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."
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.
It won't be the same without G'Kar, one of my two favorite characters.
Where were you when the voynix came?
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.
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.
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.
Technoli
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.
.... 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 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
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.
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.
...is like reading Playboy for the articles.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
As for "Comes the Inquisitor," JMS acknowledged that he had a braino. His words:
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.
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.
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
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.)