Well. Looks like the Star Trek name is in front of Enterprise in the main title now. As it should be. Im glad they decided to add it.
Now, if they could do an intremental version of the theme and use the lyrical one for the end credits, that would be great.
Posted by CaptainMike20X6 (Member # 709) on :
caps, please
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
He's right, the opening credits now read:
- STAR TREK - ENTERPRISE
I absolutley abhor that version of the theme song. The one they started with was better. But of course, Rod Stewart's original was slightly better than either.
-MMoM Posted by Kazeite (Member # 970) on :
One could ask what was the point of removing "Star Trek" from the title in the first place... Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
It's terribly ungainly. "Enterprise" is nicely evocative. "Star Trek: Enterprise" just feels redundant.
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
I still don't think it's Trek... which brings me to:
I've suddenly realized why this show sucks so much... it's completely laced with that time travel paradox junk. Will happen, will it not, did it happen, did it not? These questions are almost impossible to answer. The Relativity is on such instance, so is the three-nacelled E-D... on and on... time travel episodes just cause great headaches--- but this entire series is based on one... which continues to get worse.
This is the reason it isn't trek. It won't affect the trek we know about. It's another universe separated by temporal interference from the future. Now, it would have been much more easier on the dedicated viewer if they thought about it a little more. I mean just think about it in a way that makes it connect to what we know:
Evil guys from future are messing with the past--- yet it all fits in what we know "could" have happened. Wars break out between all the players... Vulcans vs. Andorians, Humans vs. Suliban, Humans vs. Xindi, [I would prefer the Klingons be left alone]. All this connecting to the fact that the Romulans aren't being attacked by anyone, what does this mean? Only that the evil guys in the future are causing everyone to fight amongst themselves while the Romulans get to prepare for conquest--- of course this would indicate that the Romulans were a lot stronger and harder to beat than we original thought [but that doesn't seem to contridict much]. It would also bring together the separate species for a common purpose, defeat the Romulans [of course it's called the Earth-Romulan war, isn't it? Oh well... perhaps it's the Earth-Romulans war because everyone else didn't want to fight against the Romulans because they were too busy fighting with each other....]. In any case, makes much more sense if the "temporal cold war" was supposed to happen--- but the way it's going now just doesn't seem to fit in with what "will happen." Of course, I am copying from B5 with this idea of something the Federation [of course we've always assumed it was the Earth-Romulan war that helped to create the Federation]. It was the Earth-Mimbari War that lead to the creation of B5, which seemed to more or less be a form of the UN... and later after the Shadow War came the Interstellar Alliance, which seems to be more than the UN but not as close as the Federation because Alliance worlds kept their sovereignty[yeah Vulcan has it's own Ambassadors, and Spock seemed to think that reunification wasn't any of the Federation's business... but I always figured Federation worlds didn't have complete sovereignty].
I'm sorry, I'm ranting... I'm probably off topic... oh well... strong emotions, I think I'm venting from the fact that my computer is dying on me.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
By sticking "Star Trek:" in - to me shows they have accepted defeat.
Why didn't they just stop for a few years - like 5-10 after Voyager finished!?!
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Because loads of Trekkies - including a significant percentage of Flareites - said in effect "we don't care how bad it is so long as there's a new Star Trek series straight away." Because no matter how bad Voyager got, everyone still watched it. Because to effect an almost total hiatus in Trek production would put a lot of people out of work. Because no-one at Paramount/Viacom wants to be the one who killed the goose that lays the golden egg. Because. . . oh, just because!
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Enterprise sucks... but I don't think I prefer no trek to it. To be honest, I would prefer entertaining stories that fit into every preconception that we've every had about this period--- I feel that would go MUCH further than the current lines, especially if you cut the Suliban and Xindi in favor of a fully counted Romulan threat. Now on the continuity side, all you really have to deal with is BoT, and it's easy to work around and still have face to face encounters! HOW you ask?! Remans! I know, the bat faced idiots from Nemesis were a total let down in the movie because it was supposedly a Romulan movie when it wasn't... but Remans aren't Romulans and we can find out very quickly in the show that fact--- or it can be taken very slowly and we meet a Reman when we were all expecting a Romulan------ BUT noooooooooooo that's all shot to hell now with the Suliban and Xindi. I'm not saying that it won't happen, but sure seems to me that Earth is fighting three separate wars here within the near future:
1) Suliban; instigated by FutureGuy 2) Xindi; instigated by another FutureGuy 3) Romulan; instigated by ??? [we always assumed it was a colonial turf war]
For a planet without a defense net, a planet without enough ships to patrol it's system and prevent an alien vessel from even threatening Earth, a planet with so few ships that it has to be convinced to send an expedition into Xindi space--- these are a lot of wars. In war you lose ships, with the fact that the Suliban are much better equipped and the Xindi & Romulans seem to be better equipped too, it is going to be a miracle if Earth makes it through this. It's even more of a miracle that this period in time wasn't mentioned in full detail like so many others... Earth obviously made it through, and our characters from the 23rd and 24th centuries loved to talk about situations like these. Which brings back the theory that all this temporal war mess has totally screwed up the timeline, which means Enterprise has no effect on the future--- No Account Trek! That's even more frustrating.
Again, it just seems to me that if you simply wrote better you could do better even within a more limited plot frame--- who said the ship has to survive? who said the crew has to survive? And don't think that I'm saying everything has to play into the future--- simple & campy episodes are still welcome, in fact Enterprise has already had some of these that wouldn't have to be changed [I'd list them, but I haven't committed to memory the name and plot of each episode]. Cut the Klingons out of the pilot and make it an Andorian--- gives Archer another piece of ammo to use against the Vulcans when they try to stop him:
"They're in a war with these people, we have to help this man or get dragged into it."
"They're out for their own good, not ours."
Of course, don't ask me about writing the Suliban out of this one--- ah, perhaps use the Orion Syndicate instead [was it ever established that the Syndicate was alien run or human run?]? Spend five more minutes thinking about it, it's not just hindesight, what Enterprise has given us is a whole lot of stuff that won't count for the future... and while at first it was, it's now losing it's entertainment value compared to better written shows. If more thought had been point into this, the show would be much much much better than it is, three years in.
Oh well... I'm going to stop now, I'm rambling again.
Posted by Tora Regina (Member # 53) on :
I used to be like that, thinking a mediocre Trek is better than no Trek at all. Well, at first, because of circumstances beyond my control, I missed half of the first season of Enterprise, and then all of its reruns in the summer. And when the next season rolled around, I had no desire to return to it at all. And then I decided to stop watching TV altogether, since Trek was one of the last things I watched regularly. Now that I've gotten out of my dependence on weekly Star Trek, I see that a few years' hiatus would be the best way to go. From what I've seen and heard, Star Trek has lost its soul, and its creators could really use a rest in order to recreate the franchise. If descreasing viewership is what takes to do that, so be it.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Wow. That thread is over four years old, and, even then, Monty's appearance was a rarity. I didn't realize he'd been gone that long.
I also didn't realize we'd had so many people perma-banned. At least four who had posts in that thread.
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
Wow. A bunch of assholes derailed my thread to cry about how they dont like Enterprise because they are too busy being fattass virgin nerds and how the romulans are supposed to be fighting the federation and OH NOS B&B FUCK UP AGAIN, THINK ABOUT THE FANS!!!. I like enterprise, and if you dont, why the flying FUCK are you in this thread, or even sub-forum. Theres no fucking point. Expecially if all you've seen is part of season 1.
Posted by Charles Capps (Member # 9) on :
... you may have been unbanned from SA, but you won't find that much luck here. Watch the tongue, eh?
BTW, Tim - Ex-Member == deleted due to inactivity, not banned.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Ah, that makes more sense, then.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
And to go back to the point of the thread, I'm with Simon. Star Trek: Enterprise just sounds...wrong. It's too close to the often heard "Starship Enterprise". Everyone knows that the Enterprise is the main ship from Star Trek. This was about the first Enterprise, the Enterprise before Star Trek happened. Hence: Enterprise.
Or something like that.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
It all goes back to the 'retooling' idea. Don't fix what ain't broke. Enterprise season 1 and 2 were just fine. Do Berman, Braga and the Viacom suits think that more people are going to watch because of a few commandoes or an addition of 'Star Trek'.
It's not the casual viewers not watching - it's the fans too.
Stargate, (formerly Buffy) and Angel I get more excited about watching during the week - than Enterprise.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Ah, but one of the commandoes wears a sports bra. There's the clincher.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"Enterprise season 1 and 2 were just fine"
No, they weren't. Hence the retooling.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
They were - as per Voyager season 4 and DS9 season 3, Berman and the suits believe retooling saves the show. Just let it be.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Sure, they believe that. But ENT really did have problems (and continues to, because the aspects that are being retooled aren't the ones that should be retooled, but there you go).
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Yup. The show isn't awful, but it's a long way from perfect, and changing the theme tune and the name isn't going to affect the overall quality of the show one way or the other.
And meanwhile, the fans spend more time complaining that the writers forgot a single line said by someone on TNG over 10 years ago that has caused a Minor Continuity Violation, than they are with getting good stories. "Show us the Romulans! We don't care that we can't see their faces and that severely limits the drama we can get out of them! We want to see them! Oh no, you've shown them! Now I will complain about continuity! Was it a good episode? Who cares, they had a cloak. I'm complaining right now."
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Well we can have the Romulan wars without us SEEING it - having the Earth Romulan War happening while the NX is out exploring or busy or too far out while slower starships are dealing with the 'problem'. Then they finally reach home and find out there's been this big-arsed war.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:They were - as per Voyager season 4 and DS9 season 3, Berman and the suits believe retooling saves the show. Just let it be.
DS9 was retooled twice - adding the Defiant in season 3, and Worf in season 4.
And to be honest, I enjoyed both "retoolings." As a character, Worf fit in better on DS9 than he ever did in TNG -- truth be told, I never cared much for Worf when he was on TNG. When he was on DS9, he really grew and became enjoyable.
My biggest gripe with the Defiant was with episodes which took place almost entirely on that ship and neglected DS9 all together. The problem is that many of those episodes were very GOOD - "The Sound of Her Voice", "To the Death", "The Adversary" ...
Posted by CaptainMike20X6 (Member # 709) on :
the addition of the Defiant was a retooling, but the later addition of Worf and then the change in story structure to the war arcs just kind of struck me more as a natural evolution of the show.. basically, its not like they came in and cut the creators off at the balls, more like the creators found a better direction than the show had originally been heading in..
that being said of DS9, i think its a damn shame that ENT wasnt allowed to grow into what it was becoming, season 2 is when the show found me as a fan and all of the progress that was made was abrubtly cut off, in light of this hybrid space marine/post 9-11 vengeance show that it has been retooled into.
but you know what?.. its now better than Voyager ever was, thankfully.. and ENT s3, despite not being the s2 that i grew fond of, it still has me as a fan, which is what s1 wasnt able to do..
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike20X6: the later addition of Worf and then the change in story structure to the war arcs just kind of struck me more as a natural evolution of the show.. basically, its not like they came in and cut the creators off at the balls, more like the creators found a better direction than the show had originally been heading in..
Well, not really. Behr and co said themselves that the addition of Worf forced them to reevaluate season 4. They were planning doing the war with the Dominion much sooner, but had to change that to war with the Klingons in order to make Worf's introduction make a bit more sense.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Wait ... they were going to have three years of a war with the Dominion?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Well, no, they were going to have a six-month war, then the President of the Federation was going to fly in to DS9 on a runabaout and announce the war was over. You'd then have two and a half years of bungled rebuilding efforts on Cardassia Prime, hindered by rogue elements of the Jem'Hadar. 8)
Posted by Middy Seafort (Member # 951) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: Well, no, they were going to have a six-month war, then the President of the Federation was going to fly in to DS9 on a runabaout and announce the war was over. You'd then have two and a half years of bungled rebuilding efforts on Cardassia Prime, hindered by rogue elements of the Jem'Hadar. 8)
That would've been interesting. One thing that I dislike about television is the lack of aftermath.
Rebuilding would fit very nicely into the mythos of DS9. The parallel between Cardassia and Bajor could've been played up more. Sisko's role as a builder also could've been played up a bit.
M
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: Well we can have the Romulan wars without us SEEING it - having the Earth Romulan War happening while the NX is out exploring or busy or too far out while slower starships are dealing with the 'problem'. Then they finally reach home and find out there's been this big-arsed war.
You mean like Voyager?
Besides, considering that the NX-01 got recalled after the Xindi attack, that theory ain't worth much, IMO.
I just pray that if they DO bring in the Romulan War, they don't twist it into part of this damn Temporal Cold War.
quote:Originally posted by Middy Seafort: That would've been interesting. One thing that I dislike about television is the lack of aftermath.
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: I just pray that if they DO bring in the Romulan War, they don't twist it into part of this damn Temporal Cold War.
The TCW will probably be the reason FOR the Romulan War...I will curse the day that happens...
Khaaaaaaaaan!!
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Middy Seafort: That would've been interesting. One thing that I dislike about television is the lack of aftermath.
Because, as everyone knows, season 5 of Babylon 5 was the bestest ever.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
It did have a kickass final quintet from The Fall Of Centauri Prime to Sleeping In Light. And, uh, some Psi-Corps stuff. Closure!
Posted by CaptainMike20X6 (Member # 709) on :
quote:Originally posted by Middy Seafort: One thing that I dislike about television is the lack of aftermath.
because AfterM*A*S*H was a great show too...
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Well, B5S5 would have been much better with Ivanova. It wasn't the subject matter that was the problem for me, it was the fact that I didn't care about a single person on the command staff.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Ivonova was the best character ever for you?
Er, that one with the assassian was dull as hell. (Object at Rest?) And Sleeping In Light was season 4 produced, so it doesn't count.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
You guys are probably the same ones that are glad that Peter Jackson decided not to film the Scouring of the Shire for "Return of the King"...
The aftermath may not be the most exciting, but it's always important in its own way. So what if it doesn't give you the same adrenaline rush?
(Note: I wasn't exactly fond of all of B5 S5 myself, but that was mainly because Byron made me feel sick.)
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
Actually out of all the characters I think that Malcom was the best... but Ivonnava had her points. All of them did to be honest--- each one of them were much better written than any Trek character. The Lt. Coran [he was XO in S5, but 2nd for most of the rest of the series I think] compares to Harry Kim in certain ways, but Coran is much better. I think that Lochley was one of the worst written characters in B5, but that was because of the situation with C.C. leaving. However, even Lochley was better than many Trek characters [may we compare her to Janeway who is two-dimensional in comparison to Lochley?].
Anyway believe it or not, B5 isn't about the station it's the story of Londo, which is a great story line in and of itself... I realized this after watching it all the way through and then seeing the first episode again... it's Londo that says "I was there at the beginning of the third age of mankind" in "The Gathering". Londo was highly involved in the Earth-Mimbari war, despite not wanting to be [this is what he says at the beginning of "In The Beginning", however he was the one that prevented the peace summit from being completed (although he carries that guilt he didn't know better, it was G'Kar's fault too if it's Londo's)]. It was Londo that used the Shadow's against the Narn, which was the first step in the Shadow War. It was Londo who made it possible for Cartasia to invite the Shadow's to Centauri Prime, which would eventually lead to the Drakh making the Centauri their scapegoats. More than likely Londo would have been in some way involved with the attack on Earth which started Crusade [he was still alive then, the Drakh were still on Centauri Prime, and they were using Centauri Prime as a base... Londo would have had to been involved somehow, with his knowledge or not of the events that follow]. B5 is about Londo, his futile and pathetic attempt at trying to get ahead landed him at the bottom of the food chain, a worm on the hook of the Drakh's fishing pole.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Well, no. One of the story threads is about Londo. Another is about Sheridan. Another is about G'Kar. Another is about Garibaldi. And so forth.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Actually out of all the characters I think that Malcom was the best...
Well, you must not have liked him all that much, seeing as there was no such character to the best of my memory. Marcus, perhaps?
what are you referring to again?
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: You guys are probably the same ones that are glad that Peter Jackson decided not to film the Scouring of the Shire for "Return of the King"...
ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH! Spoilersssssss ((for the movie)) basssstard!!
Why didn't he do that!?! The Scouring of the Shire is one of the saddest - most moving parts of the book. *sniff*
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
How is it a spoiler to point out what is being cut from the movie? Also, how is it a spoiler if you've read the book?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"what are you referring to again?"
Marcus
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: Well, no. One of the story threads is about Londo. Another is about Sheridan. Another is about G'Kar. Another is about Garibaldi. And so forth.
Technically your right, each had their own... but when I think about the entire series and if I had to say it was about one character it's Londo. More time was spent on Centauri Prime than any other off station location. Londo was heavily involved with the start of the Shadow War, which itself created the Interstellar Alliance, but Londo was involved in that too. Almost everything affects Londo directly. Just give it a chance and watch it as if you were watching Londo's story, you'll see what I mean.
As for that Malcom/Marcus thing--- I blame Enterprise's destructive influence.
As for Corwin, I never paid much attention to him because I never really liked him.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
It's just sod's law, really - in Trek, when the role of Lt. Corwin started to grow in stature, they'd probably have just written him out for a few eps, then re-cast the role with a better actor. We always complain when they do that. But in B5, they stick with the guy, and well, he's not brilliant, is he?
And his staying in the crap green combat fatigues (and later the awful grey uniform shirt) even after becoming B5's XO really narked me, he should either have gotten a cool new Army of Light officer's uniform, or reverted to Earthforce uniform - as, really, all the B5 crew should have once Lockley took over running the station in s5.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Except the Earthforce uniforms were also pretty ugly.
In fact, season 5 was visually a mess. The main hero wore a suit (and not a sexy Bond-type suit, but a "I'm just popping down to the office" suit), the XO had one uniform, the Chief of Security and CMO had another uniform, and all the proles had another. Crazy messy madness.
I never got why Delenn just couldn't spring for a better "Non Important Character" uniform for the rest of the crew. Once Sheridan and Ivonova stopped wearing the Army Of Light uniform, the other two looked silly.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I don't know what relativistic effects you've been on but this thread isn't even a month old!!
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Yeah, they were ugly, but at least they were consistent. And don't get me started on either of the uniforms worn on Explorer-class ships (according to Crusade) or Victory-class save-the-world ships. . .
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: I don't know what relativistic effects you've been on but this thread isn't even a month old!!
What?
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
Andrew is talking about how incredibly off topic we are from this thread, and this forum... but you know what I say:
Whoopedy DO!!!!
Let it flow brother, we'll find someway for this to get back on topic sooner or later. Like B5S5 compared to the other seasons is even better than Enterprise compared to Voyager or Voyager compared to DS9, TNG, and TOS.
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
Humm... I just noticed that "Star Trek" in the opening title was underlined. Maybe it's for spite...
B&B: "This is Star Trek, You can't deny it! "
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
" "
You're Edgar Cayce when it comes to followups. I am rising from the sea, I am your Atlantis. My eyes are sore from their gyroscopic travels, little green roulette balls set in bloodshot spinning roulette tables.
Money's on black.
Always black.
" "
Doctor, I ask, I am so vehement and my headaches are oh so frequent. He tells me to stop doing what I am doing to cause what is happening. But, I say, I have nothing else. He looks at me and tells me that if what I have is causing me such bile and spittle, then I have nothing at all.
My fists have forgotten their epileptic tirades, my mouth is no longer parched from mouthing off to a matte black screen, pimpled with little silver sequins.
There's no twelve step program, but there's help for everyone.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam:
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: I don't know what relativistic effects you've been on but this thread isn't even a month old!!
What?
I think I replied to the wrong thread! LOL!
Posted by Middy Seafort (Member # 951) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam:
quote:Originally posted by Middy Seafort: That would've been interesting. One thing that I dislike about television is the lack of aftermath.
Because, as everyone knows, season 5 of Babylon 5 was the bestest ever.
It may not have been the best, but that might've been do to rushed execution. What was seen in Season 5 was not originally meant to go as long as it did, the entire plot of the telepath colony was extended in place of what would have been a longer conclusion to the Earth Alliance conflict.
Who knows how an the aftermath of the Dominion War might've been handled by the DS9 staff? I merely said it would be interesting to have seen. After all the series was about rebuilding-- the rebuilding of Bajor, the rebuilding of Sisko's life, etc.
What I mean by aftermath in television more has to do with the consquences of actions and the price paid. "Babylon 5" did that consistantly throughout it's five years, not just in "Wheel of Fire (season 5's title)." All conflicts, all actions have repercussions and that Enterprise doesn't deal with. At times, neither did TNG or Voyager.
As for "After: MASH" that was a blunder in television that should never have passed. It didn't really deal with what people truly go through after war, but rather tried to be a standard sit-com with the characters borrowed from MASH. It was a pale copy of a great comedy-drama.
I hope that Enterprise will eventually deal with the aftermath of the decisions made by Archer in the Expanse, but I won't hold my breath.
M.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote: Technically your right, each had their own... but when I think about the entire series and if I had to say it was about one character it's Londo. More time was spent on Centauri Prime than any other off station location. Londo was heavily involved with the start of the Shadow War, which itself created the Interstellar Alliance, but Londo was involved in that too. Almost everything affects Londo directly. Just give it a chance and watch it as if you were watching Londo's story, you'll see what I mean.
I think you'll find that much of this is because the entire Babylon 5 story is being told by Londo. Just watch the very beginning of "The Gathering".
Posted by Middy Seafort (Member # 951) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: I think you'll find that much of this is because the entire Babylon 5 story is being told by Londo. Just watch the very beginning of "The Gathering".
Actually, Londo's narration was but one source for the entire future history of the Babylon Project. According to Peter David's novelization of "In the Beginning," there were many books published after the Shadow War that dealt with the events of B5, including Londo's chronicles (as also seen in the "Legions of Fire" trilogy) and Sheridan's own autobiography, "No Surrender, No Retreat."
The ending of the series also acknowledges that we were watching a sort-of holo docudrama about the history of the Babylon Project as produced by ISN and funded by the Anla'shok Memorial Society.
A scene cut from SiL would've also shown a series of books that provided much of the historical research for "Babylon 5." It was cut in favor of "you've been watching an ISN documentary."
However, JMS on more than one occasion has said that Londo's story of rise and redemption was at the very heart of the Babylon 5 story; that from one point of view, B5 was about Londo Mollari and G'Kar.
Of course, the arguement could be made that it was also about John Sheridan, or Delenn, or Garabaldi... etc.
Then there is the arguement that it was originally intended to be the story of Jeffery Sinclair exclusively. That's a whole 'nother forum debate in itself.
We now return you to the "Star Trek: Enterprise" debate.
M.
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: I think you'll find that much of this is because the entire Babylon 5 story is being told by Londo. Just watch the very beginning of "The Gathering".
Yeah and "In The Beginning" was entirely narrated by Londo.
Londo, Londo, Londo... the character you couldn't stand in the beginning [pretty shark...], understood [which turned into hatred] in the middle, and pitied at the end [keeper].
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)