"Babylon 5"

[StarFuryG7]

This sucks --I grew to like O'Hare as Sinclair in "Babylon 5" by the end of the first season. Those of us that pay attention have known for a while that something was very wrong and that he wasn't doing well.

Condolences to friends, family, and fans of Mr. O'Hare.

Over at io9:

Goodbye to Michael O’Hare, Babylon 5’s Commander Sinclair

Article Link: io9.com/5947574/goodbye-to-michael-ohare-babylon-5s-commander-sinclair

[StarFuryG7]

Am I the ONLY "Babylon 5" fan here?

Shit.

[TrekBeatTK]

I never watched Babylon 5 when it first aired because at the time there was something of a DS9 vs B5 thing going on, and I was on the DS9 side. Plus the CG looked so obviously fake it bothered me. It's one of those series that I may catch up on at some point; I just don't want to be disappointed like I usually am with shows like this (BSG and Firefly for example).

-TK

[StarFuryG7]

Sept 30, 2012 19:02:22 GMT -5 TrekBeatTK said:

I never watched Babylon 5 when it first aired because at the time there was something of a DS9 vs B5 thing going on, and I was on the DS9 side. Plus the CG looked so obviously fake it bothered me. It's one of those series that I may catch up on at some point; I just don't want to be disappointed like I usually am with shows like this (BSG and Firefly for example). -TK

Hmmm I would be willing to bet you that if you started watching the show and gave it half a chance that not only would the special effects not bother you before long, but that you would actually grow to like and appreciate them. I would add that the quality of the special effects also improves by the second season. As with most shows, "Babylon 5" was finding its legs over the course of its first season. But by the time you get to "Severed Dreams" in season three, should you stick with it that far in, you would probably be quite impressed with the FX sequences and the quality of the work. It's also worth pointing out that they were pioneers back then, spearheading the art of CGI special effects for television when no one else was.

When I first started watching the show I realized that the special effects gave the show a comic book look and feel, which was rather fitting given that its creator was also a comic book writer by trade in part. It also helped to set it apart from the Trek shows that were airing in first-run at that same time back then, DS9 in particular.

As for the reason behind there being something of an ongoing feud between the fan bases of the two shows, there was a good reason for that. I'm just wondering if you know what it is.

[captainbasil]

Sept 30, 2012 14:50:54 GMT -5 StarFuryG7 said:

Am I the ONLY "Babylon 5" fan here?

Shit.

No you are not. Thanks so much for Posting this. I knew nothing about it. O'Hare was my favorite. I always thought the Sydnicator was responsible for replacing him with Boxleitner. Sheridan was okay but Sinclair was the best Commander.

[TrekBeatTK]

Sept 30, 2012 21:38:58 GMT -5 StarFuryG7 said:

Hmmm I would be willing to bet you that if you started watching the show and gave it half a chance that not only would the special effects not bother you before long, but that you would actually grow to like and appreciate them. I would add that the quality of the special effects also improves by the second season.

I'm sure the effects improve. It's just that back in the '90s it looked SOOOO fake to me and I didn't see the point of pioneering effects with tech that wasn't there yet. I was so used to having model shots that were believable and only occasional CG. Even Voyager's use of CG bugged me, though maybe because by that time the effects could have been better. Babylon 5 is like Tron; to me it will always look hokey, but you have to recognize it for it's formative place in what we later got in effects on television.

Sept 30, 2012 21:38:58 GMT -5 StarFuryG7 said:

As for the reason behind there being something of an ongoing feud between the fan bases of the two shows, there was a good reason for that. I'm just wondering if you know what it is.

I'm aware that the concept had been shopped to Paramount, who passed on it and that there have since been claims of plagiarism in the development of DS9. This sort of thing does happen in TV all the time, unfortunately (it's said by some that CBS went ahead with Lost in Space after rejecting Roddenberry's Star Trek pitch). How much of it is true in this case is hard to know. It's unclear if Berman or Piller knew about this or if it was just the Paramount suits. I think it's really the title that is most damning in some ways, but a number of the similarities are coincidental I think.

Even besides that, in the '90s it was part of the issue of Trek people vs. non-Trek people. I did suggest to some friends at the time who were into Babylon 5 that they might also enjoy DS9. They weren't really Trek viewers, but I told them DS9 would be more to their liking. This was back during the Dominion arc. I don't know if they ever did though.

Anyway, I have decided to give Babylon 5 a shot. So I should begin it in a week or so. I am debating whether or not to watch the "In the Beginning" movie first. I know you're on the side to wait and I know there are pros and cons. I probably will wait. Are we talking MAJOR spoilers that would ruin things (like watching The Plan before BSG), or more minor spoilers that ruin reveals a little but not majorly?

-TK

[captainbasil]

I think you will enjoy In The Beginning. As pilots go it's one of the best of any series I have seen. Be prepared for a few cast changes but nothing drastic. As far as the B5/DS9 feud, while I came down on the B5 side, dismissing all of DS9 would be wrong. DS9 had a great cast and some very good episodes. They are both good shows. That being said, I think Babylon 5 was the better of the two.

[StarFuryG7]

Oct 1, 2012 10:51:39 GMT -5 TrekBeatTK said:

I'm sure the effects improve. It's just that back in the '90s it looked SOOOO fake to me and I didn't see the point of pioneering effects with tech that wasn't there yet. I was so used to having model shots that were believable and only occasional CG.

Well, for one thing, that was the only way they could afford to do the show and produce FX for it. Also though, as compared to what else--TNG, which was basically standard animation called "special effects" for that show? The effects in TNG really bothered me at first, because they were so different compared to the optical photo-realistic effects in TOS, but I didn't let that in itself stop me from watching the show and giving it a chance. How were you able to look passed that deficiency on the part of TNG, especially given that the effects in B5 looked better by comparison?

To me, FX are window dressing. They can help to compliment the show, but the strength, or lack of it, lay really in the writing. Maybe it's because I come from a bit of an earlier era where we had to accept imperfect, more primitive FX work in shows and movies, especially if we were inclined to be sci-fi fans.

Oct 1, 2012 10:51:39 GMT -5 TrekBeatTK said:

Even Voyager's use of CG bugged me, though maybe because by that time the effects could have been better. Babylon 5 is like Tron; to me it will always look hokey

"TRON" was produced more than a decade before "Babylon 5" hit the television airwaves, and the FX in that movie were noticeably more primitive by comparison. I know, I just watched "TRON" for the first time in thirty years several months back on Blu-ray, and the FX work in B5 was notably more advanced by comparison.

Oct 1, 2012 10:51:39 GMT -5 TrekBeatTK said:

I'm aware that the concept had been shopped to Paramount, who passed on it and that there have since been claims of plagiarism in the development of DS9. This sort of thing does happen in TV all the time, unfortunately (it's said by some that CBS went ahead with Lost in Space after rejecting Roddenberry's Star Trek pitch). How much of it is true in this case is hard to know. It's unclear if Berman or Piller knew about this or if it was just the Paramount suits. I think it's really the title that is most damning in some ways, but a number of the similarities are coincidental I think.

There was also the fact that Paramount felt the need to rush their series to air almost two months before the "Babylon 5" pilot "The Gathering" could make its syndicated debut. They also had the resources to get their series on the air a full year before the "Babylon 5" producers could get its weekly series production in gear and moving along with their studio, WB, by comparison. This also made it appear that Paramount was trying to cement the notion in the minds of viewers that since their show was on the air first that they somehow came first, which wasn't exactly the truth. Straczynski simply didn't have the infrastructure in place that the Trek producers did with Paramount, given that they already had a series on the air (TNG), and were producing feature films for the big screen every two-to-three years. So from the very beginning it appeared that Paramount was trying to edge any potential competition out of the market, and that they had a particular axe to grind with the B5 people. And as the years of the two shows being produced went on, there were other seemingly dirty tricks that the Trek people would pull, such as stealing Robert Foxworth out from under the B5 team when he was already scheduled to appear as a guest star in an episode of their series. Paramount offered him more money for a two-part stint instead and he took it, and they even snatched the best and most qualified B5 CGI FX artists mid-series, hiring them to do the work on "Voyager". So it wasn't just that Paramount seemed to steal the premise for their Space Station-centric show from Straczynski's original pitch and treatment to them for his series, but that they had also embarked on an ongoing campaign of trying to spite him and his production team whenever possible, which also resulted in a growing resentment on the part of devoted fans such as myself who paid attention to the ongoing developments of both shows, and we just didn't like it. The more things like that happened, the more it annoyed us or downright pissed us off, which isn't to say that Straczynski is a saint, because he isn't. But he wasn't in any position to play dirty, whereas they were, and certainly seemed to whenever it suited them.

Oct 1, 2012 10:51:39 GMT -5 TrekBeatTK said:

Even besides that, in the '90s it was part of the issue of Trek people vs. non-Trek people. I did suggest to some friends at the time who were into Babylon 5 that they might also enjoy DS9. They weren't really Trek viewers, but I told them DS9 would be more to their liking. This was back during the Dominion arc. I don't know if they ever did though..

Yeah, that's another thing --the DS9 producers appeared to be stealing aspects of their Shadow War arc with the Dominion, and the darker things got in B5, the darker they seemed to also get in DS9, coincidentally, :::Ahem::: of course.

Oct 1, 2012 10:51:39 GMT -5 TrekBeatTK said:

Anyway, I have decided to give Babylon 5 a shot. So I should begin it in a week or so. I am debating whether or not to watch the "In the Beginning" movie first. I know you're on the side to wait and I know there are pros and cons. I probably will wait. Are we talking MAJOR spoilers that would ruin things (like watching The Plan before BSG), or more minor spoilers that ruin reveals a little but not majorly?

Well, there are major Spoilers with respect to characters. When you watch "And the Sky Full of Stars," which is also one of the better first-season episodes, it focuses directly on a specific question about Sinclair and what happened with him at the Battle of the Line. That is also an ongoing plot thread which runs through the first season in fact, so if you watch "In the Beginning" at the outset, that question gets answered in the movie, so it's no longer something to wonder about as you make your way through the entire first season of the show. On that basis alone I would recommend you avoid it, but there are other things as well. For example, we find out things about Sheridan's background through dialogue once he steps into the picture that play out directly in "In the Beginning", so once again you learn something important about him and why he's viewed the way he is, especially by the Minbari, rather than learning about it a little at a time, more gradually. Even with respect to the Vorlon character, Kosh, there is a blatant visual foreshadow with respect to him that's subtly thrown into the movie. The problem with "In the Beginning" in essence is that it was intended specifically for the uninitiated at the request of TNT, and yet the way Straczynski wrote it, it gives too much away to the uninitiated immediately, whereas longstanding fans of the show that had been with it for the previous four seasons had to wait for those things to pay off the way he originally intended. There are also some incongruities in "In the Beginning" that don't sit well with me, but I really can't elaborate about those until after you see it, but you should pick up on them yourself. Certain things happen between certain characters that there's really no precedent for; they get thrust into action together when there's really no reason to believe they actually knew each other previously.

And by the way, if you do choose to watch "The Gathering", just be forewarned that it's a rough pilot, and that certain things in it get changed once it's gone to the episodic series. Delenn, for example, doesn't look or come off at all the way she does in the show, and she is perhaps the biggest eyesore of that pilot. It's worth looking at if for no other reason as to see where and how things begin, but I wouldn't prejudge the series on the basis of it.

[captainbasil]

Actually, I messed up. The pilot show is The Gathering which is really the movie you should watch prior to the series.

[StarFuryG7]

I just watched the first hour of "The Gathering" late last night just to see if my feelings toward it have changed at all after all these years, and had to turn it off because it got too late. I'll likely finish watching it tonight. TNT really did give it a good sprucing up though, all things considered, and it had all but completely slipped my mind that John Fleck (Silik in "Enterprise", most notably) is a key villain in it.

As pilots go, I think "In the Beginning" makes a good post-pilot feature, but that one should be wary of viewing it in advance of the series for all the reasons I stated the other day if you're a new viewer who is only now considering exposing yourself to the show.

[TrekBeatTK]

Yeah, I'll save "In the Beginning" for later. just waiting on season one and The Gathering to arrive at the library and I will start watching.

-TK

[StarFuryG7]

Oct 3, 2012 18:14:16 GMT -5 TrekBeatTK said:

Yeah, I'll save "In the Beginning" for later. just waiting on season one and The Gathering to arrive at the library and I will start watching.-TK

Ah, I was wondering how you intended to view them given that CRAM told me they're not available on Netflix anymore. I just hope that for your sake the discs you get are in decent shape. I used to request movies from the Public Library too years back, and I sometimes found myself getting very annoyed when trying to watch some of them.

Have you put in a request for "The Gathering" also? I would assume so given that you were contemplating watching "In the Beginning," and they're together as part of the same DVD release.

[TrekBeatTK]

Yes, it can be a pain when discs are all scratched and skippy. That's why I still don't know what happened to Wash in "Serenity".

but a few different libraries have them, so if one is really bad, I can try another one.

-TK

[StarFuryG7]

Oct 3, 2012 19:52:09 GMT -5 TrekBeatTK said:

Yes, it can be a pain when discs are all scratched and skippy. That's why I still don't know what happened to Wash in "Serenity".
but a few different libraries have them, so if one is really bad, I can try another one. -TK

I watched "In the Beginning" late Thursday night --too late in fact, and then I looked at "And the Sky Full of Stars" late last night, so I guess you could say that you've inspired me somewhat to revisit this series.

My discs are pristine, and yet I had several instances when watching "And the Sky Full of Stars" last night where there would be a static white flicker that would appear somewhere in the picture. The episode was watchable, but it has me wondering what I'd see in other episodes, since I've never looked them since buying this show on DVD ten years ago. I've only looked at a couple of the episodes since getting them: "Severed Dreams" and "In the Shadow of Z'Ha'dum" probably, along with one or two others perhaps, but that's it. It's a shame they can't put this show on Blu-ray --the transfers would not only be better, but I probably wouldn't have to worry about seeing disc transfer imperfections along the lines of what I just described.

These discs were also supposed to be Widescreen, and they would be on an older standard definition TV and Player, but my system removes the black bars at the top and bottom of the screen, so it's Full screen, and there's nothing I can do about it apparently.

[TrekBeatTK]

Oct 6, 2012 18:23:29 GMT -5 StarFuryG7 said:

I watched "In the Beginning" late Thursday night --too late in fact, and then I looked at "And the Sky Full of Stars" late last night, so I guess you could say that you've inspired me somewhat to revisit this series.

My discs are pristine, and yet I had several instances when watching "And the Sky Full of Stars" last night where there would be a static white flicker that would appear somewhere in the picture. The episode was watchable, but it has me wondering what I'd see in other episodes, since I've never looked them since buying this show on DVD ten years ago. I've only looked at a couple of the episodes since getting them: "Severed Dreams" and "In the Shadow of Z'Ha'dum" probably, along with one or two others perhaps, but that's it. It's a shame they can't put this show on Blu-ray --the transfers would not only be better, but I probably wouldn't have to worry about seeing disc transfer imperfections along the lines of what I just described.

These discs were also supposed to be Widescreen, and they would be on an older standard definition TV and Player, but my system removes the black bars at the top and bottom of the screen, so it's Full screen, and there's nothing I can do about it apparently.

There's no way to change the settings? That seems odd.

As to the static issue, is this the same thing that occurred with your TMP disc? I tend to get similar static when watching stuff on the VCR hooked up to my TV, but I attributed that to the VCR being old. But the content is brand new on brand new tapes. So maybe it's something to do with the hookup and these TVs are just finicky.

Anyway, I'm about to start episode 4. "The Gathering" was something of a slow mess. A lot of exposition, but laid out in such a manner that it became hard to follow or retain its importance. Sinclair's having fought in the Earth-Minbari War was explained better in the first episode than here, though I like the mystery of the missing 24 hours. A shame that it took almost 90 minutes to even get there. I think the Vorlon suits are cool, reminding me a bit of the Daleks. But the CG was ATROCIOUS. Like a bad video game. Even for 1993, its lack of sophistication put in on the level of VeggieTales. I think part of that is due to the lighting and the speed of movement. It was jarring. Like unfinished pre-vis. Though this is mostly for the exteriors. I thought the morphing effect was fine, and the mattes in locales like the zen garden look fine. And while I still find it annoying, the CG did definitely improve even from "The Gathering" to the start of season 1. Ultimately I think CG is sold better when there is something real in the frame, so that may be part of why the CG ship shots bug me more. Some of them haven't looked too bad. I do feel like some of these shots are unnecessary, or go on too long and that a "less is more" approach in some cases might have sold me more on the tech.

I do miss some of the cast from "The Gathering", but the season opened with better exposition on a lot of things. Ivanova's little speech about the psi corps was a better character-based exposition than anything we got in the prior movie.

I kinda prefer Delenn's makeup in the movie over the series, but that's okay. And it was about halfway through the movie when I suddenly realized that was the french chick from Lost.

The show's okay. Not wonderful, but I expect it improves.

-TK

[StarFuryG7]

Oct 6, 2012 19:09:01 GMT -5 TrekBeatTK said:

There's no way to change the settings? That seems odd.

Nope, no way. I literally made it my mission to try and change it on Friday, and about all I can do is use one of the four settings on my HDTV: Normal, Zoom, Wide, or Cinema, to try and adjust it, and anything but Normal gives a full screen magnified picture, and there's nothing I can change with respect to the settings on the Blu-ray Player itself, so I went to the Internet to try and figure out just what was going on, and it turned out to be exactly what I suspected once I saw that there was no way to change the picture to my satisfaction: my system is literally too sophisticated for its own (and my own) good. These B5 DVD Sets state that they are presented in a "Matted" Widescreen format, which is a cheaper method than a true Widescreen disc. Basically, the picture is artificially compressed so as to present a Letterbox image, but the new Players and TVs eliminate the bars at the top and bottom of the image because the monitor's image is 16x9, and the equipment determines on its own that there's no reason for you to lose any part of the picture as things stand via a full screen image, so it eliminates the bars. It's damn annoying, but it's another reason for one to wish these shows and movies could be transferred to Blu-ray more properly.

Oct 6, 2012 19:09:01 GMT -5 TrekBeatTK said:

As to the static issue, is this the same thing that occurred with your TMP disc? I tend to get similar static when watching stuff on the VCR hooked up to my TV, but I attributed that to the VCR being old. But the content is brand new on brand new tapes. So maybe it's something to do with the hookup and these TVs are just finicky.

I've already wondered about that but have pretty much ruled it out. I've watched plenty of discs on this system without that problem, which gives me reason to believe that the problem is actually the discs themselves.

You have a very good memory when it comes to minutiae. I'd bet CRAM forgot all about my problem with the TMP Director's Cut, but you actually remembered about that. However, I discovered that problem with my old setup I believe, and if *I'm* remembering correctly here, that DVD looked even worse on my new system, which was why I had to replace that movie for my own personal satisfaction, and I'm glad I did, because the remastered Blu-ray release of the theatrical cut looked fantastic in HD.

Oct 6, 2012 19:09:01 GMT -5 TrekBeatTK said:

Anyway, I'm about to start episode 4. "The Gathering" was something of a slow mess. A lot of exposition, but laid out in such a manner that it became hard to follow or retain its importance. Sinclair's having fought in the Earth-Minbari War was explained better in the first episode than here, though I like the mystery of the missing 24 hours.

Well, if you had watched "In the Beginning" first, that mystery wouldn't be any mystery at all, which is why I told you to avoid it.

Oct 6, 2012 19:09:01 GMT -5 TrekBeatTK said:

A shame that it took almost 90 minutes to even get there.

Well, that's Joe for ya, although I must say that the pilot holds up better in later repeat viewings, after one has already looked at much of the episodic series. What seems like disconnected, and disjointed, irregular, choppy writing actually holds together better than one would be inclined to think after a first viewing and with no prior exposure to the episodic series itself. It's actually all very consistent with the series itself, only you don't know that after having seen it for the first time because it seems to tug you in different directions rather than focusing on what is supposed to be the central story of framing Sinclair for attempted murder. Instead there are scenes which seem to be distractions, such as those between Londo and Garibaldi, but as you see later in the show, the two characters do have a connection and are friends of a sort even though they're very different people with very different backgrounds. Nevertheless, in "The Gathering" it seems a bit out of place and may well come across to an uninitiated viewer as meandering, and therefore probably unnecessary. But once you start watching the series, it actually fits, nor does it actually pull one too far away from the main concern regarding what happens in the pilot regarding Sinclair.

Oct 6, 2012 19:09:01 GMT -5 TrekBeatTK said:

I think the Vorlon suits are cool, reminding me a bit of the Daleks. But the CG was ATROCIOUS.

Hmmm...if you think it's that bad, then you should see it on an HD screen is all I can say. A serious mistake was made by the people in charge early on which would come back to bite them all later on, and all--the fans especially--would suffer as a result. Ron Thornton, who was in charge of the FX back then, went on to explain years later just how badly they screwed up and what they could have done instead which would have averted how things turned out, which incidentally, is also why the show can't be transferred to Blu-ray, so it was a HUGE screw-up on the part of the production team, and one which turns out to be rather unforgivable. I for one can't forgive it, and I'm just a fan--a viewer. It makes me wonder how JMS feels about it. It must make him furious, but I doubt he's ever come right out and been openly critical about it because it would mean having to criticize his colleagues who helped him produce the show, and I'd be surprised to see him do it. If he has, I've never seen it. (Incidentally, if you want to read up on how they screwed up, let me know and I'll find a few links for you where it's described.)

At any rate, that said, I don't agree with your assessment of the CG work nevertheless, because at the time this show was being produced for standard def TV's, which I take it is what you're watching the episodes on, and a lot of the imperfections I just referenced come into play mostly with respect to HD televisions. Also, remember, we're talking about FX scenes that were produced twenty years ago. If it's as bad as you claim, then what would you actually compare it to from that period using that same method for producing FX which was supposedly better? What else was there? Do you know what the computing power was like back then compared to today? The first Pentium PC, which was the first major leap from the standard 486 computer that people were using up to that point hadn't even been released until A MONTH AFTER "The Gathering" first aired on television. That means they didn't even have that processing power to work with when they produced the effects for that pilot. So for those reasons and more, I simply can't agree with your assessment of the effects. I admit that they took a little getting used to even for me at first back then, but you have a visceral reaction to those scenes which I don't share that borders on, well, hatred by the sound of you. But if they were as awful as you claim, then again I would ask what you would compare it to from that era which was so superior in contrast? I'll grant you that TNG had lost certainly improved by that stage of the game (as it was nearing the end of its television run), and we had DS9, which relied on model FX work, but even then what we were looking at with respect to TNG was a glorified form of animation, which still meant we were basically looking at a cartoon.

Oct 6, 2012 19:09:01 GMT -5 TrekBeatTK said:

Like a bad video game. Even for 1993, its lack of sophistication put in on the level of VeggieTales.

I'm not familiar with VeggieTales, but I was gaming back then, and if anything what would probably be a more apt comparison is "Wing Commander III: Heart of the Tiger", and while I thought the graphics for that game were pretty incredible back then, I'd bet they wouldn't strike me as looking anywhere near as good if I were to go back and have a look at them today because of the major advances in 3D graphics that have taken place since then. It almost makes me wonder just what it is you're seeing when you pop one of these discs into your DVD Player, because whatever that is, I'm not seeing the same thing. And it has nothing to do with my own personal fondness of the show. Maybe our eyes are really that different, or ...something.

Okay, I just pulled up a clip from VeggieTales on YouTube just to get a look at it for myself ...you really think that's a fair comparison?

I'm sticking with "Wing Commander III", and if anything the effects in B5 were still even better than that back then.

In fact, I just went over to YouTube to have a look at the FX sequences in WC III, and there's simply no question that the FX in B5 were much, much better by comparison, without question.

Wing Commander III Opening Video - YouTube[/b]


Bear in mind that that's the resolution we were looking at back then when the game was first released. I watched and played it on my first Pentium computer, but they have also released this on YouTube in HD as a Full Movie, which runs an hour and fifty-four minutes, and the game-play sequences are different than the FX used for the movie portions, and in some ways I liked the game-play FX more. (I watched the movie in its entirety late last night when I got to this point in this post by the way, and decided to leave writing the rest of it until today.)

Here's the Full Movie Link if you want to watch it:[/color]

Wing Commander 3 (FULL MOVIE) 1994[/color][/b]

Oct 6, 2012 19:09:01 GMT -5 TrekBeatTK said:

I think part of that is due to the lighting and the speed of movement. It was jarring. Like unfinished pre-vis. Though this is mostly for the exteriors. I thought the morphing effect was fine, and the mattes in locales like the zen garden look fine. And while I still find it annoying, the CG did definitely improve even from "The Gathering" to the start of season 1. Ultimately I think CG is sold better when there is something real in the frame, so that may be part of why the CG ship shots bug me more. Some of them haven't looked too bad. I do feel like some of these shots are unnecessary, or go on too long and that a "less is more" approach in some cases might have sold me more on the tech.

Hmmm...well, see how you feel further in as you get deeper into the series. I not only accepted the FX sequences before long (actually, rather quickly if I'm not mistaken), I actually grew to appreciate the artistry involved in their composition. So see if you have any change of heart or mind on the matter by the time you're watching season 2.

Oct 6, 2012 19:09:01 GMT -5 TrekBeatTK said:

I do miss some of the cast from "The Gathering", but the season opened with better exposition on a lot of things. Ivanova's little speech about the psi corps was a better character-based exposition than anything we got in the prior movie.

I did advise you not to prejudge the series on the basis of the pilot.

Oct 6, 2012 19:09:01 GMT -5 TrekBeatTK said:

I kinda prefer Delenn's makeup in the movie over the series, but that's okay. And it was about halfway through the movie when I suddenly realized that was the french chick from Lost.

Yes, that's her, although I'm surprised you like the way she appeared in "The Gathering". Straczynski obviously wanted her to have a more androgynous appearance there, but thought better of it. It simply wouldn't have worked had he kept her that way moving forward, and you'll come to see why if you stick with the show that far into it. I think it was clear that Joe was shooting for a look right out of Ursula Le Guin's "The Left Hand of Darkness" in the pilot though, and he also wanted her to have an electronic voice, which would have also sucked, so I'm glad he decided not to go with either.

Oct 6, 2012 19:09:01 GMT -5 TrekBeatTK said:

The show's okay. Not wonderful, but I expect it improves. -TK

It does --as I told you, they were finding the show's legs in season one.

Have you seen "Soul Hunter" with Morgan Sheppard yet? I thought that was a pretty cool episode, even if the budget constraint limited them to a rather cheesy looking prop during the climax.

[TrekBeatTK]

Yeah Soul Hunter wasn't bad.

To be clearer on the FX end, I do think some of the other effects work. I don't mind the CG floating cameras or things like that. I think some of the gun effects are awful, but that varies.

And as much as I still think the exterior shots feel obviously fake to me and always did, I do appreciate that there is a level of sophistication for them at the time. My highest praise thinking back to the state of the art then is that things don't look like polygons; at least rounded edges look round.

I did read a bit about the FX issues with the DVDs on wikipedia and maybe something when I popped over to the IMDb boards.

It's hard to find something to compare effects like this to in 1993. TNG had shied away from using CG so there's not much comparison. The crystalline entity comes to mind, and did look CG, but at least it was meant to be mostly angles and things playing into the strengths of CGI at the time. When was "Galaxy's Child", 1992? And for the record, even though I do like models and miniatures, I'll also add that some of TNG's effects were hokey too, particularly the "weapon" in "Arsenal of Freedom" which I never liked.

I'm just learning to ignore it as I watch. Like having to ignore all the zooming and shaky camera of BSG. But in both cases these were elements that stood in the way of my watching them in their first runs.

-TK

[StarFuryG7]

Oct 7, 2012 14:44:54 GMT -5 TrekBeatTK said:

I did read a bit about the FX issues with the DVDs on wikipedia and maybe something when I popped over to the IMDb boards.

Yeah, that's not a bad source reference, because it encapsulates the problem rather succinctly, including by providing a direct quote from Ron Thornton which makes clear exactly what their mistake at that time was:

The widescreen conversion thing was executive short sightedness at it's finest!!! We offered to do ALL of Babylon 5 in widescreen mode if Warner Bros would buy us a reference monitor so we could check our output. (only $5000 at the time) Ken Parkes (the "Business affairs" guy) and Netter (penny wise, but pound foolish) said no! So we did everything so it could be CROPPED to be widescreen! Each blamed the other by the way. Doug Netter said, "Ken Parkes said no". Ken Parkes said, "Doug Netter said no". SHEESH!!! So for $75 an episode they could have had AWESOME near Hi-Def.
— Ron Thornton, 2008[104]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon_5

Now, I'm sorry, but that is simply unforgivable, and the fact that they were thinking of the era specifically in which they were producing those effects for and the kinds of TVs that were in peoples' homes does not excuse their stupid shortsightedness on the matter as far as I'm concerned. And frankly, I'd be perfectly fine with the CGI effects of the show, even as products of their era, had they been wise enough to spend the five thousand bucks necessary so as to ensure they could have been transferred to high definition discs once the time came. Thornton tried to make them understand that at the time, but they didn't want to spring for the five grand, so this is the outcome.

Idiots.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about the FX work in the show though, because I grew to like those sequences in the series; they looked especially cool in "Severed Dreams", as well as other high profile episodes where major events and a lot of special effects work was called for.

[StarFuryG7]

I figured I'd put this one up too, since I posted the previous Movie-Game Video the other day in this thread. However, this movie is broken into two parts, rather than the complete two hours at one link.

Wing Commander 4 (FULL MOVIE PART 1 OF 2)


Wing Commander 4 (FULL MOVIE PART 2 OF 2)


Notice the significant jump ahead in special effects from the last entry in the movie portion, which is quite evident in the opening scene.

Also, be advised if you're interested in checking this one out that it's more cinematically-oriented, with less in the way of setups for game-player missions compared to the last movie-game, so a lot of that nonsense is cut down significantly in this one by comparison, especially in Part 2.

I watched this one through to see how they were going to handle the climax. Having played the game from start-to-finished when WC IV was first released, I recalled that the final mission was broken into three or four ongoing parts before you could complete all your objectives. It was pretty darn cool, but that has been pretty much totally excised from this movie edit, so the vast majority of it is focused principally on acting and plot. It's worth a look if for nothing more than the pure hell of it, although story flaws have to be overlooked on the basis that it was also designed to be a gaming experience more than a movie experience. Nevertheless, you get to see Mark Hamill in a lead role, with prominent veterans like Malcolm McDowell, who also has a prominent role here, as well as John Rhys-Davies (who I recall actually being a part of the final mission that a gamer would have to undertake, which is totally absent from this film-edit).

Anyway, try to have fun with it and give it a look. It's a shame they couldn't edit these in such a way so as to include battle sequences which included Hamill and the other actors so they could air this on cable. Lord knows it can't be considered worse than the kinds of movies the SyFy Channel wastes money to produce for Saturday nights on their station. There are also scenes where you can tell they chose to print their first cut rather than doing another take, which is a little annoying, but don't let it bother you. Just accept it for what it is if you decide to watch it, then post your thoughts here if you do. I'd be curious to know what you think.

[TrekBeatTK]

Oh, right! Was Wing Commander one of the Phillips CD-i games? This is one of those I'd been meaning to check out at some point (though likely not for awhile yet--no time).

Kinda wanna see Dragon's Lair too, as a fan of Don Bluth's animation.

-TK

[StarFuryG7]

Oct 9, 2012 20:49:22 GMT -5 TrekBeatTK said:

Oh, right! Was Wing Commander one of the Phillips CD-i games?
-TK

Phillips? No, it was put out by Origin, but you should go to Part 1 on YouTube and check out the opening segment anyway even if you don't intend on watching the whole thing right now. It'll give you an idea of what to expect.

The second one is about a schism within the Confederation, so it's a conflict among humans rather than an alien race as with the previous Movie-Game.

[StarFuryG7]

TK,

I'm just curious, but how much farther into B5 did you get?

And did you ever give the opening scene of Wing Commander IV a look?

[TrekBeatTK]

I have about 5 episodes left of the first season, and no I haven't checked out Wing Commander.

-TK

[StarFuryG7]

Oct 20, 2012 20:49:47 GMT -5 TrekBeatTK said:

I have about 5 episodes left of the first season, and no I haven't checked out Wing Commander.-TK

How did you feel about "Mind War"?

And did you regret having sat through "TKO"?

Let me also know when you've finished watching "Chrysalis".

[StarFuryG7]

This is an interesting look back, and one I never encountered until now . . .

It also makes a good peek for the uninitiated.


SciFi Channel SciFi Buzz Babylon 5 Sneak Peek

[captainbasil]

Nov 1, 2012 18:37:27 GMT -5 StarFuryG7 said:

This is an interesting look back, and one I never encountered until now . . .

It also makes a good peek for the uninitiated.


SciFi Channel SciFi Buzz Babylon 5 Sneak Peek

Thanks for this post. I have been watching B5 since it's start and I never saw this piece before either.

[StarFuryG7]

Nov 3, 2012 11:30:19 GMT -5 captainbasil said:

Thanks for this post. I have been watching B5 since it's start and I never saw this piece before either.

All of that footage is from "The Gathering" too I believe, which means that aired prior to their airing the pilot film for the series, which dates it back to twenty years ago

And even after all that time, CRAM has never given this show a single look.

Incredible.

[TrekBeatTK]

Okay, so I've finished season one some time ago and haven't gotten around to posting yet. On the whole, things are improving from "The Gathering". I preferred the Asian commander over Ivanova, but maybe she'll grow on me. So far, the show feels like a somewhat hokey but watchable series. It doesn't make me frequently annoyed/angry like BSG or even Firefly did, so that's a plus. I still definitely prefer DS9 (though I note some similarities between the two). B5 so far is on par with Voyager for me; not always great, but mostly watchable and can be very good.

The Trek comparisons are obvious in places. Much as we can discuss B5 vs DS9, the whole premise seems to me very similar to "Journey to Babel" and there are other times where I feel a kind of TOS influence. Oddly though, the Trek it comes closest to is Enterprise, and I could totally understand fans claiming ENT stole stuff from B5. Its world is no more or less believable to me than Trek on the whole. There was one episode that seemed similar to DS9's Circle trilogy (especially when Delenn was branded on the head!) at first, but ultimately was more like ENT's "Home". And the branding thing I preferred on DS9 because it FELT like branding; on B5 the scene played to me like a rubber stamp.

The effects are getting better, though still annoying at times (less so when you watch a bunch of them at once). For me, the ship shots work best when they are not directly in front of the camera; the farther away, the better it sells. color and speed of movement are also a factor. If they had just a few practical model shots for the up close bits, they could have really sold me on it better. Some episodes play fine. The battle scenes in "And the Sky Full of Stars" work overall, and I think they are helped by the blurring effect used. Regarding other effects: I still hate the gunshot effect. And sometimes the alien stuff works, and others it doesn't. There was that one with the tentacle monster that was one color when it was a practical puppet and then a totally different color when a CG creation. Things like that always bother me. (Again, I have complaints about Trek CG use too, particularly on Voyager. ...of course it's probably the same guy doing the effects...)

I like Sinclair on the whole, though sometimes the show tries to be too ecumenical for its own good. Star Trek, particularly TOS but even DS9, definitely had Roddenberry's secular humanist utopian elements but they didn't feel forced to me. Sometimes B5 feels like it is going out of its way to be ecumenical and liberal and just seemed silly. If that makes sense. I like having Earth involved, but I hate that we don't have any real sense of WHERE B5 is. It took almost the whole season before they went to the planet they orbit. How far are they from Earth, or the other alien worlds? I like Garibaldi and Londo and the others. I think sometimes, especially early on, they resorted to shlocky humor with G'Kar too often. Like, an episode would end with some goofy gag about him and Londo. Their relationship works, and can be funny, but sometimes they went too far for a joke for my taste. This improved over the course of the season.

As a Lost in Space fan, it's nice to see Bill Mumy again. And even though they never shared a scene, fun to have June Lockhart join him for one episode.

One thing I find remarkably silly is the backstory for why the station is Babylon 5. The 4 previous ones just blew up or disappeared, but they kept building them? I know it was meant to be meaningful, but the first time Sinclair told that story, all I could think about was Swamp Castle from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. "Other kings said it was daft to build a castle in a swamp, but I built it all the same. ...It sank into the swamp. So I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. I built a third one that burnt down, fell over and then sank into the swamp, but the fourth one stayed up!" That's Babylon 5 to me, and I snicker whenever I think about it.

And now some random thoughts on some standout episodes:
Midnight on the Firing Line I liked it a lot, but felt like it just stopped abruptly. I was hoping the story would pick up next week, but it didn't. I never felt like the issue was ever really resolved, though it was referenced a few times later.
The Parliament of Dreams the ending I kind of expected, with Sinclair bringing out representatives from every Earth religion/philosophy. Funny though how the first guy introduced is the atheist.
Mind War was a decent episode. I liked Walter Koenig. But I'm no fan of Talia, and the Psi-Corps stuff doesn't particularly interest me. Though I do like it, and I forget what episode this is, when reference is made to the cast changes from the pilot movie and it's made a kind of plot point. That sort of retcon continuity makes me happy.
And the Sky Full of Stars The running thread with Sinclair at the Line worked for me, and it bothers me that O'Hare was replaced in season 2 since I wanted this explored more. Perhaps it will be, but it won't be the same.
Believers Yes, on the one hand it's the easiest story to tell on a show like this. Every sci-fi show does the "medical ethics" thing at some point. But it was effective for what it was. The one angle I liked was that the Doctor in this case wasn't a man of atheistic science; he had his own faith, he just still thought their faith was superstitious and silly. That's something Trek could almost never do without straying from Gene's secular humanist society (the only religion given any credibility on Trek -- bar a couple TOS references -- is Native American stuff on Voyager). I did think the end had a few twists too many though. And the subplot was boring and unnecessary.
Signs and Portents This episode was such a mess. It's supposed to set up all kinds of stuff, but there's no real through-line and it's a lot of scattered ideas that won't pay off until later. It felt a lot like some early X-Files episodes where a lot of stuff seemed to happen, but in the end we didn't feel any closer to anything. Those kinds of mythology episodes that would be referenced later and have a couple important ideas, but don't really feel like they work on their own. I fell asleep several times trying to watch this one (though that happened sporadically throughout the season).
TKO trite and silly, but not the worst thing in the world. Did feel kind of racist though. And I'm still not sure how to feel about Earth's many cultures represented on this series. It's odd to have that whole subplot about Ivanova sitting shiva. I suppose it's nice to see Jews in space ("zooming along protecting the Hebrew race....").
ChrysalisIt's very hard to comment so far as it's been mostly set-up. Again, it feels very much like an X-Files cliffhanger with a lot of import and exposition that hasn't quite gotten somewhere yet. More effective than "Signs and Portents" though, especially as it relates to Londo.

So that's some of my thoughts on Babylon 5 so far. We'll see how things progress as I head into season 2 this week. At present, it's a show I probably wouldn't have watched regularly when it aired (and I didn't), but isn't a chore to sit through.

-TK

[StarFuryG7]

Nov 5, 2012 22:13:37 GMT -5 TrekBeatTK said:

Okay, so I've finished season one some time ago and haven't gotten around to posting yet. On the whole, things are improving from "The Gathering".

Things will improve in season two, and while I'd like to respond to your message, I just can't find it within myself to do so at the moment. I'm still wiped because of how the election went, even though it turned out the way I had feared. I hoped like hell I would be wrong though.

[TrekBeatTK]

Nov 9, 2012 2:20:15 GMT -5 StarFuryG7 said:

I'm still wiped because of how the election went, even though it turned out the way I had feared. I hoped like hell I would be wrong though.

I hear you. I'm more disappointed by the Massachusetts senate race. Obama's re-election was always a possibility but I was shocked that Scott Brown wasn't re-elected. And it was very close.

Well, never thought I'd have cause to quote a Star Wars prequel but...
"So this is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause."

-TK