Babylon 5: Should I invest my money and time? ANSWER IN POST #500 (1 Viewer)

[david_hu]

O.K.
I followed the advice given and went back and watched the whole of season one.
I'm sorry to say I thought it was quite disappointing.
The acting, with a couple of exceptions, was awful.
The plotting I found rather simplistic and somewhat hamfisted at times. There were occassions when the whole thing bordered on pantomime.
The Believers, I think, is a good example of all of the above and indicative of alot of the season. The ending of the particular ep you could see coming a mile off writ large in neon lights and the histrionic performance by the doctor would have made Norma Desmond proud.
The old screenwriting maxim "show dont tell" goes completely out of the window when the shows creator mid season has to give his main characters huge speeches to tell the audience "what the hell they want. And of course they have no better reason to reveal them than to someone just strolling about and asking "what do you want". Their motivations should have been revealed through their actions throughout the season. It seemed that the show meandered so much that the creator forgot the story he was trying to tell and had to throw in huge slabs to get the show on track.
From what I can gather, the five year story probably would make a good season or so; but spread over five years it just doesn't seem to have legs. In season one there seemed three quarters filler and only few relevant eps to the overall story.
Little things maybe revealed in eps that have importance later, but there's no way i could sit through an ep of absolute drudge like the believers again if it contained some important point.
When I listened to the commentaries by the show's creator, I got the impression that he was somewhat full of himself.
All this is a pretty bad rap, but I will give season 2 ago and then decide whether to bail on the show or continue.
Out of 10, I'd give season one a generous 3.5/10.

 

[Kevin Grey]

Oscar, what did you think of Episode 9 "The Coming of Shadows?" That episode won the Hugo award and is one of the best of the series.

 

[Kevin Grey]

You might as well quit now.

 

[oscar_merkx]

Hi Kevin

I thought that was the best episode so far I have seen out of the 12 so far. Good to see my old friend again.

The episode with the doc and his father was excellent as it was all about communication.

Also it was great to see Londo and his three wives

Update later some more

 

[Kevin Grey]

Oscar, I don't know if you've seen this mentioned before but you *might* want to watch the episodes in the order listed on this web page:

http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/countr...er/eplist.html

I'll let the Luker's guide description explain it:



I watched it in the order recommended on that page and I thought it helped the overall pacing and structure of the episodes, as well as a few continuity issues. Not a big deal either way.

 

[oscar_merkx]

Hi Kevin

Thanks for that find and a great site to boot

Cheers

Oscar

 

[Kevin Grey]

Oh, you haven't encountered the Lurker's Guide yet? That site is an absolute gold mine. All kinds of great info, especially in the episode guides. The only thing I'd steer clear of is the speculation sections of the Ep Guides- while not technically spoilers, they do quite often accurately predict future developments.

 

[Simon Massey]

Are you referring to Morden asking each of the characters "What do you want ?"

 

[oscar_merkx]

I wasn't planning to look at the episode speculation guides

 

[TheLongshot]

Um, wow. Sorry, but Believers is great because it doesn't pull any punches and plays it in a realistic fashion. That's when I knew this wasn't going to be Trek, or any other SF TV series.

Sure, the acting in the first season is a little spotty, but that doesn't bug me too much. A bit episodic? Yes, but most of the episodes have aspects that will be explored deeper as the series goes on. You will find a lot of stuff comes up later, more than you might think.

Jason

 

[oscar_merkx]

I am watching episode 2.14 and the funniest scene so far is the doll of Londo

 

[Holadem]

Oscar, I would stay away from the Guide altogether. Their analysis section is often spot on and will spoil stuff for you.

David, I very much doubt that you will warm up to the show. If your reaction is that strongly negative at the end of S1, it's fair to say you will hate the rest as well. Quite a few clunky episodes, but the wonderfully realised universe of B5 should be making up for them by now.

At least you gave it a fair shot .

--
H

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

"So you feel like you've been symbolically cast-- in a bad light."

"That was very well put."

(From memory. The reply may be slight off. )

 

[DaveGTP]

Agreed. If that's how you feel about "Believers" and S1 in general, you should probably go back to one of those crap-getting-blown-up sci-fi shows, pronto. This isn't going to be your kind of show. I can just imagine your response to the end of the Shadow War.

At least you gave it a shot, better than most people.

P.S. No guarantee on the acting from expendable extra and secondary characters on B5, kinda the same rule applied to Buffy...

P.S. Morden is asking people what they want for a reason. Very funny response there.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

They were - and in their dialogue and in their posture and their costumes and the decor of their quarters. Londo laments the decline of the Centauri in the pilot. G'Kar swears revenge in the first episode - the same episode where Garibaldi barely succeeds in preventing Londo from killing G'Kar. Those are called actions. Neither JMS nor those of us who were paying attention to the story needed Morden and his question to remind us of the characters motives at that point in the story. (Because the needs, wants and desires of characters in B5 actually change over time.) Since we didn't need them some of us actually wondered what JMS might be up to with those questions instead of disimiss them as incompetence and saying, "stupid writer, stupid writer" to ourselves. At least we were prepared to consider the possibility that the guy writing the show knew more than we did.

By the way, I must have missed Delenn's "long speech" in reply to the question "What do you want?" Not to mention Kosh's. Funny about Kosh and his encounter suit. Wonder how it got damaged? Couldn't possibly be foreshadowing of anything, could it. Oh, no. Not in a show this badly written. And the themes of "Believers" couldn't raise questions the characters will have to face again. And of course the ending - the doctor's failure - was totally predictable. It was exactly the way that same story would have ended on Star Trek. Oh. Wait. The doctor would have saved the kid on any version of Star Trek. (Don't believe me? Ask David Gerrold. He wrote "The Trouble with Tribbles" for ST:TOS and did uncredited rewrites on several other episodes, came up with the "Away Team" concept and wrote the season one series bible for TNG. He also wrote "Believers" from a concept from JMS.)

Oscar - pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Keep watching and enjoy.

Regards,

Joe

 

[david_hu]

I know this Morden character becomes important later on, but the characters in it don't when he first appears. So when he casually waltzes up to ask them what they want, it is rather forced and unbelievable to just spew forth your deepest desires to someone who to your knowledge has no bearing on anything at that stage.
All I'm giving is my opinion of what I saw. I am not beholden to JMS. As I said, I thought he came across as somwhat full of himself in his commentaries and, for me, the claiming that he is somekind of story telling genius is ridiculous-for me. All the pearls of wisdom about storytelling that he goes on about can be read in any "Screenwriting for Dummies' book. I also don't see a great canon of work as a follow up to the show either.
The Believers was just pure rubbish for me. The same plot has been done adnauseum before and alot better. The whole thing was dealt with all the subtley of a sledge hammer and I just thought is was abysmal all around.
As I said I'll give S2 ago.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

Nobody is saying the JMS is a genius, just that he knows more about screenwriting than you do. Which obviously isn't setting the bar to high. Oh, he's written a book on screenwriting, but not for "dummies". The book is used as a text in a number of screenwriting courses around the country. Post B5 JMS wrote a several TV movies and started the series Crusade, which was killed by creative differences between JMS and the network. Like most television writer/producers he's had more series ideas and scripts dropped at some point in development than produced, but still has kept him busy. He's also done a lot of work in the field of comic books (he's a long-time fan) and currently scripts Marvel's flagship The Amazing Spiderma and Fantastic Four was well as doing or having done several original series. (His Rising Stars was bought for feature films by MGM.)

The level of attention you've paid to the show, and therefore the level of seriousness with which I'm willing to take your comments, is sufficiently summed up by the fact that you keep complaining about an episode called "The Believers" when the actual title (mentioned in several replies) is "Believers" and that you continue to cite it as an example of JMS's bad writing despite the fact (also pointed out to you in a reply) that he didn't write the thing. Respected SF novelist and screenwriter David Gerrold did.

Look, I'm not trying to convince you to like something you don't like. Matters of taste cannot be debated. I can't "persuade" you that vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate. If you want to say, "A lot of these episodes aren't the kind of thing I like" that's fine. But you keep asserting that your purely subjective reaction to certain elements of the show somehow constitutes objective proof that there's something wrong with it, and you keep presenting "evidence" to support your conclusions that simply isn't up to the job.


OK, name three instances. One of the interesting things about this "unispired" episode is that everybody was right, by their own lights. The parents were right given what they believed, the doctor was right given his worldview. The commander was most right of all, because riding roughshod over the parents' beliefs (which Shon shared, remember) would have been a violation of B5's charter. In most of the treatments of this theme I've seen, the parents' are presented as clearly wrong, their position indefensible, and the noble lawyers and doctors win the day. In the rare instance the parents might win, there is still no doubt who was right. "Believers" was a sledge hammer that was much more subtle than that - although I find that people who don't pay attention to the story the script is telling, but instead impose their own beliefs on the story - tend to hate it and find it shallow.

If you can't see any justification for the parents' point of view then you, unlike the writer, won't sympathize with them and the episode will seem pointless and boring because it takes too long to reach what you consider the "right" solution. Same if you are, say, a Christian Scientist and have a position closer to the alien parents' in terms of religion and medicine, you'll be similarly annoyed because it is clear that the doctor should butt out and that should be the end of it.

If there is only one "right" answer then everything between the teaser and the tag is filler. If you're willing to take the character's positions seriously then the debate is a real debate. Sometimes it is the journey, not the destination. That's another theme of Babylon 5, and it is not a show that appeals much to people for whom the only point of reading or watching something is to see who it turns out.

Regards,

Joe

 

[david_hu]

Essentially it's an ethics ep. Done a whole lot better? Picket Fences. Can't remember the eps name. Jill, the doctor, tries to treat a patient, but the main sibling (christian scientists or something) refuses all requests.
A great ep done with pathos and restraint.My reading of these eps are not based on my own beliefs. Simply the way they are presented as pieces of fiction.
I only single out Believers as indicative. To go through every ep would make the thread too long.
I thought Londo and G'Kar were good, though.
In the end I suppose it best not to criticize the show because one seems to get attacked by some B5 fans for making an opinion.

 

[Kevin Grey]

I just can't figure out why you're continuing. Season One definitely has a lot of weaknesses, almost all of which are addressed in later seasons. But it also has its strong points, none of which you've seemed to enjoy at all so I don't think you will find anything better for you in later seasons. "Signs and Portents," an episode you've been very critical about, is basically the template for future seasons.

 

[PhilipG]

David, you've got to watch B5 with a certain frame of mind. I call B5 "Comic Book TV", and it helps me get past the dialogue if I imagine it all in speech bubbles.

WRT JMS's writing, he has proved to me (at least with latter episodes of Jeremiah) that he *can* do very good plot and dialogue when he wants to. My humble opinion is that he was simply overstretched wrt B5, or was trying to be stylized - and probably both is true.


You seem to be taking this a bit personally, Joe Joseph. Neither of us could have any idea how brilliant or awful a screenriter David might be from his comments here. Stick to your intelligent reasoning my friend, such insults are beneath you.