posted
I agree Mara. I think Trek has deserved a break for quite some time. Heck, even postpoing a fourth series until later in DS9's run would most likely have helped.
posted
Yes B5 was utterly crappy enough to win the 1996 and 1997 Hugo for Best Dramatic Presentation.
Anyway...
quote:a) The most tired arguement: "It's Star Trek -- we should look forward, not back!"
I never bought this argument. I was really excited at the prequel prospect but was terribly disappointed by the lack of originality. Point B and C are right on the money, however. B&B gotta go. Did they do some good stuff in the past? Certainly. But they're just churning out pulp SF now. Time for someone with vision beyond the next paycheck to take over.
There are many fans out there who were interested in the Sulu/Excelsior project. A very insightful article regarding the campaign and dissention among Star Trek fans can be read here.
The author makes the point that there are two distinct audiences for Trek. The older viewers who favor the original series, movies, and most of TNG, and the younger, newer viewers who started watching within the last eight years or so. There is definitely a generation gap between Star Trek fans. Each camp wants something different and when they clash, caustic comments like the kind already in evidence in this thread are the result.
Unfortunately,if TPTB continue to alienate the original died-in-the-wool fans of Star Trek, I feel there is little hope for continuation of the series in any form.
IP: Logged
posted
I never said you DID bring that arguement. But it was pretty common in Enterprise-bashing, so there's a good bet it'd be pretty common in Excelsior-bashing.
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: No, people get PO'ed because Babylon 5 is utter and complete crap. The dialogue is stunted, the story ideas are unimagined (the writing in general is what you might expect of a fanboy written fan-fic, and possibly explains why so many enjoy the show despite its total lack of creativity), and the characters are about as exciting as watching a tree rot. Some of the sets are nice, and the special effects suck, but we won't hold that against them, except to the degree that the original "Star Trek" had great stories (for the most part), and crappy special effects, but the writing cancels out the special effects, and in the case of B5, they all blow.
You've got to be kidding. Your little close-minded rant is a prime example of why nobody takes deep Star Trek and Star Wars fans seriously. For some odd reason, these two shows tend to breed some sort of mutant fan where the only bar to measure TV science fiction is either ST or SW, both of which are suddenly taken as some sort of gospel where nothing can possibly go wrong.
It seriously makes no sense, people who actually read science fiction have no difficulty expressing appreciation for more than one SF author. You don't see Clarke fans complaining that Asimov books never feature monoliths, Asimov fans complaining that Dune doesn't have any robots, or etc. Yet an absurd number of ST/SW fans always make the same complaints when confronted with real SF, thats what all of your complaints ultimately boil down to.
Lets dissect your rationalisations shall we?
Stunted dialogue: No, B5 dialogue isn't perfect, but holding up ST as a example of the holy grail of dialogue is frankly, completely laughable. Even the actors make fun of the incomprehensible technobabble. We still get classic lines like..."Maybe one day, there should be some sort of rule, some sort of Prime Directive", "Get that cheese to the sickbay" or the entirety of Nemesis.
Unimagined storylines: Oh really. Lesse, Enterprise has: Hackneyed allegories, check. Derivative time travel, check. Evil Vulcans , check. Bad Ferengi episodes, check. Aliens of the week, check. Well, at least they haven't stooped to using the Borg. Oh wait. B5: Hey, wait....it actually has a storyline. People, places, and history actually change throughout the show! Imagine that!
Characters: Mayweather! Seriously. What about this latest ship-bound cast to you find so compelling that hasn't been covered in the last ...4. At least DS9 had an interesting range of characters. Unfortunately, the most interesting of them (Garak, Dukat, Weyoun, etc.) aren't even on the main cast.
Special effects: Even the producers of ST gave in and admitted their mistake of this one. They hired the same company that did B5's special effects to do DS9 effects sometime after the third season of B5. After slagging B5 for not using physical models and saying that ST would never do the same due to realism....well, we all know how that went. Show me the Akiraprise physical model, will you?
It seems to me, that ultimately the main reason so many ST fans dislike B5, is because it isn't Star Trek, not due to any qualitative, provable analysis. Short attention spans probably account for the rest of it.
Luckily, the rest of us can enjoy the rich (but slowly being cancelled) TV, that lies outside of ST/SW.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
I never claimed Trek to be "perfect." All to often, Star Trek falls into many traps itself. Also, I would hardly consider myself a "deep" Trek fan at all. You should attempt to figure out what the person you're replying to is interested in before you attack them.
Good writing? Off the top of my head ... "Sports Night", "Sopranos", "Band of Brothers", "Homicide: Life on the Street", "The Shield."
Babylon 5 is utter dreck. Your counter-attack (as flawed as it was, especially since you have not only misjudged my interest, but did not notice that I rarely compared Trek to B5) does nothing to change my opinion of the absolute lousy quality of EVERYTHING to do with that embarassing television show.
PS -- dude, I'm sorry you don't care for my opinion on B5. I'm embarassed for your sake for your counter-reply, in which all you did was attack Star Trek, in a way which seemed to me "hey, why do I gotta tuck in my shirt? See, Jimmy over there also has his shirt untucked!" In other words, instead of describing why you think B5 is a good show, you had to attack another to show "hey, B5 is at least as good as this crappy show."
And that's fine, if that's what you want to do.
quote:Luckily, the rest of us can enjoy the rich (but slowly being cancelled) TV, that lies outside of ST/SW
I don't know where this comes from. I assume this comes because you're acting rather ignorant at the moment.
quote:It seriously makes no sense, people who actually read science fiction have no difficulty expressing appreciation for more than one SF author.
I see. I should have said, "Well, I think Babylon 5 is shit in every way I judge a work of drama, but it's science-fiction, so instead of judging it subjectively, I'll just decide to classify it as good?"
Bullshit.
I don't give a flying fuck if you're offended by my opinion, but you telling people that they have to give "thumbs up" to television shows or books or whatever simply because they're science-fiction is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard (and I've read most of Omega's posts).
To educate you as to me:
I don't watch much Sci-Fi. I don't READ much sci-fi. The only Sci-Fi shows I care greatly for are Deep Space Nine and Highlander. When I watch TV (rarely, because I go to school and work 60+ hours a week), I usually do not watch science-fiction programs. When I read for recreation, I generally do not read science-fiction books.
I don't dislike B5 because it isn't Star Trek or Star Wars. I dislike B5 as a television show because it fails in every regard: writing, production, acting. If Timelordy had said "oh, why couldn't TNG have been more like Voyager" my response would have looked very fucking similar. He mentioned B5 and that pissed me off -- sorry, B5? Good? Yeah, and so is having your foot sawed off with a rusty spoon. Good stuff, they go together. Add Voyager and you're set to kill yourself with that rusty spoon.
So, now that your rant has been completely taken-the-fuck-apart, feel free to respond. And remember, when you assume, you make an ass out of you.
posted
Well, I have to apologise for one thing. Yes I did assume we were talking about science fiction. I submit that, that would be a reasonable assumption based on the fact that the thread is called "Star Trek be Saved" and that no one has even mentioned something outside of the genre other than an off-hand reference to "Showgirls"
I might even note that your own comparison for B5's stories AND special effects was from ST.
quote: Some of the sets are nice, and the special effects suck, but we won't hold that against them, except to the degree that the original "Star Trek" had great stories (for the most part), and crappy special effects, but the writing cancels out the special effects, and in the case of B5, they all blow
If your response is correct, you're as guilty of "Jimmy has his shirt untucked" as I am.
As for educating you on B5s strengths, well no. I'm not going to write multiple paragraphs on why I think its enjoyable. Thats not really my job. However, I have gone on the record in other threads on why I enjoy B5, Stargate SG-1, or other science fiction shows. Mostly owing to the nature of the BB, and its main focus. Quickly searching, I refer you to B5: A minor question
quote: ...telling people that they have to give "thumbs up" to television shows or books or whatever simply because they're science-fiction ...
When did I say that? If you're going to quote me, at least have the quote have something to do with what you're saying. You're right, I did compare ST with B5 (and so did you). Unfortunately, thats also ALL I did. If I had my way, yes there would be a lot more SF competition for ST, SW, and yes B5. In fact, the only science fiction I can watch recently is Stargate SG1 (or Futurama, if you can count that). Unfortunately, much of that has been cancelled (Farscape), sabotaged by ego (Andromeda) , or just outright pushed out of the market due to the cheaper production nature of many other genres. Thats what I was really refering to in my last line. However, even with the lack of competition, I would hardly say that B5 is "shit" for drama. As TimeLord pointed out, at least some portion of the TV community doesn't think so. You can see the link for some of my (and other, more eloquent posts) reasons. However, if you really wanted drama...why not watch...well, drama? B5 was mostly about the presentation of SF ideas (and certain historical ones) Thats like watching your cop shows for romantic comedies....possible, but not really the point.
However, this is mostly an aside. I don't know how you read my first two paragraphs, or how you misconstrued that I have to randomly rubber stamp science fiction "good", simply because its science fiction. Now you're just making an assumption that I'm making an assumption, making in your words...a "an ass out of you"? What I did say was that fans of ST and SW often have extreme tunnel vision, limiting their enjoyment of any other TV science fiction. Point out that you don't enjoy ST, and that you really enjoy DS9...thats just splitting hairs now.
As for giving offence. Don't worry about that, opinions are opinions. About the most offensive things in your posts are your excessive use of expletives.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
This thread is all meta, and that is cool, but, I skipped most of it so I could post this:
Star Trek miniseries? Has anyone watched a TV miniseries lately? The answer is no. HAW HAW!
But seriously, good TV miniseries? You are thirty years too late for that. We want leprechauns and the guy from Cheers in a poofy wig today. Maybe this is just a personal peeve of mine, but, come on, they are unrelentingly awful. A TV event! No. Painful. Their era has passed. You might as well pitch Star Trek: Vaudeville.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Starbuck "Replicate some marmalade, Commander - helm control is toast!"
Member # 153
posted
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: Star Trek miniseries? Has anyone watched a TV miniseries lately? The answer is no. HAW HAW!
But seriously, good TV miniseries? You are thirty years too late for that.
Ahem. Sci-Fi Channel's "Dune" miniseries, anyone? The UK vampire drama "Ultraviolet"? Those were most excellent miniseries, and I'm sure there are more.
As for B5... well, it had its good points and its bad ones. But at least it wasn't the same bland mush that some shows force-feed the viewer... and they had all kinds of shades of grey, characters who weren't squeaky-clean, and story arcs! Look at Voyager. The ship went back to Earth in factory-new condition, and aside from minor things (Paris/Torres baby, addition of Seven, the Delta Flyer)... what had changed since the first episode? Barely a thing, as far as I could see. A definite case of lost potential - you don't spend seven years in a duranium-hulled sardine tin without developing as a person, but I didn't care one whit more about these people at the close of "Endgame" than I did at the beginning of "Caretaker". They were just cardboard cutouts to me.
-------------------- "It was halfway to Rivendell when the drugs began to take effect." Hunter S. Tolkein, Fear and Loathing in Barad-Dur
Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:I might even note that your own comparison for B5's stories AND special effects was from ST.
I never said that I didn't compare Trek to B5, but it should be noted that I compared TOS, which had crappy special effects but generally good stories. B5 has crappy special effects combined with crappy stories. That makes for a loser in my eyes.
quote:If your response is correct, you're as guilty of "Jimmy has his shirt untucked" as I am.
I attacked B5 because I think if you hold it up as all thats good with television (sci-fi or otherwise) you're completely off your rocker. I usually bash B5 whenever I see it mentioned in a thread, and I think if you examined my posts on the subject, you'd see that very rarely is Trek involved in my response, or my reason in posting.
You, on the other hand, bashed Trek deliberately because of my bash of B5. So, no, I don't think its the same (I bash B5 because it sucks and I do so at every given opportunity).
quote:When did I say that? If you're going to quote me, at least have the quote have something to do with what you're saying. You're right, I did compare ST with B5 (and so did you). Unfortunately, thats also ALL I did.
No, what you did was more akin to "so what if B5 is unoriginal, so is Star Trek, so B5 is less unoriginal than Star Trek so there."
And what you said was:
quote:It seriously makes no sense, people who actually read science fiction have no difficulty expressing appreciation for more than one SF author. You don't see Clarke fans complaining that Asimov books never feature monoliths, Asimov fans complaining that Dune doesn't have any robots, or etc. Yet an absurd number of ST/SW fans always make the same complaints when confronted with real SF, thats what all of your complaints ultimately boil down to.
And to me, this reads alot like, "Snay you fool it's science-fiction, and if you like Trek, you probably like sci-fi, so you should like B5 by default, or at the very least you shouldn't bash science-fiction shows because 'people who actually read science fiction have no difficulty expressing appreciation for more than one SF author.'" The problem, of course, is that you assume the reason I dislike B5 is because it is not Star Trek. This is an assumption that is in error. I do not like Babylon 5 because its a horrible television show for the reasons I've listed above. No where in the reasons is "because it is not Star Trek."
quote:However, even with the lack of competition, I would hardly say that B5 is "shit" for drama. As TimeLord pointed out, at least some portion of the TV community doesn't think so. You can see the link for some of my (and other, more eloquent posts) reasons.
Hey, you wanna know something? My opinions are not objective, they're subjective. I don't like Babylon 5 because I think it fucking sucks. I don't care how many awards it gets, it's totally lame in my opinion. I'm not going to change my opinion because a bunch of people with apparently no taste for character depth and no appreciation for good writing enjoy the CGI or what-have-you (I dunno, maybe they just turn it off when B5 comes on). If a show can't make you believe the characters are real, it has failed.
quote:What I did say was that fans of ST and SW often have extreme tunnel vision, limiting their enjoyment of any other TV science fiction. Point out that you don't enjoy ST, and that you really enjoy DS9...thats just splitting hairs now.
Not really. You accused me of being a "deep" Trek fan. I'm not. I enjoy one Trek show: Deep Space Nine. For a variety of reasons (mostly relating to school and work) I've missed most of Enterprise's run, so its a bit late for me to get involved in that show. I hated Voyager. I liked TNG, but DS9 -- now that was a drama, regardless of the genre.
Back to something you posted earlier -- "However, if you really wanted drama...why not watch...well, drama?" Serious fiction is always going to be a drama. You're paying too much attention to genre types -- sci-fi, cop show, lawyer show, etc. If you're watching a television show that takes itself seriously (ala "Homicide" over a show that doesn't, "Friends") then you're watching a drama. Sci-fi drama, cop-show drama ... as much as I detest those little Superstation "We Know Drama" (or is it TBS?) bits, they're right. Most people don't watch "Star Trek" for the sets, they don't watch "Babylon 5" for the special effects, they watch the show because they find (even if I disagree with them and think they have holes in their head) believable characters, and the interaction between the believable characters and in response to the fictional world they live in and the fictionalized situations they find themselves in.
Personally, I don't believe Babylon 5 has those elements. But I do believe Babylon 5, and most Sci-Fi series, are dramas.
posted
I don't get how so many people would want a "Star Trek: Sulurama". The period had the ugliest clothing in all Trek (those black silk bellbottom pants not forgotten), the Khitomer conference has just made everything dandy in the local arena and the next big event is Enterprise-C being blown to bits decades from then.
And aren't the romulans at their weakest at this point, just biding their time until the big D'Deridex class commissioning?
The cast... George Takei, Jeremy Roberts, Christian Slater. Woo hoo. And if we're lucky, an unexperienced, even more tightassed, boring Tuvok who "just don't get humans".
I'm sure they'll figure out a way to throw in the Borg too.
-------------------- "I'm nigh-invulnerable when I'm blasting!" Mel Gibson, X-Men
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
Oh you're involved alright. I stand by my asssertion that you're a "deep" ST (or more specifically DS9) fan. Your most recent posts on ST before "Can ST be saved" and "ST: Missed Opportunities" involve collecting ST models and Bajoran uniforms. A bit further down we have a whole whack of posts on "How the Federation operates." These to me are not the actions of a casual ST fan. In fact, I would argue that pretty much anyone who posts on an online forum about ST is not a casual fan.
Your comments about SF reveal a much bigger difference between us:
quote:...they watch the show because they find ...believable characters and in response to the fictional world they live in and the fictionalized situations they find themselves in
I would work from a completely different angle. Science fiction shows should focus on the fictionalized world and situation. The characters are usually just the "hook", something that gives us some personal stake in the story, some reason to care. However, this is not always the case. Since I'm going to bring up the Hugos later, I might as well link to a list of them
Let's start with example from written novels. I'm unfamiliar with their first choice under "novels", but I am familiar with "A Canticle for Lebowitz." A post-nuclear warfare book focusing on a monastary, consisting of four mini-stories involving completely different characters. Tts rather obvious that the main focus is how society reacts to complete devastation. The characters are less important, in fact the last story doesn't even really have characters. You could probably make the same argument about their "all-time" pick of Foundation, a series where the characters are secondary to the main concept.
Moving back to the dramatic category, a good example would be Blade Runner. Nobody really cares about the characters that much, the main focus of the story is the conflict between replicants and the rest of society. Deckard's reactions to the events around him are just a bonus.
This to me, is a more useful definition of what SF really is. Using your definition, a concept such as "Sally and Bob have a huge dramatic love affair....oh and they happen to be on a starship" would be sci-fi drama. This is a bad thing.
As Timelord pointed out, yes there are two episodes of B5 on the list, and two from TNG and TOS each. Your unexplanable inate hostility towards
quote: a bunch of people with apparently no taste for character depth and no appreciation for good writing
is most puzzling. Most of the awards aren't even for TV, most of them are for literature. i.e. writing
This bring us to my observation of "tunnel vision." The fact is, it wouldn't be tunnel vision if it was something most fans were easily aware of. Thats kind of the definition of tunnel vision. I'm not too familiar with your examples of good TV writing, I too haven't been able to watch much TV ever since starting my university studies. However, they do not conflict with my assertion that using ST/SW as an entry point into affects people's ability to judge other SF. This effect ranges from the casual fan that thinks ST/SW IS the entirety of science fiction, or the other extreme is the aforementioned Simpsons "comic-book-guy" that is so involved that he can't see anything else. I don't know where you would fit, or even if you really do fit the pattern. I don't personally know you. However, your straight protests aside, your statement that you only particularly like (in SF) DS9 and Highlander (more nominally classified as fantasy) only strengthens this theory. It really is something worth considering.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Maybe its worth considering that I'm a fan of well-written TV shows, and that's why I'm not a fan of Babylon 5.
quote:Science fiction shows should focus on the fictionalized world and situation.
I disagree with this wholeheartedly. Sure the world should be explored, but if you spend the whole episode with the characters debating the specs of the Galaxy-Class Super Dreadnaught Command Ship, the fan-boys will cream themselves, but everyone else will say "utter and total crap."
PS -- when you said "deep fan", I thought you meant someone who maintains a complete list of Starfleet starships or examines frame-by-frame the scenes of Wolf 359 for new starships.
posted
Its worth considering that you're a fan of well-written TV shows, but the observation that you can't name a single SF show aside from DS9, tends to discount that fact. While we can agree to disagree on B5 (In fact, I've gone off the idea of just defending B5. Its more obvious that you have bigger beefs with SF as a whole)
Saying that all science fiction shows have bad writing aside from DS9 and TOS is just a cop-out, if only due to the realities of writing. The writers of those shows didn't write DS9/TOS and just stop. They went on to other jobs, if only to pay the rent. (Jobs after TOS that included *gasp* B5. Yes, TOS writers wrote B5 episodes too)
Now I'm going out on a limb here, but name me a single real SF show you enjoy aside from DS9 and TOS.
quote:...if you spend the whole episode with the characters debating the specs of the Galaxy-Class Super Dreadnaught Command Ship, the fan-boys will cream themselves, but everyone else will say "utter and total crap."
Well duh. Like everything else, SF has good implementations and bad implementations. I've listed some of the good implementations of SF in my previous post, many of which don't have memorable characters. Blade Runner, Foundation, A Canticle for Leibowitz, Dune, etc.
Your assertion is like discounting a definition of drama involving characters because drama "can" include shows where characters can spend an entire episode exploring teenage angst (*cough* Dawson's Creek) and *actually* creaming themselves
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
