I only watched one or two episodes when it was on, but now I'm tempted to buy one of the DVD sets -- possibly the DVD of the five Babylon 5 movies (ads for which are in current comics).
Recommendations? How similar is it to Deep Space Nine (which I liked OK, but didn't love)?
Posted by Validus on :
Bab 5 was awesome! I watched all the seasons in reruns after I came in on the cliffhanger of season 2 or 3. The one where Cmdr Sheridan goes to Zaadum. Awesome stuff! It blew DS9 clean out of the water. Highly recommended!
Posted by Suddenly Seymour on :
I agree that Babylon 5 is pretty awesome. My hubby is a devoted fan. I'll see what he says.
Validus, put a spoiler warning in that post!!
Posted by DrakeB3003 on :
I LOVED Babylon 5! I don't think it's a good idea to pick up the movies first since you might not understand a lot of what's going on and it'd spoil a lot if you ever plan on seeing the show in order. I'd go out and start from the very beginning instead. I'm not kidding, the whole five seasons is pretty much one huge story (some key story elements were foreshadowed seasons in advance)!
Deep Space Nine seemed influenced by B5 in its last season with making the Dominion War one large storyarc, but it so paled in comparison with the complexity of B5, that I couldn't enjoy it.
Posted by Validus on :
quote:Originally posted by Suddenly Seymour: Validus, put a spoiler warning in that post!!
Oh dont you worry. I didnt tell you HOW how the cliffhanger ended. When I saw it, I was like and it just got better from there! Oh yeah!
Posted by Arachne on :
[sob] I just realized I can't remember that clifhanger! I wonder if there's any place aroind here to rent them...
Posted by Kent Shakespeare on :
great show, I agree.
Ya know, a lot of B5 fans felt (and feel) obligated to bash DS-9. sure there were similarities, hell- probably direct rip offs- but having grown up in the 70s when sci-fiction on TV was pretty pathetic, I really enjoyed having two great series to watch!
Both were written pretty damn well and had great characters, which once seemed impossible, given the shaft that TV execs used to pidgeonhole the genre into.
Of course, B5 was the better of the two, but that doesn't mean DS-9 was without merit. In fact, it had a lot.
Posted by STU on :
quote:Originally posted by DrakeB3003: I LOVED Babylon 5! I don't think it's a good idea to pick up the movies first since you might not understand a lot of what's going on and it'd spoil a lot if you ever plan on seeing the show in order.
Ah, OK. I thought the movies might have been stand-alone stories, but it looks like they're pretty firmly tied into the series continuity.
The only thing I'm afraid of now is if I buy the first season, I may have to end up buying all of them... Posted by He Who Wanders on :
Babylon 5 is my favorite show of all time, and the science fiction series that went further than any previous one had dared to go: a self-contained arc written as a novel instead of as a franchise (though it became a franchise, as well).
I haven't seen the show in a long time. But at the time, nothing consumed my waking hours quite as much as B5 -- trying to figure out the prophecies, the cliffhangers, the back story. B5 promised a big payoff in the end and, after four years, it delivered. This remarkable feat was even more outstanding considering the numerous cast changes and constant threat of cancellation that it overcame.
Posted by Faraway Lad on :
Stu,
I love B5. It is best though to start at the beginning and work through. The movies are nice "extras" but aren't (i think) essential to the story.
Be warned though, if you do like it you will have many late nights and a pretty empty wallet as you have 5 years worth to catch up on. I have the first four seasons am waiting to get the last one when it comes out over here.
Posted by Director Lad on :
Yeah, B5 had a lot going for it. The first season pretty much sucked though. The guy who plays Sinclair is almost cartoonishly wooden. It's the reason I didn't watch the show until I started catching it in reruns on TBS a few years later. Once Boxleitner joins the show and the writers figure out what the hell they're doing, it gets good, but until then it's first-season Next Gen bad.
Posted by DrakeB3003 on :
quote:Originally posted by STU: I thought the movies might have been stand-alone stories, but it looks like they're pretty firmly tied into the series continuity.
Actually, the stories themselves are stand alone (you don't need to movies if you watch the series), but these stories take place within the context of a series that went through major status quo changes in its five years (hence the comment that they're full of spoilers). I'm also not sure how accessible those movies are if you're not familiar with the characters and their context.
Posted by Outdoor Miner on :
quote:Originally posted by Kent Shakespeare: Ya know, a lot of B5 fans felt (and feel) obligated to bash DS-9. sure there were similarities, hell- probably direct rip offs- but having grown up in the 70s when sci-fiction on TV was pretty pathetic, I really enjoyed having two great series to watch!
To be fair, that cut both ways. A lot of hardcore Trek fans felt the need to bash B-5 when it first came out as well. Then there were the rumors (don't know how true they are) that J. Michael Can'tspellhislastname pitched B-5 to Paramount as a Star Trek series only to have them steal it for DS9, which didn't help.
For the record, I liked both shows too.
Posted by He Who Wanders on :
quote:Originally posted by Director Lad: Yeah, B5 had a lot going for it. The first season pretty much sucked though. The guy who plays Sinclair is almost cartoonishly wooden. It's the reason I didn't watch the show until I started catching it in reruns on TBS a few years later. Once Boxleitner joins the show and the writers figure out what the hell they're doing, it gets good, but until then it's first-season Next Gen bad.
I disagree on both points, Director Lad. Michael O'Hare, who played Sinclair, was a more cerebral and understated actor than Boxleitner, who was more in keeping with the Hollywood model of a leading man: gung-ho, handsome, etc. Neither character or actor was necessarily bad. Both were appropriate for the story at the time, I think.
As for the writers not knowing what they were doing, Straczynski oversaw them, as I recall. He spent the first season establishing the setting and the characters. It moved slower than later seasons, as I recall, but it was deliberate.
Posted by He Who Wanders on :
I liked DS9, as well. Comparing B5 to DS9 is like comparing NYPD Blue to Barney Miller. Both of the latter are cop shows set in New York, but that's about it.
Posted by Outdoor Miner on :
quote:Originally posted by He Who Wanders: Michael O'Hare, who played Sinclair, was a more cerebral and understated actor than Boxleitner, who was more in keeping with the Hollywood model of a leading man: gung-ho, handsome, etc. Neither character or actor was necessarily bad. Both were appropriate for the story at the time, I think.
I preferred the Sinclair character in some ways. Yeah, he could be stiff, but I found it worked as a personality flaw. The show already had an Everyman in the Garibaldi character, and I think the Sheridan character encroached on that in a lot of ways.
But a change was going to happen anyway. The network was reportedly unhappy, and JMS was said to be introducing a new character, thinking that having Sinclair go to Zaadum (sp?) in addition to fulfilling his main destiny was putting too much of the story onto one character.
Posted by He Who Wanders on :
quote:Originally posted by Outdoor Miner: But a change was going to happen anyway. The network was reportedly unhappy, and JMS was said to be introducing a new character, thinking that having Sinclair go to Zaadum (sp?) in addition to fulfilling his main destiny was putting too much of the story onto one character.
True. One of the things that still impresses me about B5 is how JMS had a "trapdoor" written into the series for every character, allowing them to drop out of the story, if necessary, without compromising the arc.
It particularly came in handy with Talia Winters and Susan Ivanova.
Posted by Harbinger on :
We were hooked to this when it was on. B5 was great, the characters were well thought out, the special effects were adequate (though looking back on how much computer graphics have grown since they are a tad wooden at times by todays standards 0 all of what, five years ), the storylines wove loads of great plots together with a level of sohistication not seen before and introduced a believeable 'future' history.
I really liked Babylon 5, you might have guessed!
Posted by STU on :
Hey, quick question that I've always had:
Were there five Babylon space stations, hence the name? Was there a Babylon 4, Babylon 3, etc. out there somewhere?
(And every time I hear "B5," I think of Brainy! )
Posted by Pex the Unalive on :
Babylon #1-3 were destroyed during or just after the construction process. Babylon 4...watch the show, and all will be revealed! Posted by He Who Wanders on :
Good judgment, Pex. Stu, you really don't want to have the fate of B4 spoiled here.
Posted by Pex the Unalive on :
Yeah, I wouldn't dare spoil it for anyone who hadn't seen it...I only started watching the show since it started being released on DVD, and actually managed to do a running commentary/review of every episode at another message board I frequent. The veteran fans of B5 who post there were very good to me, answering questions as best they were able without revealing too much, all the while being very interested as to what I'd make of the show. If they had spoiled things for me, it really would have taken away from the experience...
![[Elastic Lad]](graemlins/ElasticLad.gif)
and it just got better from there! Oh yeah!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)