what the fuck is cyberpunk

I feel like The Expanse has sort of rendered it obsolete (BSG certainly didn't, but I enjoyed that for other reasons). It has the same long-story form; the same geopolitics-between-Earth-and-Mars feel; the same 'there are forces bigger than us in this war' conceit; the same attempt at adherence to Newtonian physics in space, which I suspect was a big plus for B5's choice to go CG rather than models. It also has far better dialogue, acting, set dressing, sfx...but viewed as an indomitably confident if grossly underfunded prototype, B5 still has its place. Definitely the little space station that could.

Coincidentally my DVD set just arrived after having trekked from London to Leipzig to Tokyo to Sydney. The quality is definitely higher than my AHEMMMMED marathon, but the CG still doesn't hold up. And you can't fix bad dialogue writing.

I also recently read Claudia Christian's memoir, which is really quite good for a booze/drugs/sex/fall/redemption romp but definitely leaves a few bloodstains regarding her fellow b5 castmates and a few Hollywood B-Listers with whom she bumped (very) uglies...and one very rich Egyptian who would later become very famous for how he died...and with whom.

Got lost in bbbcode implementation, therefore:

"

Foreverhappychan wrote:

I feel like The Expanse has sort of rendered it obsolete (BSG certainly didn't, but I enjoyed that for other reasons). It has the same long-story form; the same geopolitics-between-Earth-and-Mars feel; the same 'there are forces bigger than us in this war' conceit;

The difference is that The Expanse takes its source from a series of novels. Babylon 5 was thunked up out of whole cloth with a purpose-driven intent for the small screen. Television and novels both run afoul of the same problem with a long-form plot - It has to end. The issue is a simple one in that building up all the drama, all the detail, all the investment from the audience, to such an extent to drive a series through even its worst lazy bits... can only ever be done once. Babylon 5 is a prime example of that. Once the "story" was done, there wasn't really anywhere else it could go. Otherwise, the story wouldn't have been properly... "done." :)

"

...the same attempt at adherence to Newtonian physics in space, which I suspect was a big plus for B5's choice to go CG rather than models.

Straczynski's vision was decidedly visual... The costs for practical effects would have been outrageous and no shop at the time could have really done it outside of ILM-tier fees. Straczynski's experience in the "comics" genres likely helped drive that intense need for proper visualizations.

"

It also has far better dialogue, acting, set dressing, sfx...but viewed as an indomitably confident if grossly underfunded prototype, B5 still has its place. Definitely the little space station that could.

"The Expanse" has the advantage of having everything that Bab5 didn't. :) Science-Fiction television has been decidedly... mixed in terms of its reception. There isn't a riskier proposition to produce than a "Science Fiction Television Series." Not a one. They involve high budgets, long production time thanks to effects/sets, etc. One can't just build a three camera stage and start filming. "Babylon 5" never made a profit. (I don't know how its residuals/syndication fees balance out, there.)

"The Expanse" has the advantage of having at least one highly experienced writer having already written the story being told. Nobody has to figure out how to get characters from one place to another and someone can start working during Season 1 on the effects and rendering for the Season 2 finale. :)(Daniel Abraham, one of my favorites. I don't know his co-writer's history. AFAIK, his co-writer "Ty Franck" just happens to be his neighbor who had a cool story idea. :)))

"

Coincidentally my DVD set just arrived after having trekked from London to Leipzig to Tokyo to Sydney. The quality is definitely higher than my AHEMMMMED marathon, but the CG still doesn't hold up. And you can't fix bad dialogue writing.

There IS some sort of cringy dialogue in Bab5. But, there is some outstanding bits being fed to "fans." It has to be not3ed that the best characters in the series, Molari and G'Kar, also have the best dialogue and, by far, the most intense scenes. I'd also add that Vir Cotto, played by Stephen Furth (RIP), is the most "human" character on the show and is very definitely a "Fish Out of Water" character. In interest of brevity, fill-in other bits about the "alien" characters and then: The most human characters, with the most personal "character arcs," are... "aliens." ALL of them change. The humans are largely flat characters. They have their moments, but they're not as compelling as the alien characters. (There were also some real-life issues, here and there, that contributed to some problems with characters/roles on Bab5.)

PS: I'm not a Babylon 5 apologist. But, the show broke some ground where previous shows had failed or had feared to tred. It was a highly unique concept that had only been loosely attempted by a few other shows before it and none had been so brazen. Nobody had actually been cocky enough to plan a series that was destined to "end" after five seasons with nothing but a lot of empty pages following that... (These days, it seems two seasons worth of stories is all anyone will devote an effort to. Thank Netflix. I don't count the added spin-offs as they were "also ran" efforts.)

"

I also recently read Claudia Christian's memoir, which is really quite good for a booze/drugs/sex/fall/redemption romp but definitely leaves a few bloodstains regarding her fellow b5 castmates and a few Hollywood B-Listers with whom she bumped (very) uglies...and one very rich Egyptian who would later become very famous for how he died...and with whom.

I remember something about that, but don't recall the specifics. It's worth noting, I think, that a metric crap-ton of "actors" might excel at what they do and how they do it because they're already screwed up in the head, so what's the harm for them in "becoming someone else" for the majority of their working lives? I imagine everyone's life runs afoul of dirty little secrets in direct proportion to how closely its being filmed. :)

An intense work-environment that requires everyone do their job to their very best ability with dramatic spurts of production means that there's going to be periods where all the anxiety and energy built up during those efforts and sudden victories... is going to take its toll. For a lot of those involved, the "after-party" probably takes place at the wrap for that week's episode.

yeah, you kind of are a B5 apologist, Morkonan, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Nothing you've said was untenable. I suppose I should have contextualised: from a current perspective of where sci-fi TV is, Babylon 5 is hard to sell in light of The Expanse's existence. But that's why I called B5 a prototype, a little train that could: without it, there'd be no BSG remake, no Expanse, possibly no golden age of television. And I watched it in that spirit. But for someone accustomed to that golden age of tv production, it'd be a rough ride with little appreciable payoff compared to what tv shows learned to deliver not long after JMS got screwed out of a proper 5th season.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/SeinfeldIsUnfunny/LiveActionTV -- scroll down to B5's entry. It acknowledges the pioneering but at the same time doesn't ignore that sometimes things 'ahead of their time' can also suffer from being 'premature'. I believe B5 definitely has some premature issues.

And let's not undersell how bad the writing can be, especially when it tries to be funny.

Naturally Londo and G'Kar get the lion's share of the interactions, they're the best two actors on the show by a *mile*, and that in itself was innovative: two non-humans leaving the humans in the dirt. And Vir, for sure, the fish out of water, although Lennier is sort of his counterpart there. And yes, no children or robots, something that seems countercultural but in B5's case simply left room for other sorts of immaturities. But let's say for a distinctly 90s show, it was very mature indeed. It's just hard to see that sometimes under the sheer bulk of what weighs against it. Some of it fair (the low budget, the lack of other writers tempering JMS' workaday-at-best dialogue and tendency to speechifying that doesn't always stick the landing), some not so fair (the poor transfer of the CG to dvd, lack of HD remaster, the loss of Ivanova due to contract conflict).

"

Foreverhappychan wrote:

Spoiler

yeah, you kind of are a B5 apologist, Morkonan, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Nothing you've said was untenable. I suppose I should have contextualised: from a current perspective of where sci-fi TV is, Babylon 5 is hard to sell in light of The Expanse's existence. But that's why I called B5 a prototype, a little train that could: without it, there'd be no BSG remake, no Expanse, possibly no golden age of television.

Let's go backwards.

Firstly, I know at least one other Exile who is an Enterprise fan (I'm pushing Bab5 onto him actually -- its sins are not deadly ones by his metric, and I suspect by yours). You lot are weird. I made it half an episode, and that's despite considering Quantum Leap one of the finest shows ever made. Or maybe BECAUSE of it? Either way, that show. Voyager was bad enough. But if you liked Enterprise, consider me envious of your ability to do so. I felt there was a great ride lurking under all that overstayed-welcome crud. I liked the doctor. I almost always like the doctor though. Except Crusher's replacement. What the fuck. Seriously.

Comparing Forbes to Christian is downright unfair. She'd already had a role that would eat Ivanova for breakfast (Ro Laren), and her presence on BSG was a fucking gift. Then again, BSG benefited from two other venerable big screen/tv actors: EJO and MM. It was a blessed production from go to woe, possibly getting too much of the leeway at the end that Babylon 5 more rightfully deserved. So no sir, I refuse to compare Ivanova with Admiral Cain, anymore than I'd compare Garibaldi with Saul Tigh, despite superficial similarities. I think a more interesting comparison would be G'Kar and Baltar...

The mismatching/issues issue is interesting, because it can equally produce those unforeseen genius moments as it can the much more likely awkwardness. I'm an unrepentant fan of Marcus Cole, even though if you'd asked me if the show needed a snarky Space-brit with beautiful hair and an incel-level crush on the local bisexual firecracker...yeah, probably not.

The Golden Age of Television is, as the wiki entry notes, a flexible and debatable term. The first was apparently in the 50s, so that's immediately a problem. And right now, we are past that golden age -- on that I completely agree. Look at the iconic titles of the golden age and it's clear a show of their calibre hasn't been made in years: Deadwood, The Wire, Oz, Sopranos, etc. As you noted, right now everyone's throwing a few seasons to see what sticks. Everyone wants to be the next GoT, not realising that GoT wasn't trying to be the next anything. Not how it works. But let 'em try. We still have golden-age quality TV in most genres and on most platforms. I will agree that the stretchiness of shows made for streaming can be irritating. It's not exactly filler, but it's definitely a case where one longs for the tightness of a good 6-10 part british work, essentially a mini series. Love me a good mini series, given I was raised on them, from 'V' through to 'Pillars of the Earth'. The 'limited series' we see now is a close analogue I think. Good Omens, for example.

As for The Expanse, it makes it that bit harder to hate Bezos for saving it from the endless incompetence of SyFy.