Crusade

[WizarDru]

BAB5 was a great show, but there is no way in my book to earn the right to say (in almost as many words) "If you don't like what I've done, its because you aren't smart/mature/peceptive enough to understand it."

Well, since I was watching rastB5 during most of it's run, I saw a lot of the "insightful" commentary he put up with while doing the rest of us a favor by being available. JMS may have strong opinions, but I've never interpeted that as being arrogant. In point of fact, he's spent a large amount of time being the opposite. What often occurs though, is that someone will broach something as fact, and then JMS will shoot them down.

A classic example was an actor who guested in a B5 episode in 5th season. Several people loudly commented on what a terrible makeup job the show had done on the character, who was a veteran of the Earth-Minbari war, and bore a scar across his face and deformed part of it. JMS then unsubtly pointed out that they hadn't put ANY makeup on his face, that he was a vietnam veteran who had been wounded during the war, and you could see him in several other movies with the same scars.

JMS doesn't respond to poorly-voiced and rude criticism well, it's true. But he's reacted in much better temper when someone does come at him with a desire to start a fight, IME.

 

[Mallus]

JMS does what he does very well. But what he does is not Star Trek. I wouldn't ask an orange-grower to grow apples for me. I wouldn't ask a sculptor to do a painting for me. I wouldn't ask JMS to do Star Trek for me.

But I don't see Babylon 5 being that far removed from Star Trek, not from classic Trek at any rate. Both have big, bold characters who don't shy away from melodrama or speech-making, both feature mixing it up with false Gods, alien races that are just stand-ins for historical Earth cultures. Both are often as subtle as a hammer to the reproductive bits. Both embrace a kind of humanism {and human triumphalism} that later Treks try to deny. Both can be pro-military yet anti-authority at the same time.

Its a pipe dream, sure, and even if it weren't I don't think JMS would make a good team player. But you don't think JMS writing the Klingons and Rolumans would be interesting {and faithful to the spirit of TOS}? And wouldn't it be swell if JMS worked on a show where someone else wrote the bulk of the mundane dialogue, and God help him, the attempts at humor?

I always thought of Babylon 5 as a kind of refuge for Trekkies that didn't like the direction the franchise went during/after TNG. The fans of good old-school SF.

 

[Kesh]

But I don't see Babylon 5 being that far removed from Star Trek, not from classic Trek at any rate. Both have big, bold characters who don't shy away from melodrama or speech-making, both feature mixing it up with false Gods, alien races that are just stand-ins for historical Earth cultures. Both are often as subtle as a hammer to the reproductive bits. Both embrace a kind of humanism {and human triumphalism} that later Treks try to deny. Both can be pro-military yet anti-authority at the same time.

It's not the theme, so much as the style of story-telling.

Star Trek has always been fast & loose on the storytelling. Enterprise seems to have an overall arc to it, but judging by the new direction it just took (and the creator's commentary), that arc can change on a whim. ST shows have always been more free-form with their stories.

On the other hand, Babylon 5 was written very, very specifically. It was made for 5 seasons, no more. The timeline was plotted out for a thousand years in the past and future by JMS. In short, the entire series was one long story, with a few flexible spots in the first and last seasons for unrelated episodes.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

On the other hand, Babylon 5 was written very, very specifically. It was made for 5 seasons, no more. The timeline was plotted out for a thousand years in the past and future by JMS. In short, the entire series was one long story, with a few flexible spots in the first and last seasons for unrelated episodes.

At the risk of igniting Ye Olde B5 Flame War, there were unavoidable changes made to the story due to actor issues, and the rush to tie things up in 4th season if neccassary. Now the church of joe can huff and puff as it wishes, but that will not make it so that the sinclair/sheridan switch, the dead space at the begining of season 5 or ivonnava's replacement with the Worst Character Ever were all part of the orriginal plan.

Also, I'm not so sure that the Big Plan method of series TV is so hot all the time. While we may mock a series that is the slave of market research, I find it just as annoying when a writer says "this is the sympathetic character, damn it" and keeps trying to shove him or her down our throats rather than adapting to how the audeince reacts to them.

As a ST for instance, I have heard it said that the ferengi were orriginally planned as the Big Bad Guys of next gen. Yeah, that comic relief was planned to be the new klingons. But when the reactions to them were so non serious, the ST people wisely realized that a mistake had been made, and rather than desperately sticking to their plan (Lets have an episode where a lot of characters say they're afraid of the ferengi so the audience will know how to feel about them!) They went back to the drawing board and the series had an actually scarey main enemy.

Now we can say JMS is sowonderful that he'd never make a mistake like that to begin with, but I think that the willingness to adapt characters and even 'arcs' makes a better story overall, as long as you avoid either extreme of rigidity or multiple personality characters.

Kahuna Burger

 

[Kesh]

At the risk of igniting Ye Olde B5 Flame War, there were unavoidable changes made to the story due to actor issues, and the rush to tie things up in 4th season if neccassary. Now the church of joe can huff and puff as it wishes, but that will not make it so that the sinclair/sheridan switch, the dead space at the begining of season 5 or ivonnava's replacement with the Worst Character Ever were all part of the orriginal plan.

Down, kitty!

I never said anything like that. Yes, things happen, actors leave, budgets are cut, renewals might not happen... my point was simply that there was a plan for the whole show. There had to be the occasional reshuffle to fit reality, but overall, the story arc remained intact.

Whereas most shows don't stick to that level of plot. It's more of an overall idea, which can be changed easily since the stories themselves are only loosely related.

I'm not saying the ST method is bad. I just prefer the B5 style of "epic" storytelling.

That being said, I'd love to catch up with DS9 sometime. I missed the last three or so seasons, just when the plot apparently took off in the direction I wanted.

 

[Villano]

B5 VS Star Trek

The best example I've heard concerning the differences between the writing of B5 and Trek came from Peter David. David is primarily a comic book writer, although he's written a few scripts and several novels, including a few Trek books.

I remember an article he wrote in his column Comic Buyer's Guide about his experience writing for B5. When he submitted his first script, he was told to rewrite it because it was "too Star Trek". He had no idea what that meant, but he tried a rewrite. Again, he was told the same thing.

Finally, it dawned on him. By the end of his script nothing had changed. The characters were the same as they were in the beginning and all the problems were resolved by the end.

I think that this really sums up Trek well. With few exceptions, each episode is self-contained and things established in one episode don't necessarily have any effect on any future ones.

Of course, DS9 maintained its own continuity very well (even though I felt the Dominion was nowhere near as interesting as the Cardassians). However, Next Gen and Voyager (never saw Enterprise) rarely did anything that built upon their own pasts.

And while they may have not taken pains to establish continuity, at least they didn't rewrite it each week like other shows (cough * Xena * cough).

 

[S'mon]

But I don't see Babylon 5 being that far removed from Star Trek, not from classic Trek at any rate. Both have big, bold characters who don't shy away from melodrama or speech-making, both feature mixing it up with false Gods, alien races that are just stand-ins for historical Earth cultures. Both are often as subtle as a hammer to the reproductive bits. Both embrace a kind of humanism {and human triumphalism} that later Treks try to deny. Both can be pro-military yet anti-authority at the same time.

That's an excellent point - B5 was written in the spirit of classic '50s-'60s sf and consequently shares a lot with TOS Trek. Of course Paramount ripped JMS' original B5 proposal off and called it 'Deep space 9'.

It's very noticeable that modern 'Trek seems to be almost the opposite of this - subdued characters, little melodrama, new-age mysticism rather than TOS' scientific humanism, anti-military but pro-authority - no one ever questions 'the system', which is held to be unquestionably all-good, all-perfect. I read a nice critique of modern (DS9 & VOY) Trek which commented that it comes across as if it were 24th century Federation propaganda rather than an objective presentation of a universe.

 

[Mallus]

It's very noticeable that modern 'Trek seems to be almost the opposite of this - subdued characters, little melodrama, new-age mysticism rather than TOS' scientific humanism, anti-military but pro-authority - no one ever questions 'the system', which is held to be unquestionably all-good, all-perfect. I read a nice critique of modern (DS9 & VOY) Trek which commented that it comes across as if it were 24th century Federation propaganda rather than an objective presentation of a universe.

I hadn't thought of the corollary; Trek being authoritarian yet anti-military. That works perfectly. By the time of Voyager it really seemed as if all conflicts between an individual and "Starfleet Protocol" was resolved in favor of the protocols. What a bland and propagandist way to treat material that should to be dramatic.

One gets the feeling that the Starfllet of Voyager's era had an official news publication called Pravda...

I disagree that DS9 often fell into that trap. I hold the two big offenders were TNG and VOY. DS9 did attempt question the infallibility of the Federation's ethics/actions; clumsily {though entertainingly} with Section 31. Better with the Maquis. Perhaps best in the actions of Benjammin Sisko.

This all gets back my thesis; which I should have stated explicitly. What JSM does well constitutes the fundemantals of drama {even if his execution frequently falters}. And what has become the trademark of later Trek; the blandness, the bland multiculturalism that serves to homogenize every alien race while at the time subtely trumpting human superiority, its lack of real ethical connumdrums {because they can't show the Federation position to ultimately be wrong}, constitutes the opposite of drama. And it shows...

 

[RangerWickett]

P.S., never try to joke with JMS through email by pretending to be a good friend of his just so he'll read your email. He'll get pissed off at you, threaten you with legal action, and then four months later sign a comic book cover saying "Apology accepted."

 

[S'mon]

I hadn't thought of the corollary; Trek being authoritarian yet anti-military. That works perfectly. By the time of Voyager it really seemed as if all conflicts between an individual and "Starfleet Protocol" was resolved in favor of the protocols. What a bland and propagandist way to treat material that should to be dramatic.

One gets the feeling that the Starfllet of Voyager's era had an official news publication called Pravda...

I disagree that DS9 often fell into that trap. I hold the two big offenders were TNG and VOY. DS9 did attempt question the infallibility of the Federation's ethics/actions; clumsily {though entertainingly} with Section 31. Better with the Maquis. Perhaps best in the actions of Benjammin Sisko.

Hi Mallus - you're right about the X-Files-inspired Section 31; I haven't seen enough of DS9 to see if the episodes genuinely question the Federation power structure, but I doubt it - in Trek elections & even the concept of democracy seem to be as dead as capitalism, moreso really in that capitalism survives on the fringes of Federation society, as in the USSR, and we occasionally see merchant types like Quark operating in Federation territory, while I don't think democracy has ever even been mentioned since TOS.

From what I've seen of the Maquis, they've always been presented as noble-but-misguided. There to demonstrate that The Federation Knows Best.

Villains within Starfleet in current Trek have ceased to be nincompoop admirals, now it's gung-ho field officers who are presented as the bad guys, as in a Voyager episode where they meet another Starfleet ship with a 'rogue' leader - Captain Ransom, I think his name was (although I keep thinking Captain Carnage!)

I don't think Voyager's Starfleet would publish an organ called 'Truth' - I get the impression they don't publish _anything_, and the existence of a newspaper called 'Truth' would imply there could be such a thing as 'Lies'. Starfleet-Federation seem careful never to enter into any kind of self-justificatory debate that could cause doubt in people's minds. Rather they must simply be accepted as the Only Possible Way. The system aims to make dissent literally inconceivable. I expect that dissenters are not argued with, or punished. They are, rather, _treated_ - as the mentally ill ought to be, for their own good...