It is what is is.

[ChrisCMMi]

Babylon 5 seems sort of similar to Star Trek. But i jus recently started to get into it so i could be missing certain key aspects still.

[Jan]

Hi, ChrisCMMi, welcome.

If you've only started watching, all you're seeing right now is episodes that seem to stand alone. As you keep going, you'll find that there's an ongoing arc being carefully woven. Pay close attention to...well, just about everything.

If you have thoughts or questions, feel free to post. We'll try to stay reasonably spoiler-free for you.

Jan

[DGTWoodward]

Hello and welcome to the forums.

Firstly, I LOVE CLASSIC STAR TREK. Yes I call it 'CLASSIC' because that's the title it deserves. I flat-out refuse to call it TOS (The Original Show) because that, to me, has a dismissive air to it. One of my favourite additions to my HiDef library is the HD Boxed set of Classic Season One. So I am in no way a TREK basher.

What you should find when you have seen enough B5 is that it is, in effect, a book made for television, with each episode representing a new chapter. Because this is how it was envisaged, you will find that it has a defined beginning, a middle and an end. It is a complete story all its own.

Now back in the sixties, at the birth of STAR TREK, 'quest' type shows were very common and it was a convenient theme onto which you could hang your individual stories. The newness of TV made this fascinating and watchable, regardless of the genre...space, court-room, western etc.

These days, at least until B5 came along with its in-built 5 year arc, SF shows on TV (and TREK in ALL of its recent incarnations has been the worst culprit) have been converted into 42 minute adverts for any and all forthcoming products.

It was only when TREK production teams realised that this little show with 1/4 of their budget was progressively gain viewers and they were consistently losing them, made have a re-think, and only then did they introduce arcing stories. The nett result is that now, everyone is doing it...from SUPERNATURAL to LOST.

STAR TREK was a job, whilst BABYLON 5 was a passion and it shows in the end products.

Trust me, the only way in which B5 is similar to (recent) STAR TREK is that it has actors speaking lines in front of a camera.

[Jan]

Trust me, the only way in which B5 is similar to (recent) STAR TREK is that it has actors speaking lines in front of a camera.

And special effects. Don't forget those.

Jan

[glindros]

And special effects. Don't forget those.

Jan

???


I thought B5's special effects were light years ahead of classic Star Trek.
(Rubber suits not withstanding)

[Jan]

???


I thought B5's special effects were light years ahead of classic Star Trek.
(Rubber suits not withstanding)

ChrisCMMi never specified that it was Classic Trek s/he was talking about. What I was relpying to was LightStorm's comment that:

Trust me, the only way in which B5 is similar to (recent) STAR TREK is that it has actors speaking lines in front of a camera.

...which specified recent Trek. ALL Treks have special effects and actors speaking lines in front of the camera.

Jan

[mandragora]

I'm not sure if it's fair to call the classic Star Trek series just "a job". The later ones, perhaps, but from what I understood Roddenberry also had to fight very hard to get the series done.

When I rewatched a couple of TNG episodes after many years of abstinence lately, apart from the obvious difference regarding the story arc what struck me most was that I found the human, everyday elements were strangely absent. Most obvious is of course the peculiarity that no-one in TNG ever seems to visit a bathroom; but there are a lot of other things in B5 that give the whole series a different, very human feel. And of course the setting and dialogue in B5 has a much more theatrical approach. The latter seems to be very much a matter of personal taste; while it's one of my favourite characteristics of the show, I know that quite a few people don't like that at all.

[glindros]

ChrisCMMi never specified that it was Classic Trek s/he was talking about. What I was relpying to was LightStorm's comment that:


...which specified recent Trek. ALL Treks have special effects and actors speaking lines in front of the camera.

Jan

Misunderstanding. I thought you were refering to the quality of the effects.

[Jan]

Misunderstanding. I thought you were refering to the quality of the effects.

Oh, heavens no! I'm one of those people who notices effects only as the effect the story. Nowadays I find Classic Trek's effects a bit jarring but back then I certainly didn't.

Mandragora's correct. The original Trek was a battle and also a passion for Roddenberry. The fact that his dream was different from JMS's doesn't detract from the fact that he did create a 'dream given form' (hmmm...that sounds familiar...<g>).

As I understand it, TNG was also a passion and, iirc, more in line with his original concept. My only issue with TNG was the tendency to reverse the polarity of the famagamet at the last minute to save the day. You *new* it was gonna happen so there was no tension. With B5, once the first season ended, that certainty went right out the window.

Jan

[OmahaStar]

reverse the polarity

Someone's a Doctor Who fan. *high-5*

[RMcD]

It's nothing like Trek. That said, I've just bought the first 2 seasons of DS9 (which I've always had a weakness for) and am enjoying them for what they are. Not a patch on B5, but slick production values, the best Trek crew, and a nice arc that evolves naturally and organically from an interesting premise.

Interesting aside:

The designers let slip in one of the extras features that at one stage in pre-production they designed DS9 with rotating sections, since it was thought it would generate it's own gravity.. until someone rememinded them that in the Trek universe artificial gravity has been around for hundreds of years! I couldn't help wondering if a recent pitch by a certain JMS had contributed to that confusion..

[Doom Shepherd]

I understand...

I've been a Trek fan since I first started watching "Classic" Trek reruns back in the 70's (on a TV that only got that particular UHF channel on alternate Saturdays when it wasn't raining.) I watched TNG, and DS9, and eventually VOY and ENT (on a succession fo better TVs).

When I first heard about B5, it was from another Trekkie, and all he said was "It's a rip-off of DS9 with other aliens and more clunky tech." I refused to watch it on those grounds, and the fact that most Non-Trek TV SF I'd seen had bored the hell out of me.

(Of course, as it turns out he'd never seen it - kind of like those people who want to ban books they've never read. Also, I later discovered his thoughts and the things he said frequently diverged with reality, and his actions were generally to be suspected. That's a nice way of saying he was a pathological liar and a jerk.)

I didn't watch an episode of B5 until grad school, when a very wise woman I was trying (and failing) to convince of my value as a potential mate got me to watch "Mind War."

Well, that was it. After G'Kar and the ants, I was hooked. And since then I've hooked another half-dozen people or so, including my wife, another staunch Trekkie, who, when we were just starting out dating, reluctantly agreed to watch a VHS-taped hour of B5 with me. SIX hours later she said "This isn't like Star Trek. It's..." and she furtively looked around as if committing treason "it's BETTER."

Now we own all the DVD's. Great Maker help us if we ever split up - that's going to be a hell of a fight for custody.

[DGTWoodward]

I'm not sure if it's fair to call the classic Star Trek series just "a job". The later ones, perhaps, but from what I understood Roddenberry also had to fight very hard to get the series done.
.

Sorry, that is what I was refering to, the later incarnations and not Classic TREK at all. I went back to my post and it did seem to point that so, sorry...my bad.

Also, to the other part of your response... you are quite correct, GR did have to fight hard and once again it shows in the product. The Classic shows have a humanness about them that is just not there in the later versions of the show. So I wonder if it was really a part of GR's plan to have humanity evolve to the point of being dull?

[byong]

Welcome to B5. It's like a show based on a book except it is the book.

The best things about B5 that separate it from Trek for me are:

A) Ark. I get sick of Trek now as nothing really ties together. They start out, get in trouble, beat off the bad guys and win, unless it's a two part show, then win next week.

B) Technologically accurate. The Enterprise spins around and bolts off at Warp 7 and nobody moves because of inertia dampaners?? Give me a break. How much of a dampaner would you need to keep you from eating your anus after going from 0 to Warp whatever? On B5 they spin, move, thrust whatever like it were in space.

C) Humans are...human. In Trek, (after the initial series), we're like these awesome noble people who learned from how bad were were in the 21st century. Yeah right. In B5 we're not the most advanced. We routinely get our butts kicked and our humaness gets us into trouble. But..."we make communities."

I like SciFi and I like some Trek but most can't hold a candle to B5.

[*Starstuff*]

SIX hours later she said "This isn't like Star Trek. It's..." and she furtively looked around as if committing treason "it's BETTER."

Now we own all the DVD's. Great Maker help us if we ever split up - that's going to be a hell of a fight for custody.

LOL, thanks for sharing that, DoomSherpherd, nothing like a good laugh in the morning

On Topic:
I am a StarTrek fan as well and I have to admit I never compared the two or even saw any connections between B5 and DS9 (maybe because I didn't particularly like the latter). But B5 has always been very different from StarTrek for me (and as I can read for most of you as well).

I just like the look of B5: It isn't shiny like ST, it isn't perfect ... and it provides real life problems with real life solutions - which sometimes don't work out and make the people involved pay a terrible price. It is much more realistic to me than ST.

That doesn't mean I don't enjoy ST, but to me ST is more like a fantasy, it is more fictional because you know that the main characters won't get hurt and even if they do - in the end everything will work out (look at the deaths of Spock and Data). There is a solution for everything and people are close to perfect ... while it is entertaining to watch, I can't really connect to them because I myself am a very flawed person

Babylon 5 is less fictional to me, and because of that I can identify more with it. That and the facts that it has
a) a continuous story which makes you want to see every single episode because it all comes together at some point and
b) evolving characters - really evolving characters. Like so many people before me have put it: You don't push the reset button at the end of an episode - actions from one show have consequences in later shows, sometimes later seasons and that is just mind blowing sometimes.

Okay, I am branching out ... better get to work.
Enjoy B5, ChrisMMi!

*Starstuff*