18 Reasons Why Babylon 5 Is Better Than Startrek
David J. Koistinen
18 Reasons Why Babylon 5 is Better Than Star Trek.
Babylon 5 has ...
1. No Vulcans/androids/Shapeshifters/holograms trying to be human.
2. No technobabble.
3. No [preposterous] high tech solutions to every imaginable problem.
4. No multiculturalism run amok.
5. No cheesy holodeck plots.
6. No one on Star Trek ever gets laid.
7. On Babylon 5, as in real life, there is evil, scheming, and lust for
power, not just unfortunate misunderstandings.
8. Babylon 5 has characters like Garibaldi with unclear motives, shady
pasts, orneriness and independence; they're not all goody-goodies who
went to the Star Academy like on Star Trek. Case in point, the
telepaths: Talia Winters is much more interesting than Diana Troy.
9. There is actual politics within the human federation on Bablyon 5 (the
assassinated president, the rogue Bureau 13, Psi Corps), not just an
anonymous Supreme Council that issues benign edicts everyone agrees to.
10. The Earth Federation on Babylon 5 has a plausible mission -- trading,
exploring, staying out war. They're not out on some totally unrealistic,
altruistic crusade to bring love to the entire universe.
11. The characters on Babylon 5 develop over time; they're not cardboard
cutouts with fixed characteristics as on Star Trek.
12. Babylon 5 doesn't keep recycling the same plots. (How many
variations of the
Star-Trek-crew-encounters-new-life-form-inadvertantly-hurts-it-and-then-endeavors-to-reach-an-understanding plot do we have to sit through?)
13. Babylon 5 has better special effects.
14. Babylon 5 has an exciting, suspenseful master plot, not just little
situations that get resolved in an hour's episode like on Star Trek.
15. People on Star Treck drink "synthohol," people on Babylon 5 drink
good old-fashioned booze.
16. Ensign Wesley Crusher.
17. Whoopi Goldberg.
18. Q.
J. F. Goodwin
I thought we had seen the last of this kind of posting... why can't we
just get along? Babylon 5 - a fine show. Star Trek - a fine show.
Why do people continue in trying to decimate one or the other? Lord knows
there aren't many great SF shows - if you dislike one just grin and bear
it. This kind of posting gets us nowhere except causes a long thread
of people agreeing/disagreeing on personal viewpoints.
Flaming heck.
- Joel G.
Cal Jacobson
don't you?
Moron.
--
CJ (who tends to watch more B5 than Trek, but doesn't pick fights about it)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The opinions expressed above are mine and probably not my employer's.
Live with it.
<http://www.mystech.com/~jake>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hillman
1 None of the sets in STAR TREK are made from CARDBOARD.
2 Guinan (Whoopi Goldberg)
3 There is much more of a library of TREK to watch, BABS is only one show.
More reasons later.......
Markus.
A. Ford
(Mark Hillman) wrote:
Yes, but, the discussions in the Star Trek groups cover more than drooling
over the producer.
Or insulting people who dare to disagree with or question the producer.
The producer doesn't insult (and I mean insult) posters who disagree with him.
Everybody doesn't hate everybody at the same time.
Every government isn't corrupt at the same time.
Star Trek doesn't get rid of good actors to hire gimps.
The Star Trek universe is more optimistic and fun.
The Star Trek fans are more open-minded and civil. B5 fans (at least on
the net) are, let's say, mean-spirited.
Eggplant
I was going to post a response and rebuttal to each of these points, but
it really isn't worth it. We need some new group for the shows to flame
each other to get it off of our discussion groups.
von Sydow@shsu.edu Count von Sydow
have one. But you see, I'm not in the mood for this now so why don't
you post it to the Babylon 5 newsgroup. I like B5 just as much as you
seem to, but I'm not going to start a war about it.
Ashley Edward Miller
> 3 Reasons why TREK is better than BABS
>
> 1 None of the sets in STAR TREK are made from CARDBOARD.
>
> 2 Guinan (Whoopi Goldberg)
>
> 3 There is much more of a library of TREK to watch, BABS is only one show.
>
>
> More reasons later.......
>
> Markus.
>
>
I'll add some for you:
4. MUCH BETTER special FX. (That cheesy CGI crap gets old
quick)
5. Writing (little things like "dialogue" and "character")
6. Better production values
7. Intelligence
8. An optimistic vision of the future that gives thinking
people and feeling people something to believe in and look
forward to
9. Emotional depth
10. Acting. (I'll say it louder) ACTING!
Any more reasons out there? I don't want to hog them all.
Oh, yeah, I can't resist:
11. Star Trek has *interesting* ship/station designs (Babylon
station...UGH)
>:)
Hey, wait a sec...this isn't a B5 group! Get off our net,
Butthead.
Trevor Bradley
>No.. No.. NOOOO!
It almost looks like it's time for:
alt.b5.is.better.than.trek.is.not.is.too.is.not
so that we may have our respective quiet.
By the way..... is too. :)
Actually, there is a valid reason for some of the militant B5 fanatics
to attempt to subvert Trek fans. B5's ratings are low comapred to
ST, and the show's renewal for 3rd season has come into question.
Getting more fans for the show will promote renewal. It looks now
like B5 will be renewed, but that's not been officially confirmed.
(Trust me, that strong militant following will scream bloody murder if
the show does get cancelled!)
I would postulate (and this is only my opinion) that the reason DS9
has appeared to improve of late is because of the competition of B5.
(Maybe they're trying to lure me into watching DS9 again :) So take
heart in the possibility that B5's sucsess can only lead to DS9's
improvement.
(Unless of course, you like it when the episode ends and nothing has
actually happened...)
So everybody keep an open mind, a cool head, and place those flame
throwers on the floor and nobody will get hurt...
--
Trevor Bradley (tbra...@sfu.ca)
Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, CANADA!
WWW URL: http://www-bprc.mps.ohio-state.edu/cgi-bin/hpp/tbradley.html
ujwga...@cc.memphis.edu
> smrg...@reading.ac.uk (J. F. Goodwin) writes:
>
>>I thought we had seen the last of this kind of posting... why can't we
>>just get along? Babylon 5 - a fine show. Star Trek - a fine show.
We should just get along. Neither show is necessarily better than the
other, but the most important thing is that at least we have variety
in our sf.
>
>>Why do people continue in trying to decimate one or the other? Lord knows
>>there aren't many great SF shows - if you dislike one just grin and bear
>>it. This kind of posting gets us nowhere except causes a long thread
>>of people agreeing/disagreeing on personal viewpoints.
Exactly. And both shows are great - different, but great.
I am not overly thrilled with ST:V (so far), but it beats the hell out of the
rest of the crap that is being pawned of as entertainment, and i will
continue to watch it and support it (ST:V, that is), and call it a great
show, good sci-fi.
>
> I would postulate (and this is only my opinion) that the reason DS9
> has appeared to improve of late is because of the competition of B5.
Friendly competition will make both shows/universes better and, hopefully
keep both of them running for years to come.
> So everybody keep an open mind, a cool head, and place those flame
> throwers on the floor and nobody will get hurt...
And maybe support the other show (with an open mind, cool head) and keep
the sci-fi alive in its many incarnations and let variety prevent the
world from being a dull place.
>
> --
> Trevor Bradley (tbra...@sfu.ca)
A most excellent & wise post Mr Bradley. Thanks.
****************************************************************************
Joseph Galluzzi | * When everything is coming
Geological Sciences| (901) 678 HELL (GRAD/UG) * your way, you are probably
Univ of Memphis | ujwga...@cc.memphis.edu * in the wrong lane.
****************************************************************************
William H. Binder
: to attempt to subvert Trek fans. B5's ratings are low comapred to
: ST, and the show's renewal for 3rd season has come into question.
: Getting more fans for the show will promote renewal. It looks now
: like B5 will be renewed, but that's not been officially confirmed.
: (Trust me, that strong militant following will scream bloody murder if
: the show does get cancelled!)
You know none of us really mind B5, it's a good show and I watch it. But
if people want Star Trek fans to watch B5, they should say, "Hey B5 is
cool, watch it." Not "Star Trek Sucks! Watch B5 instead.", especially in a
Trek newsgroup. I mean how many people are going to say. "Gee, I've loved
Trek for years, but this guy says it sucks so he must be right!"? B5 and
Trek aren't enemies, I think they can add to each others success. If we
accept that putting down peoples interests doesn't change their mind.
Short Version: Never run into the Smuckers company and yell, "Jelly is
horrible! Eat Peanut Butter instead." Get my point?
--
Bill Binder
whbi...@mtu.edu "I WAS ON THE BRIDGE!"
http://www.geo.mtu.edu/civil/ppages/whbinder/home.html
WayneHall
1. There are many B5 boards this would be much more greatly appreciated
on!
Commander Wayne
TGFDS9
John J. Park
>> 3 There is much more of a library of TREK to watch, BABS is only one show.
>>
Ah, majority rules? Or superiority by numbers.
>4. MUCH BETTER special FX. (That cheesy CGI crap gets old
>quick)
Yeeeeah, roight.
>5. Writing (little things like "dialogue" and "character")
Uh huh, I certainly dont believe either show is superior to the other by much.
>7. Intelligence
God now thats insulting. EIther for the writers, actors, or audience.
>8. An optimistic vision of the future that gives thinking
>people and feeling people something to believe in and look
>forward to
Fine, but nor like EVERY EPISODE! J M Strazynski (now I dont think I spelled
that quite right) the writer of Bab5 has said that in the end the show will
have an optimistic message.
>9. Emotional depth
Insulting.
>10. Acting. (I'll say it louder) ACTING!
Second season Bab5 vs star trek the original, or 2nd season of STTNG.
>11. Star Trek has *interesting* ship/station designs (Babylon
>station...UGH)
Have you seen KOSH's ship???
>Hey, wait a sec...this isn't a B5 group! Get off our net,
>Butthead.
Oh! I didnt realize who was posting sorry. Oh well. :)
All in all I think I like Voyager/DS9 over B5 by a small margin. The main
diffrence seems to be that Babylon 5 is a multiyear novel, while star treks
are single day novellettes. DS9 and Voyager are getting better (longer
stories, more continuity) now, although it seemed B5 lead the way.
--
John J Park
jpa...@uiuc.edu
http://www.cen.uiuc.edu/~jp7860/one.html
You can use logic to justify anything, thats its power... and its flaw.
David Veal
John J. Park <jpa...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>ami...@pen.k12.va.us (Ashley Edward Miller) writes:
>
>>> 3 There is much more of a library of TREK to watch, BABS is only one show.
>>>
>Ah, majority rules? Or superiority by numbers.
If volume is important, shouldn't we all be watching Gunsmoke?
>>4. MUCH BETTER special FX. (That cheesy CGI crap gets old
>>quick)
>
>Yeeeeah, roight.
Personally I like models better. But computer graphics are
cheaper, and if cheaper means more varied special effects shots
that's a reasonable trade-off.
In any case I'm willing to forgive almost any cheesy special
effects for an entertaining story or engaging, interesting characters.
Preferably both. I was too young to watch Star Trek's first run, and
by the time I was old enough to care there were things like Star Wars
around whose special effects blew the original series away. But that
isn't the point, because I think most of the original series is fun
even with low-budget special effects. Maybe because of it.
Special effects are gravy. Nice to have but they should
come after more important considerations.
>>5. Writing (little things like "dialogue" and "character")
>
>Uh huh, I certainly dont believe either show is superior to the other by much.
TNG usually made me cringe. DS9 is often wonderful, especially
the writing for Bashir, O'Brian, and Garak. Voyager has been a consistant
blast with characterization. Babylon 5 has had a bad corniness problem
a number of occasions. All of these shows have strengths.
>>8. An optimistic vision of the future that gives thinking
>>people and feeling people something to believe in and look
>>forward to
>
>Fine, but nor like EVERY EPISODE! J M Strazynski (now I dont think I spelled
>that quite right) the writer of Bab5 has said that in the end the show will
>have an optimistic message.
What's an optimistic future? One in which people struggle and
suceed or one in which no struggle is necessary? Gene Roddenberry's
vision is often entertaining but it plays some games with basic human
nature.
What makes an action/adventure show entertaining is to see
characters triumph over adversity, whether it is social, political,
physical, mental, whatever. Draw a too-perfect vision of the future
and the source of those conflicts begins to look contrived. Consider
in Star Trek how rarely Starfleet Command lives up to the ideals
Captain Kirk and Captain Picard said they stood for. People aren't
perfect, and if you design a perfect world you have to have *something*
to create conflict, and often in Star Trek that source comes off as
unbelievable.
And look at the Romulans, Klingons, Cardassians, etc. and
ask yourself how positive a future you're looking at if *every*
significiant alien species wants to grind us into powder.
>>11. Star Trek has *interesting* ship/station designs (Babylon
>>station...UGH)
>
>Have you seen KOSH's ship???
Well, you gotta give Babylon 5 at least that things don't float
away when the power goes out. :-)
--
----------------------------------------------------------
David Veal UTK Division of Continuing Education
ve...@web.ce.utk.edu / ve...@gateway.ce.utk.edu
"Human beings are not dandelions." - Dr. Micheal Booker
Mr M S Woodward
"David J. Koistinen" <koi...@minerva.cis.yale.edu> writes:
Firstly I would like to say that I do actually like B5, but could
not resist answering this post.
>18 Reasons Why Babylon 5 is Better Than Star Trek.
>
>
>Babylon 5 has ...
>
>1. No Vulcans/androids/Shapeshifters/holograms trying to be human.
>
>2. No technobabble.
When the ships have grapling arms to catch other I would like to see
the writers use technobabble.
>3. No [preposterous] high tech solutions to every imaginable problem.
No they just shoot everything.
>4. No multiculturalism run amok.
>
>5. No cheesy holodeck plots.
Just cheesy plots.
>6. No one on Star Trek ever gets laid.
'Boom shala, boom shala.' Need I say more.
>7. On Babylon 5, as in real life, there is evil, scheming, and lust for
>power, not just unfortunate misunderstandings.
>
>8. Babylon 5 has characters like Garibaldi with unclear motives, shady
>pasts, orneriness and independence; they're not all goody-goodies who
>went to the Star Academy like on Star Trek. Case in point, the
>telepaths: Talia Winters is much more interesting than Diana Troy.
i) Talia only appears when CRUCIAL to the story (ie. not much).
ii) It is Deanna Troi (I HATE that spellling mistake!)
>9. There is actual politics within the human federation on Bablyon 5 (the
>assassinated president, the rogue Bureau 13, Psi Corps), not just an
>anonymous Supreme Council that issues benign edicts everyone agrees to.
>
>10. The Earth Federation on Babylon 5 has a plausible mission -- trading,
>exploring, staying out war. They're not out on some totally unrealistic,
>altruistic crusade to bring love to the entire universe.
Apart from the trading (which is rather redundant on the Ent-D), Starfleet
carries out both the other things mentioned.
>11. The characters on Babylon 5 develop over time; they're not cardboard
>cutouts with fixed characteristics as on Star Trek.
Develop and are then shipped off.
>12. Babylon 5 doesn't keep recycling the same plots. (How many
>variations of the
>Star-Trek-crew-encounters-new-life-form-inadvertantly-hurts-it-and-then-endeavors-to-reach-an-understanding plot do we have to sit through?)
No they just recycle other series plots.
>13. Babylon 5 has better special effects.
No comment.
>14. Babylon 5 has an exciting, suspenseful master plot, not just little
>situations that get resolved in an hour's episode like on Star Trek.
You have obviously not been watching DS9 very much recently.
>15. People on Star Treck drink "synthohol," people on Babylon 5 drink
>good old-fashioned booze.
Or water.
>16. Ensign Wesley Crusher.
Doctor in Pilot Episode ("pretty thick stuff" and that was just his acting)
>17. Whoopi Goldberg.
Nameless barwoman every other episode
>18. Q.
You heretic!
That was fun. See you again.
__|__
/ | \ Mark Woodward (aka Wood Mahark)
| | | University of Warwick
| [|] | President - Warwick Star Trek
| _|_ | ms...@warwick.ac.uk
| / \ |
\\___// 'May the Prophets Walk with Us'
Brent M Ryan
: 13. Babylon 5 has better special effects.
Babylong 5's special effects are created with computer animation.
Star Trek uses little computer animation and more modeling(or what
ever its called). So your statement doesn't make sense.
:
: 14. Babylon 5 has an exciting, suspenseful master plot, not just little
: situations that get resolved in an hour's episode like on Star Trek.
:
Oh, I didn't know that Voyager had already gottne back to
Federation space. How`d it happen?
: 15. People on Star Treck drink "synthohol," people on Babylon 5 drink
: good old-fashioned booze.
:
That's what happens when you depend on a replicator.
: 16. Ensign Wesley Crusher.
:
I agree he is a wimp.
: 17. Whoopi Goldberg.
:
Cool character.
: 18. Q.
:
Cool character.
Sir Lancelot,
Dave......
>
>
>
>
>
>18 Reasons Why Babylon 5 is Better Than Star Trek.
>
>
>Babylon 5 has ...
>4. No multiculturalism run amok.
>
Unfortunately, I can't seem to find a network station that caries B5, but
I just thought that I'd comment on this one point. Multiculturalism in
Trek? What? Sure, Voy and TOS both had a pretty nice racial mix, but I
have yet to see a ST show where there was a nice cultural mix. Geordie
was black, but did he ever show any indication of a black culture?
Don't flame, you know what I mean. If you take white kids my age and
compare them with black kids my age, you will probably find that the
two groups have tastes in music that are quite a bit different. The
two groups use different slang, and even have different accents.
There's nothing wrong with this at all. I'm just saying that there are
cultural differences present. Diversity is a GOOD thing. I'm assuming
that Geordie was "African American" [that's in quotes because I don't
know if that term applies in united 24th century Earth]. African
Americans have a culture with different aspects than white culture. Any
fool could see that. And yet, these cultural differences are nowhere to
be seen in Trek. What kind of music does Geordie listen to? Classical
music from 18th and 19th century Europe (or maybe a little guitar). Does
he speak with even the slightest trace of an accent or does he use any
slang that Picard, a Frenchman, doesn't? Does he show ANY signs that
he might come from a culture that wasn't exactly the same as Riker's
or Picard's? No. And neither does Sulu, Uhura, Kim, or any other
character that might realistically have different cultural elements. ST
does a good job portraying equality, but a rather poor job at portraying
diversity. What we see are people who all come from the same culture,
unless they are aliens, or Native Americans, the only ethnic group that
seems to be portrayed as different than typical white culture (nothing
like getting a subplot out of an animal guide :\ ).
That's hardly multiculturalism.
Dave....who has the feeling that he's gotten himself into something that
could result in many, many flames. Race is always a dangerous thing to
discuss, it seems.
Ted McCoy
David J. Koistinen <koi...@minerva.cis.yale.edu> wrote:
>18 Reasons Why Babylon 5 is Better Than Star Trek.
>
>Babylon 5 has ...
>
Except they get to reuse those same storylines in the Delenn-learns-what-it-
means-to-be-human subplots. (Some of those Delenn subplots have been getting
*really* awful lately. And she used to be such an interesting character.)
>2. No technobabble.
Agreed. (Well, there's a little, but it's generally not a problem.)
>3. No [preposterous] high tech solutions to every imaginable problem.
They don't need goofy high tech solutions because
a) They have all those goofy psi-power solutions
b) The ambassadors can always be dragged in to resolve problems (Kosh in
hiding that fugitive, Delenn in hunting down the ship that kidnaps
Sheridan, etc.)
c) B5 villains are clueless enough that imaginative solutions usually aren't
necessary.
>4. No multiculturalism run amok.
??
>5. No cheesy holodeck plots.
That's right, B5 avoids Trek's cheesy holodeck plots -- but it also avoids
the good one. The holodeck can be a useful tool for characterization when
used right -- or an awful tool to set up silly plots when used wrong.
(On the other hand, at least Trek doesn't have kickboxing episodes.)
>6. No one on Star Trek ever gets laid.
;-) You missed a few episodes...
>7. On Babylon 5, as in real life, there is evil, scheming, and lust for
>power, not just unfortunate misunderstandings.
Sounds like DS9.
>8. Babylon 5 has characters like Garibaldi with unclear motives, shady
>pasts, orneriness and independence; they're not all goody-goodies who
>went to the Star Academy like on Star Trek. Case in point, the
>telepaths: Talia Winters is much more interesting than Diana Troy.
Sounds like DS9. Or even a lot of the characters of Voyager.
I find Talia Winters and Diana Troy to be equally uninteresting, by the way.
At least Diana Troy wasn't a major plot focus the way Talia seems to be.
I guess I prefered Trek's telepathy episodes over B5's, because Trek's
were easier to ignore.
>9. There is actual politics within the human federation on Bablyon 5 (the
>assassinated president, the rogue Bureau 13, Psi Corps), not just an
>anonymous Supreme Council that issues benign edicts everyone agrees to.
Now, that's *exactly* like DS9. The politics on DS9 are much more fully
fleshed out than those on B5. (Not a fair comparison, of course.)
>10. The Earth Federation on Babylon 5 has a plausible mission -- trading,
>exploring, staying out war. They're not out on some totally unrealistic,
>altruistic crusade to bring love to the entire universe.
(B5's mission is exploring? Since when?)
Babylon 5 does seem interested in bringing peace to the entire universe,
actually. Some of Sinclair's dialogue was surprisingly explicit about this.
>11. The characters on Babylon 5 develop over time; they're not cardboard
>cutouts with fixed characteristics as on Star Trek.
Come on, it's not like the character evolution for Worf or Data was all that
subtle. And there was other character evolution to (Picard, Riker, Wesley)
if you looked for it. I'll agree that B5 has been much more consistent
about this then Trek, though.
>12. Babylon 5 doesn't keep recycling the same plots. (How many
>variations of the
>Star-Trek-crew-encounters-new-life-form-inadvertantly-hurts-it-and-then-endeavors-to-reach-an-understanding plot do we have to sit through?)
Yeah, here I'll agree. B5 plots haven't been nearly as original as I would've
liked, but at least it's avoided some of the more overused cliches.
>13. Babylon 5 has better special effects.
Many of us still prefer models (although I'm warming to cgi). As far as cgi
go, Voyager has B5 beat.
>14. Babylon 5 has an exciting, suspenseful master plot, not just little
>situations that get resolved in an hour's episode like on Star Trek.
Trek has had story arcs too -- the Borg, Guinan's past, Klingon politics,
return of the Romulans, the Maquis, the appearance of the Dominion...
Agreed that B5 has been more consistent in its use of story arcs than Trek,
though.
>15. People on Star Treck drink "synthohol," people on Babylon 5 drink
>good old-fashioned booze.
Heh. Beer is cool.
>16. Ensign Wesley Crusher.
Sure, and B5 has Vir. Your point?
>17. Whoopi Goldberg.
Oops, that's a reason for Trek...
>18. Q.
Another reason for Trek...
Ted McCoy
>In article <3nmo7j$b...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
>John J. Park <jpa...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>ami...@pen.k12.va.us (Ashley Edward Miller) writes:
>>
>>>> 3 There is much more of a library of TREK to watch, BABS is only one show.
>>>>
>>Ah, majority rules? Or superiority by numbers.
>
> If volume is important, shouldn't we all be watching Gunsmoke?
Another way of looking at this: apparently Friday the 13th is better than
Schindler's List, because there are nine Friday the 13th movies (and a tv show)
but only one Schindler's List movie.
Jonathan D. Trudel[ftd]
|> ami...@pen.k12.va.us (Ashley Edward Miller) writes:
|> >> 3 There is much more of a library of TREK to watch, BABS is only one show.
|> Ah, majority rules? Or superiority by numbers.
NO, it's Quantity==Quality
|> >4. MUCH BETTER special FX. (That cheesy CGI crap gets old
|> >quick)
Then explain the DS9 and Voyager opening titles, and prove that
CGI isn't used. Is running a camera over a cheezy model any better?
|> >5. Writing (little things like "dialogue" and "character")
|> Uh huh, I certainly dont believe either show is superior to the other by much.
Please demonstrate the subtlety in ST. B5 is resplendent with it,
because of the continuing and evolving storyline. Please also prove
that you don't have a TOS or TNG standard storyline (which are
posted here/elsewhere regularly as a goof).
|> >8. An optimistic vision of the future that gives thinking
|> >people and feeling people something to believe in and look
|> >forward to
About as optimistic as what you can find in the movie Demolition Man.
Sure, "everyone" has happy-happy thoughts, but scratch the surface,
and you find a lot of discontent EVERYWHERE.
|> >9. Emotional depth
|> Insulting.
Untrue, even. B5 hans't backed itself into a corner that it has
to get out from under in the last 5 minutes of the episode, unlike
some other Generational shows I could mention...
Besides, what sort of emotional depth do you get out of it when you
are always optimistic, and get close to what you want? Please,
give me the payoff of B5's "Believers" or better yet, "Gropos"!
|> >10. Acting. (I'll say it louder) ACTING!
|>
|> Second season Bab5 vs star trek the original, or 2nd season of STTNG.
|>
|> >11. Star Trek has *interesting* ship/station designs (Babylon
|> >station...UGH)
Oh no! We can't fold the engines up! Now it'll take us 71 years more
to get home! Better yet, let's take all those model spars and make
us a Borg Ship! Wow!
|> All in all I think I like Voyager/DS9 over B5 by a small margin. The main
|> diffrence seems to be that Babylon 5 is a multiyear novel, while star treks
|> are single day novellettes.
or comic books, really.
|> DS9 and Voyager are getting better (longer
|> stories, more continuity) now, although it seemed B5 lead the way.
And forced them to be better. I'm afraid that the Trek Empire
is going the way of Saturday NIght Live...
Jon
ps - I will watch 'em all, but I prefer B5.
Ah, You lika da starship. Starship good! I bringa da starship to you.
Keep it up, and you'll end up drunk, rotting away while living in a
shuttlecraft, down by the ASTEROID BELT...
Jonathan D. Trudel[ftd]
|> >8. Babylon 5 has characters like Garibaldi with unclear motives, shady
|> >pasts, orneriness and independence; they're not all goody-goodies who
|> >went to the Star Academy like on Star Trek. Case in point, the
|> >telepaths: Talia Winters is much more interesting than Diana Troy.
|>
|> i) Talia only appears when CRUCIAL to the story (ie. not much).
|> ii) It is Deanna Troi (I HATE that spellling mistake!)
Ok, then, reason 19 - No littering of the cast just to say that a
character was in an episode/movie - I completely agreed with Nimoy's
and Kelly's decisions to avoid appearing in ST:Generations, considering
he'd only have one line! Why do people *have* to be in an episode?
jane johnston
(note: I am not going to list everything in order as i am definitely tired
of seeing all this repeated.)
1. More different types of plot. Standard B5 plot: someone either
assassinates or attempts to assassinate some character. Now come on
it's on almost every week.
2. Guinan and Q .
Also the really interesting characters get better and stay. And B5
they get better and are shipped off or get metamorphized.
3. Multiculturalism. Okay, well at least we don't have just one token
African-American guy who isn't even in most episodes.
4. Positive outlook on the universe. B5 gets very wrapped up in the
"shadow" side. For an extension of getting wrapped up in shadow
side see Earth2 or the Dommer Family in Space.
By the way, I think our friend doesn't watch Trek too much or he
wouldn't say:
1. characters don't grow or develop.
2.There's no sex. (Come off it.)
3. There's no alcohol. (Who cares anyway.)
Some good things about B5. I like CGI. After all I have an amiga. It
wouldn't be "patriotic" for me not to like it. Not to say I don't like
models. Would be ashame if that became a lost art.
I'm interested in the thing about psi-corp.
I like the exploration of belief and faith. I think we're seeing a lot
more of the this on DS9 and Voyager, though.
--jane j
J. F. Goodwin
>>
>>Babylon 5 has ...
>>4. No multiculturalism run amok.
>>
>I just thought that I'd comment on this one point. Multiculturalism in
>Trek? What? Sure, Voy and TOS both had a pretty nice racial mix, but I
>have yet to see a ST show where there was a nice cultural mix. Geordie
>was black, but did he ever show any indication of a black culture?
>Don't flame, you know what I mean. If you take white kids my age and
The reason you might be flamed is that you associate a black person with
a particular culture. You would probably get away with asking "did
Troi show any indication of a black culture?".
I agree with your point, though. There doesn't seem to be a cultural mix
but that appears to be quite universal with SF shows. Isn't it strange
how alien planets have just one culture per planet? And if there is more
than one then they are at war.
- Joel G.
Mike Hopkins
>>The Star Trek fans are more open-minded and civil. B5 fans (at least on
>>the net) are, let's say, mean-spirited.
Please don't judge B5 fandom from the occational jerk who comes to
r.a.s just to say that Trek Sucks and to watch B5. They are equivelant
to the people who have posted in r.a.s for years saying "get a life."
The best advice is to ignore them, to put them in your kill file
if you have one, etc. Unfortunetly, the usual response is to flame B5
which causes the many B5 fans who read r.a.s flame back causing another
flame war. And trust me I have seen many Trek fans do the exact same
thing. People go to the B5 newsgroup just to say "it sucks" and "Trek
rules" as well. I have seen Trek fans say that even though I have never
seen B5, it sucks. I have seen Trek fans attack B5 because of Centauri
hair showing that they have no concept of what "Infinite Diversity in
Infinite Combinations" means and that they don't understand that
1995 American tastes do not rule over all time and space. That anyone
can watch ST and not get that into their head is prety sad. GR orginally
wanted to give the regulars all strange haircuts but could not because
they still had to live in the 1960's. I have Trek fans attack B5 on
grounds that clearly show that they don't know much about the show.
Saying that B5 has no big alien threat is just not so.
In short you CAN watch both series.
Pestilence Famine Death Londo Sinclair Ivanova Takashima Franklin
Shadows Starfury
Winters Mike Hopkins <*> mike1...@delphi.com Centauri
Naranek michael...@oubbs.telecom.uoknor.edu The Nine
Tech #1 Psi Cops
Minbari Cotto Morden Jinxo Krantz Drazi Kyle Zathras Sakai Zocalo
Rod
Don't worry I watch B5 Too! ... so I don't lean toward one side or the other.
.... but for right now I'm on RASC so I'm going to lean toward ST.
Rec.arts.startrek.* is for posting questions and answers to information
pertaining to Star Trek. It is not a forum for posting why B5 or any other
show for that matter is better than Star Trek, or any of its spinoffs.
Rec.arts.startrek.current is for posting stuff about current Star Trek
episodes or movies. Not why is B5, etc. is better than Star Trek or any
of its spinoffs.
So your post doesn't belong here or any other st group.
Instead your post should be on a B5 group so me and other people when
we want to know what B5 is about, can let you convince us that B5 is better.
Star Trek groups are to convince people that Star Trek is better,
B5 groups are to convince why B5 is better!
Let's keep it that way! (or why do you think there isn't any posts on
B5 in alt.tv.tiny-toons!)
Oh and while I'm at it, I'm going to answer some of your remarks!
>telepaths: Talia Winters is much more interesting than Diana Troy.
Troi was introduced in 1987, and Talia was introduced in....
so they had a model they could improve upon ... TROI!
(Besides, does Talia have a mother like Lwaxana Troi ? (sp?))
>15. People on Star Treck drink "synthohol," people on Babylon 5 drink
>good old-fashioned booze.
Think about the people that have died because of "booze."
Nobody's died because of synthohol.
>
>17. Whoopi Goldberg.
What's wrong with Whoopi Goldberg? Whoopi Goldberg, probably won
more awards than anyone in the B5 cast.
So next time you want to prove B5 is better keep it on the B5 groups.
Doing it this way is only making some people angry.
Hey, who knows maybe someday someone posting on the B5 group CAN
convince me that B5 is better when I roam the B5 group.
...NAH!
-Rod
Joseph B Ferreira
>Oh and while I'm at it, I'm going to answer some of your remarks!
>
is better, I'm a great fan of healthy debate on such subjects; I'll answer some
of yours!
>>telepaths: Talia Winters is much more interesting than Diana Troy.
>
>Deana Troi is original, Talia Winters is a clone of Troi.
>Troi was introduced in 1987, and Talia was introduced in....
> so they had a model they could improve upon ... TROI!
>(Besides, does Talia have a mother like Lwaxana Troi ? (sp?))
>
Hold on there! Mentioning Lwaxana is reason enough to give this debate to B5
without further thought!!! Compared to her, PsiCorps IS a good mother...
But really, Talia Winters is no more a copy of Deana Troi than Troi is a copy
of the Auron telepath Cally in Blake's 7 (1979!). They're all telepaths in one
form or another, a long established Sci-Fi idea. Talia has a different
personality, discipline, and background. Personally, I think Talia is a better
character, if for no other reason because Talia doesn't get stuck stating the
bleedingly obvious to people who treat it as news...
-Joey Ferreira
Jonathan D. Trudel[ftd]
|> >>telepaths: Talia Winters is much more interesting than Diana Troy.
|> >
|> >
|> Hold on there! Mentioning Lwaxana is reason enough to give this debate to B5
|> without further thought!!! Compared to her, PsiCorps IS a good mother...
*AND* good father! Trust the Corps, The Corps is your friend.
Prakash Bakrania
Can some please E-Mail these to me as i've not seen them before and am
interested in the B5/ST:DS9 debate.
Prakash.
David Steel
<9412...@brookes.ac.uk> wrote:
Please e-mail same to me as well. I'd be most grateful.
James Ervin
Hear hear! Babylon 5 aint even in the same league as DS9 and the rest of Star Trek
I mean it is like comparing minor to major leagues, and Babylon 5 is definitely
minor leagues.... Though for pure laughs, how can you beat Doctor Who?
jer...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
er...@math.utexas.edu " The Rocketman "
" Groundcontrol to Major Tom ..."
" Rocketman... and I think its gonna be a long,long time..."
" and the world looks very different today..."
/\
/ \
/ \
--------
{ }
----------
|========|
|````''''|
|~~~~~~~~|
| |
|########|
(((((())))))
/ \
/============\
{ }
| |
| ____ __|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| |__| |__|
| |
| |
[| |]
/| |\
/ | | \
---|____________|---
\ /
/ \ / \ / \
( )( )( )
( )
{ ( ) ( ) ( ) }
{ }
WayneHall
effects couldn't fix... it isn't anywhere near Trek's league...
Commander Wayne
TGFDS9
Joseph B Ferreira
Oh, I'm going to get singed for this, but since you brought it up!
There is nothing wrong with Babylon 5 that hasn't long ago been fixed by all
the things you've mentioned. Of course, taste is important, and some episodes
are worse than others (as if ST doesn't have that problem! Sheesh!), but look
at B5 seriously. How often in 30 years of Star Trek have we seen acting as
good as Londo's pleading with Garibaldi in "Acts of Sacrifice," or G'Kar in
just about any post-"Coming of Shadows?" I'd say VERY RARELY.
As for writing, how can you complain about bad writing? Like Voyager, which
has nothing better to do than recycle old recycled plots? The worst copying
Babylon 5 has done is probably the News Broadcast in "And Now For a Word,"
which was still pretty A) good, B) original. Look at DS9's "The Die is Cast:"
we again see the entire main cast aboard the Defiant, for no good reason. The
writers just want them to be in the story. Don't get me wrong, I think ST
has had wonderful writing, and DS9 is doing pretty well at present (partcularly
with Garak!), but Babylon 5 has done at least as well. And when you compare
some of ST's worst episodes with Babylon 5's, the quality of B5 is MUCH
higher...
And why do people hammer B5's CGI? It doesn't detract from the enjoyment in
any way (not after you've seen a few episodes), and it can allow FANTASTIC
scenes on a FAR more regular basis. In "TDiC" we see a fleet engagement (2+
ships on each side) for the first time in the whole 24th Century. In Babylon
5, we saw huge battles in "And the Sky Full of Stars," "Signs and Portents,"
"Chrysalis," and "The Coming of Shadows." To say nothing of the other smaller
engagements. B5 has also done cool shots thanks to CGI: the zoom-out seqences
in the opening credits would be very difficult with a model. The writhing skin
of the Shadow fighters in "Revelations" would be imposible, not to mention the
Na'Kaleen Feeder beast. The virual sets they've used (the zocalo balcoyin the
opening, or the Sanctuary in "the Coming of Shadows") pass all but determined
scrutiny. I do like model effects, and I still think they provide slightly more
realistic images, but the advantages of CGI are too numerous for it to be
written of as "bad."
I started watching Babylon 5 convinced it WAS an attempt to mimic the success
of TNG: I didn't care much for it. It to a month of it to make me reconsider.
After the first season ended, I was convinced it was the best there was. For
all of you who say Babylon 5 isn't up to Trek's league, consider: DS9's most
respected shows of late have all dealt with ongoing plots
(Cardassian/Dominion). "The Die is Cast" being a good example. But at the end
of that, what happened? Nothing. Garak is still a tailor. The Dominion is
still a threat (though perhaps we now think it sneakier). Odo is still on the
station. The Cardassian/Romulan militaries are right where they were. Tain
(who we were just getting to meet) is dead (right?). No change. So far in the
whole series, I can only think of a two changes: Kai Win (sp?) and the
Defiant.
Babylon 5's most respected shows also deal with ongoing stories: The
Earth-Minbari War, the PsiCorps, the Shadows etc. Since the series started,
what has happened? The commanding officer has been removed. The reason for
the Minbari's surrender was (partially) explained. Ambassador Kosh has taken an
interest something (!). Talia has turned against the PsiCorps. Babylon 4's
disapearence has been explained. The planet Babylon 5 orbits has become
important. The Narn and Centari have gone to war. Delenn has become half
human (and had to deal with that fact: none of this "I'll just change you back
for next week's episode..."). Perhaps DS9 just hasn't learned to reach Babylon
5's league, hmmm?
I realize that beauty will always be in the eye of the viewer, but here are my
counter-opinions, AND my reasons for supporting them. Make of them what you
will, but don't just tell me they're wrong; they aren't!
-Joey Ferreira
(ducking for cover!)
David Steel
wrote:
> >There is nothing wrong with B5 that good writing, acting and special
> >effects couldn't fix... it isn't anywhere near Trek's league...
> >
> >Commander Wayne
> >TGFDS9
Guilty secret---I, a long time Star Trek faithful fan, watch all
three---STV, DS9 and, yes, BAB-5. The truth is: BAB-5 is fresh and bold
and of the three,its the one that keeps me on the edge of my seat.
John Pietrzak
WayneHall <wayn...@aol.com> wrote:
>There is nothing wrong with B5 that good writing, acting and special
>effects couldn't fix... it isn't anywhere near Trek's league...
On the other hand, it's so painful to watch Trek's great acting,
special f/x, and huge budget squandered on such crappy writing. Trek
has the potential to do practically anything, with its fiscal and
bureaucratic support; yet, it wastes valuable screen time with
re-hashed plots and basically meaningless drivel. Nothing of
significance ever happens, in order that the episodes be as independent
of each other as possible. So, what benefit do you gain by watching an
episode of Trek? Generally, just simple entertainment. You could
watch _Married with Children_ and derive the same amount of benefit.
Say what you will about it, B5 at least has a focus on what it intends
to reach. What it lacks in $$$, it makes up for in the relentless
drive towards it's final destination. Each episode drops clues about
what's going to happen in the future, or explanations about what
happened in the past. Moreover, it deals with social issues in the way
TOS often did; by placing a thin veneer of alienness over a particular
issue, and presenting a variety of viewpoints on that issue. This is
all too rare in modern Trek. (What in the world would Neelix' lungs or
a huge space amoeba/nebula relate to in the modern world?)
Sort of a Tortoise and Hare race here, you see. Trek has all the
advantages, yet through sloth and lack of vision, it simply stays in
one place; while B5, plodding ahead at the best speed it can, reaches
heights that Trek can only imagine.
John
Ted McCoy
>the things you've mentioned. Of course, taste is important, and some episodes
>are worse than others (as if ST doesn't have that problem! Sheesh!), but look
>at B5 seriously. How often in 30 years of Star Trek have we seen acting as
>good as Londo's pleading with Garibaldi in "Acts of Sacrifice," or G'Kar in
>just about any post-"Coming of Shadows?" I'd say VERY RARELY.
(G'kar was great in "Coming of Shadows" and "An Act of Sacrifice." Can't
think of any other post-Coming of Shadows episodes where he really stood out.)
Anyway, how often do we see acting that good on Trek? Quite often, actually.
For Patrick Stewart, "The Inner Light," the episode where he's captured
by the Cardassians, "All Good Things," and "Family" come to mind. For Brent
Spiner, look at "The Measure of a Man," "The Offspring," or "Brothers." For
Michael Dorn, look at just about any of the big Klingon episodes. I think
each of the cast of DS9 has given at least one superb performance by now;
looking at the two-parter and this week's episode, we see superb performances
for Garak, Odo, Bashir, and maybe Jake Sisko. Even on Voyager, despite the
lightweight scripts, the cast has had opportunities to shine; for instance,
the dialogue between Tuvak and Janeway in "Prime Factors."
I agree that the acting on B5 is frequently very good. Especially the aliens.
But it certainly doesn't outclass the work we've seen on Trek.
>As for writing, how can you complain about bad writing? Like Voyager, which
>has nothing better to do than recycle old recycled plots? The worst copying
>Babylon 5 has done is probably the News Broadcast in "And Now For a Word,"
>which was still pretty A) good, B) original. Look at DS9's "The Die is Cast:"
Good? Yes! Original? Well, not unless you redefine the word....
>we again see the entire main cast aboard the Defiant, for no good reason. The
>writers just want them to be in the story.
Actually, it's probably the actors who want to be in the story.
>Don't get me wrong, I think ST
>has had wonderful writing, and DS9 is doing pretty well at present (partcularly
>with Garak!), but Babylon 5 has done at least as well. And when you compare
>some of ST's worst episodes with Babylon 5's, the quality of B5 is MUCH
>higher...
Even at their best, Trek's story arcs have never rivaled the arcs B5 is
telling. Trek has had some great writing (like recent DS9 episodes) and some
awful writing (like recent Voyager episodes). B5 too has some great writing
(The Coming of Shadows for instance) and some awful writing (anybody remember
the pilot movie? or Gropos?). The difference is that the attention to
continuity on B5. While any random episode of B5 is probably more likely
to tell a routine, predictable, and even boring story than any random episode
of Trek is, I find the attention to continuity gives B5 the edge. (At times,
DS9 is the best of both worlds. Other times, it's just Trek.)
>And why do people hammer B5's CGI? It doesn't detract from the enjoyment in
>any way (not after you've seen a few episodes), and it can allow FANTASTIC
>scenes on a FAR more regular basis. In "TDiC" we see a fleet engagement (2+
>ships on each side) for the first time in the whole 24th Century. In Babylon
>5, we saw huge battles in "And the Sky Full of Stars," "Signs and Portents,"
>"Chrysalis," and "The Coming of Shadows." To say nothing of the other smaller
>engagements.
Quite true. Probably not just a coincidence that Trek has also started showing
larger-scale space battles now that it's using cgi?
>B5 has also done cool shots thanks to CGI: the zoom-out seqences
>in the opening credits would be very difficult with a model. The writhing skin
>of the Shadow fighters in "Revelations" would be imposible, not to mention the
>Na'Kaleen Feeder beast.
I liked the feeder, but the other two effects you mention both looked silly
to me. Just my personal reaction.
>The virual sets they've used (the zocalo balcoyin the
>opening, or the Sanctuary in "the Coming of Shadows") pass all but determined
>scrutiny.
Well, personally, I still am tempted to laugh at the sights of some of these
cgi sets. Including both of the ones you mentioned. Although B5 is
definitely getting better at this sort of thing.
>I do like model effects, and I still think they provide slightly more
>realistic images, but the advantages of CGI are too numerous for it to be
>written of as "bad."
They say really high quality cgi (cgi that doesn't look like cgi -- you know,
like the cgi in Jurassic Park or True Lies) is more expensive than model work.
But even when we're stuck with lower quality cgi, I agree that the versatility
is nothing to be ignored. B5 could not tell the stories it is telling if it
only used models; in fact, Trek was unable to tell a lot of those stories
with models, and Trek can pour a lot more money into the fx than B5 can.
B5's fx are sometimes breathtaking, sometimes embarrassing, sometimes just
irritating. But really, I watch these shows for the stories, not the fx.
Give the edge to Trek here, but its a minor matter.
>I started watching Babylon 5 convinced it WAS an attempt to mimic the success
>of TNG: I didn't care much for it. It to a month of it to make me reconsider.
>After the first season ended, I was convinced it was the best there was. For
>all of you who say Babylon 5 isn't up to Trek's league, consider: DS9's most
>respected shows of late have all dealt with ongoing plots
>(Cardassian/Dominion). "The Die is Cast" being a good example. But at the end
>of that, what happened? Nothing. Garak is still a tailor.
Well, his relationship with Odo has changed; each of them has learned more
about the other. Actually, Garak's relationship with his past may have
changed -- but it's hard to be certain until we learn more about his past.
>The Dominion is
>still a threat (though perhaps we now think it sneakier).
More of a threat now than before. Plus, that changeling indicated that neither
the Federation nor the Klingons will be a threat for much longer, indicating
that some sorts of plans are being put into action. The viewers' understanding
of the balance of power certainly changes dramatically with this episode,
with the realization of just how far the Dominion's plans against the alpha
quadrant seem to have progressed without anybody noticing.
>Odo is still on the
>station.
Right.
>The Cardassian/Romulan militaries are right where they were.
Uh, what? The Obsidian Order and the Tal'shiar have suffered a major defeat;
wouldn't surprise me to see both the Romulans and Cardassians entire civil
wars soon. Both the Obsidian Order and the Tal'shiar were more powerful
before this episode than after it, and that counts as a major change.
>Tain
>(who we were just getting to meet) is dead (right?).
We met him last season.
>No change. So far in the
>whole series, I can only think of a two changes: Kai Win (sp?) and the
>Defiant.
Most of the changes are slow and ongoing. Just like real life. This isn't
a case where everything resets the way it did in TNG (usually). (And yes,
it also isn't the same as the situation on B5, because B5 is telling a much
larger and more dynamic story than DS9 is.)
>Babylon 5's most respected shows also deal with ongoing stories: The
>Earth-Minbari War, the PsiCorps, the Shadows etc. Since the series started,
>what has happened? The commanding officer has been removed. The reason for
>the Minbari's surrender was (partially) explained. Ambassador Kosh has taken an
>interest something (!). Talia has turned against the PsiCorps. Babylon 4's
>disapearence has been explained. The planet Babylon 5 orbits has become
>important. The Narn and Centari have gone to war. Delenn has become half
>human (and had to deal with that fact: none of this "I'll just change you back
>for next week's episode..."). Perhaps DS9 just hasn't learned to reach Babylon
>5's league, hmmm?
B5 and DS9 are telling different types of stories, and I don't really see
either story as inherently better than the other. The difference, I think, is
that the DS9 writers at times seem reluctant to let the story arcs really
take over (especially in the first half of this season), and this isn't a
problem with B5.
>I realize that beauty will always be in the eye of the viewer, but here are my
>counter-opinions, AND my reasons for supporting them. Make of them what you
>will, but don't just tell me they're wrong; they aren't!
>
> -Joey Ferreira
>
>(ducking for cover!)
You made some good points, even though I don't agree with all of them.
Very seriously -- I'd love to see an intelligent, rational discussion of
the relative strengths of B5 and Trek. (I think such a discussion would have
to acknowledge that each show has strengths and neither is "not in the league"
of the other.)
Ted
Jonathan Blum
Ted McCoy <mc...@math.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>In article <3oouv8$j...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>,
>Joseph B Ferreira <jbf> wrote:
>>at B5 seriously. How often in 30 years of Star Trek have we seen acting as
>>good as Londo's pleading with Garibaldi in "Acts of Sacrifice," or G'Kar in
>>just about any post-"Coming of Shadows?" I'd say VERY RARELY.
>(G'kar was great in "Coming of Shadows" and "An Act of Sacrifice." Can't
>think of any other post-Coming of Shadows episodes where he really stood out.)
Can you think of any other post-Coming of Shadows episodes G'Kar has
_been_ in? Out of the six episodes after CoS, G'Kar's been in two,
and one of them is "Acts of Sacrifice", which you've just praised him for.
Two out of three ain't bad, as they say.
>Anyway, how often do we see acting that good on Trek? Quite often, actually.
>For Patrick Stewart, "The Inner Light," the episode where he's captured
>by the Cardassians, "All Good Things," and "Family" come to mind. For Brent
>Spiner, look at "The Measure of a Man," "The Offspring," or "Brothers." For
>Michael Dorn, look at just about any of the big Klingon episodes.
[snip]
You'll notice, though, that these episodes are scattered over the course
of three or four years. Hardly qualifies as "quite often" when compared
to the two brilliant performances by Andreas Katsulas within the space
of a month.
>I agree that the acting on B5 is frequently very good. Especially the aliens.
>But it certainly doesn't outclass the work we've seen on Trek.
True, it doesn't outclass the _best_ of Trek -- but I think we've already
seen a few more high points in the 35 or so episodes of B5 than in any
comparable-length stretch of Trek. I guess preference comes down to whether
you'd like one large piece of chocolate once in a while, or a bunch of
slightly smaller pieces more evenly spread out.
Regards,
Jon Blum
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"All this time you two thought you were playing some twisted game of
chess... when it was just me playing solitaire!"
D O C T O R W H O : T I M E R I F T
Ted McCoy
WayneHall <wayn...@aol.com> wrote:
>There is nothing wrong with B5 that good writing, acting and special
>effects couldn't fix... it isn't anywhere near Trek's league...
>
>TGFDS9
Lately, Voyager hasn't been anywhere near Trek's league. (Okay, fix the
writing and Voyager would be fine. But the writing is a pretty big factor.)
Ted
Koch Ronald Andrew
:
:
: 18 Reasons Why Babylon 5 is Better Than Star Trek.
:
:
: Babylon 5 has ...
:
: 1. No Vulcans/androids/Shapeshifters/holograms trying to be human.
This _does_ get annoying after a while, doesn't it...umm...but Odo's never
said he wanted to be human, and niether has any vulcan I know of...
:
: 2. No technobabble.
: i
Shyea, right...I _dare_ you to give me workable blueprints of the station
without technology we don't have now. And if you can do that...I'd start callin
NASA real soon, you could be rich!.
: 3. No [preposterous] high tech solutions to every imaginable problem.
:
A:Not every problem is sloved by technobabble.
B:Sometimes it can be fun to have something solved that way.
C:Not everything on ST is solved by sending out a squad of fighters.
(ignore->) sssshear
: 4. No multiculturalism run amok.
:i
This is a good thing? See, nobody _wants_ to be like anybody else on B5.
: 5. No cheesy holodeck plots.
:
Granted.
:
:
: 6. No one on Star Trek ever gets laid.
:
Wrongo! Lot's of people have, they just don't do an afterglow shot like they
would on B5, and that's just a director's (or writer's) decision on atmosphere.
: 7. On Babylon 5, as in real life, there is evil, scheming, and lust for
: power, not just unfortunate misunderstandings.
:
Ever seen a Romulan?
: 8. Babylon 5 has characters like Garibaldi with unclear motives, shady
: pasts, orneriness and independence; they're not all goody-goodies who
: went to the Star Academy like on Star Trek. Case in point, the
: telepaths: Talia Winters is much more interesting than Diana Troy.
:
I'd _much_ rather look at Troi though.
Seriously, you're right, but then again, when nobody has a clear background,
it's more of a cop-out for the writers, since they can just suddenly have
someone pull any old secret out of thier ass...
: 9. There is actual politics within the human federation on Bablyon 5 (the
: assassinated president, the rogue Bureau 13, Psi Corps), not just an
: anonymous Supreme Council that issues benign edicts everyone agrees to.
:
Admittedly, the Federation doesn't have this problem (much) but have you
ever heard of the Obsidian order? Cardassians _love_ this kind of stuff.
Er...well, the citizens probably don't...but the military does, and therefore
who _cares_ what the citizens like ;-)
: 10. The Earth Federation on Babylon 5 has a plausible mission -- trading,
: exploring, staying out war. They're not out on some totally unrealistic,
: altruistic crusade to bring love to the entire universe.
:
Let's see...trading...exploring...staying out of war...sounds like most cultures
I know, including the ST Federation. B5 doesn't do too much exploring, I don't
think...I could be wrong, I'm not a b-fivie..(does that work?...trekker...trekie
...b-fiver?hmm)
: 11. The characters on Babylon 5 develop over time; they're not cardboard
: cutouts with fixed characteristics as on Star Trek.
:
WOAH! How long has it been since you watched any of the ST's? And besides,
B5 hasn't given some of it's people time to develop...they've killed a bunch
already...
: 12. Babylon 5 doesn't keep recycling the same plots. (How many
: variations of the
: Star-Trek-crew-encounters-new-life-form-inadvertantly-hurts-it-and-then-endeavors-to-reach-an-understanding plot do we have to sit through?)
:
Yes...um...well...this deals with that whole "exploring" thing you were talking
about earlier. That's bound to happen now and then, wouldn't you think? And
quite frankly...you don't have to sit through _any_ if you don't want to....
: 13. Babylon 5 has better special effects.
:i
I dissagree...B5 has _different_ effects. I must admit that I like the ships,
they have good fight sequences with that computer animation, but, on the other
hand...the Enterprise just looks more _real_...not more feasable, but, just more
solid, since it's a model. One place I'll give B5 credit is they manage to come
closer to the ever-elusive non-humanoid regular. They don't quite make it,
but they do come close with those huge crustateans, or whatever they are. (like
I said, I don't watch much, and have only seen these guys once, but I got the
feeling they were important. sorry I can't place a name)
: 14. Babylon 5 has an exciting, suspenseful master plot, not just little
: situations that get resolved in an hour's episode like on Star Trek.
:
It's a space soap-opera. Next time you laugh at your siblings or parents for
watching Days of Our Lives, remember that. :) Also, a lot of the episodes I've
seen do end up resolving at the end...well, aside from any "to be contiuned"'s
: 15. People on Star Treck drink "synthohol," people on Babylon 5 drink
: good old-fashioned booze.
:
Bashir and O'brian got drunk the other night...hmm...didn't handle it very well
tho...It's a consious choice not to...would be fun to see the B5 commander get
called into a battle while blitzed, don't you think? ;)
: 16. Ensign Wesley Crusher.
:
You win...(damn it...nothing can counter that)
: 17. Whoopi Goldberg.
:
Problem? Whoopi rocks...admittedly, I didn't like Guinan when she first
appeared, but she's grown on me...and much of the time, she stays out of it.
: 18. Q.
:
Again, this is a problem? And really, how often is he around, if you don't
like him? Personally, I like the idea of a God-wanna be taking intrest in
human life...it's interesting to me that on B5, all the races are on a seriously
even keel...no advantages, no disads...Star Trek manages to remember that there
would be cultures of all ages out there.
Lots of good arguments, however. Both shows have thier points, but I think the
main difference is that ST has a good future in mind, and B5 has a darker image
of the future. I think between the two, they make a good match for eachother.
See ya.
:
:
:
:
:
:
Rod
Joseph B Ferreira <jbf> writes:
>is better, I'm a great fan of healthy debate on such subjects; I'll answer some
>of yours!
but ya didn't leave an e-mail address.
Sorry Ladies, an Gentleman for wasting bandwidth, but he didn't leave
an e-mail address. My deepest apologies.
>
>>>telepaths: Talia Winters is much more interesting than Diana Troy.
>>
>>Troi was introduced in 1987, and Talia was introduced in....
>> so they had a model they could improve upon ... TROI!
>>
>Hold on there! Mentioning Lwaxana is reason enough to give this debate to B5
>without further thought!!! Compared to her, PsiCorps IS a good mother...
... not that it matters.
>
>But really, Talia Winters is no more a copy of Deana Troi than Troi is a copy
>of the Auron telepath Cally in Blake's 7 (1979!). They're all telepaths in one
>form or another, a long established Sci-Fi idea. Talia has a different
>personality, discipline, and background. Personally, I think Talia is a better
>character, if for no other reason because Talia doesn't get stuck stating the
>bleedingly obvious to people who treat it as news...
I never said Troi was better.
And ooops Sorry for not watching Blake's 7 in 1979. I've never heard
of it, that's why I used TNG in 87, or I wouldn't have said that.
>
> -Joey Ferreira
>
----------------------<<<*>>>---------------------------------
-Rod "There is no knowledge that is not power."
... from LA, CA! -MK3 by Midway
Rod
Joseph B Ferreira <jbf> writes:
your own opinion.
However this is what's really getting me. .... and some others.
Let's keep the I like B5 and/or I think it's better than ST
on an B5 newsgroup afterall that's what it's for.
Also...
ST fans, lets keep the ST is better than B5 posts out of the B5 newsgroup.