Slashdot Mirror
Babylon 5 - The Lost Tales Trailer Posted
Space writes "The trailer for the upcoming movie Babylon 5: The Lost Tales — Voices in the Dark has been posted at the official Babylon 5 site. The movie's pre-production was mentioned in a previous discussion. For more on the creation of the film, the CG Society has an ongoing series of articles about the production's effects development."
Someone should send it to Z'ha'dum to die.
After all, using B5 as an example the "Techno Mages" are viewed either as gods, magicians, or freaks, depending on where they are. For what we may construe as purely fantasy may simply be because we don't understand science enough to know what is and what isn't truly possible.
We are an arrogant people who for some reason think we know everything yet laugh at those who came before us for thinking the very same thing
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Quark was the best ;)
Along with the 5 video diaries that you can also find at the official site, an additional video diary with a behind the scenes look at the how the special effects for the production were done is also available at this link.
Among other things you get a longer glimpse at the space battle scene shown in the trailer.
Well put. Dune, for example, had loads of dreams, visions etc but it was science fiction, not fantasy, because it was quite obvious that the human mind had evolved (perhaps thanks to Spice) in the tens of thousands of years since present-day. And frankly, our knowledge of cosmology and what the human brain can do is pretty primitive. For example, is consciousness preserved at the quantum level, thus leading to the possibility that reincarnation is possible? I think not, but I can't prove it -- which makes it excellent 'story material'.
People who think that 21st century science is the be-all and end-all of all knowledge display staggering amounts of hubris, especially since they are familiar with overzealous predictions like "everything that can be patented has been patented" and "there's a world market for maybe 5 computers".
Whether it's overused or not is another question -- that depends on the writer, and I think the B5 seasons treated techno-mages and psychics quite well. Especially compared to a certain Betazoid on TNG, whose sole purpose seemed to be, er, wear dresses and state the obvious.
Go somewhere random
Anyone have an actual link to the trailer? The official website is a downright abomination. I have no fuckign idea if the content is loading or if the thing froze or even if I've clicked on the right freaking button.
10 years have passed, luckily computer graphics have not advanced in that time, otherwise the movie might loose continuity with the 90's TV show.
I'm also glad I'm able to notice the cheesy CG in an artifact ridden 300 x 400 flash movie. That means it'll be extra cheesy in it's full DVD glory.
Phew.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
You can find a direct link to a mirror of the trailer at this link.
Hrm, for some reason, both the website and the CG in the trailer look like they belong in the late 90's...
:(
Geez that website reminds me of myspace
My UID is prime and so is this number: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0.
Died of cancer I believe. Before he died I herd he invited all his B5 pals to a big dinner, as a final good bye. Brings a tear to my eye just thinking about it. Terrible way to go.
Most of what you see in B5 is explained along the way in one way or another, some isn't. The future is an interesting place don't you think?
There are many kinds of SciFi that aren't strict, *hard* SciFi. The writer has chosen his path, and it's your choice to stop watching if you find it unbearable.
If you don't find B5 unbearable, then just sit back and enjoy in the knowledge that there are things out there, bigger and more complex than our current understanding of science and the universe.
Out of all SciFi, baring Serenity, B5 is the best. But Technomages, prophets with flashes from the future and even time travel are used as storyline crutches. The whole mystery aspect of B5 is overblown and abused, the show would be much better if it was toned down.
If I want fantasy, I watch fantasy. Just because SciFi can masquerade as fantasy does not change that.
BTW, Dune 2 was horrible SciFi series with the ugliest actors I've ever seen. Especially that woman that was suppose to be "oh so beautiful" that people were taken aback by her beauty. I think they were all shocked by the size of her nose.
Maybe because it's their show to do with what they like? Duh?
Computers can't take the place of artist and an artist costs $$$. B5 started out on cheep Amigas in 93 and have improved little FX wise since, not that it matters - it's the story that counts.
Babylon 5: The Lost Tails Sharks with Fricken Lasers
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Then pat yourself on the back for being ahead of the curve: you're arrogantly scoffing at your contemporaries instead of at people in the past. Ain't progress grand?
You were not put off by the whole "Sheridan is a puppet" thing?
I think Clarke's Third Law is fairly well accepted, but you risk abusing it as a catch-all, deux ex machina, "it was just a dream" kind of argument for why fantasy elements are in fact science fiction. It's not a strong argument because what we are really talking about here is art criticism, not whether any event or object in a show is magic.
There is also arrogance where a writer says, "If they accuse me of writing about magic, I'll just point out that it is in fact just sufficiently advanced technology", and then proceeds to write something that is really fantasy in terms of genre.
While we cannot predict what will be possible in the far future, we do know a lot about the world now. The important thing here is that I'm not talking about technology, but rather the many and various forms of literature and movie genres, the history of many religions, tribes and cults, the marketing of corporations, the temptations that even the best writers can fall pray to, etc.
Taking all those factors into account, it seems fair to hold the point of view that Babylon 5 includes fantasy elements (wearing the makeup of Clarke's Third Law), that it is not really trying to be pure sci-fi or speculative fiction. I'm perfectly happy to admit it might all be possible, at the same time as saying that I don't really think that is the point the authors are making.
Yes, it is entirely possible they wanted to play around with the idea of technology-as-magic. But by the time they've thrown in all the rituals, the astral plane metaphors, etc, you have to ask:
Are they still asking, "What if this could be done?", or are they in fact asking, "Wouldn't it be cool if these guys were like wizards, yeah, we'll call them Techno-Mages, you know, play the advanced technology card, etc.. ?" It's an exaggeration, but I suspect that the GP is right, and they are in fact including fantasy in their show.
This is not a bad thing in and of itself; that's a matter of personal taste.
Yes, B5 was my favourite series for a time, even over ST:NG. The continuity of the story made it incredible addictive and increased the deepness of every single main character. I'm not sure it's the best format for a couple of mini spinoffs. Sadly, as far as I know Richard Biggs (Dr Franklin) wasn't the only actor that died after the series: the incredible Andreas Katsulas (G'Kar) passed away some time ago too.
flipping fantastic. looking forward to this.
more information from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voices_in_the_Dark for the lazy amongst us:
Voices in the Dark is the title of the first Lost Tales DVD to be published
Voices in the Dark will be set in 2272. It will feature two linked plotlines viewed separately one after the other but covering the same 72-hour timespan: the first follows ISA President John Sheridan on his way to B5 for a celebration of the 10th Anniversary of the formation of the Interstellar Alliance. During the journey he unexpectedly picks up the Centauri Prince Regent Vintari (third in line to the Centauri Imperial throne) on the edge of Centauri space, and receives a warning from Galen the techno-mage about coming events. The second will feature Colonel (formerly Captain during the series' run) Lochley on B5 awaiting Sheridan's arrival, who summons a priest from Earth space to help deal with a mysterious, seemingly supernatural problem.[14]
Straczynski has stated that predicated on the success of Voices in the Dark a second installment could be released as soon as early 2008.[24] Peter Jurasik has stated that he was contacted by Straczynski to reprise his role as Londo Mollari for a set of alien centric stories after the initial batch centered around humans. He has stated that he said yes to him, "if you [Straczynski] wrote it, I'd do it".[25] The second installment is also set to include a story centered around the character Michael Garibaldi, initially planned for the first installment.[15]
In response to a question about Harlan Ellison writing for the Lost Tales, who acted as conceptual consultant and writer for the original series, Straczynski has stated that he is "sure that down the road I can get Harlan to do something for us". However, for now the studio is pushing for just himself to work on the Lost Tales according to Straczynski, stating they "want this to be you [Straczynski]" because the studio already knows him and likes him.[12]
One of the big events in the Babylon 5 universe that the Lost Tales is set to explore eventually is the Telepath War.[12] Straczynski reportedly stated at the New York Comic-Con in February 2007 that he already has a concept for a possible direct-to-dvd Telepath War story in mind.[24][26]
Straczynski has stated that David Sheridan (John Sheridan and Delenn's son) will both be mentioned in Voices in the Dark, and that he will be seen somewhere else, "in the next DVD"
Babylon 5 was for me and still is the best TV series to ever have graced the sci-fi genre! In many ways it has parallels with my favourite show today, Boston Legal. The character development for example was extraordinary!
Just hearing the B5 music again in the trailer gave me shivers, goosebumps and some perky man-nipples. No matter how "cheesy" or not it might turn out, it'll definitely be watched and most likely be logged in my memory as a great experience!!!
Also my thoughts to the deceased actors from the past, you were great!
- Norwegian hunk
Okay - here are some spoilers for those who have not read the Technomage trilogy...
.
.
.
The Technomage [book] trilogy which JMS has said is mostly canon, and an unfilmed Crusade script reveals much about the origins of the Technomages. They achieve their "magic" using organic implants provided by the Shadows. The Technomages' technology was originally used by the Shadows to create their ultimate warriors (in the same way that the Vorlons created a few "super weapons" like Lyta).
So it would look like magic to most of us since the First Ones were millions of years more advanced than humans. This is consistent with other things seen in the show - such as the Ikara warrior in the episode "Infection" which mutated a human into a machine. Look closely at the design of the armour and you'll see some Shadow-like material.
Look, "SciFi" just a marketing label designed to make it easy to compartmentalize media in order to maximize synergistic sales. There aren't rules, canons and precepts governed by some international SciFi Body. And there damn well should never be rules like that either. Nothing kills creativity more.
Episodes of Star Trek, for example, could just as easily be classed as romance or murder mystery rather than SciFi. Get over it! And get it into your head that your definition of SciFi, is just that -- yours.
For me, Babylon 5 developed characters and story arcs in a credible and realistic way. People are stupid, weak, selfish and greedy. They believe in things that may not be true. Babylon 5 reflected that, whereas most TV SciFi prior to B5 did not. It asked old and new questions about the nature of belief and existence. And nota bene, that JMS did say online somewhere, that just because the Minbari believe in souls etc does not make it necessarily true.
Which does not mean it is invalid to explore those ideas around a SciFi context.
Leave the labeling and compartmentalization to the marketing drones, or to librarians -- and we all know librarians have something to hide.
And you need no more proof of it than the troubles faced by successor projects. Hell, Season 5 was a mess because of the uncertainty of cancellation. TNT fucked Crusade terribly. Of the TV movies, only In the Beginning was any good. That's what, one in four? I saw nothing of Legend of the Rangers and I hear that's probably for the best.
Between the poor quality of the successor projects and the difficulty of getting anything good on the air in today's television market, the success of the original series is all the more remarkable. If you simply look at the odds, this show never should have happened, a statistical fluke. But the impossible happened. I wonder if JMS can make the impossible happen twice.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
JMS of B5 and JW of Firefly to team up to do a TV drama, with decent funding and a backed by a network that doesn't cancel on a whim based on money, or ratings, etc... (which is my second wet dream that such a network were to actually exist)
Sometimes she wore a jumpsuit.
It's SciFi damnit! I can accept that sort of thing if there's a proper explanation. Telepathy is well-explained in the show so it's not just goofy paranormal stuff. Artificial gravity, reactionless propulsion drives, beam weapons, all are explained within the context of the show. This is far future science fiction so the existence of impossibly advanced technology is a given for the setting. Things that bother me more are obvious stupids like Garibaldi's steampipe gun (yes, using steam to fire bullets in sequence.) Delenn's bone becoming a barrette also struck me as very odd but that's more a matter of aesthetics. I think she looked better as a straight minbari and the whole transformation thing never really sat right with me from a storytelling perspective.
As for questions of the soul, that's an area of pure speculation, same with prophecy. So long as JMS keeps what he presents self-consistent, all is good. Personally, I hate prophecy storylines because they've been done to fucking death. I think it's poor storytelling. But I have seen good stories with precognition. For some stories the precognition goes along the lines of extremely educated guesses, like a chess master considering the state of the board eight moves ahead, only in this case there are a million more variables to consider. In that case, the turning points upon which the future rests become matters of extreme importance and there's always the danger of the Influential Man, the wildcard that can throw off all predictions. I've also seen good stories that use a more mystical means of showing the future. The worst ones have the future written in stone with fate and destiny shackling everyone to a fixed course of action. The better ones have precognition show a web of potentialities for the future, the seer catching quantum ripples chasing down from future to past. All and none of these futures exist and only the present exists to make those potentials real, cementing them into past.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
The last, best hope for Babylon 5 died when Straczynski was forced to rush the ending of the original story arc after Season 3. Everything that came after that, including that godawful thing with Lumbergh, was just unwatchable.
The best thing about B5 was that, originally, it actually felt like you were in a big universe. The most brilliant scene in the entire show was when Catherine Sakai is telling G'Kar about the time her ship lost power when "something" -- an object so huge it blotted out the sun -- cruised by. Sakai describes what happened and asks G'Kar what the thing might have been. They're standing in the garden, and G'Kar sees an ant crawling up a flower stem. He puts his finger on the stem, the ant crawls onto it and onto his hand, and then after a few seconds he lets the ant crawl back onto the flower. He looks at Sakai and says, "That ant meets another ant and asks, what was that?..."
But after the third season, all that was out the window, and all that was left was a bad space combat show.
and we're now into the 21st century and not a peep of psychic power or spirituality is to be had
In the Babylon 5 universe, human psi powers were born when the Vorlon's messed with the Human genome to create them. The Vorlon's created psi powers in most of the younger races to use as weapons against the Shadows.
How doesn't that work? It's part of the story. Not some "humans outgrew violence and got psi powers" nonsense.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
True, but it's the best we have. It doesn't mean you can pass something off as "science fiction" when it has no basis in any sort of scientific knowledge or speculation. That's like saying, "Oh, in the future, we can genetically engineer orcs, and reanimate the dead with quantum mechanics, and use as-yet-unknown properties of energy as weapons, so that my mishmash of Romero zombie movies, Lord of the Rings, and Star Wars is actually science fiction!"
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
It's curious that you should deliver such a rant against such a short and fairly light-hearted criticism. It's like a guilty conscience! You know the show has flaws, but you just don't want to admit them, do you?
Bullshit. Authors like Harlan Ellison happily associate themselves with sci-fi (and also write outside the genre) without treating it like a cheap marketing ploy. And there are valid reasons for appreciating that there is a sci-fi genre with different implications to fantasy, the most basic being the idea of genuine speculation on what might happen in the future given current trends, another being the application of science and technology to explore moral issues.
Yes, but in a long running episodic series about a long running voyage, it makes perfect sense that crew members of the Enterprise would find themselves in most of the basic human situations, doesn't it? That's rather fundamentally different to introducing concept and character stereotypes from a different genre as a standard part of the show. It changes things, and when done in such a blatant fashion it's not particularly good writing, because it risks breaking the willing suspension of disbelief.
Note the word here is "stereotype". I do hope you won't argue that thinking excessive use of stereotypes is bad is just yet another rule. I mean it is, but you'd have to be extremely good to break that one outside of comedy!
Hang on, he didn't give a definition. Maybe I would agree with his definition, and many others besides. You're making things up! Or is that just to give an endorsement of introducing fantasy into the online debate genre?
Science fiction isn't mutually exclusive to these genres. It is mutually exclusive to fantasy. I guess that makes me the bad analogy police.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Yes, wonderful story, but in terms of casting, dialog, lighting, pacing, direction and editing - quite apart from the effects - I find that I have to agree that Babylon 5's a big pile of shit.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I thought B5 was okay, but not great. I think it is more non-Star Trek than anything else for some people.
I liked Farscape, Lexx, Stargate, X-files, First Wave, Earth Final Conflict, Outer Limits, etc..., but for a lot of B5 people the world seems confined to a B5 / Star Trek dichotomy.
It seems like at times B5 is "starter Sci-Fi" for people who never read much sci-fi or whose only exposure on TV was Star Trek.
Ironically, Ellison is probably responsible for most "fantasy-ish" aspects of B5, I mean "Soul Hunters" are straight out of Ellison's writings. I don't know this for sure, but having read Ellison and seen B5, it seemed obvious, especially considering his heavy involvement with B5.
Another writer (Theodore Sturgeon I think) once said that great science fiction must first and foremost be great fiction - something most Sci-Fi misses by a mile. Personally I don't care if you want to classify B5 as "science fiction" or "fantasy", whatever it is, its great fiction and thats enough for me.
-Em
RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
You just described Warhammer 40k. Which I would call science fiction.
without Ivanova? Ivanova is always right.
I will listen to Ivanova.
I will not ignore Ivanova's recommendations.
Ivanova is god.
Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
I think that you give the game away with that sentence. The fact that you describe it as boring suggests that you've not watched many episodes, after all if it is 'boring' then why would you? This is further born out by focusing on the 'psi power' element of the show, which although very much present isn't the only game in town. Even here your assertion that psi power has never worked too well too well in sf seems slightly dubious in the light of how many creators have bundled it into their work. It seems that everyone from Alfred Bester, who wrote the 'The demolished man' to George Lucas and his 'force' (ignoring midi-chlorians or what ever for the moment) have been quite happy to use it.
Also, given the number of people who bought the Babylon 5 box sets, releasing it as a direct-to-DVD movie seems to make perfect. This is a growing trend among series with a well established and perhaps older and richer fan base - see Stargate for another example. Whoever has done this is taking a risk, but not a very big one I think.
Finally what have you added to the sum of human knowledge, apart from the fact that you don't like Babylon 5 and that I disagree with you?
"For me, Babylon 5 developed characters and story arcs in a credible and realistic way. People are stupid, weak, selfish and greedy."
Exactly the thing I do not want to see in a sci-fi show. That's why I loved ST-TNG.
An interesting historical point. I wasn't aware of the distinction between science fiction and sci-fi - could you provide it?
I tend not to bother with distinctions that will have no meaning to people not part of the group that have chosen to make it; it's as bad as cheap marketing ploys. Wouldn't be surprised if the original poster was happily using SciFi as an abbreviation for science fiction, good or bad, great and small. I understand the idea of specualtive fiction, because you could discuss the difference between "science" and "speculation" to your average or intelligent person and still make sense. Even so, that's just to acknowledge someone's perspective - I don't think the term adds much value except for insider discussions.
Although I see you have no problem making such subtle distinctions .. I'm wondering whether the definition of Sci-Fi will be a tautology that excludes the possibility of it ever being great fiction. But rather than dwell on trivia about the uses and abuses of abbreviation, perhaps you would address the main part of my point:
introducing concept and character stereotypes from a different genre [..] changes things, and when done in such a blatant fashion it's not particularly good writing
I felt Babylon 5 made heavy use of stereotypes, stopping it from being great fiction, and therefore by your logic it is not great science fiction.
I don't mean to be harsh. B5 had a grand scope of vision, was well made, avoided many of the TV science fiction cliches, avoided the whole "a series of episodes, not a story" problem of the long-running series, and was great entertainment for those that liked it. I just wouldn't call it great fiction because of its scale.
Yeah, what you said.
And thank goodness no one believes in telepathy here in the Real World.
And the Minibari believe in refreshing cocktails one small bottle at a time.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
Assuming, of course, you don't consider religion to be spiritual, given that religion actually seems to be increasing in societal importance over the last decade...
Looking back at the 1990s sci-fi scene, what I remember is that people who read a lot of sci-fi tended to be the ones who jumped from Star Trek to Babylon 5. Partly because there was finally something on TV that wasn't just Trek (were there any other space-based shows in the late 80s/early 90s that lasted more than a few episodes?), and partly because B5 had more of a literary background to it than the modern Treks. There were also a lot of people who had been fans of Classic Trek (whether first-run or in reruns) who were disappointed by Next Gen, and looked at B5 and saw the kind of show they had hoped Next Gen would be..
And in my experience, while many B5 fans looked down at Trek, Trek fans were more likely to be outright hostile, as if watching this upstart show would somehow be betraying Star Trek. Maybe it was a matter of the relative sizes of the fan bases, but if you picked a random B5 fan, chances were that he had seen (and maybe even enjoyed) a significant amount of Star Trek, but if you picked a random Trek fan, chances were that he had seen one episode, or had avoided it on principle.
An interesting historical point. I wasn't aware of the distinction between science fiction and sci-fi - could you provide it?
I tend not to bother with distinctions that will have no meaning to people not part of the group that have chosen to make it; it's as bad as cheap marketing ploys. Wouldn't be surprised if the original poster was happily using SciFi as an abbreviation for science fiction, good or bad, great and small. I understand the idea of specualtive fiction, because you could discuss the difference between "science" and "speculation" to your average or intelligent person and still make sense. Even so, that's just to acknowledge someone's perspective - I don't think the term adds much value except for insider discussions.
I think Harlan Ellison created that "distinction in terms" when he made that statement. Not to say the distinction itself was not there, he just gave it name (however good or bad). What he was trying to point out is that what we now label as "sci-fi" got away from what "science fiction" was about. In general usage "sci-fi" came to mean stories that are about laser guns, robots, and women in bizarrely impractical tin foil outfits.Its stories that use "science" as a magical way to resolve issues without really dealing with them. It is stories that are more about the gadgets than people. It is about escaping the reality into world that has nothing to do with our own.
Science fiction on other hand is not about those things. It is about people and the world we live in. No matter how alien the setup is and what aliens, robots, etc are the subject of the story, good science fiction is always relevant to us here and now. All the standard "sci-fi" items are not the point of the story, they are just tools to set up the story in a way that may not be possible (or at least easy) with straight fiction.
There are many good examples of the distinction in recent movies - "I, Robot" the "science fiction" book was a deep examination of human behavior by extracting the idealized behavior and overlaying it on a machine and then viewing it from a human perspective (among many other things) - "I,Robot" - the "sci-fi" movie supposedly based on the book, but really about killer robots. Or "Mimsy were the Borgroves" - a brilliant short story about "nature vs nurture" and the effect of the toys on the way the mind develops - "The Last Mimzy" - a "sci-fi" movie based on the story that castrates any sort of meaning from original work and instead does a random children's adventure with even more random environmental message (where did that come from?)
B5, Firefly, etc all were good science fiction because if you take out the space ships and laser guns and aliens, you still got a strong story about something. I mean B5's big conflict of "community" vs "individual" is universal and applies just as well to "Vorlons" vs "Shadows" as it does to "USSR" vs "USA" in cold war or "socialism" vs "capitalism" in general. It is a fundamental conflict that's as old as time and instead of rehashing it again from one side or another, B5 shows what it is like to be the little guy caught in the middle.
Now, I just want to add, there is definitely a place for "sci-fi" out there and truth be told, I enjoyed both movies mentioned above - but there is no way I can call them good science fiction.
Although I see you have no problem making such subtle distinctions .. I'm wondering whether the definition of Sci-Fi will be a tautology that excludes the possibility of it ever being great fiction.
As I tried to explain above, I don't see this distinction as all that subtle. "Sci-Fi" as we come to know it is not meant to be good fiction - instead it meant to be the opposite - escapism and distraction.
But rather than dwell on trivia about the us
RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
Does anyone know where you can get jackets like the ones worn by Bruce Boxleitner and Michael Straczynski in the behind the scenes trailers??? Those are freaking great and I WANT TO BUY ONE.
"When we spoke about it, he laughed, and said, "Now that I'm dying I've never felt better!""
Oddly enough, that unscripted statement happens to be *quintessential* G'Kar..
Now, where did I put those tales?
OOOOH! Here they are? Man, I've been looking for them forever.
If Nalgene water bottles are outlawed, only outlaws will have Nalgene water bottles.
What? You mean somebody cut him open and took pieces of his heart out, like something out of "Hostel"? That's wild!!
Or do you maybe mean aortic distension ... or some other word?
Breakfast served all day!
Oddly enough, that unscripted statement happens to be *quintessential* G'Kar.. He also said he really liked the G'kar makeup and that he felt it made him look sleek and sexy. I'm not sure if that's from the heart or if he's just having a go at us. The practical jokes on the B5 set are the stuff of legends. On the set they used to call Andreas Two-Pack G'Kar on account of how much he smoked.
The practical joke battle I remember the most involved Andreas and Peter getting to a con presentation a little early. JMS hates public speaking and is always nervous. Those two rogues coached the audience to keep completely silent throughout the entire thing, no praises, no booing, no laughing, nothing. This goes on for the entire presentation, JMS only finds out later. Everyone had a good laugh, right? No harm, no foul? Not on your life.
JMS got his revenge with scripts. He'd written a full death scene for the guy who played Marcus after something he did, the joke not explained until after he was calling his agent for more work. JMS did far worse this time. The script goes out with a scene between Londo and G'kar, Londo's quarters. G'kar is in shadow. "You may have conquered my people, Mollari, but you have yet to conquer me." He steps from shadow and is revealed to be wearing a sheer teddy. The scene goes on from there, completely horrifying. The only quote I still remember is "My Gods, all eight at once!" So Peter and Andreas ask JMS where the real script is. "This is the real script," he deadpans, face completely serious. "Do you really think I have time to fuck around on a joke? This is what we're shooting, start learning your lines." He didn't pull out the real script until the last second.
The best part of all this is that Peter and Andreas did a reading of the script at a subsequent con. Man, that'd be something to have on Youtube.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
I was speaking about site which is referenced by the article and horrible choices made by webmaster himself or herself.
Going -1 levels is not big deal, it is just something Slashdot is on wrong path with recent editorial policy changes. They are trying to be some site which copied it and it will really fail horribly. Looks like the reader profile already made their way and actually got moderation points.
Dear newbie moderators: "off topic" means something out of topic, completely off the base. It doesn't mean "I don't agree with that comment", it means "It doesn't have anything to do with the submitted content". This is not Digg.com. You actually lose Karma after taking horrible decisions like that, this is not some kid site to play around and "sink" or "Digg" whatever you don't agree.
Point is: You don't "off topic" a comment which is based on the entire content of the website which is referenced at TFA.
There a real offtopic for you, idiots.
Not all those who are "religious" are spiritual.
I hated Farscape at first. I mean, really, fucking muppets? Are they even trying? And that awful makeup and largely mediocre camera work...
It gets a lot better if you think of it as Friends in space.
Farscape: great comedy, just-better-than-completely-shitty sci-fi.
I think that the pre-planned and reasonably well-executed (within the constraints of the format) multi-season storyline is what a lot of people like it for. Semi-realistic physics, a few novel episodes that weren't re-tellings of a TOS or TNG plotline, and great chemistry between some of the characters were the rest.
It's not perfect, but it's refreshing.
Please, if you're in a position to advance the cause of non-ADD-inspired, multi-season story archs with a definite ending, do so. Then me and the other people that I know who watch Japanese cartoons because they have those things can stop, and will no longer have to associate ourselves with the weird, genuine fans of that medium/genre. Even the good series (the X-Files, Farscape) end up burning their fans due to the ambition of (seemingly) every American tv show to run forever.
I've become very wary of new shows, because I know that 99% of the time they're just going to piss on the fans, run longer than they should, get canceled (on a cliffhanger!), and then maybe, if you're lucky, have a 2-hour special to end the series in a totally unsatisfactory and hackish manner.
B5 represents a stand against that for me, and probably for many others. Props to other series--even TNG and DS9 for the Trek folks--for working against that status quo to some degree, but B5 did it more than maybe any other network sci-fi show that I've seen, even if the networks did manage fuck them (and us) over a bit on that 4th/5th season thing.
The idea of a "technomage" is a fairly decent staple of scifi - I just found them sort of cartoonishly implemented in the B5 universe. Wise, enigmatic, and often with odd D&D style formal british accents...
Sort of the same way with the Minbari, actually - and the rangers. I think JMS transplatend too many Renfest ideas into the future.
----
"I used to listen to Null Device before they sold out."
...stop trying to prove the death or nonexistence of G-d by showing no mercy to our cherished memories, digging up these things that once meant something great in entertainment, and prostituting them to audiences that won't care.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Yes, that was Theodore Sturgeon, in his preface to "Roadside Picnic". Definitely a quote worth remembering. :)
-Em
RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
The most important point:
I'm a bit surprised you raise the question now, after it has been the entire thrust of my argument so far. Let me copy it from a dictionary: "stereotype noun 1 a an over-generalized and preconceived idea or impression of what characterizes someone or something, especially one that does not allow for any individuality or variation". The bit about not allowing for any individuality or variation is why I lost interest in B5 - it didn't feel like there was much individuality i.e. creative expression in it. It felt like while getting the whole ambitious project off the ground - a great achievement, by the way - they had managed to let down the actual writing. This is a rather fundamental flaw in becoming great fiction.
Seeing as you haven't yet got round to considering the actual point I was making, I'll just knock out some brief comments on the rest of your post:
The distinction is not in the definitions, rather it is in the (in my view) unreasonable suggestion that the layperson should realise that "science fiction" and its very own, widely understood, listed in the dictionary abbreviation "sci-fi" are in fact very different phrases.
Your definitions are indeed tautological. Sci-fi is about objects not people, those films (e.g. I, Robot) that are about objects not people are therefore sci-fi, not science fiction. Can't argue with that, it's a nice little tautology.
Characters of a different genre are pretty simple in concept. If you're watching a hospital drama and suddenly there's someone flying around wearing tights and a cape, someone from the comic book genre has just shown up.
It's not the use of the superhero character in and of itself that is bad, but if it is done "in a blatant fashion" then it's bad writing. Look at the show Heroes as an example of how the idea of superheroes does not require outfits, and therefore stereotypes can be avoided.
"Fiction" may be a genre versus non-fiction, I guess. But if you really want to remove all meaning from words in order to construct a truly bland world view, why not say that in the end the genre is "creative expression", and lump in painting, music, sculpture, etc? We could then stop categorising things. But then, wouldn't it be a rather dull world without those distinctions?
My bad on suggesting scale can make a story bad. I meant to say I wouldn't call B5 great just because of its scale, which is what a lot of people seem to do. With that kind of scale, you have all kinds of tricks you can play with plot twists but it doesn't stop you from writing in cliches. You just get to change the cliches you are applying to a given character over time.
I entirely agree that the dialogue sucked. It's a screenplay - the dialogue is the most important part when assessing it as a piece of fiction (as compared to a plot treatment).
You give a solid reasons why B5 is good. But you also point out that the central theme is nothing new. Being the middle guy in a conflict is nothing new. I actually like a lot of it, I don't mean to be that harsh, but I stopped after season one and haven't thought about it much since. It just seemed to want to include every science fiction, sci-fi and fantasy idea, and hence seemed to have one too many stereotypes.
What with so many of them being dead and all.
I used to love Garibaldi, now that guy has the temperament I'd expect from a security officer :D
I'll get my coat
Can you please give me some examples of what you are referring to? The distinction is not in the definitions, rather it is in the (in my view) unreasonable suggestion that the layperson should realise that "science fiction" and its very own, widely understood, listed in the dictionary abbreviation "sci-fi" are in fact very different phrases. The point of that statement is to IDENTIFY that distinction, so there is no expectation that it would be known ahead of time. Your definitions are indeed tautological. Sci-fi is about objects not people, those films (e.g. I, Robot) that are about objects not people are therefore sci-fi, not science fiction. Can't argue with that, it's a nice little tautology. Again I am not sure your definition of the word tautology and mine match. Tautology is a circular or redundant statement and you were given two distinct definitions and examples to go with them. How is this a tautology? You give a solid reasons why B5 is good. But you also point out that the central theme is nothing new. Being the middle guy in a conflict is nothing new. I actually like a lot of it, I don't mean to be that harsh, but I stopped after season one and haven't thought about it much since. It just seemed to want to include every science fiction, sci-fi and fantasy idea, and hence seemed to have one too many stereotypes. Ahhhh, that explains everything. Stopping B5 after season one would most definitely leave you with that impression. But reading chapter one of Harry Potter would leave you to believe that its a book about a kid living under the stairs and being abused by his foster family. Season one is the introduction - its a way to establish normalcy, it is setup. The stories are for the most part standalone 'star-trek' style stories and for all intents and purposes this looks like any other sci-fi show. Of course AFTER you watch the whole thing your view may change and you realize just how much of the foundation of the actual story is laid down in those early episodes, but it is hard to see while you are in it. I highly recommend you continue watching. Its is generally in second season people really start to get really into it. Think of season one being the intro and seasons 2-4 being the actual story and season 5 is the epilogue.
-Em
RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
"especially since they are familiar with overzealous predictions like "everything that can be patented has been patented" and "there's a world market for maybe 5 computers"."
By idiot business people who can never see the future, you should know that.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
"We are an arrogant people who for some reason think we know everything yet laugh at those who came before us for thinking the very same thing"
Indeed. I say Let Global Warming Win!
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating