New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Babylon 5 - Page 2

post #51 of 112
6/17/12 at 4:32am

     Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster View Post

Regardless of my issues with the show, I really, really dislike the mentality that you have to revamp the special effects on something like this. It's George Lucas thinking. The work is part of the past, the special effects are part of history (and obviously Babylon 5's effects are significant from a historical perspective), you should let them stand. Going back to keep it "cutting edge" smacks of the whole idea of never outgrowing your adolescent obsessions. Would you go back and insert CGI into Ray Harryhausen's work?

 

There might be some misunderstanding, here -- it's not that the effects are bad, it's that the original digital computer effects-files were dumped and lost years ago, and 480p is going to be the maximum resolution of these shots forever, unless new, replacement ones are commissioned in high-definition. Which is something that will have to be done completely from scratch (and at no small expense, admittedly).

 

Similarly, I have no real problems with most of the VFX work as it currently exists (apart from some of the stuff very early on in Season 1), and I'd never suggest doing away with them. Rather, JMS himself has basically gone on record as saying that none of the original, 1990s-era effects-work is usable or viable for any future HD release of the series, including Blu-Ray, upconversions for HD broadcast, online streaming, etc. If Warner Bros. were to attempt to up-rez those files tomorrow for BD, they'd look like junk.

 

In other words...there's no way Babylon 5 will ever look good on Blu-Ray without completely new visual effects.

 

What Hammerhead brings up is the other big issue -- the live-action footage (with the actors) was shot on Super 35mm, in a native 1.65:1 aspect ratio (the 16:9 telecine-conversion being done at 1.78:1); Babylon 5 was one of only two television series actually shooting in widescreen during the early/mid-'90s (the other was Lois & Clark). Straczynski being a very forward-looking guy, the intention was to "future-proof" the show against the day when widescreen televisions would become the norm (as they now are), and every episode except the two-hour pilot was shot in the widescreen format.

 

However, as we all remember, the syndicated broadcast affiliates (i.e., the PTEN Network) only showed their content in "full-frame" (1.33:1 aspect ratio) format -- meaning that the widescreen live-action masters had to be cropped in post-production to 1.33:1, with all the visual effects work being composed for this ratio, not for 1.78:1.

 

Meaning that when the Sci-Fi Channel commissioned new widescreen broadcast masters in mid-2000 (subsequently used on the DVDs), they were able to take the original, on-set widescreen cinematographic compositions...but again, remember the file-dumping several years earlier? All that remained of Foundation Imaging's now-lost visual effects work were second-gen (or, in some cases, third-gen) files, composed for 1.33:1, all in very low-resolution NTSC form.

 

Which means, whenever you watch Babylon 5 on DVD now, you're seeing the 1.78:1 widescreen aspect ratio for all of the live-action footage, but every single outer space shot is now masked with black bars to create an artificial 1.78:1 "frame." Basically, you're losing something like nearly a third of the image that you saw in the 4:3 ratio PTEN broadcasts (or thereabouts).

 

This would be another situation that brand-new VFX work would solve -- for the first time ever, shots composed specifically for the widescreen framing, uniform throughout, without masking or cropping of the image, and in full HD resolution, to boot.

 

While I would greatly regret the loss of the pioneering work done by Ron Thornton's team (arguably B5 is the series that led to shows like Star Trek finally making the plunge to full-CGI work), it's truly a necessary evil in this instance if we ever want a proper, viable Blu-Ray release, though the benefits of new high-definition imagery would certainly lengthen the show's appeal and lifespan for many years to come.


Edited by Leto II - 6/17/12 at 1:47pm
Reply
post #52 of 112
6/17/12 at 12:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster View Post

Regardless of my issues with the show, I really, really dislike the mentality that you have to revamp the special effects on something like this. It's George Lucas thinking. The work is part of the past, the special effects are part of history (and obviously Babylon 5's effects are significant from a historical perspective), you should let them stand. Going back to keep it "cutting edge" smacks of the whole idea of never outgrowing your adolescent obsessions. Would you go back and insert CGI into Ray Harryhausen's work?
 

 

I would like to see computer effects used to eliminate the shitty matte lines in Clash of the Titans, remove the wires from the 50's War of the Worlds etc. The original creators of these films did not intend to make crap fx; the fact that we now watch films and TV shows in HD when they were first shown in much lower resolutions means every flaw in the film making is highlighted.

 

I'll say it again: the Star Trek TOS revamp is the model for how these projects should be done. You CAN update while preserving respect for the source. Doing so pleases long time fans and also bring in new ones who would be turned off by the outmoded fx.

Reply
post #53 of 112
6/17/12 at 1:56pm

The TOS remaster benefits from two key factors: The show was always composed for 1.33:1 and has stayed that way, and the episodes were conformed in 35mm. Neither is true of B5-- though it was shot on film, all post-production was electronic and all FX were rendered at standard-def. The only available HD conversion model is the ongoing work on TNG-- a billion-dollar project that has entailed remastering all the (surviving) original footage and recreating all post-production from scratch.

 

I'd just as soon have the series made available in 1.33.

 

Unrelated: I finally finished watching Season 5 last night. Never got around to it until now-- though I watched the original broadcasts they lost me with the jump to cable. Man, those last four eps are a workout. On to the movies now, I guess.

Reply
post #54 of 112
6/17/12 at 5:19pm

I suppose these are valid concerns, but going back and revamping old FX still seems to me like colourizing black and white movies. You're fucking with history. The resolution issue is a bit of a knot, I admit, but I still feel like you need to acknowledge that past a certain point no movies or TV shows are going to be compatible with modern technology anyway.

Reply
post #55 of 112
6/17/12 at 6:34pm

I hope it's clear I'm agreeing with this.

 

So-- anything I should know going ahead with the TV movies?

Reply
post #56 of 112
6/17/12 at 8:16pm

Yes, the only must watch is In The Beggining. 

Reply
post #57 of 112
6/17/12 at 8:29pm

MEEESTAH GARABALDI!!

 

Green Drazi or Purple Drazi?

 

 

 

I quite like the old effects, it's a testament to the art design and thought behind the ship and tech look of each race that they're (too me) quite pleasing to the eye. It also helps the show flat out kicks every kind of ass (minus the odd episode like Mutai one).

 

From Earth Force's gravity generators cause we're still behind the technology curve with interstellar comfits, to the Narn having to buckle themselves in because they're still so poor and post occupation to afford anything but vengeance on the Centari.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post

Yes, the only must watch is In The Beggining. 

 

3rd Space ain't too bad either. Plus you get something that makes the Vorlons look like pussies.

Reply
post #58 of 112
6/18/12 at 10:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammerhead View Post

I hope it's clear I'm agreeing with this.

 

So-- anything I should know going ahead with the TV movies?

 

Thirdspace is mediocre.  River of Souls would be good but the Holobrothel subplot ties in badly and drags everything down, still worth it for Sheen and Mcshane.

 

I actually like Call to Arms best of the movies.  Then it leads into the interesting trainwreck of Crusade.  I liked all of the characters, and really liked the technomages. But TNT slashed the budget, forced a rushed production schedule, and the music composer was a lunatic.  Not in a good way.

 

The low budget results in some really embarrassing effects.

 

Haven't seen the Lost Tales DVD.

Reply
post #59 of 112
6/18/12 at 10:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBananaGrabber View Post

 

Thirdspace is mediocre.  River of Souls would be good but the Holobrothel subplot ties in badly and drags everything down, still worth it for Sheen and Mcshane.

 

I actually like Call to Arms best of the movies.  Then it leads into the interesting trainwreck of Crusade.  I liked all of the characters, and really liked the technomages. But TNT slashed the budget, forced a rushed production schedule, and the music composer was a lunatic.  Not in a good way.

 

The low budget results in some really embarrassing effects.

 

Haven't seen the Lost Tales DVD.


Lost Tales is okay... Demonic possession storyline aside.

 

But don't forget Legend of the Rangers!

 

...

 

I'm sorry...

Reply
post #60 of 112
6/18/12 at 11:36am

In The Beggining has this...

 

SUPER GIANT FUCKING SPOILERS OF COURSE

 

 

...so it wins by default.

Reply
post #61 of 112
6/18/12 at 11:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by elsnakeo View Post

 

But don't forget Legend of the Rangers!

 

...

 

I'm sorry...

 

It's not your fault.

 

It's not your fault.

Reply
post #62 of 112
6/19/12 at 4:16pm

So okay, In the Beginning. I think if I'd known ahead of time that it was produced before Season 5, I would have watched it in that order. It works well enough as a primer for new viewers, but I'm not sure I get an in-show reason why Londo's telling should be quite so Earth-centric (He even has to explain that he's relating the timeline in Earth years). It's also a bit jarring at the end to learn just how closely it precedes the events witnessed in "War Without End Pt. 2".

Reply
post #63 of 112
6/21/12 at 9:59pm

I read somewhere that nearly all of the HD live-action footage created to combine actors and sets with CGI aliens and space battles has been lost. Specifically the cut-away shots that were designed as a segue between CGI and live-action footage. From what I understand is that they were lost at some point in the mid to late 2000s in a warehouse fire (I read it happened some time in 2007) and almost all of the original movie reels were damaged and burnt beyond recovery. I also read that much of the original HD footage from The Gathering was destroyed by rats, insects and mold.

 

So, if the news is true then there is apparently no way at all to properly complete a Blu-ray version of Babylon 5 without access to the original HD live action footage needed to combine any new CGI effect shots with the original footage shot of live actors and sets.

 

Not good news I'm afraid, unless the stories are not true or that Warner Brothers does manage to have a duplicate copy stored safely away... somewhere...


Edited by Radionactive - 6/21/12 at 10:13pm
Reply
post #64 of 112
6/22/12 at 12:49pm

Is this my future? Where 35mm film is only referred to as "HD"? Sigh.

Reply
post #65 of 112
6/22/12 at 8:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radionactive View Post

I read somewhere that nearly all of the HD live-action footage created to combine actors and sets with CGI aliens and space battles has been lost. Specifically the cut-away shots that were designed as a segue between CGI and live-action footage. From what I understand is that they were lost at some point in the mid to late 2000s in a warehouse fire (I read it happened some time in 2007) and almost all of the original movie reels were damaged and burnt beyond recovery. I also read that much of the original HD footage from The Gathering was destroyed by rats, insects and mold.

 

So, if the news is true then there is apparently no way at all to properly complete a Blu-ray version of Babylon 5 without access to the original HD live action footage needed to combine any new CGI effect shots with the original footage shot of live actors and sets.

 

Not good news I'm afraid, unless the stories are not true or that Warner Brothers does manage to have a duplicate copy stored safely away... somewhere...


I just don't understand shit like this. B5 made a BILLION DOLLARS on DVD. They have restored DVDs of I lucking Love Lucy which you KNOW didn't make near this amount. I just don't get how studios allow this to happen.

Reply
post #66 of 112
6/23/12 at 4:33pm

Nutshelled, both Foundation Imaging and Netter Digital (both of whom provided the visual effects for B5 and Crusade) went out of business at different times, and the vast majority of computer files containing the original effects-work were lost (dumped out of computer memory), due to occasional general carelessness.

 

(Side trivia-note: Atmosphere Digital Effects, the studio behind Battlestar Galactica's look, provided the HD effects-work for B5: The Lost Tales in 2006-07. Which was stunning. In an ideal world, these guys would be right at the top of the list of those under consideration for a total Blu-Ray remaster of the original series.)

 

Finally:

 

Quite an interesting, in-depth look at the entire "widescreen/full-frame" aspect ratio and DVD cropping controversies:

 

http://www.modeemi.fi/~leopold/Babylon5/DVD/DVDTransfer.html

Reply
post #67 of 112
6/23/12 at 4:53pm

I remember hearing in the lead-up to Legend of the Rangers that the producers were contacting fan artists and game mod teams trying to get their from scratch copies of the original ships and stations to use if it ended up actually going to series.

Reply
post #68 of 112
6/26/12 at 2:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post


I just don't understand shit like this. B5 made a BILLION DOLLARS on DVD. They have restored DVDs of I lucking Love Lucy which you KNOW didn't make near this amount. I just don't get how studios allow this to happen.

 

I need to chase it down, but there was a quote from JMS saying that by Warner Brothers accounting, Babylon 5 was still losing them money.

Reply
post #69 of 112
6/26/12 at 5:49pm

Actually, WB has made a ton off of B5 over the years -- though on paper, it's still technically reported as a "loss" by the studio through "creative accounting" practices:

 

From: "jmsatb5@aol.com" <jmsatb5@aol.com>
 Subject: Re: WGA Strike 90%+ vote to strike
      To: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated  
    Date: 10/21/2007 9:16:02 PM  

 
 

 

[

> Keep in mind that the studio has to show profit and loss to
> shareholders, and people go to jail if they lie about those things
> now. If they're reporting profit on a movie to shareholders and a
> loss to you as a writer, then they should be taken to court.
>

You're talking apples and oranges. There's the profit a studio makes
on a project in toto, and what it makes on the books for the writers.
When you sign a deal for a share of the profit, all but a very few
writers get a piece of the net...but the formula used in determining
what that net is, in other ways what point the project achieves
profitability, can be worked to show no profit *for purposes of that
deal*.

I have a share of the net profits of B5. But by the terms of the deal
that was made, WB takes 60% of all monies in overhead, and can charge
almost anything they want against profits. If a stage used on some
other WB project being shot in Bolivia burns down, they can charge it
against B5. Consequently, B5 has never shown a profit even though
it's made half a billion dollars just in DVD sales, leaving out
foreign sales, syndication, merchandising and so on.

And yes, individual writers can sue the studios, and never work
again. That's why you need someone who can bargain collectively.

But residuals aren't based on net profit, they're based on a formula
that says you get x-percent of the original fee for the first x-number
of runs, then it drops for the next x-number of runs, then eventually
it runs out altogether. The studios have been saying they want to
reduce or eliminate residuals. That can't stand.
 

[...]


jms

Edited by Leto II - 6/26/12 at 6:06pm
Reply
post #70 of 112
6/26/12 at 7:12pm

Just watched Thirdspace. The best thing about it is seeing everyone back in Season 4 mode. Especially the classic Ivanova rant, and Zack's elevator scene. But leave it to the Lurkers to point out that Zack's uniform is out of continuity by approximately half an episode...

 

Speaking of online fandom, the Lurker's Guide is less than helpful on the production/airdate history. I'm curious to know what was in the can when the TNT deal went through, and whether the shooting of the first two movies occurred closer to the end of S4 or to the start of S5.

Reply
post #71 of 112
6/26/12 at 11:28pm

Yeah, that whole movie (Thirdspace) seems to take place across and between several different early/mid-Season 4 stories, rather than falling cleanly between any two of them -- witness (as you mention) Zack's out-of-continuity uniform, Franklin strangely still being aboard the station, Garibaldi already being gone from the station (again fudging up the whole Zack-uniform-issue), Delenn not having left for Minbar yet, etc. Basically, JMS was evidently more interested in telling a good story using particular actors than he was about the continuity-issues (which is unusual for him).

 

The Peter David-written novelization attempts to fix several of these problems, and includes Lennier (and Marcus, IIRC) in several of the film's "unseen" events, while the movie itself naturally does not.

 

It was the first TNT movie shot, after "Sleeping in Light" wrapped production at the very end of Season 4, and was filmed before In the Beginning, due to the time needed to prep that film. Basically, Thirdspace utilized the already-standing B5 station-sets, whereas Beginning did not, being set decades earlier during the Earth/Minbari War, and thus requiring nearly everything to be constructed completely from scratch.

 

The TNT production deal was finalized not long after "Sleeping in Light" was completed, but Thirdspace was already shot and in the can before this happened. As a related side-note, I own the complete U.S./U.K. run of the official B5 magazine, and one of the interesting regular features were daily on-set diaries by the staff writers -- one of these was done on the day the TNT deal was officially announced to the cast and crew, while Boxleitner was shooting one of the "young Sheridan" scenes aboard the EAS Lexington from In the Beginning (in May, 1997).

 

Essentially, Doug Netter entered the sound stage, and told everyone to "prepare for an announcement" in a few minutes' time -- the crew gathered, and JMS, Netter, and Copeland revealed that Season 5 was now "a go," thanks to TNT's unexpected intervention; they'd previously basically been cancelled, with the two TNT movies being final, "lame duck" projects before everyone went their separate ways. It was a complete shock to everyone, needless to say. Nobody had any clue it was happening.

 

At this point, Claudia Christian was still involved with the show, having recently shot her scenes for the prequel-movie, and it was a few weeks later at the Blackpool, U.K. convention that she told JMS that she wouldn't be continuing with the series in the upcoming final, TNT-produced season (which occurred in early June, 1997) -- which is a whole other, major discussion thread in its own right.

 

In mid-August, after having auditioned several actresses for the new role of Capt. Lochley, Tracy Scoggins was confirmed as Christian's replacement for Season 5, and production resumed in September with the shooting of the newly-commissioned replacement fourth-season finale, "The Deconstruction of Falling Stars" (with "Sleeping in Light" getting pushed back to the end of the fifth season), and then straight into the Season 5 premiere episode, "No Compromises," which officially introduced the Lochley character onscreen (getting referenced/retconned into Season 4 via flashback-dialogue during "Deconstruction").

 

So, to summarize the production-order/chronology:

 

  1. "Rising Star" (Season 4)
  2. "Sleeping in Light" (produced for Season 4, pushed back to Season 5)
  3. Thirdspace
  4. In the Beginning
  5. Claudia Christian exits show (June, 1997)
  6. Tracy Scoggins hired (August, 1997)
  7. "The Deconstruction of Falling Stars" (new Season 4 finale)
  8. "No Compromises" (Season 5 premiere)

Edited by Leto II - 6/27/12 at 1:19pm
Reply
post #72 of 112
6/27/12 at 5:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leto II View Post

Actually, WB has made a ton off of B5 over the years -- though on paper, it's still technically reported as a "loss" by the studio through "creative accounting" practices:

 

From: "jmsatb5@aol.com" <jmsatb5@aol.com>
 Subject: Re: WGA Strike 90%+ vote to strike
      To: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated  
    Date: 10/21/2007 9:16:02 PM  

 
 

 

[

> Keep in mind that the studio has to show profit and loss to
> shareholders, and people go to jail if they lie about those things
> now. If they're reporting profit on a movie to shareholders and a
> loss to you as a writer, then they should be taken to court.
>

You're talking apples and oranges. There's the profit a studio makes
on a project in toto, and what it makes on the books for the writers.
When you sign a deal for a share of the profit, all but a very few
writers get a piece of the net...but the formula used in determining
what that net is, in other ways what point the project achieves
profitability, can be worked to show no profit *for purposes of that
deal*.

I have a share of the net profits of B5. But by the terms of the deal
that was made, WB takes 60% of all monies in overhead, and can charge
almost anything they want against profits. If a stage used on some
other WB project being shot in Bolivia burns down, they can charge it
against B5. Consequently, B5 has never shown a profit even though
it's made half a billion dollars just in DVD sales, leaving out
foreign sales, syndication, merchandising and so on.

And yes, individual writers can sue the studios, and never work
again. That's why you need someone who can bargain collectively.

But residuals aren't based on net profit, they're based on a formula
that says you get x-percent of the original fee for the first x-number
of runs, then it drops for the next x-number of runs, then eventually
it runs out altogether. The studios have been saying they want to
reduce or eliminate residuals. That can't stand.
 

[...]


jms

 

I believe there is a similar story from Lucas on how the original Star Wars movies still haven't made a profit on paper. It amazes me that the "talent" in hollywood didn't come together and make their own studios like musicians started to do in the 90's. It's a lot harder to make a movie and takes a hell of a lot of more money, but I'm surprised more didn't try.

Reply
post #73 of 112
6/27/12 at 8:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoatMan View Post

 

I believe there is a similar story from Lucas on how the original Star Wars movies still haven't made a profit on paper. It amazes me that the "talent" in hollywood didn't come together and make their own studios like musicians started to do in the 90's. It's a lot harder to make a movie and takes a hell of a lot of more money, but I'm surprised more didn't try.


Didn't Spielberg and Lucas kind of do that? Also Coppola famously tried to run his own studio and famously imploded.

Reply
post #74 of 112
6/27/12 at 12:00pm

Thanks for the timeline, Leto! That clears up a lot-- I could never figure out why Christian was out of S5 but still in the movies.

Reply
post #75 of 112
6/27/12 at 1:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoatMan View Post

 

I believe there is a similar story from Lucas on how the original Star Wars movies still haven't made a profit on paper. It amazes me that the "talent" in hollywood didn't come together and make their own studios like musicians started to do in the 90's. It's a lot harder to make a movie and takes a hell of a lot of more money, but I'm surprised more didn't try.

 

 

Didn't  a few big stars get together back in the day and form something called United Artists?

Reply
post #76 of 112
6/27/12 at 6:06pm

Yes, and in the '70s there was First Artists. Tough to make a go of something like that unless you're heavily capitalized to start with.

Reply
post #77 of 112
6/28/12 at 4:30am

Well, I did say that I was surprised more didn't try, not that none did.

 

It must just be a much harder nut to crack. And studios just seem to be getting stingier and stingier.

Reply
post #78 of 112
6/28/12 at 6:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammerhead View Post

So okay, In the Beginning. I think if I'd known ahead of time that it was produced before Season 5, I would have watched it in that order. It works well enough as a primer for new viewers, but I'm not sure I get an in-show reason why Londo's telling should be quite so Earth-centric (He even has to explain that he's relating the timeline in Earth years). It's also a bit jarring at the end to learn just how closely it precedes the events witnessed in "War Without End Pt. 2".

 

oh no-no-no-no... you can't watch In the Beginning as a primer for new viewers, it's far to spoilery.

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

 

biggest ones are: Londo becomes the emperor of a ruined Centauri Prime, Sinclair  has Valen's soul inside him , and Sheridan and Delenn become leaders of a New Empire, and they have a child.

 

 

 

Signs and Portents or Mind War are the best choices, I think. For introducing people to the show.

Reply
post #79 of 112
6/28/12 at 7:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Syn View Post

oh no-no-no-no... you can't watch In the Beginning as a primer for new viewers, it's far to spoilery.

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

 

biggest ones are: Londo becomes the emperor of a ruined Centauri Prime, Sinclair  has Valen's soul inside him , and Sheridan and Delenn become leaders of a New Empire, and they have a child.

 

 

I think he meant a primer for new viewers about to watch Season 5, who'd get on most of that stuff anyway. In any case I'm not sure the spoilers are *that* bad:

 

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Lando's end is foreshadowed very early on in the show anyway, and pops up repeatedly. His story is a tragedy and you're kind of *supposed* to know where he ends up.

 
The Sinclair/Valen thing is a spoiler, but thanks to him getting written out of the show that plotline isn't quite the key revelation it probably would've been (I'm guessing it was originally supposed to be part of the grande finale). Also I don't think In The Beginning spoils the true relationship between Sinclair and Valen.
 
And again, I'm pretty sure Sheridan and Delenn gets foreshadowed quite a while before anything happens. I guess the thing about the new empire is a bit of a spoiler, though I wouldn't say it's a crucial one. The details over most these things are so vague I doubt it would harm people's enjoyment so much. I mean this is a show that quite loves letting you know the broad strokes of things ahead of time.

 

Back in the day I actually did watch it with someone who'd never seen the show before. The good thing about it is that it gets the epic scope of the show across better than almost any other individual episode or movie. On the downside if it's your first introduction to the universe of the show there's a definite risk of information overload.

Reply
post #80 of 112
6/28/12 at 1:47pm

Yeah, that's one of those "hardly-a-spoiler" things at this point. The show's been out of production for over a decade now, and few people are coming to the DVDs with absolutely no prior knowledge of or exposure to the series, which is why some things that would have been considered major spoilers during the original series-run really aren't these days. (And one reason that JMS himself recommends In the Beginning as a better intro to the series than The Gathering.)

 

The Gathering has enough weaknesses, even in the revised cut, and the cast is so different, that I think it is a far inferior introduction to the show than the prequel movie. It's worthwhile to watch it when someone who is already intrigued about B5 goes through the series in order, because the plot information it contains is very important, but overall, it's better to watch it when you already like the show up front, and are more willing to forgive its flaws and accept it for the early pilot film that it is.

 

In the Beginning, on the other hand, makes an absolutely great introduction if you've only got one shot at converting someone, because it features the main characters from the bulk of the later series, and because the story not only gives the viewer the background to the greater five-year arc, but also because the flashback structure gives the viewer a sense of the actual huge scope of the series (which, again, the pilot movie doesn't really accomplish).

 

The "spoiler"-issue really depends on one's point of view. If you see B5 as a mystery to be solved, this is a problem. But if you see it as a drama to be experienced, knowing things that the characters do not could add to the enjoyment. As someone who watched the show from the very first day it premiered, I'll never know what it's like to watch the growing relationship between Sheridan and Delenn for the very first time knowing that she was the one who ultimately gave the order that started the entire Earth/Minbari War, or that they had briefly met years before.

 

(Besides, a lot of people will either forget, or else not quite comprehend/contextualize many of the spoilers in the film by the time they get to the point in the series where they actually matter.)

 

If you've only got one shot, the prequel film is the one to go with.

Reply
post #81 of 112
6/28/12 at 1:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Syn View Post

 

oh no-no-no-no... you can't watch In the Beginning as a primer for new viewers, it's far to spoilery.

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

 

biggest ones are: Londo becomes the emperor of a ruined Centauri Prime, Sinclair  has Valen's soul inside him , and Sheridan and Delenn become leaders of a New Empire, and they have a child.

 

 

 

Signs and Portents or Mind War are the best choices, I think. For introducing people to the show.

 

I should have clarified, new viewers on TNT prior to the initial broadcast of Season 5 in 1998. That, I think, is the point of a primer, to get one group of folks up to speed with the rest.

Reply
post #82 of 112
6/28/12 at 2:03pm

Maybe the biggest point in its favour as an intro is that it's actually, y'know, good. I've talked up B5 to people in real life only to have them give up after slogging through the first half of season 1, and in a way its hard to blame them. The movie would at least give them something fairly solid that gives them a taster how how the time investment will eventually start paying off. Pretty sure it would give you enough grounding to let you jump to Season 2 if it came to that.

Reply
post #83 of 112
6/28/12 at 2:23pm

Except that S2 starts after the Presidential assassination, and with Delenn already in her cocoon.

Reply
post #84 of 112
6/30/12 at 8:32pm

Mcfb8.jpg

 

A classic.

Reply
post #85 of 112
6/30/12 at 11:45pm

There's also that one image (taken during that same cast-shoot) with Garibaldi pushing the janitor's broom in front of everyone (as "punishment" for his Season 4 actions).

 

It was featured in the 1997 TV Guide cover-issue (several copies of which I have stored away somewhere, mint), but for some reason I can't seem to locate it anywhere online.

Reply
post #86 of 112
7/1/12 at 11:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leto II View Post

There's also that one image (taken during that same cast-shoot) with Garibaldi pushing the janitor's broom in front of everyone (as "punishment" for his Season 4 actions).

 

It was featured in the 1997 TV Guide cover-issue (several copies of which I have stored away somewhere, mint), but for some reason I can't seem to locate it anywhere online.

 

http://www.sfseriesandmovies.com/series/babylon-5/b5-gallery/

 

The broom shot is in that gallery, but it won't let me copy for posting here. Good stuff, tho.

Reply
post #87 of 112
7/1/12 at 11:40am

Very nice, man -- appreciate you finding it. And yeah, that image-linking's acting like a total bitch.

Reply
post #88 of 112
7/1/12 at 11:50am

My TV Movie catchup continues with River of Souls. McShane is miscast; Sheen is taking chances. And I had no idea that those pics of Scoggins in lingerie originated here.

 

But there's not a lot of ground that wasn't already covered in the first "Soul Hunter" episode. Again, the Hunters are depicted as true believers, the 'souls' they harvest are depicted as genuine sentient identities, and once again the plot hinges on a perversion of their mission. Thematically, I get why the holo-brothel subplot is in here-- an expression of the advantages of corporeal life-- it's still terribly cheesy. Best bit: Richard Biggs' appearance as an alien consciousness speaking through the image of Dr. Franklin. Nicely played.

Reply
post #89 of 112
7/1/12 at 1:43pm

So I'm now catching up on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, the show that's often contrasted with Babylon 5, and I have to say...even this early on, at the midpoint of season 3, I really prefer DS9. I'll acknowledge my lingering fondness for Trek; I was obsessed with TNG as a lad, and I did watch the first season and a half of DS9 back then before tuning out. It's funny how much better I find DS9 now, whereas I'm sure TNG would be pretty awful if I went back and rewatched it (which is why I don't).

 

My understanding is that, according to JMS, he pitched Babylon 5 to the Trek producers, got turned down, and then saw them go on to make DS9, which pretty clearly echoes a lot of the themes and ideas of B5. That sucks, but I can't get around the idea that the Trek producers simply handled them better. While B5 comes out of the gate with more ambition and a fresher take on space opera (at first), DS9 builds quite thrillingly from a merely "OK" show on par with the best of the other modern Treks to something far more ambitious and elaborate. I know it gets into serialization and subversion of the ideals of Trek further down the line (hell, it's already doing so) and it's actually more exciting to see this on an actual Trek show than on something analogous. I'd also argue that the Dominion are already vastly more interesting villains than the Shadows, who were standard issue Fantasy baddies--heavy on the creepiness and alienness, but lacking in characterization and thematic complexity.

 

I think it boils down to the fact that B5 hit its stride early on and then never really felt any need to improve--the more so since it was the brainchild of a single guy, without any contrasting voices to shake things up. DS9, even in three seasons, has already gone through several evolutions and taken any number of left turns, and I'd argue it's the far stronger show for all that.

Reply
post #90 of 112
7/1/12 at 6:31pm

I agree with most of your comments Prankster, but I'd say that B5 went from shit with some bits of corn (S1) to brilliant (S2-S4) to Meh (S5). DS9 was much more consistent in quality (high) throughout it's run, but suffered a bit in it final episodes.

 

It's odd that JMS created great "Good Guys" in the Vorlons, but never really did anything interesting with Shadows.

Reply
post #91 of 112
7/2/12 at 2:15am

DS9 is certainly more slick and polished, but it still has one of its feet stuck in the usual Star Trek standalone episode tradition and rarely commits fully to the serial storytelling idea. Even when it does it's often more like a vaguely shifting war backdrop to standalone episodes than a true evolving arc. It's pretty much just a war story, it doesn't really come close to the meticulous arc planning of B5. Also at 7 long seasons it's just too unfocused and too much of a time investment for me to want to plough through. It's a pretty good show, but like all Star Trek I find it better as something to watch when you're having dinner or something, rather than fully immerse in it like it's The Wire or something.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster View Post
I think it boils down to the fact that B5 hit its stride early on and then never really felt any need to improve--the more so since it was the brainchild of a single guy, without any contrasting voices to shake things up.

 

I don't get this argument at all, it's like saying Tolkien, Gaiman, GRRM etc's stories had no need to improve because they were written by one person. B5 hits its stride around season 2 (maybe towards the end of season 1) and sustains it to the end of season 4. During that time pretty much the entire show happens - just about every character goes through big changes and whole civilisations rise and fall. JMS writing every single episode for years took its toll occasionally, but ultimately this show is less about the episode by episode and more about watching the whole big story unfold. Personally I'm glad it wasn't written by committee.

Reply
post #92 of 112
7/2/12 at 9:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C View Post
 JMS writing every single episode for years took its toll occasionally, but ultimately this show is less about the episode by episode and more about watching the whole big story unfold. Personally I'm glad it wasn't written by committee.

 

But that is a false dicotomy.

 

You can have a strong Show Runner who regularly contributes scripts while still allowing other writers to contribute. JMS is absolutely great at writing the large Epics and the struggles of the "big characters" (Sheridan, Delen etc). But he's Godawful at writing comedy, and IMO he never really brought the "minor" characters to life. Garibaldi as a character is great on paper, and the actor played him really well, but my God the NoirSpeak JMS wrote for him could be balls.

 

I'd point to Ron Moore's first couple of seasons on BSG. Strong story arcs but also great "small moments" and strong character development. After Moore got distracted or whatever happened, the show drifted a bit.


Edited by Cylon Baby - 7/2/12 at 1:46pm
Reply
post #93 of 112
7/2/12 at 10:30am

But every American TV show ever has been "written by committee". Even Babylon 5 had other writers. Novels are a different beast. And it's true that getting a single great writer to tell a long form story can result in a masterpiece, but JMS isn't a great writer. This is what I'm saying. He was an OK writer with a plan and a lot of ambition.

 

If he'd had other writers around to contribute ideas he might have been able to grow beyond his limitations. Imagine if he'd had other writers throughout the run of the show to help him with the humour, or the romantic relationships, two things JMS really had trouble with. I know that when I got to that S5 episode written by Neil Gaiman, I couldn't help noticing how the energy level perked up and the characters seemed to come to life in a way they hadn't for a couple of seasons. Think about how, say, the X-Files, despite being constantly credited to Chris Carter as the "author", improved so much thanks to Darin and Glen Morgan, James Wong, Vince Gilligan, and others. Think about how some of the best episodes of Buffy were written by David Fury or Tim Minear. A good showrunner knows how to work with other talent while keeping a strong hand on the tiller.

 

Maybe a better example: it's admirable that JMS had a well-fleshed-out long-form plan, but I think the show suffered from adhering to it too rigidly. In particular, the show has an annoying tendency to lose characters and have them replaced by new characters who are exactly the same. Ivanova is the same character as that stone-faced Asian lady in the original pilot, and then the new Ops officer in S5 is exactly like Ivanova. The telepathic girl got swapped out with Leeta and back again, and it had little or no effect on the storyline. Even Sheridan is pretty obviously Sinclair mark 2 at first. Ironically, I think one of the best arcs on the show is Sinclair's, and I'm not sure it would have worked as well if they'd dragged it out over five seasons and kept it in the foreground. Letting him get shuffled off and having Sheridan take over romancing Delenn was a change that worked beautifully, IMHO. And this is the kind of improvisation that other shows do all the time, often improving them immensely. Imagine if Breaking Bad had killed off Jesse in the first season as planned. Imagine if Buffy had killed off Spike, or if they HADN'T killed off the Master at the end of season one.

 

For that matter, look at Deep Space Nine. Right off the bat, the show was nudged off course by the fact that they weren't able to get Michelle Forbes to join the cast as they'd planned, and thus, no Ensign Ro. So they had to create Major Kira and develop a different relationship between the Bajorans and the Federation, one that's far more interesting than the original idea. Going with the flow can often hugely improve a long-form story, and I wish JMS had been more open to that.

 

While we're on the subject, I think you're vastly underrating the level of serialization that happens with DS9. Even in season 2 the Dominion is handled beautifully as a slowly looming threat, and then of course there's the payoff early in season three that ends up tying in with the backstory of one of the main characters. This is pretty heavily serialized stuff, and I know the show actually gets more serialized as it goes. The fact that they're capable of pushing story threads to the background and then picking them up again later doesn't mean the show isn't serialized. In fact I'd argue that's a more effective serialization than having every episode end with a cliffhanger. The advantage of shows like this is that we're not allowed to get sick of the Dominion or the Cardassians or whatever, because they're not constantly in the forefront. At least, that's how I feel about it. The only 100% successful shows that are telling one long story are the ones with reduced seasons, like Breaking Bad, The Sopranos, or Game of Thrones (and sometimes even those hit draggy points...)
 

Reply
post #94 of 112
7/2/12 at 12:26pm

Ugh there's enough circlejerking over DS9 in the Star Trek thread, does it really need to spill over into here as well? They're different shows with different strengths, I don't really want to get into an endless tit for tat over it. B5 isn't flawless and isn't to everyone's taste, and there comes a point where all I can say is "okay, it doesn't work for you: I get it".

 

It's possible having more writers would've made it stronger in some ways. But in seasons 2-4 (the inarguable peak of the show lets not forget) the story momentum was such that JMS's job was often mostly just to keep the pieces moving and the characters doing their stuff. And though he could be self indulgent or less than inspired at times, by and large the quality stays at a pretty consistent level and with a personal voice that is rare in a show like this. The episodes written by outside writers in the first couple of seasons are some of the dullest because they rarely have the intrigue or sense of purpose of the JMS arc episodes.

 

Watching a story that had been meticulously planned out in advance is the entire point. It's not something that has ever been attempted in quite the same way before or since. When you look at how botched the made-up-as-they-went-along 'mythology' of shows like BSG and Lost ended up, B5 still holds up as an example of how large-scale storytelling can be handled on tv, and did so years before anyone else dared to try anything even close to as ambitious. All this obsessing over flaws and how it doesn't measure up to a bunch of mostly arbitrary standards ignores all the things that are great and unique about it. It's like looking at the Sphinx and bitching about how it doesn't have a nose.

Reply
post #95 of 112
7/2/12 at 6:43pm

For a show that's being criticized for lame attempts at humor, at least B5 doesn't repeatedly devote entire episodes to awful schtick. Yes, I'm talking about DS9 here. I can't bear to go back and count the number of Ferengi-based episodes I had to sit through...

Reply
post #96 of 112
7/2/12 at 8:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMR View Post

For a show that's being criticized for lame attempts at humor, at least B5 doesn't repeatedly devote entire episodes to awful schtick. Yes, I'm talking about DS9 here. I can't bear to go back and count the number of Ferengi-based episodes I had to sit through...


Ha the thing is, I hated those episodes, hated them, the first time I saw them, or more accurately, turned them off after a few minutes. Upon actually watching DS9 straight through a few months ago, those episodes were highlights.

 

I will say that the fact that Quark got shoehorned into every fucking episode, often to ill effect since there was no reason for him to be there, did grate. But when the plot focused on the Ferengi and their "oh so like us" ways, the results clicked.

 

As for B5, I love it, but you can't rationally claim that any Ferengi episode was worse than the "sex dance".


Edited by Cylon Baby - 7/3/12 at 9:57am
Reply
post #97 of 112
7/2/12 at 9:08pm

I'm not holding up DS9 as a home run in terms of humour either. But the Ferengi episodes are actually a good example of how the show examined and subverted itself and Trek in general. It's one thing to say "all races must live in harmony", it's another to present a race that's as inherently obnoxious as the Ferengi (which somewhat exposes the hypocrisy of Trek, which tends to fall back on the premise that humans are awesome and everyone else kinda sucks) and say "OK, try hanging out with these guys." And they're even starting to let Quark make some good points by season 3. 

 

Oops, I'm talking about DS9! You know, the show that's obviously incredibly similar and an obvious parallel with Babylon 5!

 

Look, I'm sorry if I seem like the guy who comes in and shits all over everyone's cornflakes here. Babylon 5 really isn't a bad show. On some levels, it's an impressive achievement. It's just that I'm not sure that being a show that was planned out from day one and stuck to the plan relentlessly is inherently a good thing, and when I see people praising it just for that (above Battlestar Galactica, no less) I get my dander up. I'd argue that just as much thought and planning has gone into many other shows, but those shows were able to roll with the punches. B5 gritted its teeth and powered through from point A to point B with no room to stretch, to course correct or explore interesting wrinkles as they developed, with a few exceptions (which, again, were often the best things about the show). It's kind of cool that JMS was so focused and driven in his goals, but I think the show could have been better if he'd had a little flexibility.

Reply
post #98 of 112
7/3/12 at 11:51am

It did have some flexibility.  The original plan was to stick with Sinclair for the entire run, with him defeating the shadows, liberating earth, and becoming Valen.

 

Prankster, I think you and I are on two sides of the same coin.  DS9 is a great show, I won't argue that it isn't, but much of it doesn't work for me.  I never can get comfortable with the ensemble, I have a hard time with Avery Brooks.  Like, I don't get what he's trying to do with the role.  There's more melodrama then I like, goddamn early Jake and Nog crap, and SHUT UP BAJOR.

 

Those are my hangups though.

 

Let me put it this way.  BSG and B5 at their prime both had me gagging for the next episode.  Once in a while, TNG managed that.  DS9?  Not once.

 

Edited because I have a cold, and that compromises thinking skills.


Edited by MrBananaGrabber - 7/3/12 at 3:35pm
Reply
post #99 of 112
7/3/12 at 6:44pm

Just wrapped up the Movie Collection with A Call to Arms. Talky and tedious, and the anemic music doesn't help. But hey, Tony Todd.

 

So is Crusade worth checking out at all?

Reply
post #100 of 112
7/3/12 at 7:29pm

Nope, not really.  Some nice moments don't make up for a shortened season of "What?  What the hell does the network want from us now?" syndrome.

 

Gary Cole is cool, though.  But that's about it.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Television