Slashdot Mirror


Babylon 5 Coming Back?

SaturnTim writes "Babylon 5 fans rejoice! It appears that our favorite space outpost is back. It will be returning soon in a series of direct-to-DVD 20min episodes, each featuring the past of one of our favorite characters."

359 comments

  1. Babylon 5: The Lost Tales by eldavojohn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's interesting that this is a straight to DVD production. I'm not a huge fan of Babylon 5 but I am very interested to see what distribution method they seek.

    The recent news is Warner Bros. is putting Babylon 5 on iTunes. That's right, you'll be able to purchase episodes of the sci-fi show on iTunes. Could they promote this service by releasing The Lost Tales a few weeks early on iTunes? I think they could probably garner quite a bit of money from Apple if they were willing to do that.

    After all, what better fanbase for Apple to secure than the Babylon 5 tech/trek group? Old nerds with lots of money and few vices. I know some people at work that would buy a video iPod just to have copies of Babylon 5 on their person at all times.

    This could probably be a television show that successfully bypasses all traditional forms of distribution which would set huge precedence for weaning the public from the glass teat.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Babylon 5: The Lost Tales by andrewman327 · · Score: 1

      Great ideas, but this will likely follow the traditional straight-to-DVD route. There is such a devoted fan base that this prequel (?) will sell.

      --
      Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
    2. Re:Babylon 5: The Lost Tales by ultrabot · · Score: 1

      After all, what better fanbase for Apple to secure than the Babylon 5 tech/trek group? Old nerds with lots of money and few vices.

      Regarding the "few vices", apparently Star Trek is exceptionally popular among pedophiles for some mystic reason.

      B5, then again... here the episodes actually aired on saturday nights, of all possible times.

      --
      Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
    3. Re:Babylon 5: The Lost Tales by El+Torico · · Score: 2, Funny
      I know some people at work that would buy a video iPod just to have copies of Babylon 5 on their person at all times.

      Wow, and I thought that my coworkers and I were nerds.

      ...weaning the public from the glass teat.

      Yes, an "on-demand" portable plastic teat is much more convenient.

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    4. Re:Babylon 5: The Lost Tales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regarding the "few vices", apparently Star Trek is exceptionally popular among pedophiles for some mystic reason.

      No great surprise there... Just off the top of my head, the original series had:

      Miri

      And the Children Shall Lead

      What Are Little Girls Made of?

      Plenty of other examples exist in the other series. For example, the character Kes in Star Trek: Voyager was only nine years old!

    5. Re:Babylon 5: The Lost Tales by OECD · · Score: 1

      After all, what better fanbase for Apple to secure than the Babylon 5 tech/trek group?

      Starship Exeter is already on iTunes, so they probably have the trekkers already. Still, it'd be a cool move.

      --
      One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
    6. Re:Babylon 5: The Lost Tales by NSIM · · Score: 1

      >Old nerds with lots of money and few vices Hey, I resent that, I have quite a lot of vices!

    7. Re:Babylon 5: The Lost Tales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My god women were beautiful in the 60s. They were natural beauties, and not stick-thin and orangey fake-tanney like today. Sherry Jackson? Wow.

    8. Re:Babylon 5: The Lost Tales by morcego · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lets remember the fact that NO Babylon 5 spinoff worked. Neither Crusade nor that one about Rangers worked. I kind of enjoyed Crusade, but the Rangers' one really sucked.

      --
      morcego
    9. Re:Babylon 5: The Lost Tales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "weaning the public from the glass teat."

      I know what you're trying to say, but after you download these episodes, you do still have to view them on a glass teat of some kind, whether it's your TV screen or computer screen. This will only wean the public from sucking either the cable teat or the long hard antenna.

    10. Re:Babylon 5: The Lost Tales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No no, he's talking about iTunes. That means it's formatted for the video iPod. It's a plastic teat.

    11. Re:Babylon 5: The Lost Tales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      As far as I can tell, JMS needs to go back to whatever drugs he was taking during the B5 period. Everything he did before B5 (CAPTAIN POWER), and everything after (Crusade, Rangers, Jeremiah) has sucked total ass.

      Also, for those WB people reading: I'm not going to pay $29.95 for a 20 minute episode on a dvd. Just so you know.

    12. Re:Babylon 5: The Lost Tales by BalanceOfJudgement · · Score: 1

      Oh I don't know, I rather enjoyed Jeremiah. I liked the story and thought it had great potential... too bad they only made 21 (?) episodes..

      --

      We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
    13. Re:Babylon 5: The Lost Tales by maxume · · Score: 1
      I know some people at work that would buy a video iPod just to have copies of Babylon 5 on their person at all times.
      Wow, and I thought that my coworkers and I were nerds.

      That zips right past nerd and enters solidly into spaz territory.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  2. Woot! by LintMan · · Score: 0, Redundant

    B5 has my vote for best SF series.

    1. Re:Woot! by Billosaur · · Score: 1

      With apologies to Star Trek fans everywhere, I agree.

      --
      GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    2. Re:Woot! by rgravina · · Score: 0

      Me too. This guy sums up what makes B5 great (if you can ignore the ridiculous inteviewer!)

      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-702386871 5954783304

    3. Re:Woot! by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      You've obviously never seen Red Dwarf.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    4. Re:Woot! by v1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It has the distinction of being possibly the best planned series of any kind in history. From what I've read, they had the entire 5 year story arc fully plotted out before they started shooting the first episode of season 1. Sure they had to wing it on a few things where there were unforseen circumstances, but for the most part it's a stunning example of what you can do when you actually planned the full 5 seasons, and managed to actually produce all five of them before someone dropped the axe and made you rush your plot to close in like, season 3 or 4.

      I have the entire box set of all seasons, and I still enjoy watching it from the start. Time and time again I spot something, some subtle hint, puzzling comment, even a look from a character in reaction to something seemingly harmless, only to realize "oh .... THAT'S why he did that!!", remembering that would tie in maybe an entire season or two later as a very important plot arc. Good lord, how long did they push that "there is a hole in your mind!" before letting us in on it?

      I rather doubt these new minis will be very good, as most of the time such similar minis are almost worthless, but I'll probably still watch them, if nothing else than to revisit the past. I'm sure they willl continue to backfill missing or mysterious plot elements from the original series with these new additions, and that alone should be worth the watch.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    5. Re:Woot! by Mayhem178 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      With apologies to both of you, I'm gonna have to give my vote to Firefly, even if it has no hope of ever seeing the kind of resurrection that B5 is getting.

      --

      "You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles

    6. Re:Woot! by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      With apologies to Star Trek fans everywhere, I agree.

      B5 did have very good story telling, though I wish the FX, posting and acting was better. Most of the CG was rendered in 60fps interlaced rather than 24fps progressive telecined, so it looks downright awful on a progressive display or computer, deinterlacers don't help either. In "Comes The Inquisitor" the Captain's audio says "East" when his mouth is saying "West", and that was so obvious to me on first pass. The Star Trek series had much easier to watch visuals.

      Personally, I think Firefly had so much more potential, too bad it got shot down. I think the quality of what was made beats the first season of any other Sci-fi TV show I've seen.

    7. Re:Woot! by ZHaDoom · · Score: 1

      If you go to ZHaDum You Will DIE!

      I just dont know when.

      --
      War isn't about who's right. It's about who's left.
    8. Re:Woot! by elrous0 · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      B5 has my vote for best SF series.

      I think there is a typo here. You accidentally typed "B5" instead of "BG".

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    9. Re:Woot! by sg7jimr · · Score: 1
      Babylon 5 was our last best hope for peace.

      It failed.

      But in the year of the Shadow War, it became something greater: our last, best hope - for victory.

      Maybe there's hope for Firefly.

    10. Re:Woot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But... They *did* rush the plot to closing in Season 4, because their primary network dropped them. That's why Season 5 is so disjointed and introduces random new parts of the story.

    11. Re:Woot! by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      From what I've read, they had the entire 5 year story arc fully plotted out before they started shooting the first episode of season 1.

      4. Season 5 was something of a surprise.

      Unfortunately, it shows.

    12. Re:Woot! by Matt+Perry · · Score: 1
      it's a stunning example of what you can do when you actually planned the full 5 seasons, and managed to actually produce all five of them before someone dropped the axe and made you rush your plot to close in like, season 3 or 4.
      But I thought that was what happened. Didn't JMS write the story for six seasons but was dicked around by the movie studios and had to shorten it to five? I remember at one point it wasn't clear if even the last season would be made.
      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    13. Re:Woot! by CaptMonkeyDLuffy · · Score: 1

      See the comment a few above... Originally it was planned for four. There were issues with the network, possibility of no season 5 when season 4 was going into production. They compressed things to try and wrap up in season 4. However, things worked out so there would be a season 5. So now, season 5 was 'off schedule' since parts of it were pulled into season 4, meaning there was a need for some padding and reworking and whatnot.

    14. Re:Woot! by Max+von+H. · · Score: 1

      From what I've read, they had the entire 5 year story arc fully plotted out before they started shooting the first episode of season 1.

      Nope, they only had the first season written, since back then they had no idea whether the series would be successful enough to justify funding for the rest. Then on, they only wrote storylines for the oncoming season. It's only when they had finished shooting the fourth season that they got the surprise (and late) approval for a fifth season, which explains it pretty much stands apart from the rest (most of the major arcs ended in the 4th season).

      You have to remember that B5 was the first TV series to use massive CGI and its production costs were giganormous for the time!

      I've just re-watched the whole series (+ movies) over a 6-weeks span... Great Maker, it felt good seeing Londo and G'Kar again!

      Now if only Farscape could get its fifth season too, that'd make my day! Good thing there's BSG to fill the gap.

      --
      -- It's always darker before it goes pitch black.
    15. Re:Woot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seeing as the actors for Dr. Franklin and G'Kar are both in a state of not living, I can't see the new offering being up to much without them.

    16. Re:Woot! by podperson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It has the distinction of being possibly the best planned series of any kind in history

      Science Fiction folks need to understand that there have only been a half dozen SF series worth criticizing. Babylon 5 was certainly one of the best SF series, but when you consider the number of excellent mainstream TV shows, such as Hill Street Blues (which Babylon 5, like so many ensemble shows, owes much of its structure to) it has to compete with, which were both stunningly well planned and executed, B5 pales in comparison.

      Yes, B5 had a five year story arc, but when it had to be compressed into four years it suffered badly. They then cobbled together a lackluster fifth season. Better shows have developed arcs which could cope with being axed after the first year or running indefinitely. And Babylon 5's pace was glacial for much of its first three seasons.

      These 20 minute shows could be good, but I wouldn't hold my breath. I doubt they started out pitching for a 20 minute direct to DVD project; so this is a TV series pitch that they couldn't sell.

    17. Re:Woot! by morcego · · Score: 1

      No, the plans was for 5 seasons. They had to rush and give an end on season 4 exactly because WB decided to drop the axe. The storyline on season 5 was on the original planning.

      --
      morcego
    18. Re:Woot! by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      Didn't JMS write the story for six seasons but was dicked around by the movie studios and had to shorten it to five?

      He planned for five. It wasn't certain he was going to get the fifth one, so he tied up a lot of stuff in the fourth; when season was approved, there was a little less material left to go around.

      Still, season 5 holds up better on re-watching than I'd orginally thought, with a few very good eps - Gaiman's "Day of the Dead", the Ellison-inspired "A View From the Gallery", and "The Corps is Mother, The Corps is Father" for a look behind the scenes at the Psi Corps.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    19. Re:Woot! by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's worse than that. It was originally planned to be a 5 year series, but then the stuidos started hinting that they were planning to cancel it after the fourth season because the ratings weren't so hot. IMHO it was amazing they had ratings at all since the timeslot was shifted every week and nobody ever bothered to tell TV Guide or anybody else when it was supposed to show. Anyway, JMS then rushed the end of the story in Season 4 and only afterward was told that he was actually going to have another season.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    20. Re:Woot! by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Ah, gotcha. So they compressed 5 into the end of 4, and then got 5 anyway.

    21. Re:Woot! by morcego · · Score: 1

      Actually, mostly on the last episode of season 4, which was a completely stupid ending episode. There were many cliff hangers still around.
      The ending for season 5, now that was a good one. The best for any series I've ever seen, SciFi or not.

      --
      morcego
    22. Re:Woot! by Monsieur+Canard · · Score: 1

      Things I've learned from reading the B5 scripts books:

      Actually, it wasn't the studio saying "you're ratings suck, see ya." Of all the shows on the PTEN network, B5 was actually doing okay. It was PTEN itself that was in danger of going bust.

      --
      He took a duck to the face at 250 knots.
    23. Re:Woot! by deblau · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You want better FX?? You realize that the show is over 10 years old now, right? The kind of weekly FX they did for that show blew everything else the hell out of the water, and opened the door for the kind of modern FX today that seems to have spoiled you with some sort of hindsight bias disease. Heck, that show had better weekly FX than some of the feature length movies of the day, with much a smaller budget.

      As for "Comes the Inquisitor," JMS acknowledged that he had a braino. His words:

      What happened is...basically...Joe is a moron.

      I did my research. I called up the info on the encyclopedia, got all the dates right, and my eyes saw East End and for whatever stupid, idiotic reason, my fingers typed West instead of East, and nobody, NObody, caught it until now. I'd loop it, but alas the line is on his face, and it'd look real stupid, and the delivery is *so* perfect as it is; if we looped it, we'd destroy it.

      So I content myself with the notion that it's west...of B5.

      Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go shoot myself.

      That kind of commitment is what made B5 great. Not to mention the fact that JMS essentially blogged about the show long before that word could have been invented, since there wasn't even a WWW yet. He took fan feedback from the blog, and incorporated it into the show. That's a rarity, even today. Voting people off a TV show doesn't even come close to the level of interaction JMS had with the B5 fanbase.
      --
      This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
    24. Re:Woot! by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      I actually disagree and think they have some very good potential. IMHO, I think the mini's are designed to address a few of the lose threads and those that had to be tied to quickly when the fear of cancellation occurred.

      So I think we may go "aha..." with a few of them.

      Now they just need to release Season 2 of Jeremiah

    25. Re:Woot! by wed128 · · Score: 1

      Firefly...seconded

      Shinyest gorram show ever!

    26. Re:Woot! by androvsky · · Score: 1

      Actually, even though it was the first series to use a lot of CGI, jms constantly bragged on the newsgroups about how he was bringing in costs under budget, and the budget was significantly less than the various Star Treks that were running during B5's run. I think B5 was running just under a million an episode, while Star Trek was well over, sometimes pushing two million (iirc). The whole five year arc was planned ahead of time, but there weren't scripts written for hardly any of it when he was pitching it to the studios (including Paramount, who spontaniously had the idea for Deep Space 9 a while after they heard the B5 pitch). It was meant for five years, but when the production company that B5 was running under folded part way through season 4, they had good reason to think they weren't getting a fifth season. Then, right at the end, they were picked up by TBS. Go figure. Still wish I knew the truth behind Claudia Christian leaving (too much he-said she-said now). Anyway, the real reason for this post is most anime series get planned out ahead of time also, and it shows. When a series will run for a set amount of time and is planned to end, there's so many more creative possibilities. I guess the big difference is pre-planned anime almost never runs as long as five years, it's usually 26 episodes, sometimes as many as 52. Some series, like Naruto, are long running and based on a current manga, so it seems pre-planned... until they run out of manga. The filler episodes tend to be quite painful.

    27. Re:Woot! by koreth · · Score: 2, Informative
      It has the distinction of being possibly the best planned series of any kind in history.
      Well -- and I say this as the person who runs the most popular B5 fansite on the net -- that's only true if you limit yourself to American TV. Asian TV has been doing huge but limited-run serial dramas for decades, well before B5.

      I remember when B5 was on the air and I mentioned the whole "story arc" thing to a Singaporean coworker. He looked at me like I was crazy: "So? Half the shows back home are like that." Since then I've watched several Chinese TV shows and I have to say he was right; not to diminish B5 in the least, but some of those shows have every bit as much foreshadowing and plot twistiness. (But usually, in the case of fantasy stories, much cheesier special effects than B5 at its worst.)

    28. Re:Woot! by Procrastin8er · · Score: 0

      "You have always been there."

      --
      Slashdot - Where the slash is most definitely to the left.
    29. Re:Woot! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      Seeing as the actors for Dr. Franklin and G'Kar are both in a state of not living, I can't see the new offering being up to much without them.

      Seeing as how the new "series" (microseries?) is about the characters' past I don't think that's going to be a big deal.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    30. Re:Woot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have...it sucked.

      So did firefly.

      I even downloaded the Firefly movie, watched it a whole 10 mins, then deleted that retching bowl of bile from my system.

    31. Re:Woot! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      You have to remember that B5 was the first TV series to use massive CGI and its production costs were giganormous for the time!

      Not true. The reason the show used so much CGI was that the budget didn't stretch to the number of model shots that they wanted to do. The special effects for the pilot were rendered on a home network of Amigas running Lightwave 3D. The rest of the series was rendered using 12 Pentia and 5 Alphas.

      These days, open source tools are as easy to use, and commodity CPUs are powerful enough that the only real cost of producing similar (or better) quality CGI would be the artists time.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    32. Re:Woot! by jandrese · · Score: 1

      It's still amazing IMHO. I can't have been the only person who scoured his local paper each week to find what timeslot B5 was in, only to discover that the paper was wrong more often than it was right, and even then it was only listed at all 1 week in 3. A couple of times I only caught it by accident, but it was almost always gone from any slot within a week or two.

      It also didn't help that my local affiliate liked to show the episodes out of order.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    33. Re:Woot! by Jthon · · Score: 1

      That's because the finale of season 5 is the orginal finale of season 4. When they were renewed at the last minute they threw together the season 4 finale and moved "Sleeping in light", out to the 5th season.

    34. Re:Woot! by Monsieur+Canard · · Score: 1

      My affiliate showed it on Tuesday nights at 11:00 PM.

      Granted, I could (and did) record it, but I HAD to watch it "live." That made for some grumpy ducks the following day, especially after eps like "Severed Dreams" or "Zha'dum."

      --
      He took a duck to the face at 250 knots.
    35. Re:Woot! by Em+Ellel · · Score: 1

      That made for some grumpy ducks the following day

      Did the grumpy ducks say "meow"?

      --
      RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
    36. Re:Woot! by Em+Ellel · · Score: 1

      BSG is great but without B5 there would be no new BSG. B5 provide there is life for Sci-Fi other than trek and it can be better.

      Actually, I am not saying nothing, but JMS's and Bryce Zabel's idea for new Trek series sounds strangly familiar, down to examples.... (mind you this was done in 2004)

      -Em

      --
      RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
    37. Re:Woot! by prgrmr · · Score: 1

      Firefly got a movie that was marginally promoted, mostly to the core audience, and still opened as the #2 movie in the USA for the weekend of 10/02/05. The studio promptly pulled all advertising for it the second week, started cutting theaters showing it the third week, and spent weeks 4 through 7 cutting the number of theaters showing the movie by half, and then pulled it altogether.

      The movie didn't fail, the studio killed it.

    38. Re:Woot! by MBraynard · · Score: 1

      Studios do not control how many screens it shows on. Face it - the movie sucked. Never saw Firefly, am a big BSG fan. Serenety blew. Hard.

    39. Re:Woot! by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the fact that JMS essentially blogged about the show long before that word could have been invented, since there wasn't even a WWW yet.

      Babylon 5 ran from 1993 to 1998. WWW was invented in 1990. As far as the word "blog" goes, it seems to be a mushpot of everything that's listed with entries in reverse chronological order, from news to diaries to "what's new" from groups and organizations. Hell, some of the BBS I remember had a function you could call a blog, only it didn't use WWW. Many people used their homepage as a blog, except they called it a homepage. So the activity already existed - we just sooner or later decided to make an own word for it.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    40. Re:Woot! by jpietrzak · · Score: 1

      Me, I'm a big Firefly fan. Loved the movie. And for me, BSG is a huge yawn (although the graphics are nice) -- the stories just don't go anywhere.

      To each his own.

    41. Re:Woot! by cyborg_zx · · Score: 1

      The 5 in Babylon 5 isn't an accident...

    42. Re:Woot! by jpietrzak · · Score: 1
      I'm not sure you're seeing the point here; you state:
      Better shows have developed arcs which could cope with being axed after the first year or running indefinitely.

      If all you are looking for is a group of characters who will interact with each other, show after show after show, for some undetermined amount of time, then you are correct -- B5 was not optimally set up for that. But then, B5 was not fundamentally a story about a group of characters; it was a story about a particular event (the war between the First Ones and the younger races).

      As such, it doesn't necessarily need to follow all the same characters around all the time, or look at the event in the same place all the time, but it _does_ need to advance the plot at a specific rate in order to cover all the interesting items leading up to the event. It was an _extremely_ ambitious design to plot out five years worth of episodes to cover the event, and it suffered because of that. Even so, I personally still rank it above shows like Hill Street Blues.

      I can't think of any American shows before or after that have worked this way. You can say that you see "arcs" in modern series, but the writers still just make it up as they go -- the "arc" just means that you build up to some arbitrary cliffhanger at the end of each season, and if you get renewed, you make up some deus ex machina to get out of it at the beginning of the next season, and work towards your next arbitrary cliffhanger.

      That's the main difference of B5. The seasons weren't just a collection of arbitrary cliffhangers, they were chapters of a continuing story, leading up to a specific climax.

    43. Re:Woot! by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      Very original, a year after BSG already did it. I would hope JMS would at least have the decency not to try and pretend he and Zabel just came up with the idea out of the blue.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    44. Re:Woot! by Em+Ellel · · Score: 1

      Very original, a year after BSG already did it. I would hope JMS would at least have the decency not to try and pretend he and Zabel just came up with the idea out of the blue.

      Erm, I am pretty sure this was before BSG show came out and no, they never claimed they "came up with the idea out of the blue" but rather adapted a common comic book aproach to a TV show (if you read the pitch, it actually explains this in detail)

      --
      RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
    45. Re:Woot! by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      The "reimagined" BSG came out in 2003.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    46. Re:Woot! by warith · · Score: 1

      Where exactly did the stories in Firefly "go", compared to B5? I am sincerely curious about your opinion here.

    47. Re:Woot! by Two99Point80 · · Score: 1
      Granted, I could (and did) record it, but I HAD to watch it "live." That made for some grumpy ducks the following day...

      Yeah... so did making a bunch of 185-mile round trips (roughly 44 of 'em) to tape it in my car because no local station carried B5 during seasons 3 and 4. But the show was worth that effort... JMS et al were busting their asses; the least I could do was honor that by making a small in-kind contribution :-)

      On the plus side, my old Sony VCR survived all the square waves from my ancient inverter, and there wasn't much traffic on US74 heading from Shelby (NC) back toward Asheville in the early AM...

      Oh, and during those late-night journeys I also discovered this.

    48. Re:Woot! by Monsieur+Canard · · Score: 1

      Wow. That's dedication. You win.

      --
      He took a duck to the face at 250 knots.
    49. Re:Woot! by jpietrzak · · Score: 1
      I haven't seen any Joss Whedon stories that have a significant multi-year arc like B5, but he does like to put a lot of backstory into his stuff, and a few major arcs that play out over his shows. In Firefly, there were a handful of interesting stories slowly being revealed:

      • Mal & Zoe survived a terrible losing war, they've got a lot of history...
      • Shepherd Book was most certainly _not_ a Shepherd at some point in the past. :)
      • The Alliance has taken over the collected human worlds, and is in the process of consolidating its new holdings (via a significant propaganda campaign)
      • And, of course, the main arc of the first season -- River Tam and her brother Simon on the run from the Alliance. The season got cut off before the arc really got far underway; the movie probably finished the arc as far as it would have gone in the first season
      I'm afraid that we'll never have another attempt at a show like B5; but shows like Firefly do have some depth, and tell stories that take more than just one hour to present.
    50. Re:Woot! by warith · · Score: 1

      Hi there! Thanks for your reply.

      A few things...

      - I'm a Whedon fan. You're preaching to the converted about Firefly, I thought it and Serenity were awesome. :)

      - I was actually replying to your comment about finding BSG boring, but typed B5 by accident. I tried to post a correction immediately after, but /. in its infinite wisdom does not allow this, and I had to leave work.

      So... sorry about that, but what I was really interested in is why you find BSG so boring compared to Firefly? It has tons of backstory (to subvert your first Firefly point, "Adama and Tighe survived a terrible war and have a lot of history"), it most certainly has stories that take longer than a single episode to tell, the setting (mankind reduced to a fleet of ships) is compelling, and it deals grippingly with contemporary issues, ie, is it moral to torture Cylons-as-terrorists? Plus, a hot underwear model to stare at (who can actually ACT!) and the occasional (but not overused) gigantic space battle. Where's the bore?

    51. Re:Woot! by jpietrzak · · Score: 1

      Oh, sorry, I should have figured that you meant BSG, I guess that was what I originally posted about. :)

      I guess, I just don't see the point. I think "Mankind is reduced to a fleet of ships" is interesting to think about for a minute or two, but beyond that it's just depressing. So almost everyone is dead -- is there a compelling reason to watch the survivors try to survive? Yeah, you can portray contemporary issues in the context of the survivors, but you can portray contemporary issues in any series (there's no need to resort to science fiction for that).

      I guess I'm also not really happy with the way the Cylons are portrayed, although that's probably more my fault than theirs; I guess I shouldn't really expect the writers to know much about computer science. They miss many of the interesting conflicts in machine sentience (although maybe they're only interesting to me). What gets my goat is that they've set up a perfect opportunity to question human identity ala Philip K. Dick or Stanislaw Lem, but they just turn it into a glorified us-vs-them slugfest.

      So it's a drama based in space, but it just doesn't feel like science fiction to me. The writers aren't really giving us new concepts to ponder, or puzzles about how to use a variety of new technologies to solve a problem. We're just watching some characters live out their lives. It just doesn't grab me...

    52. Re:Woot! by warith · · Score: 1
      I think "Mankind is reduced to a fleet of ships" is interesting to think about for a minute or two, but beyond that it's just depressing.
      I can certainly understand you finding the show grim. I guess I just like apocalyptic settings. :)

      they miss many of the interesting conflicts in machine sentience [...] they've set up a perfect opportunity to question human identity [...] it just doesn't feel like science fiction to me. The writers aren't really giving us new concepts to ponder
      I guess this is where we will have to agree to disagree. Some of the concepts they have explored which I find fascinating are:

      • Technology-as-vulnerability: The Cylons can effectively 'hack' anything, meaning a reliance on automation has to be abandoned. Human skill becomes paramount for a real reason that makes perfect sense. To compare to Firefly, we might reasonably ask, why is Wash's skill as a pilot even important? Why aren't complex flight maneuvers controlled by a computer? The answer of course, is that it is a contrivance for dramatic effect.
      • Conflicts in machine sentience: Cylons have religion and believe in love, but they disagree about it. Some of them feel guilt over their genocide of humanity. There are multiple copies of the same Cylon "person", who turn out very differently due to their experiences (AI meets the nature vs nurture debate). Some of them thought they were human at one point, and are traumatized to learn they are machines (I don't know how much closer to Philip K. Dick you could get than that last)
      • Questions of human identity: Cylons look like us, talk like us, act like us. They have emotions and can conceive children with humans. Even under extensive physical examination, we can't find any differences. What then, makes them different from us, then? What defines a human?
      • Origins of humanity: What is the connection between the fleet and Earth? Each of the twelve colonies represents one of the Zodiac constellations we know on Earth. Did they come from Earth in the distant past? Will they seed Earth later, forming the precursor to our ancient civilizations?
      • Many other issues that parallel problems in our own world... you've said there's no need to go to sci-fi to explore these, and I agree (with an emphasis on NEED), but at the same time I feel it gives the show more relevance and issues people can relate to, and attracting more people to sci-fi can only be a good thing ;)


      [aren't really giving us] puzzles about how to use a variety of new technologies to solve a problem
      All I can say about this one is thank heavens! I for one am sick to death of all the technobabble solutions prevalent in certain other sci-fi franchies.

      I can certainly understand your opinions about BSG and I know I won't change them, but what I still don't get is why you think Firefly succeeds where BSG fails? All of your complaints about BSG would seem to apply to Firefly. It's a Western in space, "there's no need to resort to science fiction" for the stories and characters presented. There are no real sci-fi concepts presented, just Whedon's standard "big bad of the episode/season" formula and yet another troubled girl who kicks ass. They don't present puzzles to be solved with technology. Frankly, it's portrayal of space is weak at best, like randomly "running into people" in deep space as easily as you would say, sailing the seas. ("It's getting awfully crowded in my sky"? Gimme a break.. and don't even get me started on the absurdity of the Reaver planetary blockade in the movie)

      About the only two quasi-futuristic concepts in Firefly are the idea that Asian culture would be more predominant, including in common language (yet we see no Asians in the show??????), and that prostitution is accepted and even a position of status.

      Firefly is a good show, with great characters and writing, but I just can't see it as superior "sci-fi" to BSG. Anyway thanks for the discussion! :)

      "You can't take the sky from me..."
    53. Re:Woot! by podperson · · Score: 1

      If all you are looking for is a group of characters who will interact with each other, show after show after show, for some undetermined amount of time, then you are correct... That's the main difference of B5. The seasons weren't just a collection of arbitrary cliffhangers, they were chapters of a continuing story, leading up to a specific climax.

      I think you're thinking of Dallas not Hill Street Blues.

      B5 was not fundamentally a story about a group of characters; it was a story about a particular event (the war between the First Ones and the younger races).

      The original arc was supposed to end where season 4 ended, so in fact the particular event you mention (or at least its resolution and climax) was originally going to be left out (or maybe be put in a movie). The event you talk about was tacked on, rather badly, to provide a reason for season 5, the original seasons 4 and 5 having been compressed into season 4. There are plenty of shows that have covered similar ground, some well (Holocaust, Roots) and other not so well (North and South, Wings of War). In general, they have covered far more complex and interesting material at a far less turgid pace and without prosthetic foreheads.

      Science Fiction and Fantasy is all too often about events of epic scope (wars at the end of time, the liberation of a galaxy, a gathering of eternal heroes pitted against the Ultimate Evil, whatever). Usually this epic sweep is at the cost of any real understanding of human (let alone alien) nature. This kind of grandiosity is not what makes literature, movies, or television shows great. It's what makes them pathetic.

      Here's a hint -- when the bad guys are Just Evil with no discernable motive, your story sucks. Babylon 5 wasn't quite that bad, but it was close.

  3. Alas, Babylon by krell · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It won't be the same without G'Kar, one of my two favorite characters.

    --
    Where were you when the voynix came?
    1. Re:Alas, Babylon by lord_dragonsfyre · · Score: 1

      Yea, I'll miss G'Kar, but at least JMS has said that he just won't tell any stories with him; if they tried to do one with someone other then Katsulas, I would be deeply unthrilled.

      --
      "I have spread my dreams under your feet, Tread softly, because you tread on my dreams." - W. B. Yeats.
    2. Re:Alas, Babylon by Apocalypse111 · · Score: 5, Informative

      You are correct, it would not be the same without Andreas Katsulas, who died of lung cancer on Feb. 13 of this year. Similarly, the death of Richard Biggs, who played Dr. Franklin, should not go unmourned. He died of an aortic tear back in 2004.

      --
      There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
    3. Re:Alas, Babylon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I liked that episode where G'Kar was trapped in the elevator with that weird-haired guy. Stories like that show the genius of Babylon 5.

      The typical, ordinary TV shows churned out by the networks rely on one tired cliche after the next to carry the tired plot along. In stark contrast, Babylon 5 pioneered daring and creative storytelling techniques, such as trapping two characters who hate each other in an elevator.

    4. Re:Alas, Babylon by Leowyatt · · Score: 1

      I agree, Doctor Franklin won't be in it either :( I think it's probably best left as it was

    5. Re:Alas, Babylon by Billosaur · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's the mark of the impact of a series when you mourn the passing of actors on them as if they were your family. Babylon 5 was so well constructed and intricate that the characters had real depth, and you felt like you knew them, and by way of that, the actors. I'm hoping these stories work; I know JMS won't dilute the franchise the wat Star Trek has been reduced to pitiful ruins.

      --
      GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    6. Re:Alas, Babylon by Ark · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not that he was a major character, but Tim Choate also passed away a few years ago. Luckily he's survived by his brothers Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, and Zathras.

    7. Re:Alas, Babylon by rgravina · · Score: 0
      I liked that episode where G'Kar was trapped in the elevator with that weird-haired guy

      That would be Ambassador Mollari. And yes, the quarrels between those two were always very very well done. Entertaining and funny without being over the top. A bit like when you watch two old friends having a go at one another.

      I still remember a funny Mollari quote that'd I'd like to use one day (hopefully the people with me will not know of it!). Two friends of yours meeting for the first time:

      Friend A: "[You] has told me all about you!"
      Friend B: "Oh, I hope he/she didn't tell you anything bad"
      You to Friend B: "Oh never mind, [Friend B], I only told him/her the good things. It was a very short conversation."

      Gold!

    8. Re:Alas, Babylon by denebian+devil · · Score: 1

      I can't agree with you more. He was invaluable to the show, and his dynamic with Peter Jurasik was outrageously wonderful/sad/funny/heartfelt/perfect/fill-in-your -praise-here.

    9. Re:Alas, Babylon by Apocalypse111 · · Score: 1

      On the subject of JMS and Star Trek, didn't he say at some point that he'd be interested in doing a Star Trek TV series recently?

      --
      There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
    10. Re:Alas, Babylon by dargon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My favorite is still the Vir quote;

      I'd like to live just long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors come with too high a price. I want to look up into your lifeless eyes and wave like this.
      *waves* Can you and your associates arrange that for me, Mr. Morden?

    11. Re:Alas, Babylon by Random_Goblin · · Score: 2, Funny

      Luckily he's survived by his brothers Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, and Zathras.

      I think you're mistaken his surviving brothers are Zathras, Zathras, Zathras and Zathras.


      "Zathras is used to being beast of burden to other people's needs. Very sad life. Probably have very sad death. But, at least there is symmetry."

    12. Re:Alas, Babylon by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      "I know JMS won't dilute the franchise the wat Star Trek has been reduced to pitiful ruins."

      Like Third Space and Rangers? Heh.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    13. Re:Alas, Babylon by Absentminded-Artist · · Score: 1

      I had no idea that Richard Biggs had passed away. He was so young. 44 years old. What a tragedy. I can't imagine the show without his grace and dignity. Yes, Dr. Franklin was just a character, but the Richard Biggs, like Andreas Katsulas, brought him to life. I have a lot of respect for anybody who can do that. Judging by most TV, it's not a very common skill.

      --
      The Splintered Mind - Overcoming
    14. Re:Alas, Babylon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, it's more of a mark of how much of a life you need to get.

    15. Re:Alas, Babylon by Monsieur+Canard · · Score: 1

      Thank you. I was just about to come in and mention Mr. Choate.

      Now I'll have to bemoan the passing of Paul Winfield who played Dr. Franklin's father.

      --
      He took a duck to the face at 250 knots.
    16. Re:Alas, Babylon by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      And best of all...he got to do just that... *lol*

    17. Re:Alas, Babylon by fdiskne1 · · Score: 0, Troll

      I agree. Then two seasons later, they made that exact scene with Vir having an impish grin on his face. Only someone who was paying attention two years previously would have realized what the deal was. Of course the vast majority watching to that point HAD seen all the previous episodes.

      Now the "What a day" "What a week" exchange between Vir and Lanier ranks up there too. "You win", "Same time tomorrow?"

      --
      But why is the rum gone?
    18. Re:Alas, Babylon by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Babylon 5 pioneered daring and creative storytelling techniques, such as trapping two characters who hate each other in an elevator.

      That would be "Convictions".

      They're called bottle episodes but they're usually done for budgetary reasons. Trap the characters inside a single set (bottle them up) and play them off each other.

      A benefit from saving on sets, locations, and FX is that more money can go into the scripted dialog and character development, though this is more of an example of a bottle scene or situation, and is better for it. Still, that episode has one of my favorite quotes:

      "`Go be the ambassador to Babylon 5,' they say. `Will be an easy assignment.' Ah, I hate my life."
      "So do I."
      "Shut UP!" [zip]

      But then there's also this one [wav].

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    19. Re:Alas, Babylon by Dr+Caleb · · Score: 1

      LOL. Anyone who doesn't get that one was not a B5 fan. ;)

      --
      "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
    20. Re:Alas, Babylon by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Only someone who was paying attention two years previously would have realized what the deal was.

      If only if they hadn't replayed the scene as a flashback at that very moment would that be true.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    21. Re:Alas, Babylon by kabocox · · Score: 1

      Not that he was a major character, but Tim Choate also passed away a few years ago. Luckily he's survived by his brothers Zathras, Zathras, Zathras, and Zathras.

      But he was my favorite part time character! He was just so funny.

      I'd be interested if they made a new B5 series that has another 5 season arch, and they were sold straight to DVD for $45-$60 a season. I'd like someone to try it. I think B5 could prove the concept workable.

    22. Re:Alas, Babylon by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      On the subject of JMS and Star Trek, didn't he say at some point that he'd be interested in doing a Star Trek TV series recently?

      IIRC he said it a long time ago, before Enterprise came out. It'll never happen though. It would be too good. Star Trek shows are required to suck in the post-TOS world. (TNG had its moments, as did all the other shows except voyager.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    23. Re:Alas, Babylon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BSG(new) > Dr. Who > DS9 > TNG > B5 > every other sci fi show > Voyager

    24. Re:Alas, Babylon by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      I'd be interested if they made a new B5 series that has another 5 season arch, and they were sold straight to DVD for $45-$60 a season. I'd like someone to try it. I think B5 could prove the concept workable.

      They did; it was called Crusade, and was set in the same universe as Babylon 5 but a little after the end of the original five-year arc. Unfortunately, despite having a promising beginning, it was canned halfway through series one. In true JMS style, it later transpired that he was planning a huge plot twist at the end of that series, basically wrapping up what everyone expected to be the whole five-season arc within just the first season and then developing from there.

      Alas, if the TV execs won't trust JMS to make such a concept work even after the success of B5, it's hard to see anyone else doing it, at least in the near future. Apparently sci-fi regular audience viewing figures aren't high enough to justify the kind of magic you can get in an extended storyline, and the pressure to make every episode accessible to the casual viewer seems to be too dominant today. [See also: Firefly.]

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    25. Re:Alas, Babylon by powerlord · · Score: 1

      Third Space ... I agree

      Rangers ... not so much. There was a lot of interesting things happening.

      I think "The Legend of the Rangers" was his attempt to save the end of the story from "Crusade".

      At the end of Cusade we learned that the virus was actually nano-machines. The Legend of the Rangers seems like those could very well be the evil entity that was behind the infection from "A Call to Arms" ... of course Crusade got manhandled by TNTs executives to the point of killing it (and butchering it, and P!ssing on the corpse), but there are still some interesting things in it. The Legend of the Rangers just never had the chance to develop (I think). For what it was, it wasn't bad, but it is tough to take new characters in a very established universe, and pull of a (relatively) short storyline with them, that involves more developed characters, unless you have a very clear vision, good actors, and a fair amount of luck.

      I think it was also trying to grab more 'casual' viewers as a possible pilot, which diluted what it could have been. (although admittedly I liked it anyway :) )

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    26. Re:Alas, Babylon by Deef · · Score: 1

      You are both mistaken. There is only one Zathras. Time travel can get confusing sometimes. :-)

    27. Re:Alas, Babylon by fdiskne1 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Gads, you're right. That's what I get for letting it get to be over a couple of years since I last watched the entire series.

      --
      But why is the rum gone?
    28. Re:Alas, Babylon by Associate · · Score: 1

      Zathras is always forgetting what Zathras told him. And Zathras is always loosing things Zathras gave him. And Zathras is always getting lost. But not Zathras. Zathras always remembers what he is told. Zathras always remembers where he puts things. And Zathras never gets lost.

      --
      Someone hates these cans.
    29. Re:Alas, Babylon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time is infinite. You are finite. I am finite. This... is wrong tool. Never use this...

    30. Re:Alas, Babylon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone is looking for a homerun.

      I for one enjoyed Andromeda (I know many will sniker at me for that). But it had many good original Star Trek elements that I liked. Not the junk that was star trek later on. Though it ended on a whimper not a bang. But that was to be expected they jumped the shark.

      Firefly I did not even know about it until after it was out on DVD which was sad. It was a good show that I would have watched every week.

      Also as for B5 they have jumped the shark. The shadows are gone... The B5 crew won... Time for a new show based on something else. Otherwise they will just be rehashing old ideas.

    31. Re:Alas, Babylon by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      I know JMS won't dilute the franchise the wat Star Trek has been reduced to pitiful ruins.

      Huh?

      you did not read about the Babylon5 Musical on Broadway this winter?

      Or the Babylon5 Cartoon series saturdays on CBS?

      There is also a new child line of toys "babylon5 babies" to be marketed this winter.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    32. Re:Alas, Babylon by warith · · Score: 1
      Damn... I didn't even know Katsulas had passed away until reading the AICN piece. :(

      B5 was already an excellent sci-fi show... but G'Kar and Londo made it priceless.

      Think I'll go watch "The Long, Twilight Struggle" (G'Kar's speech at the end always gives me shivers), the last few episodes of season 5, and cry for a while...

      This one's for you, G'Kar:

      The Universe speaks in many languages but only one voice. A language which is not Narn or Human or Centauri or Gaium or Minbari.

      It speaks in the language of hope.
      It speaks in the language of trust.
      It speaks in the language of strength and the language of compassion.

      It is the language of the heart and of the language of the soul; but always it is the same voice; it is the voice of our ancestors speaking through us, and the voice of our inheritors waiting to be born; it is the small still voice said says:

      "We are one, no matter the blood, no matter the skin, no matter the world, no matter the star.

      We are one, no matter the pain, no matter the darkness, no matter the loss, no matter the fear.

      We are one, here, gathered together in common cause we agree to recognize this singular truth and this singular rule, that we must be kind to one another because each voice enriches us and enobles us, and each voice lost diminishes us.

      We are the voice of the universe, the soul of creation, the fire that will light the way to a better future.

      We are one."
    33. Re:Alas, Babylon by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      I for one enjoyed Andromeda (I know many will sniker at me for that).

      I have a bit of a soft spot for Andromeda too. It's hardly highbrow TV - it sets out unashamedly to be an "action hour" - but it does that well. And it actually has a few things that most "good" sci-fi shows don't, not least some semblance of real tactics and concessions to physics during space combat.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    34. Re:Alas, Babylon by Associate · · Score: 1

      Good one. I think I know who I'll be voting for in the next election.

      --
      Someone hates these cans.
    35. Re:Alas, Babylon by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that the original B5 movie sucked but the spun off to be an incredible series.

    36. Re:Alas, Babylon by trp0 · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean, Zathras? It's a subtle difference in pronounciation, but important.

  4. Mercy by Ramble · · Score: 0

    May Xenu have mercy on those who actually buy it.

    --
    "Oh boy"
  5. Exciting by embracethenerdwithin · · Score: 1

    I'm definately excited to hear this news! I recently dusted off some of my old B5 tapes and the show still rocks. I used to love it when I was about 17 and it's still awesome today. I'd watch it every week wth some friends.

    I never realized how popular it was 500 mil in DvD sales, thats pretty darn good.

    1. Re:Exciting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But not one penny (cent) of that went to JMS.

  6. Not quite 20 minutes. by Trestran · · Score: 3, Interesting
    It won't be 20 minutes, acording to B5 creator JMS. From a usenet post by him:
    No, it's closer to one-half-hour per story, so figure about 75-90 minutes per DVD, plus additional material adding up to a two-hour DVD. jms
    I for one am looking forward to this tremendously. I know that all the previous B5 spin-offs have been rather anti-climatic, abortive affairs (although I haven't seen nearly all of it), but the creative freedom he is getting seems rather amazing. As opposed to, say, Crusade, that according to JMS suffered from a death by studio interference. And having seen some of the memos that were leaked, I see no reason to doubt him.
    1. Re:Not quite 20 minutes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      B5 was great but everything else has sucked. I can't see this being any better. I own all 5 series on DVD and will watch them again before I buy another rubbish spin-off. JMS should move on and do something else.

    2. Re:Not quite 20 minutes. by discord5 · · Score: 1
      I know that all the previous B5 spin-offs have been rather anti-climatic, abortive affairs (although I haven't seen nearly all of it)

      I know I'm going out on a limb here, but the spin-offs were really bad... They really lacked the depth that B5 created (granted they didn't run as long), and added bad dialogue, wooden acting and the desire to turn the tv off. B5 has a special place in my memory as the show that proved sci-fi doesn't have to be all phasers, photon torpedos or tetrion-particle-chocolate-dohdoh-wave-buffer-over loads and can actually have a complex background story, opposed to "We're the federation, within the next 40 minutes the universe will collapse on itself, we'll fix it, and merrily go where previous episodes have gone over and over".

      To be honest, I'd rather have Babylon 5 remain what it was. It doesn't need anymore movies with half the original cast, nor anymore spin-offs that make it all the more obvious we're being milked for our cash. JMS created a good show with B5, but the "franchise" was ruined by the spinoffs and some of the movies.

      Sci-fi needs a new breath, something original that won't go "more of the same" or was made exclusively for teens, or has terrible writing (combined with low budget special effects). There's very little good sci-fi left that hasn't jumped the shark, or is doing so as I write this.

    3. Re:Not quite 20 minutes. by ktappe · · Score: 1
      the spin-offs were really bad
      They were bad for reasons that JMS is making sure to avoid this time. Did you read the linked article where he says he's getting it in writing this time that the studio is not allowed to edit his scripts at all? That is why all the B5 spinoffs were bad; they weren't JMS, they were studio rewriting of JMS. Ick. Have faith and evaluate the new series on its own merits.

      -Kurt

      --
      "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
  7. Cashing in by alienmole · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I liked the Babylon 5 series just fine, but it had an ambitious overarching plot which did advance over time, albeit slowly and vaguely, that made it a bit more interesting than an ordinary space opera. Shows about the past of the characters sounds mainly like a way to milk the cash cow represented by the most diehard fanboys and anyone who doesn't have any, whaddayacallem, standards. It doesn't require much creative effort in terms of plot, it's just exploiting the franchise.

    1. Re:Cashing in by QuantumFTL · · Score: 1

      I have a hard time believing that JMS would sell out his finest creation for what is likely to not be a large amount of money. I spent an afternoon with him when he visited my software team at JPL (wow, he really makes me look short)... he's an incredibly cool guy, very visionary but also very down to Earth... I think that these episodes will really add something to the series, in the same way that (some of) the books did.

    2. Re:Cashing in by bigpat · · Score: 1

      It doesn't require much creative effort in terms of plot, it's just exploiting the franchise.

      Did someone say Ewoks?

    3. Re:Cashing in by alienmole · · Score: 1

      First, let me say, based on that picture... Dude! You're a hobbit! How cool is that?! ;)

      Assuming you took that as a compliment and are still reading, I hope you're right about JMS. If, as another post suggested, these new episodes are tied together in some interesting way, and aren't just independent short expositions about each character, there may yet be hope.

    4. Re:Cashing in by QuantumFTL · · Score: 1

      First, let me say, based on that picture... Dude! You're a hobbit! How cool is that?! ;)

      Not actually that cool, but my girlfriend will still have me, so I guess I'm alright. All my geek friends seem to call me that (I've had LOTR themes whistled into my voicemail more than I'd like due to that)... Once at a pub my #space (on freenode) friends and I were at, we were all playing billiards and everyone took the large cues, and I was stuck with the small, unfortunately christened "hobbit stick." Two years later, I still know people who laugh at that (though it's rarely me!)

      I have faith in just about anything JMS really thinks is a good idea (not that it necessarily will be, but that it has a very high probability of being). For instance, Crusade seemed a little... weird, at least at first, but some scripts of later episodes leaked (and were unfortunately taken down before I could read them), and the main twist on the theme of the show - that humans had been messing around with Shadow technology (with interesting consequences), and that the Excalibur would have to go Rogue after finding a "cure" that turns out not to work at all (against a yet-again corrupt human government). It would have been wonderful to see, especially when the office space guy was everyone's boss :)

    5. Re:Cashing in by alienmole · · Score: 1

      Gee, so I'm not the first one to make the hobbit comparison. Sorry 'bout that! FWIW, I'm tall but ridiculously skinny (6ft2, 155 lbs, full adult weight, I'm not a kid anymore). That was more of a problem when I was in high school than later, but it has definitely limited my potential girlfriend pool. I sometimes feel like a different species from normally-built guys. A kind of message I took from LOTR (the book) and some other fantasy/scifi stories when I was a teenager being teased is that the common idea of a "norm" of size & shape from which people deviate to a greater or lesser degree is really silly, and in particular, shouldn't be internalized and accepted by someone who doesn't fit that norm. Frodo presumably doesn't worry about his height, and Legolas doesn't worry that Aragorn is beefier than he is. And let's face it, elves and hobbits are more interesting than Men. Reading your defense of JMS, I'm willing to suspend disbelief and wait and see what he comes up with.

  8. who can tell with all that makeup by peter303 · · Score: 1

    G'KAr had so much makeup on for his character, that you could probably easily replace him and not really tell.

    1. Re:who can tell with all that makeup by Stoutlimb · · Score: 1

      So you think looks is all it takes to be a memorable actor?

    2. Re:who can tell with all that makeup by 14CharUsername · · Score: 1

      I recognised the guy on star trek when he played a romulan (took me a while to figure out who it was, though). Completely different makeup and character, but you can still see the actor underneath. It's like getting someone else to voice a cartoon character. You know the difference.

    3. Re:who can tell with all that makeup by CaptnMArk · · Score: 1

      They'd have to do a really good job, because after first seeing G'Kar he seemed
      instantly familiar to me (I soon realized that he was a Romulan captain from ST:TNG).
      Maybe the voice helped.

    4. Re:who can tell with all that makeup by elrous0 · · Score: 1, Funny
      Seems to work for Julia Roberts.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    5. Re:who can tell with all that makeup by CaptainAvatar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, it's a testament to Andreas Katsulas' acting ability that this isn't true. All that latex and yet he still stole every scene he was in.

      --
      The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
    6. Re:who can tell with all that makeup by Marillion · · Score: 2, Informative

      I really hope that your comment is a troll. Andreas Katsulas is a Shakespearian actor. Few actors, past and present, are able to capitalise on the grandeur of that training as dramatically as he did. JMS should allow G'Kar to die, or more specifically, rest in the noble peace that stoic noble heroes deserve.

      --
      This is a boring sig
    7. Re:who can tell with all that makeup by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Check out the SciFi actors with the most makeup who made the big splashes. It takes tremendous acting talent to work through all of that and still emote. To get past the makeup and make the character really sympathetic (if not always loveable) is the mark of an exceptional actor. Andreas was brilliant and he really made G'Kar what he was. JMS has said so a number of times in his commentaries to the scripts. That's why JMS won't re-cast G'Kar: you won't get the same character by a long shot. Even if you get another fantastic actor, you won't get *G'Kar*.

    8. Re:who can tell with all that makeup by Lars+T. · · Score: 1
      Andreas Katsulas is a Shakespearian actor.

      As is William Shatner, so that proves nothing. Shatner never could make the move from the "overacting" necessary on stage to screen acting.

      It's quite obvious how much Gene Roddenberry liked Shakespear, and how many Shakespearean actors he hired for Star Trek (including Katsulas likely) - I wonder what he would think about Andromeda's captain.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    9. Re:who can tell with all that makeup by rvillegrrrl · · Score: 1

      **I** can tell. And so could a lot of other people.

      It's not just the latex prosthetics and paint; it's the performer's voice, attitude and presence that create a unique character.

    10. Re:who can tell with all that makeup by jgrahn · · Score: 1
      Actually, it's a testament to Andreas Katsulas' acting ability that this isn't true. All that latex and yet he still stole every scene he was in.

      The Londo + G'Kar thing was of course unbeatable ...

    11. Re:who can tell with all that makeup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rest in the noble peace that stoic noble heroes deserve.

      I liked G'Kar as much as anyone, but *blech*. It's worldviews like that, particuarly when applied to fictional characters, which have us continually at war with each other. War and violence are never noble. They are the choices of the weak-minded. There are no heroes. There are only human beings.

  9. "Our Favorite Characters" - Your pics? by Apocalypse111 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm betting that the series will be about Sheridan's actions during the Earth-Minbari war. That would provide sufficient eye-candy and war drama for a plot, while at the same time confining the characters to those of primarily human or Minbari origin, keeping G'Kar out of the picture (RIP Mr. Katsulas). Also, during this time frame, Stephen Franklin was galavanting around the galaxy learning about xenobiology, so this war setting would also keep his character out of the picture (RIP. Mr. Biggs).

    --
    There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
    1. Re:"Our Favorite Characters" - Your pics? by Apocalypse111 · · Score: 1

      Please disregard the previous message - I just reread the title and picked up the "each" that I missed. Each episode will be about the past of a character. Not the series as a whole. That'll learn me to read more carefully before I post...

      --
      There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
    2. Re:"Our Favorite Characters" - Your pics? by Procrastin8er · · Score: 0

      I would be interested in seeing how the Vorlons and Shadows influenced the "younger" races without them being aware.

      --
      Slashdot - Where the slash is most definitely to the left.
    3. Re:"Our Favorite Characters" - Your pics? by peragrin · · Score: 1

      well part of the Vorlon influence is shown talked about.

      Not only did the Vorlon use their telepathic thought push. when you see a vorlon you see only what of them you can interpret. hence why humans see angels, Mimbari see valen, the centari see nothing.

      Also the Vorlons had the ability to hide from scanner's(at least early style earth force ones) As shortly AFTER first contact with the mimbari Human telepaths began to be born.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    4. Re:"Our Favorite Characters" - Your pics? by Apocalypse111 · · Score: 1

      With regards to the Centauri being able to see nothing, was this a result of the Vorlons not having influenced them in these ways, or is it perhaps a Londo-specific matter, due to the fact that he was dealing with the Shadows at the time? I don't recall other Centauri remarking on the subject, but I imagine that they would see one of their household gods or something.

      --
      There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
    5. Re:"Our Favorite Characters" - Your pics? by ghostdancer · · Score: 1
      From Wiki:

      ... As an interesting side-note, when Ambassador Londo Mollari of the Centauri Republic observed an unsuited Vorlon at the same time as many others on board Babylon 5, he was reported not to have seen anything at all. Whether this was unique to him, or a trait of his race, was left unexplained by the series (although J. Michael Straczynski has stated that "Londo saw what he said he saw" [1]). One explanation for this is his affiliation with the Shadows, which made him unable to see the Vorlon as others more favourable to them did, another is that the Centauri simply haven't been manipulated by the Vorlons as the other races, and so aren't 'sensitive' to their projections in the same way. Outside of the television show, Peter David's book Out of Darkness indicates that Mollari just saw a very bright ball of energy, though it should be noted that when Vorlons outside of their encounter suits are seen later in the Babylon 5 series, they do not appear either as balls of energy or as projected, angelic beings of light. It is only under very exceptional circumstances that a Vorlon abandons its illusion and shows its true form however, and the one time when they are seen thus, the Vorlons in question are enraged and fighting, so whether or not their quiescent forms are more similar to the ball of energy observed by Mollari remains unknown...

      Vorlon
      --
      I rather be free in hell than a slave in heaven.
    6. Re:"Our Favorite Characters" - Your pics? by andphi · · Score: 2, Funny

      Without those two, it would be to paraphrase Zathras, "Not the same, not the same."

  10. What JMS should do by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Strazinski could still do a G'Kar story, showing the effects of G'Kar's travels around the galaxy. G'Kar himself wouldn't actually have to appear.

    1. Re:What JMS should do by Hythlodaeus · · Score: 1

      This is about the _past_ of the characters, right? And the actors are 8 or so years older even than the last time we saw them. The most likely conclusion is new, younger actors, so it doesn't matter who of the original cast is alive or not. Could see something like Sheridan's original actor being cast as Sheridan's grandfather or some such, though.

      --
      For great justice.
    2. Re:What JMS should do by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Actors/actresses playing their own ancestors is the hokiest thing I've ever seen in television. Yes you can look like your ancestors. Yes you can look a lot like them. But you don't look (or sound) so much like them as to be identical. There's genetic code from other people there too to change stuff around.

      They can use younger actors in place of them, that's understandable, but if they want Sheridans grandfather to make an appearance they ought to just go get an unknown older actor to play the part.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    3. Re:What JMS should do by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

      I recall an episode of Star Trek: Voyager (yeah, I watched it. Sue me) where Kate Mulgrew played a 20th century ancestor of Janeway. You are right, it is cheesy, but I don't think it is intended to be realistic. It is more of a cinematic tool to identify the ancestor with the character that we are more familier with.

    4. Re:What JMS should do by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

      Is it about the past? I guess I didn't notice that bit. I thought it was about what happened to the characters after the series.

    5. Re:What JMS should do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      JMS has already said that no one else will ever play G'Kar. Period.

    6. Re:What JMS should do by nytes · · Score: 1

      The cult of G'Kar, the development of which caused him to leave, could easily provide fodder for a whole series based on Narn.

      --
      -- I have monkeys in my pants.
    7. Re:What JMS should do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      G'Kar himself wouldn't actually have to appear.

      Ooh, yeah. That would work AT LEAST as well as 'The Girl in Question' from Angel season 5.

      (For those of you not familiar with Angel, that episode is roundly considered to be one of the weakest, if not THE weakest, episode of the season)

    8. Re:What JMS should do by jgrahn · · Score: 1
      Actors/actresses playing their own ancestors is the hokiest thing I've ever seen in television. Yes you can look like your ancestors. Yes you can look a lot like them. But you don't look (or sound) so much like them as to be identical. There's genetic code from other people there too to change stuff around.

      Unless they filmed Heinlein's By His Bootstraps -- which I sincerely hope noone will ever attempt.

    9. Re:What JMS should do by jgrahn · · Score: 1
      Unless they filmed Heinlein's By His Bootstraps -- which I sincerely hope noone will ever attempt.

      s/By His Bootstraps/All You Zombies/

  11. Wow. I wonder... by schon · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I wonder if will be the same cast, or if they were replaced with people who can act.

    If it's the same cast, the cynic in me thinks that maybe that was why it took so long for this to come out - it gave them time to go to acting school.

    Seriously, there was only one person on the entire show who could act (the security guy.) Everyone else was so wooden it looked like they were gonna get attacked by termites at any moment.

  12. one of the best shows ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This series rocked, in its day. I'm not willing to say it was the best thing on TV ever, but i think it makes the top 5. Actions taken by characters had consequences, and fundamentally changed their relationships with other characters - not a static universe where a new episode happened every week but nothing fundamentally changed. It was a realistic world, where characters needed money to live, and there was greed, and corruption, and crime, and an underworld. There were complex characters - even the bad guys were not "one dimensional" - they had their own agendas and loyalties and were not presented as some simplistic "pure evil". Semi-decent newtonian mechanics for spaceships.

    It was good stuff. And although the special effects look dated now, at the time, it was amazing to see battles with 100 separate ships on TV - that kinda thing had been reserved for the movies up until then.

    1. Re:one of the best shows ever by fermion · · Score: 1
      It was absolutely an amazing show, if for no other reason than the physics and fx. However, JMS has already made some significant mistakes, c.f. Crusade, and this sounds like another. Sort of a demented muppet babies, or perhaps a reaction to the upcoming star trek babies.

      This is will just serve to diminish the future respect of basically OK show. Think about what giligan's island might have been like if they had not done 100 reunion shows.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    2. Re:one of the best shows ever by dbIII · · Score: 1
      even the bad guys were not "one dimensional"
      In the first few episodes you see conflict between a warlike character with superhuman strength and an old amusing clown that nearly everyone likes and considers harmless. Over the course of the series the warlike character becomes a peaceful inspiration to many and the amusing clown becomes responsible for vast amounts of death, destruction and injustice.
  13. US only :/ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It appears to be yet another TV show thats restricted to the US store only. Unavailable in the UK store

    1. Re:US only :/ by baker_tony · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      That's why God invented bittorrent!

    2. Re:US only :/ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That's why God invented bittorrent!


      Yeah, as if DVDs couldn't be played in other parts of t... oh wait. You're right.

    3. Re:US only :/ by DrXym · · Score: 1

      B5 video tapes are sold in my local Eurosaver store for 2 euros each. That should be sufficient to figure what their commercial worth is these days.

    4. Re:US only :/ by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      I think selling ANYTHING on video tape for 2 euros is rather ambitious these days.

  14. Watching scifi for the acting... by alienmole · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...is like reading Playboy for the articles.

    1. Re:Watching scifi for the acting... by Dr_LHA · · Score: 1

      How very true, although it should be pointed out that the excellent Battlestar Galactic (2003) bucks this trend very nicely, proving that Sci-Fi doesn't always have to have that failing.

    2. Re:Watching scifi for the acting... by denim · · Score: 1

      Actually, I would have modded that as flamebait. No joke.

      --
      Being quick to take offense is not a virtue.
    3. Re:Watching scifi for the acting... by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      Wow. You could be going two ways with that commment.

      Insightful comment on the hidden quality of scifi acting?

      Banal association of the assumption of bad scifi acting and poorly written playboy articles?

  15. I can still dream, can't I? by penguin_dance · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Not a real fan of Babylon 5, but give rise to hope that someday, Firefly will get similar treatment. (Why SciFi didn't pick up that series after FOX dumped it, I'll never know.)

    Yeah, I know, but I can still dream, can't I?

    --
    If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
    1. Re:I can still dream, can't I? by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      Not a real fan of Babylon 5, but give rise to hope that someday, Firefly will get similar treatment. (Why SciFi didn't pick up that series after FOX dumped it, I'll never know.)

      Best guesses why SciFi didn't want Firefly:
      1) Production costs were too high.
      2) Production costs weren't unreasonable for a show of this type, but SciFi didn't have the money for another series with this kind of costs. Please keep in mind that Battlestar Gallactica has little in the way of "eye candy", which really helps to keep its costs down.
      3) Realization that despite the fact that Firefly fans were truly devoted to the show, there just weren't enough of them. The box office returns on the movie (I don't even remember the name of it) should have been proof of this.

      Given what SciFi did to Sliders, which at one time was a good show, I wouldn't bet on Firefly remaining as good as it supposedly was when Fox ran it. Everyone seems to forget that Sliders just got worse and worse on SciFi. The series final was so bad that I don't care if there is ever another episode. I won't watch it. I won't even watch Sliders in reruns or rent the DVDs, this how pissed off I still am at how the series finale went down. SciFi could have just as easily have destroyed Firefly if they had bought it.

    2. Re:I can still dream, can't I? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      AIUI, Fox wouldn't let it go. DVD sales may be a better indicator of the number and quality of devotion of the fans.

      As for #3, I think that may also have been in part thanks to sites like savewash.com (no link, since it's been replaced by domain squatters) that leaked info from sneak peeks and previews. Gods know, I wish I'd seen the site before the movie. (Rant about that part of the movie omitted.)

    3. Re:I can still dream, can't I? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      I don't suppose that the reason it got so little money at the box office was that it was so hard to see? I tried to see it a week after it opened when I visited my then-girlfriend in the US, and it had already closed. I tried to see it on my return to the UK, and it was not shown near me. I haven't got around to buying the DVD, since there was such a long delay between the theatrical 'release' and the DVD release that I'd forgotten about it.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  16. B5? Excuse Me? X-Files by neonprimetime · · Score: 1

    X-Files Hands Down

  17. I disagree by digitaldc · · Score: 1

    With apologies to Star Trek fans everywhere, I agree.

    Your opinion is highly illogical. ;)

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:I disagree by Billosaur · · Score: 1

      Your opinion is highly illogical. ;)

      Dammit Spock, don't quote logic to me... I may be a good ole country doctor, but I know what I like...

      --
      GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    2. Re:I disagree by digitaldc · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dammit Spock, don't quote logic to me... I may be a good ole country doctor, but I know what I like...

      Quite simply Doctor, I examined the comparison from all angles, and it was plainly pointless.
      Logic informed me that under the circumstances, the only logical conclusion for your opinion would have to be one of confusion.
      Logical decision, logically arrived at.

      --
      He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  18. If it doesn't include Claudia Christian... by csoto · · Score: 4, Funny

    as a "former stripper" then I'm not interested.

    I just realized that I wasted a good bit of 1994+ on that show :)

    --
    There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
    1. Re:If it doesn't include Claudia Christian... by Frobisher · · Score: 2, Informative

      Claudia recently recorded a Big Finish Doctor Who audio... The Reaping with the Cybermen.

      (Peter Jurasik was in "Winter For The Adept" back in 2000.)

    2. Re:If it doesn't include Claudia Christian... by hauntingthunder · · Score: 1

      Stripper? Did CC have a big fanbase amongst sex workers ;-) or did you mean shipper

      --
      You will never get to heaven with an Ak 47... But A Zu 30 is good for Low Flying Cherubim
    3. Re:If it doesn't include Claudia Christian... by tpv · · Score: 1
      From the Wikipedia article

      Before Babylon 5, Christian was best known for her feature film roles as a stripper possessed by an alien serial killer in The Hidden (1987) and as model Hexina in Hexed (1993). She has also posed for Playboy Magazine In October of 1999.
      --
      Read more of this story at Slashdot.Read more of this story at Slashdot.Read more of this story at Slashdot.
    4. Re:If it doesn't include Claudia Christian... by hauntingthunder · · Score: 1

      Ah I see now I have seen the Playboy pics - Pity she didn't do any in the puka Bunny outfit though.

      --
      You will never get to heaven with an Ak 47... But A Zu 30 is good for Low Flying Cherubim
  19. The "best" sci-fi series by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 0, Troll

    The "best" sci-fi series would probably be one that has more mass appeal. More like, say, Red Dwarf or X-Files. Or Knight Rider (that was SF).

  20. B5 v BG by foo+fighter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm sorry, but I can't watch Babylon 5 anymore.

    Battlestar Galactica has raised the bar, for me, personally, so high that most other sci-fi fare looks and sounds like scrapings from the bottom of a barrel. I realize and understand that the two shows have completely different themes, styles, etc., but the differences in production values and acting quality are especially marked.

    The same goes for Stargate (any version), Firefly, and Enterprise or even the new Dr. Who.

    I'm not judging anyone who still likes those shows or saying I don't like them anymore. BG has just completely changed my perception of what sci-fi can and should be.

    --
    obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
    1. Re:B5 v BG by jvkjvk · · Score: 1

      While almost never having seen "BG", you really can't compare production values for the two series. The pure tech advancement in tv production alone skews towards whichever came out later... in this case BG.

      While I can't comment on the acting quality of BG, after season 1, B5 had some great acting and character development. Your comment did make me want to catch a few shows of BG now, however... :)

    2. Re:B5 v BG by Spad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think I must be the only person left on this planet who thinks that BSG is massively overrated. That's not to say it's not good, but I just really can't see why everyone sees it as some kind of Sci-fi messiah.

    3. Re:B5 v BG by JasonKiddy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I tend to agree with you... (some) sci-fi has raised the bar. But don't go overboard on the Battlestar Galactica thing... the story and especially the script is complete arse. Acting good... production values seem excellent... cgi excellent (although far too much use of camera shake) lol

    4. Re:B5 v BG by ericspinder · · Score: 1
      Battlestar Galactica has raised the bar...
      Just like Babylon 5 did a decade earlier.
      --
      The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
    5. Re:B5 v BG by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      No offence, but I hope no one takes your suggestions. I've tried watching the new BG, despite the mind-numbing pain the pilot/miniseries caused me. There's just no hook for me. Acting quality and production values might be through the roof, but as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't have what made B5 and Firefly great: the characters.

      They're changed enough that they don't resemble the originals in their campy cliche roles, which is not neccesarily a bad thing, but there's nothing there to make me actually care about them either.

      On the whole, I've found it very much a disappointment.

    6. Re:B5 v BG by awol · · Score: 1

      I think I must be the only person left on this planet who thinks that BSG is massively overrated. That's not to say it's not good, but I just really can't see why everyone sees it as some kind of Sci-fi messiah.



      Nope. You are not alone. I can't even watch it. It is just drivel.



      I loved Babylon 5, it was just such a great universe into which I could descend every week or so (travelling kills the "sequencing" of regular shows!!) to try and catch the next element of the overall plot. I can imagine so many stories in that universe. Galactica, just doesn't work for me, I have no joy in the universe it has created.



      Interesting is the Dr Who comparison. Very, Very different animal. Some of the writing in Dr Who is actually fantastic and critically, the target audience is the whole family (7pm, Saturday night target) and so there is a very different approach required. I think that it has much more to offer than BG. And the sets don't wobble much either!

      --
      "The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
    7. Re:B5 v BG by ender81b · · Score: 2, Informative

      You aren't the only one. To quote from Gregg Easterbrook (probably best known to the slashdot crowd for his 5...4...3...2..1.. goodbye columbia article: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/800 4.easterbrook-fulltext.html)

      One of my problems with Battlestar Galactica is that the men and women in the show are depicted as so astonishingly across-the-board stupid, it's tempting to root for the robots. The military officers are stupid; the politicians are stupid; the civilians are stupid. In the pilot, we learn that the entire defense network of the human society could be deactivated by one single numeric code. The evil robots, called Cylons, obtain the code, transmit it, and instantly all the human society's military equipment shuts off. Planets are left defenseless as the Cylons bombard them with nuclear bombs; numerous powerful battlestars are shown hanging in space helpless, their engines and weapons shut off, as the Cylons smash them. (The Galactica escapes via plot contrivance.) Now if you were an advanced society capable of building gigantic faster-than-light outer-space battleships, would you design them so that one single numeric code renders them all totally useless at the same time? Plus the numeric code that instantly shuts off every military device in the entire human society has been entrusted to a psychologically unstable computer scientist, who accidentally gives it to the Cylons. Halfway through the first season, the computer scientist became vice-president of the survivors' government, and everyone -- including military intelligence -- is so astonishingly stupid as to never realize that since scientist was the only one who had the code, he must have been the one to give it to the Cylons.

      Next, the show has premise problems that appears unsolvable. One aspect of the premise is that there are no other intelligent beings in this part of the galaxy -- just the beleaguered humans and the malevolent Cylons. This means there are no aliens to meet in various episodes, no alien societies to depict. True, it must be hard at this point to come up with new alien ideas for sci-fi. You can imagine the scriptwriters' conference: "Okay, how about they find a planet where people can only speak when the sun is out?" The other premise problem is that the Cylons are depicted as having become so powerful, Galactica cannot hope to defeat them. If the characters can't overcome the Cylons and can't meet interesting aliens, to create dramatic tension the scriptwriters are forced to have the humans fighting each other, which is what happens. Almost every episode concerns internecine fighting inside the human fleet: plots, mutinies, martial law, claims of treason, everything but people accusing each other of witchcraft. Galactica story lines have become so similar that I have trouble telling whether an episode is new or a repeat.

    8. Re:B5 v BG by midknight32 · · Score: 1
      I think I must be the only person left on this planet who thinks that BSG is massively overrated. That's not to say it's not good, but I just really can't see why everyone sees it as some kind of Sci-fi messiah.


      You're not. I liked the first season, and especially the pilot, a lot. but the characters kept making stupid decisions, and even more stupid decisions, and were jerked around and did things with such sudden shifts in interest and personality, especially the second season, that I really started getting bored halfway through season 2.

      I'd still recommend season 1, but season 2 ... meh.
    9. Re:B5 v BG by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 1

      Your'e not the only one. I tried and failed multiple times to get into the new Battlestar Galactica. By all accounts a scifi nut like me who was into the original Galactica should go nuts for it, but it just bores the living veins out of me. Same for B5, I never liked it at all even though the early CGI was pretty.

    10. Re:B5 v BG by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think I must be the only person left on this planet who thinks that BSG is massively overrated.

      You're not. I agree that it's a good show, certainly one of the best sci-fi offerings of recent years, but I don't buy all the "whole new level" stuff.

      I think because sci-fi was very tame, good-guys-always-winning fare for so long, some of the recent, more realistic shows like BSG have carried more weight with the viewer. This is partly because the plots are more credible and the characters can present a wider range of emotions, of course, but I reckon it's also -- in part -- simple novelty value. Of course, BSG wasn't the first to do this; indeed, Babylon 5 itself might have a fair claim on that honour.

      In any case, playing with Gritty Realism(TM) is not automatically the same as acting well, and other series have had gritty characters, too. Sure, not every sci-fi actor is waiting for their Oscar, but I would put many of those in B5 up against any of the cast of the new BSG when it comes to portraying a character of substance and interest. G'Kar remains, IMHO, the deepest character of any sci-fi show, and the B5 cast as a whole was easily the equal of other good sci-fi shows like Firefly or BSG.

      The thing about BSG is that, at least through series one (I'll watch series two when they bring them all out in one DVD box set instead of messing around with half-series) it was almost all pain and suffering and grief and loss. Where was the light relief, the inspirational breakthrough, the hope, the joy? I remember one scene, at the end of one episode, when a very significant number is increased by one, and that's about it.

      Having a plot that involves loss and suffering may bring more credibility, but it can be just as one-dimensional as the good-guys-always-winning if not handled well: credibility is not the same as killing off major characters indiscriminately or using the threat of wiping out the whole human race as your primary plot device. Some of the most moving episodes of Babylon 5 involved tragic fates for noble characters, but none of them was sacrificed randomly; compare and contrast with what happens in Firefly/Serenity (remember to mark those spoilers if you're replying). And of course, Babylon 5 was ultimately a story of hope, while BSG to date is more a story of survival without hope.

      So yes, BSG is a good series, and by TV sci-fi standards it's one of the best. But based on the first series, I think it's too negative and one-dimensional in its approach so far, and in that respect it has a lot to learn from classics like Babylon 5.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    11. Re:B5 v BG by cgreuter · · Score: 1

      The same goes for Stargate (any version), Firefly, and Enterprise

      Yeah, I see your point.

      or even the new Dr. Who.

      Die, heretic!!!!!111!!!!one!!

      Er, but seriously, the new Dr. Who has among the best writing on TV these days. So does Firefly. (And the old Dr. Who, but I digress.) They're all shows worth watching. (But I gave up on Enterprise a long time ago and never even started Stargate so I won't comment on them.)

      I agree that BG is an amazing SF show, but it has its own failings. The whole Dee/Billy/Lee and Lee/Starbuck/Anders relationships had twists that just came out of nowhere and were completely out of character. B5 managed the long story arc a whole lot better.

      Also, BG makes the occasional technological howler (the water episode, for example) that Harlan Ellison would have caught on B5.

      On the minus side, JMS's dialog skills are a bit weak and the production values are pretty low by today's standards. But I can live with that, in the same way I put up with the quirks on the other shows.

      I mean, it's not like I have to swear lifelong devotion to one series and ignore all the others.

    12. Re:B5 v BG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, - it's like humans would never be stupid enough to employ commercial off the shelf software across the board to save money...that would be like us trying to use Windows to run the guidence systems on our own warships - oh wait....

    13. Re:B5 v BG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      One of my problems with Battlestar Galactica is that the men and women in the show are depicted as so astonishingly across-the-board stupid, it's tempting to root for the robots. ... In the pilot, we learn that the entire defense network of the human society could be deactivated by one single numeric code.

      The President of the United States walks around with a single code that he can use to destroy the planet.

      You think the President is stupid? You're rooting for the enemy? Congratulations, you're a terrorist! Please don't move from your current location, several large men in suits and sunglasses will be arriving shortly to escort you to a sunny, tropical island paradise.

    14. Re:B5 v BG by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      No, I'm with you. It's a good show and I enjoy it, but it has a lot of flaws. I find the story-telling to be inconsistent and full of holes that really irk me. The characters suddenly develop issues out of nowhere about one episode before it'll come into play, only to resolve the issue at the end of that episode never to hear about it again. It's clear that Ron Moore has some idea where he's heading with the show, but he doesn't really have the details ironed out very clearly and he doesn't know his characters all that well.

      Still, it's a fun show and I'll happily watch it. I'm certainly not on board with the "best show EVER". And I suspect a lot of fans are confusing good special effects with a good show. (Just so you understand where I come from in all of this, my top few sci-fi shows ever include the original Twilight Zone and the original Trek. Production values are great, but there's a lot more to a show than cool FX and sets. Even mediocre acting can take a back seat to story-telling.)

    15. Re:B5 v BG by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      I have not quite figured out where the BG keeps getting all this acclaim from?

      Okay, I was put off by the sex-changes and Singer's desire to castrate all of the original characters and to give us a world without black people. But even putting that aside I find little to lift BG all that high. The show always feels more like a soap opera focus on some shallow drama. All the characters feel extremely flat and 2-dimensional. Ironically, the character I'd say exhibits this the least is the new Starbuck character.

      Sure the eye candy is nice. And there are a few plot twists. But most of it seems to be focused on a blatant "known" event...and just delaying it's anticipation. *shrug*

      Don't get me wrong...it ain't bad. But it doesn't compare to Babylon 5's intricacies and tapestry weavings nor enjoyability in the slightest.

      IMHO

    16. Re:B5 v BG by klausner · · Score: 1

      No, I think there are a few of us who consider the new BG to be grossly overrated, and boggle at the slavish devotion most seem to have for it.

    17. Re:B5 v BG by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      Actually, the President is not the only one who has to enter codes....

    18. Re:B5 v BG by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      We'll see in about ten years or so how much the bar has really been raised, apart from things like FX. (Which I feel are sort of superficial.)

      I did a planetarium show here six months ago on the science of science fiction. As I put it together, I ended up reflecting a lot about how much sci-fi television has changed in the past decade. Look at most any new show: BSG, Firefly, Farscape, later seasons of Stargate, etc. You'll see that they're all doing longer arcs with much better character developpment. They've all gone to CGI, allowing more flexible FX. And many of them are exploring making aliens that are a lot more alien-looking and with more alien behavior.

      Why do I mention all of thise? Because as I looked back, it became apparent to me that B5 was the catalyst in all of this. It absolutely had its weaknesses: the acting was eratic (some actors were fantastics, others were acceptable, a few were weak), the effects look kind of weak now, and the sets are often kind of minimal. But JMS and B5 brought a lot of new things to the table that have changed SciFi TV. You can even see the changes setting in as you watch DS9 start to finish. It's clear that they learned some of the lessons of B5, although not all. (The one thing that has impressed me most about B5 above all other shows is JMS's committment to story-telling. He avoided writing his scripts to please his fan base and focused on what he needed to do to tell the story he wanted to tell. If that meant killing off a beloved character, he pulled the trigger.)

      I think what you'll find will happen is that ten years from now, BSG will look good, but not great. It will have aged, just like B5 and other shows. In retrospect, while B5's weakness will still be apparent, I think that you'll find that it's strengths will show up relative to BSG a lot better since they'll both show their ages and the FX factor will be a lot less significant.

    19. Re:B5 v BG by Banana989 · · Score: 1

      I'm right with you buddy. I don't see what all the fuss is about either.

    20. Re:B5 v BG by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      Sure, not every sci-fi actor is waiting for their Oscar, but I would put many of those in B5 up against any of the cast of the new BSG when it comes to portraying a character of substance and interest. G'Kar remains, IMHO, the deepest character of any sci-fi show, and the B5 cast as a whole was easily the equal of other good sci-fi shows like Firefly or BSG.

      I agree with the analysis of G'Kar. Actually, I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but I actually think the acting on Enterprise was superior to most of the acting in BSG, olmos aside.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    21. Re:B5 v BG by mchawi · · Score: 1

      How about the fact that at the end now the Cylons control everyone, but they don't just outright kill them and end the show?

      Now not only the humans are stupid but either (a) the Cylons are also just as stupid or (b) their 'goal' was never to outright kill humanity (which just changes the premise of the whole show).

      Also, they're now all stuck on a planet. It has gone from being a sci-fi space show to a political soap opera with occasional flashes of a spaceship here and there.

      I still hold out hope....just not much.

    22. Re:B5 v BG by PortHaven · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Enterprise - the final season improved by leaps and bounds. In fact, it became some of the most enjoyable Star Trek episodes I'd seen. I think had it not gotten cancelled it would have continued to improve. Of course, the change resulted in the hiring of several new writers and who recognized the importance of "Star Trek" canon to it's fans. And instead of constantly making divergances in the Star Trek history they started focusing on explaining the discrepancies.

      Why were the Klingons in the original series different in appearance from those seen later? Set ground work and understanding for "Data". I found myself walking away saying "finally"...but then it got cancelled.

      Star Trek needs to fire several quantum torpedoes into Berman & Braga and get some fresh blood in...and blood of those who respect Star Trek and aren't simply focused on the $$$

    23. Re:B5 v BG by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 2, Funny
      The military officers are stupid; the politicians are stupid; the civilians are stupid.

      That's called *Realism*.

      obtain the code, transmit it, and instantly all the human society's military equipment shuts off.

      If we compare a Battlestar to an aircraft carrier running Microsoft software, again, *Realism*.

    24. Re:B5 v BG by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      You think the President is stupid?

      Was that a serious question? :o)

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    25. Re:B5 v BG by mlush · · Score: 1
      How about the fact that at the end now the Cylons control everyone, but they don't just outright kill them and end the show?
      Now not only the humans are stupid but either (a) the Cylons are also just as stupid or (b) their 'goal' was never to outright kill humanity (which just changes the premise of the whole show).

      I watched the season 1 on DVD and about half way through came to the conclusion that the Cylons were completely insane by any human standard. The only thing that does make sense is that there trying to bring the Human Race to God (either by convertiion or vaporization). But the way there doing it is just bonkers.

      Cases in point (SPOILERS!)

      • 33 The Cylons jump in 33 minutes after the fleet jumps 236 times this is not a stratagy this is a big sign saying ambush me!!
      • Water The Cylons have undetectable agents onboard and what do they do .... blow up the water supply
      • Any plot line involving Baltar/Number six

      After comming to that conclusion the Cylons stopped being an enigma and became a Ohh how are they going to mess with peoples heads this week I stayed interested but hold on hope of a satifactory conclusion to the series

    26. Re:B5 v BG by jpietrzak · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I've gotta agree that BSG seems totally overrated. The space scenes are beautifully drawn, but other than that, I can't seem to find anything of real value in the stories.

      Maybe it's a question of motivation; with B5, the station was the "Last, Best Hope for Peace", so you knew there was a huge war coming that the characters would need to avert or attempt to survive. With the original BSG, the remnants of humanity were searching for the fabled 13th colony, so they had an overall goal to achieve.

      With the new BSG, it seems like you've just got a handful of survivors of the apocalypse, with no real goal in mind. (I admit that I stopped watching about halfway through the first season, so if a goal developed, I probably missed it.) Things happen in each episode, but why should I care? At the beginning of each episode, the few humans left alive are in a handful of ships somewhere in space. At the end of each episode, the few humans left alive are in a handful of ships somewhere in space. And so far as I can tell, there is no hope that that will ever change...

    27. Re:B5 v BG by rholland356 · · Score: 1
      On the minus side, JMS's dialog skills are a bit weak

      That's a real drawback, and resulted in a show where most of the storytelling happens in monolog.

      I always thought he could benefit by studying David Mamet, and lo and behold, Mamet gets his own show. The Unit is holding up nicely--great dialog, great fx.

      and the production values are pretty low by today's standards.

      Sci-fi shows rarely age well, fx-wise. But really, B5 didn't use a lot of fx beyond what Drew Carey has done with green screen. It is the failure of the writer to understand how to use visual storytelling, pacing, timing and other non-technical dramatic effects that have sealed the fate of this show's place in history.

    28. Re:B5 v BG by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      The thing about BSG is that, at least through series one (I'll watch series two when they bring them all out in one DVD box set instead of messing around with half-series) it was almost all pain and suffering and grief and loss. Where was the light relief, the inspirational breakthrough, the hope, the joy?

      In the middle of the second season, largely. (Incidentally, since you use the British "series" instead of the American "season", this leads me to believe you're posting from the UK, where the second season is being released as a single box set this August. It is also being released in this format in Australia.) One thing about BSG, though, is that the premise--the genocide of humanity--leaves remarkably little room for light relief, inspirational breakthrough, hope, and joy. Even in the first season, however, there were lighter moments. "Tigh Me Up, Tigh Me Down" remained within the idiom while having a largely comedic plot, and James Callis's portrayal of Baltar remained a source of comic relief throughout the first season. The return of Starbuck in "You Can't Go Home Again" and the victory over the Cylons in "The Hand of God" were full of hope and joy as well. In the second season, however, look for the episodes "Home, Part II", "Final Cut", "Flight of the Phoenix", and "Downloaded" for those things. Yes, it is a bleak series, but the tension, conflict, and even hope and joy reach new heights in the second season.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    29. Re:B5 v BG by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      How about the fact that at the end now the Cylons control everyone, but they don't just outright kill them and end the show?

      You clearly didn't pay attention--the Dean Stockwell Cylon said, outright, that the Cylons had decided that trying to exterminate the human race was a mistake, and that they had different plans.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    30. Re:B5 v BG by lgw · · Score: 1
      You think the President is stupid?
      President Clinton would often forget his card with the codes. One wonders where he left it.
      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    31. Re:B5 v BG by lgw · · Score: 1

      Indeed - I was a long-time fan of ToS, but only liked any of the new series to the extent that B&B were kept away from it. I have hope that Trek may one day be great again, but only once B&B are both dead and the producers return to hiring rising SF stars to write episodes.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    32. Re:B5 v BG by Chelloveck · · Score: 1
      I think I must be the only person left on this planet who thinks that BSG is massively overrated.
      You're not. I agree that it's a good show, certainly one of the best sci-fi offerings of recent years, but I don't buy all the "whole new level" stuff.

      And I can't even agree that it's a good show. I've only seen the pilot and one or two episodes since, but I'm hugely turned off by the Cylons-disguised-as-humans thing. I'm just not buyin' it. Maybe there's some deep underlying reason for this that would cause it to suddenly make sense, but I can't think what that would be.

      That and the space scenes are filmed in Shakey-Cam(tm). I hate shakey-cam. No, artificial camera-wobble as if filmed with a hand-held camcorder does not make the scene look more realistic. Especially since everything is all just CGI, anyway.

      That said, I hated the B5 pilot, too, but turned out to love the series. Go figure.

      --
      Chelloveck
      I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
    33. Re:B5 v BG by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      (Incidentally, since you use the British "series" instead of the American "season", this leads me to believe you're posting from the UK, where the second season is being released as a single box set this August. It is also being released in this format in Australia.)

      I am indeed. Thanks for the info!

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    34. Re:B5 v BG by blincoln · · Score: 1

      In the pilot, we learn that the entire defense network of the human society could be deactivated by one single numeric code.

      Uh, no. All we learn in the pilot is that with the assistance of a highly-placed mole, it's possible to compromise the defense network. The specifics are never shown. That seems reasonable enough to me. Once you've broken through the perimeter of a network, it's generally much easier to compromise the machines that are inside.

      since scientist was the only one who had the code

      Whoever wrote the article you're quoting must have either barely been paying attention, or got some bizarre non-English translated version with the dialogue screwed up. Nowhere in the series is it claimed that only Baltar had the level of access that the Cylons used.

      Anyone who thinks the characters aren't intelligent enough should take a look around themselves. We live in a world populated by people who would react the same way in that type of situation.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    35. Re:B5 v BG by ender81b · · Score: 1

      That was the first article in a serious of slams which I was too lazy to go look for. They are all put in his Tuesday Morning Quarterback article on NFL.com if you car to google for em. Here is an excerpt from the article after he posted above:

      kay, I described the pilot wrongly. But the premise still seems ridiculous -- a society that can build enormous faster-than-light starcruisers doesn't take precautions to protect its military against computer viruses? (The aliens in Independence Day, though able to build a starcruiser 90 miles in diameter, also did not know about computer viruses).

      Philippe Herndon of Columbia, S.C., rose to defend the current plot arc in which a second battlestar, Pegasus, is discovered, but instead of cooperating the two ships begin to threaten each other. "The Pegasus story line is great," Herndon writes, saying the new ship symbolizes how military culture becomes corrupt when unchecked by democracy. "Pegasus has survived on its own by doing things exclusively the military way, and doesn't want messy democracy revived. They don't care about the fleet of civilian ships that Galactica is protecting and aren't interested in the needs of the weak. Confronting this kind of Ayn Rand selfishness is what makes the show terrific."

      Scott Cordiner of Salem, Mass., adds that the constant internecine bickering on Battlestar Galactica is a reason the series works for him. "The people depicted on the show are technologically advanced but not socially advanced," he writes. "We had wars and infighting 2,000 years ago and still experience those problems today despite significant technical advances. Sadly, we will probably still have human infighting 2,000 years from now."

    36. Re:B5 v BG by WebHostingGuy · · Score: 1

      >>but the characters kept making stupid decisions, and even more stupid decisions, and were jerked around and did things with such sudden shifts in interest and personality

      You obviously don't realize season 2 is just emulating life right? Just replace "characters" with "management".

      --
      Quality Hosting e3 Servers
    37. Re:B5 v BG by complete+loony · · Score: 1
      "we learn that the entire defense network of the human society could be deactivated by one single numeric code."

      My understanding of the script for the pilot was that baltar was responsible for an upgrade to the software on all the ships, that he needed a lot of help to actually write it, so effectively the cylons finished it off for him. Including security holes to remotely deactivate all the electronics. Only a couple of ships about to be retired didn't get the upgrade.

      I think the exclusion of aliens is actually a big strength of the show. Do we really need a new wierd idea every week ala TNG or Voyager? Besides it's the human element to the show that will keep most people interested. Here's a bunch of people dealing with impossible situations, but they're still like us. Still flawed, greedy, selfish etc. Yet they manage to get past that and pull off the impossible.

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    38. Re:B5 v BG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Im with you... I got halfway through the first season before i got fed up with all the cliche characters.

      Shes the baddest pilot in the universe, and shes breaking all the rules, captain hardass hates her guts but cant get rid of her because shes such a badass. -sigh- oh yea, shes sexy.

      "You're a loose cannon McBain!"

      & when they revealed that the cylons are now sexy girls too, I just couldnt take it anymore. What is this? baywatch with spaceships? give me a break!

      Every dollar spent on BSG is a crime against Firefly fans everywhere.

    39. Re:B5 v BG by Shihar · · Score: 1

      That is utterly inane criticism.

      1) Nowhere does it state that a single code was used to turn off the human ships. What was stated was that most human military ships got an update in code and that the lead scientist on the project help the Cylons break his programs. It isn't a very hard stretch of the imagination to imagine that a race of robots and AI could break into a program if they have already been given the plans for it. In fact, the Cylon's skill at hacking is a major attribute that comes into play more then once. They manage to cripple the BSG via hacking WITHOUT help, so it is not a stretch to imagine that with help they be quickly and easily disable a fleet. The assumption that it was a "single code" is a stupid and wrong assumption.

      2) The next complaint seems to be "no aliens!!111!!!" and "I don't know how they r going 2 win!11!!!!" Do I even need to respond to this?

      Sci-fi does not have to have aliens in it. Lots of very good sci-fi has no aliens because aliens are 99% of the time downright silly. BSG clearly is going for a more realistic feel. BSG is supposed to be a world that humans might see in a couple hundred or so years. It is no stretch of the imagination to see modern humans getting overthrown by intelligent machines. It is a stretch to see them running from star to star talking to aliens.

      As far as the complaint that there is no obvious path for victory, someone was not paying attention. Where exactly is the BSG running to? They are running to a fabled 13th colony which they hope can fight off the Cylons. Is the situation desperate? Certainly. Is it irresolvable? Certainly not. They have pretty blatantly already offered at least two avenues of solving the problem. The Cylons clearly have the capacity to negotiate and have their opinions swayed as we see in the second season. A negotiated peace is certainly possible. Failing that, there is a 13th colony somewhere that might be hundreds of years more advanced and able to fight off the Cylons.

      The criticism you present is the inane criticism of someone who has watched way too much Star Trek. Don't get me wrong, I love Star Trek, but it has not rotted my mind so badly that I freak out when Sci-Fi doesn't have aliens.

    40. Re:B5 v BG by JhohannaVH · · Score: 1

      Nah... I can't stand it either. Starbuck is NOT a girl. I'm sorry... I tried. And I can't STAND the people they have as actors either. Edward James Olmos will *always* be Lt. Castillo (until this weekend anyway)... and well, whoever that woman who played the VP in ID4 is... she drives me up the wall. So, no... I can't watch it. And I don't like the new Dr. Who either. Where's the HAIR?!

      --
      Sorry man... the Internet pooped on me.
    41. Re:B5 v BG by mfarah · · Score: 1

      That's because it's the ONLY good SF around. Seriously, all the rest of the stuff out there today either sucks (Stargate) or is horrendous (Andromeda).

      Having only bad SF on TV had been the status quo for at least three years, until BSG came along. This is why it's been hyped this much (not that it doesn't deserve it).

      --
      "Trust me - I know what I'm doing."
      - Sledge Hammer
    42. Re:B5 v BG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you think that the new B5 won't have up to date production value?

  21. I somewhat agree... by _PimpDaddy7_ · · Score: 1

    I watched an episode of B5 once and I was like this show sucks! But then a friend told me, no no no, you need to watch it from the beginning. Luckily, being in the tech field, a fellow co-worker had all episodes on VHS tapes and gladly let me borrow them to convert me to the cult, er, I mean let me enjoy the show.

    I spent a few weeks going through all the episodes of the series. I believe at the time, we were at the start of season 4.

    I ended up LOVING B5, and it became one my favorite shows of all time! Everything about the show was great and even though things were iffy in the last 2 seasons, the show was great.

    Would I, as a big fan of B5, want to see these shwos about the past of the characters? MAYBE. I am more interested about the future, that's just the way I am. Others way want to know more about the past of the characters, but I agree with the parent, I'm not so sure many people will want this.

    1. Re:I somewhat agree... by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      I have to agree about this being a maybe. We already know a lot about these characters, and we've seen the future end of many of them, so there aren't any big surprises coming. Rather than potentially 'ruining' those beloved characters, with unknown scripts with the actors a decade older, I'd rather see stories with new characters set in his detailed universe. I was sorry to see the past spinoffs ruined by studio interference or too short-lived of series to have a chance to develop. If they'd give him totally free-reign, I'd love to see what he could do with another 5 seasons-arc in another part of his universe.

  22. I can only say one thing... by Kjella · · Score: 1

    ...is there anything like a good prequel?

    You have Star Wars, I think they were considering Star Trek: Junior Hi... eh, Starfleet Academy. As if Enterprise wasn't bad enough where they jumped way past the TOS technology in half a season. In fact there already was a B5 spin-off TV series (Crusade) that had a lot more potential.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:I can only say one thing... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      There was already a B5 prequel; In the Beginning. It is, without a doubt, the worst thing written by JMS that I have ever seen.

      Lando happens to be the one who stops an important peace meeting.

      G'Kar happens to be the one planning the peace meeting.

      Sheridan happens to be the one attending the meeting on behalf of Earth.

      Delenn happens to be the one who decides not to execute him.

      Dr. Franklin happens to be the one who accompanies Sheridan to the peace meeting (was there any evidence that they had met before in Season 2?)

      A good prequel should either tell the stories of the characters before the main plot, or it should tell of the important events leading up to the original. It can even do both, but shoehorning the known characters into pivotal rôles in history is a disaster. Sheridan's defeat of the Black Star had to take place (although it was originally described as happening within the solar system), as did Sinclair's capture by the Minbari. The peace meeting, however, would have worked much better without the known character.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:I can only say one thing... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Star Wars didn't have a good prequel.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  23. Well crap by Orclover · · Score: 1

    Eventually a show has to end, and Bab5 ended very well with only a few after series spin-off-death-throes. Trying to bring back to life Frankenstien is not always a good idea. Bab5 was great, it ended great, its time to let it go. If you want to Rez something go talk to the browncoats.

    --
    I am Jack's complete lack of surprise. -Fight Club
  24. What about Andreas Katsulas? by tweek · · Score: 0, Redundant

    He passed away earlier this year.

    --
    "Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
    1. Re:What about Andreas Katsulas? by tweek · · Score: 1

      And hell, I didn't realize that Richard Biggs was dead too.

      --
      "Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
    2. Re:What about Andreas Katsulas? by trparky · · Score: 1

      It is said that Andreas Katsulas died of lung cancer. His friends often described him as a person who smoked like a chimney.

  25. Re:Wow. I wonder... by LordEvan · · Score: 1

    Wow. You must not have seen the same episodes that I was watching...so you're saying that Andreas Katsulas, Mira Furlan and Peter Jurasik couldn't act. Astounding...*shakes head*

  26. Prepare for dissapointment by damburger · · Score: 1

    I think some people have a romanticised image of Babylon 5.

    Bear in mind that, at the time, the only other Sci-Fi on Tv was Star Trek: The Next Generation. That was not a good show. So B5 didn't exactly have to work much to stand out as the best thing on TV.

    It performed a function of breaking the Star Trek stranglehold. It showed people sci-fi could have more depth. But compared to some of what came after (Firefly, Battlestar Galactica, new Dr. Who) it is nothing special.

    Its like people saying Citizen Kane was the best movie ever. It was certainly better than anything that came out at the time - but since then others have taken its ideas and improved upon them. Same for B5

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    1. Re:Prepare for dissapointment by Rethcir · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ok.. even non-slashdotters love the Next Generation, and you know it. Stop grandstanding.

    2. Re:Prepare for dissapointment by geminidomino · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have to say you're wrong about that. My image isn't romanticized, it's fresh in my memory (I'll kill a weekend ever few months watching the first four seasons).

      The main thing fans usually praise about B5 is the incredible story arc. Four seasons planned ahead from day 1. It's impressive. But B5 had something I find even more important, the same thing that made Firefly great before Whedon ruined it: Characters and the way they interacted.

      The best example, I think any B5 fan will agree, had to be the chemistry between Andreas Katsulas(R.I.P.) (G'Kar) and Peter Jurasik(Londo). But there were very few poor characters. Walter Koenig as Bester makes you want to punch him in the mouth, but that's because he's SUPPOSED to. Ivanova's monologues on C&C were always good for a wry grin ("No boom today. Boom tommorow. ALWAYS Boom tommorow.") Maybe I'm just fanboying, but I even found Bruce Boxleitner to be an excellent choice for Sheridan.

    3. Re:Prepare for dissapointment by bhunachchicken · · Score: 1

      "I think some people have a romanticised image of Babylon 5."

      That's for sure... And I'm not afriad to admit that I cried at the ending. No TV show has EVER managed to get that sort of emotion out of me and I doubt any ever will again. As for these new episodes, I think I'll pass.

    4. Re:Prepare for dissapointment by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "the only other Sci-Fi on Tv was Star Trek: The Next Generation"

      Well, if you ignore DS9, Voyager, Stargate: SG-1, Earth 2, Space: Above and Beyond, and a bunch of others that most of us have forgotten by now. In fact, TNG only overlapped B5 by what, one year?

    5. Re:Prepare for dissapointment by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      Maybe I'm just fanboying, but I even found Bruce Boxleitner to be an excellent choice for Sheridan.

      I remember reading a comment here on /. in the way-back where someone defended both captains' acting; they both acted like stuffed shirts a lot of the time, which is ostensibly how people of that high a military position typically behave. I can neither confirm nor deny these allegations because I've never been enlisted and never known any generals, captains, admirals etc.

      Anyway bruce boxlunch had immense geek cred from Tron, so he was a natural choice :)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Prepare for dissapointment by powerlord · · Score: 1
      Anyway bruce boxlunch had immense geek cred from Tron, so he was a natural choice :)


      Yeah ... I was just playing Kingdom Hearts 2 a few months ago and got a tremedous kick out of Tron making an appearence (and that Bruce voiced him). The odd thing was, I kept picturing Sheridan instead of Tron as the lines came up. It only made me break up in laughter.
      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    7. Re:Prepare for dissapointment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I think some people have a romanticised image of Babylon 5.


      I just watched it for the first time a year ago.

      I don't have a 'romanticised' image of B5; I sincerely thought it was the best god damned sci fi I've seen in ten years. (Even 'Firefly'/'Serenity' comes only a close second.)
    8. Re:Prepare for dissapointment by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1
      Maybe I'm just fanboying, but I even found Bruce Boxleitner to be an excellent choice for Sheridan.
      TRON kicking ass in space :)
      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
  27. Thirdspace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now that was a great post-B5 tie in.
    The other B5 movies, not so hot but still decent.

    It's amazing how old B5 is and still holds up to watching a decade later compared to modern series.

    It was one of the first shows to be shot in 16:9 before there was HDTV!

    1. Re:Thirdspace by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      It was one of the first shows to be shot in 16:9 before there was HDTV!

      Yes. A pity though that much of the CGI shots were rendered 4:3 and had to be cropped for widescreen. Or at least when it was shown on the Sci-Fi Channel in widescreen for the first time.

      The series is preloaded in my 400-disc DVD changer but I haven't watched them yet.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  28. another space station. by krell · · Score: 1

    "Bear in mind that, at the time, the only other Sci-Fi on Tv was Star Trek: The Next Generation"

    Actually, B5 was out around the same time as "Star Trek: Deep Space 9".

    --
    Where were you when the voynix came?
  29. Good explanation by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

    I never liked Babylon 5. Your explanation helps me to understnad why some people really like the show. It sounds like a good show based upon your description, and from all of the episodes I've seen I'd have to say you are correct. However, I still don't enjoy it at all. Can't really articulate why as well as the parent explained why it ws a good show. I guess as some troll mentioned the acting wasn't the greatest, but acting is rarely good in scifi and I still like many other shows with worse acting. Maybe, it was too complex for me. Perhaps, it was too much like a soap opera.

    It had simular mood music. SciFi should have death metal -- ALL THE TIME. That would rock.

    Jugga Jigga Wugga
    Defcon
    Jugga Jigga Wugga
    Death star
    Jugga Jigga Wugga
    Dilithium Crystal
    Jugga Jigga Wugga
    Death Ray
    Jugga Jigga Wugga
    Dimensional Time Warp
    Jugga Jigga Wugga
    Deflector shields
    And so on. With appologies and props to Strong Bad.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    1. Re:Good explanation by morcego · · Score: 1
      Perhaps, it was too much like a soap opera.


      Well, I have to agree both with you and the GP. It was a soap opera (space opera), except things moved faster than on your regular soap opera. If you missed 1 or 2 episodes, chances are you would not understand a lot of things that happened. But if you can get your hand on all episodes, and watched them all, you will see the soap opera side of it was quite good.
      --
      morcego
    2. Re:Good explanation by Cylix · · Score: 1

      Precisely!

      I was annoyed that I came into the series late and had NO idea what was going on.

      I remember being told it was a great show, but there was little way for me at the time to make up any missed episodes. Consequently, I only watched some of the episodes years later when TNT started airing it. (Or did they always?).

      I generally liked it, but I missed far too much of it to grasp the whole story.

      Too bad I didn't have a PVR then :P

      --
      "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    3. Re:Good explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to tell people that shows like B5 and Trek were 'my stories' like some women say about their soaps.

    4. Re:Good explanation by morcego · · Score: 1

      TNT came into play for Season 5, after Warner dropped the axe on the show.
      I can remember that at least 1 of the movies was from TNT too ("In the Begining", I think).

      --
      morcego
  30. Re:Wow. I wonder... by savorymedia · · Score: 1

    "(the security guy.)"

    You mean Jerry Doyle? He's now a talk radio host. http://www.jerrydoyle.com/

    --
    1 is the square root of all evil.
  31. dissapointed by spykemail · · Score: 1

    Babylon 5 is hardly "back." Direct to DVD 20 minute character episodes hardly qualify as any sort of ressurection. As for the greatest sci-fi TV series of all time, for me it's a no-brainer: Doctor Who. And I'm not talking about the newer episodes, I'm taking about the series as a whole. Babylon 5 was great but it didn't instill the sort of eternal love that series like Doctor Who (and even Star Trek: the Next Generation to some degree) have. To this very day if I walked outside and saw a Dalek or Patrick Stewart I would shit my pants, a creature or actor from Babylon 5, not so much.

    That having been said those are my personal picks, I'm sure that for many Babylon 5 fans it's quite the other way around. I enjoyed the series, it just wasn't spectacular for me. I've never seemed to truly favor station-based series, I prefer travelers like the Enterprise, the Tardis, the Stargate, etc. I also was not impressed by the special effects in Babylon 5, they were actually kind of crappy. Much crappeir than those in Star Trek: the Next Generation if you ask me. The plot and the actors in Babylon 5 were both very important to me and they screwed them both up pretty bad as the series progressed. In show like Star Trek and Doctor Who the plot really doesn't matter too much, as long as they're still flying around having crazy adventures it's all good.

    Actually I'm kind of pissed at the new Doctor Who. Not having any Daleks or any Time Lords (besides the Doctor of course) pretty much kills my two favorite races. I'm informed they can't really not have any more Dalek episodes though, after all, the man does travel through time and the Daleks are his greatest enemy. He's bound to run into Daleks in the past.

    I'm also pissed at Stargate, mostly at the retirement of you-know-who. What ever that dude from Farscape's name is needs to die. He's like one of those kids I always wanted to punch in the face while playing football. He's not a good replacement for the offbeat Colonel at all. The new general is also a poor replacement for General Hamond. He seems more like one of those nameless military types you'd see in one scene of a movie - he looks and sounds the part but he has no personality. I don't mind the crazy lady because she's, well, crazy but her Farscape boyfriend has got to go (or start acting less annoying).

    1. Re:dissapointed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your information is out of date. Both season 1 and season 2 of the new Dr. Who have daleks. You'll defintely get your fix.

      No word on other timelords though, but I expect that one or two might pop up in season 3.

    2. Re:dissapointed by Cheerio+Boy · · Score: 1

      I'm also pissed at Stargate, mostly at the retirement of you-know-who. What ever that dude from Farscape's name is needs to die. He's like one of those kids I always wanted to punch in the face while playing football. He's not a good replacement for the offbeat Colonel at all. The new general is also a poor replacement for General Hamond. He seems more like one of those nameless military types you'd see in one scene of a movie - he looks and sounds the part but he has no personality. I don't mind the crazy lady because she's, well, crazy but her Farscape boyfriend has got to go (or start acting less annoying).

      ----
      Announcer's voice:

      Watch Stargate the Series! It's Farscape with 50% less muppets!
      ----

      Yeah, I'm going to pay for that one...

      FWIW I would love to see some back story on the B5 characters. I've been re-watching the entire series lately and as other have also stated I keep finding things I've missed.

      --

      "Bah!" - Dogbert
    3. Re:dissapointed by damburger · · Score: 1

      "Actually I'm kind of pissed at the new Doctor Who. Not having any Daleks or any Time Lords (besides the Doctor of course) pretty much kills my two favorite races. I'm informed they can't really not have any more Dalek episodes though, after all, the man does travel through time and the Daleks are his greatest enemy. He's bound to run into Daleks in the past."

      *cough*

      I'm saying nothing :)

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    4. Re:dissapointed by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      Actually I'm kind of pissed at the new Doctor Who. Not having any Daleks or any Time Lords (besides the Doctor of course) pretty much kills my two favorite races. I'm informed they can't really not have any more Dalek episodes though, after all, the man does travel through time and the Daleks are his greatest enemy. He's bound to run into Daleks in the past.

      So you missed the last 2 episodes of the recent series then?

      And the last episode of the first series?

      The daleks aren't going anywhere... there's scope for there to be millions of them now that we know some have escaped..

      (btw. the nature of the time war means that you can't run into daleks in the past for the same reason you can't run into timelords in the past - they've been erased from history. Why everyone remembers them & this hasn't changed the timeline completely is just one of those huge plot holes that DW is famous for...).

    5. Re:dissapointed by spykemail · · Score: 1

      Dude I've seen the episodes: "You would make a good Dalek." :) but you know, stuff happens in Season 2 you know. Like I said I know / have heard they can't really get rid of the Daleks but it's still dissapointing.

      After thinking about it for a while though I've decided the Time Lords really weren't much of a loss. Only the Master was really interesting and I'm not too sure they could find a good actor to play him even if they did conjure an excuse to ressurect him (not that I'm thrilled with the new Doctors).

      Lol I just had a vision of the Master appearing to Doctor Who in a dream during his last regeneration and making a secret deal / plan to bring them both back to life when he dies.

    6. Re:dissapointed by spykemail · · Score: 1

      Sigh, I have seen those episodes. But if what you say is true that sucks... bigtime. I don't want to run into more random single Daleks or crazy demented Daleks, I just want plain old Daleks.

    7. Re:dissapointed by bigbigbison · · Score: 1

      I am a bit confused as to what you are complaining about. Except for the absence of the time lords, there have been tons of daleks. There was an entire invasion fleet in the series 1 series finale (I'm not going to get into the "proper" designation of the series number). There were thousands if not millions of them taking on the cybermen in the season 2 finale. What more could you want?
      The constant mention of that there are no more time lords almost guarantees that they will show up at some point.

      --
      http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
    8. Re:dissapointed by itsdapead · · Score: 1
      I also was not impressed by the special effects in Babylon 5, they were actually kind of crappy. Much crappeir than those in Star Trek: the Next Generation if you ask me.

      Probably because ST:TNG had a much bigger budget, were using tried-and-tested miniature techniques rather than pioneering CGI and rarely attempted anything on the scale of the Big Damnned Space Battles which happened several times a season in B5. Sometimes B5 overreached itself - the views of the central "open air" part of the station never really came off, so everything felt a bit set-bound - but when it came together (e.g. Londo watching the bombing of Narn) it blew TNG away.

      Big events in TNG had a tendency to happen off-screen.

      Of course, DS9 had some jolly big shootouts, but they were under some pressure to out-B5 B5.

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    9. Re:dissapointed by spykemail · · Score: 1

      Well the way I figure it you can never have too many Daleks. So, constantly expressing concern about their ultimate doom and the possible lack of them appearing in the series can only be a good thing, right?

      I thought I had seen Seasons 1 and 2, but now I think I'm realizing I was very confused and have only seen season 1. Bah, more daleks! I'm dying to see that K-9 episode too.

      To be honest I'm a bit fuzzy on this new series because I haven't been watching it religiously. I'm much bigger on the Jon Pertwee, Tom Baker, and the Brigadier days (god, every show needs some random British Brigadier General). Not to mention their many cool friends / sidekicks like K-9, Mary Jane, and Joe. Even that warrior woman girl was, well, a warrior woman :).

    10. Re:dissapointed by spykemail · · Score: 1

      You're right to a point. Actually come to think of it I did enjoy some of the space battles in Babylon 5. The main things I hated were the Earth ships (and the station itself). It doesn't get much fuglier than the Earth fighters, the Earth capital ships, and the station itself. Though some of the alien ships really weren't all that better, just not as boxy.

      I still think that if you can't get the new technology to look good you should fall back on the taditional stuff. It's cool to be a pioneer and all but the end result was me thinking B5's graphics sucked compared to TNGs. Actually come to think of it I still don't see sci-fi shows with "better" special effects than Star Trek. Perhaps their off screen tricks were just too good and they have me imagining all kinds of cool special effects that they never actually showed on screen. Everytime I see a ship on a sci-fi show I immediately compare it to two things: a star destroyer from Empire Strikes Back and a typical Star Trek ship. If it doesn't look as realistic as one of them I'm upset. Some shows with good special effects (Stargate) just suffer from ugly ships. The big Ghoauld ships (aka pyramids) are ok but everything else is usualy meh and doesn't do much besides blow up or go into hyperspace after a couple of shots (budget issues I guess). Even Serenity (the Firefly movie) lacked good ships. The descent onto Mr. Universe's pad was pretty cool, I'm not gonna lie. But you didn't really get to see much big ship-to-ship action, or it flew by Serenity really fast. Stupid cargo ships with no weapons! Serenity could have done with a little bit of Millenium Falcon action.

      Lucas really pushed me over the edge with the computer generated storm troopers. Biggest mistake of all time. Cutting edge, revolutionary, etc etc but COMPLETELY FAKE LOOKING. Being a technophiliac is no excuse for refusing to use humans for close-up shots.

    11. Re:dissapointed by Zerbs · · Score: 1

      Watch Stargate the Series! It's Farscape with 50% less muppets!

      Why did I just picture Fozzie Bear as the new general in charge of the SGC?

      --
      "22 astronauts were born in Ohio. What is it about your state that makes people want to flee the Earth?" Stephen Colbert
    12. Re:dissapointed by rholland356 · · Score: 1
      Babylon 5 is hardly "back." Direct to DVD 20 minute character episodes hardly qualify as any sort of ressurection.
      The fanboys will eat these up, or post them on Youtube. All Straczynski has to do is have Bruce Boxleitner stand in front of a wall and yammer for 20 minutes.

      I might consider purchasing the background story of that replacement commander with the big tits. What was her name? You know, the one who stepped in for the boring fifth season after her predecessor achieved godhood.

      Babylon 5 was great but it didn't instill the sort of eternal love that series like Doctor Who (and even Star Trek: the Next Generation to some degree) have.
      The torch of eternal love is lit and carried by Jay Denebeim over at rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, and it is truly a sight to behold.

      To this very day if I walked outside and saw a Dalek or Patrick Stewart I would shit my pants, a creature or actor from Babylon 5, not so much.
      If I saw a Dalek outside I would put my cigarette butt in it. If it were Patrick Stewart I'd say "booya! I'm the freakin' ghost of Christmas future, mofo!", and if Andreas Katsulas were out on the street, well, that would just be wrong.
    13. Re:dissapointed by SteveFoerster · · Score: 2, Funny

      You wrote:

      > To this very day if I walked outside and saw a Dalek
      > or Patrick Stewart I would shit my pants

      Patrick Stewart just decided never to meet you.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    14. Re:dissapointed by itsdapead · · Score: 1
      Actually come to think of it I still don't see sci-fi shows with "better" special effects than Star Trek.

      I doubt that there are many sci-fi shows/movies (especially space operas) with comparable budgets to the Trek and Star Wars franchises. If Wikipedia is to be believed then c.f. $39M for Serenity with $35M for Star Trek: The Slow Motion Picture in 1979! or $70M for ST:Nemesis. Its harder to find info for TV, but According to the Lurker's guide the budget for B5 was $800k/ep c.f. $1,600k for DS9. $2M/ep seems to be the figure floating around for Firefly (possibly unreliable - again remember inflation).

      I wouldn't dispute that Trek is impeccably polished in terms of acting, sets, FX (although B5 made Trek raise its game in the lighting and alien make-up departments) - it is just bland: the plot-reset button is pressed at the end of every episode.

      Also, I think its kinda central to Firefly that Serenity is no warship - once you go that way, then its very hard not to have the guy with the biggest plasma cannon win. When they *do* temporarily strap on a cannon, its sole purpose is to deliberately get the bad guys really, really pissed at them.

      PS: Notice how many Sci Fi stories, when the fighting starts, resort to swordplay, martial arts or similar?

      Firefly: anachronistic guns, swords & chick-fu; Dune: knives; B5: Minbari fighting staves; Andromeda: Suspiciously Similar Fighting staves (albeit with fricking laser beams), Stargate (zap guns that double as... staves when the chop-sockey starts), Star Wars: swords that need batteries; the Lensman books: space axes; Battlestar Galactica: OK, ships with guns, but they're clearly firing bullets and missiles, not fancy energy-beam weapons.

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    15. Re:dissapointed by nytes · · Score: 1
      Probably because ST:TNG had a much bigger budget
      And how! According to the B5 DVD commentary by JMS, the reason that so much of the final episode of season 4 was shot in front of a black curtain was that he had run completely out of money for sets.

      Yet that episode has always stood out in my mind as one of my favorites.

      I'd bet that Roddenberry would have just canceled the series, shown a rerun, or thrown together a "retrospective" episode.
      --
      -- I have monkeys in my pants.
    16. Re:dissapointed by timelady · · Score: 1

      romana is/was in espace. implied that she came back for the war (and i suspect many of the new adventure books will saythis), but..who knows? timelords are wily - the dcotor,everyone, believes he is the last one. but if*HE* survived.... the daleks and the cybermen have been put - somewhere. they werent destroyed.

      --
      Nothing - well thats something.
    17. Re:dissapointed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that series two hasn't aired around these parts? No.

      But thanks for dispelling any mystery.

    18. Re:dissapointed by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      Let me get this straight. You thought the earth ships (fighters) were terrible, then rip on things that are 'completely fake looking'. The earth fighters were the most realistic ships I've ever seen on ANY Sci-fi series EVER. Why? The moved according to physics. They didn't 'fly' through some non-existant media in space. When they want to move in a different direction, they rotate, then accellerate, they don't make broad sweeping turns through the 'air' of space as it exists in most sci-fi shows.

    19. Re:dissapointed by spykemail · · Score: 1

      I've never been to outer space, and I probably never will. If a FICTIONAL story can't have ships the follow physics and AREN'T extremely ugly, then I would rather have the pretty ones. Call me crazy.

    20. Re:dissapointed by itsdapead · · Score: 1
      I've never been to outer space, and I probably never will. If a FICTIONAL story can't have ships the follow physics and AREN'T extremely ugly, then I would rather have the pretty ones. Call me crazy.
      The Earth ships were MEANT to be ugly! Humans were not supposed to be the most technologically advanced race: no artificial gravity, reactionless thrusters, inertial dampers or organic tech. They were expanding because they were younger, more vigorous and (occasionally) more stupid than the older races. They'd just come out of a period of expansion followed by a near-terminal war - so you'd be looking at mass-produced, no-frills, lowest bidder "utility" models, too. The elder races, with far more advanced tech, could indulge in more whimsical ship designs without the constraints of rotating sections and G-forces. You could tell that someone had sat down and decided the "tech level" of each race and designed ships to match. The organic-tech Shadow "spiders" even shrivelled up and died rather than exploding in flames.

      Personally, I'm more interested in imagination behind a SF show than the resolution of the CGI. B5 pushed the limits of what was possible - and sometimes got it wrong. Trek stayed within their securely-funded comfort zone.

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
  32. Re:All I can say is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are thinking Vorlons

  33. Since new, why not better? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Sure the original series was not quite at the same level as Battlestar Galactica (though I would argue that the overall plot may have been as good a premise, it's just character development and twists were not quite as impressive).

    But these new episodes are written in todays world, where viewers and writers have seen Battlestar galactica, and good quality computer effects are cheaper and more impressive than ever. There is no reason to think we might see improvement both in story and in cinematography, and have some really good episodes to watch.

    I plan to buy them partly to give the stories a chance, but also I very much want to express support for direct to DVD sales of shows. Potentially that could be a route that we might someday see Firefly again, there was an effort along those lines but it seems to have fizzled.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  34. Re:Woot! Kosh - Entil'Zha by choconutdancer · · Score: 1

    > A case in point, right in the Pilot episode, when Kosh met Captain Sinclair for the first time he addressed him as Entil'Zha. I don't think that name or it's significance appeared again until around season 3. Watching the pilot you just ignored it. You figure it's just how these aliens greet people. When I later went back to rewatch the entire series from the beginning I was completely blown away when I heard Kosh say that because by then I knew the significance of it. Wow, talk about planning in advance.

  35. Feeling spaced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tim: [trying to get fired] Derek?
    Derek: Yeah?
    Tim: Babylon 5 is a big pile of shit!
    Derek: [angrily] Get out!
    Tim, Bilbo Bagshot: Yaaaaay!

  36. Babylon 5 was okay by Bullfish · · Score: 2, Interesting

    But what I really want to see revived is Space Above and Beyond. A far superior series to almost all the series mentioned above, well ahead of its time, and killed far too soon by a dumbass Fox.

    1. Re:Babylon 5 was okay by shudde · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I absolutely worshipped Space A&B when I was a teenager, thought it was the best (albeit the shortest-lived) sci-fi show around. Recently I leeched a few of the episodes and found it dated, with simplistic themes and wooden acting. Characters I cared about in my youth now seem banal.

      As others have posted, it's probably a reflection on some of the truly brilliant sci-fi we've had in the last few years (my two cents: Farscape, Firefly, SG, BSG).

    2. Re:Babylon 5 was okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing I really remember from S:A&B was the launching of pancackes into a black hole. :P

      Most brilliant scene in any SF.

    3. Re:Babylon 5 was okay by finkployd · · Score: 1

      Wow, I had totally forgotten about S:AaB, that show rocked. Along with SeaQuest DSV (which I have fuzzy memories of being on at roughly the same time) it pretty much was all the scifi I was into in my younger years. Two years ago I borrowed the B5 DVD sets from a friend and went through them and now I want to see all the original star trek and next generation series, doctor who, and the original BG. I guess you could say B5 kicked me into "scifi geek mode" lately, I would welcome seeing some more work from jms.

      Finkployd

    4. Re:Babylon 5 was okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can buy Space Above and Beyond on DVD now at Amazon. They have a reasonable price too!

      What a great series that was.

    5. Re:Babylon 5 was okay by Seq · · Score: 1

      I recently picked up A&B on DVD. I called up my brother and attempted to watch the series. Unfortunately, neither of us could actually get through the whole season, though both of us watched it faithfully "back in the day". I was unsure if I could attribute this to being ~14 when it aired and not noticing the fairly flat acting (the stories are still good) or influence from later sci-fi. Still not a bad show, but...

      --
      -- Seq
    6. Re:Babylon 5 was okay by JhohannaVH · · Score: 1

      HELL YEAH!!!!! Everything that was *ever* good on Fox, the assholes killed too earth. Kindred: The Embraced was amazing, especially with all of the interplay between the clans. Profit... well, I think I had a crush on the character, and then they axed that without warning. But then, there was SAB!! I used to have them all on VHS, of course, but that was 10 years ago. *sigh* Never underestimate the power of media transfer. I would LOVE to see this come back, because the graphics and the technology were amazing, the story line was captivating, and plenty of action scenes. Not to mention the characters actually had meat and were real people.

      Back in the day all of the good graphics were done on Silicon Graphics RE-2s... Now that SGI is no more, what platform has the best and most advanced effects capabilities. I cried my heart out when SGI filed... if only for all the love they gave to B5.

      --
      Sorry man... the Internet pooped on me.
  37. Massive multiplayer online game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about a B5 massive multiplayer online game?

  38. .......rrruuummble....... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MINDQUAKE!!!

  39. Zathros is pleased! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    rangers assemble

  40. disagree. by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    Making a movie would be. Fortunately he has too much integrity to recast G'khar and the Doctor (both who passed away). Someone after money would not have blinked.

    These short films come across as a writer's dream come true. How many writers could get a studio to basically pay for these types of films? If JMS is successful it might be a whole new market.

    Now, the idea of a B5 MMORPG - uh, no thank you. I still want an official space combat simulator out of these people ... I got the free mousepad and such from the failed attempt.

    Give me a turn based strategy game (MOO2 style) and a Flight Simulator and I will set for life, err, until the next big thing

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:disagree. by alienmole · · Score: 1

      Now, the idea of a B5 MMORPG - uh, no thank you. I still want an official space combat simulator out of these people ... I got the free mousepad and such from the failed attempt.

      Give me a turn based strategy game (MOO2 style) and a Flight Simulator and I will set for life, err, until the next big thing

      No wonder you disagree with me - no offense, but you sound like the perfect target market for DVDs like these.
    2. Re:disagree. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give me a turn based strategy game (MOO2 style) and a Flight Simulator and I will set for life, err, until the next big thing

      Is this close to what you were thinking for the latter?

    3. Re:disagree. by Overt+Coward · · Score: 1

      Hasn't someone done a d20 variation in the B45 universe?

  41. Up until the last few episodes by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    I might have partially agreed with you on some points.

    For continuity B5 still wins. For logic B5 still wins.

    Some of the things that happened in BSG did so because the writer needed them to happen, listening to the podcasts it was clear that they knew they could not back it up or seemed wrong - they had a story and damn if anything got in the way.

    Yet the show was still enjoyable, up until the recent episodes which seem to be just a little to contrived.

    BSG is experiencing the rabid fanboi surge all good shows have. It will be telling to see when some turn on their favorite show.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  42. The difference is, of course... by schon · · Score: 1

    .. that with Playboy, I can skip the articles.

    Unless your point is that B5's only redeeming feature was 5 of horrible plastic-looking CGI.

    In any case, there is a difference between "horrible" and "passable". B5 is clearly in the former camp. I don't watch Sci-Fi for the acting, but if it's that bad, it's just plainly unwatchable.

  43. For Babylon 5 by MaveZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Babylon 5, love it or hate it. After few episodes you are addicted anyways.

    One episode doesnt give you any reason to be addicted, two gives you something, after three episodes you cant wait to see fourth, after fourth you find yourself thinking how PPG's really work, after fifth you have lost the count.

    Think about a show that has 110 episodes + pilot, where each and every episode are somehow connected. And I dont mean only those episodes that comes in a row, for example 18,19 and 20 would be connected, but I also mean episodes 8 and 75, 53 and 106... 106 and 75... 75 to each and every episode... etc... That is why I love this show, it only gets better more you watch it.

    After few episodes you can see the unavoidable faith of Babylon 5 and how the show is going to end, and that I think is the point of the story. You are given certain hints about the future, but you cant know whether it is true or not, or is it even possible.
    It is your job to find out.

    When the story continues, more hints are brought up, more moving parts inside machinery, more fire to the wheel. And most of all, you can see how the actions in the past had a consequence in the future (Or in the past...:).

    In series finale, you will realise how wrong you were time to time, and how great journey this series was. For the last minutes you can only cry for two reasons, because it is over, or just because you want to.

    Go get the DVD's, this show is definitely worth it.

    1. Re:For Babylon 5 by sharlskdy · · Score: 1

      LOST is the only thing that's come close, and even then they're making it up as they go along; at least season by season.

      The fact that a little tidbit dropped in one episode, which seemed to be nothing and would pass right by, and then, two seasons later suddenly become relevant made the show a colossal 'eater of time' for me.

  44. Re:Wow. I wonder... by midknight32 · · Score: 1
    Wow. You must not have seen the same episodes that I was watching...so you're saying that Andreas Katsulas, Mira Furlan and Peter Jurasik couldn't act. Astounding...*shakes head*


    Katsulas and Jurasik were IMO the best two regualrs on the show. The style was odd, but it was the nature of the characters, and once you got used to that.... it's like when you finally overcome the "odd" english in a shakespeare play and can concentrate on the beauty of it. Doyle could also act well, and many, MANY of the bit parts were wonderfully handled (Mr. Sebastian from "Comes the Inquisitor" comes to mind, as well as Dr. Franklin's father in "GROPOS"). Too damn bad Bruce couldn't act well, but even he had his moments, and I could ignore him while falling into the story.
  45. Re:Woot! Kosh - Entil'Zha by Monsieur+Canard · · Score: 1

    That's a bit of revisionist history there.

    Back when the pilot first aired, that line was not in there. After TNT picked up the show for season 5 and commisioned the movie "In the Beginning", JMS and company went off and did a special-edition jobby to the pilot. Mostly SFX tweaks, but that line was one that was added.

    I can't wait for volume 15 of the B5 script books so that I can read the whole storyline if Sinclair had stayed. Yeah, I know. Geek.

    --
    He took a duck to the face at 250 knots.
  46. Re:Wow. I wonder... by schon · · Score: 1

    You must not have seen the same episodes that I was watching

    Perhaps not. Just part of the first season, and intermittant episodes after that. With the exception of the guy who played Garibaldi, everyone else had the screen presence of a 2x4. God, even Jeremy Iron's performance in "Dungeons and Dragons" was good in comparison.

    so you're saying that Andreas Katsulas, Mira Furlan and Peter Jurasik couldn't act.

    I have no idea who they are, but if they were in any episodes I saw, then no, they couldn't (unless you consider Keanu Reeves a master thespian.)

  47. Re:B5? Excuse Me? X-Files by tbannist · · Score: 1

    Yes, put the X-Files down and step away from the TV.

    Seriously, while X-Files had some interesting episodes it also had terribly bad episodes like the one where Mulder is somehow absorbed by a VR system when the hologram projector "un-draws" him, and then Scully has to go all "Ridley" on the computer to save him. The worst thing is the episode was written by William Gibson (of "Neuromancer" fame), and that's exactly the episode he wanted to make, and that's just the tip of the iceberg of what is wrong with that episode, but I hope you see the problem.

    I'm sure there are other terrible episodes that people could list, but the huge problem here is that they blantantly and repeatedly break the laws of physics without any justification. That's where they lost me, you can break the rules as long as you justify breaking the rules. When you break the rules and no one notices or cares that the impossible has just happened, well then you've jumped the shark and I can't take your series seriously any more.

    --
    Fanatically anti-fanatical
  48. B5 on iTMS, cropped and cropped again by Soong · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The iTMS versions of B5 are probably only 50% of the original show.

    The DVDs were artificially made "wide screen" by chopping off the top and bottom of each frame. You can tell on "Voice of the Resistance" test pattern or the Psi Corps ad on ISN with the frame that flashes "trust the corps". Those were full screen designs for tv and are now cut off.

    I watched a sample of an episode on iTMS and it looks like it's the same vertical image as the DVDs but has now been chopped off on the left and right to fit the TV/iPod screen size, where letterboxing would look stupid.

    So, I'm holding onto my VHS taped-off-the-air copies of B5 until they release the original-original series.

    --
    Start Running Better Polls
    1. Re:B5 on iTMS, cropped and cropped again by jnik · · Score: 3, Informative

      B5 was shot widescreen. The CG was rendered 4:3. I believe part of the deal was that the CG would be rerendered for the DVD's (but I'm not positive).

      Warner lost the model files. Many conspiracy theories surround this.

      The DVD's were made by combining the 16:9 live action footage with CG that was cropped to 16:9, then scaled vertically (to achieve full anamorphic resolution). So scenes that combine live action and CG look a bit weird.

      If iTunes is 4:3, it's probably the original broadcast version, where you're missing the sides of the field in live action shots.

      (This is an entirely different issue from the first Sci-fi "widescreen" reairing, where they did indeed mess up and just mat out the top and bottom of the original broadcast.)

  49. Re:Wow. I wonder... by Arker · · Score: 1

    Here's a rogues gallery. Should jog the memory.

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  50. I think that the better analogy is. by jozmala · · Score: 1

    Watching scifi for the acting is like reading slashdot for the comments.

    --
    ©God :Copyright is exclusive right for creator to determine the use of his creation.
    1. Re:I think that the better analogy is. by Slithe · · Score: 1

      No, I think the best analogy would be "Watching scifi for the acting is like reading Slashdot for the blo.. er.. articles."

      --
      ---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
  51. OT :Re:I can still dream, can't I? by MrCopilot · · Score: 2, Insightful
    As for #3, I think that may also have been in part thanks to sites like savewash.com (no link, since it's been replaced by domain squatters) that leaked info from sneak peeks and previews. Gods know, I wish I'd seen the site before the movie. (Rant about that part of the movie omitted.)

    I thought it showed real balls. Good likable character eats it at the triumphant moment, Impressed me. Wouldn't have had the same impact if it had been the Doc. (my wife was wishing him dead the whole movie)

    To the grandparent post Serenity was the name.

    --
    OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
    1. Re:OT :Re:I can still dream, can't I? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Meh... The great thing about Firefly was the character dynamics. He offed Wash to build tension for the climax, so that he could introduce Buffy^W River the reaver-slayer. Yech.

      Not a worthy trade, IMO.

      Between the movie, and Buffy and Angel, I'm glad Firefly died when it did.

  52. Sci-Fi That's Better by TheZorch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, for its time B5 raised the bar on Sci-Fi the way Battlestar Galactica does now. The stories were well written, often interwoven with one another, and the characters were very complex. Even the villains are more than just "one dimensional" pure evil that needed to be destroyed (I beliece someone else also expressed this point).

    What hurt shows like ST: Voyager, Enterprise and so many others is that they let the exec interfere with the creative process. Fox wanted more sex on Voyager so they brought in Seven-of-Nine, though Jeri Ryan proved that she was more than just a nice set of boobs and was actually a very good actress. Oh, and don't get me started with T'Pal on Enterprise. She was a good actress also but she was cast for the role because she was top heavy. I'm not saying sex in Sci-Fi isn't bad, but its when the focus of the show is to show off some babe in a skin tight body suit I'd rather watch the Playboy channel. I want my sci-fi shows to have depth, and I'm not alone in this. Sadly, too many media execs think they know what we want even then we tell them what we want. Case in point; the fans demanded for a series featuring Sulu as the captain of the Excellceor, but they gave everyone Enterprise because that is what the execs thought was what was best for the fans rather than listening to what the fans asked for. They're doing it again with the new Star Trek movie. Yes, they are going ahead with the Starfleet Academy things where a young Kirk meets Spock at the academy.

    I also agress that Dr. Who was a great series. It is on record, with Guiness, as the longest running Sci-Fi TV series in history. Despite have an almost non-existant budget the producers of the series were still able to tell provocative stories which were sometimes totally unheard of in TV Sci-Fi. The new series does follow a similar formula though I'm disappointed a little by the fact that they dumped the serialization of the episodes.

    --
    Michael "TheZorch" Haney
    thezorch@gmail.com
    http://thezorch.googlepages.com/home
    1. Re:Sci-Fi That's Better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm disappointed a little by the fact that they dumped the serialization of the episodes.
      .

      I take from this comment that you haven't seen the entire first series. While it's not obvious at first, every episode contributes to the overall arc of the series (and I'm not just talking about "bad wolf"). I will admit that this format is different from original DW, but I submit that it makes the continuity within a series even denser.
    2. Re:Sci-Fi That's Better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you're saying is that if an actress with more than a B cup is hired for a job its sexual, no matter her competence, because you have a problem staring at her chest?

      There are a lot of guys who find girls with small asses sexually appealing -- does that mean they were all hired for sex too?

      Personally speaking, I'd love a more proportional representation of female body types on TV shows in general and this type of bias just makes it worse.

  53. Somebody has to say it... by grokery · · Score: 1

    Babylon 5 is a big pile of shit!

    spaced

  54. Into The Fire by Brian+Kendig · · Score: 1

    What would be really interesting would be if they could use the footage of the main characters shot for the unreleased game Babylon 5: Into The Fire and work it into these prequels somehow. I've always wanted to see that footage - and, besides, it includes some unreleased and unseen video of Andreas Katsulas as G'Kar.

  55. B5 spinoffs by jpostel · · Score: 1

    I know the spinoffs didn't work out, but Crusade was killed by the network (I can't remember if it was WB or TNT) according to JMS and others that worked on the series. I happen to think that Crusade had big potential based on the popularity of the Techno-Mages among fans.

    --
    Ummm, Jon, aren't you supposed to be dead...? - Otter(3800)
    1. Re:B5 spinoffs by Em+Ellel · · Score: 1

      I know the spinoffs didn't work out, but Crusade was killed by the network (I can't remember if it was WB or TNT) according to JMS and others that worked on the series. I happen to think that Crusade had big potential based on the popularity of the Techno-Mages among fans.

      It did not help that a - the episode order was messed with during filming (like one episode using technology found in a later episode), b - the show was cancelled BEFORE it hit the airwaves (nothing to do with ratings) and c - the actual story arc was never filmed (it wasn't actually supposed to be about the plague, that was just window dressing)

      -Em

      --
      RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
    2. Re:B5 spinoffs by blincoln · · Score: 1

      I happen to think that Crusade had big potential based on the popularity of the Techno-Mages among fans.

      I actually thought that was one of its weakest aspects. The Techno-Mages were the dorkiest characters in a sci-fi series evar. I cringed when they appeared in an episode of B5, and it only got worse in Crusade. They also had the most melodramatic, over-the-top, overblown dialogue and delivery of any characters in the B5 universe.

      I'm with the GP. Crusade as it was shown was awful. Legend of the Rangers was abysmal. JMS can blame TNT for Crusade (although things like the atonal crap soundtrack were his doing AFAIK), but Legend of the Rangers shows that it wasn't just their fault. I hope that this spinoff turns out well, but the evidence leads me to believe that it won't.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    3. Re:B5 spinoffs by EvilIdler · · Score: 1

      Techno-mages - slashdotters of the 23rd century.

    4. Re:B5 spinoffs by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      I loved B5. I didn't care so much more Crusaders and didn't even realize that there was a The Legend of the Rangers. A quick google search show a two hour movie. Time to search if this became a series.

    5. Re:B5 spinoffs by papercut2a · · Score: 1

      No, it did not become a series because...the movie sucked.

  56. Re:Wow. I wonder... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
    Seriously, there was only one person on the entire show who could act (the security guy.)

    Well, let me open by saying that Mira Furlan (or however you spell it) displayed no acting ability whatsoever on that show. In fact, what I took away from her character was mostly that she had a perpetually dry mouth.

    However, Garibaldi's actor (forget his name) should not be held up as an example of acting. He came in to the studio and JMS said "that's garibaldi". The guy is just being himself. That doesn't mean he can't act, just that he didn't have to do so much of it for this show. Sure, he had to act out situations, but not so much a character.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  57. Re:Woot! Kosh - Entil'Zha by jnik · · Score: 1

    It was actually in the original script, but somehow wound up on the cutting room floor. Joe's response was something like "Wha? It wasn't in the cut that first aired? *tape squiggly noises* Holy crap, it wasn't."

    And damn, I want to read those books, but I so can't justify the money to buy 'em all.

  58. innovative content production and distribution by Shirlockc · · Score: 1

    I think of this B5 direct to DVD as another innovation by JMS. The 5 season story arc was pretty innovative esp. as all other TV at the time (and still) was so episodic. I see LOST and the 4400 suffering without a defined end. Similarly, BSG may become problematic as plot lines drag and get extended for profit rather than story-telling. And with all the different media playback, what does it matter if it's on TV at such and such a time? I get a much better experience watching the shows uninterrupted, all at once (or at least on my own time schedule). I can see content-on-demand like this being much more popular and it bypasses TV execs (phooey on FOX) so how can that be bad? If only Firefly can be brought back like this ...

    1. Re:innovative content production and distribution by rholland356 · · Score: 1
      I think of this B5 direct to DVD as another innovation by JMS.

      Innovation? You used innovation in Slashdot to describe this newsbit?

      Direct-to-DVD is old news.

      Distributing on little plastic disks is passe. Today's innovator distributes through YouTube or Google Video.

      And innovative writers don't cough up backstory hairballs from a tale he told a decade ago. It shows the brains behind this move hasn't got anything to compete with the edgy, SUCCESSFUL Sci-fi that's happened after B5 went off the air: Lexx, Farscape, Battlestar Galactica and Dr. Who have raised the bar much higher.

      Naw, innovative is not the word for this ploy.

  59. Hubris by sckeener · · Score: 1

    ok...though I love
    Stargate (any version), Firefly, and Enterprise or even the new Dr. Who

    and BSG and B5....

    I find it hard to judge BSG until it is over. It may go the way of Farscape which I love too. I love the SciFi channel, but I fear them messing with successful shows. B5, Firefly, Enterprise are done and can be judged....SG or SGA are still running like BSG and it is up in the air where they will land after all is said and done...

    Hubris.....

    --
    "Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
  60. Re:Woot! Kosh - Entil'Zha by Monsieur+Canard · · Score: 1

    I really can't justify the $ either, but I really had to buy them. And ordering them within the first few weeks of publishing gets me $10 off a book, so it'll only be $420 (+tax/shipping) instead of $560.

    Hey, it's my flimsy rationale and I'm sticking with it.

    They've been good too. A few edited-out scenes that helped explain things, some good behind-the-scenes stories, and the scoop on Lyta's Lingerie. I can't wait to see how/if Joe addresses the whole Claudia mess.

    --
    He took a duck to the face at 250 knots.
  61. Point for point by Valacosa · · Score: 1
    Seconded. Consider:
    • 5 year story arc
    • Associated with the point above, foreshadowing happens years in advance
    • Ships appear to follow newtonian mechanics in regular space
    • Humans at "reasonable" technological level (none of this "aging / unaging people with the transporter" shit. I don't care how altruistic the Federation is supposed to be. If it's possible to reverse aging with the transporter, someone would exploit it.)
    • Not all major races magically at the same level of technological development
    • Babylon 5 was never turned into Enterprise.
    Babylon 5 gets my vote, hands down.
    --
    "Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
  62. Re:Wow. I wonder... by Dahlgil · · Score: 1

    Name me one science fiction show that had better actors. ST:TNG came close and Avery Brooks was pretty good in DS9, but one of the reasons B5 was successful in my eye was that the acting was actually decent, and in many cases genuinely impressive. Perhaps even more important was that the cast meshed well. Although I personally liked Jerry Doyle's work in the series, opinions I've read elsewhere usually consider him one of the weaker actors.

  63. Sorry, but... by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but I've moved on to Battlestar Galactica.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  64. BG isn't really sci-fi by Aexia · · Score: 1

    At its heart, it's a military drama with sci-fi trappings.

  65. Not Me by necrodeep · · Score: 1

    Considering that the Star Trek shows had a larger budget for special effects, than most of the other shows you mentioned had in total budget (combined) - I find it hard to believe that Star Trek's graphics wasn't far better in comparison. The other shows had to create new ways to get the effects done with only a fraction of the money - I am rather impressed by what they were able to do. Plus, B5 totally killed Star Trek in the costume department, and it set the bar high enough there that other shows try to match it still.

  66. Early CGI by Kelson · · Score: 1
    I still think that if you can't get the new technology to look good you should fall back on the taditional stuff.

    Of course, if every show followed that philosophy, we wouldn't have the really good CGI effects we have today.

    As for Babylon 5 specifically, CGI was one of the compromises made to get the show on the air. (JMS was unwilling to compromise much on story -- and the show benefited from that -- so other things had to give.) One of the reasons there were so few ambitious space-based sci-fi shows in the early 1990s was the high budget needed to do special effects. The Star Trek shows had a built-in audience, so Paramount was willing to spend more on them than most studios were willing to spend on a series. Computer graphics enabled B5 to do ambitious effects while still coming in at a budget that networks were willing to spend on a no-name sci-fi show.

  67. Delenn in lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone else noticed that the French woman in Lost is Delenn?
    I thought she spoke as she did in b5 to sound exotic and alien, but it appears that she does that by default. In Lost there aren't people from outer space so she had to be french instead. Close enough.

    1. Re:Delenn in lost by ghostdancer · · Score: 1
      French? No.


      A leading actress of theatre, film and TV in the former Yugoslavia...

      Mira Furlan


      --
      I rather be free in hell than a slave in heaven.
  68. Re:Wow. I wonder... by schon · · Score: 1

    Name me one science fiction show that had better actors.

    My god, you've got to be kidding. I think it would be easier to name science fiction shows that had worse acting. But if you insist, here is a *very* short list of shows with better acting than B5:

    Firefly. Battlestar Galactica (both series.) Doctor Who. Star Trek (pick one. Even TOS - WFS included - had better acting than B5.) Space: Above and Beyond. Andromeda. Stargate SG1. Space 1999. X-Files (including David "2x4" Duchovny's brick impersonation.) Tomorrow People. Dark Angel. SeaQuest. Psi-Factor. Red Dwarf. Buck Rogers (yes - *that* Buck Rogers.)

    The list is almost endless.

    one of the reasons B5 was successful in my eye was that the acting was actually decent

    Don't tell me, let me guess: you also believe that Keanu should have won an Oscar for his role in the Matrix movies, right?

    The acting was horrible. It was just painful to watch. With the afforementioned exception, the actors were incapable of expressing emotion. When I watched (to see if it had gotten any better) all I could think was "if someone wanted to sabotage the station, they just needed to release some termites. Virtually the entire cast would be gone in a few hours - and Garibaldi wouldn't be able to run the station by himself."

    the cast meshed well

    So did the lumber I used to build my deck. Doesn't mean I think it can act.

  69. BSG by Nemi · · Score: 1

    You guys just don't get it. BSG is good because of the story, the plot, and the gritty realism, but most importantly, it is good because the of the direction and the acting ability of the actors. The actors are good, but the director must be doing a simply amazing job of getting the most out of them. I rarely find myself popping out of mode saying "wow, that was poorly acted". I believe when someone has strong emotional scenes. I feel their pain and suffering, therefore I feel for the characters. I simply can't wait to find out what happens when season 3 starts.

  70. That *is* what made it interesting by hebcb · · Score: 1

    When I saw the first couple of episodes of B5, I almost wrote it off; the acting was so piss poor. The fact that it *was* a serial, that it existed within the trajectory of a much larger (and sometimes subtly addressed) plot, was really hooked me. Having characters and plots develop/evolve over time like that was fantastic. I look forward to further character development (though I am fearful of the short format and the tendancy to try and wrap things up in neat packages by the end) BTW.. a couple of interesting trivia points I came across over the past couple of years. Billy Mumy (also of lost in space fame) also did a stint as a Jazz composer. He wrote a "famous" song that was featured on Dr Demento (yllor yllop hsif sdaeh) Also... my brother in law loaned me a story about a psi cop... written by one "Alfred Bester". I'm sure there are many sci-fi heads who have heard of this guy.. apparently he had some influence on the field... I had not heard of him before reading this book a year ago. It seems Ellison (creative consultant to JMS) was a big fan of Bester's to the point where he called a hospital Bester was dying and and pretended to be a reporter to make sure the hospital took good care of him. ok... off to lunch.

  71. dr who tangent by crabpeople · · Score: 1

    "I'm kind of pissed at the new Doctor Who. Not having any Daleks"

    Are you high? there is probably more dalek plotlines than non dalek plotlines in the whole of the new seasons. The season finale two-parter as an example.. Anyways, my big problem with the new doctor who comparing it to the old is that they have no story arcs at all! Every episode is, for the most part, a self contained story. The old ones, as im sure you are aware, had like 4 or 6 episodes per story. The doctor would always get into a cliffhanger situation at the end of each episode and then it would be resolved in the first 5 minutes of the next show.

    And they really need to stop making episodes where the character is "possessed" by an alien being. I think the episodes that didnt involve daleks all had some form of possession going on. Thats really lame and i sincerely hope that they have more otherworldly adventures that do not involve a) london and b) possesion. Another key thing that i think they are doing wrong is not emphasizing the unstableness of the tardis. The current doctor and elikson as well, seem to be more in control of their tardis than any before. I thought the whole idea was that the machine picked the targets and the doctor was just sort of along for the ride.

    oh and lastly, they need to go back to the 1960s black and white openning sequence. That effect was downright scary when i was a kid and i knew alot of other people who wouldnt even watch the show - even into adulthood - because of that sequence. You will *never* achieve a similar reaction with CG. Its probably the best opening sequence of anything ever and watching it on lsd gives you such a crazy rush. Still chills the spine everytime i see it.

    --
    I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    1. Re:dr who tangent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you high? there is probably more dalek plotlines than non dalek plotlines in the whole of the new seasons. The season finale two-parter as an example.

      Someone who saw the initial press, where JNT's estate was being ornery, and lives somewhere where series two hasn't aired (ahem!), or hasn't made it very far through the series one DVDs yet, might well think Daleks weren't going to show up.

      Don't assume.

      Anyways, my big problem with the new doctor who comparing it to the old is that they have no story arcs at all!

      They have some two-parters, but that's about it. There is follow-on, though, and continuity (at least as much as Who ever worried about continuity). They actually seem to be following the "season arc, standalone show" idea. Reasonable enough, though the season one arc was a bit weak.

      I thought the whole idea was that the machine picked the targets and the doctor was just sort of along for the ride.

      Not really. The TARDIS is shown as old, tempermental, and in need of a good whack from time to time, but still fundamentally controllable. The Doctor keeps it just repaired enough to get him to his afternoon tea, but not so much as to take the fun out of the trip. You'll notice that, when it truly matters, the TARDIS rarely misses. This, after having the crap knocked out of it on more than one occasion.

      The "along for the ride" thing was mostly when the Doctor was on the run from the Black Guardian, when a randomizer was installed. Other than that, they haven't really touched on how the Doctor decides where/n to go next.

      And they really need to stop making episodes where the character is "possessed" by an alien being.

      Blasphemer! You seek to change the very nature of Doctor Who: nifty ideas tossed with trite cliches, all with spotty production on a shoestring budget!

      What they really need to stop making is episodes where the TARDIS is spinning dramatically at some huge threat. I'm sorry, but the image is just so silly as to completely ruin the intended effect.

    2. Re:dr who tangent by spykemail · · Score: 1

      Yeah they could definitely takes some clues from the old shows. I really don't like the sets in the new series, they all seem very very dark, plain, confined, and similar. The Doctor is supposed to travel through time and space, and that *should* mean some really serious variations in his surroundings :(. That having been said no show is immune from the effect, Stargate's Canadian wilderness effect comes to mind (I swear they have 5 sets: sgc, forest, town, ship, house).

      Whatever happened to the Tardis randomly landing on some strange planet and fun adventures that lasted several episodes ensuing? That has got to come back!!! Also, they do need to visit Earth (preferably saving it from various Alien threads) BUT they do to choose not London and not dark, gloomy places. They're sort of doing these things, but they sort of screw them up. I don't know if I'm just high on something but I really feel like all they have are dark gloomy confined sets. Maybe I need to buy the DVDs.

      I feel like the Doctor always used to get thrown into cool situations and you would get to watch them unfold, every so often unveiling one of his adversaries was behind it or solving some local trouble. There really wasn't too much plot interaction outside the individual story archs (beyond the adversaries re-appearing) and, at least initially, he always seemed to be sort of thrown around my the winds of fate only to gradually uncover what was going on and take action. That's what I really loved, and I feel like it's just not the same in the new series.

      I guess we'll see.

  72. Re:Wow. I wonder... by kwark · · Score: 1

    Hear, hear.

    The only reason to watch was a decent story till the Shadows got defeated, most of S04 was a disappointment and after seeing 3 eps. of S05 I finaly gave up on it, the bad acting finaly out weighed the story (not that I can remember what S05 was about).

  73. one screenwriter? by peter303 · · Score: 1

    One of B5's strenghts and weaknesses is that Straczynski wrote most
    of the episodes. That allowed more continuity and long arcs.
    However that can hamper the series too. With multiple writes, some
    may be stronger in dialog or humor, or just inject fresh views on things.

  74. YASA :yet another slashdot analogy by jozmala · · Score: 1

    No. The best analogy would be "watching scifi for the acting is like using slashdot for the social contact.".

    --
    ©God :Copyright is exclusive right for creator to determine the use of his creation.
  75. BSG vs B5 by jwiegley · · Score: 1

    Since a lot of this thread deals with BSG raising the bar and how it outclasses B5 I'd like to weigh in on the issue.

    BSG is good. I like it. My TiVo likes it too. It has raised the bar. (Though I think the script is terrible and discontinous and the acting isn't very good. But overall concept and production are excellent and there isn't always a status quo.

    Take for example the season finale... "And a year later...". BAH! lazy writers!.

    But B5, now talk about raising the bar. It had a comprehensive five year plot (sure, a few episodes were sidetracks/deadends), No status quos, way deeper characters than BSG has, fantastic CGI with realistic physics and all the actors were good if not outstanding.

    When people are talking about BSG raising the bar you have to realize that it aired ten years after B5 (almost 10% of the time film has been around and 25% of the time computers have been common.) Does BSG have better CGI? Better production? sure. But B5 essentially did all of what BSG does, did it ten years earlier and did it before anyone else thought of it; at least all in one show.

    While BSG may be an evolution in Sci-Fi, B5 was a revolution.

    --
    I will never live for sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
    1. Re:BSG vs B5 by NulDevice · · Score: 1

      B5 was good, but it coulda been great save for one thing: the dialogue. JMS could not write natural dialogue to save his life. The best dialogue in the series was in "Day of The Dead" which was written by someone else. Instead of conversations with subtext, we had very comic-booky "Exposition? Exposition!" - style dialogues and monolgoues, and any ambiguity was left to riddle-talking aliens.

      It was this close to being *great*...

      --

      ----
      "I used to listen to Null Device before they sold out."

    2. Re:BSG vs B5 by Gunstick · · Score: 1


      I think Battlestar Galactica failed miserably in Europe, at least in Germany, the big place for Star Trek and Stargate and any other form of SciFi.

      BSG used the old trick to say that the bad guys just look like us so we don't have to use expensive CGI or masks. Remembers me of "V". BSG was the worst series I have seen this year. Hey I watched most of Taken, but just quit BSG after several episodes.

      YUCK!

      --
      Atari rules... ermm... ruled.
  76. Re:Wow. I wonder... by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

    You're right, the first season's acting does suck. Most people who get in to the series probably kept watching in spite of that (I know I did).

    It really does get much, much better. So do the special effects, for that matter, though they never get great--it was the early days of CG animation, after all.

  77. But what about.... by jarlsberg71 · · Score: 1

    Someone doing more than just MENTIONING the Telepath War???
    I want to see more Pat Tallman kicking ass...

    --
    E8B8B
  78. Best parody song/video EVER by niki9 · · Score: 1
    --
    "Someone's gotta have some damn perspective around here!" -- Commander Susan Ivonova, Babylon 5
  79. Rising Stars TV series by chiok · · Score: 1

    Of the newly announced JMS projects, I'm more excited about the potential Rising Stars TV series based on the excellent comic book series JMS wrote. This project will be developed by Sam Raimi's company.

  80. B7-B5-BSG-DW by Tungbo · · Score: 1

    In terms of emotional resonance, Season 27 of Dr. Who is undoubtedly the best
    of the lot in 2005-2006. I've been mulling over why that is.
    One aspect I can see is that the Doctor and Companion and friends are mostly
    characters we can believe in - people who might be living down the block
    (well, except for the Doctor). It's easy to empathsize with them
    in spite of the weird circumstances they may be in. The new stories
    also often delve into the subtle and human effects that the Doctor has caused among
    his associates and in the universe. THAT has also made the series more human.

    BSG and B5 characters are situated more in an operatic setting where
    everything is grander and more intense. But that also puts an emotional
    distance between the character and oneself.

    Sadly, Stargate now is just plodding along without Anderson. It looks like a
    retirement home for Scifi Channel series actors.

    For the grand daddy for gritty and depressing SciFi, one must seek out Blake's 7.
    It is the only tv series where the ending is truely unpredictable and shocking.
    Still very good in my book.

  81. Re:Wow. I wonder... by warith · · Score: 1

    Season 1 is unanimously considered far and away the worst season. Season 1 of ST:TNG was a steaming pile too, IIRC.

    Go watch seasons 3 and 4 of B5 if you want a real taste of the show. s2 is excellent as well. s5 feels like a padded epilogue, because they resolved everything major in s4, 'cuz they thought s5 wasn't going to happen.

  82. 3 characters' actors dead by lee+n.+field · · Score: 1
    Zathras we can ignore, but G'kar and Dr. Franklin are major characters.

    The story's told. It might be time to let it lie.

  83. The lurkers guide really helps by jesterzog · · Score: 1

    One episode doesnt give you any reason to be addicted, two gives you something, after three episodes you cant wait to see fourth, after fourth you find yourself thinking how PPG's really work, after fifth you have lost the count.

    Taking advantage of the fan base really helps with this. The Lurkers Guide to B5 is quite amazing in the amount of notes for each episode. When I bought the series on DVD, I watched each episode in conjunction with the episode guide (reading the what-to-watch-for bits beforehand, and JMS's catalogued usenet comments about the episode afterwards), and it added a lot to the understanding appreciation, and general enjoyment of the series.

    There are quite a few shows toady that've copied the B5 pattern, or built on it in some cases. I have to admit that it's made more of an impression on me than any other SF show, however, just because of how much it revolutionised what could be done for writing and production of TV series' at the time.

  84. What JMS should do - VIDEO GAME by Chordonblue · · Score: 1

    How in the hell does a show like this go FIVE SEASONS w/spinoffs and movies and NO GODDAMN GAME?!

    Shit! Mary-Kate and Ashley get a game. My Little Pony has a game. There's no end of Star Trek/Wars games, but no real Bab 5 game. It beggars the imagination...

    --
    "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
    1. Re:What JMS should do - VIDEO GAME by CaptainAvatar · · Score: 1
      Wait ... there's a My Little Pony game? Sweet! What are the system requirements? :D

      Seriously, a B5 space combat sim was in development by Sierra, but they pulled the plug in 1999, months before it was due out. You can see what it was going to be like here. But see also the main Firstones page for other signs of hope.

      --
      The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
  85. Babylon 5 was Destroyed on Star Trek by AaronHorrocks · · Score: 0

    Babylon 5 was Destroyed on Star Trek!

    ...Or at least on Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning, the feature length Finnish spoof of star trek. -> www.starwreck.com
    That was the only time I was glad to watch anything related that dorky TV show.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wreck

  86. Where will JMS get his stories from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... after-all, he's already ripped off... err.. copied... err... re-told the three books of The Lord Of The Rings.

  87. Re:Wow. I wonder... by LordEvan · · Score: 1
    Just part of the first season, and intermittant episodes after that.
    Ahhhh, that explains it. Season one was fairly lame with an occasional gem of a scene. Things start picking up in Season 2 around "The Coming of Shadows". I challenge you to start watching there and not get pulled into the story arc.

    I have no idea who they are
    Those actors portrayed G'Kar, Ambassador Delenn and Londo Mollari respectively. I'll let "The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5" speak about them. Some of the entries may be a bit dated, but there's always IMDB.
    http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/making/cast.html#fur lan/

    unless you consider Keanu Reeves a master thespian

    Only compared to Sylvester Stallone...well, maybe not even then ;)
  88. Re:Wow. I wonder... by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

    You really should go back and watch more than the first season. In many series (TNG leaps to mind, though I'm not going to put that up as an example of 'good' acting) you see the first season has much worse acting than later seasons. It often takes actors a while to 'find' their character and really get into the role. That's even more true in the case of B5, because there was so much foreshadowing written into the script. The actors were required to stick to the script word-for-word with no ad-libing (sp?). That often makes it harder for the actors to put more of themselves into the role and leads to more wooden acting. After they've lived with the characters for a while, they can get much more into it while still sticking strictly to the script. The acting of most of the characters got much much better in later seasons compared to the first.

  89. Why argue which is better? by jiawen · · Score: 1

    It seems like about half this thread is arguing about which SF TV series is best. Why? Can't you like different shows simultaneously? Yes, maybe you can only spend your money on a limited number -- but then, why do you have to try to convince everyone else to spend their money a certain way? Why can't we all just relax and say "We're all cool and we all like SF TV"? Why don't we all talk about why all these shows are cool instead of instantly starting to compare dicks?

  90. Mr. Kitty! by einar2 · · Score: 1

    And do not forget Mr. Kitty who died during the Crusade spin-off!

  91. w000t! by JhohannaVH · · Score: 1

    YAY!!!!!!!!!!!! I can't wait! *sigh* I'm still such a groupie after all these years. Maybe we can get SciFi to run them in a block. Right.

    --
    Sorry man... the Internet pooped on me.
  92. RIP Fave Characters. by JhohannaVH · · Score: 1

    You just killed me.... I did NOT know that he passed away!!!!! I was very much similarly saddened when I found out that Tim Choate (Zatras) passed away in 2004. I'd been a fan of Richard Biggs since I was a girl... when he appeared as *gasp* Dr. Marcus Hunter on Days of our Lives. *hurl*

    I had heard that Jason Carter - Marcus Cole - had passed away as well, but I may have been confusing him with Trevor Goddard from JAG... dunno why.

    --
    Sorry man... the Internet pooped on me.
  93. Re:Wow. I wonder... Free circuit board coasters?! by tru24rm · · Score: 1

    I enjoyed the cast of ST:TNG, myself. It was one of the greats!

    I personally never got to see much of Babylon5, due to an extended period of dwelling with sci-fi haters and only one (cableless) TV. I'm glad to know that it is now available on DVD, so I can finally mature into the full-blown nerd I was destined to be!

    I intend to watch it with an ice-cold drink resting on this FREE Circuit Board Coaster:
    http://www.rbdpcb.com/contact/coaster1.html . I can't wait for it to arrive!

    If it keeps my drinks from sweating onto my keyboard, it'll be this nerd's best friend!