
John Pietrzak
Actually, this is one aspect of DS9 where it does supercede it's
predecessors: the characters actually aren't perfect (though they're
still more angelic than real humans would be). Bashir acts very
boorishly at times; Kira flies off the handle at the drop of a hat;
Odo tends to put his own agenda above that of Starfleet, Quark is
Quark, etc. The characters actually aren't quite avatars on their
way to sainthood, as the characters on TNG were.
Of course, that doesn't mean that B5 doesn't beat them hands down.
Jason Snell
chocolate I didn't like) wrote:
> What pisses me off is people who slam DS9 and who obviously don't even
>watch it. People who post asking for a season synopsis, then saying it's
>a ripoff and probably sucks anyway. DS9 has done some damn fine episodes.
>Try it, ya might like it. Don't be so friggin close-minded. I like both
>B5 and DS9, but I like DS9 better, and I'm tired of seeing it reamed by
>folks who don't watch it.
They bug me, too.
But.. just because I needs to be said: I've seen every episode of DS9. And
every episode of B5. And I think this past year's DS9 was an absolute
disgrace in almost every possible way. They managed perhaps 5 decent
episodes (perhaps -- though "Facets," the latest one, was one of those, so
hope springs eternal -- god, they're lucky to have Rene Auberjonois) out
of the 25 aired so far. And 10 or 15 have been inexcusably terrible.
B5, on the other hand, maybe had 3 lousy shows out of the 18 aired so far
in its season. And probably 5 or 10 really amazing shows.
When you consider the budget DS9 has to work with compared to B5, it's
really sort of pathetic.
So there, I said it. Since you're sick of seeing DS9 reamed by folks who
don't watch it, how about seeing it get reamed by someone who does? :)
-jason
--
Jason Snell | Editor, InterText -- inte...@etext.org
jsn...@etext.org | Assistant Editor, MacUser -- jsn...@macuser.ziff.com
B5 or be square. | http://www.etext.org/Zines/InterText/jason.html
The_Doge of St. Louis
John Pietrzak <piet...@pistachio.cs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>In article <DAEDn...@dorsai.org>, <eni...@news.dorsai.org> wrote:
>>Mark Murray (mmu...@slis.lib.uoknor.edu) wrote:
>>If you like your real world with povery, grime, and homeless people;
>>great. But I prefer a better neighborhood.
>
>And _this_ is the thing that truly scares me about Trek utopia: both my
>and your _real_ world _are_ filled with poverty, grime, and homeless
>people. Sure, you can build walls around yourself to keep from seeing
>them, but that doesn't make it any less true. Trek promotes an
>unhealthy disrespect for people who aren't perfect in every way.
>
obsession with physical beauty and youth; the Trek shows are probably no
worse in this respect than any other form of mass-media entertainment.
Even B5 largely seems to buy in to this notion, with a few pleasantly
surprising exceptions (e.g. the leader of the telepaths' "underground
railroad").
I am, however, amused by the quaint notion that problems which
have been with humanity throughout tens of thousands of years of recorded
history are expected to be magically solved by a couple centuries of
technology. This isn't optimism, this is foolishness. It also displays
that cheerful disregard for history that has also become a hallmark of
contemporary American culture.
In fact, B5 is optimistic in its outlook in that it assumes
humanity will get to the stars at all, rather than simply poison itself
with industrial effluvia and sink into high-tech barbarism. What it
doesn't do is assume that human nature will undergo a fundamental change
simply through increasingly sophisticated technology.
--
*******************************************************************************
* The_Doge of St. Louis |"One Step Beyond"-Sundays 3 pm, 88.1 FM*
* >> http://www.crl.com/~thedoge/index.html << *
*******************************************************************************
Peronet Despeignes
: : Christopher Johnson (cjoh...@puffin.Marymount.EDU) wrote:
: : From second hand news reports I've read over the 'net it looks like this
: : was a very abrupt change in plot direction made just a few months ago (at
: : the latest). It seems to be motivated by growing discouragement with DS9,
: : Voyager and the strong following of b5....but that's just speculation.
: Yes, and it's incorrect. DS9 and Voyager are doing very well. B5 is doing ok
: The "abrupt change in plot direction" has been brewing ever since the
: Dominion was first discovered, at the beginning of this season. Something
: has to be done with them.
From what I've heard of the final episoed (have yet to see it myself) the
Klingons arent mentioned at all and there's no indication that war is
about to erput between the two. That at least provides some evidence for
the possibility that Klingon-Federation war is an "abrupt" change from
what the writer's had originally planned for next season.
Perry D.
Jonathan Blum
>some reason unknown to me, B5 fans insist that a space station should be
>dirty grimy and have homeless people and criminals running around.
>If the crew of B5 can't control their station and it's population (and
>can't afford to hire a cleaning crew) that's there problem. But I don't
>know for the life of me why a space station should have all the crap that
>I can see any day on NYC streets.
Maybe because this is the first time in TVSF history that there's been
a space station about the size of NYC.
It's a lot easier to keep DS9 clean because, according to one episode
a few years ago, it only has about three or four thousand people on board.
B5 has sixty or seventy times as many people.
Put this way: DS9 is Mayberry. B5 is the big city. And "Babylon 5" is
the story of things which happen all over the city. Of course you're
gonna have a bit of grime and crime.
Regards,
Jon Blum
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"All this time you two thought you were playing some twisted game of
chess... when it was just me playing solitaire!"
D O C T O R W H O : T I M E R I F T
Dharm Kapadia
>
>
>
> What pisses me off is people who slam DS9 and who obviously don't even
>watch it. People who post asking for a season synopsis, then saying it's
>a ripoff and probably sucks anyway. DS9 has done some damn fine episodes.
>Try it, ya might like it. Don't be so friggin close-minded. I like both
>B5 and DS9, but I like DS9 better, and I'm tired of seeing it reamed by
>folks who don't watch it.
>to get through the pilot episode on two different occasions.
I remember watching the ST series on TV (in reruns...not the original TV
broadcast) over and over because they were so enjoyable. There really
was nothing that compared. When I entered college, my roommates and I
stayed up late *EVERY NIGHT* to watch the episodes.
When ST:TNG began, I had great expectations. I wanted to be entertained
and delighted, but it turned out to be stilted and insulting. Character
development took a definite back seat to convenient endings, time travel
of the week, or ghosts/spirit possessions (usually Counselor Troy).
Arrrggghhhhh. Unmitigated crap...
Then, like a slap in the face, DS9 has the audacity to rear its ugly face
on TV. Oh gee...they can't set up an inverse tachyon field to trigger
Data's reverse polar dilithium penis trigger to get them out of trouble
every week. But I still watched it...every painful minute. The honorable
thing to do would be to pull the plug on it. I have not watched it now
for over 6 months. Instead of losing sleep over how bad DS9 is, I lose
sleep trying to figure out what is going on in Babylon 5 8)
Paramount should realize that the cash cow is now barren. Slaughter it and
use the flesh for dinner.
--
Dharm Kapadia
P.S. - To comment on ST:Voyager would give it more legitimacy
than it deserves!
P.P.S. - No, I voted with my dollar and did not see _Generations_!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 Porsche 911 Turbo...400 bhp & 400 ft-lbs of torque...nuff said!
Babylon 5...Arrrrgh...the pain...my kingdom for a peek at the arc?!?
F1 Racing...See you at Magny-Cours...Go Hill Hapkido Sun Moo Kwan
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ted McCoy
Jonathan Blum <jb...@Glue.umd.edu> wrote:
>It's a lot easier to keep DS9 clean because, according to one episode
>a few years ago, it only has about three or four thousand people on board.
>B5 has sixty or seventy times as many people.
>
>Put this way: DS9 is Mayberry. B5 is the big city. And "Babylon 5" is
>the story of things which happen all over the city. Of course you're
>gonna have a bit of grime and crime.
I agree completely. It wouldn't make sense for B5 to be as "clean" as DS9.
And it wouldn't make sense for DS9 to be as "dirty" as B5. Not only the
difference in sizes, but also that DS9 seems to take a lot less traffic than
B5. Plus, the sorts of drifters who go to a place like B5 (and often end
up stuck there) would be more likely to end up on Bajor than on DS9.
(B5 doesn't seem to have any comparable planet immediately nearby.) (Not
to mention the extra freedom warp drive would give drifters compared to
jump gates.)
Ted
Ted McCoy
Arlene Ogden <st...@Bayou.UH.EDU> wrote:
>Why, pray tell do you bother to read this group then? I watch both B5
>and DS9. B5 has real stories that are not easily wrapped up in under
>yet to see an imperfect DS9 character.
Really? Which DS9 characters are perfect? Maybe O'Brien comes closest,
but that's because he came from the Enterprise. DS9 characters aren't as,
uh, "troubled" as B5 characters tend to be. (Makes sense, since the
characters on DS9 are hiding smaller secrets than those on B5. Even Garak.)
But they're still far from perfect. Remember, the world is filled with
people who aren't basket cases; is it so surprising that some of them might
be in command positions on a space station?
Going back to TNG, or, unfortunately, to Voyager -- yes, those are (for the
most part) all-too-perfect characters.
Ted
Ted McCoy
Jason Snell <jsn...@macuser.com> wrote:
>But.. just because I needs to be said: I've seen every episode of DS9. And
>every episode of B5. And I think this past year's DS9 was an absolute
>disgrace in almost every possible way. They managed perhaps 5 decent
>episodes (perhaps -- though "Facets," the latest one, was one of those, so
>hope springs eternal -- god, they're lucky to have Rene Auberjonois) out
>of the 25 aired so far. And 10 or 15 have been inexcusably terrible.
Let's see...the two-parter was outstanding. I thought "Facets" was
outstanding, although I'm almost alone on this point. (I love a good Dax
episode, and this is the first really good one since season two.) And
"The Defiant." And "House of Quark," maybe. Lots of missed opportunities
elsewhere in the season.
On the downside: "The Search II" was a horrible miscalculation, although
it still had some moments (the Odo scenes especially). "Meridian" was
virtually worthless. "Past Tense II" was exactly the sort of story that
DS9 shouldn't be telling. And "Life Support" showed how badly DS9 had lost
sight of its story arcs.
>B5, on the other hand, maybe had 3 lousy shows out of the 18 aired so far
>in its season. And probably 5 or 10 really amazing shows.
Amazing shows: "The Coming of Shadows." And maybe "Points of Departure"
(again, I think I'm alone on that one). Lots of others that came very close,
too. And the overall continuity has been outstanding.
On the downside: "Gropos." The sit-com with Londo's wives. And that last
episode, with the plague (a reminder of how bad B5 can be when it really
tries).
DS9 had a serious slump during the first half of the season; B5 has had no
extended slumps this season. DS9 has been producing more outstanding
episodes lately -- but that slump really takes something away from that.
Plus, the overall continuity is nowhere near the levels of season two DS9 --
let alone season two B5.
>When you consider the budget DS9 has to work with compared to B5, it's
>really sort of pathetic.
Oh, I don't know. B5 seems to run into a lot more incompetent directors
than DS9. I'd rate DS9 far above B5 in the style department, and that's
where the money is going. B5 is ahead in the substance department --
which is where money doesn't help as much.
Ted
watkins julia k
(again) how much he like B5 and I decided to give it a try: I found time
to watch both B5 and a DS9 rerun that week. The B5 rerun was the second
season opening. I forget what the DS9 story was. I got immediately hooked.
What did it? After watching B5 ST was too sparce. It didn't feel lived in.
I suppose that is a function of always having to invent new races and
planets; there's not enough clutter. I look at that *huge* bridge and
all I can see is the wide empty isles for the cameras. I prefer a lived-
in set even if that means I never see the 4th wall.
B5 and ST have different styles of writing. Personally I prefer the
slow accumulation of information on a smaller number of cultures to
being shown a little of a lot of different cultures (that might have
logic problems to reconcil all co-existing too close together).
Julie Watkins
Jason Snell
(Ted McCoy) wrote:
>Let's see...the two-parter was outstanding. I thought "Facets" was
>outstanding, although I'm almost alone on this point. (I love a good Dax
>episode, and this is the first really good one since season two.) And
>"The Defiant." And "House of Quark," maybe. Lots of missed opportunities
>elsewhere in the season.
The only vaguely outstanding ones I see in season 3 DS9:
"House of Quark," "Improbable Cause," "Explorers," and maybe "Facets."
And I'm being really generous.
>On the downside: "The Search II" was a horrible miscalculation, although
>it still had some moments (the Odo scenes especially). "Meridian" was
>virtually worthless. "Past Tense II" was exactly the sort of story that
>DS9 shouldn't be telling. And "Life Support" showed how badly DS9 had lost
>sight of its story arcs.
For me, DS9 hit bottom twice this year: "The Search II" and all of "Past Tense."
But there was a lot of baaaad stuff in there that wasn't quite as bad as
those three hours.
>>B5, on the other hand..
>
>Amazing shows: "The Coming of Shadows." And maybe "Points of Departure"
>(again, I think I'm alone on that one). Lots of others that came very close,
>too. And the overall continuity has been outstanding.
We disagree a bunch. Amazing B5:
"Soul Mates," "Coming of Shadows," "And Now For a Word," "In the Shadow of
Z'ha'dum," and "Confessions and Lamentations".
>On the downside: "Gropos." The sit-com with Londo's wives. And that last
>episode, with the plague (a reminder of how bad B5 can be when it really
>tries).
I thought that last episode was one of the best they've ever done, but
hey, we can't always agree. :) For me, on the downside: "Gropos," "The
Long Dark." But they had their moments.
>DS9 had a serious slump during the first half of the season;
Some would consider the whole year a slump, but you're right -- after
Voyager premiered, it loosened up a little. Compare it with the previous
year, and it's a _gigantic_ drop-off. Last year, when comparing a week's
DS9 to TNG to B5, DS9 won a lot of weeks, B5 several, TNG almost never. B5
was worse last year, but DS9 was much, much better. I think it says more
about what's happened to DS9
This year, I don't know if I've ever been more impressed with DS9 than with B5.
>Oh, I don't know. B5 seems to run into a lot more incompetent directors
>than DS9.
Funny, I was going to mention the actors more than the directors. And the
sets. That's where I think the real difference between the two shows lies
-- some better acting on the periphery and nicer sets.
Gharlane of Eddore
>
> Get a grip on reality! Saying DSN is a rip-off of B-5 is like saying
> ER is a rip-off of St Elsewhere. They both are drama shows filmed in a
> hospital setting. DSN and B-5 are science fictions shows filmed on
> space stations.
> GET IT@!!!
>
Your comments betray a singular lack of familiarity with the history
of the two shows. Straczynski pitched "BABYLON 5" to Paramount quite
some time before DS9 even went into *pre*-production. Later, when
the Paramount brass put Piller & Berman to work on "creating" DS9,
they appear to have been handed what amounts to a copy of the B-5
series format, with the serial numbers filed off. The similarities
between DS9 *AT THE OUTSET*, and B-5's *ORIGINAL* series format,
are beyond the pale of coincidence, down to the descriptions of cast
and characters.
It must be hastily added that Piller & Berman immediately took their
show off in a different direction, and the few remaining similarities
weaken with every show ....of either series.... aired. Straczynski
is on record as believeing that Piller & Berman behaved with reasonable
ethics, and were simply working within the constraints of a format
mandated by the Paramount management; but the fact remains that a
legally-actionable similarity of characters, setting, and situation
*DID* exist at the outset.
Straczynski has also pointed out the idiocy of tying up both series,
halting production, and possibly losing one or both series, during
the handling of a court case. It was vastly more sensible of him
to simply go ahead and write out the most blatant similarities, and
go ahead with his own show; better to have a percentage of a good
TV series coming into his bank account than to chance wiping out
two TV series in the quest for a percentage of a mediocre series
and a punitive damages award. Even if he'd won the court case
hands-down, it wouldn't have put B-5 on the air; so he elected to
spend his energy and lifespan *creating* something, instead of
wrangling in court and enriching lawyers.
Get it? GOT it? Good.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| __ __ |
| We are dreamers, shapers, singers and makers. / | / \ |
| We study the mysteries of laser and circuit, -|---+----+- |
| Crystal and scanner, holographic demons, | | | |
| And invocations of equations. |_/ \__/ |
| |
| These are the tools we employ. And we know... many things. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
5958s...@vms.csd.mu.edu
>
>
> What pisses me off is people who slam DS9 and who obviously don't even
>watch it. People who post asking for a season synopsis, then saying it's
>a ripoff and probably sucks anyway. DS9 has done some damn fine episodes.
>Try it, ya might like it. Don't be so friggin close-minded. I like both
>B5 and DS9, but I like DS9 better, and I'm tired of seeing it reamed by
>folks who don't watch it.
> FWIW, It took me two years to even begin to like B5; I fell asleep trying
>to get through the pilot episode on two different occasions.
Hey Buddy!!! I watch it. Every week I hope it entertains me.
It doesn't.
andrea detommaso
>
> Paul J. Mackin (pa...@eda.com) wrote:
> : Peronet Despeignes (desp...@fas.harvard.edu) wrote:
> : : Christopher Johnson (cjoh...@puffin.Marymount.EDU) wrote:
>
>
> : As far as a war brewing. Come on, it seems likely that something will start
> : but it will be resolved as the Federation defeats the plans of the nefarious
> : Founders. I don't see this as an attempt to copy B5.
>
> : Why the hostility? They are all good shows (ST-V, ST-DS9, B5).
>
> Not hostility, just discouragement. As a Trek enthusiast (soon to be read
> "former Trek enthusiast) I'm pretty upset
> at the way things have been going since TNG's fifth season. You hardly
> see any any episodes anymore of the caliber of Yesterday's Enterprise,
> BOBW, Sarek, etc. The writing has become ossified and stale. I really
> hope that things get better and that this so-called "war" doesnt turn out
> to be yet another in a series of gimmicks that get brushed aside in an
> episode or two without any deep exploration into the characters.
>
> Perry D.
> Keeping hope on life support.
>
>
>
I agree with you, Perry. The writing for all the Star Treks went completely
downhill after Season V of TNG. I had high hopes for DS9, particularly since
they had talked about creating some conflict within the cast, therefore
giving characters a bit more depth, but that never quite materialized, and
it soon became boring. I saw three episodes of Voyager, before I became
completely turned off by it. In the ST series (except for III, IV and IV
of TNG) there is no character growth, no conflict, no continuity.
Just the same formula, hashed and rehashed, all over again.
That's what I really love about B5. The characters are real, they
have feelings, they have depth, they get angry and they get annoyed.
Just like the rest of us. Their relationship evolves from one episode
to the next. For example. Sheridan does not have the same kind of
relationship with Garibaldi that Sinclair did. The relationship between
the two is still somewhat touch and go, even after a full season.
I remember one particular scene from Season I of B5, where Sinclair
had had a particularly bad day, finally gets back to his quarters and
takes off his jacket, only to get tangled trying to take it off. That
scene struck me: this could happen to any of us, but I certainly never
saw Picard having problems. I hope that scene was written in, because
it gave his character (at least in my opinion) a depth that I had not
seen before.
I just think the writing for B5 is much more mature than Star Trek.
ST is too simplistic, and the writers and producers seem to have
institutionalized their formula.
- Andrea
strac...@genie.geis.com
was scripted that way. He wasn't sure about it at first, didn't know if
it would look goofy or not, but it looked real, and that's what I wanted.
Invariably, when a new script comes out, one or another actor reacts with,
"He wants me to do WHAT?" (fill in the blanks...sing a Gilbert&Sullivan
style libretto, orgasm on camer, do the hokey pokey) But it nearly always
works out.
jms
Paul Hess
strac...@genie.geis.com wrote:
And what exactly did they say about the bathroom scene?
=========================================================================
Paul Hess | AI, Neural Nets, and Optimization Algorithms
Hess Consulting | Phone: 800-323-8790, In Va.: 703-478-0365
1707 Whitewood Lane | E-Mail: he...@digex.net, Fax: 703-478-0312
Herndon, Va. 22070 | Web: http://www.access.digex.net/~hess
=========================================================================
Live in Northern Virginia? Check out http://www.digex.net/herndon.
Andy Eagleson
: > What pisses me off is people who slam DS9 and who obviously don't even
: >watch it. People who post asking for a season synopsis, then saying it's
: >a ripoff and probably sucks anyway. DS9 has done some damn fine episodes.
: >Try it, ya might like it. Don't be so friggin close-minded. I like both
: >B5 and DS9, but I like DS9 better, and I'm tired of seeing it reamed by
: >folks who don't watch it.
: > FWIW, It took me two years to even begin to like B5; I fell asleep trying
: >to get through the pilot episode on two different occasions.
: I watch it every now and then. One time it actually started to get good. It
: wasa two part episode about the Dominion. Some of the main people died. It
: turned out in the end to have been a group mind altered dream by Odo's race.
: Yep. another dream. I guess the creators of DS9 thought that if Dallas could
: do it and get away with it, then they could. DS9? No, thanks, I'll take B5
: every time.
: Every time that I watch DS9, I see a nice clean Space station with no grit,
: grime, or lowlifes anywhere. Maybe in Trek future, they have eliminated all
: that and Space Stations don't have those places. At least in B5 we get a
: sampling of different aspects of life, from the captains quarters with real
: water showers to down below with grit and grime.
: B5 has managed to ravel plots within plots and make it work. DS9 usually has
: only one plot per episode (sometimes two) but rarely can you say that you are
: waiting to see the next episode of DS9 to find out how things are going, to
: see if more hidden secrets are revealed, to find out what's happened to a
: character that wasn't seen in a while, etc. No, DS9's episodes mainly begin
: and end in an hour or two. Things are usually all tidied up by the end of the
: episode.
: Do you ever think that a character in DS9 will turn out to be a vilain? turn
: up dead? B5 has characters who could be hidden spies, a Doctor that ran an
: underground railroad for psi's on the run, Garibaldi's second in command shot
: Garibaldi, Sinclair was transferred, etc. What would you say is a little more
: realistic (as far as realism on tv goes)?
: DS9 or B5?
: huh, no question.
: ever
: B5
: Mark
Why is realism ALWAYS ascoaited with quality? STARWARS is NOT realistic
YET it is ( What I consider ) BETTER quality than B5!
Christopher Novosad
>Why is realism ALWAYS ascoaited with quality? STARWARS is NOT realistic
>YET it is ( What I consider ) BETTER quality than B5!
Not to flame, but if B5 had as much money per hour as it took to make
SW... no, how about television format vs. feature format... hrmm, amount
of time required to make one hour of film vs. one hour of tv? Actually
if B5 were given a SW budget and a lot of time, it's quality would exceed
SW's simply because of the technology difference between today's SPFX abd
that of 15+ years ago (funded in part by Uncle George himself...).
Writing would remain the same, excellent (though I DO wonder what the
hell happened to RotJ after a very excellent Empire Strikes Back).
Don't get me wrong, I love B5 and SW equally, but for differing reasons.
Mike Thomson
j> every episode of B5. And I think this past year's DS9 was an absolute
j> disgrace in almost every possible way. They managed perhaps 5 decent
j> episodes (perhaps -- though "Facets," the latest one, was one of those, so
j> hope springs eternal -- god, they're lucky to have Rene Auberjonois) out
j> of the 25 aired so far. And 10 or 15 have been inexcusably terrible.
I thought some shows like "Improbable Cause" "The Die is Cast" and
"Explorers" were amazing episodes.. I think that you might be a bit HARD on
DS9..
j> in its season. And probably 5 or 10 really amazing shows.
j> When you consider the budget DS9 has to work with compared to B5, it's
j> really sort of pathetic.
Sets. Model Effects. If B5 had models for its effects. they'd be out
of a Show in seconds.
Mike
--
| Fidonet: Mike Thomson 1:250/836
| Internet: Mike.Thomson@x250_836.gryn.org
Franklin Hummel
> I thought some shows like "Improbable Cause" "The Die is Cast" and
>"Explorers" were amazing episodes.. I think that you might be a bit HARD on
An absolutely -stupid- episode with regards to the science and
science fiction. It showed not the slightest understanding of what a
solar sailing craft would -need- to be like. Also, totally unrealistic
in its approach to even the concept of solar sailing. Having Sisko build
a solar sailer by -himself- in weeks was ludicrous; it's as if someone
build a airplane by themselves in the same about of time. Laughable.
And tachyons causing a solar sailer to go faster than light? From dumb
to dumber.
"Explorers" demonstrated clearly how BAD Star Trek has become
as Science Fiction.
>DS9..
* BARF *
--
-- Frank Hummel [ hum...@netcom.com ]
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
NecronomiCon, 2nd Edition: The Cthulhu Mythos Convention
Danvers, Massachusetts, August 18-20, 1995
For information: P.O. Box 1320, Back Bay Annex, Boston, MA 02117 USA
Franklin Hummel
It -IS- all a conspiracy!
This occured to me on the B5 IRC the other night. I don't
know if it has been raised before.
Why -did- a Minbari warrior try to kill a Vorlon in the original
pilot, "The Gathering"? What would have been gained? Was this simply
to inact some type of revenge against the humans by the Minbari warriors?
How did the Minbari even know what would poison a Vorlon?
Perhaps because the Minbari warriors are helping the Shadows.
Consider: the death of Kosh might have lead to the Vorlons NOT
coming to B5 or delayed them doing so at least. The result would have
been that the Vorlons aiding of the Younger Races against the Shadows
might have also not happened, or been delayed.
Who had the most to gain by Kosh's death on B5? The Shadows.
Also consider the Deathwalker incident: Yes, Deathwalker had
a reason for personal revenge against Humans and the other races who
defeated her planet. And yet, who harbored her for those many long
years before she came to B5: The Windswords, Minbari warriors.
What would have happened if Deathwalker's immortality serum
-had- reached Earth or the other races? People would have been turned
one against the other, chaos would have resulted throughout the known
galaxy as each race tore itself apart.
And such widespread chaos would have made the Shadows attempt
to return all the easier for them.
Divide and conquer. One of the oldest forms of attack and one
of the most effective.
It's was mentioned by Deleen's old teacher in "Voice in the
Wilderness" that a darkness is also coming to Minbari. The same is
happening on Earth, with the Psi Corp, and with the Centari, as can
be seen with Londo. And with the Minabri, we have also seen the
warrior class gain a upper-hand by having a fourth member of the
Gray Council, the council of nine, come from that warrior class.
We know the Shadows are linked with the Centari. Some have
suspected they might also have a link with the Psi Corp on Earth.
And now here are all these hints of a Shadow presence within the
Minbari warrior class. If you are going to start a war, it is
extremely helpful to have members of your enemy's goverment on
-your- side. Divide and conquer.
Paranoia works here. If you do take the approach it is
all a plot by the Shadows, a lot more of what's happened in B5 starts
to make a lot of sense. Isolated incidents turn out to not be as
insolated as they might seem on the surface.
Just some thoughts...
John Benn
Andy Eagleson <ande...@earth.execpc.com> wrote:
>
>Why is realism ALWAYS ascoaited with quality? STARWARS is NOT realistic
>YET it is ( What I consider ) BETTER quality than B5!
Well I find it next to impossible to enjoy unrealistic events.
Realism is necessary but not sufficient for quality. This makes
it impossible to consider Star Wars to be quality in this regard.
I loved the trilogy, but the choreography in the ship combats was far
inferior to B5's.
--
**** The Shadows were old when even the Ancients ****
**** were young. ---Delenn, Babylon-5 ****
scott parmenter
: [bulk of article snipped]
:
: We know the Shadows are linked with the Centari. Some have
: suspected they might also have a link with the Psi Corp on Earth.
"You're playing a dangerous game, Captain. It could cost you
your command."
Have there been any other hints of a Shadow link to Psi
Corp, Clark, and co.?
: And now here are all these hints of a Shadow presence within the
: Minbari warrior class. If you are going to start a war, it is
: extremely helpful to have members of your enemy's goverment on
: -your- side. Divide and conquer.
:
: Paranoia works here. If you do take the approach it is
: all a plot by the Shadows, a lot more of what's happened in B5 starts
: to make a lot of sense. Isolated incidents turn out to not be as
: insolated as they might seem on the surface.
:
: Just some thoughts...
:
... worth thinking about. :)
:
: --
: -- Frank Hummel [ hum...@netcom.com ]
: = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
: NecronomiCon, 2nd Edition: The Cthulhu Mythos Convention
: Danvers, Massachusetts, August 18-20, 1995
: For information: P.O. Box 1320, Back Bay Annex, Boston, MA 02117 USA
Scott
--
-------------------- "Each emotional injury
Scott Parmenter leaves behind its mark
sco...@cs.ucr.edu sometimes they come tumbling out
-------------------- Like shadows in the dark" -- Rush, Scars
Emery Calame
>Mark Murray (mmu...@slis.lib.uoknor.edu) wrote:
>
>: I watch it every now and then. One time it actually started to get
good. It
>: wasa two part episode about the Dominion. Some of the main people
died. It
>: turned out in the end to have been a group mind altered dream by
Odo's race.
>: Yep. another dream. I guess the creators of DS9 thought that if
Dallas could
>: do it and get away with it, then they could. DS9? No, thanks,
I'll take B5
>: every time.
>
>
>
>
>: Every time that I watch DS9, I see a nice clean Space station with
no grit,
>: grime, or lowlifes anywhere. Maybe in Trek future, they have
eliminated all
>: that and Space Stations don't have those places. At least in B5 we
get a
>: sampling of different aspects of life, from the captains quarters
with real
>: water showers to down below with grit and grime.
>
>some reason unknown to me, B5 fans insist that a space station should
be
>dirty grimy and have homeless people and criminals running around.
>
>If the crew of B5 can't control their station and it's population (and
>can't afford to hire a cleaning crew) that's there problem. But I
don't
>know for the life of me why a space station should have all the crap
that
>I can see any day on NYC streets. I don't think think I'll ever hear
>myself saying..
>
>"Hey cool, DS9 has homeless people living in it that no one seems to
be
>concerned about. It's so nice to know that 400 years in the future
people
>still won't give an shit."
>
>If you like your real world with povery, grime, and homeless people;
>great. But I prefer a better neighborhood.
>
>Victor
So move to DS9 why dontcha' ? ):)
EM
Christopher Novosad
> Well I find it next to impossible to enjoy unrealistic events.
>Realism is necessary but not sufficient for quality. This makes
>it impossible to consider Star Wars to be quality in this regard.
>I loved the trilogy, but the choreography in the ship combats was far
>inferior to B5's.
Ah, but you forget that in the approx. 15 years since Star Wars was made,
there have been great leaps in special effects (partially fueled by Lucas
himself). All the effects in SW were optical and are, basically,
outmoded. With CGI you can perform complex camera movements, etc. etc.
You can do that optically, but it really isn't cost effective. That's
why Trek's space battles are two big ships, mostly stationary,
broadsiding each other (YAWN).
And since this is more or less a historical topic. B5 is the only show,
movie and tv, to break the record for objects on screen since RotJ. This
shot, I believe, is in one of the Last Four, when... nah, hate doing
spoilers.
X . . o o O O O O @ O O O O o o . . X
VOLTAYRE, technomage (or in the mundane Christopher Novosad)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
volt...@actlab.utexas.edu
--Encyclopedia Xenobiologia - a Guide to B5's aliens!--
http://www.actlab.utexas.edu/~voltayre/enc-xeno.html
X . . o o O O O O @ O O O O o o . . X
strac...@genie.geis.com
pilot; Ron was rather pleased about it at the time.
jms
Christopher Novosad
OOPS! That's what I meant to say. Now, if we can only SEE it!
Steven McCluney
Even their best episodes (and they have had a few good ones thrown in) left
me with a feeling that I was ripped off -- the previews not only picked the
best scenes, but the _only_ interesting scenes. That and their repeated use
of Deux ex Machina to wrap everything up in the last five minutes really
irritates me. Notice how they never leave time at the end to deal with
consequences? Often just a voiceover (read "captain's log") stating that
"after applying the technobabble, everything is back to normal." Anyway, I
digress...
B5, on the other hand, is generally _better_ (or at least as good) as the
previews lead me to believe. This is partly due to the long-term, cohesive
plot -- it adds a lot of interest to a show over and above the things you
normally anticipate from the previews.
Steven M.
Deru McCannon
Steven McCluney <s.mcc...@bre.com> wrote:
>B5, on the other hand, is generally _better_ (or at least as good) as the
>previews lead me to believe. This is partly due to the long-term, cohesive
>plot -- it adds a lot of interest to a show over and above the things you
>normally anticipate from the previews.
Actually, I think this is because the previews are so bad. They have
absolutely _nothing_ to do with the show and make it sound absolutely
horrible. I believe JMS has said he has no control over those. Maybe
that's a good thing since we know all the best stuff won't be used as
hype. When I see the previews I always think, "Hmmm, that's interesting,
I wonder what the show will _really_ be about!"
Did anyone else notice that the preview for GROPOS was mostly made of
scenes from The Coming of Shadows? :-)
Deru
--
The Old Gods were no match for Caesar's armies,
but Caesar's armies were no match for the Old Gods.
Dan Veditz
>In article <DApy8...@news.uwindsor.ca>, John Benn <be...@uwindsor.ca> wrote:
>> Well I find it next to impossible to enjoy unrealistic events.
>>Realism is necessary but not sufficient for quality. This makes
>>it impossible to consider Star Wars to be quality in this regard.
>>I loved the trilogy, but the choreography in the ship combats was far
>>inferior to B5's.
>
>Ah, but you forget that in the approx. 15 years since Star Wars was made,
>there have been great leaps in special effects (partially fueled by Lucas
>himself). All the effects in SW were optical and are, basically,
>outmoded. With CGI you can perform complex camera movements, etc. etc.
The choreography of SW space battles had nothing to do with the limitations
of their special effects. Lucas himself said he was trying to recapture
the excitement he felt as a kid watching Saturday morning serials and
WWII fighter movies -- the spaceships move like planes because that's
how Lucas wanted it to look.
It's not realistic, but it WAS exciting.
-Dan Veditz
Glide Computers and You
> Actually, I think we broke RoTJ's record for ships on-screen in the
> pilot; Ron was rather pleased about it at the time.
>
> jms
so what's the record, and why does it matter? I mean there has to be an
upper limit, since having ships collide just to make it look good might
be very shadow, but not cool, ya know? ;>
donald wilton
This person represents Computers and You at Glide Memorial
Church to the extent that he or she acts as our email and
Internet resource. Any opions, and do we have opinions (!),
represents only his or her own.
john russell
> Actually, I think we broke RoTJ's record for ships on-screen in the
>pilot; Ron was rather pleased about it at the time.
>
> jms
Yes, but were there any potatoes in the shot?
jr
The Toronto Argonut.
its spin-offs have gotten stale.
Star Trek is not stale, you are just not as enamoured
with an old reliable car and are turned on by a new
and different model.
B5 is a good show because it is different than star Trek,
but that does not mean Styar Trek isn't good.
I like both shows and watch them for what they are, not what
I want them to be.
That's my 0.02 cents worth.
Now I will probably get flamed by those crybaby children
who do that sort of thing.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Revenge is a dish best served cold. It's very cold in space.
- Khan Star Trek II
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hardin Brett Arvid
| Actually, I think we broke RoTJ's record for ships on-screen in the
| pilot; Ron was rather pleased about it at the time.
|
| jms
ships running around all over the place, heck there were more Star
Destroyers floating around (off in the distance) than there were Vorlon
Ships (If I remember both scenes properly) The record for matts was
something absurdly low (around 30-40) for ESB (the asteroids) and was
upped in ROtJ in a few places (3 second scenes mostly)
Of course they were getting lazy and decided to start filming them (the
ships) many at a time.
I don't suppose you happen to have the numbers handy anywhere?
(I don't suppose it really matters either, but the numbers are out there
at someones fingertips I'm sure.
)
Don't get me wrong, it is even possible that there were actually more
ships in the B5 pilot than in ROtJ- but the effect (from my point of
view) was that there were a heck of a lot MORE ships in RotJ even if it
was only because someone said so on screen. Which is ultimately the
effect your looking for.
So, if the Emperor were to get into a fight with a Star Destroyer
piloted by Superman, who'd pick up the tab!
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| LightSmith -the magazine -- Lightwave 3D Tutorials,
| Hints, and Solutions
All opinions are| ASK FOR DETAILS from the Experts in the
mine, and should| IF INTERESTED field.
conflict |
minimaly |----------------------------------------------------------
with reality!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Salyers
In a previous article, 73441...@CompuServe.COM (The Toronto Argonut.) says:
>You guys in 10 years will be complaining that B5 and
>its spin-offs have gotten stale.
Well, it *will* have gotten a bit old, seeing as how in ten years we'll
be seven years past the end of the entire series with no spinoffs...
--
Tom Salyers "Now is the Windows of our disk contents
IRCnick: Aqualung made glorious SimEarth by this Sun of Zork."
Denver, CO ---Richard v3.0
Michael J. King Sr.
>You guys in 10 years will be complaining that B5 and
>its spin-offs have gotten stale.
>B5 is a good show because it is different than star Trek,
>but that does not mean Styar Trek isn't good.
>I like both shows and watch them for what they are, not what
>I want them to be.
>That's my 0.02 cents worth.
>Now I will probably get flamed by those crybaby children
>who do that sort of thing.
I guess this is supposed to be the opposite of the old " I dare you to print
my letter but you won't cause..."
Later Mike#139
Emery Calame
writes:
>strac...@genie.geis.com writes:
>
>> Actually, I think we broke RoTJ's record for ships on-screen in
the
>>pilot; Ron was rather pleased about it at the time.
>>
>> jms
>
>
>jr
Um...when they took off Darth Vader's helmet, I'm pretty sure that was
a potato I saw underneath...wasn't it? Hell, if I was that pale n' ugly
I'd use my psychic powers to choke people too..... EM
kevin eugene scruggs
|You guys in 10 years will be complaining that B5 and
|its spin-offs have gotten stale.
|with an old reliable car and are turned on by a new
(which presumes to be intellectualy stimulatiing btw)
I still love TOS btw, although I trash it a bit more than
I used to. It is still entertaining as are parts of the
newer wave that preceed teh more recent malaise.
Voyager was recycling itself (Trek) in only its second
episode. THAT is stale. Attrocious science as well.
Trek has painted itself into a courner that it doesn't
have the resolve to step out of.
|and different model.
|B5 is a good show because it is different than star Trek,
|but that does not mean Styar Trek isn't good.
|I like both shows and watch them for what they are, not what
|I want them to be.
|That's my 0.02 cents worth.
|
|Now I will probably get flamed by those crybaby children
|who do that sort of thing.
If you can't run with the big dogs, stay under the porch.
Brenda Jean Buck
John Pietrzak
>Franklin Hummel (hum...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: (Mike Thomson) writes:
>: > I thought some shows like "Improbable Cause" "The Die is Cast" and
>: >"Explorers" were amazing episodes.. I think that you might be a bit HARD on
>: ^^^^^^^^^^
>: "Explorers" demonstrated clearly how BAD Star Trek has become
>: as Science Fiction.
>
>Realism = Quality
>NNNOOOTTTT!!!!!!
>
>Think. Star Wars was anything BUT realistic. Yet it had to be the BEST
>Sci Fi movie EVER written. B5 is realistic but realism does not equal
>quality. If you think that then you have MAJOR problem. Quality = Quality
>not realism.
It really depends on who you are. Personally, I believe _2001: a space
oddysey_ was the "BEST Science Fiction movie EVER written." It had
both quality and realism. I agree that junk is junk, whether realistic
or not; but even the highest-quality piece of fantasy isn't good SF if
it has no science in it. Trek has had no science in it for some years
now.
John
--
Babylon 5 -- a surfboard riding the Tsunami
Emery Calame
Eagleson) writes:
>
>Franklin Hummel (hum...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: In article <2d2_950...@tor250.org>
Mike.Thomson@x250_836.gryn.org
>: > I thought some shows like "Improbable Cause" "The Die is
Cast" and
>: >"Explorers" were amazing episodes.. I think that you might be a
bit HARD on
>: ^^^^^^^^^^
>:
a
>: solar sailing craft would -need- to be like. Also, totally
unrealistic
>: in its approach to even the concept of solar sailing. Having Sisko
build
>: a solar sailer by -himself- in weeks was ludicrous; it's as if
someone
>: build a airplane by themselves in the same about of time.
Laughable.
>: And tachyons causing a solar sailer to go faster than light? From
dumb
>: to dumber.
>: "Explorers" demonstrated clearly how BAD Star Trek has become
>: as Science Fiction.
>:
>: >DS9..
>:
>Realism = Quality
>NNNOOOTTTT!!!!!!
>
>Think. Star Wars was anything BUT realistic. Yet it had to be the BEST
>Sci Fi movie EVER written. B5 is realistic but realism does not equal
>quality. If you think that then you have MAJOR problem. Quality =
Quality
>not realism.
>
>-Andy Eagleson
>
>These are my opinions. If you don't like them TOUGH!
>
Starwars isn't the best Sci-fi movie ever written. Alien was better,
and I think wrath of kahn was too. I'm not saying Starwars wasn't a
little more ambitious than either of those two, but I like them quite a
bit more than starwars....And yes...I was eight when I saw it.
EM
me...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
>>Franklin Hummel (hum...@netcom.com) wrote:
>> Star Wars was anything BUT realistic. Yet it had to be the BEST
>
>>Sci Fi movie EVER written.
I remember Professor James Gunn's reaction to someone in class making this
same comment (BTW Gunn is a highly respected SF editor and writer). His
reaction was that Star Wars was NOT Sci Fi. But it is very good fantasy.
It just happens to be set in the future. That does not make it SF, it
is still fantasy, pure and simple. To think otherwise is to insult all true
SF films.
Oh and I do like Star Wars. Own the films. Watch them often. But I must agree
it is fantasy. White knight versus dark knight with evil sorceror overlord.
Princess in distress. Thief as assistant with non-human friend. Wise man
in seclusion to train white knight. All fantasy. Just in the future.
And the best SF film? Bladerunner. Follows all of the SF requirements.
It is not so much about an individual as it is about the human race with
a "what if". What if humans created androids that then went bad?
But hey, that's my opinion.
Mel Grindol
Franklin Hummel
(John Pietrzak) writes:>>Think. Star Wars was anything BUT realistic. Yet it had to be the BEST
Actually, what STAR WARS was, more than Sci-Fi (hint: Sci-Fi does
-not- equal SF), was Space Opera. And, it is likely the best Space Opera
movie so far done.
But, STAR WARS wasn't Science Fiction.
>>quality. If you think that then you have MAJOR problem. Quality = Quality
>>not realism.
-REALISM- is one of the basic requirments of -good- Science
Fiction. And without realism, you cannot have good Science Fiction.
>It really depends on who you are. Personally, I believe _2001: a space
>oddysey_ was the "BEST Science Fiction movie EVER written." It had
Agreed.
>both quality and realism. I agree that junk is junk, whether realistic
>or not; but even the highest-quality piece of fantasy isn't good SF if
>it has no science in it. Trek has had no science in it for some years
>now.
TREK even fails as good fantasy, because its technology has
become so completely inconsistent (being able to do one thing in one
episode, yet this never has an impact on the TREK universe beyond that
episode). This is not only bad in genre fiction such as SF and fantasy,
it is just bad fiction. It cheats the viewer.
Even without all the stupid scientific mistakes in DS9's "Explorers",
it still would have been bad fiction simply for having Sisko build a solar
sailer by himself within a period of weeks. If a story set in the present
day was based on a person building an airplane single-handedly within a
month, it would be laughed at as stupid and unbelievable.
To be honest, I am tired of TREK and its defenders. If they
what to continue to watch these episodes of creatively bankrupted,
plagiaristic, fictionally poorly-done stories by its writers and
producers, go ahead. I keep trying to watch TREK again, but all I see is
an worn-out, embarassing has-been of a once good, sometimes great series.
There is something just basically pitiful now about the entire Franchise.
I'm tried of trying to explaining this, to discuss this. It's becoming
nothing but a waste of time.
B5 isn't perfect. But it is -good-, with moments of greatest
which are happening more and more with every episode. JMS and everyone
involved in it is -trying- to make it the best Science Fiction dramatic
series now on the air. And that effort is something I have not seen in
TREK in many years now.
Andy Eagleson
: In article <2d2_950...@tor250.org> Mike.Thomson@x250_836.gryn.org
: (Mike Thomson) writes:
: > I thought some shows like "Improbable Cause" "The Die is Cast" and
: >"Explorers" were amazing episodes.. I think that you might be a bit HARD on
: ^^^^^^^^^^
:
: An absolutely -stupid- episode with regards to the science and
: science fiction. It showed not the slightest understanding of what a
: solar sailing craft would -need- to be like. Also, totally unrealistic
: build a airplane by themselves in the same about of time. Laughable.
: And tachyons causing a solar sailer to go faster than light? From dumb
: to dumber.
:
: "Explorers" demonstrated clearly how BAD Star Trek has become
: as Science Fiction.
:
:
: >DS9..
:
Realism = Quality
NNNOOOTTTT!!!!!!
Think. Star Wars was anything BUT realistic. Yet it had to be the BEST
Sci Fi movie EVER written. B5 is realistic but realism does not equal
quality. If you think that then you have MAJOR problem. Quality = Quality
not realism.
-Andy Eagleson
Andy Eagleson
: In article <3sdphn$7...@homer.alpha.net>,
: Andy Eagleson <ande...@earth.execpc.com> wrote:
: >
: >Why is realism ALWAYS ascoaited with quality? STARWARS is NOT realistic
: >YET it is ( What I consider ) BETTER quality than B5!
: Well I find it next to impossible to enjoy unrealistic events.
: Realism is necessary but not sufficient for quality. This makes
: it impossible to consider Star Wars to be quality in this regard.
: I loved the trilogy, but the choreography in the ship combats was far
: inferior to B5's.
WOH STOP RIGHT THERE.
Star Wars HAD and STILL has the BEST battles around in space. They may
have Banked and truned but they were FAR better than B5's battles and
Star Treks. Don't know Star Wars battles to B5 you will NEVER win. B5 is
more realistic but Star Wars was BETTER!
-Andy Eagleson
These are MY opinions. If you don't like them TOUGH!
Franklin Hummel
>me...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu wrote:
>
>> I remember Professor James Gunn's reaction to someone in class making this
>> same comment (BTW Gunn is a highly respected SF editor and writer). His
>> reaction was that Star Wars was NOT Sci Fi. But it is very good fantasy.
>> It just happens to be set in the future. That does not make it SF, it
The past, actually: "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..."
This line, in fact, is one of the major examples that STAR WARS -is-
meant to be fantasy; think "Once upon a time".
Matthew Melmon
> I remember Professor James Gunn's reaction to someone in class making this
> same comment (BTW Gunn is a highly respected SF editor and writer). His
> reaction was that Star Wars was NOT Sci Fi. But it is very good fantasy.
> It just happens to be set in the future. That does not make it SF, it
> is still fantasy, pure and simple. To think otherwise is to insult all true
> SF films.
>
> Oh and I do like Star Wars. Own the films. Watch them often. But I must agree
> it is fantasy. White knight versus dark knight with evil sorceror overlord.
> Princess in distress. Thief as assistant with non-human friend. Wise man
> in seclusion to train white knight. All fantasy. Just in the future.
>
> And the best SF film? Bladerunner. Follows all of the SF requirements.
> It is not so much about an individual as it is about the human race with
> a "what if". What if humans created androids that then went bad?
Try: "What if humans created artificial life which was just as
alive as the 'real' thing." As to the whether or not Star Wars is
"science-fiction" or "fantasy," it is amusing that the more successful
some techno-gizmoid adventure flick is, the more "true science
fiction" believers whine about how it isn't "true science fiction."
It seems the Number One Criteria for sci-fi is: must be ratings or
box-office also-ran.
--
*X*
Aaron Countryman
fit their little SF mold to be Sci Fi. Reminds me of the people who
blasted Lucas when Star Wars came out because it was such a departure
from THX 1138. If Star Wars was never made, Sci-Fi would have taken a
long time to come back, if ever into popularity.
On 1 Jul 1995 me...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu wrote:
>
> >>Franklin Hummel (hum...@netcom.com) wrote:
> >> Star Wars was anything BUT realistic. Yet it had to be the BEST
> >
> >>Sci Fi movie EVER written.
>
> I remember Professor James Gunn's reaction to someone in class making this
> same comment (BTW Gunn is a highly respected SF editor and writer). His
> reaction was that Star Wars was NOT Sci Fi. But it is very good fantasy.
> It just happens to be set in the future. That does not make it SF, it
> is still fantasy, pure and simple. To think otherwise is to insult all true
> SF films.
>
> Oh and I do like Star Wars. Own the films. Watch them often. But I must agree
> it is fantasy. White knight versus dark knight with evil sorceror overlord.
> Princess in distress. Thief as assistant with non-human friend. Wise man
> in seclusion to train white knight. All fantasy. Just in the future.
>
> And the best SF film? Bladerunner. Follows all of the SF requirements.
> It is not so much about an individual as it is about the human race with
> a "what if". What if humans created androids that then went bad?
>
Franklin Hummel
> Just another post from elitist SF fans who think everything must
>fit their little SF mold to be Sci Fi. Reminds me of the people who
These are two different things. If you don't want to bother to
learn the terminology needed to discuss the differences within the genre,
then I can guess I will be seeing other similar uneducated statements from
you in the future.
By the way, to you also refer to green as yellow? Is a Ford
Pinto a Ford Tempo?
>blasted Lucas when Star Wars came out because it was such a departure
>from THX 1138. If Star Wars was never made, Sci-Fi would have taken a
>long time to come back, if ever into popularity.
different aspects of the genre. THX1139 was Science Fiction while
STAR WARS was Space Opera/Fantasy.
Also, I see no proof for your claim that STAR WARS was somehow
responsible for bring "Sci-Fi" back into "popularity" in a -short- time.
STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE appeared that same year. And it was 10
-years- after STAR WARS appeared, that STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION
appeared on TV, to within the last few years when we have a fair amount
of "Sci-Fi" and even some SF back on TV. And as far as the movies over
the last decade, I haven't seen any exceptionally larger numbers, anymore
than in previous decades.
Christopher Novosad
Franklin Hummel <hum...@netcom.com> wrote:
> Also, I see no proof for your claim that STAR WARS was somehow
>responsible for bring "Sci-Fi" back into "popularity" in a -short- time.
>STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE appeared that same year. And it was 10
>-years- after STAR WARS appeared, that STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION
>appeared on TV, to within the last few years when we have a fair amount
>of "Sci-Fi" and even some SF back on TV. And as far as the movies over
>the last decade, I haven't seen any exceptionally larger numbers, anymore
>than in previous decades.
ST:TMP was a yawner. SW had excitement and spawned a whole slew of
copiers and low budget movies. Not to mention Battlestar Galactica. And
most of these SF shows were more of an emulation of SW than ST:the acid trip.
According to "Films of Science Fiction and Fantasy" Star Wars, like
Destination Moon in 1950 started a second wave of science fiction in
cinema. Why? Star Wars proved to the producers that SF has a viable
genre, that the public would pay money to see such things. These were
followed up by The Black Hole and Star Trek:TMP -- Buck Rogers, Alien
in 1979, Flash Gordon in 1980; Outland, Time Bandits, Road Warrior in
1981; Tron, Blade Runner, E.T. in 1982; Dune, Terminator in 1984. (to
name some of the more prominent movies of the timeframe -- also, there
were numerous low-budget ripoffs, not only of SW, on film and on TV.)
Before Star Wars, there is quite a respectable list of other science
fiction movies that are excellent, but the one thing you see post Star
Wars is a dramatic increase in production value.
Everyone told Lucas that SW would be the biggest flop of all time.
Star Wars made a hell of a lot of money in a short amount of time.
It was not the SF messiah (genre movies would still be made) it, however,
allowed more money to be available for it's production.
michelle m-jacobs
> These are two different things. If you don't want to bother to
>learn the terminology needed to discuss the differences within the genre,
>then I can guess I will be seeing other similar uneducated statements from
>you in the future.
Here are some definitions, taken from _Science Fiction Writer"s
Marketplace_. Writer's Digerst Books, copyright 1994:
Alternate history: Fantasy, sometimes with science fiction elements,
that changes the accepted account of actual historical events or
people to suggest an alternate view of history.
Cyberpuk: Type of science fiction usually concerned with computer
networks and human-computer combinations, involving young,
sophisticated protagonists.
Dark Fantasy: Fantasy containing horror, mystery, or Gothic elements
and often dealing with evil or magic.
Hard science fiction: Science-fiction with an emphasis on science and
technology.
High fantasy: Fantsy with medieval setting and a heavy emphasis on
chivalry and the quest.
Humorous science fiction: Science fiction with elements of humor.
Military science fiction: Science fiction focusing on war and the
military.
Sociological science fiction: Science fiction with an emphasis on
society and culture.
Space opera: Epic science fiction with an emphasis on good guys vs.
bad buys .
Steampunk: A subgenre of alternate history science-fiction set in
Victorian England in which characters have access to 20th-century
technology.
Traditional fantasy: Fantasy with an emphasis on magic, using
characters with the ability to do magic such as wizards, dragons,
elves and unicorns.
Urban fantasy: Fantasy that takes magical characters such as elves.
fairies. vampires, or wizards and places them in a modern-day setting,
often a big city.
I hope this helps all of those who are confused as to what genre
things fall in. Science fiction doesn't always have to have
speculative science in it, it can focus on what would happen in a
future society if certain conditons occured . George Orwell's _1984_
and Margaret Atwood's __The Handmaid's Tale__ qualifiy as science
fiction, even though there is no emphasis on science and technology.
in these novels.
Michelle
Ted McCoy
>-not- equal SF), was Space Opera. And, it is likely the best Space Opera
>movie so far done.
Agreed.
> TREK even fails as good fantasy, because its technology has
>become so completely inconsistent (being able to do one thing in one
>episode, yet this never has an impact on the TREK universe beyond that
>episode).
(You really ought to find a different word than "fantasy" here -- you're
lumping together a lot of entirely different genres.)
Anyway, in general, it would make a certain amount of sense for magic to
seem inconsistent, at least from the point of view of the human characters.
Just because magic will work in one situation doesn't mean it has to in
every other situation. (Always seemed to me that magic is more interesting
when it's portrayed as something much larger than the characters, something
that they can neither understand nor control fully. Much of the tech on
B5 is actually being portrayed in this sort of manner, at least from the
point of view of the humans, but I haven't seen much of this on Trek.)
The problem with the magic tech on Trek isn't really the inconsistency. It's
the way it's invented out of nowhere to quickly resolve storylines, or to
pad out dialogue.
>This is not only bad in genre fiction such as SF and fantasy,
>it is just bad fiction. It cheats the viewer.
Agreed. The problems with the way Trek treats tech have everything to do
with bad writing and much less to do with bad fantasy.
> Even without all the stupid scientific mistakes in DS9's "Explorers",
>it still would have been bad fiction simply for having Sisko build a solar
>sailer by himself within a period of weeks. If a story set in the present
>day was based on a person building an airplane single-handedly within a
>month, it would be laughed at as stupid and unbelievable.
But really that's the same as the scientific mistakes. The problem is that
the sailing ship wasn't really thought out at all (including its construction).
It was used as an excuse to show off different sides of Sisko's personality
more than anything else. (Notice the way that the episode's ending
trivializes everything about the sailing ship.)
> To be honest, I am tired of TREK and its defenders. If they
>what to continue to watch these episodes of creatively bankrupted,
>plagiaristic, fictionally poorly-done stories by its writers and
>producers, go ahead. I keep trying to watch TREK again, but all I see is
>an worn-out, embarassing has-been of a once good, sometimes great series.
>There is something just basically pitiful now about the entire Franchise.
>I'm tried of trying to explaining this, to discuss this. It's becoming
>nothing but a waste of time.
If you want to "discuss" something, you might want to respond to objections
occasionally. When somebody tears one of your arguments to shreds and you
proceed to ignore the objections and instead just repeat your original
argument a few days later, well, that falls somewhere short of "discussion."
(And as for "explaining," you might want to consider some advice that was
given to me a few months back: provide some sort of facts to support what
you're saying. Try to be at least vaguely specific. Stringing together
a list of clever adjectives and creative insults doesn't cut it. It's
not really an explanation unless you explain something, and that's not
necessarily the same as venting emotions and opinions.)
Yes, there is something sad about the entire Franchise. And yet the fact
remains, they have a lot of talented people working for them, both behind
and in front of the camera, and this talent is showing up on the screen a
lot more frequently than one really would expect under those circumstances.
Could jms produce the kind of show he's been producing if he were working
under the sort of environment that Paramount has imposed on Trek? I seriously
doubt it. (Actually, I doubt that he'd be crazy enough to try, but you
never know.)
(And I'm not criticizing jms. He's had many kind words to say of the creative
teams behind Trek, and his bitterness with Paramount is more than
understandable.)
> B5 isn't perfect. But it is -good-, with moments of greatest
>which are happening more and more with every episode. JMS and everyone
>involved in it is -trying- to make it the best Science Fiction dramatic
>series now on the air.
Agreed -- the thing that's kept me coming back to B5 week after week, even
through some of the dry spells during season one, is the potential behind
the show.
Ted
Ted McCoy
>> Just another post from elitist SF fans who think everything must
>>fit their little SF mold to be Sci Fi. Reminds me of the people who
> ^^ ^^^^^^
>
>learn the terminology needed to discuss the differences within the genre,
>then I can guess I will be seeing other similar uneducated statements from
>you in the future.
>
>Pinto a Ford Tempo?
Or a Ford Thaxton? ;-)
The Ford analogy fails on a number of levels. For starters, all Ford Pintos
are roughly the same (beyond superficial differences), which makes them easy
to identify. The same is not true for science fiction stories (if it were
true, there wouldn't be much point in reading more than a couple of them).
Beyond that: when Ford makes a Pinto or a Tempo, one generally hopes it
realizes which it is making. In contrast, I've seen cases where sf-ish
writers would put their work in a different category than you (or Gharlane)
would put it.
The green and yellow analogy is somewhat more accurate, because there are
colors ranging all the way between green and yellow, and at some point, the
decision of whether a shade of greenish yellow (or yellowish green) is green
or yellow becomes arbitrary. Of course, you seem to have neglected to
consider that case.
> Also, I see no proof for your claim that STAR WARS was somehow
>responsible for bring "Sci-Fi" back into "popularity" in a -short- time.
>STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE appeared that same year.
1977 and 1979 are the same year?
>And it was 10
>-years- after STAR WARS appeared, that STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION
>appeared on TV,
Right, but it's hard to see TNG as anything but a response to the success
of the TOS movies (and the realization that those movies couldn't continue
forever). Which goes back to the question of whether or not we'd have
seen TOS movies if Star Wars hadn't been a hit.
>to within the last few years when we have a fair amount
>of "Sci-Fi" and even some SF back on TV.
A fair amount of "Sci-Fi," anyway.
>And as far as the movies over
>the last decade, I haven't seen any exceptionally larger numbers, anymore
>than in previous decades.
Sf-ish movies tend to be expensive; that's one of the biggest reasons we
haven't seen more than we have. (If you could easily rip off Jurassic Park
for half a million dollars, more people would be doing that. As it is, all
of the "low budget" dinosaur movies I remember from the last year have
come from Charles Band -- "Prehysteria" -- or Roger Corman -- "Carnosaur,"
"Carnosaur II," "Dinosaur Island.")
Ted
Franklin Hummel
>In article <hummelDB...@netcom.com>,
>Franklin Hummel <hum...@netcom.com> wrote:
>> Also, I see no proof for your claim that STAR WARS was somehow
>>responsible for bring "Sci-Fi" back into "popularity" in a -short- time.
>>of "Sci-Fi" and even some SF back on TV. And as far as the movies over
>>than in previous decades.
>
>copiers and low budget movies. Not to mention Battlestar Galactica. And
>most of these SF shows were more of an emulation of SW than ST:the acid trip.
Copying STAR WARS cannot be considered as being responsible for
creating a return of the popularity of -Science Fiction-. A lot of STAR
WARS clones do not Science Fiction make.
>According to "Films of Science Fiction and Fantasy" Star Wars, like
>Destination Moon in 1950 started a second wave of science fiction in
>cinema. Why? Star Wars proved to the producers that SF has a viable
>genre, that the public would pay money to see such things. These were
>followed up by The Black Hole and Star Trek:TMP -- Buck Rogers, Alien
>in 1979, Flash Gordon in 1980; Outland, Time Bandits, Road Warrior in
>1981; Tron, Blade Runner, E.T. in 1982; Dune, Terminator in 1984. (to
>name some of the more prominent movies of the timeframe -- also, there
>were numerous low-budget ripoffs, not only of SW, on film and on TV.)
made before STAR WARS hit the theaters. Most of the other movies you
mentioned were not large-budget films and the ones that were were
carried on the status of the director, not on its genre. (For example.
CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, which you missed in your list.)
>Before Star Wars, there is quite a respectable list of other science
>fiction movies that are excellent, but the one thing you see post Star
>Wars is a dramatic increase in production value.
As was happening with -most- movies, especially the summer releases,
and still is.
>Everyone told Lucas that SW would be the biggest flop of all time.
>Star Wars made a hell of a lot of money in a short amount of time.
>It was not the SF messiah (genre movies would still be made) it, however,
>allowed more money to be available for it's production.
As I said, the costs for all movies was increasing at the same time.
Sure, STAR WARS resulted in some stuff, the best example was
BATTLESTAR GALATICA. But as you yourself said, it was just more of the
same, and most of this, while falling in the Sci-Fi category, was far
from being Science Fiction.
And even STAR WARS influence was limited there. How many seasons
did BG last -- 2 really, with a radically-altered 1 season-lasting showing
following it. BUCK ROGERS had the same thing happen, only in 2 seasons.
Hardly the major claim for the return of popularity which was claimed by
the poster I was responding to.
It was not until the return of STAR TREK in the form of THE NEXT
GENERATION (a decade after STAR WARS!) and its passing into a 4th season
that a least something vagely like Science Fiction could be said to have
regained a solid foothold again, and, as JMS has pointed out, all it
really gain was a foothold for -STAR TREK- itself. Look at the problem
he had getting BABYLON 5 on the air because it wasn't TREK.
In much the same way as STAR TREK:TNG created a foothold for other
STAR TREK, about all STAR WARS did was create a market for more STAR
WARS and a few clones of it. As far as it resulting in the return of
popularity of Science Fiction, sorry, I don't see it. As I said, if you
looked back to the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s, I think you would find just
about the same number of genre TV shows and movies coming out. Maybe a
few more in recent years because of the spread of syndicated series and
more cable channels, but still at about the same precentage as other stuff.
And, as others and I have commented, STAR WARS isn't Science
Fiction. Space Opera, a fantasy fairy tale with rocketships and rayguns,
most certainly it was.
michelle m-jacobs
>
> And, as others and I have commented, STAR WARS isn't Science
>Fiction. Space Opera, a fantasy fairy tale with rocketships and rayguns,
>most certainly it was.
>
Read the definitions I posted earlier, using the terminology writers
of science fiction themselves use. Space Opera isn't a fantasy
fairy tale with rocketships and rayguns. One of the best Space Operas
written recently is _A Fire On Deep_ by Vernor Vinge. I would think
your definition of Space Opera would insult him. By the way, little
as you may like it, even with all the techno babble, Star Trek does
qualify as science fiction. It does use some valid science in it.
They even have science consultants. The definition of what qualifies
as science fiction is a lot broader than your defintion. I think
you're only considering hard science fiction to be real science
fiction. Everything else you think is fantasy. You need to broaden
your definition to include other types of science fiction.
Michelle
Christopher Novosad
Franklin Hummel <hum...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <3t6g3k$o...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> volt...@actlab.utexas.edu
>(Christopher Novosad) writes:
>>In article <hummelDB...@netcom.com>,
>>Franklin Hummel <hum...@netcom.com> wrote:
I agree that Star Wars paved the way for more space opera, like ST only
opened a way for more ST. (guess I missed my own argument :)
And yes, the more I think about it, there hasn't really been a giant
surge of SF, but a steady stream of movies/tv shows since the media began
(Metropolis is damn good).
> And, as others and I have commented, STAR WARS isn't Science
>Fiction. Space Opera, a fantasy fairy tale with rocketships and rayguns,
>most certainly it was.
OK, my definition of SF is a lot looser than yours. Personally, I divide
SF up into subgenres (cyberpunk, space opera) and generally agree with
the subgenre definitions provided by a poster to this thread (I think it was
this one :) and then just give a blanket definition. So I count SW as
"Science Fiction: Space Opera."
Am I correct in understanding your definition of science fiction being "hard
science fiction" like, perhaps, 2001, where science and technology
(reality based) is at the core?
Voltayre
Jay Denebeim
Um, Space Opera isn't necessarily fantasy. About the best known Space
Opera is the Lensman. That was very hard SF. Space Opera is a huge
story told in mostly black and white terms. It's a great genre, but
there hasn't been much of it written in the last 50 years.
Other then SW anyway, but it could almost be classified more as heroic
fantasy rather then space opera due to the fact that it is fantasy :-)
Jay
--
Sig under construction
Jay Denebeim dene...@deepthot.cary.nc.us
duke!wolves!deepthot!denebeim
Engkent
>From: eme...@ix.netcom.com (Emery Calame )
>Subject: Re: DS9 War?
>Date: 1 Jul 1995 17:17:13 GMT
>In <3t2qcv$8...@homer.alpha.net> ande...@earth.execpc.com (Andy
>Eagleson) writes:
>>
>>Franklin Hummel (hum...@netcom.com) wrote:
>>: In article <2d2_950...@tor250.org>
>Mike.Thomson@x250_836.gryn.org
>>: (Mike Thomson) writes:
>>: > I thought some shows like "Improbable Cause" "The Die is
>Cast" and
>>: >"Explorers" were amazing episodes.. I think that you might be a
>bit HARD on
>>: ^^^^^^^^^^
>>:
>>: An absolutely -stupid- episode with regards to the science and
>>: science fiction. It showed not the slightest understanding of what
>a
>>: solar sailing craft would -need- to be like. Also, totally
>unrealistic
>>: in its approach to even the concept of solar sailing. Having Sisko
>build
>>: a solar sailer by -himself- in weeks was ludicrous; it's as if
>someone
>>: build a airplane by themselves in the same about of time.
>Laughable.
>>: And tachyons causing a solar sailer to go faster than light? From
>dumb
>>: to dumber.
>>:
>>: "Explorers" demonstrated clearly how BAD Star Trek has become
>>: as Science Fiction.
>>:
What's the matter with tachyon particles accerarting a solar sailer past
lightspeed? Neutrinos are thought to travel at the speed of light. The idea of
solar sailing has been around for along time. Our atmosphere might deflect or
vaporize such particles so we know nothing of them. If you want to nitpick
Star Trek, than join a Trek newsgroup.
Second, Commander (now Capt. Sisko) Sisko could build the ship in a few weeks.
Transporter and Replicator technowledgy would help.
David Engkent
SCOTT MACINTYRE
TM>>In article <hummelDB...@netcom.com>,
>>Franklin Hummel <hum...@netcom.com> wrote:
TM>>The problem with the magic tech on Trek isn't really the inconsistency. It
>>the way it's invented out of nowhere to quickly resolve storylines, or to
>>pad out dialogue.
Not necessarily. Sometime the technobabble is not just ludicrous but
technically inaccurate. I remember seeing a show a while back where
Data talks about Soliton Gas. This really made me laugh as a Soliton
is a non-linear wave phenomoenon
Bureau 13
---
* 1st 1.11 * It was 1995 - the year the Great Flame War came upon us all.
SCOTT MACINTYRE
>>From: hum...@netcom.com (Franklin Hummel)
FH>> THE BLACK HOLE was a bomb. STAR TREK:TNG was already being
Star Wars was released in 1977. ST:TNG didn't arrive until a lot later.
Emery Calame
writes:
Stuff chopped off and discarded to appease DocFox and his sense of how
a post should be referenced....
>
> THE BLACK HOLE was a bomb. STAR TREK:TNG was already being
>made before STAR WARS hit the theaters. Most of the other movies you
>mentioned were not large-budget films and the ones that were were
>carried on the status of the director, not on its genre. (For
example.
>CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, which you missed in your list.)
>
I'm assuming you mean Star Trek : The Motion Picture. Although some
some people in the TV biz did try to make a new Star Trek series about
that time, to be called The New Voyages,it never happened.
The director's names DIDN'T carry a lot of those movies. They were
approved because it was circulated that in that market, science fiction
was a viable genere to produce movies in, as demonstrated by the
success of Starwars.
Wrong. The length of the series is not important, because the failure
of the series could be attributed to its poor quality, rather than the
popularity of the Movie that inspired it.
Well, like it or not, Space Opera, still is considered by massive
amounts of people, to be a form of science fiction.And the only purpose
served by seperating the two is is giving creative writing professors
an easy obvious question to put on the exam.
EM
Mike Thomson
>In article <2d2_950...@tor250.org> Mike.Thomson@x250_836.gryn.org
>(Mike Thomson) writes:
>> I thought some shows like "Improbable Cause" "The Die is Cast" and
>>"Explorers" were amazing episodes.. I think that you might be a bit HARD on
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>
> An absolutely -stupid- episode with regards to the science and
>science fiction. It showed not the slightest understanding of what a
>solar sailing craft would -need- to be like. Also, totally unrealistic
>in its approach to even the concept of solar sailing. Having Sisko build
>a solar sailer by -himself- in weeks was ludicrous; it's as if someone
>build a airplane by themselves in the same about of time. Laughable.
>And tachyons causing a solar sailer to go faster than light? From dumb
>to dumber.
>
> "Explorers" demonstrated clearly how BAD Star Trek has become
>as Science Fiction.
>
To the less than 2% of the WORLD POPULATION that would UNDERSTAND solar sailing and
its propor scientific uses... sure.. it was not acturate. But the show WAS not
about the SCIENCE of the ship..but what it meant to Bajorans. And what it meant to
Sisko himself. I think you forgot to SUSPEND BELIEF in this episode.. Come on..its
entertainment, and if you need total realism, don't watch B5 either..or those
Explosive sounds in space would be Inexcusable by your standards.
Mike
Jennifer Rollins
: hum...@netcom.com (Franklin Hummel) wrote:
: > And, as others and I have commented, STAR WARS isn't Science
: >most certainly it was.
: The definition of what qualifies
: as science fiction is a lot broader than your defintion. I think
: you're only considering hard science fiction to be real science
: fiction. Everything else you think is fantasy. You need to broaden
: your definition to include other types of science fiction.
Agreed. If I went up to 99% of the world's population and tried to tell
them that Star Wars isn't science fiction, they'd laugh at me and refuse
to take anything else I said seriously. Maybe you prefer sci-fi with a
little more realism, but lack of realism doesn't automatically disqualify
it from being science fiction. You're trying to impose terms agreed to
by only a few people. If you want to classify different forms of sci-fi
within science fiction, that's one thing. But to try and call one type
of science fiction to be the only true type of science fiction is ridiculous.
Glenn Saunders
There are 2 watersheds in the rebirth of TV science fiction/fantasy.
Both things had to have happened for things to be as they are now.
ST:TNG
This show did a lot. First, it showed that some new technology
could help control costs and speed up production and so on.
Editing on video, no print stage.
Birth of digital vs. optical compositing (although some looks chintzy to me)
Digital effects (computer painted phasers and so on)
Also, it showed that 1-st run syndication was a viable market and
not just a place to run shows that were SO BAD THE NETWORKS WOULDN'T TAKE
IT. (A show like Small Wonder is an example of a PRE-TNG 1st run syndie
show that was so bad the networks wouldn't take it but it managed to get
out there unfortunately).
1st run syndication became the magic ingredient for SF to find
its narrowcast audience and flourish. Independent stations could move
the show around as it liked to find its target audience. Shows were less
likely to become victims of bad timeslots, and a bad timeslot in one
market didn't necessarily mean a bad timeslot in another with a variable
slot per market.
Also, the hope that Gene wanted was creative control and he got
more of that with 1st run syndication than he would have in a network
scenario. A lack of creative control has killed many an SF show.
B5 Pilot/1st season
The B5 pilot showed that computer animation could be substituted
completely for motion control shots and result in budgets smaller than
TNG. Not only motion control, but virtual sets freed up creativity and
reduced cost. This was the moment when a lot of people stood up and
realized they could actually produce an SF show for a low budget and have
it look good and so began a lot of shows on B5s coattails, going to the
executives and using B5 as evidence that it can be done.
Some of them did not follow the budgetary ideals of B5. Amblin's
SeaQuest is a case in point. They were not frugal enough, and therefore
they set themselves up for more of a fall when they didn't deliver the
ratings.
Some shows were just plain bad (Space Rangers/Viper). And some
were just plain mediocre (Robocop) such that they could never develop a
strong following.
Hercules, although I don't particular like its campiness
quotient, is probably the closest thing to a success as far as using B5's
production style--and in a unique way. I don't know if it got renewed.
The point is that the bad reputation that SF has had in the
industry for being too expensive is no longer true, as long as you follow
the B5 example to the letter. And that means that more executives will
at least give SF shows a chance since it means less $$ to risk.
There really is no need to spend $20 mil on a pilot like what
Paramount did with Voyager anymore. The days of budget-busting series
like Galactica are over as long as the show follows the B5 route.
So yes, Trek does not really follow this model completely. The
reason it can still succeed with its bloating budgets is that it is a
merchandising juggernaut that has been growing since Trek was reborn with
ST:TMP and continually fed with new product. However, as big as their
budgets are, they are still operating at a more efficient level than if
they were to do it completely optically ala Galactica or Buck Rogers so
technology still has helped.
Bruce Lewis
>
> In article <3t3iac$d...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> piet...@pistachio.cs.uiuc.edu
> (John Pietrzak) writes:
> >Andy Eagleson <ande...@earth.execpc.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>NNNOOOTTTT!!!!!!
> >>
> >>Think. Star Wars was anything BUT realistic. Yet it had to be the BEST
> >>Sci Fi movie EVER written. B5 is realistic but realism does not equal
>
> Actually, what STAR WARS was, more than Sci-Fi (hint: Sci-Fi does
> -not- equal SF), was Space Opera. And, it is likely the best Space Opera
> movie so far done.
Er, no. That would be ARREVIDERCI SPACE BATTLESHIP
YAMATO (1978), directed by Nishizaki Yoshinubu. Nice try, though.
> To be honest, I am tired of TREK and its defenders. If they
> what to continue to watch these episodes of creatively bankrupted,
> plagiaristic, fictionally poorly-done stories by its writers and
> producers, go ahead. I keep trying to watch TREK again, but all I see is
> an worn-out, embarassing has-been of a once good, sometimes great series.
> There is something just basically pitiful now about the entire Franchise.
> I'm tried of trying to explaining this, to discuss this. It's becoming
> nothing but a waste of time.
Agreed. Good post.
Bruce Lewis
Studio Go! Multimedia
Los Angeles
bc...@deltanet.com/stud...@aol.com
--------------------------------------------------
Proud producers of the STAR BLAZERS comic book
and other fine publications
--------------------------------------------------
( ^_^ ); My opinions are not necessarily those of Studio Go!, folks.
J D Trudel
>In article <3so86n$35o$2...@mhade.production.compuserve.com> The Toronto Argonut. <73441...@CompuServe.COM> writes:
> Voyager was recycling itself (Trek) in only its second
> episode. THAT is stale. Attrocious science as well.
> Trek has painted itself into a courner that it doesn't
> have the resolve to step out of.
Recycle seems to be a favorite word in Star Trek. STTNG recycled some
ideas from TOS, Voyager has already done the same (as you mentioned),
and the whole "Alien Race infiltrates to high levels of command of
Starfleet" has been recycled in DS9, taken from a TNG story.
ST storylines are collapsing in on themselves, and are pulling us
in with 'em.
I'll still watch, however...
Jon
kevin eugene scruggs
|hum...@netcom.com (Franklin Hummel) wrote:
|
||
|| And, as others and I have commented, STAR WARS isn't Science
||Fiction. Space Opera, a fantasy fairy tale with rocketships and rayguns,
||most certainly it was.
||
|
|of science fiction themselves use. Space Opera isn't a fantasy
|fairy tale with rocketships and rayguns. One of the best Space Operas
|written recently is _A Fire On Deep_ by Vernor Vinge. I would think
|your definition of Space Opera would insult him. By the way, little
|as you may like it, even with all the techno babble, Star Trek does
|qualify as science fiction. It does use some valid science in it.
kevin eugene scruggs
|hum...@netcom.com (Franklin Hummel) wrote:
||(Mike Thomson) writes:
||| I thought some shows like "Improbable Cause" "The Die is Cast" and
|||"Explorers" were amazing episodes.. I think that you might be a bit HARD on
|| ^^^^^^^^^^
||
|| An absolutely -stupid- episode with regards to the science and
||science fiction. It showed not the slightest understanding of what a
||solar sailing craft would -need- to be like. Also, totally unrealistic
||in its approach to even the concept of solar sailing. Having Sisko build
||a solar sailer by -himself- in weeks was ludicrous; it's as if someone
||build a airplane by themselves in the same about of time. Laughable.
||And tachyons causing a solar sailer to go faster than light? From dumb
||to dumber.
||
|| "Explorers" demonstrated clearly how BAD Star Trek has become
||as Science Fiction.
||
|
|To the less than 2% of the WORLD POPULATION that would UNDERSTAND solar sailing and
|its propor scientific uses... sure.. it was not acturate. But the show WAS not
|about the SCIENCE of the ship..but what it meant to Bajorans. And what it meant to
|Sisko himself. I think you forgot to SUSPEND BELIEF in this episode.. Come on..its
even high school level physics. It's like watching Space Rangers
and hearing a damn SONAR report.
Suspension of belief can only take one so far...
|entertainment, and if you need total realism, don't watch B5 either..or those
|Explosive sounds in space would be Inexcusable by your standards.
I like the HUD rationalization myself... '-)
kevin eugene scruggs
I no longer make an effort to watch it anymore...
Peronet Despeignes
: Franklin Hummel (hum...@netcom.com) wrote:
: : In article <2d2_950...@tor250.org> Mike.Thomson@x250_836.gryn.org
: : (Mike Thomson) writes:
: : > I thought some shows like "Improbable Cause" "The Die is Cast" and
: : >"Explorers" were amazing episodes.. I think that you might be a bit HARD on
: : ^^^^^^^^^^
: Realism = Quality
: NNNOOOTTTT!!!!!!
: Think. Star Wars was anything BUT realistic. Yet it had to be the BEST
: Sci Fi movie EVER written. B5 is realistic but realism does not equal
: quality. If you think that then you have MAJOR problem. Quality = Quality
: not realism.
I generally agree, but quality itself is underminded if the background of
psuedo-science is poorly developed, poorly considered, and inconsistent
over the course of a series.
Perry D.
SCOTT MACINTYRE
> To be honest, I am tired of TREK and its defenders. If they
> what to continue to watch these episodes of creatively bankrupted,
> plagiaristic, fictionally poorly-done stories by its writers and
> producers, go ahead. I keep trying to watch TREK again, but all I se
> an worn-out, embarassing has-been of a once good, sometimes great ser
> There is something just basically pitiful now about the entire Franch
> I'm tried of trying to explaining this, to discuss this. It's becomi
> nothing but a waste of time.
BL>Agreed. Good post.
BL>Bruce Lewis
BL>bc...@deltanet.com/stud...@aol.com
Right on.
---
It was 1995 - the year the Great Flame War came upon us all.
Scott@Bureau13
---
* WaveRdr 1.10 [NR] * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY
Ted McCoy
Franklin Hummel <hum...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <3t6g3k$o...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> volt...@actlab.utexas.edu
>(Christopher Novosad) writes:
> THE BLACK HOLE was a bomb. STAR TREK:TNG was already being
>made before STAR WARS hit the theaters.
Actually, Roddenberry had been trying to revive Trek for quite a while,
right? But it wasn't until Star Wars became a hit that the money became
available.
>>Before Star Wars, there is quite a respectable list of other science
>>fiction movies that are excellent, but the one thing you see post Star
>>Wars is a dramatic increase in production value.
>
>
> As was happening with -most- movies, especially the summer releases,
>and still is.
Yeah, but after Star Wars, studios were much more willing to put a lot of
money into sf movies. That wasn't the only factor in the increase in
production values of course, but it was certainly a significant one.
>>Everyone told Lucas that SW would be the biggest flop of all time.
>>Star Wars made a hell of a lot of money in a short amount of time.
>>It was not the SF messiah (genre movies would still be made) it, however,
>>allowed more money to be available for it's production.
>
> As I said, the costs for all movies was increasing at the same time.
>
> Sure, STAR WARS resulted in some stuff, the best example was
>BATTLESTAR GALATICA. But as you yourself said, it was just more of the
>same, and most of this, while falling in the Sci-Fi category, was far
>from being Science Fiction.
You're generalizing here. What Star Wars did was to convince executives
that investing in big budget sf pictures could be worth the risk. Sure, some
of this led to investments in "more of the same" like Battlestar Galactica.
Others, like Alien and Star Trek: The Motion Picture, were not the same.
(I'm not sure if any movies from that period would count as science fiction,
at least by the standards that you usually apply; then again, I'm not sure
if many movies from any period would count as science fiction by those
standards.)
Of course, as you mention, some of these projects might have been started
anyway, on the strengths of the directors.
> It was not until the return of STAR TREK in the form of THE NEXT
>GENERATION (a decade after STAR WARS!) and its passing into a 4th season
>that a least something vagely like Science Fiction could be said to have
>regained a solid foothold again, and, as JMS has pointed out, all it
>really gain was a foothold for -STAR TREK- itself. Look at the problem
>he had getting BABYLON 5 on the air because it wasn't TREK.
Look at how many sf-ish projects suddenly started hitting the screens once
studio execs started noticing how much money TNG was making. Trek paves the
way not only for more Trek, but also for shows like B5 and The X-Files.
(Remember, many of the problems that execs have with sf come from the
decades of failed sf shows before TNG.)
> In much the same way as STAR TREK:TNG created a foothold for other
>STAR TREK, about all STAR WARS did was create a market for more STAR
>WARS and a few clones of it.
Would we have seen Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Alien, or even The Terminator
if Star Wars had bombed? You're dismissing the possibility far too quickly.
>As far as it resulting in the return of
>popularity of Science Fiction, sorry, I don't see it.
Yeah, but that's because you redefined "Science Fiction" to equal the empty
set in the middle of the discussion.
>As I said, if you
>looked back to the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s, I think you would find just
>about the same number of genre TV shows and movies coming out. Maybe a
>few more in recent years because of the spread of syndicated series and
>more cable channels, but still at about the same precentage as other stuff.
Certainly the number of sf shows during the early 80's wasn't as high as it
is today. But you're point about syndication is a good one...I doubt TNG,
DS9, Voyager, B5, Highlander, or Hercules would've survived on a real
network.
doy...@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
> michelle m-jacobs (mich...@moa.com) wrote:
> : hum...@netcom.com (Franklin Hummel) wrote:
> : >most certainly it was.
>
> : as science fiction is a lot broader than your defintion. I think
> : you're only considering hard science fiction to be real science
> : fiction. Everything else you think is fantasy. You need to broaden
> : your definition to include other types of science fiction.
>
> Agreed. If I went up to 99% of the world's population and tried to tell
> them that Star Wars isn't science fiction, they'd laugh at me and refuse
> to take anything else I said seriously. Maybe you prefer sci-fi with a
*delurking*
Imagine my astonishment to find out (in a thread entitled "DS9 War?" no less)
that Star Wars ISN'T science fiction. I grew up on SW and most certainly would
not be watching B5 if it weren't for SW. In my book, SW=sci-fi as much as
B5=sci-fi. Elitist posters can not change my opinion with their own overrated
OPINIONS.
*relurking*
John Benn
Jennifer Rollins <jenn...@cyberspace.com> wrote:
>michelle m-jacobs (mich...@moa.com) wrote:
>: hum...@netcom.com (Franklin Hummel) wrote:
>: >most certainly it was.
>
>: as science fiction is a lot broader than your defintion. I think
>: you're only considering hard science fiction to be real science
>: fiction. Everything else you think is fantasy. You need to broaden
>: your definition to include other types of science fiction.
>
>Agreed. If I went up to 99% of the world's population and tried to tell
>them that Star Wars isn't science fiction, they'd laugh at me and refuse
>to take anything else I said seriously. Maybe you prefer sci-fi with a
>it from being science fiction. You're trying to impose terms agreed to
>by only a few people. If you want to classify different forms of sci-fi
>within science fiction, that's one thing. But to try and call one type
>of science fiction to be the only true type of science fiction is ridiculous.
99% of the world didn't define the term. Science Fiction writers
did. The fact that 99% of the world is ignorant of what science
fiction is, is not really our problem. If 99% of the world thought
that the word "Earth" meant a flat rock on the back of a giant cosmic
turtle, it wouldn't make it so. Star Wars, Star Trek and many other
shows and movies ARE fantasy by definition. Most people don't know
that, but what can we do? Most people don't have any understanding of
alot of things...
I like fantasy and I like some Trek and Star Wars, but they are not
science fiction.
--
**** The Shadows were old when even the Ancients ****
**** were young. ---Delenn, Babylon-5 ****
Aaron Countryman
than just the white knight vs. the black knight. Before doing Star Wars
Lucas had considered doing a apoclyptic type movie, like a 1984 where a
large government has taken over the world. During the 1970's though it
seemed to him that alot of the Sci-Fi had this negative view of the
future so he decided to do a movie that had a positive message instead.
As for Star Trek the motion Picture coming out the same year.
Where the hell did you pull that out of your ass? ST:the motionless
picture came out in 1979 not 1977.
Jay Denebeim
>*delurking*
>Imagine my astonishment to find out (in a thread entitled "DS9 War?" no less)
>that Star Wars ISN'T science fiction. I grew up on SW and most certainly would
>not be watching B5 if it weren't for SW. In my book, SW=sci-fi as much as
>B5=sci-fi. Elitist posters can not change my opinion with their own overrated
>OPINIONS.
^^^^^^^^
You misspelt industry definitions.
Hope that helps.
Jay Denebeim
>Did you know that over fifty three
>percent of the American population has at one point been a Star Trek
>Fan.
Did you know that over 93.6% of quoted statistics are made up.
Jay