Trekkers and Babylon 5
ken boechler
Lately there's been this feeling among some Trekkers that Babylon 5 should
be allowed to die or "Who cares if it's cancelled."
Well, I care and before you write me off as a 5 fan that wandered in here
by accident, I would like to point out that I am one of the founders and
sitting Treasurer of the local Star Trek club (in Regina, Sask. Canada).
This prevalent attitude of Trek only and everything else be damned, to put
it bluntly, pisses me off. Anybody around here remember IDIC? The D stands
for diversity and I welcome a diversity of SF TV.
My girlfriend and i rate the programs B-5 first, followed by DS9, and
bringing up the rear TNG in order of our personal preferences.
There are those that point out some of the writing hasn't been that good.
Remember the first season of TNG? I do. If TNG had been a network show it
would have gotten the axe after two years max. Give B-5 a chance for cripes
sake- it's only half way through it's first year. Now as to bad writing I
have a few titles for you "Outrageous Okona", "Shades of Grey", "Imaginary
Friend".
Now for you Trek centred people out there take a look at the B-5 episode
"Infection". That was a VERY Trek like episode. Take out Sinclair in the
showdown with the creature in the end and replace him with Kirk and you
have Return of The Archons or The Apple. Or any number of Picard stories.
If it had been a Trek story some of you would have loved it. (But then
again considering the elitism oif many of the people on this group maybe not.)
All I'm saying is there's room for everything, we don't need one above all
others or before all oithers. B-5 is worth our while and deserving of our
support. Or do you want more "Seaquest" and "RoboCops".
Now while I'm on my soapbox and setting myself up in the various
flamethroer's sights- another thing that bugs me is the negativism on
these Trek newsgroups. Cripes nothing is ever good enough for you people.
I'm not targetting everyone, just the usual I hate everything posters. TNG
has left much to be desired at times the past few years but the good far
outweighs the bad and most episodes are worth the hour invested in them
once, many of them are good for repeat viewings.
Anyway, try looking at the good once in awhile instead of trashing
everything because it doesn't meet your personal standards. The world
doesn't revolve around what you expect of it.
I'm outta here.
Ken
One last thing: IDIC!
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\ The above does not represent OIT, UNC-CH, laUNChpad, or its other users. /
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Adams
In article <2qn38a$f...@samba.oit.unc.edu> Ken.Bo...@launchpad.unc.edu (ken boechler) writes:
>Lately there's been this feeling among some Trekkers that Babylon 5 should
>be allowed to die or "Who cares if it's cancelled."
No, I doubt that "Trekkers" are any more
prone to that attitude than anyone else.
> I care and before you write me off as a 5 fan that wandered in here
>by accident
I am most definitely a B5 fan, and i'm certainly not here by accident.
> I would like to point out that I am one of the founders and
>sitting Treasurer of the local Star Trek club (in Regina, Sask. Canada).
Hmm... get a life? :->
>This prevalent attitude of Trek only and everything else be damned, to put
>it bluntly, pisses me off.
Good, but it pisses me off if people think that somehow "Trekkers"
are likely to have that attitude. I'd like to believe that most
fans were a little smarter than that. Of course a LOT of non-Trek
SF shows have *deserved* to be "damned", but that was due entirely
to their own faults, not simply being non-Trek.
> Anybody around here remember IDIC? The D stands
>for diversity and I welcome a diversity of SF TV.
As long as it is GOOD... such as Babylon 5.
>Now for you Trek centred people out there take a look at the B-5 episode
>"Infection". That was a VERY Trek like episode.
Please, that is hardly the episode to direct a non-B5 viewer to watch
first. It is one of the weaker and less-original offerings, although
certainly not "bad"...
Sparky
Ken.Bo...@launchpad.unc.edu writes:
>This prevalent attitude of Trek only and everything else be damned, to
>put it bluntly, pisses me off. Anybody around here remember IDIC?
Post a message professing a belief in anything other than pure,
crystalline atheism, and you will have the answer to this question.
*.....Sparky
David Ling
: Lately there's been this feeling among some Trekkers that Babylon 5 should
: be allowed to die or "Who cares if it's cancelled."
Then, they haven't watched B5.
: This prevalent attitude of Trek only and everything else be damned, to put
: it bluntly, pisses me off. Anybody around here remember IDIC? The D stands
: for diversity and I welcome a diversity of SF TV.
There have been, and always will be, instances where people believe
that mutual exclusion is the rule. Therefore they will defend what
they believe is "theirs" at the expense of the other.
I was told (I'm not old enough) that when the Beatles and the Rolling
Stones first became popular, that "you either liked one or the other,
you couldn't like both." Bull.
: My girlfriend and i rate the programs B-5 first, followed by DS9, and
: bringing up the rear TNG in order of our personal preferences.
IMHO, I like TNG, B5, DS9.
: All I'm saying is there's room for everything, we don't need one above all
: others or before all oithers. B-5 is worth our while and deserving of our
: support. Or do you want more "Seaquest" and "RoboCops".
Hey, I like RoboCop. Aarrgh! Leave me alone!
Thank you for your views, Ken. I don't think you should be flamed. You
didn't say anything *bad* about ST.
--
"If judgement must be made, perhaps judging intent
would be preferable to judging actions."
David Ling
dl...@panix.com
Brian Rev P-K Siano
> Aloha:
>
> Lately there's been this feeling among some Trekkers that Babylon 5 should
> be allowed to die or "Who cares if it's cancelled."
> This prevalent attitude of Trek only and everything else be damned, to put
> it bluntly, pisses me off. Anybody around here remember IDIC? The D stands
> for diversity and I welcome a diversity of SF TV.
> There are those that point out some of the writing hasn't been that good.
> Remember the first season of TNG? I do. If TNG had been a network show it
> would have gotten the axe after two years max. Give B-5 a chance for cripes
> sake- it's only half way through it's first year. Now as to bad writing I
> have a few titles for you "Outrageous Okona", "Shades of Grey", "Imaginary
> Friend".
That's tellin' them. I gave up on TNG after about three or fur
episodes of its horrifying silly first season. Took a LOT of lobbying by
friends to get me to watch the damn thing again.
Just to add my two cents, although there are a number of problems I
have with Babylon 5, overall it's been at least as good as some of the
better Star Trek episodes. (In many ways it's superior, but the flaws sort
of lower the curve.)
But remember, we're talking about Trek fans here-- a sort of
quasi-religious movement that's not exactly big on the "critical abilities"
routine.
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano (re...@cellar.org) sez:
A Grey walks up to a man and says, "Bend over."
The man replies, "What for?"
The Grey replies, "For medical experiments."
Okay, maybe it's not that funny to you, but to the Greys, it's hilarious.
Vicki Holzhauer
>
>Lately there's been this feeling among some Trekkers that Babylon 5 should
>be allowed to die or "Who cares if it's cancelled."
Not this one. I didn't care for the B-5 pilot, but I've grown to like
it more and more (I've seen all of the ones aired to date, the most
recent being Survivors). I still don't think O'Hare can act his way
out of a paper bag, but I'm liking Claudia Christian more with each
episode, and I love Garibaldi and the various ambassadors. I
especially like the computer-generated special effects and hope B-5
stays around for a while (especially since the jerks at Paramount are
depriving us of TNG).
>Now for you Trek centred people out there take a look at the B-5 episode
>"Infection". That was a VERY Trek like episode.
Oooh, too gruesome. I found this episode very difficult to watch,
although I did enjoy seeing David McCallum. It didn't seem Trek-like
at all to me.
>Now while I'm on my soapbox and setting myself up in the various
>flamethroer's sights- another thing that bugs me is the negativism on
>these Trek newsgroups. Cripes nothing is ever good enough for you people.
I agree completely. On these groups, it seems as every fan's a major
critic. Of course, I see a lot of criticism on the new B-5 rec group
as well (and thanks to whoever made it a "rec" group; I can't get alt
groups here!). Maybe it's just in the nature of Netheads--it's easy
to gripe in such an impersonal environment.
--
Vicki Holzhauer, National Center for Atmospheric Research
Boulder, Colorado / / / / vi...@ncar.ucar.edu
M'Woody
superior to B-5. And not just because it's Trek. The acting on
Babylon-5 is pathetic, more so than the writing. I didn't have that
big of a problem with the writing. Of course, maybe the show has
improved since the pilot (the only episode I have seen) but I doubt
the acting has. People will argue that TNG was bad in its first
season. Maybe so, but I don't agree. I liked many of the first-season
episodes a lot. The only acting that was really bad was that of Marina
Sirtis ("I feel pain!"). That has improved, and think about it, how
easy would it be to play an empathic Betazoid.
Perhaps I should watch Babylon-5 again. I doubt I will. Should I give
it some time like many gave TNG? I don't think I have any obligation
to. I watched TNG and DS9 and will watch Voyager because it IS Trek.
Actually, I didn't begin watching TNG until the 3rd season, I believe.
I was of the school that it couldn't possibly be better than TOS. Well,
they're both great. If I had to name one as better, I'd say TOS, barely
(of course, I haven't seen "Spock's Brain" lately).
I don't hope Babylon-5 dies a quick death or a slow death. I don't
care whether it stays or goes. But Babylin-5 hasn't proven to me that
it is good enough for me to want to watch it. After all, I'm sure
we've all seen plenty of examples of terrible sci-fi. If you like
Babylon-5, fine. I don't. Long live Trek.
M'Woody
Anthony J Stieber
>support. Or do you want more "Seaquest" and "RoboCops".
What's wrong with the "RoboCop" series? I rather like it. No one
wants to talk about it though :(.
--
Anthony Stieber ant...@csd4.csd.uwm.edu | Do you need a Unix/Netware/MS-DOS
URL ftp://csd4.csd.uwm.edu/pub/Portables | MS-Windows/Macintosh/portable
laptop,palmtop,PCMCIA,wireless FAQ site | computing person? Resume available.
Jonathan Gapen
> be allowed to die or "Who cares if it's cancelled."
Luckily, I don't read Trek groups, so I missed it. :^) They should care if it is cancelled,
no matter whether they like it or not. Babylon 5 is not going to ever supplant Trek, DS9 or
Voyager, so having other good sci-fi shows on TV can't hurt Trek and may even help, if by starting
a little competition.
> My girlfriend and i rate the programs B-5 first, followed by DS9, and
> bringing up the rear TNG in order of our personal preferences.
I'd rate it B5, TNG, then DS9, but more recent DS9 episodes have been getting better.
> would have gotten the axe after two years max. Give B-5 a chance for cripes
> sake- it's only half way through it's first year. Now as to bad writing I
> have a few titles for you "Outrageous Okona", "Shades of Grey", "Imaginary
> Friend".
Or "Sub Rosa" this season? :^) I don't think Babylon 5 will get that low.
> I'm not targetting everyone, just the usual I hate everything posters. TNG
> has left much to be desired at times the past few years but the good far
> outweighs the bad and most episodes are worth the hour invested in them
> once, many of them are good for repeat viewings.
I thought the latest TNG episode here was worth the watching. Was it just me, or was anybody
else out there *hoping* that the Enterprise would burst out in a cheerful voice, "Hi! I'm Eddie,
your shipboard computer!"
--
Jonathan Gapen
"Live long in phosphor."
Charles L. Judson
B-5 because it offers elements that Trek doen't and couldn't. Trek offers
some elements that B5 won't. B5 will pretty much always be better in the
Sci-Fi department then will TNG. Trek does offer some better drama elements. But that is the reason for B5 being. It doesn't profess to be drama like Trek
does.
--
* Charles L. Judson...The Man...The Legend...The Negroid! * My Slave Name
* Coming to a theater near you...First there was * -------------
* SCHINDLER'S LIST...And now coming to an Inner-City * gt4364c@acme
* Near you...MASTA'S LIST...AMERICA'S HOLOCAUST... * .gatech.edu
Victor Buttaro
: >support. Or do you want more "Seaquest" and "RoboCops".
: What's wrong with the "RoboCop" series? I rather like it. No one
: wants to talk about it though :(.
: --
Actually Robocop is many times better than B5. You actually care more
about him than you do about any of the B5 characters......so far.
Don't get me wrong I watch B5 as well as TNG & DS9. If I had to rate them
it would have to be:
1. DS9
2. TNG
3. B5
Until B5 has some episode like "Duet", "The Maquis", "The Wire"
for example. And until the show stops looking like a bad left over from
Buck Rogers. That's the way my list will stay. I for one don't want it to
die; it gives me one more thing to actually watch on TV.
Victor
Timothy W. Lynch
>In article <2qn38a$f...@samba.oit.unc.edu> Ken.Bo...@launchpad.unc.edu (ken boechler) writes:
>>Lately there's been this feeling among some Trekkers that Babylon 5 should
>>be allowed to die or "Who cares if it's cancelled."
>No, I doubt that "Trekkers" are any more
>prone to that attitude than anyone else.
Oh, I don't. Media SF fandom tends to Balkanize itself to amazing proportions;
the number of "B5 sucks, so there!" posts to r.a.s.* groups are nearly as
numerous as the gratuitous Trek slams on the B5 groups. Neither do anything
beyond cause more anger, and neither makes *any* sense.
>Good, but it pisses me off if people think that somehow "Trekkers"
>are likely to have that attitude. I'd like to believe that most
>fans were a little smarter than that.
I'd like to as well. Observation of the fans on the net, unfortunately,
has shown me otherwise.
Tim Lynch
Ted McCoy
Babylon 5 has had a few interesting episodes...only problem is that,
apparently to keep the budget down, the money that was spent on the visual
effects seems to have come out of the money that should have been spent on
casting, music, set design, etc. But the idea is a lot of fun, even if it
gets frustrating how badly it's pulled off a lot of the time. Even the
best Babylon 5 episodes have only been about the level of average Next
Generation, which is a shame because the stories on B5 seem to have a lot
more thought put into them (IMHO). Problem is the episodes keep getting
sabatoged by the bad acting, bad direction, tiny sets, bad music, and
general low budget. Cool space scenes can only go so far, especially when
the show insists on including so many unnecessary and substandard space
scenes along with the absolutely breathtaking space scenes.
Personally, X-Files and DS9 are roughly tied for my favorite sci-fi on tv
(if you count X-Files as sci-fi) with TNG somewhat behind, then Robocop
and SeaQuest, followed by Lois&Clark and Highlander, with Babylon 5 almost
tied with those two. (Time Trax, on the other hand, tends to be as bad as
the worst episodes of Babylon 5.) Maybe I'm harder on B5 than I should
be, because I expect more from it, based on the talent behind it, than I
do from Highlander or Lois&Clark, or even Robocop and SeaQuest. In my
experience: hard core sf fans tend to like B5 quite a bit; they can enjoy
the good science fiction and ignore the bad television. People who aren't
as excited about science fiction but who'll watch it if it's good (the
people who make the Trek shows the hits they are) seem to have given up on
B5 already. And I think the ratings are reflecting that. Oh well --
there's always second season.
Jeff Wutzke
(ken boechler) wrote:
> Lately there's been this feeling among some Trekkers that Babylon 5 should
> be allowed to die or "Who cares if it's cancelled."
More accurate to say that some people say who cares, and that this
"set" intersects the "set" of Trek fans.
> Well, I care and before you write me off as a 5 fan that wandered in here
> by accident, I would like to point out that I am one of the founders and
> This prevalent attitude of Trek only and everything else be damned, to put
> it bluntly, pisses me off. Anybody around here remember IDIC? The D stands
> for diversity and I welcome a diversity of SF TV.
> My girlfriend and i rate the programs B-5 first, followed by DS9, and
> bringing up the rear TNG in order of our personal preferences.
> All I'm saying is there's room for everything, we don't need one above all
> others or before all oithers. B-5 is worth our while and deserving of our
> support. Or do you want more "Seaquest" and "RoboCops".
Hey, I happen to like Seaquest. Certainly alot better than B5. The last
Seaquest episode, with the alien ship, was far better than B5's
"Survivors".
After watching every B5 episode, and seeing people on rec.B5 falling over
themselves to kneel at JMS' feet, I'm flummoxed. Is there some sort of
subliminal signal going out with B5 episodes that my TV is filtering out?
Because frankly while an interesting premise that is also welcomingly
internally consistent (as is generally (taking into account almost 30 years
of
writing) Trek), I don't see any amazing, stunning, wonderful change in B5,
and the acting sucks. The last two episodes in particular were predictable
as any ST:TNG off-week debacle. Quite simply, let the viewers and ratings
decide the various shows' fates. Either TPTB will renew B5 or they won't.
And if they don't then the show's fans can either try a letter-writing
campaign (such as saved TOS) or not. But don't go around blaming defensive
Trekkers if B5 doesn't make it in the long run.
> Now while I'm on my soapbox and setting myself up in the various
> flamethroer's sights- another thing that bugs me is the negativism on
> these Trek newsgroups. Cripes nothing is ever good enough for you people.
Here I heartily agree! Can't say it enough, I'm tired of bashing for
bashing's
sake. But that doesn't mean sound criticism should be silenced.
Jeff Wutzke
jef...@nature.berkeley.edu
Kina Rutman
>Ken.Bo...@launchpad.unc.edu (ken boechler) writes:
>
>> This prevalent attitude of Trek only and everything else be damned, to put
>
>quasi-religious movement that's not exactly big on the "critical abilities"
>routine.
Truly, a man who has *never* read r.a.s.c!
Oh yeah--no one here is critical of ST, nope, not a one :^)
--
--
"When things are blackest, I just tell myself 'cheer up, things could be
worse!' And sure enough, they get worse!" --Skeeve
Kina Rutman ki...@netcom.com
Dean Adams
>I guess I'm one of those "Trek-centred" people. I believe Trek
> is far superior to B-5.
> And not just because it's Trek. The acting on Babylon-5 is pathetic,
> more so than the writing. I didn't have that big of a problem with
> the writing. Of course, maybe the show has improved since the pilot
> (the only episode I have seen) but I doubt the acting has.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It was a movie, not an "episode", and in that case all your B5 bashing
clearly has virtually NO validity. Saying "the acting on Babylon 5
is pathetic" -IS PATHETIC- if you have not even seen the series!
> People will argue that TNG was bad in its first season.
> Maybe so, but I don't agree.
It was not (all) totally bad in _1987_, but looking
back now a lot of it does look VERY bad...
> I liked many of the first-season episodes a lot. The only acting
>that was really bad was that of Marina Sirtis ("I feel pain!").
No way, Marina was great... the WRITING for her character is what
was often bad. By far the worst acting back then was from Frakes,
and (of course) just about everything from weasley.
>Perhaps I should watch Babylon-5 again. I doubt I will.
Then that is YOUR loss... and a big one. It also sounds like
a very strange character "flaw", unless you simply DO NOT LIKE
science fiction, and only like Star Trek because it is "Star Trek"(?)
> Should I give it some time like many gave TNG? I don't think I have
> any obligation to. I watched TNG and DS9 and will watch Voyager
> because it IS Trek.
Ha! OK, whatever.
>Actually, I didn't begin watching TNG until the 3rd season, I believe.
>I was of the school that it couldn't possibly be better than TOS.
heh, heh. Somehow i'm not surprised. :) There was certainly no
attitude I found more repulsive in 1987 than that one, but not
watching Babylon 5 because its "not Trek" comes pretty close.
>If you like Babylon-5, fine. I don't.
Coming from someone who hasn't even SEEN it, that really means a lot.
Stayka deyAvemta
|> Aloha:
|>
|> Lately there's been this feeling among some Trekkers that Babylon 5 should
|> be allowed to die or "Who cares if it's cancelled."
|>
|> Well, I care and before you write me off as a 5 fan that wandered in here
|> by accident, I would like to point out that I am one of the founders and
|> sitting Treasurer of the local Star Trek club (in Regina, Sask. Canada).
|>
|> This prevalent attitude of Trek only and everything else be damned, to put
|> it bluntly, pisses me off. Anybody around here remember IDIC? The D stands
|> for diversity and I welcome a diversity of SF TV.
(Rest of article deleted for bandwidth's sake)
I wholeheartily DO agree with you, Ken!
Thank you for your statement. There's more universe out there than the
Federation! There's even more universe out there than the EA etc - we have
yet to discover it.
Thanks to JMS for letting us get another glimpse on the possibilities of
a future.
As I am a SF and F fan, I'd like to see even *more* good SF out there.
Blessed be
Stayka
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: sta...@unidui.uni-duisburg.de | We live in a universe of Magick!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
gregory m. byshenk
>Oh, I don't. Media SF fandom tends to Balkanize itself to amazing proportions;
>the number of "B5 sucks, so there!" posts to r.a.s.* groups are nearly as
>numerous as the gratuitous Trek slams on the B5 groups. Neither do anything
>beyond cause more anger, and neither makes *any* sense.
A few comments on this thread:
a) I may not have been paying close attention, but I have seen
relatively few random "B5 sucks" posts on r.a.s.* groups.
b) Part of the problem B5 faces is the absurdity of the level
of expectations. Even before anything had appeared, many people
were raving about how everything else on television was crap,
but B5 was going to do things "right". Then came the pilot.
So then the word was: OK, so the pilot wasn't so great, but
when the series shows up, things will be done "right". Then
came the series.
I don't want to condemn B5, because it's not _bad_, but it
isn't nearly as good as its evangelists claim(ed) -- though
perhaps that's an impossible standard. The writing (IMO) is
seldom better than mediocre, and the acting, well, let's just
say that it's not good enough to save the writing.
--
Gregory Byshenk | The University? Hah! Half the time
gbys...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu | *I'm* not responsible for my opinions!
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign - Department of Philosophy
"Says Red Molly to James: 'That's a fine motorbike...'" R.T.
John Bertland
<gbu...@pebbles.cs.utk.edu> wrote:
>I disagree that O'Hare can't act his way out of a paper bag. Granted he
>isn't as good an actor as Patrick Stewart, but he sure as hell beats the
>melodramatic stylings of SHATNER (don't get me wrong...Shatners great for
>what he is...but. O'Hare single handedly in both appearence and
>mannerisms harkens us back to the good old square jawed heros of early
>pulp fiction and science fiction. He is the essence of the Mans- Man with
>just enough sensitive male thrown in to keep the women from hating his
>outward mochoism.
But is this a criticism of the actor or the character?
Greg Bunch
Gharlane of Eddore
> writes:
> In <2qn38a$f...@samba.oit.unc.edu> Ken.Bo...@launchpad.unc.edu
> (ken boechler) writes:
>
> > support. Or do you want more "Seaquest" and "RoboCops".
>
> What's wrong with the "RoboCop" series? I rather like it. No one
> wants to talk about it though :(.
>--
Possibly "STAR TREK" and "BABYLON-5" are not the topics on which to
pursue such a discussion?
Try "rec.arts.tv.sf" ........
"ROBOCOP" is decent TV. The folks who are working on it are,
by and large, doing a decent job.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
I "1935 will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has
I full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient,
I and the world will follow our lead into the future." --Adolf Hitler, 1935.
Tuomas L{hdeoja
> sitting Treasurer of the local Star Trek club (in Regina, Sask. Canada).
Oh, you too? (For me, it's SHUT in Helsinki, Finland)
> This prevalent attitude of Trek only and everything else be damned, to put
> it bluntly, pisses me off. Anybody around here remember IDIC? The D stands
> for diversity and I welcome a diversity of SF TV.
Oh, you too? (have same kinds of feelings)
> My girlfriend and i rate the programs B-5 first, followed by DS9, and
> bringing up the rear TNG in order of our personal preferences.
Oh, you too? ;-)
> Remember the first season of TNG? I do. If TNG had been a network show it
Oh, you too? >;-E Actually when comparing TNG 1st season with B5 we are
seeing today, I wonder both how tng ever got into 2nd season and how
the 2nd season of B5 was ever questioned.
> "Infection". That was a VERY Trek like episode.
Especially the end where biology is forgotten >;-)
Ane, BTW we went and showed the 4 first B5 episodes in one of our club
meetings and the response... Ghheee... You (especially jms) should have seen
those 100 open mouths ;-) Bad thing is that now they want more more more
and more B5... and we are runnng low on possible places and times to show
more...
And yes, I get those B5 episodes here. By snailmail ;-)
> Ken
/tube
--
- I am Anti-life, The Beast of Judgement. I am the dark at the end of
everything. The end of universes, gods, worlds... ...of Everything.
- SSS. And what will you be then, Dreamlord?
* I am Hope.
- Choronzon and Dream in Sandman, Preludes & Nocturnes
Tuomas-Antti Lahdeoja / tu...@snakemail.hut.fi
Muolaanpuisto 12 02140 Espoo, Finland, Europe
Richard W Harris
>superior to B-5. And not just because it's Trek. The acting on
>Babylon-5 is pathetic, more so than the writing. I didn't have that
>big of a problem with the writing. Of course, maybe the show has
>improved since the pilot (the only episode I have seen) but I doubt
Oh my god! You're judging the show by that awful pilot?
>the acting has. People will argue that TNG was bad in its first
>season. Maybe so, but I don't agree. I liked many of the first-season
>episodes a lot. The only acting that was really bad was that of Marina
>Sirtis ("I feel pain!"). That has improved, and think about it, how
>easy would it be to play an empathic Betazoid.
>
>Perhaps I should watch Babylon-5 again. I doubt I will. Should I give
>it some time like many gave TNG? I don't think I have any obligation
>to. I watched TNG and DS9 and will watch Voyager because it IS Trek.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(snip)
>M'Woody
As an avid Trekker, and now also an avid Babylon-5 fan, I don't get this
whole "if you ain't Trek, you ain't nothin'" attitude. Fans refused to look
at ST:TNG, then DS9, and now B5. Open your minds, people!
Maybe I'm reading more into Trek then is really there, but isn't one of the
messages of the show that we as a society will rise above the kind of silliness
that this is a symptom of?
Sorry, the Trek fanatics are making me a bit loopy.
My suggestion -- what a friend did for me: find someone with the first 6 or so
B5 episodes on tape, and sit down and watch them. Trust me, it will be worth
the effort. If you still have problems, meditate on the first season of ST:TNG
and watch the tape again. B5 isn't like Trek, and so you can't judge them the
same way. Go back to zero: judge it as a science fiction show, not as a Trek
clone/competitor.
My $.02 worth...
- Rick
--
Richard Harris - Systems Analyst - Univ of Pittsburgh - rw...@pitt.edu
"This is a friend of mine called Mike, this is a friend of mine called Neil,
and this is a complete bastard I know called Rick."
- Vivian, "The Young Ones."
R. Dan Henry
1. DS9
2. B5
3. TNG
Note, I am only looking at current seasons. I don't think I could do
accurate rankings comparing shows seen years apart. TNG used to be better...
but NEVER as good as DS9.
IMHO, of course.
* R. Dan Henry, Dept. of Philosophy, UC Riverside *
* rdh...@ucrac1.ucr.edu * "Strange Dan" the Wereduck*
* "Can I still get an A if I only answered half the *
* questions?" - student, at end of final *
R. Dan Henry
>From: gbu...@pebbles.cs.utk.edu (Greg Bunch)
>Subject: Re: Trekkers and Babylon 5
>Date: 11 May 1994 16:37:56 GMT
>I disagree that O'Hare can't act his way out of a paper bag. Granted he isn't as
>good an actor as Patrick Stewart, but he sure as hell beats the melodramatic
>stylings of SHATNER (don't get me wrong...Shatners great for what he is...but.
>O'Hare single handedly in both appearence and mannerisms harkens us back to the
>good old square jawed heros of early pulp fiction and science fiction. He is the
Cardboard cutouts all. The development of real characterizations has been
one of the major improvement in SF since the early years. Sinclair is
supposed to be a character with depth. I'd say they've partly succeeded and
partly failed. The acting has improved with time. But if you want to claim
O'Hare is doing a fine job of acting, don't call him a square-jawed pulp
hero.
>essence of the Mans- Man with just enough sensitive male thrown in to keep the
>women from hating his outward mochoism.
* R. Dan Henry, Dept. of Philosophy, UC Riverside *
Bill Henley
Here's a Star Trek fan (from the Original Series' original run
on NBC, through the current episodes of DEEP SPACE NINE) who
also likes BABYLON 5 and definitely hopes it goes to a second
season. No , it's not the incredible Great Leap Forward in
televised science fiction, leaving Star Trek in the dust, that
some of the more fanatical B5 backers claim. But it's a pretty
good show in its own right and has much potential for further
improvement. There is just no sense in a rivalry to the death
between Trekkers and Babblers (?). There is more than one
good way to do a science fiction TV show.
--
"Arise, Columbia's sons, arise; arise that you might yet be free;
Cast off the forces that made lies of Jefferson and Liberty."
Bill Henley (aa396), Assistant Sysop, Cleveland Free-Net Science
Fiction & Fantasy SIG (which is not responsible for my opinions)
Amos Yung
gregory m. byshenk <gbys...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>
>>Oh, I don't. Media SF fandom tends to Balkanize itself to amazing proportions;
>>the number of "B5 sucks, so there!" posts to r.a.s.* groups are nearly as
>>numerous as the gratuitous Trek slams on the B5 groups. Neither do anything
>>beyond cause more anger, and neither makes *any* sense.
>
>A few comments on this thread:
>
>a) I may not have been paying close attention, but I have seen
>relatively few random "B5 sucks" posts on r.a.s.* groups.
>
>b) Part of the problem B5 faces is the absurdity of the level
>of expectations. Even before anything had appeared, many people
>were raving about how everything else on television was crap,
>but B5 was going to do things "right". Then came the pilot.
>So then the word was: OK, so the pilot wasn't so great, but
>when the series shows up, things will be done "right". Then
>came the series.
>
>I don't want to condemn B5, because it's not _bad_, but it
>isn't nearly as good as its evangelists claim(ed) -- though
>perhaps that's an impossible standard. The writing (IMO) is
>seldom better than mediocre, and the acting, well, let's just
>say that it's not good enough to save the writing.
Maybe you should take a peek of the rec.arts.tv.babylon-5 group.
Folks over there are positively overjoy with current B-5 quality.
Personally I disagree with them (I was shocked to see that even
"Soul Hunters", "Purple", "Belivers" received raving reviews by
just about everyone over there), but to each his/her own.
>
>--
> Gregory Byshenk | The University? Hah! Half the time
> gbys...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu | *I'm* not responsible for my opinions!
> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign - Department of Philosophy
> "Says Red Molly to James: 'That's a fine motorbike...'" R.T.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amos Yung | "Hey... Thats the President of the United States that
yu...@io.org | you are talking about... PINHEAD!" --- Al Gore
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Sullivan Segal
>
Dr. Who, B5, Red Dwarf, TNG, Star Cops, Lost in Space,
Space 1999, Battlestar Galactica, Space Rangers, DS9
--
-F. Sullivan Segal
_______________________________________________________________
_
/V\ E-Credibility: (n -- ME) The unguaranteed likelyhood that
' the electronic mail you are reading is genuine rather than
someone's made up crap.
_______________________________________________________________
GCS d-- p--(---) @c++ u e-(*) m+(-) s/+ @n++ h--- f+ g+(--)
w+(+++) t++(-)@ b5++ yij++ r(dm)+ y+(*)
Mail to: flet...@netcom.com
kevin eugene scruggs
>Anthony J Stieber (ant...@csd4.csd.uwm.edu) wrote:
>: In article <2qn38a$f...@samba.oit.unc.edu> Ken.Bo...@launchpad.unc.edu (ken boechler) writes:
|
|: |support. Or do you want more "Seaquest" and "RoboCops".
|
|: What's wrong with the "RoboCop" series? I rather like it. No one
|: wants to talk about it though :(.
|: --
|
|Actually Robocop is many times better than B5. You actually care more
|about him than you do about any of the B5 characters......so far.
original. Robo himself seems awkward in the part at best & the supporting
(police) characters are barely to un- believable. Murphy's old partner
(forget the name) is a joke (has she beat up anyone in the series yet?).
The scripting reminds of how I felt when I was subjected to Highlander II.
This is one of those series that make me less critical of B5.
|Don't get me wrong I watch B5 as well as TNG & DS9. If I had to rate them
|it would have to be:
|
|1. DS9
|2. TNG
|3. B5
|
|Until B5 has some episode like "Duet", "The Maquis", "The Wire"
|for example. And until the show stops looking like a bad left over from
|Buck Rogers. That's the way my list will stay. I for one don't want it to
any comparison between the two. An explanation of this comparison, in fact,
might be rather interesting.
Thomas Newton Bagwell
are many B5 fans who feel the same about Star Trek, and many Star Wars
fans who feel the same way about both. I think these are the
'extremists' that will exist in any group. I find it far more reasonable
to simply ignore shows I dislike, rather than vehemently attacking and
insulting them as many of the 'extremists' do.
For what it's worth, my own preference is B5/DS9 (pretty much a tie at
this point) followed by TNG. X-Files is different enough that I don't
care to try and rank it with the other 3.
Tom Bagwell
Christopher Barkley
--
Christopher Barkley The DarkMage
bar...@cse.ogi.edu http://www.cse.ogi.edu/~barkley
PGP Public Key Available
Bryan Byun
[stuff deleted]
: As an avid Trekker, and now also an avid Babylon-5 fan, I don't get this
: whole "if you ain't Trek, you ain't nothin'" attitude. Fans refused to look
: at ST:TNG, then DS9, and now B5. Open your minds, people!
: Maybe I'm reading more into Trek then is really there, but isn't one of the
: messages of the show that we as a society will rise above the kind of
: silliness that this is a symptom of?
Exactly. There are some fans who are so obsessed with maintaining the
sanctity of their beloved Trek that they've forgotten every ideal the show
was based on. Kind of reminds me of fanatical Christians who claim to
espouse Christ's teachings of love and tolerance, while throwing dead
fetuses at young pregnant women at abortion clinics. Makes you wonder
what it is that really motivates them.
: Sorry, the Trek fanatics are making me a bit loopy.
You're not alone here.
: My suggestion -- what a friend did for me: find someone with the first 6 or so
: B5 episodes on tape, and sit down and watch them. Trust me, it will be worth
: the effort. If you still have problems, meditate on the first season of ST:TNG
: and watch the tape again. B5 isn't like Trek, and so you can't judge them the
: same way. Go back to zero: judge it as a science fiction show, not as a Trek
: clone/competitor.
Good idea. And as you say, B5 isn't Trek. TNG had a lot of advantages
that B5 doesn't have, such as: 1) A built-in core audience of die-hard
Trek fans; and 2) built-in instant recognition, based on a universe and
history laid down by a previous series as well as several feature films.
From the first episode, TNG had the advantage of being familiar to most of
its target audience -- Trek fans -- who didn't need to have everything
explained to them.
On the other hand, B5 is a completely "new" universe for the majority of
viewers (those, at least, who aren't familiar with "The Starlost", a kind
of failed ancestor to B5). We've grown up with the Federation and
Starfleet and that whole Trek tradition, but B5 has no such tradition to
base itself on. It's unfamiliar, and therefore harder to get into.
Obviously, there is going to be a certain portion of Trek fandom that is
never going to accept B5, no matter how much it improves. Well, I can
only feel sorry for them -- they're missing out on some exciting science
fiction.
Besides, at their core, B5 and Trek aren't that far apart; both
are fundamentally optimistic (assume that humanity will not only survive
the next couple of centuries but will reach the stars), and both depict
the struggle to achieve and maintain a civilized society against opposing
forces. If that's not reason enough to give B5 a fair shot, I don't know
what is.
Bryan Byun e-mail: bsb...@uswnvg.com
--------------------------------------------
"Live Faust, Die Jung, Leave it to Beaver."
--------------------------------------------
All opinions or statements are my own, and
do not represent the views of my employer.
--------------------------------------------
Sir Robyn Blaber
>
>Actually Robocop is many times better than B5. You actually care more
>about him than you do about any of the B5 characters......so far.
>Don't get me wrong I watch B5 as well as TNG & DS9. If I had to rate them
>it would have to be:
>
>1. DS9
>2. TNG
>3. B5
Robocop?!?!?! I've seen losers on the net before, and I think I'm
lookin at one right now. If you wanna flame B5 to your spooty-bottomed
runny-nosed Trekkie friends, do it on a Trek group.
Better yet...logout.
Robyn Blaber
P.S. Your not even a proper Trekkie.
stee...@msuvx1.memphis.edu
arguments, same place you learned your grammer as in your P.S.? Maybe you
should take your own advice!
--
Keep a cool and _\|/_ Have a good Weekend!
{õ õ}
==================================ooO=(_)=Ooo==================================
Kenneth S Laverdure
F. Sullivan Segal <flet...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>My personnal rating is : Dr Who, Red Dwarf, B5, TNG and DS9.
>>
>Dr. Who, B5, Red Dwarf, TNG, Star Cops, Lost in Space,
>Space 1999, Battlestar Galactica, Space Rangers, DS9
>
>--
> -F. Sullivan Segal
I really don't want to be mean here, but wasn't Space Rangers on for
only a polit espisode (sp)? I'll agree that it's hard to rate classic
SF shows against each other, but doesn't DS9 deserve just a little more
credit.
-Ken Laverdure
F. Sullivan Segal
bad, awful, worse, and dreck.
R. Dan Henry
>From: rbl...@sol.UVic.CA (Sir Robyn Blaber)
>Subject: Re: Trekkers and Babylon 5
>Better yet...logout.
And your response was so much more mature. The rabid stupidity of certain B5
fans with respect to ST flaming *almost* turned me off to the show. Try
engaging brain and manners before posting and help win viewer for B5 so it
gets good ratings and we can see the WHOLE FIVE YEAR STORY ARC. I want to do
so.
David Goldfarb
)Possibly "STAR TREK" and "BABYLON-5" are not the topics on which to
)pursue such a discussion? [Of "Robocop"]
)
)Try "rec.arts.tv.sf" ........
That would be difficult, as no such newsgroup exists.
Rec.arts.sf.tv, on the other hand, seems promising.
David Goldfarb |"Come on, characters with super-strength don't
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | *do* inertia! Or leverage."
gold...@UCBOCF.BITNET |
gold...@soda.berkeley.edu | -- Dani Zweig
Aaron Hughes
Jeff Wutzke <jef...@nature.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>In article <2qn38a$f...@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Ken.Bo...@launchpad.unc.edu
[snippos]
>> All I'm saying is there's room for everything, we don't need one above all
>> others or before all oithers. B-5 is worth our while and deserving of our
>> support. Or do you want more "Seaquest" and "RoboCops".
>
>
>Seaquest episode, with the alien ship, was far better than B5's
>"Survivors".
EXCUSE ME! THAT MAKES ME WANNA PUKE!!!!!!! It is far too "disney" and has too
many cookie cutter plots in it like trek. (For instance, the one where this
guy bent on treason tries to kill a bunch of ambassadors, and brandis's
character gets them out using his wonderful technical ability, tech saves the
day, too trekky)
>
>After watching every B5 episode, and seeing people on rec.B5 falling over
>themselves to kneel at JMS' feet, I'm flummoxed. Is there some sort of
>subliminal signal going out with B5 episodes that my TV is filtering out?
>Because frankly while an interesting premise that is also welcomingly
>internally consistent (as is generally (taking into account almost 30 years
>of
>writing) Trek), I don't see any amazing, stunning, wonderful change in B5,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ maybe this is why you are so biased
>and the acting sucks. The last two episodes in particular were predictable
>as any ST:TNG off-week debacle. Quite simply, let the viewers and ratings
Who says? The only character that seems wooden is sinclair, the plot(s) is/are
much better, especially when you see that there is a subplot that keeps you
interested and when you compare the acting the first year acting of STTNG,
it is much better.
>decide the various shows' fates. Either TPTB will renew B5 or they won't.
>And if they don't then the show's fans can either try a letter-writing
>campaign (such as saved TOS) or not. But don't go around blaming defensive
>Trekkers if B5 doesn't make it in the long run.
>
>> Now while I'm on my soapbox and setting myself up in the various
>> flamethroer's sights- another thing that bugs me is the negativism on
>> these Trek newsgroups. Cripes nothing is ever good enough for you people.
>
>
>Here I heartily agree! Can't say it enough, I'm tired of bashing for
>bashing's
>sake. But that doesn't mean sound criticism should be silenced.
>
Maybe you should take his advice for real, and consider this:
Star Trek is what we WANT the future to be like, while Babylon5 is more or
less what the future probably WILL be like, and the truth is usually more fun
than fiction.
--
-Aaron Hughes, Earth Alliance Aerospace Force Leuitenant ("There's no way I'm going to wind up in one of those crowded cruisers! I'm signing up for the Aerospace Force instead!") callsign Awierdo
Tara Murphy
Well, maybe I just like Ted Raimi.
--
Tara Murphy | "I suggest a new strategy Artoo.
ta...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca | Let the Wookiee win."
Jonathan J. Hunt
John Evans <astr...@cs.montana.edu> wrote:
>
>You have GOT to be kidding. DS9 behind Battlestar Galactica? I cringe
>everytime I see a reference to that show. I don't think I've ever seen a
>show throw more science out the window on a weekly basis than Battlestar
>Galactica.
>
I for one, don't watch SF for a science lesson but for good fictional
entertainment & for what that's worth, Battlestar Galactica had a whole
hell of a lot of that.
Cheers,
JJH
PS: Cool sig file!
David Vessell
> Robocop?!?!?! I've seen losers on the net before, and I think I'm
> lookin at one right now. If you wanna flame B5 to your spooty-bottomed
> runny-nosed Trekkie friends, do it on a Trek group.
>
> Better yet...logout.
>
> Robyn Blaber
>
> P.S. Your not even a proper Trekkie.
Oh blow me. Some people never stop being freshmen....
--
------ dR.Dave....Making the world safe for intelligent dance music. -------
David Vessell---West Volusia Cyberspace--DeLand,FL---...@wvolusia.oau.org
Ara, obaasan wa mata fuhai-tanku ni ochikomimashita yo.
John Bayko
ta...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Tara Murphy) writes:
>Hey! I _like_ Seaquest.
>
>Well, maybe I just like Ted Raimi.
I like Seaquest. Given the constraints of it being a Spielberg
familly-oriented TV show, I think it's quite well done (compare,
for example, with The Man From Atlantis - at least Seaquest tries).
I really liked Space Rangers. Put your brain in a jar for half
an hour, and it was just completely fun mindless entertainment.
Every bit as good as those old B&W Flash Gordon serials.
I liked Battlestar Galactica, for the first little while. It's
premise was strong enough to keep it going for that long. Then
it got stupid, of course...
Buck Rogers In The 25th Century was stillborn, but had some
cool special effects.
I still really like the original Star Trek series. By todays
standards, the acting is sometimes overdone and usually artificial,
and the special effects are comparatively cheap, but the writing is
strong, and the episodes hold together well, and tell a complete
story - the writing is what really keeps it popular after so many
years, not the presentation.
I always had problems with Star Trek: The Next Generation, but
I admired it, and it kept getting technically better at least -
'till Gene Roddenberry died. It has gotten quite a lot more stupid
since.
I only saw some of the first season of Star Trek: Deep Space
Nine. What I saw I liked, for the most part - again, given that
it's a familly show. It was different and interesting. In both
Star Trek series, there is perpetual stupidity though.
I like Babylon 5 a lot, though not entirely because it's
a well made show. Little things which seem to work out so easilly
in other shows, like dialogue or acting, seem a bit rough. But
that's pretty much secondary to the show - there is a strong
consistancy behind every episode, and more important, between the
episodes. This is exactly what the origional Star Trek series had.
There be my thoughts.
--
John Bayko.
ba...@cs.uregina.ca
F. Sullivan Segal
Kenneth S Laverdure <ve...@chopin.udel.edu> wrote:
>In article <fletcherC...@netcom.com>,
>F. Sullivan Segal <flet...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>My personnal rating is : Dr Who, Red Dwarf, B5, TNG and DS9.
>>>
>>Dr. Who, B5, Red Dwarf, TNG, Star Cops, Lost in Space,
>>Space 1999, Battlestar Galactica, Space Rangers, DS9
>
>only a polit espisode (sp)? I'll agree that it's hard to rate classic
>SF shows against each other, but doesn't DS9 deserve just a little more
>credit.
>
meant to be my ratings, not some sort of objective analysis of
quality. And in truth, the recent DS9 episodes have been less
awful than they were, all IMHO.
Tara Murphy
>In article <fletcherC...@netcom.com>,
>F. Sullivan Segal <flet...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>My personnal rating is : Dr Who, Red Dwarf, B5, TNG and DS9.
>>>
>>Dr. Who, B5, Red Dwarf, TNG, Star Cops, Lost in Space,
>>Space 1999, Battlestar Galactica, Space Rangers, DS9
Hey! You forgot that fine series, "Starlost".
Baltar was in the first episode of that one.
TV sci-fi has never been better.
Franklin Hummel
(Tara Murphy) writes:
[ text deleted ]
>Hey! You forgot that fine series, "Starlost".
>Baltar was in the first episode of that one.
>TV sci-fi has never been better.
You better HOPE jms doesn't pass on your comment to BABYLON 5's
Creative Consultant, Harlan Ellsion! (Otherwise, how fast can you run?)
As to why, I'll leave the explanation to this: 1) for
the full story of the Rise and Fall of THE STARLOST, find Ellison's
article called "I Don't Think We're In Kansas Anymore, Toto". -- And
2) Ellison, who created THE STARLOST, had his named changed to a
pseudonym, "Cordwainer Bird", in the series' credits.
-- Frank Hummel [ Internet: hum...@mit.edu - GEnie: F.HUMMEL ]
James L. Coffey
: In article <tara.769358551@morgan> ta...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca
: (Tara Murphy) writes:
: [ text deleted ]
: >Hey! You forgot that fine series, "Starlost".
: >Baltar was in the first episode of that one.
: >TV sci-fi has never been better.
:
:
: You better HOPE jms doesn't pass on your comment to BABYLON 5's
: Creative Consultant, Harlan Ellsion! (Otherwise, how fast can you run?)
That explains the simularities between the two.
:
: pseudonym, "Cordwainer Bird", in the series' credits.
:
His way of flipping the networks the bird.
Ed Falk
See also, the novel "Starcrossed" (I forget the author), which is
a parable of this series.
--
-ed falk, sun microsystems
sun!falk, fa...@sun.com
I BOYCOTT ANY COMPANY WHO USES MASS ADVERTISING ON THE INTERNET
AKIS, RICHARD JOHN
Believe or not, but that "fine" show was the brain child of Harlan
Ellison. Walter Koenig made a couple of guest appearances on this show as
well.
R.A.
Steven W. Difranco
Let us not forget to give a silent prayer for the most SF of all
television SF - "Misfits of Science". [:)]
--
Steven DiFranco - President, CEO, and founder of R.O.O.S. - "There
IS life after TNG...if we have the courage to believe." - Me
I'm not just the President of ROOS, I'm also a client.
(And I still have that "get out of debt" thing)
Pirate (Anthony Taylor)
> Believe or not, but that "fine" show was the brain child of Harlan
> Ellison. Walter Koenig made a couple of guest appearances on this show as
> well.
Brainchild? More like miscarried brainchild. Harlan Ellison started off
with a great concept for a true SF series. Because of the cirumstances of
the time, the producers of the show perverted it almost beyond recognition,
and Harlan fought to remove his name from the credits to distance himself
from it.
The essay "I Don't Think We're In Kansas Anymore, Toto" (or something
similar) details the incident with great acid and wit. I don't remember
with Harlan Ellison anthology it's in, though.
- Tony
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I only wish UAF held the same opinions I do.
Keith Vaglienti
AKIS, RICHARD JOHN <ak...@vax2.concordia.ca> wrote:
>In article <tara.769358551@morgan>, ta...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Tara Murphy) writes...
>>ve...@chopin.udel.edu (Kenneth S Laverdure) writes:
>>
>>>In article <fletcherC...@netcom.com>,
>>>F. Sullivan Segal <flet...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>>My personnal rating is : Dr Who, Red Dwarf, B5, TNG and DS9.
>>>>>
>>>>Dr. Who, B5, Red Dwarf, TNG, Star Cops, Lost in Space,
>>>>Space 1999, Battlestar Galactica, Space Rangers, DS9
>>
>>
>>Hey! You forgot that fine series, "Starlost".
>
> Ellison. Walter Koenig made a couple of guest appearances on this show as
> well.
>
> R.A.
>
I wouldn't lay the blame for Starlost on Ellison. He had a good concept
which was horribly maimed by the people in control of the series. For
example, he had calculated that the absolute minimum size for the domes
to be large enough for a viable ecosystem was something like a 50 mile
radius. The producers informed him that they couldn't build a dome that
large and were cutting it down to a 5 mile radius which was patently
non-viable. Ellison asked them if they were going to build a dome with a
5 mile radius. They said of course not, they were going to shoot a model
and tell people that that was the size of the dome. He asked why they
couldn't tell people it was 50 miles instead of 5 miles. They replied
that they couldn't build a dome that big. For a full accounting of all the
stuff that was going on I recommend reading Ben Bova's novel, "Starcrossed."
You can, however, add UFO and Blake's 7 to the above lists.
--
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear
arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in
government." -- Thomas Jefferson
Keith Vaglienti
bad...@sugar.NeoSoft.com
STORM JAMES
: rbl...@sol.UVic.CA (Sir Robyn Blaber) writes:
: > Robocop?!?!?! I've seen losers on the net before, and I think I'm
: > lookin at one right now. If you wanna flame B5 to your spooty-bottomed
: > runny-nosed Trekkie friends, do it on a Trek group.
: >
: > Better yet...logout.
: >
: > Robyn Blaber
: >
: > P.S. Your not even a proper Trekkie.
: Oh blow me. Some people never stop being freshmen....
Yeah, blow me too. BTW spooty is spelt spotty, you heaving pile of
parrot droppings (John Cleese)
--
______________________________________________________________________________
James R. Storm | I protest, I am NOT a MERRY MAN!
s989...@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca | -Worf, son of Moog.
(905) 227-9571 voice |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tara Murphy
>In a previous article, ta...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Tara Murphy) says:
>>Hey! You forgot that fine series, "Starlost".
>>Baltar was in the first episode of that one.
>>TV sci-fi has never been better.
> Let us not forget to give a silent prayer for the most SF of all
> television SF - "Misfits of Science". [:)]
Hey! I watched that show religiously. Anybody know whether that will
ever re-run?
Remember, that was back in the days when there was not much in the way
of science fiction on television. I had to get my fix somehow.
>--
> Steven DiFranco - President, CEO, and founder of R.O.O.S. - "There
> IS life after TNG...if we have the courage to believe." - Me
> I'm not just the President of ROOS, I'm also a client.
> (And I still have that "get out of debt" thing)
Tara Murphy
>Franklin Hummel (hum...@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) wrote:
>: In article <tara.769358551@morgan> ta...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca
>: (Tara Murphy) writes:
>: [ text deleted ]
>: >Hey! You forgot that fine series, "Starlost".
>: >Baltar was in the first episode of that one.
>: >TV sci-fi has never been better.
>:
>: You better HOPE jms doesn't pass on your comment to BABYLON 5's
>: Creative Consultant, Harlan Ellsion! (Otherwise, how fast can you run?)
>That explains the simularities between the two.
Well, Babylon is of course _adequate_, but it lacks the polish of that
high-quality Canadian production.
Tara Murphy
> [ text deleted ]
I was not aware that Harlan Ellison was responsible for that series. I
don't blame him for changing his name. If it's any consulation, the
concept was fine. The acting, sets, and "music" were the problem.
Where is the article located? I wouldn't mind seeing his explanation.
Gary Feldman
In article <tara.769703060@morgan>, ta...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Tara Murphy) writes:
|>sw...@po.CWRU.Edu (Steven W. Difranco) writes:
|>
|>
|>>In a previous article, ta...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Tara Murphy) says:
|>
|>>>Hey! You forgot that fine series, "Starlost".
|>>>Baltar was in the first episode of that one.
|>>>TV sci-fi has never been better.
|>
|>> Let us not forget to give a silent prayer for the most SF of all
|>> television SF - "Misfits of Science". [:)]
|>
|>Hey! I watched that show religiously. Anybody know whether that will
|>ever re-run?
|>Remember, that was back in the days when there was not much in the way
|>of science fiction on television. I had to get my fix somehow.
"Misfits of Science" is shown regularly on Sundays, on the SciFi Channel.
Gary
Allen J. Newton
> ve...@chopin.udel.edu (Kenneth S Laverdure) writes:
>
> >In article <fletcherC...@netcom.com>,
> >F. Sullivan Segal <flet...@netcom.com> wrote:
> >>>My personnal rating is : Dr Who, Red Dwarf, B5, TNG and DS9.
> >>>
> >>Dr. Who, B5, Red Dwarf, TNG, Star Cops, Lost in Space,
> >>Space 1999, Battlestar Galactica, Space Rangers, DS9
>
> Hey! You forgot that fine series, "Starlost".
> Baltar was in the first episode of that one.
> TV sci-fi has never been better.
Are you sure Baltar was in Starlost? I thought it was Cmdr. Kor!
;-) ;-)
>
>
> --
> Tara Murphy | "I suggest a new strategy Artoo.
> ta...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca | Let the Wookiee win."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allen J. Newton | If you voted for Clinton,
ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us | I feel your pain...