10 ways B5 is better than trek (no joke)
Aaron Hughes
10) Telepaths are handled in a rather interesting and somtimes scary way.
9) Fighters do most of the fighting, not just boring slugfests between giant
cruiser types.
8) Londo, he's downright hilarious!
7) There is a hell of a lot more humor than ST:TNG has, making the sad parts
easier to get through.
6) CGI, IMHO is a lot better than models, and allows them to have a lot more
ships, and blow up even more without straining too much on the budget.
5) The starfury, Earth Alliance's standard fighter. If I could get my hands on
one of those...
4) No "It was just a dream" stories unless we are told beforehand in the
episode.
3) We are not "the newest bane of ____'s existence." like ST sees 'net freaks,
In fact the producer of B5, J.Michael Straczynski is on
rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5, and listens to our input. And we would never do
anything like posting story ideas or leaking scripts, becaus the JMS would
have to leave.
2) "Magic" technology like shields, transporters, replicators, and holodecks
are VERY hard to believe and IMPOSSIBLE to explain. B5 has only one case of
that, but it is easy to explain what Jump Gates do.
1) ST HAS TECHNOBABBLE!!! GOBS AND GOBS!!!!
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEKKKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND HALF THE TIME IT IS THE
SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM IN THE EPISODES!!!!!!!
--
-Aaron Hughes, Earth Alliance Aerospace Force Nova Squadron, Captian (special
operations)
"That's IT! I'm revoking your buzzing privileges until further notice!" -My
C.O. , after I followed my battle plan *too* perfectly.
Greg
* Babylon 5 is far more accurate in terms of scientific possability
(ie. Station must rotate in order to simulate gravity)
* ST:TNG has a "know it all" character that always has a solution
to every problem (I am referring to Data). This tends to make
the episode quite boring (ie. Problem of the week is found, Data
takes a look at it and comes up with a solution. Same person
almost EVERY time!)
* Babylon 5 is NOT a perfect universe, and Earth is not the all powerful
race, and has all of the really fancy equipment (I mean, look at the
Minbari. Their ships are pretty cool I reckon. And the Vorlons. Lets
see Captain Piquard go against a Vorlon and see how long he lasts...)
I could go on (but I wont, you get the general idea)
--
Greg Boug. Comp. Sci student at RMIT in Australia
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Email:s940...@yallara.cs.rmit.oz.au "There is a hole in your mind"
WWW: http://yallara.cs.rmit.oz.au/~s9407307/ - Minbari Warrior
Chris Harding
On Wed, 19 Oct 1994, Aaron Hughes wrote:
> 7) There is a hell of a lot more humor than ST:TNG has, making the sad parts
> easier to get through.
Judging by this, you appear to have missed most of the humour in ST:TNG.
I do agree with your other points, even though I love TNG. However, I
don't think we need to shout about how B5 is so much better; the series
are very different in style and content, and I don't see the point in
flaming either one.
B5 is great. TNG is great. One may be somewhat better than the other, but
who cares? They're different things entirely. The world would be worse
off without either of them.
-- Chris
Ted McCoy
Greg <s940...@yallara.cs.rmit.OZ.AU> wrote:
>How about we add to that list:
> * Babylon 5 is far more accurate in terms of scientific possability
> (ie. Station must rotate in order to simulate gravity)
B5 has had more than its share of scientific inaccuracies...and when they do
get something right, like the gravity through rotation or the realistic
space manuevering, they usually make sure a line or two of dialogue have been
set aside just to make sure all the physics geeks in the audience can cheer
or something.
B5 is making more of an effort to be scientifically accurate than Trek ever
did. But it still has a long ways to go.
> * ST:TNG has a "know it all" character that always has a solution
> to every problem (I am referring to Data). This tends to make
> the episode quite boring (ie. Problem of the week is found, Data
> takes a look at it and comes up with a solution. Same person
> almost EVERY time!)
Actually DS9 hasn't had this problem. But I agree with you about Data.
Actually, most of the crew of the Enterprise seemed capable of coming up with
miraculous solutions week after week, not just Data.
> * Babylon 5 is NOT a perfect universe, and Earth is not the all powerful
> race, and has all of the really fancy equipment (I mean, look at the
> Minbari. Their ships are pretty cool I reckon. And the Vorlons. Lets
> see Captain Piquard go against a Vorlon and see how long he lasts...)
What you say applies to DS9 too, though. But you definitely have a point, in
comparing B5 to TNG at least.
Ted
Ted McCoy
>Ten ways B5 is better than ST:TNG and ST:DS9
>
>10) Telepaths are handled in a rather interesting and somtimes scary way.
I found the telepaths in "Scanners" much more interesting and scary,
personally. And they had better background music too.
>9) Fighters do most of the fighting, not just boring slugfests between giant
>cruiser types.
We agree on this one! (Although there haven't been any boring slugfests on
DS9 either.)
Big problem for me with the B5 battles so far is that most of them have been
massacres. The major exception being that one in the two-parter, but that was
ruined by bad editing. It's hard for me to really get into the battle when
it's obvious who's going to win from the start. Of course, the same is true
of most of TNG's battles too.
>8) Londo, he's downright hilarious!
The funniest thing about Londo is his hair. There's a lot more potential
for that character than just cheap comic relief, and I hope the show
discovers that potential more in season two. Actually he had a few good
episodes in season one.
>7) There is a hell of a lot more humor than ST:TNG has, making the sad parts
>easier to get through.
B5 has far too much humor for my tastes. More than that, most of the humor
is kind of adolescent. Although there've been some really great bits. Some
of the humor in Babylon Squared was really funny, for instance. If B5 were
a little more intense than maybe I'd appreciate all this humor better.
>6) CGI, IMHO is a lot better than models, and allows them to have a lot more
>ships, and blow up even more without straining too much on the budget.
Agree to disagree -- partly. I agree that they're more versatile (in that
more complex scenes can be generated more easily) and that they make these
sorts of fx possible on a more limited budget.
On the other hand, I still find fx that look like they came out of computer
games to be distracting. Not just on B5 but also on Mantis, actually. Most
of the other shows seem to be putting more effort into disguising the fx
(so they don't look like cgi) -- and consequentially the fx on a lot of these
other shows aren't as complex as what we're seeing on B5.
>5) The starfury, Earth Alliance's standard fighter. If I could get my hands on
>one of those...
Starfuries are cool.
>4) No "It was just a dream" stories unless we are told beforehand in the
>episode.
8-) B5 does have a problem of giving away its plot twists two commercial
breaks in advance, I'll grant you that. Which was especially annoying in
The Sky full of Stars. That's an episode which might have benefited not by
having it all turn out to be a dream but maybe by not spelling out *everything*
before it happened.
>3) We are not "the newest bane of ____'s existence." like ST sees 'net freaks,
>In fact the producer of B5, J.Michael Straczynski is on
>rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5, and listens to our input. And we would never do
>anything like posting story ideas or leaking scripts, becaus the JMS would
>have to leave.
There's a big difference: B5 fans here on the net treat jms with respect.
Trek fans here on the net don't treat the Trek producers with respect
(crap like posting the scripts over and over, for instance). Plus, the sort
of fan-creator interaction we're seeing with B5 probably wouldn't be as
feesible here in the Trek group because there is so much more traffic here
and (in my opinion) Trekkies here are less representative of Trekkies elsewhere
than B5-fans here are of B5-fans elsewhere.
So I don't think it's the show's fault that we are "the newest bane of their
existence" or whatever. I think a lot of that comes from some of the
immaturity displayed from time to time in the Trek groups.
>2) "Magic" technology like shields, transporters, replicators, and holodecks
>are VERY hard to believe and IMPOSSIBLE to explain. B5 has only one case of
>that, but it is easy to explain what Jump Gates do.
Like that Soul Hunter guy? Yup. Or that machine that sends somebody's
lifeforce into somebody else or something? Or all those telepaths? Nope,
no magic here.
>1) ST HAS TECHNOBABBLE!!! GOBS AND GOBS!!!!
>EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEKKKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND HALF THE TIME IT IS THE
>SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM IN THE EPISODES!!!!!!!
DS9 has mostly avoided technobabble too, though.
Other things that make B5 superior to TNG (although maybe not DS9):
-the story arc has been preplanned, which means that when they start something
interesting they won't suddenly drop it (the way TNG did with the Romulans
and the mysteries about Guinan)
-O'Hare is leaving after only one year! It took TNG, what, four years to get
rid of Wesley? (Too bad Vir is still around, though.) (Oh yeah, I know
O'Hare isn't really leaving, he'll be back, etc., etc.)
-the characters will actually grow and develop -- which should be especially
fun once they develop past the cartoon stereotypes that most of them seem to
be stuck in. (Compared to TNG, where character growth was minimal.)
-cooler makeup fx
-the producers of B5 don't prevent the composer from writing great music, the
way Trek producers do with Trek composers. (Unfortunately, B5's composer
is Christopher Franke, so it doesn't make much difference. Let me duck for
cover here.)
-B5 is new, and it's fun to see something new. Especially after seven years of
TNG. (DS9 is also new. So is The X-Files. SeaQuest isn't new, but it's so
dopy that I'm getting a kick out of it anyway.)
Ted
Aaron Hughes
: Aaron Hughes (awi...@ripco.com) wrote:
: : Ten ways B5 is better than ST:TNG and ST:DS9
: Lets compare one show at a time please
: : 10) Telepaths are handled in a rather interesting and somtimes scary way.
: No Telepaths on DS9, we have a clear advantage
: : 9) Fighters do most of the fighting, not just boring slugfests between giant
: : cruiser types.
: Ohhhhhh blood and guts... yeah thats the ticket, B5 has wacko fighting dudes,
: and they use gerbils as target practice which is mucho cool.
: : 8) Londo, he's downright hilarious!
: If you mean, we cannot help but laugh at it, I would extend this to the
: whole show.
: Quark is not merely funny, he is a interesting caracter
: : 7) There is a hell of a lot more humor than ST:TNG has, making the sad parts
: : easier to get through.
: Most of the humor is dullllllll, TNG is humorless but DS9 has always
: nice humorous touches. And yeah, mr stony O Hare himself is soooo funny
: (notice, I am not laughing).
: : 6) CGI, IMHO is a lot better than models, and allows them to have a lot more
: : ships, and blow up even more without straining too much on the budget.
: IMHo are not permited in the middle of a top ten so you forfeit this argument.
: If they used SGI's and better models and shading I might agree with you, but
: then again we would then have an entirelly different show wouldn't we.
: : 5) The starfury, Earth Alliance's standard fighter. If I could get my hands on
: : one of those...
: Hmmmmm, these are little bits in a computer, repeat after me, they are
: not real (shouldn't be too easy to spot with the CGI in your face design).
: : 4) No "It was just a dream" stories unless we are told beforehand in the
: : episode.
: Oh please, B5's master plan has not impressed me till now, JMS is not the
: crack writer he think he is.
: : 3) We are not "the newest bane of ____'s existence." like ST sees 'net freaks,
: Well, you are the bane of our existence so that makes you top dog in
: the annoyance department.
: : In fact the producer of B5, J.Michael Straczynski is on
: : rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5, and listens to our input. And we would never do
: : anything like posting story ideas or leaking scripts, becaus the JMS would
: : have to leave.
: Just because the man has no life doesn't mean everyone at paramount must
: be as brain damaged ; If I where him I'dd get myself checked in a
: anti workoholic program. He may not survive the 5 years of his grand plan.
: : 2) "Magic" technology like shields, transporters, replicators, and holodecks
: : are VERY hard to believe and IMPOSSIBLE to explain. B5 has only one case of
: : that, but it is easy to explain what Jump Gates do.
: O yeah, its soooo easy. Some of the best SF is fantasy, or something that
: cannot be explained with our technology. The important thing is that you
: tell a good story, the rest is irrelevent.
: : 1) ST HAS TECHNOBABBLE!!! GOBS AND GOBS!!!!
: : EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEKKKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND HALF THE TIME IT IS THE
: : SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM IN THE EPISODES!!!!!!!
: ST has much better acting, gobs and gobs of it...
: Nadia.
Could you be a little more specific? It seems as if you're just saying
"Babylon5 sucks" without any reasons, or even IMHO's.
J.M.Egolf
They talk about religion! God isn't just a bigger and badder alien, and people
who believe in a god aren't just the computer-worshipping primitive aliens.
Admittedly, we got into this a little with the Bajorans on _DS9_ for a while,
but it's gone now.
I realize that not everyone who watches _B5_ likes this aspect of it, but it
was the last scene of _PoD_ that got me hooked...
--
J.M.Egolf
jeg...@mcs.com
"Religion is the ultimate sf (speculative "filosophy".)
Alan D. Earhart
> Ten ways B5 is better than ST:TNG and ST:DS9
*lots of deletia*
> -Aaron Hughes, Earth Alliance Aerospace Force Nova Squadron, Captian (special
> operations)
> "That's IT! I'm revoking your buzzing privileges until further notice!" -My
> C.O. , after I followed my battle plan *too* perfectly.
Ok, kiddies. Aaron Hughes likes to cross-post between the two groups to
see what kind of responses he can get out of it.
All you have to do is read his .sig to see why he likes to do this.
John Benn
>: 10) Telepaths are handled in a rather interesting and somtimes scary way.
>
>No Telepaths on DS9, we have a clear advantage
Well Dax has psychic flashbacks.
>: 8) Londo, he's downright hilarious!
>
>If you mean, we cannot help but laugh at it, I would extend this to the
>whole show.
>
>Quark is not merely funny, he is a interesting caracter
They're both interesting characters. Of course one of them is the
main character on DS9 AND a bartender. The dramatic possibilities are
endless. :)
>IMHo are not permited in the middle of a top ten so you forfeit this argument.
>If they used SGI's and better models and shading I might agree with you, but
>then again we would then have an entirelly different show wouldn't we.
The CGI will improve. It's still the way to go.
>Hmmmmm, these are little bits in a computer, repeat after me, they are
>not real (shouldn't be too easy to spot with the CGI in your face design).
Actually the Starfuries look far more realistic than anything else
on either show.
>Oh please, B5's master plan has not impressed me till now, JMS is not the
>crack writer he think he is.
^^
He hasn't boasted any such thing. The master plan is in gear-up
mode right now. It still beats the Quark gets married to a Klingon plot.
>Just because the man has no life doesn't mean everyone at paramount must
>be as brain damaged ; If I where him I'dd get myself checked in a
>anti workoholic program. He may not survive the 5 years of his grand plan.
You're pretty judgemental. In fact JMS hasn't said BOO to you.
Why are you cutting him up every couple of paragraphs?
>: that, but it is easy to explain what Jump Gates do.
>
>O yeah, its soooo easy. Some of the best SF is fantasy, or something that
>cannot be explained with our technology. The important thing is that you
>tell a good story, the rest is irrelevent.
Well, consistency would be nice. B5 has it. Trek doesn't. No one
would claim otherwise. Why don't SF writers write for Trek anymore?
Hmmm....
>ST has much better acting, gobs and gobs of it...
ST does have more flamboyant acting but not necessarily better
acting. I'd still put Mira Furlan or Andreas Katsulas up against
Patrick Stewart any day of the week.
--
***The Universe is governed by the complex interweaving of 3 elements***
*** Energy, Matter and Enlightened Self-Interest--G'Kar Babylon-5 ***
The_Doge
>The_Doge (clav...@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:
>: In article <Cxx36...@rci.ripco.com>, Aaron Hughes <awi...@ripco.com> wrote:
>: >Ten ways B5 is better than ST:TNG and ST:DS9
>: [Everything deleted]
>: I would just like to issue a heartfelt (and likely futile) plea for
>: everyone in both newsgroups to ignore this latest jejune attempt to
>: provoke a flame war.
>: Thank you.
>No, this wasn't an attempt to start a flamewar, it was actually an attempt to
>start an interesting conversation. Seriously!
>
Well, let's look at the evidence, shall we?
Primus: every time anything like your post has been cross-posted
to both newsgroups, a flame war has ensued, rather than "interesting
conversation".
Secundus: you've been posting here long enough to have seen this
happen *at least* once or twice
Despite this, you posted it. I'm forced to conclude that you're
either trying to provoke a flamefest or you have a shockingly short memory.
--
*******************************************************************************
* The_Doge of South St. Louis | clav...@nyx.cs.du.edu *
* Dobbs-Approved Media Conspirator(tm)|"One Step Beyond"-Sundays 3 pm, 88.1 FM*
*******************************************************************************
Benjamin Schultz
[snip]
: 2.) B5 doesn't have a holodeck or replicators or transformers. Star Trek
[Rip tear slash] ^^^^^^^^^^^^
This brings up some amusing spoofs on Optimus Prime and Megatron slugging
it out at B5.
--
Benjamin Schultz, KE3OM
President, U of MD Amateur Radio Association
(W3EAX)
Aaron Hughes
: Eric Gross (egr...@mailer.fsu.edu) wrote:
: [snip]
: : 2.) B5 doesn't have a holodeck or replicators or transformers. Star Trek
: [Rip tear slash] ^^^^^^^^^^^^
: This brings up some amusing spoofs on Optimus Prime and Megatron slugging
: it out at B5.
ROTFL!!!! ROTFL!!!!!!
I guess being slighly dislexic has it's advantages.
Tom Krajna
>[...] B5 fans here on the net treat jms with respect.
>Trek fans here on the net don't treat the Trek producers with respect
>(crap like posting the scripts over and over, for instance).
One thing to consider, though, is that JMS has been a participant in
the Babylon 5 newsgroup from the start. If Berman/Piller had been
fixtures in r.a.s.c. from the start, the atmosphere there might be a
little less adversarial than it is today. Does anyone know how things
are working out in the X-Files fan/creator forum (is that on Delphi?)
OTOH, I'm sure that B5 does not appeal to as broad an audience as does
TNG. This broader audience contains quite a few folk who still think
that draping trees with toilet paper is good fun.
Actually, that *is* good fun. :-)
--Tom K.
Jeffery M. Chan
: Eric Gross (egr...@mailer.fsu.edu) wrote:
: [snip]
: : 2.) B5 doesn't have a holodeck or replicators or transformers. Star Trek
: [Rip tear slash] ^^^^^^^^^^^^
: This brings up some amusing spoofs on Optimus Prime and Megatron slugging
: it out at B5.
Uh, is that *at* B5 or *with* B5...
[Starts diving for cover.]
-Jeff Chan | These are my opinions. It
je...@ikos.com (*not* ik...@netcom.com) | would be quite silly if it
..!netcom!ikos!jeff | was also my company's...
"Before you begin to do anything violent to me, you should
perhaps consider whether your side or mine is likely will win
the fight outside." --Wings out of Shadow, Fred Saberhagen
Edward Barocela
>
>cruiser types.
>
Being into naval stuff, I actually _LIKE_ combat between big cruiser types.
The problem with Star Trek is that they never worked out any convincing
tactics or maneuvers for spaceships. Oh, they _TALK_ about things like
the Cochran Deceleration, but they never actually show convincing tactical
combat between ships. The opponents just get nose-to-nose and start
slugging it out. This is the goofiest part about Star Trek battles:
the weapons are supposed to have ranges of tens (or hundreds) of thousands
of miles, but the ships are always a stone's throw away from each other.
My $0.02.
Ed B.
Ted McCoy
Tom Krajna <tgkr...@ingr.com> wrote:
>One thing to consider, though, is that JMS has been a participant in
>the Babylon 5 newsgroup from the start. If Berman/Piller had been
>fixtures in r.a.s.c. from the start, the atmosphere there might be a
>little less adversarial than it is today. Does anyone know how things
>are working out in the X-Files fan/creator forum (is that on Delphi?)
Part of the problem with your idea is that Berman/Piller weren't even with
Trek from the start (right?). There were a lot of TOS fans before TNG
was ever created, and a lot of these fans were (and often still are) TNG's
biggest critics.
I was about to say something else but it looks like you say it for me in
the next paragraph.
>OTOH, I'm sure that B5 does not appeal to as broad an audience as does
>TNG. This broader audience contains quite a few folk who still think
>that draping trees with toilet paper is good fun.
>
>Actually, that *is* good fun. :-)
Damn right!
You know, at the moment, all the B5 fans I can think of read Usenet at least
occasionally. Except for my dad, but he's sort of a marginal fan. Whereas
I know tons of Trek fans who've never read usenet.
Ted
Laura Lynet Tessmer
Michael D. Munoz <michae...@smtp.svl.trw.com> wrote:
>In article <Cxx36...@rci.ripco.com>, awi...@ripco.com (Aaron Hughes)
>wrote:
>
>Londo? he an Idiot.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well Londo, thanks for your input
--
Laura Tessmer
Department of Animal Science, University of Delaware
69...@strauss.udel.edu
Michael D. Munoz
> Ten ways B5 is better than ST:TNG and ST:DS9
Get this Bab5 Crap out of Here!
--
******************************************
" Things are not always what they seem, even if they are"
******************************************
Star Wars, Star Trek, Twilight Zone, Outer Limits, The Prisoner
******************************************
For every action there is an *equal* and *opposite* reaction
******************************************
E.T., CE3C, Indianna Jones, Lost In Space, The Forbidden Planet
******************************************
The opinons above are mine and mine alone, they may *not* be
misconstrude as anyone elses.
******************************************
Babylon 5, Creature Features, and of course Mr.ED "Willllbur"
******************************************
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but FLAMES will never hurt me.
The_Doge
I would just like to issue a heartfelt (and likely futile) plea for
everyone in both newsgroups to ignore this latest jejune attempt to
provoke a flame war.
Thank you.
Lee Atchison
> Aaron has posted some non-flame. As for flame-bait-
> 1. Top 10 reasons...
> If he really wanted to provoke intelligent responses then he would have
> phrased his list differently.
> 2. FLAMEBAIT
> To quote 'Babylon 5! Babylon 5! Babylon 5! Babylon 5!' cross-posted
> 3. Why B5 is better than ST...
> 4. Tachyons
> Proceeds to 'explain' that they have been seen.
> All four were crossposted to both groups. The above examples were also
> from recent happenings. I know that there were others before this.
> I'll let ya'all do the math...
> --
> alan
> aear...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Boy, so far there are fourteen responses on my system to Aaron's original
post. I haven't seen any flames, except for your's. Sounds like you
have the problem, not Aaron.
Not saying Aaron is blameless, I just don't really care if he is or not.
-lee
--
----
Lee Atchison
Scientist/Engineer
Hewlett Packard, VXI Systems Division
P.O. Box 301, M.S. CU308
Loveland, CO 80539
l...@lvld.hp.com
Nadia Dez
: Ten ways B5 is better than ST:TNG and ST:DS9
Lets compare one show at a time please
: 10) Telepaths are handled in a rather interesting and somtimes scary way.
No Telepaths on DS9, we have a clear advantage
: 9) Fighters do most of the fighting, not just boring slugfests between giant
: cruiser types.
Ohhhhhh blood and guts... yeah thats the ticket, B5 has wacko fighting dudes,
and they use gerbils as target practice which is mucho cool.
: 8) Londo, he's downright hilarious!
If you mean, we cannot help but laugh at it, I would extend this to the
whole show.
Quark is not merely funny, he is a interesting caracter
: 7) There is a hell of a lot more humor than ST:TNG has, making the sad parts
: easier to get through.
Most of the humor is dullllllll, TNG is humorless but DS9 has always
nice humorous touches. And yeah, mr stony O Hare himself is soooo funny
(notice, I am not laughing).
: 6) CGI, IMHO is a lot better than models, and allows them to have a lot more
: ships, and blow up even more without straining too much on the budget.
IMHo are not permited in the middle of a top ten so you forfeit this argument.
If they used SGI's and better models and shading I might agree with you, but
then again we would then have an entirelly different show wouldn't we.
: 5) The starfury, Earth Alliance's standard fighter. If I could get my hands on
: one of those...
Hmmmmm, these are little bits in a computer, repeat after me, they are
not real (shouldn't be too easy to spot with the CGI in your face design).
: 4) No "It was just a dream" stories unless we are told beforehand in the
: episode.
Oh please, B5's master plan has not impressed me till now, JMS is not the
crack writer he think he is.
: 3) We are not "the newest bane of ____'s existence." like ST sees 'net freaks,
Well, you are the bane of our existence so that makes you top dog in
the annoyance department.
: In fact the producer of B5, J.Michael Straczynski is on
: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5, and listens to our input. And we would never do
: anything like posting story ideas or leaking scripts, becaus the JMS would
: have to leave.
Just because the man has no life doesn't mean everyone at paramount must
be as brain damaged ; If I where him I'dd get myself checked in a
anti workoholic program. He may not survive the 5 years of his grand plan.
: 2) "Magic" technology like shields, transporters, replicators, and holodecks
: are VERY hard to believe and IMPOSSIBLE to explain. B5 has only one case of
: that, but it is easy to explain what Jump Gates do.
O yeah, its soooo easy. Some of the best SF is fantasy, or something that
cannot be explained with our technology. The important thing is that you
tell a good story, the rest is irrelevent.
: 1) ST HAS TECHNOBABBLE!!! GOBS AND GOBS!!!!
: EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEKKKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND HALF THE TIME IT IS THE
: SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM IN THE EPISODES!!!!!!!
ST has much better acting, gobs and gobs of it...
Nadia.
Dianne Hackborn
| Go to rec.arts.babylon5 to talk about this Crap. This is not the place for
| it.
| --
| ******************************************
| " Things are not always what they seem, even if they are"
| ******************************************
| Star Wars, Star Trek, Twilight Zone, Outer Limits, The Prisoner
| ******************************************
| For every action there is an *equal* and *opposite* reaction
| ******************************************
| E.T., CE3C, Indianna Jones, Lost In Space, The Forbidden Planet
| ******************************************
| The opinons above are mine and mine alone, they may *not* be
| misconstrude as anyone elses.
| ******************************************
| Babylon 5, Creature Features, and of course Mr.ED "Willllbur"
| ******************************************
| Sticks and stones may break my bones, but FLAMES will never hurt me.
I like your .sig.
*******************************************************************************
** |)ianne |<yra |-|ackborn ** ** Amiga 3000/25 ______ **
** hac...@xanth.cs.orst.edu ** The opinions ** Kick 37.175 /// /// **
** hac...@mundania.cs.orst.edu ** expressed ** 10 Megs RAM /// /// **
** hac...@prism.cs.orst.edu ** herein are my ** 1 Gig Drive /// /// **
** hac...@storm.cs.orst.edu ** own and not ** VRRRROOOM! /// /// **
** hac...@mist.cs.orst.edu ** those of OSU, ** ______ /// ///Only **
** hac...@engr.cs.orst.edu ** the state of ** \\\ \\\ /// ///_____ **
** dh...@bix.com ** Oregon, or ** \\\ \\\/// /// AMIGA **
** ** anyone else. ** \\\ \XX/ /// ~~~~~ **
** -- Oregon State University -- ** -- Dianne ** \\\/XX\///Makes it **
** Computer Science Grad. Student ** ** \XX/\XX/Possible! **
*******************************************************************************
/>
/<
O[\\\\\\(O):::<=====================================-
\<
\>
___________________________________________________________________________
/ _________________________________________________________________________ \
/_/ \_\
__ ____ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ ___ _ _
| .\ _||_ / \ | \| || \| || |= | |/ / | |_| | / \ | |/ /|.) / .\| .) | \| |
|__/|____|/_^_\|_|\_||_|\_||_|__ |_|\_\()|_| |_|/_^_\|_|\_\|_.)\__/|_|\_\|_|\_|
__ "I am always logged in, therefore I am a Goddess." __
\ \_________________________________________________________________________/ /
\___________________________________________________________________________/
<\
>\
-=====================================>:::(O)//////]O
>/
</
###############################################################################
#___ _ #
# | ._ _|_ _ ._ ._ _ _._|_ o _ ._ o _ ._ _ _|_ |/._ _ | _ _| _ _ #
#_|_| | | (_)| | | |(_| |_ |(_)| | |_> | |(_) |_ |\| |(_)\/\/|(/_(_|(_|(/_#
# _| #
# |/._ _ | _ _| _ _ o _ ._ _ _|_ | | |o _ _| _ ._ _ #
# |\| |(_)\/\/|(/_(_|(_|(/_ |_> | |(_) |_ \/ \/ |_>(_|(_)| | | #
# _| #
# | | |o _ _| _ ._ _ o _ ._ _ _|_ _|_._ _|_ |_ #
# \/ \/ |_>(_|(_)| | | |_> | |(_) |_ |_| |_| |_ | | #
# ___ _ #
# | ._ _|_ |_ o _ ._ _ _|_ |_) _ _. _|_ #
# | | |_| |_ | | |_> | |(_) |_ |_)(/_(_||_| |_\/ #
# _ / #
# |_) _ _. _|_ o _ ._ _ _|_ | _ _ #
# |_)(/_(_||_| |_\/ |_> | |(_) |_ |_(_)\/(/_ #
# / #
# | _ _ o _ ._ _ _|_ |\/| _ o _ #
# |_(_)\/(/_ |_> | |(_) |_ | ||_|_> |(_ #
# ___ _ _ _ _____ #
# |\/| _ o _ o _ | |_||_ |_)|_ (_ | #
# | ||_|_> |(_ |_> | | ||_ |_)|_ __) | #
# #
# #
# -- FRANK ZAPPA, 1941-1993 #
# REST IN PEACE. :( #
# #
###############################################################################
:q
:quit
:q!
quit
?
:?
h
help
:help
HELP
!
<esc>:q
<ESC>:q
<ESC>:q!
^C^C^C
:Q!
~~~~~~~@%!(&OE
David M. Watson
: Ten ways B5 is better than ST:TNG and ST:DS9
: 10) Telepaths are handled in a rather interesting and somtimes scary way.
I don't think that B5 handles 'em that superbly. Kinda
childishly if you ask me. Real telepathy is handled well by
Katherine Kurtz and her _Deryni_ novels.
: 9) Fighters do most of the fighting, not just boring slugfests between giant
: cruiser types.
There's something to be said for large ships fighting. It adds
lots of different variables: you better be ready to fight, hundreds of
people's lives depend on it; lots more fire power; less manueverability...
: 8) Londo, he's downright hilarious!
Londo, he's downright shallow! His humor is quite superficial,
almost slapstick sometimes. Humor on B5 needs more Wit.
: 7) There is a hell of a lot more humor than ST:TNG has, making the sad parts
: easier to get through.
ST has the best balance of humor, action, and intellect. Anyway,
why should the sad parts be easy to get through? What sad parts in B5
anyway?
: 6) CGI, IMHO is a lot better than models, and allows them to have a lot more
: ships, and blow up even more without straining too much on the budget.
I'm sorry, but models look MUCH more realistic than CGI. CGI
looks like really good computer graphics--but its still COMPUTER
GRAPHICS. Models, done well, as in ST:TNG and DS9, and Star Wars,
outshine CGI by lightyears.
: 5) The starfury, Earth Alliance's standard fighter. If I could get my hands on
: one of those...
No, no. You wanna get your hands on an X-wing, or B-wing, or A-wing.
: 4) No "It was just a dream" stories unless we are told beforehand in the
: episode.
I concede. Dream stories suck, unless its not a crucial part of
the storyline.
: 3) We are not "the newest bane of ____'s existence." like ST sees 'net freaks,
: In fact the producer of B5, J.Michael Straczynski is on
: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5, and listens to our input. And we would never do
: anything like posting story ideas or leaking scripts, becaus the JMS would
: have to leave.
How does this make B5 better than ST? It makes the newsgroup
better, but not the show.
: 2) "Magic" technology like shields, transporters, replicators, and holodecks
: are VERY hard to believe and IMPOSSIBLE to explain. B5 has only one case of
: that, but it is easy to explain what Jump Gates do.
The operative word here is FICTION!!!!!! IT'S NOT REAL! IT'S
MEANT TO BE AN ESCAPE, NOT BOUND BY THE LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE AS WE KNOW
THEM NOW.
: 1) ST HAS TECHNOBABBLE!!! GOBS AND GOBS!!!!
: EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEKKKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND HALF THE TIME IT IS THE
: SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM IN THE EPISODES!!!!!!!
Ah, but in ST, you always feel like you know what the
technobabble is. It's always well thought out.
I like both shows, but please don't go around knocking one, just asking
for flames. I think that JMS would not approve of your tearing down of
ST. It is a show that I'm sure influenced him (at least the original),
and spurred him on to imagine B5...
Jonny-boy
--
/ \
/ /~\ \
I=I O I=I "I have you now..." --Darth Vader
\ \_/ /
\ /
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((THR...@NETCOM.COM)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Agent J
>In article <Cxx36...@rci.ripco.com>, awi...@ripco.com (Aaron Hughes)
>wrote:
>> Ten ways B5 is better than ST:TNG and ST:DS9
>>
>> 10) Telepaths are handled in a rather interesting and somtimes scary way.
>Troi had her mind raped in one episode, incidentally the WHOLE telepath
>thing started on ST, who is copying whom
Is it just me or is this thread becoming really, really silly. Not that it
wasn't silly to begin with, but this is downright hilarious.
--
J
"Gamera's really neat! Gamera's full of meat! We all love you Gamera!"
"Joel, do human beings really act like this?" -- Tom Servo
Benjamin Schultz
: Benjamin Schultz (li...@w3eax.umd.edu) wrote:
: : Eric Gross (egr...@mailer.fsu.edu) wrote:
: : [snip]
: : : 2.) B5 doesn't have a holodeck or replicators or transformers. Star Trek
: : [Rip tear slash] ^^^^^^^^^^^^
: : This brings up some amusing spoofs on Optimus Prime and Megatron slugging
: : it out at B5.
: Uh, is that *at* B5 or *with* B5...
: [Starts diving for cover.]
If they were to slug it out *with* B5, then please make room under your hard
cover; I'll be joining you shortly.
no one of consequence
]Jeffery M. Chan (je...@ikos.com) wrote:
]: Benjamin Schultz (li...@w3eax.umd.edu) wrote:
]: : Eric Gross (egr...@mailer.fsu.edu) wrote:
]: : [snip]
]: : : 2.) B5 doesn't have a holodeck or replicators or transformers. Star Trek
]: : [Rip tear slash] ^^^^^^^^^^^^
]
]: : This brings up some amusing spoofs on Optimus Prime and Megatron slugging
]: : it out at B5.
]
]: Uh, is that *at* B5 or *with* B5...
]
]: [Starts diving for cover.]
]
]If they were to slug it out *with* B5, then please make room under your hard
]cover; I'll be joining you shortly.
Is this before or AFTER B5 undergoes Modular Transformation? Will the
main gun be charged?
ObKoshSpooky2Words: "Neo-Jion BANZAI!!"
--
|Patrick Chester (aka: claypigeon, Sinapus) wol...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu|
|Member Lovely Angels Fan Club/Fire Support Team/Cleanup Crew |
|"Not like us? You will *BECOME* us!"- Jha'Dur, "Deathwalker" Babylon-5 |
|Wittier remarks always come to mind just after sending your article....|
Jake Sebastian Greenland
argument we had in britain for a very long time ... Its really not worth it.
Why on earth can't both people just watch and either like or dislike both
programs. They don't have to be compared - its not as if they compete for
airtime (at least they don't in the UK). Suffice to say that star trek had a
lot of fans from the first time around that followed the nexgen series but a
lot of these ST viewers are also B5 viewers and they like both. I just like
watching good TV Sci Fi like I like reading a good SF or fantasy book - I
don't compare authors because on the whole they have different styles and
write about different things and the same goes for B5 and trek - they take
different views of the future and even the Trek show that has a similar
setting to B5 has pretty different storylines.
I'm just content that there's at least 2 decent SF shows to watch atm and I
hope that more can appear with more different views of what the future will be
like ....
Jake Greenland
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
j.s.gr...@eee.salford.ac.uk
ja...@starion.demon.co.uk
"I am not a Frog, I am a free Womble"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Benn
>I just started reading some of those great Bester stories this summer. It's
>nice to see "this whole telepath thing" done right for a change.
>
>B5 may eventually deal with the deeper issues related to telepathy in a mature
>and realistic manner, but so far its handling of this has been a little
>superficial. Better than TNG or SeaQuest but still pretty bad.
Ted you're becoming famous for making sweeping statements like the
one above without siting any examples. Elaborate.
>Part of the problem here is that this show's idea of a multi-faceted character,
>at least as far as Londo and G'kar go, is to show one facet one week, another
>the next week, and so on, instead of showing a realistic multi-faceted
>character all at once. But maybe this will improve
>
>I thought Londo's tragic side was really fascinating and compelling early on.
>And his dark side too. But, he's had so many really awful comic relief
>episodes that it's going to take quite a bit for me to be able to take his
>character seriously again. Same with G'kar, although to a lesser degree.
1) What about Voice Pt. II.?
Londo goes from: "Delenn. I'm TRULY astonished. Of all people I
never thought that YOU would hold out of me."
to: "If I were a landing thruster where would I be?"
Two aspects of a wonderful multi-faceted character in one episode
late in the season. This directly conflicts with what you're saying.
2) What about By Any Means Necessary?
Londo to G'Kar : "The G'quan Eth is not for sale, hehehe..."
laughing an acting like a clown.
Later in the same episode: "Consider this a small very tiny portion
of revenge for what you did to our colony on Raghesh 3." In a very
serious tone.
3) What about G'Kar: "I'll kill him with my bare hands. Sinclair can
only kick me off the station. He might even thank me." Somewhat humerous.
to...."Na'Toth, proceed...." G'Kar the devious.
to...."So spoke G'Quan at the dawn of all mornings." G'Kar the
solemn religious type.
to...."Thank you Commander, you have my sincere gratitude." G'Kar
the reasonable.
etc....
Your accusations are GROUNDLESS. Prove otherwise or don't make
general statements riddled with falsehoods.
>> "My shoes are too tight...but it doesn't matter, because I have
>>forgotten how to dance." This is not a buffoonish or idiotic line.
>
>I only wish he had more lines like that.
He does. "Perhaps it was there all along but we refused to see
it." -- Draal, Voice Pt. 1.
>I think I found B5's first season roughly equally entertaining as TNG's
>first season, personally. They both beat SeaQuest's first season, for me at
>least.
To each his own. Wesley Crusher comes to mind though.....
Shane Derek Killian
>games to be distracting. Not just on B5 but also on Mantis, actually. Most
>
to know is: a) what computer games have you people been playing and b) how
can I get my hands on them?
In order to have graphics like that in a computer game, you wouldn't need just
a VidToaster...You'd also need to add the Screamer (Raptor?) and about eight
transputer boards!!!!
>-the producers of B5 don't prevent the composer from writing great music, the
> way Trek producers do with Trek composers. (Unfortunately, B5's composer
> is Christopher Franke, so it doesn't make much difference. Let me duck for
> cover here.)
>
Yeah. I wanted to strangle them for what they said about Ron Jones' score for
BOBW. That's thebest score they've done...after that, it was all just dribble.
Dramatic crescendo--I sense commercials Captain!
TheMad...@cup.portal.com
LAURINBURG, NC USA
-----
The above opinions are those only of the poster, and not of Portal
Communications, nor of the students, faculty, Art Department, or Computer
Center of St. Andrews Presbyterian College. Too bad, that.
Shane Derek Killian
>: subscribe babylon5 david sutton
>
>We're sorry, but the LISTSERV you have dialed does not exist. Please
>check your UseNet reader and try again.
>
You forgot: "Beepbeepbeepbeepbeepbeepbeepbeepbeepbeepbeepbeepbeepbeep!!!"
Eric Gross
syndrome. Too many SF shows feel duty-bound to plug in a teen to appeal to
the under 20 crowd. The problem is (besides giving us nauseating characters)
it is very, very unrealistic. Precocious teen takes helm of Federation
Flagship. Yeah. Uh. Right.
2.) B5 doesn't have a holodeck or replicators or transformers. Star Trek had
some major, major problems with the logical implications of their technology.
Holodecks, the ultimate drug -- if you could be in there, in your own world,
why would you ever come out? Replicators -- right -- have you even THOUGHT
about what that would mean? Same for transporters. Anyway, major, major
repercussions from this technology that was never worked out satisfactorily in
the show.
3.) On B5 other people are required to get things done. Loading dock techs,
service personnel, etc., are shown doing work, are needed to keep things
running; ambassadors need assistants, etc. Star Trek often left me wondering
why the ship needed anyone other than the bridge crew. B5 could fall into the
"the major characters do everything" syndrome, though, to be fair. JMS will
have to be careful.
4.) People actually die on B5.
5.) The chain of command and hierarchy of EA makes a lot more sense than the
loose and often nebulous chain of command and heirarchy in Star Fleet. Is it
just me, or did anyone get tired of Riker constantly issuing orders that were
the captain's perogative when Picard was right there on the bridge?
6.) Characters aren't perfect in B5. Star Trek's characters all were just a
little too perfect.
7.) Things in the B5 universe don't always wrap up neatly in one hour packages.
Loose ends hang. Wow. Concept.
8.) B5 has a better sense of its own chronology than Star Trek. A lot of
ST-NG episodes seemed to hang like isolated incidents in space-time. One week
we're here, and the Enterprise gets blown away, and has to go get repaired.
Next week, we're there, like nothing ever happened, on a mission across the
quadrant. When does this take place? Before or after the previous episode?
How much time has elapsed? I still think that if you realistically looked at
all the times the Big E had to go to drydock for repairs, she'd be on the
skids about 5 years . . . . ST-NG's internal chronology only seemed driven
by major events -- Wolf 359, etc. B5 presents a much better continuity.
9.) B5's people are more believable. This isn't the same as #6. ST-NG's
characters were all a little too smoothe and capable, all rennaisance people --
musicians, actors, archeaologists, etc -- they all had some marked degree of
talent at other things. Not that this isn't possible, but just highly
unlikely. An officer's responsibilities and keeping a ship running eats your
life -- ask any officer, especially a naval officer. You just don't have all
the time for the extraneous stuff. Now, the 24th Century may be different,
but in B5's time the characters do seem much more realistically consumed by
their careers and responsibilities, and their hobbies aren't "unreasonable" --
i.e., Garibaldi loves motorcycles, but can't seem to have the time to tend to
his Ninja and he isn't The World's Leading Expert on it, either.
10.) B5 doesn't take itself as seriously as ST-NG. ST-NG got a big case of
the self-inflatededs every once in awhile.
Betty Boop
: little less adversarial than it is today. Does anyone know how things
: are working out in the X-Files fan/creator forum (is that on Delphi?)
There's rumors, but I've yet to see a post from Chris Carter
@ delphi.com. Maybe soon!
--
============================================================================
The Boopster! (cl...@nevada.edu) | You know you've landed gear up when
"Marie"; The Magic Kingdom's | it takes full throttle to taxi!
Sing-Around Diva! | ...UNKNOWN
===========================================================================
brett jaffee
> In article <Cxx36...@rci.ripco.com>, awi...@ripco.com (Aaron Hughes)
> wrote:
> > Ten ways B5 is better than ST:TNG and ST:DS9
> >
> > 10) Telepaths are handled in a rather interesting and somtimes scary way.
> Troi had her mind raped in one episode, incidentally the WHOLE telepath
> thing started on ST, who is copying whom
Oh yeah, ST invented psis, thanks for reminding us.
>
> > 6) CGI, IMHO is a lot better than models, and allows them to have a lot more
> > ships, and blow up even more without straining too much on the budget.
> I admit CGI is cool, which I might add again ST was doing it first, and who
> is copying whom?
Did ST invent CGI too? I did not know that. Wierd, wild stuff.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Jaffee
hbac...@huey.csun.edu
on GEnie b.ja...@genie.geis.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Berg
Two words: character development
I couldn't care less what happens to the characters on DS9 (Sisko, Dax,
Kira, whoever). The only character that is somewhat decent is O'Brien
and that's solely because Colm Meaney is a decent actor. The producers
and writers on Bablyon 5 have developed characters that audiences adore.
We believe their friendships and understand the motivations behind their
actions, something that DS9 can't offer. I love Garibaldi especially.
He brings a certain humor to the show that I've never found on DS9.
There is really *no* comparison. I mean, if the character argument
doesn't grab you...just look at the special effects for the two shows.
Please, how can DS9 fans even make an argument. =) BABLYON 5 RULES!!
kevin eugene scruggs
|
|Kind of makes you wonder why they're making movies if they're out of ideas.
Lack of ideas has never stopped anyone in the film industry...
kevin eugene scruggs
|: 6) CGI, IMHO is a lot better than models, and allows them to have a lot more
|: ships, and blow up even more without straining too much on the budget.
|
| I'm sorry, but models look MUCH more realistic than CGI. CGI
| looks like really good computer graphics--but its still COMPUTER
| GRAPHICS. Models, done well, as in ST:TNG and DS9, and Star Wars,
of ILM produced footage, TNG model effects are inneffective at best.
DONT compare them to real model effects, especially anything from
the STAR WARS's.
| outshine CGI by lightyears.
|
|: 1) ST HAS TECHNOBABBLE!!! GOBS AND GOBS!!!!
|: EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEKKKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND HALF THE TIME IT IS THE
|: SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM IN THE EPISODES!!!!!!!
|
| Ah, but in ST, you always feel like you know what the
| technobabble is. It's always well thought out.
Then please tell me what an Inverse Polaron Beam,
& Protomater are?
And in sensible terms...
John Benn
>
> I don't think that B5 handles 'em that superbly. Kinda
> childishly if you ask me. Real telepathy is handled well by
> Katherine Kurtz and her _Deryni_ novels.
Elaborate. I don't find B5 telepaths childish at all.
> ST has the best balance of humor, action, and intellect. Anyway,
> why should the sad parts be easy to get through? What sad parts in B5
> anyway?
Chrysalis. Nuff said.
> I'm sorry, but models look MUCH more realistic than CGI. CGI
> looks like really good computer graphics--but its still COMPUTER
> GRAPHICS. Models, done well, as in ST:TNG and DS9, and Star Wars,
> outshine CGI by lightyears.
I hate to burst your bubble but ST: Voyager and the new Star Wars
movies are all being done with CGI. Lucas likes B5.
> No, no. You wanna get your hands on an X-wing, or B-wing, or A-wing.
They don't fly realistically.
> The operative word here is FICTION!!!!!! IT'S NOT REAL! IT'S
> MEANT TO BE AN ESCAPE, NOT BOUND BY THE LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE AS WE KNOW
> THEM NOW.
B5=consistent science. Trek=Inconsistent science.
> Ah, but in ST, you always feel like you know what the
> technobabble is. It's always well thought out.
No. Asymptomatically comes to mind, or the devolving episode. Not
at all logical.
>I like both shows, but please don't go around knocking one, just asking
>for flames. I think that JMS would not approve of your tearing down of
>ST. It is a show that I'm sure influenced him (at least the original),
>and spurred him on to imagine B5...
True.
Christopher R. Dunlea
: Lets not forget trek paints this pretty nice picture that the future is
: so good, nobody's poor, or starving (on earth anyways). B-5 make is look
: like "heay the future is here and it sucks just like the past" Some trek
: shit is just too "utopia-ish" for me..
There's one aspect about the chracters on ST that bothers me, and it's
related to your point. There's no "Everyman" on TNG. They're all from the
top levels of a supposedly classless society:
Picard: Possibly the closest to being an ordinary person; from French vinters
Riker: Ambassador's son (more like Lawrence Eagleburger's son)
Troi: Daughter of Betazed nobility
Worf: Son of Klingon nobility (his brother's on the High Council)
Data: The only super-duper Dr. Soong android in the universe
Giordi: Incredible rocket scientist/engineer
Wesley (blah): Mozart, Einstein, Wonderboy hand-picked by the Traveller
How many people in the audience are Senators' kids? Royalty? Nobel
prize winners? These characters are obviously the .0001% cream of the
Federation crop. What about the other 80 trillion federation citizens
who have to deal with getting up at 6:30 AM, deal with transporter jam
going to work, listen to the boss bitch at you, beam home to eat your
replicated mac and cheese and settle in from of the holoscreen to watch
alien chokeboxing? I mean, we're to believe EVERYONE in the Federation
gets a handout and there's no reason to work?
One big difference between TOS and TNG is that the TOS guys were special
because they were representative of humanity. Kirk was a farmboy from Iowa,
McCoy was a basic Southern country doctor (with 23rd C. knowledge) and
Spock ran away to join Starfleet. The rest of the crew represented world
wide human achievement experiencing cool stuff.
Let's face it: if the message of the TNG writers is to show how we can
ACHIEVE so much through our creative efforts, they fail miserably because
when we really meet the charcters we realize they had a serious head start
in life (with the possible exception of Picard, whose family seems ordinary
enough). It's a hell of a lot easier to achieve something if your father
is good friends with the Imperial Chancellor and helps run the Empire.
--
Chris Dunlea, Dept. of History | "History doesn't repeat itself...
Syracuse University | historians repeat each other."
crdu...@rodan.syr.edu | So these opinions are repeats.
"The avalanche has already started...it is too late for the pebbles
to vote." ---Kosh Naranek, "Babylon 5"
Larry Trutter
> In article <thrawnCy...@netcom.com>, thr...@netcom.com (David M.
> Watson) wrote:
> > Aaron Hughes (awi...@ripco.com) wrote:
> > Ah, but in ST, you always feel like you know what the
> > technobabble is. It's always well thought out.
> >
> Excuse me?! I have an MS in Physics and the technobabble MAKES NO SENSE.
> ST has NO grasp on science anymore. I can't believe that it is even thought
> about, let alone well thought out.
> --
I may not have a degree in physics(have a BS in Math and working for MS
in Comp. Sci.), but I do read enough science to agree that Star Trek
technobabble MAKES NO SENSE. I was a big Star Trek fan until those mindless
craps came on. These shows were OBVIOUSLY written by idiots who have NO
concept of either science or science fiction! Now I'm a small Star Trek fan
and a big Babylon 5 fan.
The episodes of the last two years of ST:TNG made me ashamed to be a Star
Trek fan. Lots of weird science and INCONSISTENCIES.
"De-evolved"? "Inverse Polaron Field"? "Anaphasic"? A super-transporter
was invented by that Ferengi while the Federation science can't do it? And
on and on and on.........
I shudder to think what kind of politically correct /internally
inconsistent science garbages is going to appear on Star Trek:Voyagers.
--
Larry Trutter "Don't worry, I haven't fallen to the DOS
Sangamon State University side, Obi-Wan."
tru...@eagle.sangamon.edu - Amiga user
EQM
> Aaron Hughes (awi...@ripco.com) wrote:
> : Ten ways B5 is better than ST:TNG and ST:DS9
> : 1) ST HAS TECHNOBABBLE!!! GOBS AND GOBS!!!!
> : EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEKKKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND HALF THE TIME IT
IS THE
> : SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM IN THE EPISODES!!!!!!!
>
> Ah, but in ST, you always feel like you know what the
> technobabble is. It's always well thought out.
>
Excuse me?! I have an MS in Physics and the technobabble MAKES NO SENSE.
ST has NO grasp on science anymore. I can't believe that it is even thought
about, let alone well thought out.
--
*********************************************************************
EQM
'Just two lost souls...' Pink Floyd, 'Wish You Were Here'
"You will be assimilated..." Spam Collective
*********************************************************************
Dave Mansell
thr...@netcom.com (David M. Watson) wrote
> > : 8) Londo, he's downright hilarious!
> > Londo, he's downright shallow! His humor is quite superficial,
> almost slapstick sometimes. Humor on B5 needs more Wit.
Lando isn't shallow, and he isn't a clown, this is shown quite clearly in
Chrysalis.
> : 7) There is a hell of a lot more humor than ST:TNG has, making the
> sad parts : easier to get through.
> > ST has the best balance of humor, action, and intellect. Anyway,
why should the sad parts be easy to get through? What sad parts ! D
Gary D. Duzan
"Insert Technobabble Here" references in their scripts, and the
details are put in later. E.g. In "Captain's Holiday", the script
just called for a really powerful weapon, and the details about
stopping the fusion process in a star was added later.
Gary D. Duzan
Humble Practitioner of the Computer Arts
The_Doge
Larry Trutter <tru...@eagle.sangamon.edu> wrote:
[..]
> The episodes of the last two years of ST:TNG made me ashamed to be a Star
>Trek fan. Lots of weird science and INCONSISTENCIES.
> "De-evolved"? "Inverse Polaron Field"? "Anaphasic"? A super-transporter
>was invented by that Ferengi while the Federation science can't do it? And
>on and on and on.........
> I shudder to think what kind of politically correct /internally
>inconsistent science garbages is going to appear on Star Trek:Voyagers.
that its producers may be trying to get rid of some of the "miracle tech"
that has proliferated during TNGs run. The replicators don't work, for
one thing. >:-)>
By tossing "Voyager" over to the other side of the galaxy, they've
got a chance to divest themselves, to some extent, of the increasingly
ossified social and political structure of the Trek universe (which is
starting to resemble the DC comics universe in the early '60s) and blow
up some of the miracle tech that's part of it.
I think the show may have real potential. Of course, I thought
that about DS9, too.
Ted McCoy
Shane Derek Killian <TheMad...@cup.portal.com> wrote:
>>On the other hand, I still find fx that look like they came out of computer
>>games to be distracting. Not just on B5 but also on Mantis, actually. Most
>>
>Okay...This is about the tenth time I've heard someone say this. What I want
>to know is: a) what computer games have you people been playing and b) how
>can I get my hands on them?
Okay -- if I saw the B5 fx in the middle of a computer game I'd probably find
them really impressive. But when I see them in the middle of live action and
I'm supposed to be believing these are real objects I still find them
distracting. Although the more I watch cgi the more accustomed to them I
become, sort of. Actually I'm having an easier time getting used to SeaQuest's
cgi than B5's.
>>-the producers of B5 don't prevent the composer from writing great music, the
>> way Trek producers do with Trek composers. (Unfortunately, B5's composer
>> is Christopher Franke, so it doesn't make much difference. Let me duck for
>> cover here.)
>>
>Yeah. I wanted to strangle them for what they said about Ron Jones' score for
>BOBW. That's thebest score they've done...after that, it was all just dribble.
>Dramatic crescendo--I sense commercials Captain!
There've been a few good scores since then (not that I can think of any at
the moment). But one thing in particular: with I, Borg, the composer
(Chattaway?) wanted to use the same chorus effects that were in The Best of
Both Worlds. These were recorded but then removed by the producers because
they wanted the music to be less noticeable.
Ted
Ted McCoy
John Benn <be...@server.uwindsor.ca> wrote:
>In article <389dg0$4...@math.mps.ohio-state.edu> mc...@math.ohio-state.edu (Ted McCoy) writes:
>>I just started reading some of those great Bester stories this summer. It's
>>nice to see "this whole telepath thing" done right for a change.
>>
>>B5 may eventually deal with the deeper issues related to telepathy in a mature
>>and realistic manner, but so far its handling of this has been a little
>>superficial. Better than TNG or SeaQuest but still pretty bad.
>
> Ted you're becoming famous for making sweeping statements like the
>one above without siting any examples. Elaborate.
Hey, if you think there's an episode that really dealt with the issues of
telepaths, without just mentioning the issues and brushing them off, post it
here. No, Quality of Mercy doesn't count.
>>Part of the problem here is that this show's idea of a multi-faceted character,
>>at least as far as Londo and G'kar go, is to show one facet one week, another
>>the next week, and so on, instead of showing a realistic multi-faceted
>>character all at once. But maybe this will improve
>>
>>I thought Londo's tragic side was really fascinating and compelling early on.
>>And his dark side too. But, he's had so many really awful comic relief
>>episodes that it's going to take quite a bit for me to be able to take his
>>character seriously again. Same with G'kar, although to a lesser degree.
>
>1) What about Voice Pt. II.?
>
> Londo goes from: "Delenn. I'm TRULY astonished. Of all people I
>never thought that YOU would hold out of me."
>
> to: "If I were a landing thruster where would I be?"
>
> Two aspects of a wonderful multi-faceted character in one episode
>late in the season. This directly conflicts with what you're saying.
Yes! I really enjoyed the portrayal of Londo in Voice II. Actually, you're
right -- they integrated his different sides in that episode nicely. And
I liked the "adventurous" Londo, which wasn't a Londo we'd seen much of before.
Too bad most of Londo's episodes haven't been like that one.
>2) What about By Any Means Necessary?
>
> Londo to G'Kar : "The G'quan Eth is not for sale, hehehe..."
>laughing an acting like a clown.
>
> Later in the same episode: "Consider this a small very tiny portion
>of revenge for what you did to our colony on Raghesh 3." In a very
>serious tone.
I saw that episode but I seem to have blocked out the memory or something...
>3) What about G'Kar: "I'll kill him with my bare hands. Sinclair can
>only kick me off the station. He might even thank me." Somewhat humerous.
>
> to...."Na'Toth, proceed...." G'Kar the devious.
>
> to...."So spoke G'Quan at the dawn of all mornings." G'Kar the
>solemn religious type.
>
> to...."Thank you Commander, you have my sincere gratitude." G'Kar
>the reasonable.
>
> etc....
>
> Your accusations are GROUNDLESS. Prove otherwise or don't make
>general statements riddled with falsehoods.
Pointing out a couple of exceptions doesn't exactly prove your point, you
know.
You want me to go through each episode one after another and point out in
which ones the characterizations were simplistic or inconsistant? Sorry, I
have better things to do. Especially since it probably won't convince you
anyway. Let's just agree to disagree.
(Actually, you didn't point out any of the falsehoods that riddled my
general statement.)
Anyway I'm really delighted with the way Delenn's character is turning out.
I think she's as rich and interesting as any TNG or DS9 character. So I'll
just concentrate on the positive here. Yeah, Delenn is cool. And I like
Garibaldi, except when he sleepwalks through those damn romantic scenes,
or that episode where he becomes an active alcoholic again but somehow
cures himself at the end of the episode, at least until the next time the
writers feel like touching on that issue.
>>I think I found B5's first season roughly equally entertaining as TNG's
>>first season, personally. They both beat SeaQuest's first season, for me at
>>least.
>
> To each his own. Wesley Crusher comes to mind though.....
So does Vir. Or Sinclair.
Ted
Ted McCoy
Nog sucks. You didn't even mention Nog.
However, there's been real character development with each of the other
characters...I think each of them has had at least one episode which
really explored his or her personality now.
On the other hand, my favorite B5 character is Delenn and I think her
character development has been as good as the best characterization on DS9.
Actually lots of audiences do adore the characters and relationships on DS9,
in case you didn't notice. 8-) Although I agree about Garibaldi bringing
a great sense of humor to B5.
Ted
Ted McCoy
John Benn <be...@server.uwindsor.ca> wrote:
(some good points deleted)
>>are such an infant that you need everything told to you ahead of time?,
>>don't you have a brain to figure it
>>out for yourself?, *THAT* is another difference between ST and Bab5.
>
> You're kidding right? B5 is far more involved plotwise than Trek.
>The Search Pt. II was a coward's ending. The righters didn't want to
>endanger the precious Trek franchise. It was a REALLY stupid test
I still say the reason for that ending was probably more a desire to
surprise the audience even if it hurts the story and less a desire to
avoid changing anything.
>too. The Founders wanted to find out if the Federation was willing to
>blow up the Wormhole rather than be abused by the Dominion. In effect
>all they found out was that CISKO would be willing to do this. Their
You're sure that's all they found out? 8-)
>little test actually proved NOTHING. Not only was it one of the most
>anti-climatic moments in television it didn't even accomplish
>anything. The Federation is hardly isolationist. They proved that by
>having the Defiant (a ship which barely worked???) go into the Gamma
>quadrant, yet the Founders are satisfied that they will be left alone???
Well I think they're satisfied that they can't be hurt by the Federation.
>It's pretty typical of Trek to have characters act stupid in order to
>allow a certain plot to work out. Anyone with any brains can figure
>out how to solve a problem in any Trek episode long before the
>characters ever do. Example: Alexander is trapped in a fire and they
>need to get him out in 3 minutes. Do they transport him to sick bay?
>No. Worf and Riker go in their and risk their lives to save him the
This is true of lots of B5 too, though. Also true of virtually every
Time Trax episode I've ever seen. Even true of The X-Files sometimes.
>old fashioned way. I'm watching the episode and everyone around me is
>screaming the obvious solution at the screen. Trek characters act
You've never screamed out the obvious solutions during a B5 episode?
I know I have, and so have the people I've watched it with.
>like idiots because the writers are so horrible that they can't come
>up with a plot where there might be danger or a struggle without
>having the characters act clueless for a while. I can't actually
>believe any Trek fan would complain about B5 plots not requiring
>enough thought. Watch any B5 episode and notice how much smarter the
>characters act in B5 than in Trek. Worf is an incompetent savage.
>They have to constantly restrain him from blowing a hole in the viewer
>screen whenever their is an enemy on the viewer. Garibaldi is far
>more competent. He actually does his job of security. Dianna Troi is
>completely useless except when they unrealistically give her the
>reigns of command every so often. Crusher is alright. Geordi could
>NEVER operate a console with the way his visor is. It's a joke. Data
>is awesome. The whole ship should just be Data with no one else. It
>should be called ST:Data's Adventures. Picard is competent. Sinclair
>and Ivanova are competent but never act stupid really. They sometimes
I'm finding myself forgetting most of the past season of B5 more quickly
than I expected to. But I am remembering Voice II at the moment, where
the B5 crew basically sits around, holds dramatic arguments with the
various villains, and does *nothing* to solve the problem. Why? Because
they know that out-of-nowhere Londo-Delenn-what's-his-face subplot is
going to miraculously resolve everything, I guess. Those aren't the
actions of intelligent characters. The doctor was a bit of an idiot in
Quality of Mercy. And Believers -- hard to believe the crew couldn't
guess how that was going to end up. I know everybody who was watching it
with me could guess. And then there's Babylon Squared, where a Starfury
pilot has been killed by approaching Babylon 4 -- so Sinclair decides to
send a big fleet and have them all approach B4 together. So that if the
same thing that killed that first pilot were still operating, that whole
fleet would have been killed. Lots of little moments like those.
Yeah, Trek has more than its share of moments of stupidity too. But I
don't see B5 as been much if at all better at this. Anyway, at least B5
is nowhere near as bad at having clueless charactrs as Time Trax was.
>get a little hot under the collar, but don't lower shields as a
>gesture of peace whenever they encounter a new alien race like Picard
>does(the Enterprise has been burned at least half-a-dozen times for
>that). All the arguments I'm making extend to DS9 as well, though not
>as thoroughly. How can you even watch a Trek episode and consider it
>an intelligent plot when the characters don't have a clue about how to
>perform their jobs?
> It's implied by the contempt shown by SOME trek fans. I don't
>agree with how this post was started. Comparisons are fine, but
>proclaiming that you have sole possession of objectivity is just plain
>irrational. On the other note. Good SF should be CONSISTENT. B5 is.
>Trek isn't.
Well, B5 is more consistent than Trek ever will be, anyway. Compare B5
with something like NYPD Blue and the continuity breaks down pretty quickly.
Especially the character continuity -- you don't see characters skipping
around between stereotypes from week to week on NYPD Blue.
Trek will never be consistent. It has a 25 year history which is already
inconsistent, plus there are just too many details to be kept track of
in making two tv series, movies, books, etc., all at the same time. Plus,
the creative forces in charge of Trek have changed too many times for the
sort of control that jms can have on B5 to be possible with Trek. Which
is a shame, because DS9 in particular would be a lot stronger with more
attention to continuity. Although they're still paying a lot more attention
to continuity than I would have thought possible from Trek.
Ted
Kathryn Andersen
>In article <Cxx36...@rci.ripco.com>, awi...@ripco.com (Aaron Hughes)
>> Ten ways B5 is better than ST:TNG and ST:DS9
>>
>> 10) Telepaths are handled in a rather interesting and somtimes scary way.
>Troi had her mind raped in one episode, incidentally the WHOLE telepath
>thing started on ST, who is copying whom
Ha ha ha ha.
Obviously this guy has never read a *book*. Telepathy was in SF long
before Trek was dreamed of.
>> 2) "Magic" technology like shields, transporters, replicators, and holodecks
>> are VERY hard to believe and IMPOSSIBLE to explain. B5 has only one case of
>> that, but it is easy to explain what Jump Gates do.
>Get with it, it is *FICTION*, and just because you prefer you Science
>Fiction with less fiction so you can understand it easier, doesn't mean I
>do, where does Bab5 challenge you imagination?
Yep, this guy has never read a book.
Me, I prefer things to have *elegant* and *logical* solutions, not
handwaving which is passed off as an imagination-builder.
I know that B5 is better than Trek.
But here's a question - which I don't intend to be flame-bait -
can somebody tell me if and how, B5 is better than Blake's 7?
Okay, here's one - more aliens, more interesting aliens.
Another - better SFX, but that's an unfair comparison, considering
when each of them was made.
--
_--_|\ Kathryn Andersen <k...@welkin.apana.org.au>
/ \ Donvale -> Melbourne -> Victoria -> Australia
\_.--.*/ -> Southern Hemisphere -> Earth -> Sol -> Milky Way Galaxy
v Maranatha!
Chris Mankey
: Tony Lisanti (lis...@iia.org) wrote:
: : Lets not forget trek paints this pretty nice picture that the future is
: : so good, nobody's poor, or starving (on earth anyways). B-5 make is look
: : like "heay the future is here and it sucks just like the past" Some trek
: : shit is just too "utopia-ish" for me..
: There's one aspect about the chracters on ST that bothers me, and it's
: related to your point. There's no "Everyman" on TNG. They're all from the
: top levels of a supposedly classless society:
hey! how about a series called fred johnson , federation plumer or joe
smith, federation garbage collector?
: Picard: Possibly the closest to being an ordinary person; from French vinters
Dave Mansell
mc...@math.ohio-state.edu (Ted McCoy) said
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5,rec.arts.startrek.current
> Subject: Re: 10 ways B5 is better than trek (no joke)
> Date: 23 Oct 1994 22:41:21 -0400
> Organization: Department of Mathematics, The Ohio State University
> Lines: 100
> Message-ID: <38f6sh$3...@math.mps.ohio-state.edu>
> References: <michael_munoz...@m21101.svl.trw.com>
> <jthorpe1-211...@mac22.dupontb1.swarthmore.edu>
> <389dg0$4...@math.mps.ohio-state.edu> <Cy3FI...@uwindsor.ca>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: math.mps.ohio-state.edu
Actually I think Vir's coming along nicely. Compare his attitude/actions
in early episodes with those in Chrysalis. > > Ted
>
Dave.
AKIS, RICHARD JOHN
>>It's pretty typical of Trek to have characters act stupid in order to
>>allow a certain plot to work out. Anyone with any brains can figure
>>out how to solve a problem in any Trek episode long before the
>>characters ever do. Example: Alexander is trapped in a fire and they
>>need to get him out in 3 minutes. Do they transport him to sick bay?
>>No. Worf and Riker go in their and risk their lives to save him the
Don't you need a comm badge in order for the transporter to get a
lock on you? I'd be surprised if Alexander had one in that scene.
Richard A.
Ted McCoy
Franklin Hummel <hum...@ATHENA.MIT.EDU> wrote:
> I never did and I don't hold much hope for VOYAGER, not after
>what TREK's current producers did to the last 3 seasons of TNG. Why
>Trekkers think DS9 and ST:V are somehow going to wonderfully improve
>after that, I don't understand.
Can't comment on Voyager -- but I really think DS9 has been a trememdous
improvement over TNG. It's addressing some of the same problems that B5
is addressing, although it's doing so in a very different way. I wish
DS9 could get even further from the Trek formula, but if it did, it
probably lose some of its appeal. I already know people who dislike DS9
because "it doesn't seem like Trek." (Which is also the reason some
people don't like B5, right?)
Ted
Franklin Hummel
(The_Doge) writes:
[ text deleted ]
> In all fairness, what little I've read about "Voyager" indicates
>that its producers may be trying to get rid of some of the "miracle tech"
>that has proliferated during TNGs run. The replicators don't work, for
However, those producers were mainly the same ones -responsible-
for the increasing worsening use of technobabble. They helped create
the problem and did nothing to correct it.
[ text deleted ]
> I think the show may have real potential. Of course, I thought
>that about DS9, too.
I never did and I don't hold much hope for VOYAGER, not after
what TREK's current producers did to the last 3 seasons of TNG. Why
Trekkers think DS9 and ST:V are somehow going to wonderfully improve
after that, I don't understand.
-- Frank Hummel [ Internet: hum...@mit.edu - GEnie: F.HUMMEL ]
Matthew Murray
:
: Two words: character development
I couldn't agree more. There IS no argument--Babylon 5 is just
better. Take this week's episode of DS9. A problem was introduced,
puzzled-through, and solved all in the course of an episode. But that
wasn't enough. They also had to totally revamp one of their characters,
but I sincerely doubt that we will ever see Dax any better or worse for
her experiences. We will never hear about the mysterious other host
again. Nor will we care to. DS9 is poorly designed and written--you're
right. We don't care about the characters. Though TNG used the same
writing style, the characters there were believable and well-established
enough (even in the first season) for us to care about. But DS9 is a
show totally built on premises--almost none of which work. For instance,
there was a very good episode of TNG in its fourth season called "The
Host" about a Trill ambassador. The whole idea was great and
interesting, but when DS9 gets a trill, they ruin it. They totally
rewrite everything about the Trill we learned in the TNG episode, and the
whole premise doesn't even make sense. In "The Host," no one knew that
the Trill were a joined species, yet when we get to DS9, Sisko knew about
Dax for years! It doesn't make sense! Besides, Dax can use the
transporter. There are so many inconsistencies that the writers of DS9
just didn't take into account. Sure, the TNG writers have done it too,
but nowhere near as much or as badly as DS9.
Now, look at Babylon 5. The first time we ever see the Shadows is
in a two minute period at the end of "Signs and Portents." They don't
even figure into the episode that much (a little, but not a truly great
deal). But then, they reappear in "Chrysalis," where again they play a
minor role. But we all know they are important and that they WILL
continue to show up. And regarding the crystal structure in Delenn's
quarters--most of us went through the season not thinking about it. She
was just always doing something with it, but we never knew the importance
it possessed. Then comes "Chrysalis," and BAM! I could keep going
indefinitely, but I have to leave in a few minutes. I don't see how DS9
fans can argue. Babylon 5 is easily superior, better thought-out, and
more interesting.
--
Matthew A. Murray i971...@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu
==============================================================================
GT d? H- s:+>+: !g p? !au>+ a-- w+>++ v+>++ c++(+++) UA+ P? !L>L !3>3 E----
N++(+++) K->K W--- M+>+++ V-- po Y+>++ t+@ 5+++ j1 R- G' tv+(++) b+>++
D--- B e>+ u+ h-- f(+) !r>r+(++) n--(---) !y+>+
==============================================================================
i971...@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu Matthew A. Murray
Bob DeBula
Chris Harding <ch...@strand.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Judging by this, you appear to have missed most of the humour in ST:TNG.
>
>I do agree with your other points, even though I love TNG. However, I
>don't think we need to shout about how B5 is so much better; the series
>are very different in style and content, and I don't see the point in
>flaming either one.
>
>B5 is great. TNG is great. One may be somewhat better than the other, but
>who cares? They're different things entirely. The world would be worse
>off without either of them.
Maybe some of us are getting just a bit cranky about having to stay
up until midnight (on Saturday night) to watch a new episode of B5
on the single station in our area which carries it (if the reruns of
"Married with Children" don't run over that is). By contrast,
we can watch reruns of ST:TNG or (to a lesser extent) DS9 two or even
three times a day on different channels and in prime time slots. It's probably
that lack of sleep (and the subsequent necessity for large infusions of high
test coffee) which has made us a bit too much like a Schipperke (a smallish
excitable dog of supposedly earthly origins) on a caffeine jag. :-)
I agree that there is certainly a lot of room for more SF shows of
the ST:TNG and B5 caliber in the vast wasteland that is primetime teevee.
--
==========================================================================
Disclaimer: These are my views, not the U's
"If it's in the paper it must be true!" --- D. Doright
kevin eugene scruggs
Kligonish-mammal...
Also, there have been transports out of similar areas both in TOS
& TNG...
Aaron Hughes
: Lets compare one show at a time please
: : 10) Telepaths are handled in a rather interesting and somtimes scary way.
: No Telepaths on DS9, we have a clear advantage
: : 9) Fighters do most of the fighting, not just boring slugfests between giant
: : cruiser types.
: Ohhhhhh blood and guts... yeah thats the ticket, B5 has wacko fighting dudes,
: and they use gerbils as target practice which is mucho cool.
: : 8) Londo, he's downright hilarious!
: If you mean, we cannot help but laugh at it, I would extend this to the
: whole show.
: Quark is not merely funny, he is a interesting caracter
: : 7) There is a hell of a lot more humor than ST:TNG has, making the sad parts
: : easier to get through.
: Most of the humor is dullllllll, TNG is humorless but DS9 has always
: nice humorous touches. And yeah, mr stony O Hare himself is soooo funny
: (notice, I am not laughing).
: : 6) CGI, IMHO is a lot better than models, and allows them to have a lot more
: : ships, and blow up even more without straining too much on the budget.
: IMHo are not permited in the middle of a top ten so you forfeit this argument.
: If they used SGI's and better models and shading I might agree with you, but
: then again we would then have an entirelly different show wouldn't we.
: : 5) The starfury, Earth Alliance's standard fighter. If I could get my hands on
: : one of those...
: Hmmmmm, these are little bits in a computer, repeat after me, they are
: not real (shouldn't be too easy to spot with the CGI in your face design).
: : 4) No "It was just a dream" stories unless we are told beforehand in the
: : episode.
: Oh please, B5's master plan has not impressed me till now, JMS is not the
: crack writer he think he is.
: : 3) We are not "the newest bane of ____'s existence." like ST sees 'net freaks,
: Well, you are the bane of our existence so that makes you top dog in
: the annoyance department.
: : In fact the producer of B5, J.Michael Straczynski is on
: : rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5, and listens to our input. And we would never do
: : anything like posting story ideas or leaking scripts, becaus the JMS would
: : have to leave.
: Just because the man has no life doesn't mean everyone at paramount must
: be as brain damaged ; If I where him I'dd get myself checked in a
: anti workoholic program. He may not survive the 5 years of his grand plan.
: : 2) "Magic" technology like shields, transporters, replicators, and holodecks
: : are VERY hard to believe and IMPOSSIBLE to explain. B5 has only one case of
: : that, but it is easy to explain what Jump Gates do.
: O yeah, its soooo easy. Some of the best SF is fantasy, or something that
: cannot be explained with our technology. The important thing is that you
: tell a good story, the rest is irrelevent.
: : 1) ST HAS TECHNOBABBLE!!! GOBS AND GOBS!!!!
: : EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEKKKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND HALF THE TIME IT IS THE
: : SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM IN THE EPISODES!!!!!!!
: ST has much better acting, gobs and gobs of it...
: Nadia.
--
-Aaron Hughes, Earth Alliance Aerospace Force Nova Squadron, Captian (special
operations)
"That's IT! I'm revoking your buzzing privileges until further notice!" -My
C.O. , after I followed my battle plan *too* perfectly.
Eric Pawtowski
>start an interesting conversation. Seriously!
>
You could have fooled me.
I watch *both* shows. I like both. I see little point in comparing them,
they are two shows loosely in the same genre.
Eric
Aaron Hughes
: In article <Cxx36...@rci.ripco.com>, Aaron Hughes <awi...@ripco.com> wrote:
: >Ten ways B5 is better than ST:TNG and ST:DS9
: I would just like to issue a heartfelt (and likely futile) plea for
: everyone in both newsgroups to ignore this latest jejune attempt to
: provoke a flame war.
: Thank you.
: --
: * The_Doge of South St. Louis | clav...@nyx.cs.du.edu *
: * Dobbs-Approved Media Conspirator(tm)|"One Step Beyond"-Sundays 3 pm, 88.1 FM*
: *******************************************************************************
No, this wasn't an attempt to start a flamewar, it was actually an attempt to
start an interesting conversation. Seriously!
Jeffrey Robertson
Michael D. Munoz <michae...@smtp.svl.trw.com> wrote:
>In article <Cxx36...@rci.ripco.com>, awi...@ripco.com (Aaron Hughes)
>wrote:
>
>> Ten ways B5 is better than ST:TNG and ST:DS9
>>
>
>thing started on ST, who is copying whom
Ha ha ha ha. Ursula K. LeGuin would like to have a word with you on _that_
one. And _she_ wasn't the first, either. But she did a heckuva lot
better job with a telepathic race than ST:TNG ever did. B5 is trying,
but its best virtue is that it keeps it to a minimum.
Ever notice how ST fans think ST invented everything?
--
-------------------------------------+----------------+-----------------
Jeffrey Robertson | je...@bnr.ca | BNR, Ottawa
"I speak for myself, not BNR" - Me +----------------+ (Meriline)
"Verbing weirds language" - Calvin OC-48 FiberWorld
Greg Block
In article <383dkt$l...@nyx10.cs.du.edu> clav...@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
> I would just like to issue a heartfelt (and likely futile) plea for
> everyone in both newsgroups to ignore this latest jejune attempt to
> provoke a flame war.
> Thank you.
I loved your usage of the word "jejune" so much that, on behalf of the
newsgroup, I forgive you. ;)
Greg
--
(: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
(: ENDLESS INCOME Gregory R. Block :)
(: MAKE MONEY FAST Oubliette Software :)
(: + THIGH CREAM Win...@Oubliette.com :)
(: ------------------------ :)
(: MAKE $100,000 IN THIGH CREAM FAST End the spamming!!! :)
(: (: (: Have you overdosed on smileys today? Why NOT!?! :) :) :)
Jeff Teker Fink
A minor spoiler follows for this week's episode about Dax & Trills...
Janis Maria C. C. Cortese (cor...@netcom.com) wrote:
>
> Dax is a pretty standard Trill,
They ruined that one this week... now she's the only trill to be denied
a host who came back a second time and was allowed to have one.
-Jeff
William Gareau
the comments of several writers in this subject in their critics of star
trek and DS-9. When I first started watching the original star trek, I
thought that it was the greatest show ever. Kirk was what I envisioned a
space explorer to be, young, brash, and brave. I never stopped to
consider the overall plot of the original star trek series or movies.
However, looking back on it, I feel that the original st seemed to be
consistent in its portrayal of the technology and the other major races.
I was very pleased by the continuing story presented in ST 2, 3, and 4.
Then STNG started. First of all I disliked the character of
Jean-Luc Picard, what a WIMP. Is it just me or did Picard always wait
until an opposing ship had fired on him several times before responding.
Kirk would have blown them out of the stars BEFORE they fired on him. In
addition, the mega inconsistencies started. Will someone please tell me
how the Cardacians survived a war with the Federation? Their technology
is substantially inferior to that of starfleet. Look at how that one
renegade captain destroyed one of their warships even with his shields
down. There are many such examples of STNG inconsistincies. However, I
did enjoy many of the episodes, especially the Q eps and the borg eps. I
was somewhat dissapointed by the first season as well as the last couple
seasons, that last eposide really SUCKED!!!!!
Then DS-9 and Babylon 5 came along. Unfortunately for DS-9, B-5
has spoiled me. I am no longer content with the "everything wrapped up
in one or two episode" series. I believe that JMS has learned from both
the successfull ideas as well as the mistakes of the star trek genre. He
seems to be giving us a new and improved product that introduces us to a
sci-fi series that has real life people and problems. Lets not forget
that he has the advantage of going after star trek, but if there had been
no ST and STNG there might not be any B-5, or if there was it would not
be as good as it is. I think that DS-9 has tried to correct some of the
STNG incosistencies, however, it is difficult to change an establishment
that has become set in its ways. It is even more difficult to change
when a show has soooo many writers, another advantage to Joe.
Ted McCoy
jere7my tho?rpe <jtho...@cc.swarthmore.edu> wrote:
>In article <38f7ke$4...@math.mps.ohio-state.edu>, mc...@math.ohio-state.edu
>
>*You've never screamed out the obvious solutions during a B5 episode?
>*I know I have, and so have the people I've watched it with.
>
> Very rarely, and I am a very picky viewer. As are the people _I_ watch
>it with, and they (once they understand that this is a less obvious show
>than Trek) look deeper to find the reasons, as well.
So far, the episodes of B5 I have seen have not been less obvious than Trek.
Now, maybe episodes in season two (or later seasons) will add insight to
some of the episodes. Actually jms has said there are episodes that will
seem completely different after we've learned more later on in the series.
But virtually none of the things that have bothered me so far have been
explained by later episodes. Granted, the things that have bothered me
(the clueless villains; the moments where the show takes an interesting
situation and resolves it with a series of unbelievably stupid cliche plot
twists, like the two parter and The Sky full of Stars for instance; the
moments where the characters act like idiots for no apparent reason except
that otherwise the plot can't happen) don't seem like problems to you,
apparently. I don't know. If Quality of Mercy or that Voice two-parter or
even The Sky full of Stars had been SeaQuest episodes (for instance), I think
people would have reacted a lot more critically. Which isn't to say that
people would have hated Stars, but I don't think as many people (if any) would
have called it "the most amazing thing ever to appear on television -- this'll
change television forever."
>*I'm finding myself forgetting most of the past season of B5 more quickly
>*than I expected to. But I am remembering Voice II at the moment, where
>*the B5 crew basically sits around, holds dramatic arguments with the
>*various villains, and does *nothing* to solve the problem. Why? Because
>*they know that out-of-nowhere Londo-Delenn-what's-his-face subplot is
>*going to miraculously resolve everything, I guess. Those aren't the
>
Except I was thinking of the problems with the planet that was about to
explode, not the noseless aliens. The B5 crew never seemed to have the
slightest clue what they wanted to do to resolve that problem, except for
having lots of dramatic arguments with the Hyperion of course.
>
>*actions of intelligent characters. The doctor was a bit of an idiot in
>*Quality of Mercy.
>
> In what way? Because he went to a doctor's office to warn her that
>there was a psychopath on the loose who needed medical attention? I like
>to think I'd do the same--if I discovered, right now, that there was a
>maniac loose in this building who needed help on a physics paper, I hope
>I'd run to warn the profs down the hall. ( :)= ) And, btw, the female
First, because it would have made a lot more sense for the psycho to go
to the downbelow clinic than to one of the "normal" clinics, so that should
have been the first logical thing for doc to consider. Also, it was pretty
obvious that the doc was stumbling into a potential trap, yet that didn't
seem to occur to him. Okay, maybe doc was acting stupidly because things
were happening to quickly. But it would have been nice if the episode could
have somehow indicated that. These same excuses can be made for most of the
moments of character stupidity on Trek, and even a few on SeaQuest or Time
Trax.
>doctor was in Downbelow--she didn't have a communications terminal,
>probably, so that "obvious" solution was ruled out. And why didn't
>Franklin take guards with him? Well, I wouldn't be able to get cops to go
>with me on a _hunch_--they're busy people. (JMS addressed this point,
>which is why I bring it up.)
Why didn't Garibaldi send guards to the clinic immediately? Didn't he know
about it? Sounded like everyone else on the station did.
>*And Believers -- hard to believe the crew couldn't
>*guess how that was going to end up. I know everybody who was watching it
>*with me could guess.
>
> Being able to predict the ending does not invalidate it. Read
>Shakespeare. At any rate, the only person who could reasonably have
Believers was hardly Shakespeare.
>predicted the ending of "Believers" was Dr. Franklin, and the whole
>episode was spent establishing his character as someone incapable of
>seeing anything but his own point of view. He "knew" he was RIGHT, and no
>harm could come from his actions. Thus he blinded himself to the obvious,
>which makes for good character-driven TV.
Okay -- I agree Dr. Franklin can be forgiven for not seeing what was going
to happen from the start. And having him blinded by his confidence that he
was right is great -- upto a point. I really think they went past that
point into the territory of character-acting-stupid-so-we-can-prolong-the-
conflict-for-a-full-hour.
Plus, I didn't find those moral debates at all believable. With most (but
not all) of Trek's moralizing, at least I feel like I'm watching *people*
debate the issues. (Yes, I know there are a lot of exceptions. But there
also are episodes like I, Borg and The Measure of a Man.) In Believers,
I felt like I was watching dialogue that had all been written by one person
and not something that might actually be a real moral debate. Same for those
Garibaldi-doc scenes in Quality of Mercy about punishing the convict.
>*And then there's Babylon Squared, where a Starfury
>*pilot has been killed by approaching Babylon 4 -- so Sinclair decides to
>*send a big fleet and have them all approach B4 together. So that if the
>*same thing that killed that first pilot were still operating, that whole
>*fleet would have been killed.
>
> First of all, Ivanova wanted to send ships as soon as B4 appeared, but
>Sinclair said no. He ONLY sent ships when it turned into a rescue
>mission--he decided that risking 12 peoples' lives was worth it to
>possibly save several thousand. And, if you'll recall, he asked every one
>of those twelve (or so) if they wanted to back out--none did. (Well,
>obviously.) Sinclair himself went because he wants to go out a hero, as
>demonstrated in "Infection." He takes unreasonable risks--because the end
>of the Earth/Minbari War left him feeling empty--AND he gets called for
>it, by Garibaldi.
Right -- but it still was stupid to send in all 12 ships at once instead of
holding back most of them at a reasonably safe distance to see what would
happen to one or two ships that approached first. Remember, at that point
they had no idea what they were up against. I agree with your points, but
I just don't think they relate to my problem here.
>*Yeah, Trek has more than its share of moments of stupidity too. But I
>*don't see B5 as been much if at all better at this. Anyway, at least B5
>*is nowhere near as bad at having clueless charactrs as Time Trax was.
>
> The fact is, clueless characters are sometimes GOOD characters. There
>is a difference between acting stupid for character-driven reasons and
>acting stupid for plot-convenience reasons. Star Trek establishes that
>Picard is level-headed and intelligent; thus it clashes when he does
>something really stupid. B5 establishes that Franklin has the God
>complex; Sinclair has a death wish; Garibaldi is a hotheaded alcoholic;
>etc. Thus it is more believeable when they do dumb stuff pertaining to
>their characters, just as it is believeable when Worf does something
>violent and stupid.
Well, Trek also establishes that Picard isn't very good at dealing with
people, so when he acts stupidly in communicating, that's believable.
Franklin has the God complex? In one episode. Sinclair's death wish is
consistent, of course. But the worst has been Garibaldi's hotheaded
alcoholism -- when an alcoholic starts drinking again, there are more
after effects than that. The way the implications of that episode were
ignored (the episode Survivors, right?) was very Trekkish. Also the way
Franklin apparently hasn't worried about the implications of Believers
in later episodes. Plus I'm not sure if that God complex is so much a
character trait as an excuse made necessary for his behavior in that episode.
Anyway I agree about Sinclair, and why he would head into danger so many
times. Which is why I didn't bring that up -- it's stupid, but it's supposed
to be. It's frightening, really. And I think the other characters notice
it too, not just the audience. Well, I do think he shouldn't have hesitated
quite so long in leaving B4 -- since it doesn't sound to me like that is the
way he wanted to die -- but I think that was probably just a clumsy attempt
to make the scene more suspenseful.
> It is blatantly obvious, to me anyway, that B5 has been thought through
>a hell of a lot better than ST:TNG. If you put a bit of thought into an
That's an understatement! I think DS9 has been thought through a lot more
than TNG too, although not as much as B5. Unfortunately.
On the other hand, just because the concept of B5 (the universe it's in,
the story arcs and the mysteries, etc.) have been thought through doesn't
mean the individual plots of the episodes have always been thought through
terribly well. In my opinion, anyway. I absolutely love the premise of B5,
and the amount of thought that has obviously been put into it. Problem is,
I'm still not seeing that translating into the individual episodes --
with notiable exceptions, of course (like the b-plot of Mindwar, the surprises
in Signs and Portents at the end, and some of the arc stuff in Babylon
Squared, just for some obvious examples).
>episode, or, even better, ask JMS about it, it usually hangs together,
>rather than falling apart. I've spent a lot of time watching B5, and a
>lot of time reading the old JMS postings on Hyperion. It is a universe
>which _makes sense_--the closer you examine it, the better it holds up.
>When we watch B5 with a newbie, as we did this Friday, the newbie is
>usually pointing out these "holes" in the plot, because they're not used
>to being able to think about an episode and get a reasonable answer--they
>cut their teeth on Trek. But, after a few episodes, they start "getting"
>it--they start realising that B5 requires one to think; it doesn't offer
>up all its answers the way Trek does. What appear to be plot holes (like
>"How did the poison get into Kosh's suit?") turn out to be plot points;
Yeah, that poison bit is the obvious example. Unfortunately, the moments
where characters are just acting stupidly or where interesting situations
are resolved with boring cliches that we've all seen countless times before
haven't always been resolved.
Actually, a nice thing about Trek is that on one level it offers up all the
answers, or seems to -- but on another level it'll often leave things
entirely unanswered. Examples: The Wire, about Garak; and The Search II,
about Odo and the Founders. (Which isn't to say The Search II was anywhere
near as good as The Wire, by the way.) I've seen a lot of B5 fans who
simply didn't realize that there were unaswered questions in those Trek
episodes. It was too subtle for them. They prefer B5, where we have
Soul Hunters shrieking about how Delenn has hidden plans to make sure we
catch on, where we spend an entire episode (The Sky full of Stars) to point
out things that anybody with half a brain had already figured out, where we
stumble through soap opera subplots about Ivanova dealing with her father
to make sure *everybody* will notice what happened, etc., etc.
Okay -- Signs and Portents and Babylon Squared both were pleasantly
unpredictable at spots. Since we're past the introduction stage of this
series, maybe we'll be getting more of that. But too many moments in season
one made me think "they've got to be kidding" or "this can't get any dumber"
or "damn these characters are clueless" -- and I've been waiting for later
episodes to prove that I just didn't understand what was happening, but it
hasn't happened yet, with maybe an exception or two (can't think of any
exceptions at the moment but I'll bet there are a couple).
Folks -- jms isn't God. Some things that look like plotholes are going to
turn out, in fact, to be plotholes. That's inevitable. Now, cases where
the situation turns out not to have been what it seemed (The Gathering, with
that poison bit for instance) are fine. They're great, actually. But with
a lot of the explanations (like the searchlights near that wrecked ship, or
that explanations for doc not taking guards to that clinic) -- well, often
explanations that are just as good could be presented by Trek producers
(or producers of other shows) if they were interacting with the fans the way
jms does with his fans. Hell, I just saw a presentation by the director of
a cheap film called Mosquito the other day, and he was coming up with the
same sorts of explanations for problems in his film.
(Oh I didn't mean to imply that jms has ever claimed to be God or perfect or
anything like that. Just that I find it odd that some people here take his
word so seriously and find it so inconceivable that he might be wrong or
even lie on occasion. And again, that's not to say that I think he's lying
in that stupid why-did-O'Hare-leave debate. Frankly, I couldn't care less
whether he's telling the truth or not on that issue.)
>what appear to be stupid actions turn out to be reasonable actions for the
>character. No, B5 is not perfect--the deep scratches on the belt buckle
>in B^2 are an example, as are the disappearing epaulets on Garibaldi--but
>it does a hell of a lot better than Trek, where I have to restrain myself
>from beating the screen sometimes. I think a "Nit-picker's Guide to B5"
>would be a lot shorter than the ones for Trek, and not just because
>there's only been one season of B5.
Is that a dare? I wish I had more time...although some of the episodes that
would probably produce the most nit-picks are not episodes I would care to
see again...
Well, suffice it to say that I really think a lot of B5 fans are ridiculously
quick to dismiss anything as a sign that something deeper and less obvious
is going on. Especially considering how unwilling the same fans are to
accept the same possibility with other shows.
Well, I agree that the basic idea behind the world of B5 needs far fewer
excuses than the basic world behind TNG. (And the world for DS9 falls
somewhere in between, closer to B5 than to TNG but still a good distance
below B5, I think.) But I don't think B5 is significantly better on an
episode-to-episode level, if one looks not at continuity between episodes
but at internal plot logic within an episode. Sure, there are episodes
of B5 that are better at this than certain episodes of TNG. And the other
way around too. On the average...well, it's comparing apples to oranges,
since at the same time that I'm trying to find excuses for the occasional
clumsy plot moment on B5, I'm also trying to find excuses for the lighting,
sets, acting, music, etc. whereas these things, for whatever reason, don't
bother me as much on Trek. I seem to worry more about non-plot elements than
a lot of you do. Partly because I see television and movies as fundamentally
different than books and short stories, and so I concentrate on different
things in the two, upto a point.
Ur, I've spent far too much time on this. I doubt anybody is even reading
this at this point, maybe? Anyway, if anybody is, since season two is soon
to start, I say let's agree to disagree on season one and just hope for
good things in season two.
> (Btw, I think I figured out the belt buckle thing--the script called
>for "scratches in a buckle," which would have been reasonable--I could
>scratch something reasonably well into a metal surface, given a pocket
>knife or whatnot, in short order. The problem came from the EXTENT of the
>scratches--they're deep gouges, really. Unrealistic. This was probably a
>result of the props people delivering an item with reasonable scratches,
>being told "Nah--they'd never show up on camera" by the camera guy, and
>then deepening them so they'd show up, without thinking about the
>consequences. Just a theory, of course...)
Actually, maybe they wouldn't have shown up on camera if they'd been more
realistic? Oh well, I don't care. I can't believe how much time I just
wasted here. Hey, you all wouldn't believe how much time I've spent in the
past year trying to appreciate B5. Maybe this season will be more to my
liking.
Ted
Ted McCoy
>The whole Dominion thing is likely over with. It would be nice, but
>don't count on it.
Yeah, and this whole thing with Garak is over with too, right? Whatever.
Just because an episode doesn't have a Soul Hunter drop by to scream at
the audience about the show's secrets doesn't mean the show has no secrets
left. The whole Dominion thing is over with? You're serious?
>>Well I think they're satisfied that they can't be hurt by the Federation.
>
> They can be though. The Defiant could cloak, go through the
>wormhole and fire 10 photon torpedoes at the Founders lake and that
>would be it. No more Founders. The underlying problem with all Trek
>is that the technology is so incredible that the political situation
>would be incredibly unstable. And yet, it is the most stable politcal
>situation ever portrayed on television.
Yeah, that cloak sure did a lot of good. And I'm sure there wasn't any
sort of energy shield. You're not even thinking here -- a good argument
could probably be made that they should fear the Federation, but that
definitely wasn't it.
>>I'm finding myself forgetting most of the past season of B5 more quickly
>>than I expected to. But I am remembering Voice II at the moment, where
>>the B5 crew basically sits around, holds dramatic arguments with the
>>various villains, and does *nothing* to solve the problem. Why? Because
>>they know that out-of-nowhere Londo-Delenn-what's-his-face subplot is
>>going to miraculously resolve everything, I guess. Those aren't the
>>actions of intelligent characters.
>
> There was no solution other than to fight. Name another.
Stupid -- what did that Draal subplot have to do with fighting? I'm talking
about their response to the planet: they basically decided to sit around
and have dramatic arguments with the Hyperion.
>>The doctor was a bit of an idiot in
>>Quality of Mercy.
>
> How so?
Just posted it somewhere else I think...
>>And Believers -- hard to believe the crew couldn't
>>guess how that was going to end up. I know everybody who was watching it
>>with me could guess.
>
> But, we were privy to information that Franklin was not, and his
>judgement was clouded by his arrogance that he had saved the boys
>life.
Well, we didn't explicitly learn what was going to happen to the kid before
Franklin did. It wasn't hard to figure out, though. As for Franklin's
arrogance -- that's a good point...but there came a point where his stupidity
fell more into the category of I'm-being-stupid-to-keep-this-episode-from-
ending-too-quickly instead of I'm-being-stupid-because-I-just-know-I'm-right.
For me anyway.
>And then there's Babylon Squared, where a Starfury
>>pilot has been killed by approaching Babylon 4 -- so Sinclair decides to
>>send a big fleet and have them all approach B4 together. So that if the
>>same thing that killed that first pilot were still operating, that whole
>>fleet would have been killed. Lots of little moments like those.
>
> They sent the Starfuries ahead to investigate and the tachyon
>emmissions had died down.
Ah, so it's perfectly safe, okay. Kind of like Sinclair and Ivanova somehow
knowing that there was only one trap in the cave in that two-parter.
>>Well, B5 is more consistent than Trek ever will be, anyway. Compare B5
>>with something like NYPD Blue and the continuity breaks down pretty quickly.
>>Especially the character continuity -- you don't see characters skipping
>>around between stereotypes from week to week on NYPD Blue.
>
> That doesn't happen on B5 either.
Let me be more explicit: you don't see that guy who won the Emmy on NYPD Blue
return to alcoholism one week and then miraculously seem to be cured the next
week. It takes more time to get over a relapse like that in real life, and it
takes more time on NYPD Blue. And his relapse wasn't nearly as bad as
Garibaldi's. Also -- when the characters (the main characters, not the guest
stars) do comic relief on NYPD Blue, at least in the episodes I've seen, they
don't completely drop the serious sides of their characters and turn into
absolute clowns the way Londo did in Grail or that one with the bar scenes.
Why am I bothering to write this? Time to go...
Ted
Ted McCoy
John Benn <be...@server.uwindsor.ca> wrote:
>In article <38f6sh$3...@math.mps.ohio-state.edu> mc...@math.ohio-state.edu (Ted McCoy) writes:
>>Hey, if you think there's an episode that really dealt with the issues of
>>telepaths, without just mentioning the issues and brushing them off, post it
>>here. No, Quality of Mercy doesn't count.
>
>it childishly. B5 telepaths have been treated lightly. Not
>childishly. I'm sure if JMS had gone into more detail concerning
>telepaths you would have cried about all the exposition. It's a no
>win proposition for guys like you.
Okay. Anyway, Mind War occurred to me after I posted that. Actually, most
of the handling of telepaths on B5 has not been very light -- I've seen
people call it frightening. Did I say childish? I thought I said
simplistic.
>>Pointing out a couple of exceptions doesn't exactly prove your point, you
>>know.
>
> So I need to cite EVERY SINGLE example of an episode where
>characters are 3D in order to counter your criticisms of 2D
>characters? I think not. You are the one asserting that B5
>characters are 2D and the burden falls on YOU to prove such a thing.
No, they're definitely not 2D. I'm saying they're not consistantly 3D.
Specifically, the episodes where Londo turns into a clown. Earlier on I
remember being disappointed by episodes where Londo just seemed tragic,
then next episode he was just villainous, etc., etc. Recently that hasn't
been the case...more a clownish-Londo-episode, another clownish-episode,
here's a 3D-episode, more-clownish-Londo, only-a-few-Londo-scenes-here,
more-3D-Londo, etc. Which is probably improvement (everything except
for the clownish Londo is being integrated, maybe). As for G'kar --
I don't remember the episodes before Grail too well, and he hasn't shown
up much since then, so I can't recall too many specific examples. Except
that he didn't seem like a fool in either Mind War or Midnight, and he has
seemed like a fool just about everywhere else. In my opinion.
Anyway it's hard to prove an opinion, isn't it? Let's not take ourselves
too seriously here.
>>>>I think I found B5's first season roughly equally entertaining as TNG's
>>>>first season, personally. They both beat SeaQuest's first season, for me at
>>>>least.
>>>
>>> To each his own. Wesley Crusher comes to mind though.....
>>
>>So does Vir. Or Sinclair.
>>
>
> Well now we know who's in fantasy land. I'd guess that 90% of
>Trek fans find Wesley Crusher (A major first season TNG character)
>annoying. I'd also guess that maybe 10-20% of B5 fans found Sinclair
>to be annoying. About the same percentage of Picard haters if my
>memory serves me correctly.
Nice of you to ignore Vir. 8-)
The Sinclair comment was mostly just idle flamebait anyway...I thought
everyone just ignored my Sinclair comments at this point anyway...although,
if you think Sinclair is anywhere near as popular as Picard, I think
you're mistaken -- especially when you get away from the most diehard
fans...
Ted
AKIS, RICHARD JOHN
Actually, I just rewatched the scene a few minutes ago. They couldn't
beam Alexander out because the transporters were (conveniently) off line.
In regards to TOS, one of the biggest cliches is Kirk and co. being
stuck in a nasty situation because the bad guys took away their
communicators.
Richard A.
John Benn
>In article <Cy75s...@uwindsor.ca>,
>John Benn <be...@server.uwindsor.ca> wrote:
>>>You're sure that's all they found out? 8-)
>>
>> Don't kid yourself. There's nothing hidden in the plot of DS9.
>>The whole Dominion thing is likely over with. It would be nice, but
>>don't count on it.
>
>Yeah, and this whole thing with Garak is over with too, right? Whatever.
>Just because an episode doesn't have a Soul Hunter drop by to scream at
>the audience about the show's secrets doesn't mean the show has no secrets
>left. The whole Dominion thing is over with? You're serious?
The Garak thing is MINOR. Very minor. No major plot elements have
ever really continued in a realistic fashion in the Trek universe.
>Yeah, that cloak sure did a lot of good. And I'm sure there wasn't any
>sort of energy shield. You're not even thinking here -- a good argument
>could probably be made that they should fear the Federation, but that
>definitely wasn't it.
Sure it was. First of all: anti-protons detecting cloaked ships?
Come on. This was ridiculous in the extreme. In any case all they
need to do is redesign the cloaking device to absorb anti-protons.
This would take about a day. Call in Geordi and Data and we're
talking 2-3 hrs max. Energy shield? Never heard of any energy
shield. Easy way around it though: Make a whole slew of photon
torpedoes equiped with the phased cloaking device from the Pegasis
episode. Put proximaty detectors on them and fire them at the core of
the Founders planet and BOOM! No more Founders. There are a million
and a half ways to destroy a planet on Trek. It's a good thing the
Romulans are clueless morons and forgot to continue developing a
similar technology. They'd have destroyed the Federation long ago.
>> There was no solution other than to fight. Name another.
>
>Stupid -- what did that Draal subplot have to do with fighting? I'm talking
>about their response to the planet: they basically decided to sit around
>and have dramatic arguments with the Hyperion.
They decided to stop the Hyperion from sending down any more
excursions to the planet fearing the worst. As far as Sinclair and
the rest of the B5 crew knew Varn was dying and there was nothing that
could be done. What solution would you have proposed if you had been
Sinclair in the same situation?
>Just posted it somewhere else I think...
I expected as much.
>Well, we didn't explicitly learn what was going to happen to the kid before
>Franklin did. It wasn't hard to figure out, though. As for Franklin's
>arrogance -- that's a good point...but there came a point where his stupidity
>fell more into the category of I'm-being-stupid-to-keep-this-episode-from-
>ending-too-quickly instead of I'm-being-stupid-because-I-just-know-I'm-right.
>For me anyway.
You're welcome to your own interpretation.
>> They sent the Starfuries ahead to investigate and the tachyon
>>emmissions had died down.
>
>Ah, so it's perfectly safe, okay. Kind of like Sinclair and Ivanova somehow
>knowing that there was only one trap in the cave in that two-parter.
Not really. It was the only area with the dead body of a pirate
though. Did you want the episode to be a 3 hrs remake of Indiana Jones?
You don't know there weren't any other traps. They just weren't shown
on screen.
>Let me be more explicit: you don't see that guy who won the Emmy on NYPD Blue
>return to alcoholism one week and then miraculously seem to be cured the next
>week. It takes more time to get over a relapse like that in real life, and it
>takes more time on NYPD Blue. And his relapse wasn't nearly as bad as
>Garibaldi's. Also -- when the characters (the main characters, not the guest
>stars) do comic relief on NYPD Blue, at least in the episodes I've seen, they
>don't completely drop the serious sides of their characters and turn into
>absolute clowns the way Londo did in Grail or that one with the bar scenes.
When Seprwitz (sp?) drank again he went ballistic. Also, he is one
of 2 major characters on an hour long drama. Garibaldi is one of 6
major characters on an hour-long drama. Not to mention the fact that
B5 has to cover alot of territory. There are plot elements which
require that less time be spent on characters. You can't very well
have all sorts of inter-galactic intrigue if you have scenes of
Garibaldi's alcoholism catching up with him every other episode.
Think about it. Name a scene that you would have eliminated in order
to show Garibaldi going to AA or something. As far as Londo acting
like a clown. That's PART of Londo's character. I guess you just
don't like Londo. I can sympathize with that. This doesn't make his
character a bad character. You're implying that there is no such
thing as a person who acts like a clown from time to time. This is
just ridiculous. It's to be expected that Londo is going to exagerate
from time to time. It's completely consistent with is character.
Example: Londo would never say: "No listen you two."
He would say: "My dear BEAUTIFUL childeren."
Londo would never say: "Mr. Garibaldi I have story to tell you."
He would say: "Mr. Garibaldi. ATTEND!"
etc..
>Why am I bothering to write this? Time to go...
I don't know.
--
***The Universe is governed by the complex interweaving of 3 elements***
*** Energy, Matter and Enlightened Self-Interest--G'Kar Babylon-5 ***
Eric Gross
>: : 2.) B5 doesn't have a holodeck or replicators or transformers. Star Trek
>: [Rip tear slash] ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>: This brings up some amusing spoofs on Optimus Prime and Megatron slugging
>: it out at B5.
>ROTFL!!!! ROTFL!!!!!!
>I guess being slighly dislexic has it's advantages.
O.k., now. it's not fair to pick on us lesdixlic people. Darn, there it goes
again ....
Or, on B5, is it duckslexia?
Dianne Hackborn
| *You've never screamed out the obvious solutions during a B5 episode?
| *I know I have, and so have the people I've watched it with.
|
| Very rarely, and I am a very picky viewer. As are the people _I_ watch
| it with, and they (once they understand that this is a less obvious show
| than Trek) look deeper to find the reasons, as well.
And what the hell is it with this continual "I could figure out what was
going to happen" stuff? Do people not understand the difference between a
mystery show [which B5 is not], and a drama with things the viewer simply
doesn't know yet [which B5 is]?
Good drama does -not- depend on the viewer trying to guess what is going to
happen at the end, and hopefully being wrong. If that was all it was, who
would ever want to see it more than once? IMHO, things like the Garibaldi
and main plots in Voices, Believers, etc have absolutely nothing to do with
"trying to guess what is going to happen," but work as a way to see how the
characters react to and are changed by the situations they are in. If all
you are getting out of the show is trying to figure out what will happen in
the end, you're missing 99% of it.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dianne Kyra Hackborn "I like having the capitol of the United
hac...@mail.cs.orst.edu States in Washington, D.C., in spite of
BIX: dhack / IRC: Dianne recent efforts to move it to Lynchburg,
Oregon State University Virginia." -- Frank Zappa
John Benn
>>too. The Founders wanted to find out if the Federation was willing to
>>blow up the Wormhole rather than be abused by the Dominion. In effect
>>all they found out was that CISKO would be willing to do this. Their
>
>You're sure that's all they found out? 8-)
Don't kid yourself. There's nothing hidden in the plot of DS9.
The whole Dominion thing is likely over with. It would be nice, but
don't count on it.
>Well I think they're satisfied that they can't be hurt by the Federation.
They can be though. The Defiant could cloak, go through the
wormhole and fire 10 photon torpedoes at the Founders lake and that
would be it. No more Founders. The underlying problem with all Trek
is that the technology is so incredible that the political situation
would be incredibly unstable. And yet, it is the most stable politcal
situation ever portrayed on television.
>This is true of lots of B5 too, though. Also true of virtually every
>Time Trax episode I've ever seen. Even true of The X-Files sometimes.
Once again, generalizations. Examples please.
>You've never screamed out the obvious solutions during a B5 episode?
>I know I have, and so have the people I've watched it with.
Examples....
>I'm finding myself forgetting most of the past season of B5 more quickly
>than I expected to. But I am remembering Voice II at the moment, where
>the B5 crew basically sits around, holds dramatic arguments with the
>various villains, and does *nothing* to solve the problem. Why? Because
>they know that out-of-nowhere Londo-Delenn-what's-his-face subplot is
>going to miraculously resolve everything, I guess. Those aren't the
>actions of intelligent characters.
There was no solution other than to fight. Name another.
>The doctor was a bit of an idiot in
>Quality of Mercy.
How so?
>And Believers -- hard to believe the crew couldn't
>guess how that was going to end up. I know everybody who was watching it
>with me could guess.
But, we were privy to information that Franklin was not, and his
judgement was clouded by his arrogance that he had saved the boys
life.
And then there's Babylon Squared, where a Starfury
>pilot has been killed by approaching Babylon 4 -- so Sinclair decides to
>send a big fleet and have them all approach B4 together. So that if the
>same thing that killed that first pilot were still operating, that whole
>fleet would have been killed. Lots of little moments like those.
They sent the Starfuries ahead to investigate and the tachyon
emmissions had died down.
>Well, B5 is more consistent than Trek ever will be, anyway. Compare B5
>with something like NYPD Blue and the continuity breaks down pretty quickly.
>Especially the character continuity -- you don't see characters skipping
>around between stereotypes from week to week on NYPD Blue.
That doesn't happen on B5 either.
--
John Benn
No, you dont.
John Benn
>Hey, if you think there's an episode that really dealt with the issues of
>telepaths, without just mentioning the issues and brushing them off, post it
>here. No, Quality of Mercy doesn't count.
There is a difference between treating a topic lightly and treating
it childishly. B5 telepaths have been treated lightly. Not
childishly. I'm sure if JMS had gone into more detail concerning
telepaths you would have cried about all the exposition. It's a no
win proposition for guys like you.
>>1) What about Voice Pt. II.?
>>
>> Londo goes from: "Delenn. I'm TRULY astonished. Of all people I
>>never thought that YOU would hold out of me."
>>
>> to: "If I were a landing thruster where would I be?"
>>
>> Two aspects of a wonderful multi-faceted character in one episode
>>late in the season. This directly conflicts with what you're saying.
>
>Yes! I really enjoyed the portrayal of Londo in Voice II. Actually, you're
>right -- they integrated his different sides in that episode nicely. And
>I liked the "adventurous" Londo, which wasn't a Londo we'd seen much of before.
>Too bad most of Londo's episodes haven't been like that one.
>
>>2) What about By Any Means Necessary?
>>
>> Londo to G'Kar : "The G'quan Eth is not for sale, hehehe..."
>>laughing an acting like a clown.
>>
>> Later in the same episode: "Consider this a small very tiny portion
>>of revenge for what you did to our colony on Raghesh 3." In a very
>>serious tone.
>
>I saw that episode but I seem to have blocked out the memory or something...
>
>>3) What about G'Kar: "I'll kill him with my bare hands. Sinclair can
>>only kick me off the station. He might even thank me." Somewhat humerous.
>>
>> to...."Na'Toth, proceed...." G'Kar the devious.
>>
>> to...."So spoke G'Quan at the dawn of all mornings." G'Kar the
>>solemn religious type.
>>
>> to...."Thank you Commander, you have my sincere gratitude." G'Kar
>>the reasonable.
>>
>> etc....
>>
>> Your accusations are GROUNDLESS. Prove otherwise or don't make
>>general statements riddled with falsehoods.
>
>Pointing out a couple of exceptions doesn't exactly prove your point, you
>know.
So I need to cite EVERY SINGLE example of an episode where
characters are 3D in order to counter your criticisms of 2D
characters? I think not. You are the one asserting that B5
characters are 2D and the burden falls on YOU to prove such a thing.
>You want me to go through each episode one after another and point out in
>which ones the characterizations were simplistic or inconsistant? Sorry, I
>have better things to do. Especially since it probably won't convince you
>anyway. Let's just agree to disagree.
Well citing ONE example would have been nice.
>>>I think I found B5's first season roughly equally entertaining as TNG's
>>>first season, personally. They both beat SeaQuest's first season, for me at
>>>least.
>>
>> To each his own. Wesley Crusher comes to mind though.....
>
>So does Vir. Or Sinclair.
>
Well now we know who's in fantasy land. I'd guess that 90% of
Trek fans find Wesley Crusher (A major first season TNG character)
annoying. I'd also guess that maybe 10-20% of B5 fans found Sinclair
to be annoying. About the same percentage of Picard haters if my
memory serves me correctly.
--
Dianne Hackborn
| On the other hand...I think an argument could be made that a lot of what is
| driving B5 is supposed to be the mystery -- the mystery of what happened to
| Sinclair, what Kosh is, what Delenn is upto, what the shadows are and what
| they want, etc.
There is mystery, and there is mystery. The mysteries you are now talking
about fall under the heading "we know there is -something- going on, but no
idea what and not enough information yet to do anything beyond speculate
about what it could be." This is -not- the kind of "I figured it out
before" mystery you talked about before. This is just the natural course
of going through a novel and watching as the story unfolds.
In contrast, I would say the certain Garibaldi-related revelation in
Chrysalis -does- fall under the kind of mystery you are talking about -
it's something where all the clue were sitting right in front of us, but as
far as I can tell -nobody- figured it out until afterwards. In contrast,
while there are clues and hints to what the shadows are, what happened to
Sinclair, what Kosh is, etc., as far as I can tell [which admitadely may
change after we find these things out], they are primarily unknowns simply
because we don't have all the information yet.
| When I see an episode like The Sky full of Stars where the
| only surprise is that nothing surprising happens or is revealed, well, I'm
| disappointed.
As I've said before, this is completely untrue; most of the reason you know
a lot of what was going to happen was because you had the benefit of JMS'
hints and comments from the net. To someone without that background, much
of that episode -would- be suprising.
And really, if you haven't seen Chrysalis, I suggest you wait on this one.
The rest of your comments I think I generally agree with... :)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dianne Kyra Hackborn She's Slinky! She's Slinky!
hac...@mail.cs.orst.edu For fun she's a wonderful toy;
BIX: dhack / IRC: Dianne She's fun for a girl and a boy!
Oregon State University
Dianne Hackborn
| explode, not the noseless aliens. The B5 crew never seemed to have the
| slightest clue what they wanted to do to resolve that problem, except for
| having lots of dramatic arguments with the Hyperion of course.
Uh, hello? No, they had no idea how they could stop whatever was happening
on the planet, KNEW they had no idea, and were trying to plan things so
they could evacuate as many people from the station as possible.
What was stupid about this?
| > Being able to predict the ending does not invalidate it. Read
| >Shakespeare. At any rate, the only person who could reasonably have
|
| Believers was hardly Shakespeare.
Er, so unless you're as good as Shakespeare, you've gotta have an
"unpredictable" plot?
| Right -- but it still was stupid to send in all 12 ships at once instead of
| holding back most of them at a reasonably safe distance to see what would
| happen to one or two ships that approached first. Remember, at that point
| they had no idea what they were up against. I agree with your points, but
| I just don't think they relate to my problem here.
Whether or not this was a "stupid" thing to do -- the episode did not at
all hinge on them doing this. The thing that people complain about is when
an episode's plot hinges on the characters acting stupid; in this case it
was nothing like that. As such, it would have just been a waste of time to
spend making sure we all knew they talk every reasonable safety precaution.
-------------------------------------------------------
Dianne Kyra Hackborn "The real question is:
hac...@mail.cs.orst.edu Is it possible to laugh
BIX: dhack / IRC: Dianne while fucking?"
Oregon State University -- Frank Zappa
Ann M. Williams
My ten reasons why I prefer B5 to TREK:
1. B5 does not tend to preach as much as examine issues. DSN has
allowed its characters (non-human) to have flaws, but on TNG
only Worf was allowed to have a dark side for most of the series.
2. Alien cultures are more multi-faceted on B5. Aliens are not
simply bad guys or allies, they are a mixture of both. TREK
has handled the Klingons and Bajorans well, but tends to make
an enemy of a species and then dismisses the threat (Borg,
Dominion, Ferengi, and probably the Cardassians) with only the
Romulans remaining enigmatic. On B5 any species could become
involved in war with any other, just as happens in reality as
political and economic tides shift.
3. Women's roles on B5 are much better (although relatively sparse
in the main characters): Ivanova is a real officer. Delenn is
a powerful leader, Catherine is a successful entrepreneur and
Talia is conscientious about her work. They are professionals
not just love interests for the males. DSN has attempted to
have good female roles (and it seems like Voyager will also)
but TNG was awful (except for some guest roles and toward the
end of the series).
4. The science makes better sense on B5. Of course, I'm not too
science literate but it seems clear from the discussions on the
internet that many aspects of B5 are plausible as opposed to
fantasy (with telepathy as an exception).
5. B5 can deal with ongoing stories and character development
while TREK in general was limited to an episodic approach.
This lead to major developments being ignored in TNG (Worf's
back injury, Riker/Troi relationship). DSN has been allowed
greater freedom in this area.
6. B5 has greater freedom with its special effects. Yes, the
computer effects aren't as pleasing to many of us (including
me) but they have greatly enhanced the show. Think of Sinclair's
memories of the Battle of the Line, or the first appearance of
the Shadowmen's ship. It is hard to picture many equally
effective moments on TREK (possibly the Borg ship).
7. B5 has tricky writing. JMS writes like a magician, getting
viewers to look at the wrong thing (i.e. marriage rather than
rebirth in the ceremony and other similar tricks) and surprising
most viewers. I couldn't predict the ending of most episodes
whereas I still can on DSN (and could on TNG). The characters
engage in surprising behavior which is consistent (e.g. G'kar
in his scenes with Catherine).
8. B5 deals with "mundane" issues TREK seldom did: labor, boring
meetings and negotiations over minor treaty points, everyday
court scenes, religious ceremonies, sports events, news reports,
elections, and even bathroom scenes!
9. B5 has greater leeway with its music. While sometimes it can
be too obvious and jarring, it can be very stirring in emotional
scenes (e.g. Sinclair's concern about the predicted destruction
of B5). The TREK music is more limited except in special
episodes such as the Borg episodes and the finale. I like it
but it tends to be forgettable.
10. B5 hasn't dealt in crap yet. That is, the merchandising and
books/comics are being more carefully handled. Of course,
Paramount is laughing all the way to the bank! But I'd rather
have a half dozen quality items and worthy reading material than
a carload of overpriced junk. When I see the stuff we TREK
fans buy and display, I can understand why people laugh at us.
(Spoken from a 34 year old view: at 20 I was as ardent a
collector as anyone else). It will be nice to have novels and
comic books that are canon and enhance the reader's understanding
rather than books (some good, some awful) that are not considered
canon.
This doesn't mean I think B5 is perfect or that I don't watch DSN. But
these are elements that add to my enjoyment of a series. If Earth 2
has similar elements I will enjoy it. If it doesn't I won't like it
as much.
--
Ann M. Williams
Systems Librarian/Cataloger
Pope Pius XII Library
Saint Joseph College, West Hartford, Connecticut, USA
J.M.Egolf
>>you're mistaken -- especially when you get away from the most diehard
>>fans...
But Picard isn't _around_ any more (re-runs don't count--you can only re-
read a love letter so many times before you stop getting anything out of it!)
We'll take what we can get... :-)
(Yes, I know Sinclair has been put on the "back burner"--but "he'll be baack"!)
--
J.M.Egolf
jeg...@mcs.com
"Religion is the ultimate sf (speculative "filosophy".)
J.M.Egolf
going on only a few moments before the character does. You have time to be
anxious for the character, but not enough time to get disgusted because the
character is so clueless. ("Don't go in there, you idiot! Can't you hear the
background music swelling!" [thx, B. Hambly!])
The plot being "old" isn't necessarily a problem. If the writer can set the
situation up so that you are involved enough in the character's mindset, you
can _understand_ why s/he doesn't catch on. It's the obvious, "Boy, this
person doesn't watch enough television!" plotting that's annoying.
J.M.Egolf
Jake Sebastian Greenland <j.s.gr...@eee.salford.ac.uk> wrote:
>>you don't see that guy who won the Emmy on NYPD Blue return to alcoholism
>>one week and then miraculously seem to be cured the next week. It takes more
>
>Erm - but it could quite easily be argued that the next episode was a lot
>longer than a week later. Characters fighting back from alcoholism is a plot
>that has been used in many programs over and over - maybe the B5 writers
>didn't feel the need to do it again.
Good point. The name of the place is _not_ _Larroquette 5_. Sinclair _did_
say something to Garabaldi about, "the next time you have a problem, don't
try to handle it alone" (very compassionately). And while those of us who
are into "melotrauma" and hurt/comfort might _love_ to see Sinclair helping
Garabaldi through a binge, that's not the show JMS is writing.
(That's why there are fanzines! :->)
(as I don my "no-I'm-not-a-slash-lady" flame-proof suit...)
John Benn
>No, they're definitely not 2D. I'm saying they're not consistantly 3D.
>Specifically, the episodes where Londo turns into a clown. Earlier on I
>remember being disappointed by episodes where Londo just seemed tragic,
>then next episode he was just villainous, etc., etc. Recently that hasn't
>been the case...more a clownish-Londo-episode, another clownish-episode,
>here's a 3D-episode, more-clownish-Londo, only-a-few-Londo-scenes-here,
>more-3D-Londo, etc. Which is probably improvement (everything except
>for the clownish Londo is being integrated, maybe). As for G'kar --
>I don't remember the episodes before Grail too well, and he hasn't shown
>up much since then, so I can't recall too many specific examples. Except
>that he didn't seem like a fool in either Mind War or Midnight, and he has
>seemed like a fool just about everywhere else. In my opinion.
What your saying doesn't make any sense. You seem to think that in
a given day a character needs to display every possible part of
his/her personality or he/she isn't consistently 3D. I don't buy it.
G'kar was in the following other episodes:
Born to the Purple. Not a fool at all. Angry at Londo for screwing
him around.
Parliament of Dreams. Not a fool. He just got caught with his guard
down. His humerous jaunts in that episode were great.
War Prayer. Tried to rally aliens to a common cause. Pretty
consistent with the Narn wish to further their control over the League
of Non-Aligned Worlds.
Deathwalker. Acted very intelligently. Tried to secure an
immortality serum for his people.
Believers. Acted consistently.
Survivors. Tried to save Garibaldi's ass for his own benefit.
By Any Means Necessary. Angry at Londo the whole episode.
Signs and Portents. Listened to Morden and was Angry at Londo.
......
Chrysalis....Excellent. You'll have to see it.
In all of these G'Kar was consistently:
1) Looking for opportunities for the Narn to gain advantage.
2) Angry at Londo.
>Nice of you to ignore Vir. 8-)
He's a minor character. He's only been in about 5 episodes and he
didn't even save the station once. Even so, I like the character
because he's still realistic. He's great in Chrysalis too.
>The Sinclair comment was mostly just idle flamebait anyway...I thought
>everyone just ignored my Sinclair comments at this point anyway...although,
>if you think Sinclair is anywhere near as popular as Picard, I think
>you're mistaken -- especially when you get away from the most diehard
>fans...
We were talking about the first season. Most critics and fans
criticized Picard for being a stiff (wooden) grumpy old bald man. I'm
serious. This was 7 years ago. A lot has changed since then. I
can't believe that ANYONE would consider TNG:Season1 to ring in
anywhere near B5:Season1.
Tritium
>You know I can see this deteriorating into a debate like the Amiga vs Atari ST
>argument we had in britain for a very long time ... Its really not worth it.
Hey, the Amiga is better than the Atari ST!
Iffy not useing a dead computer
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Iffy by name, not by nature.
Actually it's because no-one can pronounce my name properly
Patrick Stewart for Centari Emperor
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Chris Harding
On Tue, 25 Oct 1994, J.M.Egolf wrote:
> But Picard isn't _around_ any more (re-runs don't count--you can only re-
> read a love letter so many times before you stop getting anything out of it!)
> We'll take what we can get... :-)
> (Yes, I know Sinclair has been put on the "back burner"- but "he'll be baack"!)
If the Trek films keep getting made at their current rate, then we'll see
about four hours worth of story with Picard in the next two years, in
STVII and STVIII.
Compare this with the next two years of B5 (we hope!), assuming that
Sinclair doesn't return fully until at least season four. We then have 33
hours of episodes with Sinclair occasionally appearing in short clips
shot before the rest of the season.
I don't think you're really in a position to say that Picard has gone
completely and Sinclair is still around.
Anyway, who cares who is more popular? They're both great characters,
and both acted well.
-- Chris
Jake Sebastian Greenland
>return to alcoholism one week and then miraculously seem to be cured the next
>week. It takes more time to get over a relapse like that in real life, and it
>takes more time on NYPD Blue. And his relapse wasn't nearly as bad as
>Garibaldi's.
Erm - but it could quite easily be argued that the next episode was a lot
longer than a week later. Characters fighting back from alcoholism is a plot
that has been used in many programs over and over - maybe the B5 writers
didn't feel the need to do it again.
Jake
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
j.s.gr...@eee.salford.ac.uk
ja...@starion.demon.co.uk
"I am not a Frog, I am a free Womble"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Gareau
: In article <1994Oct24.2...@news.csuohio.edu>,
: William Gareau <wga...@omega.csuohio.edu.> wrote:
: >I consider myself a fan of both star trek and babylon 5. I agree with
: >trek and DS-9. When I first started watching the original star trek, I
: >thought that it was the greatest show ever.
: was the first time TeeVee had even attempted to treat SF with some respect,
: and it didn't hurt to have some legitimate SF authors writing scripts now
: and then.
: TNG lost some of this, alas, although I was a faithful fan alsmot
: to the end. Scripts were almost entirely the work of TV writers rather than
: SF writers. Miracle tech, deities (Q), and the "particle du jour" became
: more common. What we ended up with was standard-issue TeeVee "drama" with
: the word [TECH] inserted into the script whenever a plot compation or
: resolution.
: [Criticisms of TNG deleted]
: The real problem with anything coming out of the Trek shop, IMHO, is
: that it's being produced by folks who are TV writers/producers first and
: SF writers second, if at all. This probably makes it more accessible to
: viewers who read little literary SF (if any), but old-time fans like yours
: truly tend to regard it as the SF equivalent of Lite Beer. >:-)>
: B5, on the other hand, is the product of someone (jms) who is on
: record as being a big fan of written SF, fantasy, and even comics. His
: perspective is that of an SF writer and reader first, and a TV producer
: second. This, in my view, is the real reason for the difference in
: approach. Alas, it is unlikely to be quite as popular as the one
: Berman, Piller, et. al. have taken.
: I'm still watching DS9, of course, and will probably give "Voyager"
: a fair viewing. But my expectations are different for the product of that
: shop.
I agree with you completely. It does make a big difference when
a sf show is written by sf writers rather than tv writers. From what
I've been able to gather from JMS comments at hyperion.com, it sounds
like we may have sf writers doing "Voyager". I hope it is an improvement
over STNG.
Dianne Hackborn
| Specifically, the episodes where Londo turns into a clown. Earlier on I
| remember being disappointed by episodes where Londo just seemed tragic,
| then next episode he was just villainous, etc., etc. Recently that hasn't
| been the case...more a clownish-Londo-episode, another clownish-episode,
| here's a 3D-episode, more-clownish-Londo, only-a-few-Londo-scenes-here,
| more-3D-Londo, etc. Which is probably improvement (everything except
| for the clownish Londo is being integrated, maybe). As for G'kar --
| I don't remember the episodes before Grail too well, and he hasn't shown
| up much since then, so I can't recall too many specific examples. Except
| that he didn't seem like a fool in either Mind War or Midnight, and he has
| seemed like a fool just about everywhere else. In my opinion.
Good ghod, there are at least 6 major characters on this show; do you
really want every single one to come up and spend 10 minutes displaying the
full range of their character in every single episode??
| Anyway it's hard to prove an opinion, isn't it? Let's not take ourselves
| too seriously here.
Clue: if you give every indication of being serious, others will take you
seriously. At least for a while. [And as FordaT shows, possibly for an
exceedingly long while.]
| Nice of you to ignore Vir. 8-)
Vir has been consistently developing throughout the season; it's fairly
obvious this was planned for his character from the start. And actually,
I'm finding him more and more interesting, especially in light of what he
is going to be dealing with from Londo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dianne Kyra Hackborn "Information is not knowledge; Knowledge is not
hac...@mail.cs.orst.edu wisdom; Wisdom is not truth; Truth is not beauty;
BIX: dhack / IRC: Dianne Beauty is not love; Love is not music;
Oregon State University Music is THE BEST. . ." -- Frank Zappa
John Benn
>So far, the episodes of B5 I have seen have not been less obvious than Trek.
>Now, maybe episodes in season two (or later seasons) will add insight to
>some of the episodes. Actually jms has said there are episodes that will
>seem completely different after we've learned more later on in the series.
>But virtually none of the things that have bothered me so far have been
>explained by later episodes. Granted, the things that have bothered me
>(the clueless villains; the moments where the show takes an interesting
>situation and resolves it with a series of unbelievably stupid cliche plot
>twists, like the two parter and The Sky full of Stars for instance; the
>moments where the characters act like idiots for no apparent reason except
>that otherwise the plot can't happen) don't seem like problems to you,
>apparently. I don't know. If Quality of Mercy or that Voice two-parter or
>even The Sky full of Stars had been SeaQuest episodes (for instance), I think
>people would have reacted a lot more critically. Which isn't to say that
>people would have hated Stars, but I don't think as many people (if any) would
>have called it "the most amazing thing ever to appear on television -- this'll
>change television forever."
AGAIN! Not a single specific grievance with an episode. Just
generalizations.
>Except I was thinking of the problems with the planet that was about to
>explode, not the noseless aliens. The B5 crew never seemed to have the
>slightest clue what they wanted to do to resolve that problem, except for
>having lots of dramatic arguments with the Hyperion of course.
They did the only reasonable thing.
>First, because it would have made a lot more sense for the psycho to go
>to the downbelow clinic than to one of the "normal" clinics, so that should
>have been the first logical thing for doc to consider. Also, it was pretty
>obvious that the doc was stumbling into a potential trap, yet that didn't
>seem to occur to him. Okay, maybe doc was acting stupidly because things
>were happening to quickly. But it would have been nice if the episode could
>have somehow indicated that. These same excuses can be made for most of the
>moments of character stupidity on Trek, and even a few on SeaQuest or Time
>Trax.
Dr. Franklin called security. What more do you want him to do?
>Plus, I didn't find those moral debates at all believable. With most (but
>not all) of Trek's moralizing, at least I feel like I'm watching *people*
>debate the issues. (Yes, I know there are a lot of exceptions. But there
>also are episodes like I, Borg and The Measure of a Man.) In Believers,
>I felt like I was watching dialogue that had all been written by one person
>and not something that might actually be a real moral debate. Same for those
>Garibaldi-doc scenes in Quality of Mercy about punishing the convict.
I don't agree. Sinclair realized he needed to take a
non-interventionist stance the Dr. didn't agree with him. What was
the problem.
>Right -- but it still was stupid to send in all 12 ships at once instead of
>holding back most of them at a reasonably safe distance to see what would
>happen to one or two ships that approached first. Remember, at that point
>they had no idea what they were up against. I agree with your points, but
>I just don't think they relate to my problem here.
How do you know they didn't.
>Franklin has the God complex? In one episode. Sinclair's death wish is
>consistent, of course. But the worst has been Garibaldi's hotheaded
>alcoholism -- when an alcoholic starts drinking again, there are more
>after effects than that. The way the implications of that episode were
>ignored (the episode Survivors, right?) was very Trekkish. Also the way
>Franklin apparently hasn't worried about the implications of Believers
>in later episodes. Plus I'm not sure if that God complex is so much a
>character trait as an excuse made necessary for his behavior in that episode.
There isn't enough time in an epic SF series to handle all of
these things. See Chrysalis for details of how epic the series really
is.
>Well, I agree that the basic idea behind the world of B5 needs far fewer
>excuses than the basic world behind TNG. (And the world for DS9 falls
>somewhere in between, closer to B5 than to TNG but still a good distance
>below B5, I think.) But I don't think B5 is significantly better on an
>episode-to-episode level, if one looks not at continuity between episodes
>but at internal plot logic within an episode. Sure, there are episodes
>of B5 that are better at this than certain episodes of TNG. And the other
>way around too. On the average...well, it's comparing apples to oranges,
>since at the same time that I'm trying to find excuses for the occasional
>clumsy plot moment on B5, I'm also trying to find excuses for the lighting,
>sets, acting, music, etc. whereas these things, for whatever reason, don't
>bother me as much on Trek. I seem to worry more about non-plot elements than
>a lot of you do. Partly because I see television and movies as fundamentally
>different than books and short stories, and so I concentrate on different
>things in the two, upto a point.
There isn't a single Trek episode without plotholes.
John Pietrzak
Amy Berg <ez04...@peseta.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>
>Two words: character development
>
>I couldn't care less what happens to the characters on DS9 (Sisko, Dax,
>Kira, whoever).
Hey, they made a pretty good stab at it to begin with. Julian was a
total boor, Kira was (just like Ro) extremely excitable and impatient,
Miles and Kako were actually acting like real married people. It's
just that with so many writers doing so many different plots, all the
characters eventually seem to have all the personality washed out of
them. Julian isn't nearly as egocentric. Miles and Kako have become
SuperParents (tm). Kira is patience and understanding personified.
It's the Next Generation effect: all the characters are turning into
gods.
The thing about ST:TOS, that made it a great show to watch, was not the
special effects or the science fiction plots. At root, it was the
interaction between Kirk, Spock, and Bones. I wish the people at
Paramount would make an effort to actually have that sort of situation
again. (There's far too much agreement among people in this
federation, meethinks.)
But anyway, I'd have to stand up for DS9. It's a real attempt to
re-fashion the ST universe into something more interesting. Its a big
step up from the void that was ST:TNG. (Gak! We're going to have to
survive years of TNG movies now! I may never go to a theater again...)
John
Ted McCoy
Dianne Hackborn <hac...@python.CS.ORST.EDU> wrote:
>Good ghod, there are at least 6 major characters on this show; do you
>really want every single one to come up and spend 10 minutes displaying the
>full range of their character in every single episode??
It doesn't take 10 minutes to present a multifaceted character. Delenn
appeared only briefly in Grail (I think), yet she didn't come across as
a 2d character. On the other hand, Londo had more screen time than she did
in that episode, yet he was stuck with doing mindless one-dimensional comedy
scenes.
>| Anyway it's hard to prove an opinion, isn't it? Let's not take ourselves
>| too seriously here.
>
>Clue: if you give every indication of being serious, others will take you
>seriously. At least for a while. [And as FordaT shows, possibly for an
>exceedingly long while.]
I didn't say I'm not serious. Just that it's not worth getting so worked
up about. Clue: taking yourself too seriously is a great way to guarantee
that people won't take your points seriously. You don't seriously believe
that people here are taking FordaT's comments seriously do you?
>| Nice of you to ignore Vir. 8-)
>
>Vir has been consistently developing throughout the season; it's fairly
>obvious this was planned for his character from the start. And actually,
>I'm finding him more and more interesting, especially in light of what he
>is going to be dealing with from Londo.
Care to give an example of this?
He grew a little in War Prayer. That growth has been ignored in every
subsequent episode.
Ted
Ted McCoy
John Benn <be...@server.uwindsor.ca> wrote:
>>Yeah, and this whole thing with Garak is over with too, right? Whatever.
>>Just because an episode doesn't have a Soul Hunter drop by to scream at
>>the audience about the show's secrets doesn't mean the show has no secrets
>>left. The whole Dominion thing is over with? You're serious?
>
> The Garak thing is MINOR. Very minor. No major plot elements have
>ever really continued in a realistic fashion in the Trek universe.
No way, Garak is cool!
Seriously -- that Dominion plotline did continue in a realistic way in
House of Quark (the following episode). It was in the background, but it
was definitely there.
>>Yeah, that cloak sure did a lot of good. And I'm sure there wasn't any
>>sort of energy shield. You're not even thinking here -- a good argument
>>could probably be made that they should fear the Federation, but that
>>definitely wasn't it.
>
> Sure it was. First of all: anti-protons detecting cloaked ships?
>Come on. This was ridiculous in the extreme. In any case all they
>need to do is redesign the cloaking device to absorb anti-protons.
>This would take about a day. Call in Geordi and Data and we're
>talking 2-3 hrs max. Energy shield? Never heard of any energy
>shield. Easy way around it though: Make a whole slew of photon
>torpedoes equiped with the phased cloaking device from the Pegasis
>episode. Put proximaty detectors on them and fire them at the core of
>the Founders planet and BOOM! No more Founders. There are a million
>and a half ways to destroy a planet on Trek. It's a good thing the
>Romulans are clueless morons and forgot to continue developing a
>similar technology. They'd have destroyed the Federation long ago.
Hey, dude, it's fiction. Anyway, most of the possibilities you mention
here (in between the odd flames) are the sort of "miracle tech" that don't
seem to appear nearly as much on DS9 as they did on TNG. On TNG, we always
knew Data and Geordi could come up with something miraculous to solve any
problem. One of the great things about DS9 is that they don't magically
win every battle and every conflict. Not even the easy ones.
>>> They sent the Starfuries ahead to investigate and the tachyon
>>>emmissions had died down.
>>
>>Ah, so it's perfectly safe, okay. Kind of like Sinclair and Ivanova somehow
>>knowing that there was only one trap in the cave in that two-parter.
>
> Not really. It was the only area with the dead body of a pirate
>though. Did you want the episode to be a 3 hrs remake of Indiana Jones?
>You don't know there weren't any other traps. They just weren't shown
>on screen.
Plus, Ivanova and Sinclair raced off down the tunnel without checking for
another trap...
> When Seprwitz (sp?) drank again he went ballistic. Also, he is one
>of 2 major characters on an hour long drama. Garibaldi is one of 6
Actually I think all of their characters are as well developed as anybody
on B5 at this point -- including the minor characters.
>major characters on an hour-long drama. Not to mention the fact that
>B5 has to cover alot of territory. There are plot elements which
Yeah this is true. I'll grant you that. I don't think any show currently
on the air is trying to cover as much territory as B5.
>require that less time be spent on characters. You can't very well
>have all sorts of inter-galactic intrigue if you have scenes of
>Garibaldi's alcoholism catching up with him every other episode.
>Think about it. Name a scene that you would have eliminated in order
>to show Garibaldi going to AA or something. As far as Londo acting
Hell, I wouldn't have minded eliminating most of the *episodes* after
Survivors and replacing them with something realistic about Garibaldi
recovering. Those Ivanova scenes in TKO could have been easily cut in half
or in third, for instance.
>like a clown. That's PART of Londo's character. I guess you just
>don't like Londo. I can sympathize with that. This doesn't make his
>character a bad character. You're implying that there is no such
>thing as a person who acts like a clown from time to time. This is
Okay -- I'm still considering the possibility that the show is saying that
Londo is prone to wild mood swings. Mental illness or alien psychology --
I don't know. But I wish the show would give some indication that the
other characters *notice* how strange Londo's mood swings are.
Having a character who is a clown is fine. Having a character who is a clown
one episode and then a realistic multifaceted character the next with no
explanation is a different matter.
>just ridiculous. It's to be expected that Londo is going to exagerate
>from time to time. It's completely consistent with is character.
>
>Example: Londo would never say: "No listen you two."
>
> He would say: "My dear BEAUTIFUL childeren."
>
> Londo would never say: "Mr. Garibaldi I have story to tell you."
>
> He would say: "Mr. Garibaldi. ATTEND!"
Yeah, and I like that side of him, personally. It's when the sole purpose
of his scene seems to be an attempt at humor, and all other aspects of
his personality seem to be hidden to try to make the scene funnier. Like
his scenes in Grail or to a lesser degree those bar scenes with Lennier.
Actually I liked his comedy scenes in Voice, mostly. They seemed more
believable, less arbitrary.
Ted
Ted McCoy
John Benn <be...@server.uwindsor.ca> wrote:
> What your saying doesn't make any sense. You seem to think that in
>a given day a character needs to display every possible part of
>his/her personality or he/she isn't consistently 3D. I don't buy it.
Hmm -- I don't want to see the character acting exactly the same way in
each episode. Unless he's reacting to exactly the same situation in each
episode maybe, but that would be a little dull. Part of what makes 3D
characterizations interesting is watching the subtle changes from
situation to situation.
>G'kar was in the following other episodes:
>
>Born to the Purple. Not a fool at all. Angry at Londo for screwing
>him around.
Okay, maybe. I really don't remember this episode very well, so I'll
assume you're right.
>Parliament of Dreams. Not a fool. He just got caught with his guard
>down. His humerous jaunts in that episode were great.
The big thing I remember about this episode was that scene near the start
where Londo, Vir, and G'kar basically seemed to be impersonating the
three stooges. Maybe if I'd found his humorous jaunts in that episode
more entertaining I'd agree with you. He didn't seem nearly so incompetent
before that episode -- as far as getting caught with his pants down like
that.
>War Prayer. Tried to rally aliens to a common cause. Pretty
>consistent with the Narn wish to further their control over the League
>of Non-Aligned Worlds.
Hmm, I seem to have no memory of these scenes so I'll assume you're right.
>Deathwalker. Acted very intelligently. Tried to secure an
>immortality serum for his people.
Definitely.
>Believers. Acted consistently.
What did he do in Believers anyway?
>Survivors. Tried to save Garibaldi's ass for his own benefit.
G'kar was in Survivors? It's amazing how quickly I'm forgetting some of
these episodes. I went out of the way not to watch the rerun of Survivors
because I found it so thoroughly unentertaining the first time. My loss
maybe.
>By Any Means Necessary. Angry at Londo the whole episode.
You know, for the longest time I had this episode and Survivors combined into
one episode in my memory.
>Signs and Portents. Listened to Morden and was Angry at Londo.
He was a fool, with the opportunity he lost.
>Chrysalis....Excellent. You'll have to see it.
Just a few more days!
> In all of these G'Kar was consistently:
>
>1) Looking for opportunities for the Narn to gain advantage.
>
>2) Angry at Londo.
Okay -- maybe. In the earliest episodes, I thought G'kar seemed a lot more
competent and a lot less of a fool. Actually, a good argument can be made
that his character *is* a fool -- with the high point (low point?) being
when he bungled that opportunity with Morden. So perhaps he has been
consistently portrayed -- without rewatching the episodes I really can't
say for certain. I *do* think he would count as a 2D character, with the
exception of that moment in Mind War and maybe one or two other moments.
Probably the only major 2D character on B5 at this point. I think what
I perceive as inconsistency may just be a result of my initially thinking
he was developing into a more complex character when he really turned out
to be a snarling fool for most of this season. But he's definitely going
to be more in the spotlight in season two, I think, which could be good.
>>Nice of you to ignore Vir. 8-)
>
> He's a minor character. He's only been in about 5 episodes and he
>didn't even save the station once. Even so, I like the character
>because he's still realistic. He's great in Chrysalis too.
I actually liked him in War Prayer. I wouldn't call him realistic -- I'm
not sure if I'd even call him a developed character yet. He's severely
hurt just about every episode he's been in for me, except for War Prayer.
Kind of like Darwin kills any SeaQuest episodes that give him lots of
screen time, for me at least.
>>The Sinclair comment was mostly just idle flamebait anyway...I thought
>>everyone just ignored my Sinclair comments at this point anyway...although,
>>if you think Sinclair is anywhere near as popular as Picard, I think
>>you're mistaken -- especially when you get away from the most diehard
>>fans...
>
> We were talking about the first season. Most critics and fans
>criticized Picard for being a stiff (wooden) grumpy old bald man. I'm
>serious. This was 7 years ago. A lot has changed since then. I
>can't believe that ANYONE would consider TNG:Season1 to ring in
>anywhere near B5:Season1.
A little revisionism, maybe? Go check the reviews. Some of them said he
was miscast (I remember something that said Stewart would have made a
better villain) but nothing that called him wooden. Now, some critics called
the character wooden -- mostly in comparison to Shatner, I think. But I
think most of the critics were delighted with what a great job Stewart did
with the character -- especially considering some of the other acting during
season one (Denise Crosby, Jonathon Frakes etc.). Hell, Picard was probably
the most "wooden" character, and yet Stewart's performance was much less
wooden than either Frakes or Crosby. Or Sirtis. Rewatch season one -- even
in Farpoint, Stewart was superb. It was the rest of the show that was
stumbling. And actually, season one TNG had better music than the last few
seasons have had.
Ted
Alan D. Earhart
> In article <j.s.greenlan...@eee.salford.ac.uk>,
> Jake Sebastian Greenland <j.s.gr...@eee.salford.ac.uk> wrote:
> >>you don't see that guy who won the Emmy on NYPD Blue return to alcoholism
> >>one week and then miraculously seem to be cured the next week. It takes more
> >>time to get over a relapse like that in real life [...]
> >
> >Erm - but it could quite easily be argued that the next episode was a lot
> >longer than a week later. Characters fighting back from alcoholism is
a plot
> >that has been used in many programs over and over - maybe the B5 writers
> >didn't feel the need to do it again.
>
> Good point. The name of the place is _not_ _Larroquette 5_. Sinclair _did_
> say something to Garabaldi about, "the next time you have a problem, don't
> try to handle it alone" (very compassionately). And while those of us who
> are into "melotrauma" and hurt/comfort might _love_ to see Sinclair helping
> Garabaldi through a binge, that's not the show JMS is writing.
I'd also like to point out that JMS has stated that there is alcoholism in
his family. So, although he doesn't have any experience *being* an
alcoholic, he has seen the effects of it *directly*.
I hope I haven't remembered anything incorrectly. My apologies if I have.
Shane Derek Killian
>: Ten ways B5 is better than ST:TNG and ST:DS9
>
>: 10) Telepaths are handled in a rather interesting and somtimes scary way.
>
> I don't think that B5 handles 'em that superbly. Kinda
> childishly if you ask me. Real telepathy is handled well by
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Katherine Kurtz and her _Deryni_ novels.
>
I vowed several months ago never to get involved in these STvsB5 threads,
largely because I'm a big fan of both shows (see? It's not impossible), but
this one I have to respond to:
There's no such *thing* as "real telepathy"!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How can you say
that B handles "real telepathy" better than B, when there's no such thing as
"real telepathy"???
(Sorry, but it's things like this that really get to me)
TheMad...@cup.portal.com
LAURINBURG, NC USA
-----
The above opinions are those only of the poster, and not of Portal
Communications, nor of the students, faculty, Art Department, or Computer
Center of St. Andrews Presbyterian College. Too bad, that.
Shane Derek Killian
>>one above without siting any examples. Elaborate.
>
>Hey, if you think there's an episode that really dealt with the issues of
>telepaths, without just mentioning the issues and brushing them off, post it
>here. No, Quality of Mercy doesn't count.
>
Michael D. Munoz
wrote:
> Ten ways B5 is better than ST:TNG and ST:DS9
>
> 10) Telepaths are handled in a rather interesting and somtimes scary way.
Troi had her mind raped in one episode, incidentally the WHOLE telepath
thing started on ST, who is copying whom
> 9) Fighters do most of the fighting, not just boring slugfests between giant
> cruiser types.
obviously you don't watch ST or DS9, there plenty of scenes with littles
ship doing the fighting if you watch the show with your eyes open.
> 8) Londo, he's downright hilarious!
Londo? he an Idiot.
and there are other funny scenes in ST not that that is what the series is
about: " I protest, I am not a merry man "
> 7) There is a hell of a lot more humor than ST:TNG has, making the sad parts
> easier to get through.
I don't believe that Gene Roddenberry was writing a comedy.
> 6) CGI, IMHO is a lot better than models, and allows them to have a lot more
> ships, and blow up even more without straining too much on the budget.
I admit CGI is cool, which I might add again ST was doing it first, and who
is copying whom?
> 5) The starfury, Earth Alliance's standard fighter. If I could get my hands on
> one of those...
and I wouldn't mind a runabout except my intentions would not be to kill
something, that is another difference between ST and Bab5, we have a thing
called the Prime directive, what does Bab5 have?
> 4) No "It was just a dream" stories unless we are told beforehand in the
> episode.
Do you mean to tell me you need everything spelled out for you?, you don't
have enough brains to figure it out for yourself?
> 3) We are not "the newest bane of ____'s existence." like ST sees 'net freaks,
> In fact the producer of B5, J.Michael Straczynski is on
> rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5, and listens to our input. And we would never do
> anything like posting story ideas or leaking scripts, becaus the JMS would
> have to leave.
Yes there has been some supposed leaks, that in it self is a touchy issue,
but I discount them till I see it on the screen, on the other hand the
producers of ST have enough brains to come up with so many Ideas, that it
has kept us entertained for years without our help for what?... about 25 or
30 years, how long has Bab5 been around.....hmmm?
> 2) "Magic" technology like shields, transporters, replicators, and holodecks
> are VERY hard to believe and IMPOSSIBLE to explain. B5 has only one case of
> that, but it is easy to explain what Jump Gates do.
Get with it, it is *FICTION*, and just because you prefer you Science
Fiction with less fiction so you can understand it easier, doesn't mean I
do, where does Bab5 challenge you imagination?
> 1) ST HAS TECHNOBABBLE!!! GOBS AND GOBS!!!!
> EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEKKKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND HALF THE TIME IT IS THE
> SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM IN THE EPISODES!!!!!!!
Poor simple minded soul, I will give you leadway on this one only cause the
prime directive tells me so.
> --
> -Aaron Hughes, Earth Alliance Aerospace Force Nova Squadron, Captian (special
> operations)
> "That's IT! I'm revoking your buzzing privileges until further notice!" -My
> C.O. , after I followed my battle plan *too* perfectly.
I'm really suprised this even came up, to compare these two series is like
comparing apples and oranges
they each have there flavor, and they appeal to different people in
different ways, how many times do people come to your house and tell you
how to live? I don't know about anyone else but I don't care to see this
ST vs. Bab5 vs. SW vs. Battlestar Galactica vs. whatever CRAP. Maybe every
time I post something to rec.startrek. curent I should start cross
posting to rec.babylon5 too.......Hmmmm.
--
******************************************
" Things are not always what they seem, even if they are"
******************************************
Star Wars, Star Trek, Twilight Zone, Outer Limits, The Prisoner
******************************************
For every action there is an *equal* and *opposite* reaction
******************************************
E.T., CE3C, Indianna Jones, Lost In Space, The Forbidden Planet
******************************************
The opinons above are mine and mine alone, they may *not* be
misconstrude as anyone elses.
******************************************
Babylon 5, Creature Features, and of course Mr.ED "Willllbur"
******************************************
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but FLAMES will never hurt me.
Michael D. Munoz
it.
Michael D. Munoz
> Ten ways B5 is better than ST:TNG and ST:DS9
>
> 10) Telepaths are handled in a rather interesting and somtimes scary way.
This has been addressed in a ST episode where Troi gets her mind raped.
> 9) Fighters do most of the fighting, not just boring slugfests between giant
> cruiser types.
You must have only watched (1) episode, there plenty of ST eps. with small
ship doing the fighting, of course you may have had your eyes closed.
> 8) Londo, he's downright hilarious!
It's so entertaining to watch an Idiot, and it takes a real good actor to
be an Idiot.
> 7) There is a hell of a lot more humor than ST:TNG has, making the sad parts
> easier to get through.
I don't think ST was made to make people laugh, though there are some funny
scenes, does this mean Bab5 is a joke.
> 6) CGI, IMHO is a lot better than models, and allows them to have a lot more
> ships, and blow up even more without straining too much on the budget.
I admit CGI is cool, and there has been quite a bit of CGI in ST too, as a
matter of fact they did it before
Bab5 did, so who is copying whom.
> 5) The starfury, Earth Alliance's standard fighter. If I could get my hands on
> one of those...
and I wouldn't mind a runabout, but my intensions would not be to kill some
thing, that's a big difference between ST and Bab5, does Bab5 have a prime
directive hmmmm?
> 4) No "It was just a dream" stories unless we are told beforehand in the
> episode.
are such an infant that you need everything told to you ahead of time?,
don't you have a brain to figure it
out for yourself?, *THAT* is another difference between ST and Bab5.
> 3) We are not "the newest bane of ____'s existence." like ST sees 'net freaks,
> In fact the producer of B5, J.Michael Straczynski is on
> rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5, and listens to our input. And we would never do
> anything like posting story ideas or leaking scripts, becaus the JMS would
> have to leave.
The script issue is touchy one, there have been suposed scripts leaked but
anyone can write a script and say it was for ST, I discount these until I
see it on the screen (TV or motion picture) , yes the two series and there
fans are defenatly different, but *I* would never say one is better, you
tell me is an Orange better than an Apple?
> 2) "Magic" technology like shields, transporters, replicators, and holodecks
> are VERY hard to believe and IMPOSSIBLE to explain. B5 has only one case of
> that, but it is easy to explain what Jump Gates do.
Get with it , this is *FICTION* not real life, and just because *YOU*
prefer you Science Fiction with less fiction, I do not, and just when was
the last time us ST fans cames over to your Bab5 group to tell you how
much better *OUR* series was?
> 1) ST HAS TECHNOBABBLE!!! GOBS AND GOBS!!!!
> EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEKKKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND HALF THE TIME IT IS THE
> SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM IN THE EPISODES!!!!!!!
Poor simple minded soul, I'll give you some lead way on this one, only
because the prime directive tells me so.
I'm really suprise that this issue even came up, to compare ST with Bab5,
is like comparing apples with oranges, if the two were the same especially
since Bab5 came after ST, it would be said that Bab5 was copying ST, it
could not have been the same, it HAD to be different, they each have there
flavors for different people, it is disapointing to me to this ST vs. SW
vs. Bab5 vs. Battle Star Galactica vs. whatever
garbage, if *YOU* don't like it DON'T WATCH IT!, and keep the Bab5 and
others CRAP out the STAR TREK
Group, I don't come to your house and tell YOU how to live.
Franklin Hummel
>>Let me be more explicit: you don't see that guy who won the Emmy on NYPD
>>Blue
>>return to alcoholism one week and then miraculously seem to be cured the next
>>week. It takes more time to get over a relapse like that in real life, and
>>it takes more time on NYPD Blue. And his relapse wasn't nearly as bad as
>>Garibaldi's.
This is not true. Different alcoholics drink and have relapses
in different ways. Some may not drink for months or years, have a one-
or two-day relapse, then again not drink for months or years, if ever
again. I -know- this because I live with such an alcoholic person.
Garibaldi's alcoholism has been dealt with continuely through
the series in various scenes where he has been shown at a bar on
Babylon 5 drinking water. For many recovering alcoholics, this does
show the -reality- of their everyday lives. Often it is the day to
day struggles which are the most important and with Garibaldi, BABYLON
5 has done a good job of this.
-- Frank Hummel [ Internet: hum...@mit.edu - GEnie: F.HUMMEL ]
jere7my tho?rpe
crossposting this top 10 to both groups was asking for trouble, but I
would like to respond to a couple of things here:
In article <michael_munoz...@m21101.svl.trw.com>,
michae...@smtp.svl.trw.com (Michael D. Munoz) wrote:
*In article <Cxx36...@rci.ripco.com>, awi...@ripco.com (Aaron Hughes)
*wrote:
*> 10) Telepaths are handled in a rather interesting and somtimes scary way.
*
*Troi had her mind raped in one episode, incidentally the WHOLE telepath
*thing started on ST, who is copying whom
Ummm...I think, if you check, the "whole telepath thing" has been
around a LOT longer than B5 or TNG--read Alfred Bester, for starters. And
B5 is delving into the effect of telepaths on the legal system,
government, privacy, law enforcement, whereas TNG (with some exceptions)
seems to use them as a plot device, with inconsistent powers. ("Betazoids
can't scan Ferengi." "The Ferengi is feeling aggression, captain...")
*> 8) Londo, he's downright hilarious!
*
*Londo? he an Idiot.
That is what many of my friends thought at first as well, but if you
watch closely, you'll see that he is really a very tragic character, who
has a comic mask that he wears in public. (E.g. "Born to the Purple.")
The tragic side will, I believe, become more apparent in future episodes.
He's really quite an interesting character, and certainly not an idiot.
Sometimes a buffoon, but not always, and never an idiot.
"My shoes are too tight...but it doesn't matter, because I have
forgotten how to dance." This is not a buffoonish or idiotic line.
* and there are other funny scenes in ST not that that is what the series is
*about: " I protest, I am not a merry man "
*
*> 7) There is a hell of a lot more humor than ST:TNG has, making the sad parts
*> easier to get through.
*
*I don't believe that Gene Roddenberry was writing a comedy.
No, of course not, but it does often seem that Picard, et al. have (to
be blunt) frozen umbrellas up their respective asses, and the show tends
to take itself fairly seriously. On B5, people seem looser, and they're
not afraid to make occasional "in" jokes.
*> 6) CGI, IMHO is a lot better than models, and allows them to have a lot more
*> ships, and blow up even more without straining too much on the budget.
*
*I admit CGI is cool, which I might add again ST was doing it first, and who
*is copying whom?
Hmmm...I don't recall ST using CGI more than occasionally, and
certainly not for their ships...I could be wrong on this one. Anyway,
using an existing technology is not "copying" another show--was ST:TOS
copying "Lost in Space" by using models?
*and I wouldn't mind a runabout except my intentions would not be to kill
*something, that is another difference between ST and Bab5, we have a thing
*called the Prime directive, what does Bab5 have?
Well, the _Federation_ has a thing called the Prime Directive.
Romulans, the Borg, etc. have different rules. The proper question is,
what does the Earth Alliance have? And the answer is: not much. They go
in and "discover" bronze-tech worlds, who "happen" to have resources
useful to the EA. They're two different visions: the ST government is
usually benificent and fair, while the B5 government is often corrupt and
becoming more so. Both visions are acceptable in SF.
*> 4) No "It was just a dream" stories unless we are told beforehand in the
*> episode.
*
*Do you mean to tell me you need everything spelled out for you?, you don't
*have enough brains to figure it out for yourself?
Judging by the intense storyline speculation on this board, I should
say not. It's just that many people (even those on
rec.arts.startrek.current) felt cheated by DS9's "Search, Part II,"
because a lot of cool stuff was set up, only to have us find out later
that it never really happened. JMS has promised not to do that to the B5
viewers.
*producers of ST have enough brains to come up with so many Ideas, that it
*has kept us entertained for years without our help for what?... about 25 or
*30 years, how long has Bab5 been around.....hmmm?
Paramount accepts many many ideas from fans and freelance writers.
Rick Berman and Michael Piller don't come up with all the stories
themselves--they accept script/idea submissions from outside writers, and
(allegedly) folks at Paramount scan fanzines and the nets for ideas. Btw,
the reason often given (by Berman and Piller) for the cancellation of
ST:TNG was that they had "run out of ideas."
Anyway, saying they have kept us entertained for 25 years (this year is
the ST 25th anniversary) is misleading--there was a fifteen-year gap
between TOS and TNG, filled only by four or so movies. They've been
keeping us entertained for more like ten years, where "they" is an immense
list of actors, writers, directors, and producers. In the one year
they've had, B5 has kept me, at least, entertained far more than the first
season of TNG did.
*> 2) "Magic" technology like shields, transporters, replicators, and holodecks
*> are VERY hard to believe and IMPOSSIBLE to explain. B5 has only one case of
*> that, but it is easy to explain what Jump Gates do.
*
*Get with it, it is *FICTION*, and just because you prefer you Science
*Fiction with less fiction so you can understand it easier, doesn't mean I
*do, where does Bab5 challenge you imagination?
First of all, B5 has plenty of fiction distinct from its science: watch
"Believers," "By Any Means Necessary," the Ivanova subplot of "TKO," etc.
As for imagination challenging, try watching "Babylon Squared," "Signs and
Portents," "Deathwalker," "Believers," "And the Sky Full of Stars,"
"Chrysalis" (probably), which is on next week...
Second, it is not so much that Star Trek has "magic" tech like
transporters and replicators; that has a precedent in written SF, and only
bothers folks who like hard SF. It is more that they are inconsistent
with their usage. What effect do replicators have on the economy? If
they can clone people using the transporter, why not just revive Tasha Yar
after she was killed like they did with Picard when he beamed himself into
space? Why can Troi scan Ferengi in one episode and not the next? Why do
we never again see these great discoveries Geordi comes up with? I like
hard SF, fantasy, and everything in between, but inconsistency in any of
them bugs me.
*I'm really suprised this even came up, to compare these two series is like
*comparing apples and oranges
*they each have there flavor, and they appeal to different people in
*different ways....
This is true--as I stated above, comparing the two shows accomplishes
little except annoying people. In our defense, though, B5 fans are often
a bit defensive about "their" show, since Star Trek gets all the press,
has an established fan community (who have a reputation for badmouthing
B5), gets the peachy timeslots, etc., while B5 is the new kid on the
block, and has had to weather a vast amount of (unwarranted) negative
press. This, I think, is the source for much of the "B5 is better than
Trek!" stuff that we see. Me, I like B5, TNG, and DS9, and watch them
all. I prefer B5, but that's as maybe.
----jere7my "Now with a .sig!" tho?rpe
*************************************************************
jere7my tho?rpe "Last time to make plans!
Physicist and Artist Guy Well I'm a tumbler;
jtho...@cc.swarthmore.edu I'm a government man."
(610) 690-4428 ----Talking Heads
The_Doge
a fair viewing. But my expectations are different for the product of that
shop.
*******************************************************************************
* The_Doge of South St. Louis | clav...@nyx.cs.du.edu *
* Dobbs-Approved Media Conspirator(tm)|"One Step Beyond"-Sundays 3 pm, 88.1 FM*
*******************************************************************************
Ted McCoy
jere7my tho?rpe <jtho...@cc.swarthmore.edu> wrote:
>*> 10) Telepaths are handled in a rather interesting and somtimes scary way.
>*
>*Troi had her mind raped in one episode, incidentally the WHOLE telepath
>*thing started on ST, who is copying whom
>
> Ummm...I think, if you check, the "whole telepath thing" has been
>around a LOT longer than B5 or TNG--read Alfred Bester, for starters. And
>B5 is delving into the effect of telepaths on the legal system,
>government, privacy, law enforcement, whereas TNG (with some exceptions)
>seems to use them as a plot device, with inconsistent powers. ("Betazoids
>can't scan Ferengi." "The Ferengi is feeling aggression, captain...")
I just started reading some of those great Bester stories this summer. It's
nice to see "this whole telepath thing" done right for a change.
B5 may eventually deal with the deeper issues related to telepathy in a mature
and realistic manner, but so far its handling of this has been a little
superficial. Better than TNG or SeaQuest but still pretty bad.
>*> 8) Londo, he's downright hilarious!
>*
>*Londo? he an Idiot.
>
> That is what many of my friends thought at first as well, but if you
>watch closely, you'll see that he is really a very tragic character, who
>has a comic mask that he wears in public. (E.g. "Born to the Purple.")
>The tragic side will, I believe, become more apparent in future episodes.
>He's really quite an interesting character, and certainly not an idiot.
>Sometimes a buffoon, but not always, and never an idiot.
Part of the problem here is that this show's idea of a multi-faceted character,
at least as far as Londo and G'kar go, is to show one facet one week, another
the next week, and so on, instead of showing a realistic multi-faceted
character all at once. But maybe this will improve
I thought Londo's tragic side was really fascinating and compelling early on.
And his dark side too. But, he's had so many really awful comic relief
episodes that it's going to take quite a bit for me to be able to take his
character seriously again. Same with G'kar, although to a lesser degree.
> "My shoes are too tight...but it doesn't matter, because I have
>forgotten how to dance." This is not a buffoonish or idiotic line.
I only wish he had more lines like that.
>*> 7) There is a hell of a lot more humor than ST:TNG has, making the sad parts
>*> easier to get through.
>*
>*I don't believe that Gene Roddenberry was writing a comedy.
>
> No, of course not, but it does often seem that Picard, et al. have (to
>be blunt) frozen umbrellas up their respective asses, and the show tends
>to take itself fairly seriously. On B5, people seem looser, and they're
>not afraid to make occasional "in" jokes.
Sometimes the humor on B5 gets carried to the degree that things start to seem
corny and kind of campy. Not that this is a bad thing -- the original Trek
did the same thing. And personally I'm glad that this season's SeaQuest
has finally learned to take itself less seriously. Anyway, I think the
atmosphere of B5 sometimes reminds me more of TOS than TNG. And I say this
without meaning it as an insult to either B5 or TNG.
>*producers of ST have enough brains to come up with so many Ideas, that it
>*has kept us entertained for years without our help for what?... about 25 or
>*30 years, how long has Bab5 been around.....hmmm?
>
> Paramount accepts many many ideas from fans and freelance writers.
>Rick Berman and Michael Piller don't come up with all the stories
>themselves--they accept script/idea submissions from outside writers, and
>(allegedly) folks at Paramount scan fanzines and the nets for ideas. Btw,
>the reason often given (by Berman and Piller) for the cancellation of
>ST:TNG was that they had "run out of ideas."
Kind of makes you wonder why they're making movies if they're out of ideas.
> Anyway, saying they have kept us entertained for 25 years (this year is
>the ST 25th anniversary) is misleading--there was a fifteen-year gap
>between TOS and TNG, filled only by four or so movies. They've been
>keeping us entertained for more like ten years, where "they" is an immense
>list of actors, writers, directors, and producers. In the one year
>they've had, B5 has kept me, at least, entertained far more than the first
>season of TNG did.
I think I found B5's first season roughly equally entertaining as TNG's
first season, personally. They both beat SeaQuest's first season, for me at
least.
Ted