Babylon 5 vs Star Trek

[I, Brian]

Different opinions are fine, alfaholic.

What gets me about B5 is the long all-encapsulating story arc, the ability to do terrible things to characters in a way consistent withat arc, and the spiritual element to it (especially via Kosh).

Doesn't mean to say I won't enjoy Trek when it's done well. If only they'd learn about continuity though!

[JunkMonkey]

Originally Posted by alfaholic

For example, EA - Earth Alliance badge is terrible, while United Federation Of Planets looks so real, and well designed.
Again, paper magazines, doctor operating with sticks and stones like we do today, money, God, Religion, etc...
On the other side we have Tricoders, Sonic Shower, Holo Deck, Transporter, Warp Drive, no money, no God, no religion, the whole show has very positive view of the future, but still very realistic.

So, basically, what you are saying is an extrapolation some sort of recognisable, functional reality (we have been using paper to read on, money to buy things and God/s to pray to for a thousands years. Is inferior to a plastic wish fulfilment la la land where magical plot device wonders like Holo-decks and transporter beams have somehow turned the human race into bland corporate drones.

B5 (though not perfect) was a metaphorical exploration of the meaning of conflict, honour, duty, sacrifice and belief in a universe populated by real recognisable characters.

Star Trek was episodic television.

It's like comparing Sergio Leone's westerns with Bonanza. It's like comparing Polanski's Macbeth to Bewitched, it's like...

Voice: Who is this? What's your operating number?
JunkMonkey: Uh...
[Junk shoots the intercom]
JunkMonkey: [muttering] Boring conversation, anyway.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by JunkMonkey

we have been using paper to read on

Yes, but to be fair, that did look odd in B5 with their computer technology.

[Parson]

Originally Posted by JunkMonkey

Star Trek was episodic television.

It's like comparing Sergio Leone's westerns with Bonanza.

And which of these are loved by multiple generations? Bonanza still resonates with many of us, giving us views of what a family could be which will be indelible for generations. Sergio Leone's creations wind up being indelible like a stain. One calls forth the best in us, the other points to the worst.

[alfaholic]

That continuity that everyone talks about, yes it is just one big story, actually they wanted to be like that, but that is not true, there are so many things that just finished without a trace, character coming and going without meaning, specially fifth season, so many things are simply not logical. Vorlons are good, than bad, Shadows are gone, then they are not, and so on...
Then, it is not real even in SF terms, nothing more than Star Trek.

Something personal, I am fast in my reactions, specially when someone is not fair to me, or anyone else.
Very often while watching ST I was angry because of some unfair scene, but then after one season I have changed, become more calm in the same situations, even in my life when someone cuts me in the traffic, or someone is rude in the supermarket, I am just smiling and waiting for peaceful solution.
Watching B5 nothing similar happened, I am just the same man with my fast reactions to all unfair situations.
Something about ST and the way they talk about life, future, justice, and relationships gets my attention in the right way, and make me a better person somehow.
I know that is just my personal view, but for me it is important.

[JunkMonkey]

Originally Posted by Parson

And which of these are loved by multiple generations? Bonanza still resonates with many of us, giving us views of what a family could be which will be indelible for generations. Sergio Leone's creations wind up being indelible like a stain. One calls forth the best in us, the other points to the worst.

Personally I love Sergio Leone's movies (and the Kurosawa films they - ahem - riffed) they tell me more about love, life, and desperation, and real life than any 20 episodes of Bonanza. The love of the child and her husband for the kidnapped woman at the start of A Fistfull of Dollars has more emotional punch and terror than anything encountered on the Ponderouser*.

Okay, I'll rephrase; Chateaubriand vs equivalent weight in Big Macs.



*(sic)

[Parson]

Originally Posted by JunkMonkey

Personally I love Sergio Leone's movies (and the Kurosawa films they - ahem - riffed) they tell me more about love, life, and desperation, and real life than any 20 episodes of Bonanza. The love of the child and her husband for the kidnapped woman at the start of A Fistfull of Dollars has more emotional punch and terror than anything encountered on the Ponderouser*.

Okay, I'll rephrase; Chateaubriand vs equivalent weight in Big Macs.



*(sic)

We are way off topic here, but one last shot (pun intended). I agree that A Fistful of Dollars and its subsequent movies were gritty and forgettable. But think for a moment about the moral of the story in Leone's movies. I would make it "The only justice in the world comes from killing the bad guys." usually in job lots. This is not what I believe, nor do I think it is a helpful moral for life. (Bonanza had its fair share of killing as well, but it was not the apocalyptic judgment that Leone had as justice.)

So, I would rate Star Trek's view of the future much more appealing, if somewhat less likely that B 5's. Also it is not true that Star Trek had no religion. My favorite episode in the original series was one where the crew thought that they found a planet with "sun worshipers" only to find out that they were "Son worshipers." as in the son of God. And in the Star Trek spin offs religion became a more significant thing.

[alfaholic]

The religion in Star Trek is very often used as a theme for many episodes, and the way they handle it is outstanding from my point of view.
When I said no religion, I ment that the whole series are not based on any religion, and God, so we can have an idea that is told without that subjective approach.
I do not know is that the same episode, but Picard was on one planet and he need to explain to those people how it will be if they need to explain to their ancestors what is the glass window they have now, etc, so they can understand that he is not a God, he is just from another time, and place.
That episode was so good, with so good message about religion, about understanding, and openness of minds.

I do not think Star Trek future is a real one, but sure it is a right one, and only that is important for me.
So many times I hear people complain about death in Star Trek, no one dies, only few people trough 500 episodes, but please do we watch SF to see people die, to see wars, killing, everything we have today just watching the news?
If you ask me, the story about the future must partly be educational for all of us, and that is why I like Gene Roddenberry's idea about the future.
I am 33 years old, and I never liked Steven Seagal movies, with that cheap action, killing, explosions, all that fancy stuff for small boys, I think anyone who say that Star Trek is not so good because there is no more war scenes, more deaths, explosions, and fighting, I think he is missing the point.

Just my 2c...

[C Of K]

Star Trek Deep Space Nine was an entire series that was based largely off of religion, gods, and faith. It lasted six years, and was arguably the deepest (pun intended) Star Trek series to date. It wasn't as episodic as the others, though it could be down right unrealistic at times. It was good fun to watch, with a great cast.

Originally Posted by alfaholic

That continuity that everyone talks about, yes it is just one big story, actually they wanted to be like that, but that is not true, there are so many things that just finished without a trace, character coming and going without meaning, specially fifth season, so many things are simply not logical. Vorlons are good, than bad, Shadows are gone, then they are not, and so on...
Then, it is not real even in SF terms, nothing more than Star Trek.

Not sure if I agree with much of the above statement. I'm sure there are a few themes that finished without a trace, although I can't think of any. However, the important themes were all finished.

The Vorlons were never good or bad, however. It may not be an easy theme to catch upon first watching B-5, but the Vorlons continually keep themselves apart from the other races on the station, and they only act to "help" when it suits their purposes. They were never "hero" characters who would go out of their way to help others in need. Kosh eventually did do that, but he had to be poked and prodded before he came around to Sheridan's way of thinking.

The Shadows never did return. I think you may have misunderstood something, while you were watching.

B-5, by comparison, may not look so hot, but the strength of B-5 is in all the themes it has that can't be compared to Star Trek.

B-5 was first, and foremost, about building a galactic community. I don't know much about Voyager, or Enterprise, but none of the other Star Trek series were specifically about establishing galactic unity the way B-5 was. The way B-5 portrayed the politics on Earth, and their affect on the station, and other entire races, was brilliant. The politics of Earth affected the Narn/Centaury conflict, the Shadow War, and of course, the Earth Force/B-5 conflict.

I don't think B-5 is better than Star Trek, but I can't see how B-5 is all that much like just another Star Trek at all.

[alfaholic]

Hmm, politics of Earth was the worst part for me. Nothing new, nothing special, just another copied story from BBC, CNN, or any other news network today, 50, or 20 years a go, I just do not want to watch the same thing in the future.
Do not get me wrong, all I want to say is that we are all different, so I agree B5 and ST should not be compared, as Gene Roddenberry's wife said once.

I am not saying that B5 does not have strong message, and theme, just that does not have anything that do not exist in the Star Trek.
For me, the story about alliance, life, love, and commonwealth is the same in both shows, but the way the story is told counts for me.

Just remembered, B5 has something that Star Trek does not, all those pathetic scenes with Delenn and Sheridan, shallow bombastic speeches, and fake emotions from some actors, to much of American slang, as you said, they made interstellar alliance, we do not want to hear the same lines as in Commando with Schwarzenegger, or some Western...

[C Of K]

Hmm, politics of Earth was the worst part for me. Nothing new, nothing special, just another copied story from BBC, CNN, or any other news network today, 50, or 20 years a go, I just do not want to watch the same thing in the future.

I can see how B-5 would not be for everyone, but that's largely the way any politically driven plot is executed on tv in any show. Watching politics is in essence always like watching CNN. But that's another area where B-5 and Star Trek differ. B-5 is about politics, and Star Trek is about exploration. But I also recognize that Star Trek is far from perfect. It doesn't have perfect acting, perfect plot, plot devices, or perfect anything, really. It often suffers from depicting reoccurring scenarios episode to episode. If you look at a lot of the locations in the original Star Trek, or in The Next Generation, they are laughable. Do you recall when they first introduced the Ferengi in The Next Generation? The acting was horrible. The locations would make any on B-5 look high budget. Even worse is the continuity. I've never again seen the Ferengi depicted as a threatening race. For some reason, that still seems to be in dispute, the Klingon race completely changed in appearance from the original series, to the movies, and to the Next Generation. Anyone who remember the Klingon character Kor might shake their head in dismay.



I love Star Trek and B-5. But part of loving a work of fiction will often include recognizing their faults. B-5 has huge faults, most of which culminate into one horrible fifth season. I can understand how you might not like how the B-5 story is told. I can't dispute your opinion on that, because it is your opinion. As for my opinion, I can't really decide which one I like better, but B-5 will definitely give any version of Star Trek a run for its money.

Interesting that Gene Rodenbury's wife played roles in both Star Trek and B-5.

[alfaholic]

Star Trek is over 60 years old, and almost everything is way different now, scenes, shooting, acting, technology, it is normal for the show to have all these transitions.
Yes, maybe it is not so nice if you watching everything at once now, but people keep talking about it, and how Babylon 5 does not have that flaw, of course because it is made in a just few years.
Babylon 5 is 10 years younger of TNG series, and almost 30 years than TOS, so it is not so real to compare sets, still TNG looks much better for me than B5.

I hope everyone understand my English, I am enjoying conversation with all of you, I do not want to insult anyone.
Yes, politics looks the same everywhere and anywhere, but I do not want politics, overrated religion, to much alcohol, murders, conflicts that we can see everywhere today, I do not want them in SF show, those two words are telling very clearly it is a Science, and Fiction.
For me, Star Trek has all that, and Babylon 5 nothing of that.

I am an artist, and I know how hard it is to make something that does not exist, not just to make, even to imagine something that our eyes did not see, so in the same way it is not enough for me to have a show that has everything we have today, even less and to put it in the space.
In Star Trek we always have so many inventions that have base in the reality somehow, yes it is not possible now to have a replicator, but it is plausible maybe in the future. That idea counts.

Science Fiction for me is all about author's ability to give us his version of how the future can be, not to give us today's stories, and problems just placed in space, and to put in the beginning a date, that is just funny.

After all, watching a Star Trek for it's sets, acting, politics, and continuity is the same as watching a porno movie for it's plot.
Message is important, how can we end up in the future, then all those imaginations of authors about worlds, and things that we do not know, and will never know.
Science Fiction is just one small solution for people who want to know more, and in the same time they know that they will live to short to find out really.

[C Of K]

B-5 is quite a bit younger than Star Trek, but if your going to compare them objectively for entertainment purposes, the years they were made really shouldn't matter much. One will look better than the other. If you're going to compare older shows to each other, and take each at face value, then B-5 being frome the 90s, and ST TNG being from the 80s and ST TOS being from the 60s is pretty irrelevant. B-5 is over 18 years old now, which is quite old. At the time it was new, there wasn't a lot of complaint over how it looked. It's natural that the further back in time you go to look for entertainment, the less impressive the visuals will be, and that was my point. The older Star Trek shows don't look that great either, but if you accept them for their merits, it shouldn't much matter how they look.

Originally Posted by alfaholic

Yes, politics looks the same everywhere and anywhere, but I do not want politics, overrated religion, to much alcohol, murders, conflicts that we can see everywhere today, I do not want them in SF show, those two words are telling very clearly it is a Science, and Fiction.
For me, Star Trek has all that, and Babylon 5 nothing of that.

It sounds to me as though comparing the two shows for you is like comparing apples and oranges. B-5 can be considered SF, but not on the same terms that Star Trek is SF. It seems as though you went into this expecting B-5 to be more like Star Trek, but that was never the point of B-5. It's a Political Fiction show every bit as much as it is a SF show. It wasn't a show about showing new technology like Star Trek is. Star Trek is about exploration, which is all about displaying new worlds, and new cultures, which would include new tech.

The most important part of B-5 is not the technology, but the characters and the different paths they take that bring them together and tear them apart. It wasn't an episodic look at what new tech can do to change random futuristic civilizations.

[JunkMonkey]

Science Fiction for me is all about author's ability to give us his version of how the future can be, not to give us today's stories, and problems just placed in space, and to put in the beginning a date, that is just funny.

I think that's where many of us differ. I think SF is at its best when it acts as a mirror to the times. Taking the world as it is and creating metaphors to better examine the 'real world'. When SF is just wish-fulfilling dreamscapes for us to wander around in, I find it far less interesting. Much of ST falls into the latter category. Not that I'm against ALL wish-fulfilling dreamscapes but ST just didn't push my buttons.

[alfaholic]

Here we have a saying: Only fools argue over whether it is right to say Irak, or Iran.
I must agree with you, and at the same time I did not change my opinion.
Aren't our differences actually the best way to learn more about each other, and about our self.