Babylon 5... reboot?

[Staffan]

How did replacing actors change the show? While needing to replace Michael O'Hare was a big deal, I'm not sure that any other replacements "changed the timeline" much, as it were.

There was Sinclair / Sheridan, Lyta / Talia (?) - the telepaths, G'Kar's assistant. Any others?

There were a few replacements between the pilot and the main series. Dr Kyle was replaced by Dr Franklin and Lyta Alexander by Talia Winters (which coincidentally meant that the only two people who had actually seen a Vorlon were out). In addition, the XO Laurel Takashima was replaced by Susan Ivanova. These things required some rejiggering of various plot points and roles.

Spoiler

I think Takashima was originally supposed to have the Sleeper agent role that ended up being Talia Winters' job. And because Alexander was out, they couldn't explain the resident telepath gaining more power via Vorlon contact, and instead used the Ironheart plot from Mind War.

 

[Umbran]

I really did not think "genocide is bad" would be a controversial point.

Umbran looks at the continent of Africa, at the plight of gorillas and chimpanzees. He looks at Southeast Asia, and the situation of orangutans.

Maybe your or my thoughts on the matter are not what we'd call universal? Maybe, most of the time, the plight of lesser creatures really isn't one of our first thoughts? Why, then, should it be a first thought of other people with comprehension of the workings of the Universe as far beyond ours as our comprehension is from that of chimpanzees?

There is also a "people who live in glass houses should not throw stones" element to this.

But that doesn't mean we have to just shrug and say, "Eh, that's how it goes, let's not bicker and argue about who exterminated who."

Not a single one of us has said that, and that is not the only logical conclusion from what has been said. So... take away the strawman, please, as it is not useful here.

 

[Dausuul]

Umbran looks at the continent of Africa, at the plight of gorillas and chimpanzees. He looks at Southeast Asia, and the situation of orangutans.

Maybe your or my thoughts on the matter are not what we'd call universal? Maybe, most of the time, the plight of lesser creatures really isn't one of our first thoughts? Why, then, should it be a first thought of other people with comprehension of the workings of the Universe as far beyond ours as our comprehension is from that of chimpanzees?

I don't understand your position here.

It sure doesn't seem as if you think what we are doing to gorillas and chimpanzees and orangutans is okay. If we can say it's bad for us to do it to other species, why must we shy away from saying it's bad for Vorlons to do it to us? Shouldn't the argument go the other way: It's bad for the Vorlons to do it to us and therefore it's bad for us to do it to gorillas?

There is also a "people who live in glass houses should not throw stones" element to this.

To say that the Vorlons are flipping the script on us--showing us what we do to other species and how terrible it is--does not preclude saying that the Vorlons are bad. Quite the contrary! It relies on saying that the Vorlons are bad. That is the first step in an argument which then proceeds to "You see that Vorlons are bad. Now look in the mirror--we are the Vorlons and we need to change."

At this point, one can argue whether the analogy holds or not, and to what extent. But if you can't say the Vorlons are bad in the first place... well, then, what difference does it make if we see them in the mirror?

 

[Umbran]

It sure doesn't seem as if you think what we are doing to gorillas and chimpanzees and orangutans is okay.

What I personally think isn't the issue. Rather like what the original Kosh might have thought isn't the issue.

The empirical evidence is that humans, as a whole, don't have a big problem with the situation.

 

[nevin]

Bad for the survival of those younger species around them? Sure. But, if we are given the existence of creatures like the Vorlons, we should also take as a possibility that there's perspectives of morality rather beyond our own, too.



Not necessarily. The younger races could have been "animals with potential" to them.

Technically, their struggle was really over programs of development. The Vorlons and the Shadows were farmers. We were the livestock...

No the Vorlons offered knowledge and education but left the choice up to thise they dealt with. The shadows took control of civilizations and modified them with no choice. So the analogy is mostly sound if you consider the Vorlons being in charge of the nature reserve.

 

[Staffan]

No the Vorlons offered knowledge and education but left the choice up to thise they dealt with. The shadows took control of civilizations and modified them with no choice. So the analogy is mostly sound if you consider the Vorlons being in charge of the nature reserve.

Did they? There's absolutely no indication that the Vorlons offered anyone any choice about telepathy, or whatever manipulation was used to make people see them as angelic beings. And while Kosh was a big softie, Kosh2 (I can't recall if the name Ulkesh is ever on screen or if it's apocryphal) seemed pretty clear about expecting obedience, not cooperation.

 

[MarkB]

No the Vorlons offered knowledge and education but left the choice up to thise they dealt with. The shadows took control of civilizations and modified them with no choice. So the analogy is mostly sound if you consider the Vorlons being in charge of the nature reserve.

They weren't in charge. The Vorlons and the Shadows were the equivalent of two groups of scientists running competing behavioural research projects, and then accusing each other (rightly) of contaminating the control group, before escalating to trying to sabotage each others' work by destroying their subjects. All with little or no consideration of those subjects' wellbeing.

 

[Ryujin]

No the Vorlons offered knowledge and education but left the choice up to thise they dealt with. The shadows took control of civilizations and modified them with no choice. So the analogy is mostly sound if you consider the Vorlons being in charge of the nature reserve.

The Shadows made Faustian bargains with individuals, in order to foster the chaos that they felt made for stronger species. The Vorlons manipulated via religious iconography, at least in the way that they appeared to the lesser races. That wasn't really a choice. Neither side coould really be seen as letting the lesser races make informed decisions. I tend to think of the Vorlons being "more good", overall, simply because their end goals fostered order and promoted group harmony. Then again there's a reason why I generally play Lawful Neutral characters in D&D.

 

[Umbran]

, Kosh2 (I can't recall if the name Ulkesh is ever on screen or if it's apocryphal)

I'm in a middle of a rewatch, and Sheriden specifically asks nuKosh what they should be called. Their reply was, "We are all Kosh."

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The Shadows made Faustian bargains with individuals, in order to foster the chaos that they felt made for stronger species. The Vorlons manipulated via religious iconography, at least in the way that they appeared to the lesser races. That wasn't really a choice. Neither side coould really be seen as letting the lesser races make informed decisions. I tend to think of the Vorlons being "more good", overall, simply because their end goals fostered order and promoted group harmony. Then again there's a reason why I generally play Lawful Neutral characters in D&D.

Shadows! Frag me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of the Vorlons, Ryujin, at least it's an ethos.