Why the *Trek* bashing?
Von Bruno
between *Star Trek* and *Babylon 5* (especially since *ST: The Original Series*
and *B5* both share a common home- *The Sci-Fi Channel*). Is the point of the
discussion to reaffirm and extend a philosophic policy of intolerance by
members of this board? If *Babylon 5* is to ever truly rise from the ashes in
all the glory and splendor it deserves the show's fandom must, in mass, rise
above the unreasoning pettiness of the "OURS over the cold dead body of YOURS"
mentallity being displayed here. Does anyone truly believe they're furthuring
the cause of a *Babylon 5* renaissance by this type of behavior? Trust me your
not. In fact, I would dare say you are serving only to impede and undermine the
bright future this franchise so richly deserves.
-Von Bruno-
Claudia Mastroianni
: not. In fact, I would dare say you are serving only to impede and undermine
: the bright future this franchise so richly deserves.
*quiet cough*
Claudia
--
"Plus, maintaining a home page seems a little like cleaning the top
of the refrigerator -- a procedure some people find ridiculous and
others of immense importance. Really, who actually looks there? I mean,
besides you." -- Alexander Jablokov, http://www.sff.net/people/Jablokov/
TALANDIR
<< I find it odd that folks here have opted to rekindle the fires of division
between *Star Trek* and *Babylon 5* (especially since *ST: The Original Series*
and *B5* both share a common home- *The Sci-Fi Channel*). Is the point of the
discussion to reaffirm and extend a philosophic policy of intolerance by
members of this board? If *Babylon 5* is to ever truly rise from the ashes in
all the glory and splendor it deserves the show's fandom must, in mass, rise
above the unreasoning pettiness of the "OURS over the cold dead body of YOURS"
mentallity being displayed here. Does anyone truly believe they're furthuring
the cause of a *Babylon 5* renaissance by this type of behavior? Trust me your
bright future this franchise so richly deserves.
>>
Might I, for one who could be accused of Trek bashing in recent posts, say that
you are quite right on principal. Nothing is served by the kind of petty
attacks that sometimes occur between fans of different shows. Both ST and B5
have good and bad aspects. There are eps of ST, any series, that are better
than some eps of B5 and vice versa.
There is no reason not to watch or like both, or any of the many other SF
series around for that matter. I watch both, along with E:FC, Lexx, Farscape,
Xena and Dr Who when I can find it.
However, I reserve the right to critcize any of the above when they fall short
of what they could be, as Voyager consistently does IMO. I'll also say there
were some weaknesses in B5, DS9 and TNG; all of which I would consider at least
very good SF TV overall.
This is nothing like the REAL BITCHING you'll see on some sites, and be
thankfull for that! Every aint-it-cool-news talkback, for example, is full so
much "Lucas sucks-Cameron rules..., No way, Matrix rules!" garbage that it's
hardly worth while to post an opinion.
Though i still do, of course:)
My point is that as long as it doesn't devolve into a juvenile pissing contest,
criticism is healthy. Even if it's about ("gasp") B5.
Jms at B5
There is no such thing as B5 fans bashing Star Trek.
There are only Star Trek fans, or former fans, who find in B5 what they did not
find or wish they could find in ST.
There are many ST fans who have never watched an episode of B5 (but many of
whom bash the show).
There are, however, VERY few if ANY B5 fans who have never seen Star Trek.
They all have a background in Trek and have opinions about that show, good, bad
and indifferent.
If B5 fans had never seen any Trek and were bashing, that'd be one thing, and a
justifiable concern.
But it simply doesn't wash in reality.
This isn't a B5 problem. It's a ST problem. Many of the criticisms being
leveled against ST by those who've grown up watching it were being made even
BEFORE B5 came along...it's just that there was nothing at the time to which
they could compare and contrast.
Now there is...and now it's labled "B5 bashing ST" when it's really nothing of
the kind.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2000 by
synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
to reprint specifically denied to
SFX Magazine)
Joseph O'Neil
>I find it odd that folks here have opted to rekindle the fires of division
>between *Star Trek* and *Babylon 5* (especially since *ST: The Original Series*
>and *B5* both share a common home- *The Sci-Fi Channel*).
-snip-
To answer your question, I would say most, if nto all the
readers on this newsgroup started out as Trek fans, probally BIG Trek
fans, but watchign the franchise degrade and roll steadily downhill -
well, it's like watching something you love destroy itself, despite
your pleas and cries to the contary.
So that's why. Given the chance most people on this newsgroup
would probally love to watch all the Trek shows, but the constant
assault on the intelligence of the viewers grows weary on the spirit
after a while, so peopel react by lashing out. Count myself as oen fo
them.
joe
Mac Breck
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 1:42 AM
Subject: Re: Why the *Trek* bashing?
> Let me set the record straight on something.
>
> There is no such thing as B5 fans bashing Star Trek.
>
> There are only Star Trek fans, or former fans, who find in B5 what they
did not
> find or wish they could find in ST.
Exactly! I was a Trek fan (watched TOS from the beginning in 1966, all of
TNG, some DS9, and some Voyager). For me, things started to fall apart
during the tenure of DS9 and Voyager. That was when I started to watch B5.
After having seen all of B5, and now going back and watching Voyager (e.g.
the season premiere), I see holes in the continuity, a glossing over, and a
certain cheapness in Voyager. There seems to be a lack of consequences, or
at least few permanent consequences to the things that happened.
> There are many ST fans who have never watched an episode of B5 (but many
of
> whom bash the show).
>
> There are, however, VERY few if ANY B5 fans who have never seen Star Trek.
> They all have a background in Trek and have opinions about that show,
good, bad
> and indifferent.
>
> If B5 fans had never seen any Trek and were bashing, that'd be one thing,
and a
> justifiable concern.
>
> But it simply doesn't wash in reality.
>
> This isn't a B5 problem. It's a ST problem. Many of the criticisms being
> leveled against ST by those who've grown up watching it were being made
even
> BEFORE B5 came along...it's just that there was nothing at the time to
which
> they could compare and contrast.
And now that there is B5 available for comparison, Voyager falls far short.
Watching Voyager (or DS9) after B5 is like having a non-alcoholic lite beer
after enjoying a premium lager. It's not satisfying because there's just so
much missing.
>
> Now there is...and now it's labled "B5 bashing ST" when it's really
nothing of
> the kind.
>
> jms
>
> (jms...@aol.com)
> (all message content (c) 2000 by
> synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
> to reprint specifically denied to
> SFX Magazine)
It's not really ST bashing. It's criticism of Voyager for glaring plot
holes.
Mac
Tammy Smith
Trek fans can really puzzle me, too. A Trek fan recently posted at the
Sci-Fi Channel B5 board, saying how much he hated B5. He then said that
he didn't support the space-program because they wouldn't do things like
transporters & warp-drive.
HUH?!!
I also remember hearing that a group of Trek fans were picketing outside
a Los Angeles theater showing Star Wars: Episode 1. Sure, that movie ws
a disappointment, but I would never picket outside a Trek-film!
Tammy
WWS
Mac Breck wrote:
>
> [ The following text is in the "Windows-1252" character set. ]
>
> [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
>
> [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
> Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 1:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Why the *Trek* bashing?
>
> > Let me set the record straight on something.
> >
> > There is no such thing as B5 fans bashing Star Trek.
> >
> > There are only Star Trek fans, or former fans, who find in B5 what they
> did not
> > find or wish they could find in ST.
>
> Exactly! I was a Trek fan (watched TOS from the beginning in 1966, all of
> TNG, some DS9, and some Voyager). For me, things started to fall apart
> during the tenure of DS9 and Voyager. That was when I started to watch B5.
> After having seen all of B5, and now going back and watching Voyager (e.g.
> the season premiere), I see holes in the continuity, a glossing over, and a
> certain cheapness in Voyager. There seems to be a lack of consequences, or
> at least few permanent consequences to the things that happened.
I can concur with that, and my viewing experience is similar to use. I
watched the Mondo season opener to v'ger recently, and my predominant
feeling wasn't that it was good or bad - I was just bored stiff, and it
was supposed to be exciting! exciting! exciting!
One show that deserves more discussion than it gets (probably because of the
fragmented way it's been shown due to the way it's been syndicated) is
Stargate SG-1. In my mind, that's the best SF show currently in production,
and it's one of the few shows that's gotten markedly better each successive
year. Also, they're currently setting the standard for internal consitency
and long term continuity.
--
_________________________________________________WWS_____________
Jon Niehof
> wouldn't do things like transporters & warp-drive.
host of Buck Rogers material. Check out the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics
program. The reason there isn't a working model yet is because it's
*hard*. This is a branch of the agency which is dedicated to discovering
and describing laws of physics which *break the current system*. One heck
of a job....it's amazing that they're working on it.
--Jon, N9RUJ jnie...@calvin.edu www.calvin.edu/~jnieho38
Pithy saying is on vacation. We apologize for the inconvenience.
B5 Fan
>
>There is no such thing as B5 fans bashing Star Trek.
>
>There are only Star Trek fans, or former fans, who find in B5 what they did
>not
>find or wish they could find in ST.
>
It's true. Before B5 I used to watch the Star Trek Movies on a highly regular
basis. However, the entire *franchise* has been on a steady decline ever since
(as Jms stated in a scifi chat) started solving problems with technology. You
don't really have any exercise of your mind, because how are you supposed to
know that you can free the Tebladians (made-up) with a special inverted tachyon
pulse from the navigational array.
>There are many ST fans who have never watched an episode of B5 (but many of
>whom bash the show).
>
>There are, however, VERY few if ANY B5 fans who have never seen Star Trek.
>They all have a background in Trek and have opinions about that show, good,
>bad
>and indifferent.
>
>If B5 fans had never seen any Trek and were bashing, that'd be one thing, and
>a
>justifiable concern.
>
>But it simply doesn't wash in reality.
>
I've not gone out and told people that Star Trek is lame. Last night and
acquaintence of mine was telling me that he liked the Voyager Series Premiere
(caught a couple of minutes of it myself). I felt badly inside that this
person's tastes were desensitized , by *regular* TV, that he would discuss this
as *good* TV. However, I didn't insult him and say that the new Trek is stupid.
I told him that the new Trek has disappointed me and that I would rather watch
Babylon 5. He seemed intrigued by that and who knows, maybe he'll watch.
If anyone calls that *bashing* then I'd like you to know what I go through
whenever I even *bring up* Babylon 5 with ST and SW Fans. I am inundated by,
"That's boring, my show is cooler than yours!" Mind you, this is just when I
tell them that Babylon 5 is a great show. I don't even get into SciFi
supremacy, and I run into heavy flak.
>This isn't a B5 problem. It's a ST problem. Many of the criticisms being
>leveled against ST by those who've grown up watching it were being made even
>BEFORE B5 came along...it's just that there was nothing at the time to which
>they could compare and contrast.
>
A close friend of the family loved all Trek. He was a Trekky to the nth degree.
He got the uniforms, communicators, etc. He then snapped out of it (before any
of my family ever met him, btw) and grew contempt towards the Star Trek
Franchise and to the best of my knowledge, he has never watched a single
Babylon 5 episode in his life (don't worry, I'm working on that ;-)
>Now there is...and now it's labled "B5 bashing ST" when it's really nothing
>of
>the kind.
>
> jms
>
>(jms...@aol.com)
>(all message content (c) 2000 by
>synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
>to reprint specifically denied to
>SFX Magazine)
>
This is an opinion:
I believe the reason some New Trek fans think B5 Fans are consistently bashing
their show, is because they themselves feel insecure with their preference.
Think about it. Trek fans are being ostracized by *everyone* under the sun.
Non-SciFi Fans think that Trekkies are usually geeky nerds that are cut off
from normal society. Other SciFi Fans are somewhat disgusted with the new kids
on the block who make/support *lame* episodes that usurp the name of one of the
best TV shows of all time, only for validation purposes.
The Trek Fans are trying to find scapegoats wherever they can, so they try to
paint Babylon 5 as a cheap Star Trek rip off. However, I don't see D.C.
Fontana, David Gerrold, or Harlan Ellison writing for TNG, DS9 and Voyager
(fantastic writers from the original, and the *only* widely popular, Star Trek
series). You see them working on Babylon 5, because it is not a TV Show. It is
a STORY. The original Trek was a story.
Another point I'd like to bring up is that I've heard the new Star Trek Fans
bash the original series, a lot more than I've EVER heard a Babylon 5 Fan do.
I wish to register both my disgust at Joseph Lieberman's
attempt to exploit the name of my Lord my God for its brand
value, and my horror at the fact that a VP candidate should be
so deeply blasphemous as to call Al Gore a "mighty servant of God."
Ben Varkentine
>Fontana, David Gerrold, or Harlan Ellison writing for TNG, DS9 and Voyager
>(fantastic writers from the original, and the *only* widely popular, Star
>Trek
>series). You see them working on Babylon 5
Technically, D.C. Fontanna did co-write the TNG pilot with Roddenberry, and
David Gerrold contributed heavily to it's development (read his The World of
Star Trek and take note of how many things he predicts that ended up part of
TNG). Both left when Roddenberry and/or his lawyers screwed them over once too
often, and Gerrold had to sue to get his contribution acknowledged. Plus, of
course, Gerrold's work served as the springboard for the nostalgic but
creatively bankrupt fun of the "Tribbles" episode of DS9, not that he recieved
a screen credit (though he did make a cameo in the episode.).
Ellison wouldn't write Trek if you pointed a gun at his genitals...and god
bless him.
>The original Trek was a story.
I don't know that I'd go that far...I'd say the the original Trek was a TV
Show, and a darn good one, especially in it's time, at it's best. The problem
with the newer Trek is that they aren't TV shows any more, they're STAR TREK:
THE MYTH.
Ben Varkentine
Read my film, theater and music criticism in http://popmatters.com/ &
http://slar.org/
"Y'know, I so nearly posted the exact same as you, and then decided not to.
You cad, you swine, you rotter, you!"-David Brider
Rob Perkins
news:20001011131539...@ng-cs1.aol.com...
> The Trek Fans are trying to find scapegoats wherever they can, so they try
to
> paint Babylon 5 as a cheap Star Trek rip off. However, I don't see D.C.
> Fontana, David Gerrold, or Harlan Ellison
Uh, DC Fontana wrote at least one first-season TNG episode. I think it was
the one that introduced the "Traveler". David Gerrold consulted on the DS9
ep "Trials and Tribbleations."
Mostly what I've seen lately of Star Trek shows lends the idea that they are
mostly mediocre, with a few well made eps. B5 was just the opposite.
> The original Trek was a story.
The original Trek was an episodic TV Show. Nobody knew better, back then.
> Another point I'd like to bring up is that I've heard the new Star Trek
Fans
> bash the original series, a lot more than I've EVER heard a Babylon 5 Fan
do.
True, true.
Rob
Alison Hopkins
Rob Perkins wrote in message ...
>"B5 Fan" <and...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20001011131539...@ng-cs1.aol.com...
>
>> The Trek Fans are trying to find scapegoats wherever they can, so they
try
>to
>> paint Babylon 5 as a cheap Star Trek rip off. However, I don't see D.C.
>> Fontana, David Gerrold, or Harlan Ellison
>
>Uh, DC Fontana wrote at least one first-season TNG episode. I think it was
>the one that introduced the "Traveler". David Gerrold consulted on the DS9
>ep "Trials and Tribbleations."
>
And wrote _Who Watches the Watchers_ iirc.
Ali
Ronald P. Peterson
Ron
Mark Private
not like there aren't any DS9 fans who bash B5. Or Galactica fans who
bash Voyager. Or Star Wars fans... well, you get the point, right?
As for "furthuring the cause of a *Babylon 5* renaissance" - Yeah, I
know you catch more flies with honey. But:
1) Realistically, how likely is a "Babylon 5 renaissance"? For
example, does anyone really think that there's a high probability that
The Sci-Fi Channel will order new eps of Crusade? Even if they did,
would JMS really have the time to produce new eps?
2) As long as the bashing can be substantiated, it might actually help
B5. i.e. instead of just "mine is bigger than yours", it's said that
"mine is bigger than yours because it's five miles long and home to a
quarter million humans and aliens." As ~someone~ once said, "In chess,
when one is outmatched, the game is over. Checkmate."
Aloha - Mark
Marcus Vowell
Tammy Smith wrote:
> I also remember hearing that a group of Trek fans were picketing outside
> a Los Angeles theater showing Star Wars: Episode 1. Sure, that movie ws
> a disappointment, but I would never picket outside a Trek-film!
Yeah, I heard that too. You know their reasons for picketing? They were
protesting that Star Wars' popularity was taking away from Star Trek. If I
were protesting something, it would be the fact that the movie sucks on
toast and I waited some fourteen years for it, but no. This is how these
nimrods think. Protesting something that dares to persist in not being Star
Trek. Like B5, which committed the ultimate sin: it was a weekly program
based in the 23rd century and was, no way around it, better. In every
department (visual effects before third season notwithstanding). The gall!
Bah.
Get a life. It's not a religion, it's a television show (to borrow from
William Shatner, no less). Unlike religions, you can watch both. Because I
guarantee that your devout loyalty (and I'm talking to these Shi-ite Trek
Fans, here) hasn't won you any points with Rick Berman, Patrick Stewart,
Avery Brooks, or Kate Mulgrew. They still don't care who you are.
BTW, have I mentioned lately that Patrick Stewart is a friggin' genius in
the field of acting? He would have made a wonderful guest star on Crusade,
don't you think? Besides having a great actor on the show, you'd add
another log to the fire that started undoubtedly a-blazin' when Walter
Koenig and Majel Barrett did the show. (Does anyone know if this happened
when Shatner did seaQuest?) I love messing with Trek fans. (Tip: next time
you see someone dressed as a Klingon at a con, yell "Hey, Darth Vader!
Nanoo nanoo!" They love it!)
Marcus. (Despite massive dissatisfaction, still a Trek fan)
Dave Platt
>the one that introduced the "Traveler".
IIRC, the episode "Where No One Has Gone Before" which first
introduced the "Traveller" character was originally written by Diane
Duane and Michael Reaves. You can read a bit about it (including the
second-draft outline) at the Owl Springs Partnership web site at
http://www.ibmpcug.co.uk/~owls/homeward.html
--
Dave Platt dpl...@radagast.org
Visit the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior/
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
Michael Atreides
> whenever I even *bring up* Babylon 5 with ST and SW Fans. I am inundated
by,
> "That's boring, my show is cooler than yours!" Mind you, this is just when
I
> tell them that Babylon 5 is a great show. I don't even get into SciFi
> supremacy, and I run into heavy flak.
It's odd... I belong to a local fan club which is primarily geared towards
Star Trek (possibly because when it was formed, there wasn't a lot else).
Everyone there I've talked to loves Babylon 5, as well as many other shows.
I've only noticed this "bashing" of each show in online forums.
Aubrey W. Adkins
plot holes and lack of continuity, but the show had a lot of first rate writing
and stroies that were bitingly sharp concerning what was happening at the time.
About 7 or 8 years ago, I watched an episode that had some very poignant social
points to make. My college age daughters and one of their husbands watched it
with me. Sadly, the important points were lost on them. I wish I could say the
same for most of DS9 and almost all of Voyager.
Hell, ST:TOS was why I bought my first color tv a 19"Sylvania in 1966..
Aubrey
Mac Breck wrote:
> [ The following text is in the "Windows-1252" character set. ]
>
> [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
>
> [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
> Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 1:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Why the *Trek* bashing?
>
> > Let me set the record straight on something.
> >
> > There is no such thing as B5 fans bashing Star Trek.
> >
> > There are only Star Trek fans, or former fans, who find in B5 what they
> did not
> > find or wish they could find in ST.
>
> Exactly! I was a Trek fan (watched TOS from the beginning in 1966, all of
> TNG, some DS9, and some Voyager). For me, things started to fall apart
> during the tenure of DS9 and Voyager. That was when I started to watch B5.
> After having seen all of B5, and now going back and watching Voyager (e.g.
> the season premiere), I see holes in the continuity, a glossing over, and a
> certain cheapness in Voyager. There seems to be a lack of consequences, or
> at least few permanent consequences to the things that happened.
>
> > There are many ST fans who have never watched an episode of B5 (but many
> of
> > whom bash the show).
> >
> > There are, however, VERY few if ANY B5 fans who have never seen Star Trek.
> > They all have a background in Trek and have opinions about that show,
> good, bad
> > and indifferent.
> >
> > If B5 fans had never seen any Trek and were bashing, that'd be one thing,
> and a
> > justifiable concern.
> >
> > But it simply doesn't wash in reality.
> >
> > This isn't a B5 problem. It's a ST problem. Many of the criticisms being
> > leveled against ST by those who've grown up watching it were being made
> even
> > BEFORE B5 came along...it's just that there was nothing at the time to
> which
> > they could compare and contrast.
>
> And now that there is B5 available for comparison, Voyager falls far short.
> Watching Voyager (or DS9) after B5 is like having a non-alcoholic lite beer
> after enjoying a premium lager. It's not satisfying because there's just so
> much missing.
>
> >
> > Now there is...and now it's labled "B5 bashing ST" when it's really
> nothing of
> > the kind.
> >
> > jms
> >
> > (jms...@aol.com)
> > (all message content (c) 2000 by
> > synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
> > to reprint specifically denied to
> > SFX Magazine)
>
Shaz
"Tammy Smith" <gka...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:20223-39...@storefull-135.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> I agree with the opinions about Trek here. Some (but not all) of the
> Trek fans can really puzzle me, too. A Trek fan recently posted at the
> he didn't support the space-program because they wouldn't do things like
> transporters & warp-drive.
>
<spin> Has this guy VISITED planet earth recently?
> I also remember hearing that a group of Trek fans were picketing outside
> a Los Angeles theater showing Star Wars: Episode 1. Sure, that movie ws
> a disappointment, but I would never picket outside a Trek-film!
What's the point?
I was an avid TNG fan. I tried to get into Voyager and DS9, I really did...
HONEST! <shakes head> But it was no good. Once I'd seen B5 I found all the
things I'd liked in TNG (those rare occasions when the consequences actually
appeared or a character came back and they actually admitted they'd been
there before or they used human ingenuity to get out of a problem instead of
technobabble. Like I said, rare.) and while I still like TNG I haven't
watched an episode from start to finish in ages. As for the others... I have
a life. I'm not wasting it on that.
Now, Stargate SG1 and Farscape, on the other hand... <g>
Shaz
Rob Perkins
"Dave Platt" <dpl...@radagast.org> wrote in message
news:su9eipn...@corp.supernews.com...
> >Uh, DC Fontana wrote at least one first-season TNG episode. I think it
was
> >the one that introduced the "Traveler".
>
> IIRC, the episode "Where No One Has Gone Before" which first
> introduced the "Traveller" character was originally written by Diane
> Duane and Michael Reaves.
Whoops! You're right, I remember that now. Third ep aired, or something like
that. Fontana wrote a different one, I was confusing the two. But, I *have*
seen her name on TNG credits in the first couple of seasons.
Rob
Reid Morris
around. While I'll admit that ST was good in its day, it lost its steam
around the last season of TNG. When B5 came out it was like a breath of
fresh air with new story lines, etc. I think the only reason I really
watched any of DS9 or Voyager eps was to keep my mind distracted inbetween
B5 eps.
Reidm
Von Bruno <vonb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001010140241...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
> I find it odd that folks here have opted to rekindle the fires of division
> between *Star Trek* and *Babylon 5* (especially since *ST: The Original
Series*
> and *B5* both share a common home- *The Sci-Fi Channel*). Is the point of
the
> discussion to reaffirm and extend a philosophic policy of intolerance by
> members of this board? If *Babylon 5* is to ever truly rise from the ashes
in
> all the glory and splendor it deserves the show's fandom must, in mass,
rise
> above the unreasoning pettiness of the "OURS over the cold dead body of
YOURS"
> mentallity being displayed here. Does anyone truly believe they're
furthuring
> the cause of a *Babylon 5* renaissance by this type of behavior? Trust me
your
> not. In fact, I would dare say you are serving only to impede and
undermine the
> bright future this franchise so richly deserves.
>
> -Von Bruno-
>
Marko Poutiainen
> To answer your question, I would say most, if nto all the
> readers on this newsgroup started out as Trek fans, probally BIG Trek
> fans, but watchign the franchise degrade and roll steadily downhill -
> well, it's like watching something you love destroy itself, despite
> your pleas and cries to the contary.
I have never been a Star Trek fan. I watches TNG for a while but quit,
pretty much for the known reasons (long before B5 aired).
> So that's why. Given the chance most people on this newsgroup
> would probally love to watch all the Trek shows, but the constant
> assault on the intelligence of the viewers grows weary on the spirit
> after a while, so peopel react by lashing out. Count myself as oen fo
> them.
I don't watch a show because it's SF. I watch it if it's good. B5 was a
good show, well written with an interesting story and good eps that stood
on their own. TNG didn't have a story, and most eps were crap. Stuff that
no-one would watch if it didn't have the Star Trek franchise. Yes, there
were good eps (about one in four), but the alien of the week - Wes saves
the day - and if not him then some techno-device really fed me up.
--
Marko Poutiainen | These are my principles.
m...@paju.oulu.fi | If you don't like them, I have others.
http://www.toffeeweb.org | -Groucho Marx
Mac Breck
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ronald P. Peterson" <ro...@cc.gatech.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: Why the *Trek* bashing?
> One thing. Why bash Voyager? I find it a great ... sit-com.
> Ron
True, in much the same way that I've enjoyed all but the last two Steeler
games this season (and quite a bit of last season)! Sorry, Pelzo63 (Chris)!
Mac
Mac Breck
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Atreides" <star...@jps.net>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: Why the *Trek* bashing?
Yes, when mentioning Babylon 5 to most people, I get "Babylon 5? What's
that? Is it like . . . Star Trek?"
Argh!
Mac
Mac Breck
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Private" <ostens...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 9:35 PM
Subject: Re: Why the *Trek* bashing?
> Maybe because this is rec.arts.sf.tv.BABYLON5.moderated? I mean, it's
> not like there aren't any DS9 fans who bash B5. Or Galactica fans who
> bash Voyager. Or Star Wars fans... well, you get the point, right?
>
> As for "furthuring the cause of a *Babylon 5* renaissance" - Yeah, I
> know you catch more flies with honey. But:
>
> 1) Realistically, how likely is a "Babylon 5 renaissance"? For
> example, does anyone really think that there's a high probability that
> The Sci-Fi Channel will order new eps of Crusade? Even if they did,
> would JMS really have the time to produce new eps?
Hope is all we have.
It can't hurt to bring new people to the series.
Mac
Joseph O'Neil
wrote:
>I don't watch a show because it's SF. I watch it if it's good. B5 was a
>good show, well written with an interesting story and good eps that stood
>on their own. TNG didn't have a story, and most eps were crap. Stuff that
>no-one would watch if it didn't have the Star Trek franchise. Yes, there
>were good eps (about one in four), but the alien of the week - Wes saves
>the day - and if not him then some techno-device really fed me up.
-snip-
Me, I am the opposite, I am a dyed in the wool sci-fi junkie.
I'll give almost anything sci-fi a try at least once. Hey, I even
enjoy "Plan 9 Form Outer Space", provided I have a drink or two first.
:) (I thought the movie "Ed Wood" was great.)
But I know what you mean. I put up with STNG because as you
said, they had one of every four was a good show,a nd they did keep
the techno babble down to a dull roar. Any episode that had Wesley at
the helm of the ship drove me nuts, but later episodes I felt made up
for earlier errors. The first three seasons of STNG were, IMO, not
very good at all (a few exceptions), but later episodes, and the
occasional gem such as "Inner Light" were what kept me glued.
DS9 was non-offense, but never really grabbed me. But Voyager
- ugh! even I cannot surpress my gag reflex that far.
You know how I judge a good show? If you can watch repeats,
even if you have seen them a million times over - because you enjoy
the telling of the story. I can watch B5 to infinity because I love
the telling of the story. The original Trek too. But I never watch
repeats of Voyager. Just cannot stomach them.
Actully, my all time favourite TV show is Red Dwarf (B5
comming in at 2nd place), while we are on the topic of sci-fi. I
love Brit humour to start with ( Monty Python rules! :), and for me,
Brit humour mixed with sci-fi just does not get any better. Twisted
as it was, Red Dwarf actually had method to it's madness, and a better
sense of reason and continuity than most TV shows do. That's a show I
can watch over and over again, even though I almost know all the jokes
by heart.
Sadly, looking at this season's current crop of shows -
*sigh*. At least Andromeda shows signs of self effacing humour ("He's
like a Greek God!"), but still, sad to think it has a guranteed two
year run when Crusade did not.
joe
LK
>I find it odd that folks here have opted to rekindle the fires of division
>between *Star Trek* and *Babylon 5* (especially since *ST: The Original Series*
>and *B5* both share a common home- *The Sci-Fi Channel*). Is the point of the
>discussion to reaffirm and extend a philosophic policy of intolerance by
>members of this board? If *Babylon 5* is to ever truly rise from the ashes in
>all the glory and splendor it deserves the show's fandom must, in mass, rise
>above the unreasoning pettiness of the "OURS over the cold dead body of YOURS"
>mentallity being displayed here. Does anyone truly believe they're furthuring
>the cause of a *Babylon 5* renaissance by this type of behavior? Trust me your
>not. In fact, I would dare say you are serving only to impede and undermine the
>bright future this franchise so richly deserves.
>
>-Von Bruno-
What franchise?
Trek had problems long before B5 ever appeared to JMS in the shower.
STNG had wooden characters. The idea that a ship's captain could
abandon his ship and crew to go off with some alien life form to
explore the universe, change his mind and still be left in command of
the without an inquery into his behavior or at least some sidelong
glances from his crew...is ludicrious. And that was just in the first
season.
Captain in jepardy too often without his communicator nearly every
week...that was the original series.
Only the high-ranking bridge crew ever leaving the ship, to do the
work...
Think of it as melodrama and long explanations that used to be offered
as novels in the 19th century. As people became better informed and
wider read they filled in the gaps and didn't need a hero or heroine's
life story before birth to get the heart of the story.
Plus you're missing the tough love for Trek, in general. If many
people didn't want the Trek universe to improve, to be more realistic,
to be more than just danger of the week, many of us wouldn't bother to
complain. We want to be inspired, in awe, cheer and share sorrows
instead of feed spews of robotic expectations and escapes into
holofantasies. Maybe Janeway has become too much of a political
figure that disregards the needs of the people for staying the course,
of a political party platform--Starfleet at all costs.
It's tough love. It's asking for improvement and accountibility.
It's asking the adults to act like adults and not be so tunnel vision
that one's goal is only to convert the Borg-kids and ignore the rest
of crew and tossed in a couple kids as if that's a story. The rest of
the crew is ignored and given saltpetre to siffle their minds because
they never complain, they never wonder, they never laugh.
And to see Andromeda (sp) become another Drek ,sigh, franchise...
When you stop caring, you stop asking for change, and you abandon the
good and tuck away only a few precious memories in a scrap book,
instead of living and enjoying escaping into a feeling reality.
LK
Pål Are Nordal
>
> BTW, have I mentioned lately that Patrick Stewart is a friggin' genius in
> the field of acting? He would have made a wonderful guest star on Crusade,
> don't you think?
Not on Crusade's budget he wouldn't.
--
Donate free food with a simple click: http://www.thehungersite.com/
Pål Are Nordal
a_b...@bigfoot.com
Pål Are Nordal
>
> Rob Perkins wrote in message ...
> >
>
Pulls out Alan Morton's genre television encyclopaedia:
"Who Watches the Watchers" was written by Richard Manning and Hans Beimler.
D.C. Fontana is credited as writer on "Encounter at Farpoint" (with
Roddenberry), "The Lonely Among Us" (teleplay only), "Too Short a
Season" (teleplay, with Michael Michaelian), "Heart Of Glory" (story,
with Maurice Hurley and Herbert Wright) and was as Associate Producer
for (most of) season 1.
However, given the way the show was run during the two first seasons
(Roddenberry generally demanding umpteen rewrites of everything),
knowing exactly what she wrote is near impossible.
Pål Are Nordal
>
> IIRC, the episode "Where No One Has Gone Before" which first
> introduced the "Traveller" character was originally written by Diane
> Duane and Michael Reaves.
But without the Traveller. He was inserted during a page one rewrite by
producer Maurice Hurley, ordered by Roddenberry. The original script can
be found on Michael Reaves' website (http://www.mindspring.com/~michaelreaves/STpreface.html).
LK
[snip]
>This isn't a B5 problem. It's a ST problem. Many of the criticisms being
>leveled against ST by those who've grown up watching it were being made even
>BEFORE B5 came along...it's just that there was nothing at the time to which
>they could compare and contrast.
>
>Now there is...and now it's labled "B5 bashing ST" when it's really nothing of
>the kind.
>
> jms
I second those statements.
LK
LK
wrote:
>One thing. Why bash Voyager? I find it a great ... sit-com.
>Ron
Like "Mad About You"?
LK
who can't stand Helen Hunt in any role.
B5 Fan
have watched quite a few TNG, DS9 and Voyager eps (but not most) and I didn't
remember seeing any of the three writers names that I mentioned (so I went on a
limb). But Harlan Ellison made a creative stand against the original trek! Can
you imagine what he must think about Voyager? ROFL I rest my case...
>"Dave Platt" <dpl...@radagast.org> wrote in message
>news:su9eipn...@corp.supernews.com...
>> >Uh, DC Fontana wrote at least one first-season TNG episode. I think it
>was
>> >the one that introduced the "Traveler".
>>
>> IIRC, the episode "Where No One Has Gone Before" which first
>> introduced the "Traveller" character was originally written by Diane
>> Duane and Michael Reaves.
>
>Whoops! You're right, I remember that now. Third ep aired, or something like
>that. Fontana wrote a different one, I was confusing the two. But, I *have*
>seen her name on TNG credits in the first couple of seasons.
>
>Rob
I wish to register both my disgust at Joseph Lieberman's
B5 Fan
>I find it odd that folks here have opted to rekindle the fires of division
>between *Star Trek* and *Babylon 5* (especially since *ST: The Original
Series*
>and *B5* both share a common home- *The Sci-Fi Channel*).
-snip-
One point to bring up. I LOVE the Star Trek Original Series. I have never said
an ill word about it on this board, nor do I plan to (new ST fans do it enough
for everyone). So your argument right there doesn't make sense. The only things
that I've seen that could be construed as "bashing" was about Voyager, DS9, and
TNG (in that order). Those three series that do come under some scrutiny are
not shown on the SciFi Channel.
Also Star Trek is the top dog in the SciFi TV world (monetarily), so when their
fans gut-wrenchingly punch Babylon 5 at every opportunity, they are keeping the
underdog down under their thumb. Then when we point out what they're doing,
they accuse us of attacking them.
If you think Babylon 5 fans attack Trek more often than most people, then you
are sadly mistaken. I've never seen a B5 ep mock Trekkies, but I have seen
several sitcoms, and movies that beliddel Trek and their fans, bald facedly!
Gharlane of Eddore
Bad header maintenance by previous posters;
sorry about the munged attributions...
??? Dave Platt" <dpl...@radagast.org> wrote in message
news:su9eipn...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Uh, DC Fontana wrote at least one first-season TNG episode.
> I think it was the one that introduced the "Traveler".
>
??? someone said:
>
> IIRC, the episode "Where No One Has Gone Before" which first
> introduced the "Traveller" character was originally written
> by Diane Duane and Michael Reaves.
??? someone else said:
>
> Whoops! You're right, I remember that now. Third ep aired, or something
> like that. Fontana wrote a different one, I was confusing the two.
> But, I *have* seen her name on TNG credits in the first couple of
> seasons.
>
The reason Dottie Fontana's name is on first-season TNG episodes is
that she was *STAFF*.
Following a major dust-up over professional ethics ( she refused to
re-write one of John D.F. Black's scripts and let Goddenberry put
his own name on the result, threatened to go to the Guild over it )
Goddenberry moved her to an office outside, around the back, behind
the air-conditioning plant, where the noise was so awful she couldn't
carry on a telephone conversation.... and waited for her to leave.
Note that at this point Goddenberry, never precisely famed for his
psychological stability, was coming apart at the seams, and going
just a wee bit wonky at times, but usually only when he was awake.
Iain Clark
"Shaz" <hyp...@Dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:8s2t5l$sqf$3...@lure.pipex.net...
Yep, both series with a great deal of internal continuity and which bother
to acknowledge that events have consequences. They avoid technobabble as a
substitute for plotting, allow their characters to disagree, and are hugely
successful, dramatic and great fun.
Voyager on the other hand fights this kind of storytelling tooth and nail
and is neither dramatic nor fun...
Iain
--
"Signs, portents, dreams...next thing
we'll be reading tea leaves and chicken entrails."
Iain Clark
"Mark Private" <ostens...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:39e4967c...@news.flex.com...
> Maybe because this is rec.arts.sf.tv.BABYLON5.moderated? I mean, it's
> not like there aren't any DS9 fans who bash B5. Or Galactica fans who
> bash Voyager. Or Star Wars fans... well, you get the point, right?
>
> As for "furthuring the cause of a *Babylon 5* renaissance" - Yeah, I
> know you catch more flies with honey. But:
>
> 1) Realistically, how likely is a "Babylon 5 renaissance"? For
> example, does anyone really think that there's a high probability that
> The Sci-Fi Channel will order new eps of Crusade? Even if they did,
> would JMS really have the time to produce new eps?
>
> B5. i.e. instead of just "mine is bigger than yours", it's said that
> "mine is bigger than yours because it's five miles long and home to a
> quarter million humans and aliens." As ~someone~ once said, "In chess,
> when one is outmatched, the game is over. Checkmate."
>
Claudia Mastroianni
: Trek had problems long before B5 ever appeared to JMS in the shower.
: STNG had wooden characters.
Actually, that was about the same time, wasn't it?
Claudia
--
"That's what the 4th of July is about, that I can stand here and
talk about LSD."
Dan Riley
[...]
> One show that deserves more discussion than it gets (probably because of the
> fragmented way it's been shown due to the way it's been syndicated) is
> Stargate SG-1.
First run of SG-1 in the US is Showtime sci-friday--the same lineup
JMS's new show is slated for.
> In my mind, that's the best SF show currently in production, and
> it's one of the few shows that's gotten markedly better each
> successive year.
Still too episodic for my tastes--too many episodes end with nice,
tidy, barely plausible happy endings--but it is an enjoyable show.
> Also, they're currently setting the standard for internal consitency
> and long term continuity.
Which is surprising, considering the massive consistency problems the
movie had...
--
Dan Riley d...@mail.lns.cornell.edu
Wilson Lab, Cornell University <URL:http://www.lns.cornell.edu/~dsr/>
"History teaches us that days like this are best spent in bed"
Mac Breck
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marko Poutiainen" <m...@paju.oulu.fi>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: Why the *Trek* bashing?
> Joseph O'Neil <jon...@multiboard.com> wrote:
>
> > To answer your question, I would say most, if nto all the
> > readers on this newsgroup started out as Trek fans, probally BIG Trek
> > fans, but watchign the franchise degrade and roll steadily downhill -
> > well, it's like watching something you love destroy itself, despite
> > your pleas and cries to the contary.
>
> I have never been a Star Trek fan. I watches TNG for a while but quit,
> pretty much for the known reasons (long before B5 aired).
>
> > So that's why. Given the chance most people on this newsgroup
> > would probally love to watch all the Trek shows, but the constant
> > assault on the intelligence of the viewers grows weary on the spirit
> > after a while, so peopel react by lashing out. Count myself as oen fo
> > them.
>
> I don't watch a show because it's SF. I watch it if it's good. B5 was a
> good show, well written with an interesting story and good eps that stood
> on their own. TNG didn't have a story, and most eps were crap. Stuff that
> no-one would watch if it didn't have the Star Trek franchise. Yes, there
> were good eps (about one in four), but the alien of the week - Wes saves
> the day - and if not him then some techno-device really fed me up.
Eh, I think you're being a little too hard on TNG. Those comments would
apply more to Voyager (minus the Wes saves the day stuff, of course).
Mac
Marcus Vowell
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
Pål Are Nordal wrote:
> Marcus Vowell wrote:
> >
> > BTW, have I mentioned lately that Patrick Stewart is a friggin' genius in
> > the field of acting? He would have made a wonderful guest star on Crusade,
> > don't you think?
>
> Not on Crusade's budget he wouldn't.
Oh, I don't know. He'd probably be pretty cool about it. After all, it'd only
be a guest starring role and as long as you didn't glue anything to his head for
the part, he'd probably go for it. If Fred Astaire could do Battlestar
Galactica, I think we could get Paddy-boy on a B5 project. Maybe it's just me...
Marcus.
Michael Atreides
division
> >between *Star Trek* and *Babylon 5* (especially since *ST: The Original
> >Series* and *B5* both share a common home- *The Sci-Fi Channel*).
> >-snip-
There is another questin here. Why in HELL does the fact that both shows are
on the Sci-Fi Channel mean anything? It means exactly nothing except that
both are shown on the same channel. Big whoop. So were "Crusade" and "WWF".
0d...@my-deja.com
> It's true. Before B5 I used to watch the Star Trek Movies on a highly
regular
> basis. However, the entire *franchise* has been on a steady decline
ever since
> (as Jms stated in a scifi chat) started solving problems with
technology. You
> don't really have any exercise of your mind, because how are you
supposed to
> know that you can free the Tebladians (made-up) with a special
inverted tachyon
> pulse from the navigational array.
Well God forbid that problems on an SciFi show should be solved with
technology. Personally I couldn't possibly imagine a greater travesty
of the genre.
> I've not gone out and told people that Star Trek is lame. Last night
and
> acquaintence of mine was telling me that he liked the Voyager Series
Premiere
> (caught a couple of minutes of it myself). I felt badly inside that
this
> person's tastes were desensitized , by *regular* TV, that he would
discuss this
> as *good* TV. However, I didn't insult him and say that the new Trek
is stupid.
Your generosity of spirt is both noble and touching.
> I told him that the new Trek has disappointed me and that I would
rather watch
> Babylon 5. He seemed intrigued by that and who knows, maybe he'll
watch.
In the words of our lord and savior, Go forth and sin no more.
> This is an opinion:
> I believe the reason some New Trek fans think B5 Fans are
consistently bashing
> their show, is because they themselves feel insecure with their
preference.
Or it could be because attacks on Star Trek are routine on B5 boards
and even in offical Babylon5 materials.
> Think about it. Trek fans are being ostracized by *everyone* under
the sun.
> Non-SciFi Fans think that Trekkies are usually geeky nerds that are
cut off
> from normal society.
A generation ago "Normal" people thought anyone who had anything to do
with computers was a geeky nerd cut off from society. That stereotype
is if anything more valid than this one. Furthermore that's a
perception that tends to extend to SF fans in general. It's just that
Star Trek is actually part of pop culture while somewhat less people
have heard of Babylon 5.
> The Trek Fans are trying to find scapegoats wherever they can, so
they try to
> paint Babylon 5 as a cheap Star Trek rip off. However, I don't see
D.C.
> Fontana, David Gerrold, or Harlan Ellison writing for TNG, DS9 and
Voyager
> (fantastic writers from the original, and the *only* widely popular,
Star Trek
> series). You see them working on Babylon 5, because it is not a TV
Show. It is
> a STORY. The original Trek was a story.
It's not as if anybody is on their knees soliciting them either. Well I
doubt anybody in Star Trek wants to work with Harlan Ellison again too
badly though he was in talks including an idea to write a sequel in
which Edith Keeler is saved (thereby completely throwing City out the
window and proving once again that the power of COTEF did not come from
Ellison but the Roddenberry\Fontana rewrites). Gerrold quit TNG in a
huff and DC Fontana ain't exactly a hot property. In point of fact none
of them are. They've done some good TOS episodes in their time but Trek
producers prefer new blood and people who can actually write for
television, who can work without throwing temper tantrums. Modern Trek
writers like Ron Moore, Joe Menosky, Brannon Braga, Robert Wolfe may be
underappreciated but they're also far more competent and proffesional
than the above mentioned.
> Another point I'd like to bring up is that I've heard the new Star
Trek Fans
> bash the original series, a lot more than I've EVER heard a Babylon 5
Fan do.
And I've heard it the other way around and my anecdotal evidence
cancels yours out.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Pelzo63
incorrect, Crusade was on the same channel as WCW, Voyager is the one on the
same channel as WWF. and ECW is on the same channel as neither, but IS on the
same channel as WWF(since WWF is on 3 channels in the Viacom universe).
and no, i'm not nitpicking anymore than a B5(or trek) fan would nitpick if
someone saw an episode of B5 and said "oh, it's that trek show" simply because
"all space based SF is the same"
...Chris
0d...@my-deja.com
vonb...@aol.com (Von Bruno) wrote:
> I find it odd that folks here have opted to rekindle the fires of
division
> between *Star Trek* and *Babylon 5* (especially since *ST: The
Original Series*
> and *B5* both share a common home- *The Sci-Fi Channel*).
Well Star Trek ended up there enshrined after 30 years as a modern
classic. B5 ended up there because SciFi channel will rerun just about
anything remotely SF related. The contrast must certainly be galling to
B5 fans. After the death of Crusade, the video game, B5's banishment to
cable...the contrast with the Trek franchise which despite a certain
decline is still very alive only fuels the fires that drove B5 fans to
attack Trek in the first places in hopes of driving a competitor from
the field.
Is the point of the
> discussion to reaffirm and extend a philosophic policy of intolerance
by
> members of this board? If *Babylon 5* is to ever truly rise from the
ashes in
> all the glory and splendor it deserves the show's fandom must, in
mass, rise
> above the unreasoning pettiness of the "OURS over the cold dead body
of YOURS"
> mentallity being displayed here. Does anyone truly believe they're
furthuring
> the cause of a *Babylon 5* renaissance by this type of behavior?
Trust me your
> not. In fact, I would dare say you are serving only to impede and
undermine the
> bright future this franchise so richly deserves.
>
> -Von Bruno-
>
>
Patrick MARCEL
>
> Well Star Trek ended up there enshrined after 30 years as a modern
> classic. B5 ended up there because SciFi channel will rerun just about
> anything remotely SF related.
Wouldn't it make sense, then, to compare ST now to what B5 will be in
thirty years? As I seem to recall, the modern classic didn't go past
season 3 on its classic run, and suffered an eclipse after that...
Patrick
--
"...and tho'
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are..."
Alfred, Lord Tennyson
Mac Breck
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marcus Vowell" <mlvo...@netdoor.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 8:06 PM
Subject: Re: Why the *Trek* bashing?
>> > BTW, have I mentioned lately that Patrick Stewart is a friggin' genius
in
>> > the field of acting? He would have made a wonderful guest star on
Crusade,
>> > don't you think?
>>
>> Not on Crusade's budget he wouldn't.
> Oh, I don't know. He'd probably be pretty cool about it. After all, it'd
only
> be a guest starring role and as long as you didn't glue anything to his
head
> for the part, he'd probably go for it. If Fred Astaire could do
Battlestar
> Galactica, I think we could get Paddy-boy on a B5 project.
I think you're right.
Mac
Immor...@yahoo.com
> based in the 23rd century and was, no way around it, better. In every
> department (visual effects before third season notwithstanding). The
gall!
>
I actually think B5 had the best FX of any show ever from the first
episode to the last.
Mac Breck
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
----- Original Message -----
From: <0d...@my-deja.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 1:54 AM
Subject: Re: Why the *Trek* bashing?
> In article <20001010140241...@ng-fi1.aol.com>,
> vonb...@aol.com (Von Bruno) wrote:
> > I find it odd that folks here have opted to rekindle the fires of
> division
> > between *Star Trek* and *Babylon 5* (especially since *ST: The
> Original Series*
> > and *B5* both share a common home- *The Sci-Fi Channel*).
>
> Well Star Trek ended up there enshrined after 30 years as a modern
> classic.
Trek ended up there because it is synonymous with Sci-Fi to the average TV
viewer.
> B5 ended up there because SciFi channel will rerun just about
> anything remotely SF related.
B5 ended up there in a steady prime-time slot because they think people will
watch it there, and they're right. I do agree that Sci-Fi will air just
about anything remotely SF related, no matter how BAD it is. Unfortunately,
this means that Voyager will someday come to Sci-Fi.
> The contrast must certainly be galling to
> B5 fans.
Only fawning Trek fanboys think this way, trying to rationalize Trek's mass
appeal. Trek is popular mostly because it was there FIRST. Now, Trek is
(and has been for a LONG time) resting on it's worn out laurels.
> After the death of Crusade, the video game, B5's banishment to
> cable...the contrast with the Trek franchise which despite a certain
> decline is still very alive
Very alive? Voyager is dead, and has been for years. It just doesn't know
it yet.
The burden of having good taste is that the things that you like often don't
make it because they don't appeal enough to the mainstream. If a show is
dumbed down enough to appeal to the middle and lower part of the bell curve
(e.g. Voyager, Lexx, Battlestar Gallactica), it won't appeal to the upper
end.
> only fuels the fires that drove B5 fans to
> attack Trek in the first places in hopes of driving a competitor from
> the field.
Oh wake up. B5 fans don't have to drive Trek from the field. Trek will do
that for us. Hint: They're out of ideas!
Mac
B5 Fan
>that? Is it like . . . Star Trek?"
>
>Argh!
>
>Mac
I hate that! If a new sitcom comes on the air, people don't automatically say,
"Is it like I love lucy?" or a new drama, "Is it like E.R.?" But just about
every time I try to bring up B5, you get the obligatory, "Set on a ship/station
in outerspace involving people with uniforms. MUST be like Trek."
LK
<cma...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>LK <founta...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>: Trek had problems long before B5 ever appeared to JMS in the shower.
>: STNG had wooden characters.
>
>Actually, that was about the same time, wasn't it?
>
>Claudia
<g> I could be sarcastic and say many people have sex or eat at a
similar time of night and day, but that doesn't mean they got the idea
from someone else. <g>
And ideas for stories are common enough in children's pretend and
adult musings. Chonology is a non-point unless it's a Ellian movie of
the week type of thing.
LK
Who enjoy "The Tiger Wood Story" enough to keep watching.
B5 Fan
>regular
>> basis. However, the entire *franchise* has been on a steady decline
>ever since
>> (as Jms stated in a scifi chat) started solving problems with
>technology. You
>> don't really have any exercise of your mind, because how are you
>supposed to
>> know that you can free the Tebladians (made-up) with a special
>inverted tachyon
>> pulse from the navigational array.
>
>Well God forbid that problems on an SciFi show should be solved with
>technology. Personally I couldn't possibly imagine a greater travesty
>of the genre.
>
I don't watch TV to hear gibberish. I want story telling, not a recitation of
what percent the shield strength is at!
>> I've not gone out and told people that Star Trek is lame. Last night
>and
>> acquaintence of mine was telling me that he liked the Voyager Series
>Premiere
>> (caught a couple of minutes of it myself). I felt badly inside that
>this
>> person's tastes were desensitized , by *regular* TV, that he would
>discuss this
>> as *good* TV. However, I didn't insult him and say that the new Trek
>is stupid.
>
>Your generosity of spirt is both noble and touching.
>
I'm glad you see it my way. Because the new trek is mind numbing, but I try to
be magnanimous...
>> I told him that the new Trek has disappointed me and that I would
>rather watch
>> Babylon 5. He seemed intrigued by that and who knows, maybe he'll
>watch.
>
>In the words of our lord and savior, Go forth and sin no more.
>
I wish to register my disgust that you would use my lord's name for its brand
value and that you would be so sarcastic as to say that I think the new ST is a
sin.
>> This is an opinion:
>> I believe the reason some New Trek fans think B5 Fans are
>consistently bashing
>> their show, is because they themselves feel insecure with their
>preference.
>
>Or it could be because attacks on Star Trek are routine on B5 boards
>and even in offical Babylon5 materials.
>
What official Babylon 5 materials? And you still aren't addressing that trek is
try to stomp on the low man on the todum pole. The New Trek producers had
intense animosity towards B5's staff and techniques.
>> Think about it. Trek fans are being ostracized by *everyone* under
>the sun.
>> Non-SciFi Fans think that Trekkies are usually geeky nerds that are
>cut off
>> from normal society.
>
>A generation ago "Normal" people thought anyone who had anything to do
>with computers was a geeky nerd cut off from society. That stereotype
>is if anything more valid than this one. Furthermore that's a
>perception that tends to extend to SF fans in general. It's just that
>Star Trek is actually part of pop culture while somewhat less people
>have heard of Babylon 5.
>
The only reason it is pop culture is because the first trek was good. If we had
to rely on the new trek alone, then people still would have not wanted to watch
it. Because it has the original Trek's title attached to it, is the only reason
the franchise was able to strive on. Their episodes have gotten more and more
unenjoyable for at least the past seven years, and BASHING Star Trek has become
the new pop culture phenomenon.
I seriously doubt any *new* trek series will be as acclaimed/popular in the
long run, as the Epic Drama Babylon 5. And the only thing that B5 fans don't
like is people grouping B5 with the new ST. A normal human being can only
listen to so much Techno-babble.
>> The Trek Fans are trying to find scapegoats wherever they can, so
>they try to
>> paint Babylon 5 as a cheap Star Trek rip off. However, I don't see
>D.C.
>> Fontana, David Gerrold, or Harlan Ellison writing for TNG, DS9 and
>Voyager
>> (fantastic writers from the original, and the *only* widely popular,
>Star Trek
>> series). You see them working on Babylon 5, because it is not a TV
>Show. It is
>> a STORY. The original Trek was a story.
>
>It's not as if anybody is on their knees soliciting them either. Well I
>doubt anybody in Star Trek wants to work with Harlan Ellison again too
>badly though he was in talks including an idea to write a sequel in
>which Edith Keeler is saved (thereby completely throwing City out the
>window and proving once again that the power of COTEF did not come from
>Ellison but the Roddenberry\Fontana rewrites). Gerrold quit TNG in a
>huff and DC Fontana ain't exactly a hot property. In point of fact none
>of them are. They've done some good TOS episodes in their time but Trek
>producers prefer new blood and people who can actually write for
>television, who can work without throwing temper tantrums. Modern Trek
>writers like Ron Moore, Joe Menosky, Brannon Braga, Robert Wolfe may be
>underappreciated but they're also far more competent and proffesional
>than the above mentioned.
>
I don't see a large rating share watching Ron Moore, Joe Menosky, Brannon
Braga, Robert Wolfe's scripts as much the original Trek was able to attract.
>> Another point I'd like to bring up is that I've heard the new Star
>Trek Fans
>> bash the original series, a lot more than I've EVER heard a Babylon 5
>Fan do.
>
>And I've heard it the other way around and my anecdotal evidence
>cancels yours out.
>
EXCUSE ME, but I'm not going to ignore my own 'anecdotal evidence' because you
say I should. The new trek fans CONSTANTLY beliddel the "swaggering kirk" the
"cheap special effects" the "macho hand to hand combat scenes". Among those
that mock the original series are Rick Berman, and a slew of other NEW Trek
producers and writers! However, I enjoy all of those aspects of the original
trek a lot more than watching unfeeling, mind-numbed robots clean out a
"realistic looking" warp plasma conduit!
>
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
Aubrey W. Adkins
catching new fish.
Aubrey
0d...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <20001010140241...@ng-fi1.aol.com>,
> vonb...@aol.com (Von Bruno) wrote:
> > I find it odd that folks here have opted to rekindle the fires of
> division
> > between *Star Trek* and *Babylon 5* (especially since *ST: The
> Original Series*
> > and *B5* both share a common home- *The Sci-Fi Channel*).
>
> Well Star Trek ended up there enshrined after 30 years as a modern
> classic. B5 ended up there because SciFi channel will rerun just about
> anything remotely SF related. The contrast must certainly be galling to
> B5 fans. After the death of Crusade, the video game, B5's banishment to
> cable...the contrast with the Trek franchise which despite a certain
> decline is still very alive only fuels the fires that drove B5 fans to
> attack Trek in the first places in hopes of driving a competitor from
> the field.
>
> Is the point of the
> > discussion to reaffirm and extend a philosophic policy of intolerance
> by
> > members of this board? If *Babylon 5* is to ever truly rise from the
> ashes in
> > all the glory and splendor it deserves the show's fandom must, in
> mass, rise
> > above the unreasoning pettiness of the "OURS over the cold dead body
> of YOURS"
> > mentallity being displayed here. Does anyone truly believe they're
> furthuring
> > the cause of a *Babylon 5* renaissance by this type of behavior?
> Trust me your
> > not. In fact, I would dare say you are serving only to impede and
> undermine the
> > bright future this franchise so richly deserves.
> >
> > -Von Bruno-
> >
> >
>
Aubrey W. Adkins
as last weeks mackeral. The powers to be that let it go to Paramount have
since been consigned to the hottest areas in hell, or so I'm told.
Aubrey
Patrick MARCEL wrote:
> 0d...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > Well Star Trek ended up there enshrined after 30 years as a modern
> > classic. B5 ended up there because SciFi channel will rerun just about
> > anything remotely SF related.
>
Pål Are Nordal
>
> If Fred Astaire could do Battlestar
> Galactica, I think we could get Paddy-boy on a B5 project.
Galactica had a gigantic budget for it's time.
Ben Varkentine
>someone saw an episode of B5 and said "oh, it's that trek show" simply
>because
>"all space based SF is the same"
I swear this is true: the movie Star Trek 6 was on cable once and I happened
to pass it while surfing.
ME: Hey, what's Bester doing on the Entrerpr...oh right, right right...
Ben Varkentine
Read my film, theater and music criticism in http://popmatters.com/ &
http://slar.org/
"Y'know, I so nearly posted the exact same as you, and then decided not to.
You cad, you swine, you rotter, you!"-David Brider
Simn...@aol.com
>If Fred Astaire could do Battlestar
>Galactica, I think we could get Paddy-boy
>on a B5 project. Maybe it's just
>me...
Well, Battlestar Galactica had the highest budget of any TV show up to that
point, whereas B5 and Crusade were both done on a shoestring budget. Also,
Astaire did BSG because his young (nephew? Grandson? I forget at the moment)
was a fan and asked him to be on it. I believe it was his last role, sadly
enough.
BSG also had Lloyd Bridges as a guest star, by the way. On the other hand, B5
had Martin Sheen, although that was also supposedly a "labor of love" role.
But considering how bad Sheen was in "River of Souls", to my dying day I will
insist it was actually his brother Joe Estevez impersonating him and picking
up
his paycheck.
Martin "The Mess" Hohner <*> Simn...@aol.com
United States of Earth? Schoonmaker for President!
Expansionist Party of the United States Website:
**** http://hometown.aol.com/XPUS/index.html ****
Marko Poutiainen
> Me, I am the opposite, I am a dyed in the wool sci-fi junkie.
> I'll give almost anything sci-fi a try at least once. Hey, I even
> enjoy "Plan 9 Form Outer Space", provided I have a drink or two first.
> :) (I thought the movie "Ed Wood" was great.)
I'm quite a scifi-junkie, too. But in this particular genre, I prefer
books. The TV series still has far too big technical problems (no-one else
tired to death with a new alien species that looks like human with a
little bump or whatever in his forehead?). And since a lot of sci-fi is
about that feeling of wonder, the imagination works better than any
pictures. Incidentally, one of my favourite author is Robert Silverberg,
whose style reminds me of some of the stuff in B5 (read "Kingdoms of the
Wall" to see what I mean - apart from one problem that really bugged me, I
really like this book). And notice, I said "style", not "contents". Some
of Silverberg's stuff hasn't been quite that good (he had a poor era about
30 years ago), but OTOH, we have stuff like "Infection", "TKO" and "Grey
17 Is Missing" in B5...
> Actully, my all time favourite TV show is Red Dwarf (B5
> comming in at 2nd place), while we are on the topic of sci-fi. I
> love Brit humour to start with ( Monty Python rules! :), and for me,
> Brit humour mixed with sci-fi just does not get any better. Twisted
> as it was, Red Dwarf actually had method to it's madness, and a better
> sense of reason and continuity than most TV shows do. That's a show I
> can watch over and over again, even though I almost know all the jokes
> by heart.
Ah, British series. My all-time favourite is The Prisoner. I should buy a
DVD-player just for that (I reckon they did the show on DVD recently?). MP
is another classic.
--
Marko Poutiainen | These are my principles.
m...@paju.oulu.fi | If you don't like them, I have others.
http://www.toffeeweb.org | -Groucho Marx
LK
wrote:
>
>The burden of having good taste is that the things that you like often don't
>make it because they don't appeal enough to the mainstream. If a show is
>dumbed down enough to appeal to the middle and lower part of the bell curve
>(e.g. Voyager, Lexx, Battlestar Gallactica), it won't appeal to the upper
>end.
>
And that's an insult to TV viewers. Frequently a show is dumbed down
enough to appeal to average TV excutive who lives in the rarely
founded fear of "American viewers."
WWF and company being the glaring exception. --Not marketed to small
children, my foot. I don't see adults in the toy department buying
up the action figures.
LK
JBONETATI
>that? Is it like . . . Star Trek?"
>
>Argh!>>
That's bad all right. But I've recently been hit with something worse....
When I responded to the person that yes, B5 was science fiction just as ST was,
but that it was concieved as a 'novel for television' with a pre-planned 5 year
story this person said brightly "Oh, like a soap opera, huh?"
I didn't use her trash can to be ill in, aren't you proud of me?
Jan
Iain Clark
<Simn...@aol.com> wrote in message news:2d.218715...@aol.com...
> Marcus Vowell shaped the electrons to say:
>
> >If Fred Astaire could do Battlestar
> >Galactica, I think we could get Paddy-boy
> >on a B5 project. Maybe it's just
> >me...
>
> Well, Battlestar Galactica had the highest budget of any TV show up to
that
> point, whereas B5 and Crusade were both done on a shoestring budget.
Also,
> Astaire did BSG because his young (nephew? Grandson? I forget at the
moment)
> was a fan and asked him to be on it. I believe it was his last role,
sadly
> enough.
>
> BSG also had Lloyd Bridges as a guest star, by the way. On the other
hand, B5 had Martin Sheen, although that was also supposedly a "labor of
love" role.
>
> But considering how bad Sheen was in "River of Souls", to my dying day I
will
> insist it was actually his brother Joe Estevez impersonating him and
picking
> up his paycheck.
>
I didn't like his first scene much (all that bulgy-eyed over-acting) but he
settled into the part quite nicely, I thought.
Pelzo63
:-)
joneil wrote:
> You know how I judge a good show? If you can >watch repeats,
>even if you have seen them a million times over - >because you enjoy
>the telling of the story.
this is the standard i use for "excellence", and by that, there is only ONE
non-comedy* that i watch the reruns of simply to see them again, that show is
B5. as for being "good" i consider that, any show that i can watch the rerun
of from end to end, but don't necessarily make an effort to.
there are however, a handful of serious movies that i watch whenever they're
on.
*i do tend to watch monty python, mel brooks, and airplane/naked gun movies
repeatedly, as well as simpsons, futurama, south park, and others.
...Chris
Pelzo63
macbreck wrote:
>True, in much the same way that I've enjoyed all but >the last two Steeler
>games this season (and quite a bit of last season)! >Sorry, Pelzo63 (Chris)!
at least they were TRYING, unlike aforementioned voyager team. and as far as i
am concerned, we've only lost 1 game this season! the refs are a bunch of
arsecandles(thanks Uk group!). and 13-3(or 15-1 minus 2 to refs) isn't a bad
year <g>
back to voyager...i still seem to watch it though, what can i say? theres' not
mcuh else on on wednesday, and i don't feel like changing the channel after
seven days.
...Chris
Rob Perkins
> When I responded to the person that yes, B5 was science fiction just as ST
was,
> but that it was concieved as a 'novel for television' with a pre-planned 5
year
> story this person said brightly "Oh, like a soap opera, huh?"
That was the impression my wife's parents walked away with, after watching
three eps of B5 when it was deep in the Sheridan/Delenn relationship
development part.
Actually, B5 appears to be structured like a latin "telenovella", which I'm
told is what the soaps are called in South America, but only in the sense
that it has an end. I doubt the telenovellas make references to Mark Twain,
or quoted Tennyson, or anything like them in Latin American culture.
> I didn't use her trash can to be ill in, aren't you proud of me?
Ecstatic.
Rob
Iain Clark
"B5 Fan" <and...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001013120155...@ng-cv1.aol.com...
<snip>
> The only reason it is pop culture is because the first trek was good. If
we
> had to rely on the new trek alone, then people still would have not wanted
to > watch it. Because it has the original Trek's title attached to it, is
the only
> reason the franchise was able to strive on. Their episodes have gotten
more
> and more unenjoyable for at least the past seven years, and BASHING Star
> Trek has become the new pop culture phenomenon.
>
The first Trek is partly a product of its time. It was good, yes, but it
was also a first, which is always going to be iconic.
I personally believe that TNG is almost as much as a pop culture icon as the
original series these days. It's DS9 and Voyager that have never really
caught on in the public consciousness. And it's worth remembering that
whilst TNG pioneered all the faults that characterise modern Trek, it also
epitomised what can be good about Trek - well made drama, clever ideas, and
likeable characters.
Personally I actually prefer DS9 to all the other modern Treks because it
actually reacted against the bland, reset-button, technobabble mentality
that was developing and focussed more on the characters and ongoing plot.
It was everything I always wished TNG had been. You can argue that it became
too soap-y, but at least it struck out in a new direction.
(The fact that Voyager did the reverse doesn't bode well for the next Trek
series. DS9 was never considered a ratings winner, and sadly TPTB seem to
feel it was a noble failure, never to be imitated.)
For me, part of the reason I reacted so strongly to B5 was that for years
I'd been hanging onto the scraps of ongoing plot and continuity in TNG to
satisfy my cravings for a realistic, ongoing SF story. DS9 offered a little
more of what I needed, and at the time it seemed like a big improvement. It
was only when B5 came along that I realised how very low I'd been setting my
expectations. Years of Trek had drilled into me the idea that TV writers
simply wouldn't attempt genuine ongoing stories where events had
consequences and characters grew and developed.
<snip>
> I don't see a large rating share watching Ron Moore, Joe Menosky, Brannon
> Braga, Robert Wolfe's scripts as much the original Trek was able to
attract.
>
I think Ron Moore is a strong writer with a firm grasp of characters and
drama, a dislike of technobabble and a healthy respect for the original
series. His falling out with the Voyager mob testifies to that.
<snip>
> >> Another point I'd like to bring up is that I've heard the new Star
> > Trek Fans bash the original series, a lot more than I've EVER heard a
> > Babylon 5 Fan do.
> >
> >And I've heard it the other way around and my anecdotal evidence
> >cancels yours out.
>
> EXCUSE ME, but I'm not going to ignore my own 'anecdotal evidence'
> because you say I should. The new trek fans CONSTANTLY beliddel the
> "swaggering kirk" the "cheap special effects" the "macho hand to hand
combat
> scenes". Among those that mock the original series are Rick Berman, and a
> slew of other NEW Trek producers and writers! However, I enjoy all of
> those aspects of the original trek a lot more than watching unfeeling,
mind-
> numbed robots clean out a "realistic looking" warp plasma conduit!
>
Fans of both series come in all colours and broad generalisations are never
going to work. *Some* New Trek fans belittle the original series. Some
belittle B5. Some B5 fans belittle Trek. Some belittle Crusade.
Mark Private
<iainj...@dragonhaven.worldonline.co.uk> wrote:
[some of my previous post snipped]
>> 2) As long as the bashing can be substantiated, it might actually help
>> B5. i.e. instead of just "mine is bigger than yours", it's said that
>> "mine is bigger than yours because it's five miles long and home to a
>> quarter million humans and aliens." As ~someone~ once said, "In chess,
>> when one is outmatched, the game is over. Checkmate."
>
>Spock in The Corbomite Maneuver?
>
Yup, that's why I thought it was appropriate.
Mark
Claudia Mastroianni
: But considering how bad Sheen was in "River of Souls", to my dying day I will
: insist it was actually his brother Joe Estevez impersonating him and picking
: up his paycheck.
I thought Sheen did marvelously in the role. It was a hard role to write,
I think; Sheen had to carry the exposition of what a soul hunter is while
also being an atypical one. But given what was written, I think he did
very well with it.
Claudia
--
"'Apple pie', said Kosh, 'and hush puppies.'"
j...@gte.net
TALANDIR wrote:
>
> Von Bruno wrote:
> << I find it odd that folks here have opted to rekindle the fires of division
> between *Star Trek* and *Babylon 5* (especially since *ST: The Original Series*
> discussion to reaffirm and extend a philosophic policy of intolerance by
> members of this board? If *Babylon 5* is to ever truly rise from the ashes in
> all the glory and splendor it deserves the show's fandom must, in mass, rise
> above the unreasoning pettiness of the "OURS over the cold dead body of YOURS"
> mentallity being displayed here. Does anyone truly believe they're furthuring
> the cause of a *Babylon 5* renaissance by this type of behavior? Trust me your
> not. In fact, I would dare say you are serving only to impede and undermine the
> bright future this franchise so richly deserves.
> >>
>
> you are quite right on principal. Nothing is served by the kind of petty
> attacks that sometimes occur between fans of different shows. Both ST and B5
> have good and bad aspects. There are eps of ST, any series, that are better
> than some eps of B5 and vice versa.
>
> There is no reason not to watch or like both, or any of the many other SF
> series around for that matter. I watch both, along with E:FC, Lexx, Farscape,
> Xena and Dr Who when I can find it.
>
> However, I reserve the right to critcize any of the above when they fall short
> of what they could be, as Voyager consistently does IMO. I'll also say there
> were some weaknesses in B5, DS9 and TNG; all of which I would consider at least
> very good SF TV overall.
>
> This is nothing like the REAL BITCHING you'll see on some sites, and be
> thankfull for that! Every aint-it-cool-news talkback, for example, is full so
> much "Lucas sucks-Cameron rules..., No way, Matrix rules!" garbage that it's
> hardly worth while to post an opinion.
>
> Though i still do, of course:)
>
> My point is that as long as it doesn't devolve into a juvenile pissing contest,
> criticism is healthy. Even if it's about ("gasp") B5.
Very good points. "The Inner Light" episode of TNG, for instance, was
as good as anything on B5. And that says a lot. The really new major
improvement of B5 over Star Trek was getting rid of the "magic reset
button" that ensures everything at the end of an episode is like it
was ag the beginning. That and the fact that one person kept
dictatorial control over B5 to keep the story on track are what made
Babylon 5 the fabulous story it was.
Jon
--
If you give someone a program, you can frustrate
them for a day. If you teach someone to program,
you can frustrate them for a lifetime.
Marcus Vowell
Mark Private wrote:
Not chess, Spock. Poker. And you can name your own price for a Vegas hotel
at Priceline.com...
Marcus.
Simn...@aol.com
>Actually, B5 appears to be structured like a latin "telenovella", which I'm
>told is what the soaps are called in South America, but only in the sense
>that it has an end.
I always explain B5 to friends as "an 110-hour Miniseries".
Mac Breck
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
"Pelzo63" <pel...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001013200151...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
> tried posting tis before, it failed, here i go again :-)
>
> macbreck wrote:
>
> >True, in much the same way that I've enjoyed all but >the last two
Steeler
> >games this season (and quite a bit of last season)! >Sorry, Pelzo63
(Chris)!
>
> at least they were TRYING,
Every time I started watching them last season, I swear Cordell was playing
for the other team!
Mac
Marcus Vowell
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
Pål Are Nordal wrote:
> Marcus Vowell wrote:
> >
> > If Fred Astaire could do Battlestar
> > Galactica, I think we could get Paddy-boy on a B5 project.
>
> Galactica had a gigantic budget for it's time.
Cynics! You're all cynics! Has Babylon 5 taught you nothing? Faith
manages, for Christ's sake! Sheesh...
Marcus.
Jms at B5
http://www.zealot.com/features/archives/jms/b5.php3
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2000 by
synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
to reprint specifically denied to
SFX Magazine)
Rick
>It's not as if anybody is on their knees soliciting them either. Well I
>doubt anybody in Star Trek wants to work with Harlan Ellison again too
>badly though he was in talks including an idea to write a sequel in
>which Edith Keeler is saved (thereby completely throwing City out the
>window and proving once again that the power of COTEF did not come from
>Ellison but the Roddenberry\Fontana rewrites).
It's a lo-o-o-ong time since I read much about Trek (like, the '70s...),
but as I recall, one of the main points of Ellison's original 'City' was
that Kirk *was* willing to save Edith, thus sacrificing America, the
Allies, the future, and... well, pretty much everything really. But TPTB
(Roddenberry/Coon/Fontana, and the kids at Desilu) didn't much like the
fact that the protagonist's sidekicks had to make the 'right' decision
for him. And so we wind up with the ending we're all familiar with, in
which Kirk stops McCoy, rather than the far more dramatic opposite.
Let's just spell it out: McCoy wasn't in love with Edith; Kirk was. Why
set up such an exquisitely dramatic decision in a show, and then -
through sheer bloody-mindedness - have precisely the *wrong* character
make it??
I hadn't heard of the Ellison-sequel-discussions you mention, but I
guess he thought that maybe after all these years TPTB had grown up
enough to allow their heroes to be 'wrong' occasionally. It makes you
think: Perhaps Kirk went back to the planet later in life, jumped back
again, and this time saved Edith. Perhaps the Next Gen. crew - now
slightly altered (something a bit more subtle than stomping around in
neo-Nazi uniforms, we hope!) - come across some archaeological evidence
from prior to Kirk's jump, showing that the timeline has been distorted.
(OK, temporal paradox - worry about that later. I'm spit-balling
here...) They have to go back, deal with Kirk, and correct the timeline.
OK, it's basically the same plot as Generations. **Except** that instead
of generic-villain-Malcolm-McDowell, we have an admirable, identifiable
antagonist, with an aim that's at least partly admirable & identifiable
too. A heroic figure, who's simply made one sacrifice too many.
Actually, I quite like the sound of that. With Ellison involved even
part-time, then for me it would've been better'n any of the TNG movies
(and that's from someone who enjoyed the explosions & shooting in 1st
Contact, and rather liked Insurrection on a sub-Star Wars level). But I
guess the chances of a Trek-show lead ever making a less-than-selfless
decision will remain pretty minimal until the current production team is
pensioned off...
--
Regards,
Rick
0d...@my-deja.com
mant...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>
> Wouldn't it make sense, then, to compare ST now to what B5 will be in
> thirty years? As I seem to recall, the modern classic didn't go past
> season 3 on its classic run, and suffered an eclipse after that...
>
> Patrick
Well they say that they laughed at Einstein, they laughed at Freud and
they laughed at Bozo the Clown. Just because your show has been canned
and it has a fandom doesn't mean it will rise again from the ashes. 99
and 99 of 100 shows do not. TOS is the exception that proves the rule
and frankly I can't see B5 taking on the kind of popular appeal that
TOS did especially considering that it's being aired on a channel with
low ratings that nearly no one watches.
>
> --
> "...and tho'
> We are not now that strength which in old days
> Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are..."
> Alfred, Lord Tennyson
>
>
LK
wrote:
>Pål Are Nordal wrote:
>
>> Marcus Vowell wrote:
>> >
>> > BTW, have I mentioned lately that Patrick Stewart is a friggin' genius in
>> > the field of acting? He would have made a wonderful guest star on Crusade,
>> > don't you think?
>>
>> Not on Crusade's budget he wouldn't.
>
>Oh, I don't know. He'd probably be pretty cool about it. After all, it'd only
>be a guest starring role and as long as you didn't glue anything to his head for
>the part, he'd probably go for it. If Fred Astaire could do Battlestar
>Galactica, I think we could get Paddy-boy on a B5 project. Maybe it's just me...
>
>Marcus.
I think it's just you.
On "Red Dwarf A-Z" Patrick Stewart talks about seeing his first
episode of "Red Dwarf" and says that a for a few minutes he considered
calling his lawyer because it was to Trek-like and wondering about a
lawsuit.
My thinking, on hearing that, was "You petty-minded little goit!
Stories in outer space are _not_ ST copyright!" My respect for him
plumented.
LK
Ben Varkentine
wrote, on : 10/16/00 7:17:
>Stewart talks about seeing his first
>episode of "Red Dwarf" and says that a for a few minutes he considered
>calling his lawyer because it was to Trek-like and wondering about a
>lawsuit.
>
>My thinking, on hearing that, was "You petty-minded little goit!
Um...do you think maybe, just possibly, there's a chance he was, y'know,
joking? Ya literalist.
BRETNTRACI
120-hour...
Patrick MARCEL
> frankly I can't see B5 taking on the kind of popular appeal that
> TOS did especially considering that it's being aired on a channel with
> low ratings that nearly no one watches.
Oh... You mean you can see the future?
Whatever the ratings can be on SciFi Channel, that doesn't mean Bab-5
will be broadcast on it for all eternity, or that the ratings won't
improve. It doesn't mean it WILL, either, but, as **I** can't tell what
the future will be, I try to leave all options open...
Patrick
Marcus Vowell
LK wrote:
> I think it's just you.
>
> On "Red Dwarf A-Z" Patrick Stewart talks about seeing his first
> episode of "Red Dwarf" and says that a for a few minutes he considered
> calling his lawyer because it was to Trek-like and wondering about a
> lawsuit.
>
> My thinking, on hearing that, was "You petty-minded little goit!
> Stories in outer space are _not_ ST copyright!" My respect for him
> plumented.
Remember, though, that that was during the beginning days of STTNG, and Pat had been
given the lead role in a major series. Up to that point, though, he hadn't been too
much in the spotlight, and he saw something that he percieved to threaten the security
of this new job. I admit that it was something that I thought was a bad move, but I
can kind of see why he did it. Besides, he shortly thereafter became a Dwarfer and
enjoyed the show so much he did the A-Z special. That's gotta count for *something*.
Marcus.
ArsenicMan
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
"Ben Varkentine" <benva...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001013134909...@ng-fh1.aol.com...
> >and no, i'm not nitpicking anymore than a B5(or trek) fan would nitpick
if
> >someone saw an episode of B5 and said "oh, it's that trek show" simply
> >because
> >"all space based SF is the same"
>
> I swear this is true: the movie Star Trek 6 was on cable once and I
happened
> to pass it while surfing.
> ME: Hey, what's Bester doing on the Entrerpr...oh right, right right...
After coming off of a two seasons in three days stint of B5 (I had just
recieved my latest batch of tapes from my friend with cable - I, sadly, am
reduced to begging to watch the series after having only learned of it
halfway through Season Four), I was listening to my soundtrack from STII,
and, reading the credits, I thought, "Hey, the guy who plays Bester was in
this movie! Wait a minute..."
I had similar reactions with the Voyager episode "Pathfinder" and
"Lifeline", and the preaching war veteran by Dwight Schultz (forget the ep.
title, from Season Two). But not the reverse w/Majel Barrett, however.
ArsenicMan
==================================================
It's our last best hope for peace? We're *so* screwed.
Tammy Smith
script, the one about G'Kar changing his sex! :)
Tammy
JBONETATI
> frankly I can't see B5 taking on the kind of popular appeal that
> TOS did especially considering that it's being aired on a channel with
> low ratings that nearly no one watches.>>
Excuse me? Were you around when ST:TOS first went into rerun-land? That was
in the olden days BC (before cable) and there were the Networks (aka the Big
Three) and a very few other channels (mostly educational and local) on VHF.
Then there were several more channels on UHF which was characterized by the
necessity to stand and hold the antenna in order to recognize moving objects as
people. You know where ST was showing? On UHF channels that might be described
as "channels with low ratings that nearly no one watches."
So...what's your point?
Jan
Jms at B5
considering re: taking over The Amazing Spider-Man at Marvel, check out my
column this week at psycomic.com
Martin A. Hohner
>>I always explain B5 to friends as "an 110-hour Miniseries".
>
>120-hour...
110-hour counting the series, 120-hour counting the 5 movies as well (The
Gathering, In The Beginning, Thirdspace, River of Souls, A Call to Arms).
The movies are a touchy thing. "A Call to Arms" is really a Crusade movie, as
far as I can see. Think of it as "The Gathering" for Crusade. If we're gonna
count "A Call to Arms", we should count the 13 hours of Crusade as well.
"River of Souls" and "Thridspace", while (sadly) canon, are really stand-alone
movies, not terribly important to the story arc as a whole. "In The Beginning"
and "The Gathering" are clearly part of the series story, but the different
Delenn makeup, EF uniforms and guns, and the whole aborted Laurel plotline are
just confusing.
I say, when introducing new people to the series, stick to the series itself.
Toss the movies at them AFTER they're hooked.
I recently even made up a set of "The Essential Babylon 5" tapes, a 4-volume,
32-episode set of the most important eps from the first 3 series, that I hand
around to friends trying to get them hooked. Worked on the first two so far.
Martin "The Mess" Hohner <*> Simn...@aol.com
A&A Module: http://www.geocities.com/axisrules36
Tech Infantry: http://www.geocities.com/earthfleet2000
RIP The Spectrum Wars 1997-2000...gone but not forgotten
Maagic
--
-Maagic
aka Bryan Foster
Webmaster of the Rick and Bubba Experience
http://www.rickandbubba.net
Jakhel
>episode of "Red Dwarf" and says that a for a few minutes he considered
>calling his lawyer because it was to Trek-like and wondering about a
>lawsuit.
>
>My thinking, on hearing that, was "You petty-minded little goit!
>Stories in outer space are _not_ ST copyright!" My respect for him
>plumented.
>
>
I think he's just been a bit, um, sheltered -- remember, he'd never heard of
the X-men, either. I can believe that if someone was not familiar with the
genre outside of the rather all-encompassing Trek gig, one would see anything
vaguely similar as derivative.
AEC.
Marcus Vowell
"Martin A. Hohner" wrote:
> I say, when introducing new people to the series, stick to the series itself.
> Toss the movies at them AFTER they're hooked.
Especially since, in the case of The Gathering, they'll have to deal with those
dippy looking, twelve foot long, flat quasi-PPG rifles that make the "thook" noise
when fired and have the targeting device with the laser beam that makes the noise
when pointed at you. Glad *those* got changed...
> I recently even made up a set of "The Essential Babylon 5" tapes, a 4-volume,
> 32-episode set of the most important eps from the first 3 series, that I hand
> around to friends trying to get them hooked. Worked on the first two so far.
I've found that "Believers" is a good one to hook folks. "GROPOS" is a good one,
too. I don't like to throw eps with too much of the Big Story (TM) at them, since
the reason most people cite for not watching the show is that they feel they'd be
lost if they didn't watch it from the beginning (that is, if they're not Shi-ite
Trek Fans or people who don't give a toss about sci-fi whatsoever), and I don't
want to confuse 'em, that just proves their point.
I push send now on faith that I had a justification for the relevence of all this
when I started typing...
Marcus.
JBehling
4-volume,
32-episode set of the most important eps from the first 3 series, that I hand
around to friends trying to get them hooked. Worked on the first two so far.
>>
Which ones did you choose?
Just curious....
-John
Pål Are Nordal
>
> So...what's your point?
O. Dues' points are that Trek r000lezzz, B5 suxxxx and everybody who
thinks differently are pathetic morons. He's just calmed down a bit
since his fits on rec.arts.sf.tv and rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5, presumably
so that he'll get through the moderation.
So in his and Ford's honour (who also has been pointing in B5's "low"
ratings on Sci-Fi), I'd like to point out that the ratings have been
increasing, the latest being 0.8 - close to what Lexx got for a while.
If this keeps up, B5 will soon be in the league of Sci-Fi's first-run
programing ratings wise.
--
Donate free food with a simple click: http://www.thehungersite.com/
Pål Are Nordal
a_b...@bigfoot.com
Alison Hopkins
Pål Are Nordal wrote in message <39EC92F0...@bigfoot.com>...
JBONETATI wrote:
>
> So...what's your point?
O. Dues' points are that Trek r000lezzz, B5 suxxxx and everybody who
thinks differently are pathetic morons. He's just calmed down a bit
since his fits on rec.arts.sf.tv and rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5, presumably
so that he'll get through the moderation.
>> Either that, or Jay hasn't spotted the little brat. <g>
Ali
Iain Clark
"Rick" <ri...@redx.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6fDb4BAa...@redx.demon.co.uk...
> 0d...@my-deja.com writes
>
> >It's not as if anybody is on their knees soliciting them either. Well I
> >doubt anybody in Star Trek wants to work with Harlan Ellison again too
> >badly though he was in talks including an idea to write a sequel in
> >which Edith Keeler is saved (thereby completely throwing City out the
> >window and proving once again that the power of COTEF did not come
> >from Ellison but the Roddenberry\Fontana rewrites).
>
> It's a lo-o-o-ong time since I read much about Trek (like, the '70s...),
> but as I recall, one of the main points of Ellison's original 'City' was
> that Kirk *was* willing to save Edith, thus sacrificing America, the
> Allies, the future, and... well, pretty much everything really. But TPTB
> (Roddenberry/Coon/Fontana, and the kids at Desilu) didn't much like the
> fact that the protagonist's sidekicks had to make the 'right' decision
> for him. And so we wind up with the ending we're all familiar with, in
> which Kirk stops McCoy, rather than the far more dramatic opposite.
>
> Let's just spell it out: McCoy wasn't in love with Edith; Kirk was. Why
> set up such an exquisitely dramatic decision in a show, and then -
> through sheer bloody-mindedness - have precisely the *wrong* character
> make it??
>
You don't think deliberately allowing the woman you love to die is dramatic?
Iain
--
"Signs, portents, dreams...next thing
we'll be reading tea leaves and chicken entrails."
Jms at B5
>increasing, the latest being 0.8 - close to what Lexx got for a while.
>If this keeps up, B5 will soon be in the league of Sci-Fi's first-run
>programing ratings wise.
According to the ratings reports I've been getting from SFC, the show is now
the #8 ranked series on SFC. (Their first run series, The Invisible Man, ranks
12th.)
We're already there.
J. Potts
> It looks like my message here didn't get through...
Yeah, it got tacked on to the end of a post in the "ATTN JMS/Artwork on
Rising Stars" thread.
--
JRP
"How many slime-trailing, sleepless, slimy, slobbering things do you know
that will *run and hide* from your Eveready?"
--Maureen Birnbaum, Barbarian Swordsperson
Kay Shapero
>>> 2) As long as the bashing can be substantiated, it might actually
>>> help B5. i.e. instead of just "mine is bigger than yours", it's
>>> said that "mine is bigger than yours because it's five miles long
>>> and home to a quarter million humans and aliens." As ~someone~ once
>>> said, "In chess, when one is outmatched, the game is over.
>>> Checkmate."
>>
>>Spock in The Corbomite Maneuver?
>>
MP> Yup, that's why I thought it was appropriate.
And as you may recall, rather than concede defeat, Kirk switched from chess
to poker and won... :->
I just wish Paramount had had as much sense when starting up Voyager - the
chance of doing something NEW without the piles of backstory baggage ST has
built up over the years. New aliens, new situations, no Federation to back
them up with heavy cruisers, a whole new galactopolitical situation to deal
with every time they leave one area of space and reach a new one. "The
Odyssey In Space" to go with TOS "Wagon Train to the Stars". Oh well...
Rick
>> Let's just spell it out: McCoy wasn't in love with Edith; Kirk was. Why
>> set up such an exquisitely dramatic decision in a show, and then -
>> through sheer bloody-mindedness - have precisely the *wrong* character
>> make it??
>
>You don't think deliberately allowing the woman you love to die is dramatic?
No, I don't... It put her on the same level as all the other women he
'loved' for one episode only. He was willing to sacrifice her for the
'greater good'. That ain't love. What would have made her special (as, I
think, Ellison intended) would be to see him willing to give up the
welfare of his crew, his whole world for her. *That* would be dramatic.
(Of course, to really make the point, the writers would have had to keep
referring to her in subsequent episodes. She'd have to not only be
Kirk's true love for that one show, but also remain his lost dream
throughout the rest of the series. And '60s series TV probably couldn't
handle that task. A lot of current shows find that kind of continuity an
insurmountable challenge. Still, you've gotta keep hoping...)
>Iain
>
>--
>"Signs, portents, dreams...next thing
>we'll be reading tea leaves and chicken entrails."
--
Regards,
Rick
Claudia Mastroianni
: It's great to hear that B5 is doing so well on the Sci-Fi Channel! At
: the SFC B5 boards, new fans who discovered the show on SFC have been
: posting. Some have become fans right away. The others who haven't
: quite warmed to the series...well, we're working on "converting" them!
: :)
: The SFC site is at www.scifi.com/babylon5
I'd post there more often if it didn't tend to crash my browsers.
Claudia
--
"Upon arrival, you _will_ report for debriefing. And just one more
thing: on your trip back, I would like you to take the time to
learn the Babylon-5 mantra. Ivanova is always right. I will listen
to Ivanova. I will not ignore Ivanova's recommendations. Ivanova is
God. And, if this ever happens again, Ivanova will personally
rip your lungs out!" -- Susan Ivanova
Rich Johnston
says...
Indeed, quite a fun encapsulation of lots of stuff.
And naturally, because it's me, the Babylon 5 comic thing stuck out.
Here's the way to bring back a Babylon 5 comic with JMS in control if ever he
wishes to:
Do it through Wildstorm.
Wildstorm was an Image studio, much like Top Cow (in fact they used to be one
studio at Image that split) but Wildstorm was bought bt DC Comics. DC published
the Babylon 5 comic and are owned by Warner Bros.
Also working for Wildstorm is Alan Moore, believed by many to be the best writer
in comic books. Ever. Alan Moore won't work for DC for a number of reasons, but
when DC bought Wildstorm, they created a 'Firewall' to prevent DC employees
dealing with Alan Moore.
Could such a situation be arranged for Babylon 5 comic books? I'm sure Wildstorm
people like Jim Lee, Scott Dunbier and John Layman would be well up for it!
Rich Johnston twis...@hotmail.com
All The Rage and Rich's Rumblings at http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com
Ramblings 2000 at http://come.to/ramblings & http://www.twistandshoutcomics.com
Selling lots of comics at http://www.geocities.com/evenwood/sale.html
Simn...@aol.com
Well, I don't have the list in front of me, but working from memory:
Volume 1:
Midnight on the Firing Line
Mind War
By Any Means Necessary
Signs and Portents
A Voice in the Wilderness I
A Voice in the Wilderness II
Babylon Squared
Volume 2:
Chrysalis
Points of Departure
Revelations
A Spider in the Web
A Race Through Dark Places
The Coming of Shadows
GROPOS
All Alone in the Night
Volume 3:
Acts of Sacrifice
In The Shadow of Z'Ha'Dum
Divided Loyalties
The Long, Twilight Struggle
The Fall of Night
Matters of Honor
Dust to Dust
Volume 4:
Messages from Earth
Point of No Return
Severed Dreams
A Late Delivery from Avalon
War Without End I
War Without End II
Shadow Dancing
Z'Ha'Dum
There's another one in there in Vol. 2 or Vol. 3, but I forget which one it
was. Basically, I try to hit the major arc episodes. A couple others got
thrown in because I liked them a lot (By Any Means Necessary), or because I
thought they'd appeal to the first guy I sent the tapes to (A Late Delivery
from Avalon). A couple got left out due to bad planning (Survivors) or
because
I didn't catch them on tape when they aired (Ship of Tears, Interludes and
Examinations), or because I knew another friend who could loan them that ep
(Walkabout).
I'm debating which 4th/5th season eps to include, but might wait to make up a
new set once I get all the eps on Widescreen.